Tuxedo Park FYI | Board of Architectural Review



HOME VILLAGE GOVERNMENT Board of Trustees Planning Board Board of Architectural Review Board of Zoning Appeals VILLAGE SERVICES Village Police Department Department of Public Works Tuxedo Park Fire Department Tuxedo Volunteer Ambulance Corps TOWN OF TUXEDO Town Board Tuxedo Union Free School District Town Planning Board Subdivisions and Development TUXEDO RESERVE COMMUNITY Clubs and Associations Institutions Neighborhood News Local Contractors and Professional Services

LOCAL PRESS EDITORIALS FEATURES CALENDAR QUIPS & QUOTES ARCHIVE POSTS ABOUT US CONTACT

VILLAGE GOVERNMENT

Recent Village News
Board of Trustees
Planning Board
Board of Architectural Review
Board of Zoning Appeals

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 21, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on May 21, 2013 at 7pm. Board members Julia Simet and Susan Boyle were absent.

Tyler – Removable Floating Dock:
Representing the Tylers’ Larry Heart gave a brief over view of plans for the new dock to be installed using pre-existing footings at this property near the South end of the lake. There was a brief discussion with regard to materials, during which the BAR voiced their opinion that mahogany would be superior to the cedar being proposed as it requires little to no maintenance and is more aesthetically pleasing. Once it was determined that the proposed dock meets all the necessary requirements, the application was labeled Type 2
Under SEQRA and the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approval.

Keating – New Construction:
Together with their architect, Andrew and Patricia Keating presented the Board with general plans (blue prints actually) for their new home, to be constructed at 96 Cliff Road. The general design and layout of the home was discussed as were basic materials.

Neighbor Camille Muzinich expressed some concern with the project as the previous owner of the lot had begun construction on what turned out to be a spec house and then abandoned the project half way through, resulting in an ugly half-completed home that had to be torn down. She commented that she had heard through various channels that Mr. Keating was in construction and she wanted to make sure that the proposed home was not spec housing. Additionally, she inquired about the square footage of the home and where it would be situated on the property in terms of proximity to her house.

Mr. Keating assured Mrs. Muzinich that although he did work in construction, the proposed home would be a residence for his family.

Board Chair Paola Tocci suggested that Mrs. Muzinich attend the next Planning Board meeting in order to obtain the answers to her questions about siting and square footage as these were questions that could be better served by that Board.

Board Attorney Rick Golden agreed commenting that the application was still in front of the Planning Board and determining where the house would go on the property was indeed their jurisdiction.

There followed a brief discussion regarding ridgeline/precipice regulations being that the proposed home will be within the ridgeline/precipice overlay district.

It was determined that the Board would make a site visit in the near future and the applicant was asked to return to the next meeting with a complete set of plans and a full set of specs.

El-Rayess –Fence & Gates:
Together with his landscape architect, Tamir El-Rayess presented the Board with plans for a wrought iron fence and gate to be installed in front of his home on Crow’s Nest Road. As both the fence and the gate exceed the maximum height allowance set forth in the Village Code, Mr. El-Rayess will need to obtain area variances from the Zoning Board of Appeals before he can proceed. The code allows for both to be 4 feet in height however Mr. El-Rayess would like the gate to be 11’6 and the fence to be roughly 8 feet. As they are basically intended to keep deer away from the property, he feels they must be taller in order to be effective.

Following a brief review of the plans, Chair Tocci commented that in her view, the “fussiness” of the proposed gate would take away from the overall visage of the house. She wondered if Mr El-Rayess might consider something a little simpler in style.
Mr. El-Rayess was agreeable to this suggestion.

There was then a short discussion about whether or not the fence would be installed on top of or just behind the stonewall in front of the house. Nothing was determined.

The Board will make a site visit within the next couple of weeks so that they will be prepared to move forward once Mr. El-Rayess has received the necessary variances.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 21, 2013

El-Rayess -Fence & Gates- 50 Crows Nest Rd. - 105-1-8
Tyler- Removable Floating Dock- 457 West Lake Rd.- 102-1-15
Keating- New Construction- 96 Cliff Rd.- 106-1-75.2

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 16, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, April 16 at 7pm. All members were present as was Consulting Architect Barry Rice.

Niblo – Changes to Approved Plans:
Revised plans for the project on Cliff Road were presented and discussed. As per the BAR’s suggestions at their previous meeting, changes were made to the roofline and it was agreed that what was now being proposed was a big improvement. Doors and dormers were also briefly discussed. Building Inspector John Ledwith noted the would need to have an updated set of structural plans before work could commence. Additionally, the applicant apparently accepted a large delivery of fill without approval or permit. Chair Tocci reminded the applicant that the Village has a specific procedure for this as laid out in Chapter 40 of the Village Code and that the proper permits must be in place before large quantities of fill can be brought into the Village

The Applicants admitted that they had not been aware of the protocol.

Chair Tocci acknowledged this but stated that project approval would be conditional upon compliance.

Mr. Ledwith informed the Applicant that he would need to have certification from a licensed engineer stating that the fill was both non-hazardous and non-toxic.

After giving the project a Type II designation as per SEQRA, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application as presented conditional upon compliance with chapter 40 of the Village Code.

Board Attorney Rick Golden then announced that the BAR would take a short recess during which they would conduct an attorney/client session in order to review the process involved with making a Determination Of Significance under SEQRA as required by the next application. As she is the applicant’s neighbor, Board member Julia Simet recused herself and took a seat in the audience. The Recess lasted approximately 20 minutes.

Zgonena – Landscaping:
The Board completed a page-by-page review of the Environmental Assessment Form, the purpose of which is to determine whether or not the BAR feels the project as proposed poses any significant adverse environmental impacts. Various changes were made, after which the Board voted unanimously in favor of Negative Declaration.

Board Chair Paola Tocci then informed the applicant that after careful review, the BAR had decided that “Plan D” as proposed (See Village B.A.R. reports 2/21/13, 3/5/13 and 4/2/13 for plan specifics) was not acceptable. She suggested that if he were willing to put Plan A back on the table, they would welcome this.

Mr. Zgonena responded that he had spent a lot of time and money to come up with a plan that he felt was both fair and reasonable and that addressed all of the issues brought forth by his neighbors. He expressed dismay given the fact that he believed the BAR had conditionally approved his application on two occasions over the course of the last several years. Commenting that he was “sorry it had to come to this” he produced several 8x10 photos and proceeded to question the Type 2 designation and timely approvals of several projects previously before the BAR including Dangoor, Regna and Guinchard. He also referenced the El Reyes project. He demanded to know why his project was any different than Peter Regna’s had been .

Chair Tocci responded that she did not feel that Mr. Zgonena’s comments or photos were relevant to this application and she questioned the legality of the photos.

Mr. Zgonena responded that he had taken the photos from the roadway and that were indeed legal. He further commented “the same way you can put all this information on the internet so that anybody in Bangladesh can read it, I can take these photos.”

Attorney Golden interjected and stated that the BAR was required by law to put their agendas and minutes online. He also informed that BAR that the photos were legal.
Chair Tocci reiterated her stance that none of this was relevant. She again stated that if Mr. Zgonena wanted to put Plan A back on the table, they would be happy to discuss it, however Plan D was not acceptable.

Mr. Zgonena replied that he did not believe Plan A was economically feasible and he also didn’t think the community at large wanted it. He suggested that his other neighbors, the ones who were not present, might very well like to see a soccer field there.

Attorney Golden responded that the BAR would not be making a decision based on what Mr. Zgonena’s neighbors wanted to see.

Again, Mr. Zgonena commented that the BAR had conditionally approved his plan on 2 occasions but Attorney Golden shot this argument right down, stating that the record would clearly reflect that this was not true.

The Board then voted unanimously against the application.

Mr. Zgonena will need to return to the next meeting with a new plan.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 16, 2013

Niblo -Changes to Approved Plans - 50 Cliff Rd. - 106-1-65
Zgonena- Landscaping- 115 Tower Hill Road- 106-1-22

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 2, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, April 2 at 7pm. Board member Julia Simet was absent.

Niblo – Changes to Approved Plans:
Mr. and Mrs. Niblo, together with their Architect and Builder, presented the Board with revised plans for their home, which is being constructed at 50 Cliff Road.

There was a brief discussion with regard to dormers and the Board reviewed two variations of the plans, one with a shed dormer and one with a hip dormer. When asked which they preferred, Mrs. Niblo commented that she was in favor of the hip dormer as she feels it echoes the roofline.

Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that after having completed another site visit, the Board felt that the roofline could be further simplified. She then called upon consulting architect Barry Rice, who explained that he believed there was a way to resolve the discrepancy in the roofline in an uncomplicated manor without compromising the entrance. He proceeded to sketch out his suggestions, which entailed adding on to raise up the ridgeline/eaves line in various areas. This was followed by a somewhat lengthy discussion. Mr. Niblo initially rejected Mr. Rice’s suggestions on the basis that while they might help to simplify the roofline, they would also create issues with the eaves.

Chair Tocci commented that the roofline in its current state was not acceptable. Whether the roof is lowered or raised, it must be fixed one way or the other. The Niblo’s architect proceeded to draft out an alternate suggestion, which everyone seemed happy with.

Following some further discussion regarding the dormers, the driveway gates, chimneys, and some of the project materials. it was agreed that the applicant should make the necessary changes to the plan as discussed and return to the next BAR meeting.

Zgonena – Landscaping – Tower Hill Road:
At Chair Tocci’s request, the applicant’s engineer opened the discussion by providing a brief update as to where the project currently stands. At the March 5 meeting of the BAR, the applicant presented the Board with two options for remediation and the Board in turn expressed their interest in moving forward with Grading Plan A, which involved the removal of roughly 1,850 cubic yards of fill and some basic regrading of the hillside. In addition to Grading Plan A, the applicant also presented the Board with Grading Plan D, which was put together in an attempt to meet the original intent of the project and would entail the installation of a stabilization blanket in order to maintain the slope as well various drainage improvements. The applicant is hoping to move forward with Grading Plan D. It was also determined during the March 5 meeting that because of the properties location within the historic district, the application would be considered a type 1 action under SEQRA and would therefore require an Environmental Assessment Form, which was completed as it relates to Grading Plan D and submitted to the Board accordingly.

When asked for his advice on how to proceed, Board Attorney Rick Golden advised the Board that if they were in agreement that the applicant should move forward with Grading Plan D, they would need to analyze the EAF and make a determination under SEQRA. Because the application has been labeled as Type 1, the Board must closely examine the data in the EAF and make a determination as to whether or not any of the impacts would pose a potential significant adverse impact.

When asked what the procedure would be if the Board chose to move ahead with Grading Plan A, Mr. Golden responded that since Plan A basically entailed the removal of what had been put in, it would normally be considered a negative declaration because the approval would not create a potentially significant adverse environmental impact.

If the Board decided to move forward with Plan D and, in analyzing the EAF determined that there was at least one potential significant adverse environmental impact, the applicant would then need to draft an Environmental Impact Statement, the scope of which could be limited to whatever the potential issues might be.

Chair Tocci commented that she thought the Board had made it quite clear that they preferred Plan A.

The applicants engineer agreed that this had also been his understanding, however he commented that the applicant is still looking to move forward with Plan D.

Board member Patrick Donaghy stated that he wanted to clarify that Plan A did not entail complete removal of all the fill that had been brought in and that there would still be some fill left behind on the hillside.

Chair Tocci agreed and commented that the Board believed there had been substantially more than 1,800 cubic yards of fill brought in.

Attorney Golden commented that if this was the case, he had been misinformed and they would need to determine a more accurate definition of Plan A.

Board Engineer Carl Stone stated that the 1,800 cubic yards had been an estimate only, although he believed it to be a reasonable one.

Mr. Donaghy reiterated his point that were the Board to approve Plan A, there would still be an substantial amount of fill left behind, several feet in fact
Chair Tocci stated that the Board would like it if the applicant prepared an EAF for Plan A as well.

Mr. Zgonena stated that would like to make a few comments. He went on to say that the work he had done had originally been approved by the BAR in 2010.

Chair Tocci interjected that the approval had been conditional and that Mr. Zgonena had not met the conditions. There followed a period of a year and a half during which no work was done and this resulted in a fair amount of “collateral damage.”

Mr. Zgonena responded that he could not speak to that, however he did remember being on the record as having said that the job had been stopped at a sensitive time and that he would need to remedy it. He came back before the Board in 2011 ready to do just that. Commenting that the 2010 approval had been “unable to be granted because of a timing technicality” that was not his fault, Mr. Zgonena stated that in 2011 he had agreed to the removal of roughly 600 yards and had received another conditional approval from the Board subject to the submission of engineering reports, which have now been submitted. The issues at hand had been: structural stability of what was in place, the aesthetics of what was in place, drainage and then subsequently a tertiary issue of soil chemistry came up. As far as structural stability, Mr. Zgonena believed that everyone was in agreement that a workable solution with secure engineering sealed by qualified individuals had been presented. With regard to the Aesthetics, he pointed out that the property was in the middle of the woods and using the corner of the room as a reference point, he suggested that the overall aesthetics would not be obtrusive, especially considering its location.

Chair Tocci pointed out that regardless of the view, the topography of the hillside had been radically altered.

Regarding the soil chemistry, Mr. Zgonena’s Engineer referenced the Village Code’s requirements for certification and outlined how they had fulfilled these requirements.

There was some question as to whether or not the certification was in fact sufficient as the certifying engineers were not present when the samples were taken, but it was ultimately resolved that the sampling that had been done was sufficient to be representative of the fill and that the resulting certification was also sufficient.

Chair Tocci reiterated that the Board had made it quite clear that they preferred Plan A however the applicant has not prepared and EAF for this plan.

Mr. Zgonena commented that Plan A was never something that he had submitted with any intention of doing it. Rather he believe it had been requested by the Board for the purpose of comparative analysis.
Chair Tocci responded that this had been a gross misrepresentation on Mr. Zgonena’s part and that she was offended. The Board requested that he present them with options and had expected that he would, in good faith, present options that he would be willing to carry out. If he never intended to carry our Plan A, she feels he has wasted everyone’s time.

Mr. Zgonena reiterated that he had been asked to stake out two plans.
Chair Tocci agreed and further stated that she felt the Board had been generous in allowing him to present multiple options.

In response, Mr. Zgonena commented that he had reviewed roughly 10 years of BAR minutes and that it was unclear to him as to why his project was being singled out as a Type 1 Action.

Chair Tocci replied that the project had not been singled out.

Attorney Golden stated that the determination of the Type 1 Action had nothing to do with anything other than what SEQRA demands. If a project is not a Type 2 action, then it is a Type 1. There is nothing to argue one way or the other.

Mr. Zgonena retorted that there had not been a single Type 1 action in Tuxedo Park in the last 10 years, including but not limited to 3 massive construction projects of new homes on Ridgelines, which required blasting and large amounts of land movement, all of which were Type 2 actions.

Mr. Golden responded that those projects had been labeled Type 2 projects because they met the criteria set forth under SEQRA requirements. Mr. Zgonena’s project does not meet that criteria as it does not involve the construction of a 1 or 2 family home. Mr. Zgonena’s project involved the importation of a large amount of soil, which would normally be considered an Unlisted Action under SEQRA, however, because of the Village has been designated listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the Unlisted Action is elevated to a Type 1.

Mr. Zgonena responded by referencing projects that had taken place at the Dangoor and Regna residences as well as the Blue Stables on west side of the lake and suggesting that none of them involved the construction of 1 or 2 family homes and therefore they should have also been considered type 1.

Attorney Golden commented that it was clear that Mr. Zgonena was attempting to suggest that his project had been singled out, however this was not the case and it was very clear to him that the project was in fact a Type 1 action.

Chair Tocci further commented that just because there may have been bad precedence in the past, it didn’t mean that Mr. Zgonena should “climb on the shoulders of that bad precedent.”

Mr. Zgonena responded that there was a resident who had, that very day, taken delivery of fill and deposited it on a property on the lake. He wanted to know if a permit had been issued, what type of fill it was, what the soil chemistry was and whether an engineering letter had been submitted certifying the fill.

Chair Tocci inquired as to the identity of the resident and Mr. Zgonena informed her that it was Greg Beard. He went on to say that Mr. Beard was the same individual who had erected a fence without permission several years back.

Chair Tocci replied that Mr. Bear had erected a deer fence and has since corrected the situation by installing a new front entrance and submitting plans rectifying the secondary gate. She then pointed out that none of this had any bearing on Mr. Zgonena’s application.

Mr. Zgonena argued that it did in fact have bearing on his project and went on to say that several yeas back Mr. Beard had also removed a ridgeline without a permit or an engineer in order to put a putting green in his back yard. He also relocated an entire 2-car garage without a permit.

Building Inspector John Ledwith interjected that Mr. Beard had been cited for all of these issues and that he did return to the BAR in order to correct them.
Mr. Zgonena stated that he was there in good faith to come up with a fair and reasonable solution to a problem that addresses the original 3 issues, which had been conditionally approved two times by the BAR. He feels that what he is proposing is both reasonable and fair and it can be accomplished in a short amount of time. The spring growing season is here. Within several days he believes that he can get the hillside graded with the stabilization blanket and seeded, and then everyone can get on with life.

Attorney Golden commented that he wanted to clarify for the record that Mr. Zgonena had never received two approvals from the BAR. There had been a conditional approval granted which clearly identified several requirements that the applicant never fulfilled. Since that time, new information had come to light from Mr. Zgonena’s engineers, suggesting that the slope would not work and additional stabilization would be necessary. There was never any approval and certainly there were not two approvals. The Board has tried to make a determination as to the best way to proceed. Mr. Zgonena completed the original work without an approval and then came before the Board looking for approval for something that had already been done. Since that time, the Board has considered various options and there was every indication from Mr. Zgonena’s engineer that Plan A was in fact a feasible option. If Mr. Zgonena should decide to withdraw Plan A, which would be his right, then the Board will react to whatever application is being put before them. If it is Plan D, they will have to initiate the EAF process.

Mr. Zgonena responded that the Building Inspector had granted him permission to do the project,that it had taken a while and was by no means quietly done.

Mr. Golden refuted this statement and reiterated that there had never been an approval granted.

Mr. Zgonena then stated that he would like to go on record as saying that he felt that the last site visit conducted by the BAR had not been complete as he had asked Mr. Donaghy to completely review the property line that one of his neighbors shares with the project so that he could see that the proposed grade was actually significantly gentler than preexisting conditions in other locations, but he had not done so.

Mr. Donaghy responded that the topography on the other side of the property was irrelevant to the project.

Mr. Golden informed Mr. Zgonena that the BAR needed to know whether or not they had before them Plan A and Plan D or just Plan D.

Mr. Zgonena responded that he would like them to vote on Plan D.

Mr. Golden said they could not do this under the law until they had made a determination under SEQRA and once they had done that, there was a good chance that he would have to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement before they could make a decision. This is the law.

Mr. Zgonena stated that Plan A had only been submitted because the BAR asked him for two options. He proceeded to withdraw Plan A.

Mr. Golden advised the Board that they should review the EAF so that they could make a determination of significance at their next meeting.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 2, 2013

Niblo - Changes to Approved Plans - 50 Cliff Rd. - 106-1-65
Zgonena - Landscaping - 115 Tower Hill Road- 106-1-22

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 5 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on March 5, 2013 at 7pm. Board members Julia Simet and Susan Boyle were absent.

Tuxedo Club – Tree Removal:
A representative for the Tuxedo Club appeared before the Board to request permission to remove 21 trees from the Club property at 1 West Lake Road. All of the trees in question have been determined to be either dead or in serious stages of decline. After a brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the request.

Niblo – Changes to Approved Plans:
Mrs. Niblo and her new architect were present to review and discuss changes to the approved plans for the home at 50 Cliff Road. Board Chair Paola Tocci started things off by reading into the record an e-mail from Consulting Architect Barry Rice in which he outlined several suggestions, most having to do with the roofline of the home. A rotating 3D model of the home, depicting the uneven and somewhat complex roofline from all angles was then presented on the architects’ laptop and reviewed in detail by the Board. Board member Patrick Donaghy suggested that the applicant consider the use of shed dormers, commenting that this might clean up the overall look. Following some further discussion it was agreed that the applicant would take this suggestion, as well as those laid out by Barry Rice and return to the next meeting for further review.

Norris – Garage:
Kathy Norris appeared before the Board with makeshift plans for a replacement garage on her property on Fox Hill Road. The original structure was severely damaged by falling trees during Hurricane Sandy. Ms. Norris is looking to rebuild pretty much the same garage with a few modifications. The roof on the previous garage was pitched and Ms. Norris would like the new garage to have a flat roof, which will be a better match with her home. Additionally, she is looking to alter the door slightly by removing the windows therein. Materials and paint colors were discussed. The Board was in agreement that they would prefer Ms. Norris use a wood door instead of the synthetic composit she had proposed. Ms. Norris agreed to look into this. Following a short discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application, subject to the use of a wooden door and their approval of a paint sample.

Zgonena – Landscaping:
Mr. Zgonena and his engineer were present to discuss the landscaping situation at the property on Tower Hills Road. Mr. Zgonena began by thanking the Board for their recent site visit. He outlined what he believed to be the main issues with the project, namely drainage, stability, visual impact and (over time) soil chemistry and spoke briefly to each one. With regard to drainage, he commented that he had always been prepared to improve the existing drainage condition and to this end, he had brought in experts to try and solve what he called a “century old drainage issue” which results in water running off of Tower Hill Road, across his property and down the hill into the valley below. In terms of stability, he referred to his previously presented “Proposal D” (presented at the special meeting on 2/21) and stated that he was believed that a reduction in grade to the hillside in combination with the installation of a stability blanket and planting of dense vegetation would alleviate this issue and also go a long way towards improving the visual impact. Finally, he reminded the Board that soil testing had recently been completed with the results showing that the soil in question was generally benign. He went on to say that he was hoping that the Board would approve “Proposal D” (improved driveway drainage, removal of some fill, installation of stability blanket and planting of vegetation on the hillside) and that should they decide to do so, he believed that the associated fill removal could be completed in one day, provided they would extend the work hours to allow for it.

Board Chair Paola Tocci responded that after having reviewed the two applicable proposals (A & D) she was of the belief that Proposal A, which calls for removal of a much larger quantity of fill and an attempt to restore the property to its original condition, was the better choice. Alterations to the property have been significant and the goal should be to restore it as best as possible in order to mitigate the situation.

Patrick Donaghy agreed. He further stated that he felt it was important to speak to the facts and to that end, he believed it would be impossible for Mr. Zgonena to remove all of the fill as outlined in Proposal D in one day as he had previously suggested.

Deputy Chair Robert Simon also agreed that Proposal A was the better of the two, commenting that Proposal D would not result in much change while Proposal A would mitigate and minimize the changes to the landscape.
Village Engineer Carl Stone expressed his concerns with Proposal D, commenting that the erosion control information that had been presented did not address the possible issue of slope failure, which certainly needs to be considered. While the erosion control matting that has been proposed does address the issue of stabilization, the over all slope control and safety issues must be addressed. That being said, he believes that either proposed slope condition can be achieved with the proper technology. With regard to the proposed drainage improvements, he expressed some concern with regard to run-off, commenting that taking water off of the road and discharging it into the ravine could create a washout problem with erosion. While a level spreader might be something they could consider, there was a possibility that the slope was too significant to handle this. Pointing out that this condition had previously been mitigated by the wooded hillside that Mr. Zgonena destroyed when he initiated the project he suggested that piping under the driveway might be a better solution.

Board Attorney Rick Golden informed that although he had previously opined that the application was a Type 2 Action under SEQRA, upon closer review he believed he had been incorrect and that in actuality it was a Type 1 Action. This means that a full Environmental Assessment Form must be completed and that once submitted, the Board will need to make a determination of significance, meaning that they will need to determine whether or not they feel the project poses any significant adverse impact to the environment. He further cautioned the Board that although they were in receipt of a letter from Mr. Zgonena’s soil expert stating that the soil was indeed benign, the code requires them to have certification from a professional engineer, stating that the material in question is both non-toxic and non-hazardous.

After some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of declaring themselves Lead Agency on the application (a necessary part of the SEQRA process) and it was agreed that Mr. Zgonena should return to the next BAR meeting with a completed EAF and the proper soil certification in order that the application could move forward.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 5 2013

Tuxedo Club- Tree Removal- 1 West Lake Rd.- 107-1-3
Niblo -Changes to Approved Plans - 50 Cliff Rd. - 106-1-65
Norris- Garage- 38 Fox Hill Rd.- 108-1-10.1
Zgonena- Landscaping- 115 Tower Hill Road 106-1-22

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 21, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review held a special meeting on Thursday, February 21 at 7pm for the purpose of reviewing the Zgonena application. Board member Patrick Donoughy was not present. Board member Julia Simmet has recused herself and was therefore, also not present.

Mr. Zgonena began by introducing his attorney, environmental consultant and engineer to the Board. He informed them that he had also retained an environmental attorney but he was unable to be present that evening. He explained that he and his team were prepared to present what they felt was an acceptable solution to the issue at hand and he believed that it was one that would satisfy everyone in terms of land restoration, re-grading of the hillside and removal of some of the material in question. He then turned the floor over to William Going, his environmental consultant, who proceeded to give a fairly brief overview of the Soil report.

In summation, soil testing showed that the soil in question did not meet the criteria for the most restrictive standards available from the DEC. That being said, the samples barely exceeded those standards and Mr. Going feels that any regulatory agency would label the results as “diminuous”, meaning that levels of contamination are so low that they do not pose a threat to human health. He further explained that the report provided no context for the results within. It neither suggested that the soil presented a health risk of any kind nor did it recommend that the soil be removed.

Board Attorney Rick Golden pointed out that if the soil had tested toxic, Mr. Zgonena would have been required to remove it, however if it could be certified as non-toxic, the Village Code would allow it to remain.

Mr. Zgonena’s attorney agreed and advised Mr. Zgonena that it would be easy enough for him to get the necessary certification.

Engineer David Higgins then presented the Board with a new plan for the project, which involves readjusting a catch basin grate located below the driveway as well as removal of roughly 640 cubic yards of fill followed by the installation of a stabilization/erosion control blanket, which will help to retain the remaining soil while allowing vegetation to take root and grow through.

There was some discussion regarding the angle of the slope and Mr. Higgins pointed out the it would be next to impossible to achieve the 3 to 1 ratio as previously suggested by the Village Engineers Westin and Sampson and also respect the 15 foot property line setback as requested by Mr. Zgonena’s neighbors as doing both would surely obliterate the existing retaining walls.

Board Engineer Carl Stone pointed out for the record that while Westin and Sampson had indeed recommended a 3 to 1 ratio, they had not been the ones to suggest a 15 Ft. property line setback. He further commented that although it would be difficult to achieve the 3 to 1 ratio in the area shown on the plans, which he pointed out happens to be the most restrictive area, he believes it would be achievable in other areas.

Blanket samples were presented and discussed. Basically, the blanket consists of a layer of coconut and straw mesh contained between two polyethylene blankets. The remaining fill will be smoothed out and a small trench (roughly 6 inches in diameter) dug at the top of the slope where the blanket will be anchored and then spread down over the area in question, containing it. Over time, (in this case a projected time table of 2-years was given) the polyethylene breaks down and the coconut and straw biodegrade. What is left is a stable, vegetated hillside.

Deputy Chair Robert Simon suggested that the BAR should view the current proposal in context with what had been there before. He wondered to what extent the current proposal would alter what had been there. How would it change the landscape? In his view, this must be weighed against all of the other issues in order to determine the importance and the validity of moving forward with the project in this way. He reminded Mr. Zgonena that the addition of fill to his property had not been a BAR approved change to begin with.Mr. Zgonena’s attorney, Michael Sussman, responded that the plan as proposed had been designed largely to mitigate the concerns of Mr. Zgonena’s neighbors in terms of both general aesthetics and drainage.

Mr. Zgonena commented that Tuxedo Park was “notoriously famous” for being hostile to flat land. He further stated that he owned 3 and ½ acres on a hillside and that many of his neighbors had brought in large quantities of fill to create flat land for themselves. In initiating this project, he was only hoping to do the same for himself.

Board Chair Paola Tocci retorted that what others had done on their properties had no bearing on the application at hand. The Village code does not allow for large quantities of fill to be brought in without proper certification as well as BAR approval.

Mr. Sussman interjected that Mr. Zgonena had not brought the fill in because his neighbors had done the same. Rather he suggested that one of the motivating factors had been a desire to block one of the neighboring properties from view.

Mr. Zgonena concurred that one of his neighbors, Mr. Maurer, had constructed a small playground on his property that had been visible to him, but that that his main motivation for bringing in the fill had been other neighbors who had created flat land for themselves. He went on to say that he had asked for permission prior to commencing and had been given approval from Building Inspector John Ledwith. However, once the project commenced, Village Officials did not approve of “how far it went” in terms of the extended scope and as a result they started down a long and difficult path, which he feels very badly about.

Board Attorney Rick Golden inquired of Mr. Zgonena as to exactly what approval he had received prior to commencing the project.

Mr. Zgonena replied that he had been given a verbal approval from Mr. Ledwith, but that there was nothing in writing.

Mr. Sussman interjected, stating that how the application had gotten to this point was irrelevant.

Mr. Golden responded that he had instructed the BAR to review the proposed as a new application and they should not punish Mr. Zgonena for having done unpermitted work. That being said, the BAR had only just received an electronic copy of the new plan earlier that day and he believed it would be wise for them to postpone making any sort of decision until they had proper time to review it.

Deputy Chair Simon wondered if it might be possible for the BAR to make a second site visit in order to obtain a proper visual and attempt-t to determine the impact of what was being proposed.

Mr. Zgonena responded that he would not have a problem with a second site visit, however he requested permission to be present so that he might point out some other areas on his property where the “historic touches of man” have created other, similar issues.

Mr. Golden replied that the BAR could certainly do another site visit and that Mr. Zgonena was welcome to be present, but he would not be permitted to give them a “sales pitch” at that time nor should the BAR members offer their opinions as this could be considered a discussion of the project outside of an open meeting, which is not allowed.

It was agreed that the BAR would complete a site visit as soon as possible and that, barring any complications, the application would be put on the agenda for the March 5 meeting.

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 21, 2013

Zgonena – Landscaping – 115 Tower Hill Road – 106-1-22

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 5, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on February 5 at 7pm. Board member Susan Boyle was absent. Consulting Architect Barry Rice was present.

Young – Parking Area – 44 Tower Hill Loop:
Mr. Young appeared before the Board to discuss changes to the parking area already under way at his home located on Tower Hill Loop. He began by explaining that the main reason behind the renovations had to do with safety in that both the Fire and Police Departments had indicated that they could not get emergency vehicles past his home with the parking the way it was. Therefore, he made the decision to both extend the existing parking bay and fortify the wall there in order to create more room.

Board Chair Paola Tocci responded that while she understood the reason why Mr. Young had undertaken the project, it was important for him to realize that doing so without receiving either an approval from their Board or a Building Permit was not proper Village protocol.
Mr. Young acknowledged this and apologized, commenting that he had misunderstood the process.

There followed a relatively brief discussion about the project, during which it was determined that Mr. Young would need to submit engineering specs for the wall fortification as well as any drawings that may have been prepared and a list of project materials.
Consulting Architect Barry Rice pointed out that there was a large tree located in close proximity to the wall, the root structure of which could become a problem moving forward should the two interface over time.

It was agreed that the BAR would perform a site visit in the near future, after which Mr. Young would return to further discuss and finalize project details.

Niblo – Changes to Approved Plans – 50 Cliff Road:
The Niblos, along with their new architect and general contractor appeared before the Board to discuss some apparent changes that have taken place on the site and are different from what was previously approved. While Mrs. Niblo indicated that she would be willing to revert to the approved plan and “undo” several of the unapproved changes, there was some concern regarding whether or not the alterations in the roofline could be changed. Additionally, she would like to pursue some window changes. Following a somewhat lengthy discussion, it was agreed that the Niblo’s new architect would need some time to properly acquaint himself with the project before moving forward. Chair Tocci stated that the BAR would be willing to work with the Niblos in order to keep them on schedule, but they would need to “go back to the drawing board” in terms of reviewing and approving the changes.

Zgonena – Landscaping –Tower Hill Road:
As Mr. Zgonena was not present, it was agreed that the Board would hold a special meeting on Thursday February 21 at 7pm in order to move the project forward as soon as possible.

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 5, 2013

Zgonena – Landscaping – 115 Tower Hill Road – 106-1-22
Young – Parking Area – 44 Tower Hill Loop – 107-1-11.1
Niblo – Changes to Approved Plans – 50 Cliff Rd. – 106-1-65

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 15, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on January 15, 2013 at 7pm. Board member Susan Boyle was absent.

Schmidtburger – Potting Shed – 21 Cannon Hill Road:
Revised plans for the Potting Shed were presented and discussed. Although the property lies within the Ridgeline Precipice district, the Board waived the need for visual impact photos. Following a very brief review, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Zgonena – Landscaping – Tower Hill Road:
Plans detailing three possible options for the berm on Mr. Zgonena’s property were presented by Mr. Zgonena’s engineer and subsequently discussed. The options as outlined were as follows:

Complete removal of the berm
Leave the material in place and, with as little disturbance as possible, cover the lower level with a stabilization mat. Install a dry swail.
The same as option 2, except instead of a dry swail, a rain garden would be installed.

In addition to these options, drainage improvements to the property were proposed, including the installation of a drain along the driveway.

The Village engineer has laid out a protocol for soil testing on the site, which is scheduled to begin next week. It was agreed that the results of these tests would drive the choice of option.

Deputy Mayor David du Pont inquired as to the time frame for test results and was informed that this would depend on turn-around time at the lab.

It was agreed that if possible, the BAR would like to see the results at their next meeting.

Steve Maurer commented that option 1 was the only one of the three options that he considered to be acceptable. When asked why this was the case, he responded that had Mr. Zgonena gone through the appropriate channels to begin with, he felt certain that the BAR would not have approved the installation of the berm to begin with.

Board Chair Paola Tocci inquired after the trees that Mr. Zgonena removed from Neighbor Bob Klimeki’s property without permission.

Mr. Zgonena responded that they were “not there yet.”

When prompted for further explanation, he stated that the trees had been in poor condition to begin with and that Mr. Klimeki had given him permission to remove them.

Chair Tocci responded that Mr. Klimeki has repeatedly denied having given Mr. Zgonena his permission to remove the trees.

Board Attorney Rick Golden interjected that while the removal of the trees certainly needed to be addressed, the test results and subsequent option choice would help to determine what the landscaping plan should be.

Mr. Zgonena commented that since he had been living in the Village, thousands of projects involving soil movement on a grand scheme had been approved by the BAR. He pointed out that he had been required to submit to protocols that were not required of other applicants with similar projects and that he had been following them all.

Chair Tocci reminded Mr. Zgonena that the reason he had been required to submit to these protocols was that he had failed to apply for and obtain permission for his project before commencing.

Mr. Zgonena commented that he was skeptical that the test results would be available in two weeks time.

Chair Tocci suggested that although the BAR did not want to drag their feet, if the test results were not in before the next meeting, Mr. Zgonena would not be required to appear.

Mr. Golden suggested that the lab send the test results to Mr. Zgonena and the Building Inspector simultaneously in an effort to speed things up.

Mr. Zgonena responded that he was hesitant to agree to this without first consulting his attorney.

Mr. Golden cautioned that Mr. Zgonena should keep in the mind that there were pending judicial actions against him that hinged upon the outcome of this situation. He suggested that the BAR make the simultaneous release a condition of application approval.

Following some further somewhat tense discussion it was agreed that this would be done.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 15 2012

Schmidtberger- Potting Shed- 21 Cannon Hill Road- 104-1-1.3
Zgonena- Landscaping- 115 Tower Hill Road- 106-1-22

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 18, 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on December 18, 2012. Board member Susan Boyle and Consulting Architect Barry Rice were absent.

Hanson - Shed - 4 Tower Hill Rd.:
Mr. Hanson lead the Board through a somewhat brief review of the revised plans as well as a landscaping plan as was requested at the previous meeting. This was followed by a review of the Building Inspector’s checklist for the project approval, also formulated at the previous meeting, and once it was determined that all the appropriate revisions had been made, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application, conditional upon presentation and approval of the antique carriage light once it has been received and before it is installed.

Schmidtberger- Potting Shed- 21 Cannon Hill Road:
Because neither the applicant nor a licensed architect on their behalf was present, the Board decided they would not discuss the application.

Zgonena- Landscaping:

**Board member Julie Simet recused herself from the application, as Mr. Zgonena is her neighbor.

Together with his engineer John Queenan, Mr. Zgonena appeared before the Board to discuss the on-going situation with his project on Tower Hill Road. Mr. Queenan’s firm of Lanc and Tully Engineering, has been retained by the applicant to conduct both a partial survey and a boundary survey on the property, specifically in the area where the fill is located. These topographic and boundary surveys are currently underway and should be completed by the end of the week. Based on the survey results, they will compile a map, which will then be used to determine what the various options will be. They hope to return to the Board with a preliminary design by mid-January. At this point, they are thinking to install a retaining wall along the back end of berm with various landscaping and storm water management efforts.

Board Attorney Rick Golden interjected, commenting that he felt it was important that everyone understood clearly what needed to be done. He then provided a brief recap of the project, explaining that the applicant had previously been granted conditional approval, conditioned upon a number of things, including engineering that had never been done.

Subsequently at the April 3 meeting, the Board rescinded the approval and requested that a new plan be submitted to include complete removal of the berm and remediation of the area. Mr. Golden cautioned both the applicant and his engineer that they must be clear as to exactly what was progressing with respect to what they were planning to do and what would be considered acceptable to the Board.

Deputy Chair Robert Simon inquired of Mr. Queenan whether or not they had considered any options aside from the installation of a retaining wall for the purpose of maintaining the fill in its current state.

Mr. Queenan responded that this was currently the only option they were exploring and that he was not aware of the project history. He reiterated that his firm had been hired to survey the area of disturbance, compile a map and present the applicant with options. Removal of the fill was not, at this point, being considered.

Board Chair Paola Tocci wondered if it would not be most effective for the applicant to simply remove the fill at this point, which she suggested would save him a lot of time and money and would go a long way towards alleviating the concerns of the neighbors.

Mr. Zgonena replied that with all due respect he believed he had been placed on the Board’s April 3 agenda without his consent, and that he had made this clear to the Building Inspector. At the time of that meeting, he had been working to comply with his conditional approval. He stated that at the time he received the approval, Village Engineer Carl Stone had interjected with concerns at the last moment and after drawing 3 or 4 rough lines on the plans, requested that Mr. Zgonena return to the Board with a contour map of the area before proceeding. At that time Mr. Zgonena was working in South America quite a bit and was not in the United States for a period of roughly 9 months. He was however able to put together what he referred to as “some semblance” of a 3 dimensional model, using topographical information collected by the Village to show both before and after conditions that were compliant with the conditional approval.

A copy of Mr. Stone’s topographical information as referenced was then produced and briefly reviewed. Mr. Stone explained that the information had been taken from State GIS and that it outlined what was likely the topography of the property prior to the installation of the fill. It was originally compiled because questions had been raised as to what the initial topography had been and how the current condition related to it.

Mr. Zgonena stated that based on his analysis, his “un-audited un-engineered” calculations showed the need for about 600 yards of removal. With the use of his 3D model, Mr. Zgonena explained to both the Building Inspector and Engineer a way in which he could remove that amount and bring the project into compliance. However, the Board chose to discuss the application at their April meeting when Mr. Zgonena was not present and at that time they decided to have him remove an unknown quantity of the fill.

Chair Tocci stated for the record that Mr. Zgonena had definitely been aware that he was on the agenda for the April meeting.

Regardless, Mr. Zgonena asserted that although he was not present, he had at that time presented his plan to both the Building Inspector and the Village Engineer and yet in his absence they had decided to require complete removal. Unfortunately, circumstances prevented Mr. Zgonena from working on the project for several months and he was legally unable to access the property.

Chair Tocci commented that it was unfortunate that Mr. Zgonena had not appointed an owners representative to continue the work.

Mr. Zgonena replied that had this suggestion been made to him, he would have pursued it. He reiterated that he had retained Lanc and Tully and that The Board has all the documentation that clearly shows that up until this past June, this was always his intent. He is in receipt of an estimate from his engineers with services to include surveying, topography, necessary engineering to comply with the original conditional approval and a storm water management program. He then addressed Board member Patrick Donaghy directly, commenting that as a newer Board member Mr. Donaghy may not have been on the site but that his driveway and hillside served as a major channel run-off from most of the Tower Hill corridor.

Mr. Donaghy replied that in his view this was all the more reason why Mr. Zgonena should not have done what he did without an engineer and that while he appreciated the story that Mr. Zgonena was telling, he felt that at this point, he just needed to correct the problem. He feels that whether or not Mr. Zgonena had able to access the property was almost irrelevant as surveyors could have been there doing their work without him present.
Mr. Zgonena replied that it was not that simple.

Chair Tocci suggested that it could have been.

Mr. Donaghy stated that either way, the problem needs to be rectified and he pointed out that Mr. Zgonena had just acknowledged that he was aware of the drainage issues on the property.

Chair Tocci commented that t here was also an issue with the fill that was brought in.
Ignoring these comments, Mr. Zgonena stated that the point now was that he had retained the engineering firm and one of the things he wanted them to do was to prepare a comprehensive storm water management program for the entire area, which he believes will solve a problem that has been there for 100 years.

Chair Tocci stated that regardless, the quality of the fill is questionable.
Village Engineer Carl Stone concurred pointing out that concerns had been raised back in 2010 regarding the quality of the fill and where it had come from. Mr. Zgonena had been asked to produce documentation showing where he had gotten the fill and certifying that it was clean, but the only documentation that he has ever seen was a letter written by Engineers Sterns and Wheeler to the DEC stating that there had been 3 stock piles of fill and that Mr. Zgonena had indicated that his fill came from pile 1. There is no concrete documentation detailing specifically where the fill came from or whether it is clean. Mr. Stone does not doubt that the fill came from one of the three piles, but he cannot say which one.
Chair Tocci stated that when concerns about the fill were initially raised, neighbors presented the Board with samples of questionable fill. At that time, she believed that the Building Inspector had discussed the idea of removing all of the fill with Mr. Zgonena.

Building Inspector Ledwith concurred and stated that he had met with Mr. Zgonena at the site and told him that the fill needed to be removed, however he had never received any formal acknowledgement or plan from Mr. Zgonena indicating that this would be done. He then suggested that before moving forward with a full blown engineering study as proposed, Mr. Zgonena should not only complete the boundary and topographical surveys, but also take a look at the drains on the right hand side of his driveway, which are in bad shape. Water is overshooting these drains and running down the hill toward the property below, causing the channel-like effect. Mr. Ledwith believes that to draw up an engineering plan without first addressing that issue would be a waste of everybody’s time and money.

Mr. Queenan stated that his firm had been retained to do exactly that. Their plan was to look at the topography and the drainage and put together a plan to remediate the situation.

Mr. Ledwith replied that he understood this, but he cautioned that they not move ahead with preparing any serious engineering plans before receiving Board approval.

Deputy Chair Simon agreed and expressed some concern with the idea that the only solution currently under consideration was a retaining wall.

Mr. Queenan replied that this was only an “off the top of his head” suggestion.

Again, Building Inspector Ledwith cautioned that they should not get ahead of themselves designing a wall before they had addressed the basic issues at hand. He stated that it was always his intention to make sure that applicants did not go off in a direction that they might later regret.

Mr. Queenan thanked Mr. Ledwith for this, commenting that Lanc and Tully had done a lot of work in the area and they were aware of how things work here.

Mr. Ledwith commented that if they could complete the surveys and take a look at the drains he had referenced before the next meeting, this would be a positive step forward in the right direction. He believes that the drains are a contributing factor because they channel a lot of water into one specific area and that redirecting the flow could help to alleviate the situation.

With regard to the fill, Mr. Queenan inquired as to what protocol had been disregarded when it was brought in.

Attorney Golden responded that no protocol had been followed. The fill had been brought in without a permit in August of 2010. There remains some discrepancy as to the exact amount. Letters were sent to the applicant in the fall of 2010, requesting that he appear before the Board, which he did, however it was not until June of 2011 that he was granted the conditional approval. The conditions were never fulfilled. At the April 3 2012 meeting of the Board, which Mr. Zgonena neglected to attend, the Board decided that because the conditions of the approval had never been fulfilled, there was in fact no approval and that they wanted Mr. Zgonena not only to remove the berm but also to submit a plan detailing exactly how this would be done. Mr. Zgonena is now requesting that the Board modify this last action and allow him to keep the berm in some form or fashion, which has yet to be detailed.

Mr. Donaghy suggested that in an effort to put everybody at ease, soil testing should be done. The quality of the fill is a major concern of the neighbors and must be addressed.
Mr. Queenan agreed and commented that they would look at it and see what they could do.
Chair Tocci then opened the floor to comments from the public.

Bob Clemeki commented that when Rob had made the initial agreement to scale back the berm, it had been done in good faith, however a significant amount of time had passed since then and the results have shown that the erosion has not stopped. In fact, it has begun to present itself as a problem to his neighbors, the Granidos, as his property can no longer absorb the run-off and is running onto their property as a result. He expressed concern that should they move ahead with original plan to scale back the berm and change the slope of the hillside, there would be no guarantee that the problem would be solved. He believes the only viable solution is to remove the pile.

Steve Maurer expressed some confusion with the overall procedure. He asked for clarification of the process, and wondered whether or not the agreement he and Mr. Clemeki had made with Mr. Zgonena was still valid.

Mr. Golden responded that the latest action by the Board called for removal of the pile. Mr. Zgonena retains the right to come before the Board and ask them to modify their decision based on what he is proposing, but ultimately it will be up to them to make a decision.
Mr. Zgonena stated that there was no doubt in his mind that a significant amount of material must be removed one way or another. At this point, he feels the best he can do is to come in with existing conditions and a proposal to get something back to where it needs to be, which would include a comprehensive storm water management plan. He believes that the amount of water flowing on to Mr. Maurer’s property has significantly declined since the project began.

Mr. Maurer stated that he did not know what Mr. Zgonena was talking about.
Mr. Zgonena stated that what is needed is a comprehensive storm water management plan and he suggested that the engineers should be left to do their jobs and that once the plan was submitted they could move forward from there.

Chair Tocci suggested that what Mr. Zgonena needed to provide was a plan detailing removal of the pile and exactly what he planned to do with the property once it had been removed. Otherwise, she fears the project could drag on for another 2 years.

Mr. Zgonena replied that the project could not drag on that long.

Chair Tocci countered that what had been presented was not acceptable and that everyone was still waiting for a solution.

Nancy Hays stated that on December 6, 2010 Carl Stone had written a very comprehensive letter regarding the property and she didn’t understand what this letter was not reviewed and presented as a viable option for remediation.

Chair Tocci replied that since the letter had been written, the Board had requested that the berm be removed in its entirety.

Mrs. Hays said that she knew this but that there were some other ideas within the letter that could be helpful and should be explored.

Chair Tocci agreed and commented that a copy would be made available to Mr. Zgonena.
Mr. Zgonena stated that he had requested permission to begin a general cleanup of leaves, logs and other debris on the property, but had been denied.

Chair Tocci responded that at one time a request of this nature would have been welcome, however in this situation so much time had passed and Mr. Zgonena had not moved forward with the project and had skipped several meetings.

Mr. Zgonena replied that when he was working in South America, he was unable to attend meetings.

Chair Tocci retorted that this was not an excuse because Mr. Zgonena was aware that the problem existed and could have appointed an owners representative to stand in for him. Because he did not do this and because in fact he had done nothing, she believes he has lost any good faith his neighbors once had in him. That being said, she would like to proceed with good intentions that satisfy everyone involved.

Mr. Maurer asked Mr. Zgonena if he could clarify his intentions at this point.

Mr. Zgonena responded that if Westin and Sampson disagreed with his calculations, then what he was asking for was the opportunity to have Lanc and Tully present the Board with a number of possible options for remediation.

Chair Tocci stated that the Board no longer had any patience for Mr. Zgonena and that he would have to return to the next meeting with his plans.

Mr. Golden stated that because of Mr. Zgonena’s lack of effort, an action was begun in Justice Court that was scheduled to begin in January and that before they could proceed he would need to get the Board of Trustees to give him permission to adjourn that further.

Additionally, he has been authorized by the Board of Trustees to prepare a complaint in Orange County Supreme Court because the justice court remedies would not include a court ordered removal. This complaint has been drafted and is currently being held in abeyance dependent on what the evening’s outcome is. He emphasized that there is very little leash room and while that he could address the Trustees at their meeting later in the week, the entire situation, including the engineer’s plan and time for BAR review, should be wrapped up by the end of January.

Mr. Queenan stated that by the January meeting the surveying and topographic mapping would be done. While they might be able to present some schematics at that time, there would not be a detailed analysis of the drainage.

Mr. Golden replied that he understood this but that it was crucial that they begin working on it right away, despite the fact that they would not be able to complete it before further decisions had been made by the Board.

Additionally, Chair Tocci and Deputy Chair Simon emphasized the importance of testing the fill because if there be any problems with it, none of the aforementioned proposed solutions would be accepted.

Mr. Queenan responded that he would certainly be able to produce the surveys as requested however he was uncertain as to whether or not they would be able to complete soil testing before the January meeting and therefore could not commit to presenting those results at that time.

Mr. Zgonena interjected that the most he could do at this point was to show the Board that somebody had been retained and that a schedule had been set.

Mr. Golden replied that he believed Mr. Zgonena could do a lot more than just that and that the Board needed to be very specific with him about the testing and what needed to be done.

Carl Stone suggested that the testing would need to ensure that what ever standards are required by the DEC in order to certify the fill as clean are met.

Mr. Zgonena commented that the fill report that the Board had referring to that evening was not the complete report and that the complete report, which he claims to have submitted many times, was at least 12 pages long and contained a thorough chemical analysis as well as a survey.

Deputy Chair Simon pointed out that report to which Mr. Zgonena was referring contained analysis of the soil that had been located near the Thruway, but not the soil that had been dumped on Mr. Zgonena’s property. While one might assume that the results would be the same, he feels that because of what has transpired with the project, there is now a reasonable doubt rate and the soil on Mr. Zgonena’s property should be independently tested.

Mr. Golden stated that he was not aware of any manifest that proved that the soil had been taken from the pile detailed in the report and deposited on Mr. Zgonena’s property.

Mr. Zgonena inquired as to the protocol in the Village for moval manifests and whether or not all previous applicants with projects similar to his had been required to submit them.
Mr. Golden replied that it was required by the Code that clean fill be brought in. There have been reports suggesting that there is asphalt in Mr. Zgonena’s fill.

Mr. Zgonena confirmed this and stated that the asphalt was the result of his having scraped his driveway.

Regardless, Mr. Golden stated that the Board was now requiring that the soil be tested. He suggested that the Village Engineer should weigh in and specify what type of testing would be adequate and then give the applicant a reasonable amount of time to complete those tests.

Board Chair Paola Tocci then read into the record two letters from concerned neighbors regarding increased amounts of pooling ground water on their properties below.

In response Mr. Zgonena commented that he would look into rainfall patterns over the past couple of years, noting that both hurricanes and tropical depressions had created extraordinary short-term dislocations in rainfall that no amount of storm water management could manage.

Chair Tocci agreed, but noted that in addition to the 100-year storms that had occurred the topography of the hillside has also been significantly altered and that she feels it reasonable to request that when Mr. Zgoenena studies the rainfall patters, he look them in coloration with the disturbance he has created.

Mr. Donaghy stated that Mr. Zgonena had altered his property significantly without a permit and he should known better. Whether or not any of the statements being made were true, the bottom line now is that the neighbors are concerned. If the work had been done with a permit and proper engineering diagrams, Mr. Zgonena might have something to stand on, however this was not the case. At this point, he believes that there needs to be a very specific narrative outlining what was going to happen and a time line for the work. The time for discussion has passed.

Mr. Golden then outlined the following 4 measures that Mr. Zgonena must complete in the immediate future:

1. The DOT standard for clean fill must be met. Testing protocol will be determined by Village Engineers Westin and Sampson and sent to Lanc and Tully by December 31 with results to be submitted by the applicant no later than January 31, 2013.

2. Survey and Topography reports must be completed and submitted by January 8, 2013.

3. Schematic Plans outlining any potential solutions desired by the applicant will be submitted by Lanc and Tully no later than January 11, 2013

4. Immediate Soil erosion control measures to be identified by Lanc and Tully in consultation with Westin and Sampson, John Ledwith and Carl Stone must be installed no later than December 28, 2012 to the extent possible.

Engineers will evaluate the situation and determine specifically what is needed so that it can be installed right away, no later than December 28.

Bob Clemecki wondered if all this work could not be avoided by simply removing the pile.

He does not see the sense in going through all this work.

Mr. Zgonena agreed and commented that he would like the opportunity to look at the hard data that he has contracted Lanc and Tully to amass, compare this with the conditional approval and move forward accordingly.

Chair Tocci reiterated that a specific timeline needed to be established as nobody was going to tolerate this project dragging on any longer.

Jim Hays commented while he has no direct standing in this case, he has great sympathy for the neighbors and also concern about the disregard for Village procedures shown by Mr. Zgonena. The Village has no idea whether or not the fill is clean. At the last meeting the Board decided that all of the fill needed to be removed. He does not understand why they are considering backsliding into allowing something else. This project has dragged on for years and has the potential to drag on even longer.

Chair Tocci responded that this was the reason a timeline must be established.

Mr. Hays wondered what would happen if Mr. Zgonena ignored the timeline and Mr. Golden replied that should that happen, the lawsuit would move forward.

With regard to the soil erosion control measures, Mr. Maurer commented that he could not fathom what they would be able to put in place at this point that would really make a difference. He would like to see the berm removed.

Mr. Donaghy asserted that because run-off from the pile was creating gullies and washout, some form of erosion control needed to be installed to prevent further water from coming onto the neighboring properties. Regardless of what happens, a concrete engineering plan detailing exactly what will happen is necessary.

Mr. Zgonena again stated that what he would like to do at this point was allow the professionals to create an extensive storm water management plan for the entire area and incorporate this into a comprehensive plan.

Mr. Clemecki pointed out that one of the things that had previously helped to control the erosion on his property were the trees that Mr. Zgonena had removed from his property without permission. Now something needs to be done to control the water.
Mr. Zgonena countered that many of the trees that he had removed had been consumed with vines and were dead.

Chair Tocci commented that this was irrelevant and water under the bridge.

Mr. Clemecki added that although Mr. Zgonena was clearly an intelligent man, he was not an arborist and could not say with certainty that this was true. It is common knowledge that trees help to prevent erosion. After their removal, he does not see how the erosion can be prevented.

Nancy Hays wondered whether or not comprehensive planting would be done in order to help retain the water once all was said and done.

Chair Tocci assured her that this would be addressed.

Mr. Golden briefly reviewed the aforementioned 4 measures that needed to take place.
Carl Stone clarified that the survey and topography reports due January 11 must include existing conditions and that the previously requested section cuts must be taken with the available information from what they believe is the pre-existing condition. Additionally, he commented that any fill removed by Mr. Zgonena must be removed in its entirely and not relocated elsewhere on the property.

Mr. Zgonena confirmed that the soil would in fact leave the Village and requested that Mr. Stone not raise this issue again.

Mr. Stone replied that the removal must be indicated in writing on the plan and that the issue would be brought up again if necessary. He further suggested that when developing the plans, complete pile removal should be included as an option.

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 18 2012

Hanson - Shed - 4 Tower Hill Rd. - 107-1-24
Schmidtberger- Potting Shed- 21 Cannon Hill Road- 104-1-1.3
Zgonena- Landscaping- 115 Tower Hill Road- 106-1-22

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 4 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, December 4 2012 at 7pm. Board members Robert Simon and Susan Boyle were absent.

Shore – Pool – 19 Patterson Brook Rd.:
The Board completed a site visit and consulting architect Barry Rice has reviewed the plans. There was a brief discussion about the color choice, cobalt blue, followed by a more lengthy discussion about the applicants’ choice of blue stone for the area around the pool. A sample was presented and discussed. After some further discussion during which it was determined that the proposed fence conforms with the Village Code, the Board unanimously approved the application subject to a review of the bluestone when it arrives in the spring.

Hanson – Shed – 4 Tower Hill Rd.:
Revised plans for the proposed shed renovations were presented, reviewed and discussed. Following a detailed discussion it was agreed that a more detailed set of plans showing the height differential between the current shed and the proposed renovation as well as some suggested window changes, the carriage style light and a landscaping plan must be submitted before approval could be granted. Mr. Hanson agreed to submit these as requested in time for the next meeting on December 18.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 4, 2012

Shore- Pool- 19 Patterson Brook Rd.- 103-1-50
Hanson- Shed- 4 Tower Hill Rd.- 107-1-24
Schmidtberger- Potting Shed- 21 Cannon Hill Rd. - 104-1-1.3

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Octobe 16, 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday October 16, 2012 at 7:00pm. Board member Patrick Donaghy was absent.

Hanson – Stone Walls & Shed – Tower Hill Road –
Revised drawings were presented and discussed. Although he was not present, consulting architect Barry Rice had submitted his comments in writing, and these were relayed by Board Chair Paola Tocci. It was suggested and agreed that Mr. Hanson should provide the Board with a comparison of the existing conditions and those with the proposed shed. Additionally, Mr. Hanson agreed to provide photos of the existing shed from several key locations, namely neighboring properties on Continental and Tower Hill Roads.

Stone walls were briefly touched upon and Board Engineer Carl Stone advised Mr. Hanson the proposed stones will not be large enough to effectively prevent run-off and remain standing. Mr. Hanson agreed to use larger, “two man,” stones.

A schedule for overall project completion was also discussed. A checklist, outlining all open aspects of the project was reviewed point by point and it appears as though Mr. Hanson anticipates that project construction will be complete sometime in the spring of 2013.

It was then agreed that Mr. Hanson would return to the next BAR meeting with the comparison and photos as requested at which time it is anticipated that he will receive approval.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 16, 2012

Hanson – Stone walls, shed – 4 Tower Hill Rd. – 107-1-24

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 2, 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday October 2 2012 at 7pm. Board members Julia Simet and Susan Boyle were absent.

Regna – Renovation – 15 Mtn. Farm Rd:

Together with his architect and Engineer, Mr. Regna presented the Board with an updated spec book and two renderings for the renovation project at 15 Mountain Farm Road. Slate and copper samples were also presented. Board attorney Rick Golden confirmed that the BAR was in receipt of a letter from the BZA confirming all of the necessary variances. Following a brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 2, 2012

Regna – Renovation – 15 Mtn. Farm Rd. – 103-1-39
Barnes – Landscaping, architectural details, sewer system – 22 Lookout Stable Rd. – 107-1-115
Shore – Pool – 19 Patterson Brook Rd. – 103-1-50
Hanson – Stone walls, shed – 4 Tower Hill Rd. – 107-1-24

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 18, 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday September 18 at 7pm. Board member Susan Boyle was absent. Consulting Architect Barry Rice was present.

BARNES – LANDSCAPING, ARCHITECTURAL DETAILS, SEWER SYSTEM:
The Applicant presented the Board with revised plans. Board Chair Paola Tocci announced that since the last meeting the BAR had conducted a site visit and provided the applicant with subsequent comments. She asked Building Inspector John Ledwith if he had any comments. Mr. Ledwith responded that there were two outstanding issues with the application. The first of these is the sewer system and specifically whether or not the applicant will be allowed to install a septic system or be required to hook into the municipal system, which will require an easement. The second issue pertains to the quality of the construction untaken by the previous owner. (The home “mostly constructed” when the property was purchased by Mr. Barnes)Chair Tocci explained that the BAR had focused on the proposed car port, existing stone walls and landscaping during their visit.

There was a brief discussion regarding the sewer situation and Board Attorney Rick Golden advised the Board that it would be up to the Village Board of Trustees to ultimately decide whether or not the applicant would be granted permission to install their own system, as proposed on the plan. That being said, he advised them that when making their decision, the BOT would look to the BAR for guidance in terms of where the system should go on the property. After some further discussion, the BAR agreed that they did not have any initial issues with the proposed area for the septic as shown on the plan.

Next project materials and landscaping were discussed. In response to concerns expressed by the neighbors, the applicant is proposing to plant several trees in an effort to provide screening. Following this discussion it was agreed that the applicant would return to the next meeting with a detailed design for the stone wall as well as more details on the proposed plantings and material samples.

Hanson – Stone Walls – Shed:
Neither the Applicant nor a representative for the Applicant was present, so the application was not discussed.

REGNA – RENOVATION:
Mr. Regna, along with his engineer and architect, presented the Board with detailed drawings for the proposed renovation at 15 Mountain Farm Road. He began the presentation by reporting that all necessary variances had been granted two weeks prior by the BZA, however, in reviewing the BZA decision, Attorney Rick Golden expressed some confusion with regard to the side yard setback. There followed a discussion about this, during which it was determined that there was a very good chance an error or typo had been made in the BZA decision. It was agreed that Mr. Regna could proceed with his presentation as planned, however the BAR would be unable to vote on the application until the issue with the BZA had been resolved.

Mr. Regna then presented the Board with a spec book, outlining proposed materials for the project. This was reviewed and discussed in some detail. Overall project design was reviewed and there were brief discussions about the roof (portions of which will be standing seam) the chimneys, iron gates, the garage, siding for the main house, windows, balcony lighting and pillars as proposed. Following this review, it was agreed that Mr. Regna would return to the next BAR meeting, by which time the BZA issue should be resolved and the application could be voted on.

SHORE – POOL:
The Applicant’s architect and contractor presented the Board with preliminary plans for a very simple pool to be constructed on the property located at 19 Patterson Brook Road. Basic design was reviewed and discussed, following which it was agreed that the BAR and their engineer would schedule and conduct a site visit in the coming weeks.

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 18, 2012

Barnes – Landscaping, architectural details, sewer system – 22 Lookout Stable Rd. – 107-1-115
Hanson – Stone walls, shed – 4 Tower Hill Rd. – 107-1-24
Regna – Renovation – 15 Mtn. Farm Rd. – 103-1-39
Shore – Pool – 19 Patterson Brook Rd. – 103-1-50

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 21, 2012

The Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday August 21 at 7pm. Board member Partrick Donagy and Village Engineer Carl Stone were both absent.

Beard – Lakeside Patio & Balustrade :

Mr. Beard informed the BAR that he wished to restore a balustrade on his house that was part of the original design but had since been removed, and presented an old photo of his house showing the design and location of the balustrade. Mr. Beard indicated that it would be a decorative railing only and would be designed to look as close to the original as possible. The materials would be mahogany for the railing and a medium density wood for the balusters.

Building Inspector John Ledwith informed Mr. Beard that he would have to provide structural plans to ensure the balustrade would be securely installed.

There was also continued discussion with regard to Mr. Beard’s application to install a lakeside patio. The matter had been reviewed in more detail at the August 7, 2012 BAR meeting but could not be voted on since the neighbors had not been properly notified of the application.

The Board confirmed that all the neighbors had been appropriately notified and that no written comments had been received. Mrs. Maryjo Guinchard was present and stated that she had no objection to the Beards building the lakeside patio.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the applications for both the balustrade and the lakeside patio.

Biagioni – Modifications to original plans:

Architect Markus Dochantschi and contractor David Silverstein were present to continue to discuss the Biagioni’s application to install a front entryway patio and gate.

Mr. Dochantschi presented updated plans that included the layout for the patio and the design of the gate. The patio would be made of bluestone, and the gate would be self-closing and made of wrought iron. The Board requested that Mr. Dochantschi make a correction on the plans to specify that the material for the gate would be wrought iron.

Mr. Silverstein presented a sample of the proposed copper gutters and downspouts for the BAR’s approval, as well as several design options for the scuppers. The Board and Mr. Silverstein agreed on a specific scupper model to be used.

Building Inspector Ledwith and Mr. Silverstein discussed modifying one of the drain culverts along the roadway to help divert water from the road before it reaches the front of the Biagioni house. Mr. Silverstein said they intended to install a small asphalt berm near the culvert.

The Board was ready to proceed with voting on the matter but attorney Rick Golden reminded them that Village Code requires the property owner or an authorized representative to be present when a matter is voted on. Mr. Ledwith confirmed that he had no written authorization for Mr. Silverstein to be Mr. Biagioni’s representative. Mr. Silverstein called Mr. Biagioni on the telephone and Mr. Biagioni gave verbal authorization for Mr. Silverstein to represent him.

The Board then made a motion to approve the Biagioni application for a front entryway patio and gate, and it was unanimously approved.

Hanson – Modifications to Shed:

Mr. Hanson was present to continue to discuss modifications to the shed on his property, which entails rotating the old shed and putting it on a higher foundation, which will create storage space beneath it.

The Board confirmed that they had performed a site visit.

Design, orientations, and the materials for the new shed were then discussed. The Board suggested that Mr. Hanson consider redesigning the pitch of the roof so as to better match the main house roof and he agreed to do so. They also suggested that Mr. Hanson consider using stucco & timbers instead of just stucco to help break up the façade of the shed, and Mr. Hanson agreed to do so. Finally, the BAR requested that Mr. Hanson provide a landscaping plan to include plantings that would help prevent the shed from being so visible to the neighbors and the road.

Mr. Hanson agreed to return to the next meeting with updated plans for the shed as discussed.

The Board also asked Mr. Hanson questions regarding the stone wall he had begun constructing along Tower Hill Road. Mr. Hanson acknowledged that it was being constructed in the wrong place and said that he would be moving it to the correct place according to the approved plans. The BAR requested that Mr. Hanson use larger stones for the wall and build it in a way that is in better keeping with other stone walls in the neighborhood. Mr. Hanson agreed to use larger stones, but said he could not make them too much larger because a heavier wall would kill the root systems for the existing trees and plantings on his property along Tower Hill Road. Mr. Hanson agreed to notify the Board when a new section of the wall was complete so that they could view it before he proceeded with constructing the entire thing.

Barnes/Ford – Landscaping, architectural details, Sewer system :
Mr. Ford and Ms. Barnes did were not present so the matter was adjourned to a future meeting.

The BAR stated that they had done a site visit to the property over the weekend and that both Mr. Ford and Ms. Barnes had been present at that time and were aware of the upcoming meeting.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 21, 2012

Beard – Patio – East Lake Rd. – 105-1-20.21
Biagioni – Modifications to original plans – West Lake Stable Rd. - 104-1-27
Hanson – Modifications to shed – 4 Tower Hill Rd. – 107-1-24
Barnes/Ford – Landscaping, architectural details, sewer system – 22 Lookout Stable Rd. – 107-1-115

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 7, 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, August 7 at 7:00pm. Board member Patrick Donaghy was absent. Consulting Architect Barry Rice was present.

REGNA – RENOVATIONS:
Together with his Architect and Engineer, Applicant Peter Regna presented the Board with revised plans for renovations to the home at 15 Mountain Farm Road. Acknowledging that several BZA variances are required before the project can officially move forward, Mr. Regna asked the Board for an informal review of the project. A site plan, outlining grading and proposed driveway modifications was presented and discussed. Modifications to the front of the home as well as an existing 3 car garage were also briefly discussed. The Board expressed their support for the project and it was agreed that Mr. Regna would go before the BZA for the necessary variances before returning for project approval.

KLINENBERG – DOOR AND WINDOW CHANGES, RELLIS, DORMER:
Mr. and Mrs. Klinenberg together with their architect presented the Board with detailed plans as well as photographs depicting the proposed windows for their home on East Lake Road. Board Chair Paola Tocci advised the Applicants that the design guidelines did not support Aluminum Clad windows as proposed. Following some further discussion regarding the placement of the window screens, the Board unanimously approved the project, conditional upon a change from aluminum clad windows with exterior screens to wood windows with interior screens.

VILLAGE BOAT CLUB – DOCKS:
On behalf of the Village Boat Club, Tom Salierno and Stuart McGregor presented the Board with proposed modifications for the docks located at 1 Chastellux Lane. The plan includes both the replacement (and size reduction) of a concrete pad on the shoreline as well as the addition of a new 20 foot dock. Roughly 15 feet of concrete will be removed and replaced with cedar. The Club feels the changes will significantly improve the site.

Building Inspector John Ledwith provided the Board with some project history, explaining that several years back the VBC had been given approval to expand and add 3 finger docks extending into the Lake no more than 25 feet. However, during the construction phase it was discovered that the approved plan was not practical because the water on the shoreline was not deep enough and as a result, the VBC was given permission to move the docks further out to 46 feet. Mr. Ledwith expressed some concern the reconstruction as proposed would cause the docks to stick out into the lake an additional 8 feet, bringing the total to 54 feet, which is a great deal further than the 25 feet that was originally approved.
Board Chair Paola Tocci read two letters into the record. The first was from VBC President Greg Libby and clearly outlined the plans as proposed. The second was from neighbor Gary Parr and listed several concerns he has with the project as proposed, chiefly the potential increase in noise and the “commercial” appearance of what he believes is supposed to be a relatively discrete dock. While Mr. Parr is somewhat sympathetic to the needs of the VBC, he feels that the noise level coming from the facility has had an adverse effect on his personal enjoyment of his own property and he thinks it is time limit activity there in an effort to keep the noise down.

Gary Glynn commented that he lives across the lake from the VBC and that he feels the visual effect of the facility id unfortunate and inconsistent with the Tuxedo Park. He expressed concern that the revisions as proposed could be a prelude to expansion in terms of the number of boats currently in the water at the facility and if this is the case, he objects. While he understands the significance of the VBC, he does not believe it should become any larger.

Commenting that he was speaking as a resident and not as a Village Trustee, David du Pont expressed his disappointment with the VBC as they have chosen to undertake changes to Village owned property without receiving permission from any governing body. He believes that the VBC is aware of the proper procedure and should have proceeded appropriately.

Mr. Salierno reiterated that the changes as proposed would be a big improvement to the property as concrete was being replaced with cedar.

Chair Tocci responded that the main concern seemed to be expansion as the original approval allowed for docks to extend 20 feet into the Lake, and what was being proposed would extend 54 feet. She further commented “Just because there are 1000 people living in the Park doesn’t mean we can have a facility for 1000 boats.”

Mr. Salierno replied that what was being proposed was NOT an expansion, but rather the replacement of what was already there.

Building Inspector John Ledwith started that he could not recommend project approval with out the permission of the property owner (the Village). Additionally, he requires more detailed plans clearly outlining the proposed dimensions of the project.

After some further discussion, it was agreed that the application should be referred the Village Board of Trustees.

HANSON – MODIFICATIONS TO SHED:
Mr. Hanson appeared before the Board for project review as the result of a Stop Work Order issued several weeks prior. The Work in question surrounds a shed on Mr. Hanson’s property, the excavation of which Mr. Hanson claims was a part of the Settlement agreement he has with the Village. According to Mr. Hanson, approved plans called for the shed to be lifted with a new foundation and basement installed, however when the excavation began, he discovered there was some rot at the base of the building under the dirt. Therefore, he would now like to demolish what is there and start anew, rotating the entire structure
According to Building Inspector John Ledwith detailed plans for the shed were never discussed or approved by the BAR and the plans that were submitted did not indicate that the building would be raised to allow for an additional level with garage doors. Thus when he discovered excavation taking place, a SWO was issued. What Mr. Hanson is now proposing deviates substantially from what was originally approved and work of this nature will require BAR review and approval as well as a separate building permit.
Mr. Hanson stated that the approval of his plans for the shed had been part of the inducement for signing the settlement agreement with the Village.

Village Attorney Rick Golden commented that the shed itself was not part of the agreement however it could have been a part of the plans that were attached to it.

Building Inspector John Ledwith reiterated that detailed plans for the shed had not been submitted and that although the plans that were on file did indicate that the foundation would be replaced, nowhere did they outline the addition of a basement or the installation of garage style doors.

Board Chair Paola Tocci indicated that the BAR would conduct a site visit before making a determination.

The discussion then turned to the construction of a stone wall on the site, also part of the settlement agreement. There is some concern over the placement of the wall in terms of setback from the road, and the size of the stones used to construct it. Mr. Hanson asserted that the size of the stones was never discussed however Building Inspector John Ledwith stated that he was following the scale outlined on the plans. He feels that the wall must be moved back further from the road and that the size of the stones much be enlarged in order for the wall to be effective.

Chair Tocci agreed and informed Mr. Hanson that the wall would need to be moved.

Mr. Hanson expressed some concern with regard to timing as his permits are set to expire within the next week or so and he has been issued with stop work order.

Building Inspector Ledwith commented that Mr. Hanson could apply for an extension on the permit for the construction of the walls, however he believes that the shed should be its own application.

Mr. Hanson disagreed, stating he did not believe a new application was necessary and that he just wanted to se the work completed.

Neighbor Anne Gwathmy expressed her dismay over the amount of noise generated by the project, which has been on going for many years. She fears that the work Mr. Hanson is proposing to do with the shed will only exacerbate this problem. Additionally, she stated that Mr. Hanson had been violating the ordinance pertaining to summer work hours resulting in excessive noise and that when she asked him about this he had told her that it would be “unconstitutional” to ask the workers to stop. She implored the Board to remind Mr. Hanson of the summer work hours and to do everything they could to enforce them. She then inquired about the lack of landscaping on the property, commenting that when she had gone through the process with her garage, she had been required to submit a detailed landscaping plan, however there did not appear to be anything on file for Mr. Hanson and as far as she could tell, nothing had been planted. She would like some assurance that the property will be landscaped when the construction is completed. While everyone wants to see the project completed, it is important that it be done right. Finally, she commented that she believes that the wall in question has been constructed poorly and is not indigenous with other walls in the Park. In her view, it will not hold up against a big snow fall and will only end up costing everyone money when it fails to do its job and is damaged by snow plows.

Mr. Hanson commented that it is his intention to continue work on the walls, insinuating that the work would move forward regardless of the Stop Work Order.

Attorney Rick Golden commented that the Board of Architectural Review has no control over the permitting process and that Mr. Hanson should not interpret their silence as approval in terms of his moving forward with the work.

Chair Tocci asked Building Inspector Ledwith to please remind Mr. Hanson of the summer work hours. Mr. Ledwith complied, stating that work is permitted between the hours of 8am -4:30pm Monday through Friday during the summer months.

Mr. Hanson objected to this, commenting that he believed this ordinance had been overturned.

BAR Attorney Rick Golden disagreed.
There followed a fairly brief discussion between Mr. Golden and Mr. Hanson, following which Mr. Hanson announced that he would be consulting his attorney. He then left the meeting.

BIAGIONI – MODIFICATIONS TO ORIGINAL PLANS:
The Applicants’ Architect and Engineer presented the Board with modified plans for the home on West Lake Stable Road. During construction, the Applicant discovered that there has been a great deal of water damage at the front of the home. This is due to the fact that the road running directly in front of the house has been built up over time so that the section where the floor meets the wall is actually below road level and water has leaked in, causing the beams to rot. Therefore, they are proposing to build up the front and alter the pitch, which should divert the water away and hopefully correct the problem. They are hoping to create an entrance with a proper seal; a concrete pad with bluestone, set to match the other bluestone patio.

There followed a lengthy discussion with regard to drainage on the property and specifically various methods of capturing run-off water before it reaches the front of the home and diverting it down the road and eventually into the lake.

Aluminum gutter samples were presented. The Board informed the Applicant that copper was preferred.

The Addition of a patio gate was also discussed.

It was agreed that the applicant would create new drawings, outlining the specific dimensions as well as providing more detail on both the gutters and bluestone layout before returning to the next meeting.

BEARD – PATIO:
Mr. Beard along with Kristian and Jake Matthews of Legacy Stoneworks, appeared before the Board to discuss the installation of a granite patio at the Beard home on East Lake Road. Mr. Bear announced his intention to replace the cap on the wall and presented the Board with a sample of the stone to be used.

Chair Tocci commented that she did not believe the patio looked natural and that she was grateful it could not been seen from Tuxedo Lake. She does not like the size or design.

Mr. Beard commented that it has been his intent to install something slightly different than the bluestone style patios that seem to be somewhat common in the Park, and this is why he had chosen to use granite.

Kristian Matthews asserted that the stone was indigenous to the area and that the project had only just been completed. He commented that the dust was still fresh and that once it had been cleared and allowed to settle, he was confident that it was going to blend in and look great.

Chair Tocci countered that she felt the applicant should have come before the BAR for their opinion before proceeding with the design. She commended Mr. Matthews and recognized both his long and upstanding reputation within the community and his talent, but again stated that she felt that the design and installation were not good.

Following some discussion it was agreed that Mr. Beard could move forward with recapping the walls, however because the patio work constituted a change in the appearance of Mr. Beard’s property, he would need to wait two weeks for the neighbors to be noticed before the Board could move forward with the approval process.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 7, 2012

Regna- Renovations- 15 Mtn. Farm Rd. - 103-1-15
Klinenberg- Door and window changes, trellis, dormer - 87 East Lake Rd. - 106-1-77
Village Boat Club- Docks- 1 Chastellux Lane- 105-1-45
Hanson Modifications to shed - 4 Tower Hill Rd. - 107-1-24
Biagioni- Modifications to original plans- West Lake Stable Rd.- 104-1-27
Beard- Patio -East Lake Rd. - 105-1-20.21

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 17, 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on July 17, 2012 at 7pm. Board members Susan Boyle and Patrick Donaghy were absent.

Beard – Driveway gate, Pool, Garage, Tennis Court, Restoration of Porch:

Together with his architect and engineer, the Applicant presented the Board with detailed plans for a pool, tennis court, garage, porch expansion and renovation and driveway gates to be constructed at his home on East Lake Road. All necessary variances have been issued by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Additionally, an initial, simple landscaping plan was introduced and reviewed. Tennis court lighting was discussed as was height and materials for the proposed chain link fence. Brick and Granite samples were also presented. Following a careful review of the plans, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

Barnes/Ford – Landscaping, Architectural Details, Sewer System:

The Applicant informed the Board that he has sent a letter to the Board of Trustees requesting a hardship with regard to sewer. In order to tie into the Village sewer system, an easement would be required across a neighboring property and partial excavation of this neighbor’s tennis court would also be necessary. Mr. Ford is hoping to avoid this process and install a single system on site. He noted that there are a couple other homes in the neighborhood that have single systems.

The previous property owner left the property in disarray when selling it and Mr. Ford is making every effort to recover it and get it into a useful nature. He implored the Board to schedule a site visit so they could see first hand what was happening on the property. There was a brief discussion regarding some walls located at the rear of the property, which were begun but never finished. Mr. Ford informed the Board that he is hoping to plant ivy in an effort to camouflage the walls. He proposed the use of bluestone to finish off the walls and terrace. Otherwise, Mr. Ford is hoping to move forward with the original plans for the home as approved.

Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that she believed a lot of work that had taken place under the previous owner had not been up to code and she asked Building Inspector John Ledwith for an update as to where the project stood. Mr. Ledwith responded that some of the work completed had been of a lower caliber demonstrating poor craftsmanship, such as exposed nail heads etc.
Chair Tocci recommended that the applicant review the Design Guidelines. She then read into the record a series of letters written and submitted by neighbors of Mr. Ford.

The first of these was written back in 2009 and referred to a large number of trees that had been illegally taken down by the previous owner. This act of deforestation had created issues with natural screening between properties. The second letter was dated 7/17/12 and outlined concerns with the septic field as proposed in relation to property screening. The letter suggests relocating the field and requests that the applicant please submit a revised plan that adequately addresses the screening issues.
Following some further discussion, it was agreed that the Board would schedule a site visit within the next two weeks.

Givens – Door and Window Changes:

Applicant Bill Givens presented the Board with photos depicting his plans for the replacement of 3 doors and 3 windows at his home on West Lake Road. After a fairly brief discussion of details, the application was unanimously approved.

Klinenberg – Door and Window Changes, Trellis, Dormer:
Mr. and Mrs. Klinenberg along with their architect presented the Board with plans outlining some changes they would like to make to their property on East Lake Road. Specifically, they are looking to remove a greenhouse and add a porch where the solarium currently exists. They would also like to “open up” the rear section of the home by extending a porch and adding a dormer. Finally, they would like to replace some of the current windows, which are small and do not let in a lot of light as well as the front door. They are looking for BAR feedback before proceeding with their plans.

Board member Julia Simet inquired as to whether or not the Klinenbergs were planning to change the exterior finish of the home.

They responded that the house had been built in the 60s and did not appear to have been kept up very well. They are hoping to dramatically improve the overall quality of the home. While they would love to restore the finish, they may begin by simply repainting while they focused their main efforts on other improvements that need to be made.

Following some further discussion, the Board encouraged the Klinenbergs to continue with their plans as presented and suggested that they come back on August 7 so that they could move forward with the application.

Bruno – Restoration of Porches:

Together with his contractor, the Applicant presented the Board with plans to restore 2 porches at his home on West Lake Road. The intent is to revert back to the original design and the Applicant presented pictures depicting what that was. Following a brief discussion of details, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

Witte – Changes to Previously Approved Landscaping Plan:

Together with their architect, Mr. and Mrs. Witte presented the Board with an amended plan for their home to be located on Tower Hill Loop. Modifications call for a revision in the Landscaping plan, specifically a reduction in the amount of plantings, less 23 trees and 67 shrubs, and changes to the stone entryway. The Board conducted a brief comparison review of the two plans. On behalf of neighbor Alex Salm, Hume Steyer addressed the Board with regard to the driveway leading to Mr. Salm’s cottage, part of which is located on the Witte property. Apparently, construction has blocked of a portion of the driveway, making it extremely difficult for Mr. Salm’s tenants to maneuver their vehicles in and out. Following some discussion, it was determined that this was an issue between property owners and not within the BAR’s jurisdiction. The changes as proposed were unanimously approved, subject to review and approval of entryway once completed.

Penguin – Asphalt and Paver Driveway:

The Applicant presented the Board with block samples for the proposed paver at his home on Pine Road. There was a brief discussion of the project, which includes paving of the driveway and carport. The BAR urged the applicant to use tar and chip as apposed to asphalt as proposed. Board engineer Carl Stone expressed some concern with regard to storm water run off and it was determined that the applicant must submit storm water calculations before proceeding with the project. Following some further discussion, the Board unanimously approved the project subject to receipt of the calculations as requested.

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 17 2012

Beard- Driveway gate, pool, garage, tennis court, restoration of porch- 214 East Lake Rd. - 105-1-20.21
Barnes/Ford- Landscaping, architectural details, sewer system- 22 Lookout Stable Rd. - 107-1-115
Givens- Door and window changes- 216 West Lake Rd.- 103-1-13.23
Klinenberg- Door and window changes, trellis, dormer- 87 East Lake Rd. - 106-1-77
Bruno- Restoration of porches- 172 West Lake Rd.- 103-1-29
Witte- Changes to previously approved landscaping plan- 67 Tower Hill Loop- 107-1-12.21
Penguin- Asphalt and paver driveway- 40 Pine Rd.- 108-1-17

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 5, 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, June 5. Board members Susan Boyle and Julia Simet were absent.

Capella – 39 Laurel Rd. – Driveway Gate:
Applicant Joe Capella appeared before the Board to discuss his application for a driveway gate at his property on Laurel Road. The BZA has granted all necessary variances. Following a brief discussion regarding the use of landscaping to help screen the proposed deer fencing, the Board unanimously approved the application conditional upon the conditions set forth in the variance. Mr. Capella has agreed to come back before the Board in the near future with a landscaping plan.

Jenkins – 18 Patterson Brook Rd. – Window Changes:
Evan Jenkins presented the Board with drawings and samples for the proposed window changes on his home located at 18 Patterson Brook Rd. In additional to replacing all of the windows, Mr. Jenkins would also like to raise one window and add an additional window in the back of the home. Following minimal discussion about blending the wooden window frames with the stucco exterior of the house, the Board unanimously approved the application.

Zgonena – Tower Hill Road – Landscaping:
Mr. Zgonena was not present. The Board made several attempts to phone him with no success. Neighbors Bob Klemecki and Steve Mauer expressed their ongoing frustration with the situation and the Board echoed these sentiments.

Steve Mauer wondered whether or not the Stop Work Order was still under effect. He was informed that it was not but as there is no active permit, no work can take place on the property.

Mr. Mauer then sited a section of the Village Code and inquired of Building Inspector John Ledwith whether or not the berm on Mr. Zgonena’s property could technically be considered a fence by definition.

Mr. Ledwith replied that while he had never chosen to interpret the Code in that way, he supposed it was possible and that he would look into it.

Mr. Mauer stressed the importance of bringing the situation to a proper solution, commenting that while everyone involved wanted a speedy resolution, doing the right thing was extremely important.

Board Chair Paola Tocci agreed. She then inquired of Attorney Rick Golden whether or not the BAR should officially notify the Village Board of Trustees about the situation and he responded that while they certainly could go ahead and do so, there was not much for the Trustees to do. A somewhat lengthy discussion regarding how best to handle the situation and specifically what, if any, legal rights of enforcement the BAR maintains ensued. Finally, it was agreed that Building Inspector John Ledwith would send Mr. Zgonena a letter via certified mail, requesting that he attend a special meeting, to be held on Friday, June 22 at 7pm, for the purpose of bringing the situation to a successful conclusion.

Change of Meeting Dates:

Due to the Village Election on June 18 and the Tuxedo Club Fireworks on July 3, the next two regularly scheduled BAR meetings will be cancelled.

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 5, 2012

Capella - 39 Laurel Rd.- Driveway Gate- 107-1-78.1
Beard - 214 E. Lake Rd.- Driveway Gates, Pool, Tennis Court, Porch/Terrace, 105-1-20.1 & 48
Jenkins - 18 Patterson Brook Rd.- Window Changes- 103-1-36
Regna - 15 Mtn. Farm Rd.- Renovation- 106-1-33
Zgonena 115 Tower Hill Rd .- Landscaping- 106-1-22

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 15, 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday May 15 2012. All members were present.

Regna – 15 Mtn. Farm Rd. – Renovations:
Mr. Regna and his architect presented the Board with existing photos and a site plan of the property in its current condition and as well as conceptual proposal for modifications. Once modified, Mr. Regna is hoping to use the home for vehicle storage as well as a caretaker’s residence. The footprint will remain untouched, however both structures (house and garage) will be remediated as there has been a great deal of structural damage due to water damage. A new driveway is being proposed. Additionally, the applicant is proposing to stretch the upper level of the home in both directions and relocate a stairway, which will provide more accurate alignment for the building. Referring to modified drawings, Mr. Regna’s architect pointed out these changes and briefly outlined plans for a new roof. The existing pool will probably be filled in and used for drainage. An existing porch will be altered and moved over in order to provide more proper symmetry. The garage will remain in the same spot, however it will be reconstructed and receive a new roof.

Building Inspector John Ledwith expressed his concern with the main body of the structure and its viability.

Mr. Regna’s architect responded that they had conducted a detailed investigation of the building from a structural standpoint and a conditions report has been made. Certain portions of the building will need to be knocked down and rebuilt. It was agreed that this report would be submitted to Mr. Ledwith as soon as possible.

Drainage was briefly discussed as t he site is extremely susceptible to run off in a major way on both sides. The applicant is currently exploring various options, including surface drains and property pitching, however it may become necessary to simply collect the water and pump it out. The proposed engineering has not been completed.

Paola Tocci asked that the applicant provide more detail about the proposed roof moving forward, specifically with regard to materials and this was also briefly discussed.

Board Attorney Rick Golden advised that the porch changes might require a variance from the BZA.

It was agreed that the applicant would move forward with the project and create a site plan before returning to the Board for further review.

El-Rayess – 50 Crow’s Nest Rd. – Dormers, Stone Work:
Tamir El-Rayess appeared before the Board at their request to discuss the dormers and columns on the front of his home on Crow’s Nest Road. Commenting that the Board was aware that Mr. El-Rayess had made a tremendous investment on every level, Chair Paola Tocci expressed their desire to make sure that the work being done was contributing to the benefit of the house and not detracting from it. With this in mind, she asked Mr. El-Rayess to update them with regard to both the dormers (and what he was proposing to do there) and the columns on the front of the house.

Mr. El-Rayess replied that he is unhappy with the way that the dormers are turning out. He is expecting a shipment of stone, which will contain a sample of limestone to be installed on top of the dormers.

Chair Tocci inquired as to whether or not Mr. El-Rayess might submit a drawing of what he is proposing, commenting that she would hate to see him make an investment on something that ultimately might not work out.

Mr. El-Rayess replied that in his view, drawings don’t look the same as reality. The sample is on its way and will be here within 2 to 3 weeks. Once it has arrived, the Board can have a look and if everyone likes it, he will draw it up and move forward with purchasing similar pieces for the other dormers.

With regard to the columns, Chair Tocci commented that these had not been on the approved drawings as submitted by Mr. El-Rayess and that they have not been constructed properly.

Mr. El-Rayess responded that the columns had been added as support for two reasons: support and aesthetics.

Speaking frankly, Chair Tocci stated that she wished Mr. El-Rayess had come to the Board for discussion and approval before putting the columns in because they would have been able to provide guidance on the proper way to construct a column. In her view, what has been constructed is terrible. Architecturally it is “an F” because it is not tapered. She is unsure of what the remedy is at this point, and questioned whether or not it could be taken down and rebuilt properly. She suggested that perhaps the consulting architect could look at the situation. She asked for Mr. El-Rayess’ word that he would not make further project changes without BAR approval.

Mr. El-Rayess replied that he would talk with his contractor to determine whether or not there is a way to replace the column in an effort to remedy the situation.

Finally Chair Tocci expressed some concern with the driveway, specifically the concrete curbing that had been installed. In her view, it looks sloppy.

Mr. El-Rayess responded that he had been unaware of this issue, but if Chair Tocci would point out her specific areas of concern, he could easily remedy the situation.

Zgonena – Site Work:
**Board member Julie Simet announced that she would be recusing herself from the application, as Mr. Zgonena is a neighbor of hers.

Mr. Zgonena began the discussion by reading into the record a memo he had prepared for the purpose of providing the evolution of the project as well as hopefully addressing a number of the concerns brought forth by his neighbors. According to Mr. Zgonena’s memo, the project commenced in the spring of 2010 and work lasted approximately 6 months in an erratic manor. The project had been initiated with the permission of the Building Inspector, who had visited the site a number of times during the work phase. All trucks for the project were brought through the Village gates and the police were aware of them, as were then Mayor Houston Stebbins and DPW Superintendent Jeff Voss. The project began with full knowledge of Village officials and commenced until such time that a Stop Work Order was issued. At the November 16, 2010 BAR meeting, approval for what was essentially the same project would have been granted but for a Village procedural error which prevented such an approval. (Board Chair Paola Tocci inquired as to the nature of the error and was informed that the neighbors had not been properly notified) At the June 7, 2011 BAR meeting, conditional approval for the project was granted and the neighbors were made aware, however Mr. Zgonena had to leave the continent for 9 months. Unfortunately, because a building permit was never issued, no work was allowed. Mr. Zgonena spoke with Building Inspector John Ledwith prior to The April 3, 2012 BAR meeting and felt he had his approval for a solution, which was to remove, not relocate, the fill needed to satisfy the requirements of the June 2011 conditional approval. The BAR proceeded to have two meetings without Mr. Zgonena present on April 3 and April 26, 2012. This is the first time Mr. Zgonena feels he has had an opportunity to address the situation with the Board since June of 2011. To answer some of the more specific concerns brought forth by his neighbors, Mr., Zgonena stated that Mr. Klimecki’s trees had been removed 3 to 5 years ago with Mr. Klimecki’s permission. When visiting the site one can see that the remaining trees there are blighted and destroyed by invasive vines. Many of the trees are really just sticks holding up the vines. The DEC letter of uncontaminated fill has been in the file for a year. Copies were also submitted for the November 10 and June 11 meetings. Mr. Zgonena made this point at both meetings but feels it was overlooked. At some point during the process, Mr. Zgoenena’s driveway was scraped off and replaced with gravel. Unfortunately, he made the decision to put the old driveway down below where the fill is located and the two were commingled. Mr. Zgonena acknowledged that this had not been a very wise decision on his part. His driveway is currently gravel and the property has approximately 15,000 square feet less impervious surface than it has at any time in the past 50 or so years. In other words, less water has been flowing down the hill than at any time during his lifetime. At the time that the Stop Work Order was issued, Me. Zgonena pleaded with Mr. Ledwith to allow him to finish leveling the field, as he was concerned that the current conditions were not favorable. These pleas were made to no avail and he was not allowed to complete an additional work. He feels that it would be fairly simple for him to grade the property so that substantial amounts of water remain on his land, especially once graded and planted. One Village resident expressed dissatisfaction with the project through a letter, labeling the site as blighted and barren. Mr. Zgonena commented that he was not proud of the situation, but he feels that his record for doing exceptional work speaks for itself, and he stressed that this project has not been completed. The intention of the project once completed is a formal garden, similar to the one on Peter Regna’s property. His purpose for depositing leaves and chips on the site was an attempt as erosion control in a way that did not violate the Stop Work Order. With regard to the rubble wall, Mr.Zgonena addressed Mr. Klimecki directly, stating that the reality is that this wall was nothing more than a “loosely assembled pile of field stones that delineated a property line.” In the scheme of a Tuxedo Park stonewall, he feels this is another aspect of the project that has taken on a life of its own. There is still plenty of wall to be seen and witness will bear that it is nothing significant. Mr. Zgonena feels that his replacement plans a re a vast improvement as they entail actually constructing a proper stonewall He commented that he hoped his neighbors would be pleased with the plan and that he remained open to working with them on the type of wall that they would prefer since it is what they will be looking at. As far as the BAR meeting goes, Mr. Zgonena stated that he was somewhat unclear as to why the BAR was even involved again. In June 11, the application was left as a Building Inspector matter and in early April, Mr. Zgonena spoke with the Building Inspector and had been under the impression that the agreement they reached should have resulted in the issuance of a building permit. Had that been done, he feels the project could have been almost completed by this time. He emphasized again that he has stood ready, willing and able to complete the project since November of 2011.

Mr. Zgonena then presented the Board with a model of his property, marked with pushpins to delineate the various areas of the property, which he prepared as a response to a letter he received from Village engineers. Acknowledging both Mr. Klimecki’s concern with the drainage and the Engineers concerns about the potential for additional problems arising from relocation of fill from the disturbed area, he outlined his initial plan to relocate the fill and re-grade the hillside. He then noted that both the Building Inspector and the Village Engineer had rejected this plan and labeled it unacceptable, instead directing Mr. Zgonena to remove the fill from the Village altogether. At a quantity of approximately 600 yards, this is what would be required to satisfy the conditional approval of June 2011. This is what Mr. Zgonena would like to do.

He then presented his neighbors with a packet of photos outlining some of his suggestions for the stonewall as well as possible as well as some additional landscaping ideas.

There was then a discussion about the quality of the fill. Chair Tocci reviewed and acknowledged the DEC letter, which certifies the fill as uncontaminated. She commented that the asphalt in the fill must be the asphalt from Mr. Zgonena’s driveway. Mr. Zgonena stated that the fill had originally come from the construction of the sewer project. A survey was taken of where the pile was originally and then it was tested. Testing analysis was included with Mr. Zgonena’s submission to the BAR. He reiterated that this paper work had been in the file since June of 2011.

Chair Tocci commented that it was her hope that the project issues could be resolved once and for all at this meeting and that things could move forward. She reviewed the BARs previous list of conditions, which in addition to fill certification included replanting trees, planting forsythia, and rebuilding the stone wall to his neighbors, satisfaction. She then asked Building Inspector John Ledwith for his comments.

Mr. Ledwith stated that he would like to look at the date on the DEC letter and Mr. Zgonena responded that Mr. Ledwith had seen the letter countless times.

Chair Tocci interjected that she felt the contaminated fill issue was now dormant and that she would like to see the project move forward.

Mr. Ledith stated that the letter in question had been submitted to the Village for the fill purchased by the Village that is now down at the sewer plant. He has no reason to believe that the fill located on Mr. Zgonena’s property came from that location. De Marino trucking brought in most of not all of the fill and Mr. Ledwith again stated that he had no reason to believe that it is the same fill represented in the report. He would like to see a proper engineers plan. He feels that things got off on the wrong foot because of all the “little drawings.” Any other applicant would be required to submit a formal engineering plan. Commenting that he had a lot more to say but that he felt Mr. Zgonena did not want him to say it, he stated that the entire plan was “half baked.” He gave Mr. Zgonena permission to bring in a few inches of soil to clean up an area of his property, but it kept going.
Commenting that the Board really wanted to resolve the issue as it was an embarrassment to the Village and to “everybody else” and recognizing that she felt Mr. Zgonena also wanted to see things resolved, Chair Tocci reiterated Mr. Ledwith’s request for a formal engineering plan.

Engineer Richard Messer then provided a brief review of the engineering discussions that had taken place in June 2011, specifically outlining what their expectations had been at that time.

Mr. Zgonena expressed his frustration commenting that he has been trying to get approval to move forward with the plans as outlined by Mr. Messer and has been unable to do so. He further commented that his neighbor, Mr. Klemecki is experiencing drainage issues on his property and suggested that these are worsening as a result of the delay. He feels that the hillside can be sculpted in a way that will retain a majority of the rainwater on his land.
Board member Susan Boyle suggested that the simple solution to the problem was for Mr. Zgonena to comply with Mr. Ledwith’s request for a formal engineering plan, as this would satisfy everyone involved. Such a drawing would prove out the proper drainage as well the requests being made by Village engineers.

Mr. Zgonena conceded, but commented that this would require more work and more time. He requested that the Board allow him to do some work on the site. He would like to begin clean up of the chips, trees and leaves and then level the field in order to slope it away from Mr. Klemecki’s property.

Mr. Ledwith commented that the first thing Mr. Zgonena would need to do was to repair the drains in his driveway. He stated that the reason that all the water ends up at the bottom of the hill is because none of the drains in Mr. Zgonena’s lower driveway work.

Using Mr. Zgonena’s model as a guide, Mr. Ledwith showed where a single discharge of water currently flows from the property and suggested that if the drains were working that water would be diverted in different directions and this would help to alleviate the problem.
Mr. Zgonena disagreed, and stated that in his view, the problem was the entire hillside and not just the driveway.

Mr. Ledwith agreed that there are issues with the hillside, however without the drains functioning properly all of the water is being channeled down in one area.

Mr. Zgonena stated that in his view fixing the drains would not solve the problem.
Engineer Richard Messer interjected that the more directions the water is discharged in, the better it would be. He also stated that Mr. Zgonena should not be damming up the water and storing it on his property.

Mr. Zgonena agreed and using the model suggested it could be pushed in another direction.
Again, Mr. Messer stressed the importance of a formal engineering plan, stating that if they had such a drawing, they would not have to rely on pointing at a model.

Mr. Zgonena agreed to have a drawing made but wondered what should be done in the meantime to alleviate the situation on Mr. Klemecki’s property.

Board member Patrick Donaghy wondered whether or not some of the fill in question had spilled over the property line onto Mr. Klemecki’s land. Mr. Zgonena informed him that it had because the water had been pushing it downward.

Mr. Donaghy expressed surprise and concern that despite the informal way that Mr. Zgonena has gone about executing this project, he did not put in some sort of erosion control such as a silt fence and or hay bales. He cautioned that the spillover should be pulled back and a fence and bales put in place immediately so that the problem does not reoccur while they await the Engineer’s report. He further suggested that with level of fill there should have been compaction with lifts done, reviewed and certified in order to avoid landslides.
Mr. Zgoenena responded that this had been the intention last June when he had agreed to reduce the angle of the slope.

Mr. Donaghy responded that he understood this, however neither he nor Mr. Zgonena were certified engineers and that this was why they needed a proper engineering report with guidelines in order to make sure that the proper procedures were followed.

Mr. Zgonena responded that the angle of repose had been discussed in
June of 2011 and a determination had been made at that time with regard to changing the angle of the slope.

Mr. Donaghy stated everyone seemed to be in agreement that an engineer’s drawing was necessary and he reiterated that in the meantime, Mr. Zgonena should clean up the overflow of spill and install some type of erosion control. He suggested that Mr. Zgonena might provide a written description of any additional cleanup that he is proposing.

Mr. Zgonena replied that he would like to get the site to a place where he could work with it and that the feels that this would require the removal leaves, chips, and tree trunks. He feels it really needs to be leveled.

Chair Tocci then invited Mr. Zgonena’s neighbors to comment.

Steve Mauer stated that he did not trust Mr. Zgonena and he did not believe that he would do what he said he was going to. He feels Mr. Zgonena has abused the process. In his view things should have never been allowed to reach this point. Mr. Zgonena should have been required to appear before the BAR for approval just like everyone else. Initially, when the project commenced Mr. Zgonena told Mr. Mauer that he was constructing a berm to block out a play structure that Mr. Mauer had erected on his property. Mr. Mauer offered to take the structure down, but Mr. Zgonena assured him that this would not be necessary and told him that he would block it from view with some soil and seeds. However, the pile kept growing and growing and growing. Mr. Mauer alleged that Mr. Zgonena had been allowed to get away with this because he is a Trustee of the Village. If he had tried to do something similar he feels he would have been shut down immediately, however this point is irrelevant because he plays by the rules whether he likes it or not. He feels that in general, the work that Mr. Zgonena has done in the Village is fantastic and that he is a good guy, but like a lot of good people who do things he “did nine things right and one thing wrong.” This project is the wrong thing and in his view the berm needs to be removed and Mr. Zgonena should be forced to reapply for the project. Otherwise, it sets a negative precedent.
Mr. Zgonena responded by outlining a number of positive projects he has completed in the Village over the last several years.

Chair Tocci pointed out that Mr. Mauer had acknowledged this.

Mr. Zgonena retorted that Mr. Mauer had also stated that he did not trust him. The intention behind the project at hand is to create a beautiful tiered garden along Tower Hill Road.

Mr. Mauer pointed out that this was Mr. Zgonena’s subjective opinion and that it may in fact be right however, there were proper channels that he needed to go through to achieve that end Mr. Zgonena reiterated that this was exactly what he was trying to do and expressed his concern that once again he was not going to receive approval that evening.

Chair Tocci assured him that this was not the case and that he would be allowed to install erosion control and do a limited clean up the property before returning to the next meeting with a engineer’s report.

Mr. Klemecki stated that he believed that the initial fill had been contaminated and referencing the asphalt discovered therein, he expressed concern with potential seepage into the lake.
Mr. Zgonena reiterated his earlier point that the asphalt had come from his driveway and that he had already acknowledged his mistake.

Mr. Klemecki replied that regardless, he was now suspect as to whether what had originally been put there was entirely legal. He feels it could have been altered. He does not trust Mr. Zgonena either. He stated that he had never told Mr. Zgonena that he could cut down any trees and that he had never even been asked. Rather, a second (unidentified) party had asked him if Mr.. Zgonena might top some of the trees in order to have a lake view and in the spirit of being a good neighbor, he had agreed. In his view, topped trees does not mean 12 inches above the ground…and he certainly never agreed to 15 or 20. Permission was never granted. He feels that Mr. Zgonena says one thing in front of the Board and the public and another thing entirely when they have outside discussions. He commented that earlier Mr. Zgonena had referred to the stonewall as a “rubble wall of no importance’ but in another meeting he had expressed concern over the “historic wall” that divided the two properties.
Chair Tocci interjected that Mr. Zgonena had agreed to rebuild the wall to his neighbor’s satisfaction.

Mr. Klemecki stated that at the last meeting he had been given the impression that all of the fill would be removed from the property (and the Village) and the rock wall would be restored. Now another solution was being entertained.

Mr. Zgonena asserted that he had not been present at that meeting.

Mr. Klemecki retorted that he was sorry that Mr. Zgonena had not been present, but that he had been told that Mr. Zgonena has been asked to remove the fill and had been too embarrassed to attend the meeting and publicly agree.

Mr. Zgonena stated that he felt it was entirely inappropriate for the Board to come to any conclusions like this about his project when he was not present.

A tense and unpleasant discussion ensued following which it was agreed, as previously outlined, that Mr. Zgonena would return to the next meeting with a formal engineering plan.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review May 15, 2012

Regna - 15 Mtn. Farm Rd.- Renovations - 103-1-39
Niblo - 50 Cliff Rd. - Review updated plans - 106-1-65
Zgonena - 115 Tower Hill Rd. West - Site Work - 106-1-22
El-Rayess - 50 Crow's Nest Rd. - Dormers, Stone Work - 105-1-8
Minutes for approval

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 26 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday April 26 at 7pm. Board members Julia Simet and Susan Boyle were absent.

NIBLO – New Construction – Cliff Road – 106-1-65

The applicants’ Architect John Ferraro presented the latest set of plans to the BAR and discussed the changes.

Mr. Ferraro indicated that they would like to put a 20-foot deep Belgium block apron at the entrance to the driveway. The BAR expressed its preference that they use an asphalt stone and chip treatment at the entrance of the driveway instead of Belgium block so as to better blend in with the gravel driveway. The applicant agreed to do so. The applicant also indicated they would like to line the gravel driveway with an aged Belgium block, and the BAR was in agreement with that idea. Mr. Ferraro was asked to update the plans to show that there would be no Belgium block apron.

Mrs. Niblo pointed out the areas on the plans where they would be using the bluestone slate and the areas where they would put gravel around the exterior of the house. The BAR asked Mr. Ferraro to update the plans to show the bluestone and gravel areas.

A discussion was held regarding the window styles. Mrs. Niblo showed the Board photos of stained glass window panels that they planned to install in the 3 casement windows on the front of the house and in the transom window. The BAR requested that Mr. Ferraro provide a plan showing the locations of the stained glass windows drawn to scale, and to include the divided window mullions where appropriate.

The Board members discussed the sample that had been constructed on site of the stone material to be used on the exterior of the house. They all felt it was an acceptable looking sample, but reiterated that the actual installation would need to be monitored closely so that the corners of the house looked like true full stones. The applicant agreed to do so.

Mr. Ferraro presented the BAR with photos for three different options of landscape lighting fixtures to be used along the driveway. The BAR and the applicant agreed on one style and discussed the location, the wattage, and height at which they would be installed. The BAR requested that Mr. Ferraro note on the plans the light fixture that was chosen and that he send a spec sheet on the fixture that was chosen for the file.

Mr. Ferraro presented the BAR with pictures of three different style options for the exterior lighting fixtures to be installed on the front of the house. The BAR and the applicant agreed on a style, and Mrs. Niblo indicated that they would be black. The BAR requested that a spec sheet be provided indicating the exact finish and size of the chosen fixture.

The BAR asked questions about the garage door style, material and color. Mrs. Niblo indicated that it would be made of wood and she wanted it to match as closely as possible to the mahogany front door. The Board asked the applicant to provide a sample of the mahogany front door and the garage door material to ensure they will match.

The BAR voted to approve the Niblo’s application for a new home on Cliff Road, on the condition that Mr. Ferraro make the requested changes to the architectural plans and that he submit the updated plans and other requested items before the next BAR meeting scheduled for May 15, 2012.

ZGONENA – Tower Hill Road – Landscaping – 106-1-22

Mrs. Tocci indicated for the record that Mr. Zgonena had contacted her by e-mail prior to the meeting and indicated that he was unable to attend because his wife had been in a car accident.

Mrs. Tocci asked Building Inspector John Ledwith to give an update on the matter. Mr. Ledwith indicated that he had sent Mr. Zgonena a letter notifying him of the list of items that BAR had requested at the previous BAR meeting on April 3, 2012, but that he had gotten no response from Mr. Zgonena.

Mrs. Tocci stated for the record that there were neighbors present and allowed them to comment. Robert Klimecki indicated that he had several telephone conversations with Mr. Zgonena since the last BAR meeting, and had received conflicting promises from him about resolutions to the problems and no indication of a timeline for the work. He also reminded the BAR that this matter had gone unresolved for over 11 months. Mr. Mauer also expressed that he had a conversation with Mr. Zgonena about a proposal that did not involve removing all the soil that had been dumped on the property, and Mr. Mauer wondered if the BAR was aware of the proposal.

Mrs. Tocci indicated that since they had not received any plans from Mr. Zgonena, they could not comment on his proposals, but the BAR was still expecting Mr. Zgonena to provide the items requested at the previous BAR meeting, including a plan to remove all the soil and debris dumped on his property, to replant the trees that had been cut on Mr. Klimecki’s property, and to restore the stone wall that was damaged on Mr. Klimecki’s property.

The BAR decided that considering that Mr. Zgonena’s wife had been in an accident, they would defer the matter to the next BAR meeting on May 15, 2012. Mrs. Tocci indicated that if Mr. Zgonena did not respond and appear at the meeting, the BAR would ask Mr. Ledwith to refer the matter to the Board of Trustees and the Village attorney to handle.

Trustee Lili Neuhauser was present and agreed that the matter had gone unresolved for too long and that it was unfair to the neighbors and devalued their properties.

Agenda for Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 26, 2012

Niblo – New Construction – Cliff Road – 106-1-65
Zgonena – Tower Hill Road – Landscaping 106-1-2

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 3, 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, April 3, 2011. Board members Julia Simet and Susan Boyle were absent.

Tuxedo Club – West Lake Road – Boat House:
A representative for the Tuxedo Club presented the Board with plans which outlined construction detail for the project and addressed engineering and containment issues as expressed by the BAR at a previous meeting. A significant barrier, consisting of a floating boom, silt fence and cauffer dam will be erected between the site and the Tuxedo Lake in order to prevent contamination of the reservoir. Additionally, netting will be installed during construction of the foundation. A dewatering process will be implemented and this was also briefly outlined. The Club must now choose a contractor for the work before any further details can be ironed out. When asked for comment, both Village Engineer Rich Messer and Building Inspector John Ledwith stressed that the implementation of these construction details would be both crucial and pivotal to the project.

The BAR then completed a brief review of the exterior plans. The proposed structure will be made of red cedar shingles and will be sealed. (the building will be allowed to weather) The windows will be painted with green trim.

Following some further brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project as presented.

Niblo – Cliff Road – New Construction:
Together with her architect, Mrs. Niblo presented the Board with revised plans for a new home to be constructed on Cliff Road. The Planning Board has given the project their approval. Changes reflected in the new plans include slight shifting of the footprint to allow for a larger driveway and relocation of the garage doors to the side of that structure. Various samples were presented and discussed. There was a great deal of discussion surrounding the stone sample, which many of the Board members felt was too yellow in color. It was suggested that Mrs. Niblo pursue a more indigenous color pallet for the stonework. Additionally, there was some concern with the installation of the stone and how it would look once installed, particularly on the corners of the home. Mrs. Niblo explained that she was not at all interested in darker, grey colored stone, which she feels would be “dark and depressing” on her wooded lot. Rather, in keeping with the French-esque design of the home, she would like to go with a light color. She referenced the house located at 1 East Lake Road as an example, commenting that she would gladly forgo the use of stone for stucco if that was what was necessary to achieve the correct color. Mrs. Niblo’s architect commented that although he understood some of the Board’s concern with the stone, he felt that they shouldn’t sacrifice the use of this material because of concern over how the laborers might install it. He suggested that as long as the stone was mortared correctly, it would look great. Slate samples for the roof were also presented and discussed as were driveway plans. Board Chair Paola Tocci suggested that the proposed driveway light fixtures should be simplified so as not to compete with the gate as proposed.

Zgonena – Landscaping:
Mr. Zgonena was not present. Board Chair Paola Tocci asked Building Inspector John Ledwith to provide an update on the landscaping situation at Mr. Zgonena’s Tower Hill home, specifically as it relates to the grading and site work that was agreed upon in June of 2011. Mr. Ledwith reported having met with Mr. Zgonena the previous Friday (3/30) at which time Mr. Zgonena presented him plans for the work to be done, which he believed complied with the BARs June 2011 decision. Mr. Ledwith disagreed with this assessment as the proposed plan called for redistribution of the fill rather than removal. On April 3, Mr. Ledwith and Engineer Rich Messer visited the property of Mr. Robert Klimecki, whose property abuts Mr. Zgonena’s, and viewed the situation from a “down slope” perspective. Mr. Zgonena was also present. After viewing the situation from Mr. Klimecki’s property, Mr. Ledwith stated that he could not support anything short of complete removal of the fill and that even this would not address complaints from neighbors with regard to the property damage they have suffered as well as the composition of the fill itself (there have been reports of asphalt) and any adverse effects this may have had on the surrounding environment. After the fill has been removed, soil will need to be brought in to help with reconstructive landscaping. Although this news frustrated Mr. Zgonena greatly, he agreed to remove 600 cubic yards of the fill (and estimated 40 tandem truck loads) from his property and out of the Village.

Board Chair Paola Tocci asked Mr. Ledwith whether Mr. Zgonena had agreed to a specific time frame for the removal.

Mr. Ledwith replied that an exact schedule for removal would still need to be determined.
He then reported that in addition to the situation with the fill, Mr. Zgonena had also cut down 15 trees on Mr. Klimecki’s property without permission. Also, a series of old stone walls that used to exist in the woods between the two properties had been altered and in some spots completely destroyed. He feels strongly that there needs to be a specific time line for the removal especially considering that Mr. Zgonena agreed to remediate the situation back in June of 2011 but nothing has been done.

Chair Tocci agreed and further commented that she would like Mr. Zgonena to appear at the next BAR meeting so that such a schedule could be determined. She then reported that the BAR was in receipt of several letters of complaint from concerned residents however, she was not going to read them into the record at that time because she was not sure whether or not Mr. Zgoenana had been given the opportunity to review them yet. These letters can be viewed by clicking here.

Chair Tocci then noted that several of Mr. Zgonena’s neighbors were present and invited them to comment.

Robert Klimecki expressed further concern with regard to the stone wall that used to run along the property line between his and Mr. Zgonenas’ properties, referring to it as having been “pretty much obliterated.” He also inquired about the amount of fill that Mr. Zgonena has agreed to remove and specifically whether the Board knew what percentage of what was originally dumped on the property was represented by 600 cubic yards.

Village Engineer Rich Messer responded that he didn’t know for sure as the pre-existing condition had not been evaluated. However, Mr. Zgonena has informed them that the 600 cbic yards is equal to about what he brought in.

Chair Tocci expressed some concern at this, commenting that it would be important that Mr. Zgonena remove everything he had originally brought in.

Mr. Messer replied that because the topography of the hillside had been altered, it would be difficult to ensure that this would happen. That being said, in looking at a sample of the fill, he felt that as the removal process progressed, it would be easy to delineate between what had been there previously and what had been brought in.

Chair Tocci inquired of Mr. Klimecki whether or not there had been any notable silt or damage to his property.

Mr. Klimecki responded that there had been damage in that the majority of the topsoil on his property had been washed away leaving behind what looked like 2 ruts that look like dry riverbeds and exposing the tree roots below. He felt that moving forward, he might need to dig a ditch in order to divert the water. Again, he mentioned the rock wall, commenting that he was concerned about the restoration as it had been very old and in its current condition is would be next to impossible to determine what it had originally looked like in terms of its height and width. He wondered whether the reconstruction process would be monitored in if the BAR would have final approval in terms of what it would look like.

Mr. Ledwith replied that yes, the restoration process would be closely monitored.
Mr. Klimecki reiterated that the wall had been tampered with and built up in certain spots with non-native stone in an effort to retain the fill. Additionally, he informed the Board that Mr. Zgonena has stockpiled logs on the wooded section of the property. Mr. Klimecki then referenced the June 2011 BAR meeting and commented that Mr. Zgonena had at that time agreed to move the fill back 25ft and also to change the angle of the slope. He expressed some frustration with the fact that nothing was ever done. He then further expressed his concern with regard to the contents of the fill, commenting that not only had he seen asphalt in it, but he believes that Mr. Zgonena has tampered with the overall contents over time. Because of the property’s close proximity to the Tuxedo Lake, he particularly concerned about potential contamination and stated that he would like the Village to indemnify him of any future responsibility should it turn out that toxins have leached into the ground and from there into the Lake via his property.

Finally, he requested that Mr. Zgonena replace the trees that he removed, stating that he found it incredulous that Mr. Zgonena had originally implied that he should be thanked for having removed them. These trees played an important role in the landscape and their removal has only compounded runoff issues.

Steve Mauer, whose property also abuts Mr. Zgonena’s, commented that when he had asked Mr. Zgonena back in June of 2011 how much fill he had dumped on the property, the response he was given was “lots.” He then reiterated the importance of making sure that all the fill is removed. He stated that he has two young children, ages 7 and 9, and he feels that it is currently unsafe for them to play in the back yard due the large pile of logs that Mr. Zgonena is keeping on his property above. He stressed the importance of making sure that everything was removed safely and suggested that the Village put in place a strict regiment to monitor the progress of removal.

Chair Tocci agreed with this and once again stated her belief that a clear time frame for removal must be established.

Mr. Mauer then wanted to know why Mr. Zgonena was not present.

Mr. Ledwith reported that Mr. Zgonena had informed him that he would not be attending and had indicated that this was because he was embarrassed over the situation.
Mr. Mauer then echoed Mr. Klimecki’s concern about possible contamination and requested that he also be indemnified of future responsibility.

Mary Rose Stevens commented that she agreed with all of Mr. Klimecki and Mr. Mauer’s points. She pointed out that the bern had also had an extremely negative effect on the neighborhood’s aethetics and that in many ways, the land was now barren.
Chair Tocci asked Mr. Mauer if Mr. Zgonena had removed any trees from his property without permission, and Mr. Mauer confessed that he wasn’t sure, although he stated that the area behind his house used to be a “thick bramble” and that it had been opened up.
Board member Robert Simon suggested that the removal of the fill should not be designated in cubic yards, but that rather Mr. Zgonena should be made to remove everything that was originally brought in. He further suggested that a landscaping plan must be developed in order to mitigate the loss of trees and the unsightly views.

With regard to the trees, Board member Patrick Donoughy pointed out that while some people might point to history noting that there were once far fewer trees in the Village and while others still may point to current issues and the various dangers that in exist from trees in certain spots throughout the Village, the bottom line was that Mr. Zgonena had removed trees from his neighbor’s property without their permission. Additionally, the berm he illegally created poses a potential environmental threat to his neighbors and to the lake. He echoed the sentiment that an erosion plan must be put in place and strictly monitored. He wondered if the Village had the power to enforce such a plan.

The Village attorney replied that the Building Department had the authority to enforce these regulations.

Chair Tocci then thanked everyone for their comments and for their patience. She stated that the BAR looks forward to a “speedy and just resolution to this matter.”

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 3, 2012

Tuxedo Club -West Lake Rd.- Boat House Rebuild- 107-1-3
Zgonena- Ridge Rd.- Driveway Changes- 106-1-57.2
Zgonena- Tower Hill Rd. - Landscaping - 106-1-22
Niblo- Cliff Rd.- New Construction- 106-1-65

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 23, 2012

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, February 23 at 7pm. Board members Robert Simon and Susan Boyle were absent.

Niblo – New Construction – Cliff Rd: Attorney Dennis Lynch addressed the Board on behalf of the Niblos with regard to the garage doors as proposed. The location of the doors had been previously discussed on two occasions and the BAR advised the applicant that they feel the doors should be located on the far side of the structure in order to reduce site disturbance during construction of the driveway and to minimize the visual impact of the structure from the road. The Niblos disagree with this assessment and would like to proceed with the doors as initially proposed, which is on the front elevation of the structure facing the roadway. Mr. Lynch presented the Board with photographs, depicting 25 other structures in the Village (mostly old carriage houses) where the garage doors are located on the front elevation of the structure. He aggressively asserted his position that the BAR was not in a legal position to determine where the doors would ultimately be placed. Siting the fact that the Design Guidelines not yet in effect and Championing “property owners rights” he reminded the Board of their self proclaimed “open arms policy” and requested that they provide his client with some direction that evening so that they could determine how to proceed.

Board Chair Paola Tocci responded that the BAR did indeed maintain an “open arms policy.” She reminded Mr. Lynch that under normal circumstances, applicants did not appear before the BAR until they had received approval from the Planning Board, but in this case, an exception had been made. She further commented that she did not necessarily agree with Mr. Lynch’s suggestion that the BAR had no legal right to determine the positioning of the doors. She asked Consulting Architect Barry Rice for his Opinion.

Mr. Rice commented that although the geometry of the driveway could probably be changed to allow for the doors on the front of the structure, this change could ultimately have adverse effects on drainage and sewer plans (positioning of leach field etc). He wondered what harm there was in complying with the boards’ suggestion, which was consistent with what they have traditionally encouraged.

Mrs. Niblo commented that the Planning Board seemed unwilling to consider either resizing or relocating the proposed leach field and that this was creating problems.

Ms. Tocci then suggested that it might be prudent to arrange a joint meeting with the Planning Board ASAP so that the BAR could get a better understanding of what they have suggested and the reasoning behind it. This would, in turn, help them to reach a better determination.

Mr. Lynch was not satisfied with this suggestion. He suggested that the BAR was purposely delaying their decision. He inquired of Village Council as to whether or not the proposed Design Guidelines would be made retro active once approved and intimated that the Board was stalling so that they could apply the guidelines to the Niblo Application.

The Village Attorney responded that she did not know whether or not the design guidelines would be made retro active once approved, however the BAR was not in position to issue any approvals until the Planning Board had given their approval and therefore, Mr. Lynch’s inferred accusation was not applicable.

Following some further testy debate, it was agreed that Ms. Tocci would reach out to Planning Board chair JoAnn Hansen for the purpose of scheduling a joint meeting as soon as possible.

Beard – Driveway gate, Pool, garage, tennis court, restoration of porch – East Lake Road:Plans for the addition of a driveway gate, pool, garage and tennis court as well as the reconstruction and restoration of existing porches at the home on East Lake Road were presented and discussed. The Applicant requires a variance from the BZA before they can proceed with the driveway gate as proposed because it exceeds the 4ft limitation set forth in the Village Code. The BAR is pleased with the gate the design and will write a letter to the BZA in favor of the variance. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the porches and specifically the safety of a proposed walkway connecting the two. Consulting Architect Barry Rice agreed to review safety regulations and report back. The size of the pool as well as positioning of both the tennis court and the garage was briefly reviewed and discussed. There was some question as to the overall visibility of the project from the Lake and Building Inspector John Ledwith reminded the Board that a significant portion of the property falls within in the Ridgeline Overlay District, which gives them the right to request additional information if they deem it necessary. Following some further discussion, it was agreed that once the applicant had received their variance from the BZA, they would return to the BAR with more developed drawings, including specific measurements and equipment specs, as well as a storm water analysis and a lighting plan.

Design Guidelines: Consulting Architect (and Guidelines author) Stephen Tilly was on hand for the Boards review of the final draft. Prior to the review he remarked that although he felt the guidelines would help to clarify the overall process, individual decisions would still depend on the Boards interpretation as to what is appropriate in each specific circumstance. The Board then completed a page-by-page review of the document, making several minor tweeks in the process. It was then agreed that Mr. Tilly would make the necessary revisions and return to the BAR for a final review. The guidelines will be officially presented to the BOT during the month of March.

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review February 23, 2012

Niblo - New Construction - Cliff Rd. - 106-1-65
Beard - Driveway gate, pool, garage, tennis court, restoration of porch - East Lake Rd. 105-1-20.21
Design Guidelines

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review February 7, 2012

Niblo - New Construction - Cliff Rd. - 106-1-65

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Cancelled

Please be advised that the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Architectural Review on January 17, 2012 has been canceled due to the lack of any agenda items. The next meeting of the Board of Architectural Review is scheduled on February 7, 2012 at 7:00 p.m.

If you have any questions regarding the meeting schedule, please contact John Ledwith, Secretary for the Board of Architectural Review, at (845) 351-4745 ext. 11.

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 20, 2011

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, December 20, 2011 at 7pm. Board member Susan Boyle was absent.

NIBLO – CLIFF RD. – NEW CONSTRUCTION:
On behalf of Sue and Kevin Niblo, Architect Ferarro presented the Board with revised site plans, reflecting additions and changes as discussed at a prior meeting. Additionally, window, slate and stone samples were presented. There was a lengthy discussion regarding the applicants’ choice of stone and the possible challenges of installation. It was agreed that they would research new options and return to the next meeting with a swatch as well as a swatch of the slate. Potential location of garage doors was also briefly discussed as was as the addition of plantings in the center of the driveway to be located on top of the proposed septic system.

DESIGN GUIDELINES:
The Board completed a section-by-section review of the draft document, which was authored by consulting architect Stephen Tilly. Board Chair Paola Tocci expressed her desire to see a fluid document that leaves room for interpretation and innovation and that can be evolved over time. In her view, the Goal of the proposed guidelines is to provide a framework for applicants, which clearly lets them know what they can and can’t do but also encourages new ideas. Board Attorney Rich Golden cautioned the BAR that it would be important to clearly define the purpose of the guidelines in the introduction and that while fluidity might be important, it was equally if not more important to anchor it with critical elements. He pointed out that Mr. Tilly has misclassified the Village as a Historic District in the draft and that this has a great deal of bearing on the rest of the information there-in. He explained that within a historic district, there are specific processes that must be undertaken when making changes or additions as well as limitations on what can be done. While the Village of Tuxedo Park is listed on the National Registry of Historic Places, this does not mean it is a historic district. The Board agreed that this misclassification altered the way in which the document was viewed and it was agreed that they would ask Mr. Tilly to contact Mr. Golden to further discuss. Mr. Golden suggested that the Board complete their review, identifying elements for discussion and being as specific as possible about what they wanted to see while clearly outlining what the exceptions would be. The review was then completed, with Board Secretary Grimmig making detailed notes of changes and suggestions, which will be put together and presented to Mr. Tilly, who will attend a January meeting of the BAR.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 20, 2011

Niblo - Cliff Rd. - New Construction - 106-1-65
Design Guidelines
Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 15, 2011

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, November 15 at 7pm. Board members Julia Simet and Susan Boyle were absent.

Parr – 174 East Lake Road – Driveway Gates :
Gary Parr discussed his application to install driveway entry gates in order to help keep deer off his property. In addition to concerns about Lyme disease, he also wishes to restore historic gardens on his property and wants to protect the gardens from being destroyed by deer.
Mr. Parr described that the gates would be installed on already existing stone pillars along his driveway. The gates design is in keeping with old style iron gates, they will be 6.5 feet high, made of steel, and colored black. He also indicated that deer fencing would be installed so that it would not be obviously visible from the road.
The Board voted unanimously to approve Mr. Parr’s application to install a driveway entry gate.
The Board then noted that recently several residents in the Village had installed driveway gates without the required approval and praised Mr. Parr for taking the appropriate steps to get his front gate approved.

Voldstad – 52 Turtle Mountain Road – Tree Removal :
Jim Wickes of Wickes tree service appeared on behalf of the Voldstads who wished to remove two trees and trim others on their property. Building Inspector John Ledwith noted that normally under the code a resident can remove two trees per year without approval, but since the Voldstad property is located within the Ridgeline & Precipice Overlay District, and any tree removal on the property must have approved by the Board.
Mr. Wickes explained that the trees to be removed were a large red oak that poses a dangerous hazard to the house and a dead ash tree. He also explained which trees would be trimmed.
The Board discussed concern that the tree trimming would not look natural and cause the already prominently visible house to be even more visible from across the Lake. Mr. Wickes explained the trimming method called crown reducing, which involves artistically removing portions of the trees in a manner that evenly disburses the trimming as opposed to just topping the trees. He explained that crown reducing would never remove more then 1/3 of the overall tree. Mr. Wickes said that crown reducing was controlled by industry standards that were put in place to make sure trees were not destroyed by over trimming.
The Board discussed whether a photo simulation should be done to show what the house would look like after trimming, or if a site visit could be done in the middle of the project to make sure that the trees are not over trimmed. It was determined that a photo simulation would be an unnecessary expense and possibly inaccurate, and determined that due to the professional reputation of Mr. Wickes and his company, that they could be trusted to trim the trees properly without needing a site visit mid-project.
The Board voted unanimously to approve the Volstad’s application for tree removal and tree trimming under the condition that it be done using the industry standards for crown reducing.
The Board then expressed their gratitude that the Voldstads were following the correct procedures of seeking approval for tree removal as required under the Ridgeline & Precipice Law because there had been recent incidents in the Park where residents had not done so, resulting in undesirable and unprofessional outcomes.

Tuxedo Club – 1 West Lake Road – Boathouse:
Antonio Iello, the architect for the Tuxedo Club Boathouse project, presented the latest plans for the renovations. He explained that he had made all the changes to the plans that the BAR had requested at the previous meeting. The ventilation system was moved to inside the building and would vent through louvers, the windows would be true divided light windows, the lighting on the exterior of the building would be shaded in order to reduce glare across the lake. The building would have a wooden shingle exterior that would be left to weather naturally, and the trim would be painted dark green.
Mr. Iello also described the methods they planned to use to protect the Tuxedo Lake during construction, including placing booms in the lake with mesh to the lake bottom, and doing the demolition and debris removal by hand.
Board Engineer Carl Stone had questions regarding the decision to have a poured foundation as opposed to a foundation supported by piles driven into the ground. Mr. Iello indicated that he would have their engineer explore the pile driven foundation option further.
Mr. Iello agreed to return to the next meeting with answers to the engineering questions.

Biagioni – 35 West Lake Stable Road – Paint Color Change:
Mr. & Mrs. Biagioni appeared requesting approval for paint colors on their home, which is currently under renovation. They presented color samples and a photo of a similarly painted house. Currently the stucco on the house is old and yellowing and the wood timbers are brown, they proposed a white stucco with a light blue color for the trim and house timbers.
The Board unanimously voted to approve the Biagioni application.

Neuhauser – 4 Stable Road – Copper Gutters & Patio:
Mrs. Neuhauser was present to discuss her application to install copper gutters on her home and replace an existing brick patio with stone. She explained that the changes to the patio and addition of gutters were part of a project to try and resolve drainage issues and flooding in her house. She showed the BAR a sample of the stone to be used on the patio and a sample of the copper gutter material.
Board Engineer Carl Stone asked some questions regarding the direction of the water run-off from the property.
The Board then voted unanimously to approve Mrs. Neuhauser’s application.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 15, 2011

Parr - 174 East Lake Rd. - Driveway Gates - 105-1-20.1
Voldstad - 52 Turtle Mtn. Rd. - Tree removal - 103-1-20
Tuxedo Club - 1 West Lake Rd. - Boathouse - 107-1-3
Biagioni - 35 West Lake Stable Rd. - Paint Color Change - 104-1-27
Neuhauser - 4 Stable Rd. - Copper Gutters and Patio - 107-1-56

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 20 2011

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on September 20 2011 at 7:00pm. Board member Susan Boyle was absent. Consulting architect Barry Rice was present.

Chair Paola Tocci began the meeting by welcoming the Board’s newest member, Patrick Donahey. As the owner of a construction management business, Mr. Donahey brings a wealth of knowledge as well as a long legacy of experience to the Board.

Tuxedo Club – 1 West Lake Rd. – Boathouse:
The Tuxedo Club’s Boathouse is not in good shape. There is rot in many places as well as foundation damage. Additionally, the current structure is prone to flooding. Plans for a new boathouse, to be located in the same spot and on the same footprint were presented and discussed. The new building will be raised a total of 18 inches in order to alleviate the flooding issues. The Façade will be revised to include more windows, which will give the building more of a residential look. The garage-type doors on the lakeside of the structure will be eliminated. Longer windows will replace smaller ones on the back the building and windows will also be added to the north side. Shutters will be installed on all windows so that the building can be properly closed up in the winter. An office for the Boat Master will be constructed in the Southern corner of the building and a separate door added for access. Boats will be loaded and unloaded via rolling doors on the north and south ends. The building will have a cedar finish with hunter green trim. The existing docks in front will be removed and replaced in order to accommodate the new elevation.

Village Engineer Carl Stone expressed some concern about the foundation and specifically the idea of spread footings. He commented that they would need to take a very careful approach to the construction because of its proximity to the lake.
Village Attorney Rick Golden asked of Building Inspector John Ledwith if he anticipated any issues with the Village Code in terms of the proposed applicants pre-existing, non-conforming status. Mr. Ledwith responded that the Village is not viewing this as a new structure, but rather the re-construction of an existing one, so he does not foresee any issues of this nature.

Specifics were then discussed at some length, including the pitch of the roof (which will be steeper), the specs on the office door, the windows and some further discussion of the footings and the buildings’ foundation.
It was agreed that the applicant would review these items as well as those that had laid out in a memo from Carl Stone and return to the next meeting.

Volsatd – 52 Turtle Mountain Road- Tree Removal:
As the applicant was not present, it was agreed that the application would be added to the next meetings’ agenda.

Niblo – Cliff Rd. – New Construction:
Plans for the new home to be located on Cliff Road were presented and discussed. Although this application is still before the Village Planning Board, the Applicant was asked to review the plans with the BAR for the purpose of receiving their initial feedback. Board Chair Paola Tocci read into the record a letter, submitted by residents of the abutting property, in which they request that the Niblos please consider preserving the wooded area that divides the two lots. Mrs. Niblo explained that there are no plans to alter that area of the property. The Applicants architect then gave a brief overview of the plan in progress, including thoughts on materials as well as interior layout. There was some discussion with regard to the placement of the garage doors as this will greatly impact the manner in which the driveway is created. It was agreed that although it might cause more site disturbance in the end, the doors should be placed on the far side of the structure. The Applicant will now continue with the Planning Board process and return before the BAR once the appropriate approvals have been granted.

Design Guidelines:
Board Chair Paola Tocci requested that all Board members review the current draft of the design guidelines and prepare comments to be discussed at their next meeting on October 4.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 20 2011

Tuxedo Club - 1 West Lake Rd. - Boathouse - 107-1-3
Voldstad - 52 Turtle Mtn. Rd. - Tree Removal- 103-1-20
Niblo - Cliff Rd. - New Construction - 106-1-65
Design Guidelines

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 19, 2011

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on July 19, 2011 at 7:00pm. Consulting Architect Barry Rice was present. Deputy Chair Robert Simon was absent.

Hempel – 14 Butternut Rd. – New Garage, Patio Enclosure:

Together with her architect, Chiu Yin Hempel presented the Board with plans for 2 projects at her home on Butternut Rd. The first of these is the enclosure of an existing patio, involving the construction of a glass wall and the addition of sliding glass doors. Details were discussed. The second project is the addition of a free standing, one story, two-car garage with opaque glass doors. As the property is located within the ridgeline/precipice overlay district, there were several regulations to be discussed. Following a review of these, during which it was determined that the project would pose little to no visual impact, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application, conditional upon review of a sample of the opaque glass to be used in the garage doors.

Nicholson – 80 Clubhouse Rd. – Paving Stones, Gutters, Screen door, Entrance Steps:

Mr. Nicholson presented the Board with a paving stone as requested as well as revised plans including a photograph outlining the design of the front entrance and steps. Following a brief discussion regarding the gutters, steps, railing and screen door, the Board unanimously approved the application with the condition that once Mr. Nicholson began repairs to a crumbling stone wall located along the driveway, the Board conduct a site visit to approve the look of the mortar.

Sendowski – Lookout Stable Road – New Construction

Mr. and Mrs. Sendowski, along with design and landscape architects, presented the Board with revised plans for their new home to be built on Lookout Stable Road. Major changes included a slight southward shift of the home in order to relax the grading and the addition of a 6-foot retaining wall with steps leading up to a rear patio. Board Chair Paola Tocci informed the Sendowski’s that their stone wall sample had been reviewed via a site visit and that while it looks nice, the mortar lines must be narrower and tighter. Possible location of utilities was discussed. The applicant presented two window samples, one aluminum and one wooden. After a brief discussion, during which the Board informed the applicant that aluminum windows are not typically used in the Village due to a number of varied reasons, it was agreed that the wooden windows would be used. The Board then unanimously approved the application.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 19, 2011

Nicholson - 80 Clubhouse Rd. - Paving stones, gutters, screen door, entrance steps 107-1-36
Sendowski - Lookout Stable Rd. - New construction - 107-1-114
Hempel- 14 Butternut Rd. - New Garage, patio enclosure - 106-1-59.11

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 7, 2011

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, June 7, 2011. Consulting Architect Barry Rice was in attendance. Board member Julia Simet was absent.

Madden – 64 Tower Hill Loop – Windows, landscaping, pillars, retaining walls:

Revised plans for the project were presented and discussed. As per the Boards previous recommendation, the applicant has decided not to lower window sills located on the rear of the home and will lower the heads only. New window encasements will be installed. Landscaping plans for the terrace area were presented and discussed at length as were plans for partially preserving an existing retaining wall as well as adding additional walls. Placement and screening of a utility box was also discussed. Village Engineer Carl Stone raised some minor drainage issues and it was agreed that these could be handled by the Building Inspector at the permitting level should the Board approve the project. As the home is located in the Ridgeline/Precipice Overlay District, Board Attorney Rick Golden reviewed the necessary requirements for the project and it was agreed that all had been satisfied or could be waived.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project conditional upon the receipt and of a drainage plan and approval thereof by both the Building Inspector and Village Engineer.

Sendowski – Lookout Stable Rd. – New Construction:

Revised plans for the project to be located on Lookout Stable Road were presented. The applicant has downsized the proposed home drastically, removing an entire wing. A multitude of changes were reviewed and samples for both the cedar roof and windows were presented. The applicant is planning a tar and chip driveway and Legacy Stoneworks will construct a stone wall. The Board expressed pleasure with the revisions and it was agreed that a site visit would be conducted in the near future.

Craig – 23 Ridge road – Belgian Block Apron –

Mr. Craig of 23 Ridge Road appeared before the Board to request permission to install a Belgian block apron on his driveway. Currently, there is black top there. After a brief discussion, the Board unanimously approved the application.

Nicholson – 80 Clubhouse Rd. – Paving stones, gutters, screen door, entrance steps:

Alexander Nicholson presented the Board with plans to replace his existing gravel driveway with paving stones. Additionally, he would like install new gutters and rebuild a stone wall which will need to be removed as part of the construction process. He is also looking to install new entrance steps as well as a screen door. Potential drainage issues and the need for new run-off calculations were discussed as were materials for the project. Board Chair Paola Tocci expressed some concern with the color pallet commenting that in her view grey would blend better with the home than the lighter colors proposed. It was agreed that Building Inspector John Ledwith would put together a to-do list for the applicant to be completed before the next meeting.

Zgonena – Roofing Change:

Revised plans for the new roof dormers were presented and briefly discussed. Mr. Zgonena would like to install stone bases to the pillars in front of the home, to be constructed of fieldstone, which will be mined from the property. After minimal discussion, the Board unanimously approved the application.

Zgonena- Grading/site Work:

Mr. Zgonena updated the Board on his plans to complete the grading and site work at his property on Tower Hill Road. These include a reduction in the grade of the slope to 18 degrees as well as landscaping in the form of various plantings.

Two of Mr. Zgonena’s neighbors were present to voice their concerns. Robert Klimecki, whose property boarders Mr. Zgonenas, commented that he feels his property has been devalued because of this project. Commenting that from his property the project looks like “highway construction,” he read into the record a letter he had sent to Mr. Zgonena in November of 2010, which clearly outlined his many concerns. These include property erosion, damage to a stone-wall, trees removed from his property by Mr. Zgonena without permission and concerns about the quality of the fill, in which he thinks he has seen pieces of asphault. He requested that Mr. Zgonena repair the stone wall and replace the trees he had removed without permission.

Board Chair Paola Tocci inquired as to how many trees had been removed and Mr. Klimecki responded that he believed the count to be 10 or 12.

Mr. Zgonena stated that many if not all of the trees in question had been consumed by an evasive vine and that while they gave the appearance of having been alive, this was not actually the case. He further commented that he believed he had probably saved Mr. Klimecki the trouble of having to remove the trees himself.

Steve Mauer, whose property also borders Mr. Zgonenas’, expressed his concerns as well with regard to the potential hazards the project ahs created and how these might effect his property.

Chair Paola Tocci then requested a short recess, during which Mr. Zgonena and his neighbors talked amongst themselves and attempted to resolve their issues.

When the meeting was resumed it was agreed that Mr. Zgonena would move the “toe” of the slope back 15 feet from both Mr. Klimecki and Mr. Mauer’s property lines. There followed a lengthy discussion of the grade of the slope and how to best return it to it’s pre-existing condition given there is no record of what that condition was. Engineer Carl Stone suggested that Mr. Zgonena create a drawing showing a cross section of the slope at 3 or 4 locals and detailing what the grade used to be, what it is currently and what it will be. It was agreed that this would be done. Mr. Stone then inquired as to Mr. Zgonena’s plans for removing the excess fill and Mr. Zgonena responded that he intended to spread it out and fill in holes on his property, particularly behind the stone wall that runs along Tower Hill Road in order to stabilize it. Mr. Stone and Mr. Ledwith both expressed concern with this idea, commenting that the wall was not in any danger of collapse and that there are several large, trees in that area.

Board Chair Paola Tocci then announced that she would like to see this project approved that evening and inquired as to exactly what needed to be done to make that happen.

It as agreed that Mr. Zgonena would provide the following before a building permit was issued:

1. An updated plan of the slope area, including at least 3 profile cut-through sections of the slope each showing the following:

The original grade of the property;
The existing grade of the property; and
The proposed grade of the property with the toe of the slope set back 15 feet from the property line.

2. A site plan of the area where the fill will be relocated, including at least 2 cut-through profile sections of the area each showing the following:

The existing grade of the property; and
The proposed grade of the property.

3. An estimate of how much fill would be removed from the slope and relocated.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the project conditional upon the receipt of the above.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 7, 2011

Madden – 64 Tower Hill Loop - Windows, landscaping, pillars, retaining walls - 107-1-1
Sendowski – Lookout Stable Rd. – New construction – 107-1-114
Craig – 23 Ridge Rd. – Belgian block apron – 106-1-58.2
Nicholson – 80 Clubhouse Rd. – Paving stones, gutters, screen door, entrance steps – 107-1-36
Zgonena – 115 Tower Hill Rd. – Grading /site work – 106-1-22
Zgonena – 18 Ridge Rd. – Adding dormers to roof – 106-1-57.2
Beard – 214 East Lake Rd. – Gates – 105-1-20.21

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 24, 2011

Madden - 64 Tower Hill Loop - Windows, landscaping, pillars, retaining walls - 107-1-1

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Rescheduled

Please be advised that the May 17, 2011 regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of
Architectural Review has been canceled, and rescheduled on May 24, 2011 at 7:00p.m.

If you have any questions regarding the meeting schedule, please contact John Ledwith, Secretary for the Board of Architectural Review, at (845) 351-4745 ext. 11.

May 3 Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting cancelled

Please be advised that the regularly scheduled meeting of the Board of Architectural Review on May 3, 2011 has been canceled due to the lack of any agenda items. The next meeting of the Board of Architectural Review is scheduled on May 17, 2011 at 7:00 p.m.

If you have any questions regarding the meeting schedule, please contact John Ledwith, Secretary for the Board of Architectural Review, at (845) 351-4745 ext. 11.

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 19, 2011

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, April 19, 2011. Board member Susan Boyle was absent.

Marcus – 247 West Lake Rd. – Addition to house:
On behalf of the applicant, architect Brian Callahan presented the Board with plans as well as a photo simulation for a one-story addition to the home located at 247 West Lake rd. The 480 sq ft addition will house a billiard room complete with new fireplace and will be built outwards (rather than upwards) from the rear of the home over an existing crawl space. All materials, as well as windows, will be matched with those existing. A new stone chimney will also be constructed and a sample of stone was presented for the Boards approval. A balcony running the width of the addition will be installed and this will match the existing balconies on the home.
Village Engineer inquired as to whether or not the foundation would be pinned and was informed that it would. Following some further discussion, and some notations on the plans, the Board unanimously approved the project.

Chesney – 30 Lorillard Rd. – Pillars and Driveway Gate:
Having received the necessary variance from the Board of Zoning Appeals, an architect for the applicant presented the Board with plans for pillars and a driveway gate. Following some discussion regarding construction of the pillars, the Board unanimously approved the project contingent on the submission of a stone sample.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 19, 2011

Madden – 64 Tower Hill Loop - Windows, landscaping, pillars, retaining walls - 107-1-1
Marcus – 247 West Lake Rd. – Addition to house - 103-1-9.2
Chesney – 30 Lorillard Rd. – Pillars & driveway gate – 104-1-40
Wilson – 24 Pine Hill Rd. – Garage enclosure – 106-1-56.11

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 29, 2011

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on March 29, 2011 to consider the Donald Hanson application. All members were present.

Building Inspector John Ledwith and Village engineer Carl Stone expressed their concern with the structural stability of the dry-stacked walls as proposed. Specifically, they are worried that proposed piping behind the walls may fill with sediment and put pressure on the walls. They recommended that Mr. Hanson use gravel instead.

Mr. Ledwith then outlined the concerns expressed by Mr. Hanson’s neighbors, namely appearance of the proposed wall in the front yard and the potential for noise, and asked

Mr. Hanson if he would address them.

Mr. Hanson responded that in order to construct the walls so that they are as attractive as possible, the stone must be cut on site to fit together and this can be a noisy process. He assured the Board that he would make every effort to have the noise over with as soon as possible.

Following some further discussion regarding the size of the proposed plantings and the increase in patio coverage, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving Mr. Hanson’s application.

Following the Hanson approval, Mayor Stebbins appeared briefly before the Board to discuss guide rails on Tuxedo Road. Lamenting the fact that he did not have a sample of the rounded wooden rails and posts the Board had preciously expressed a preference for, he asked for their opinion on the idea of stone pillars with cable or chain connectors.

Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that she felt the construction of stone pillars would be more costly for the Village. Board member Susan Boyle commented that she did not like the idea of cable or chain connectors and suggested that a stone and timber combination would be more aesthetically pleasing. The Mayor responded that he was not sure if timber was an option. Following some further discussion, it was agreed that Mayor Stebbins would circulate a photo of the previously proposed wooden rails and posts via e-mail for the Board’s approval prior to the next meeting of the Trustees on April 6. The mayor is hopeful that the Trustees will sign-off on the project at that time so that the bid process can begin.

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 15, 2011

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on March 15, 2011 at 7:30 pm. Board member Susan Boyle was absent.

Madden – 64 Tower Hill Loop – Windows, Landscaping, Pillars, Retaining Walls:

An architect for the Applicant presented the Board with revised plans. Revisions were based on Board feedback from a previous meeting. There was a great deal of discussion with regard to lowering the basement windows for the purpose of hiding pipes and ductwork on the inside. . Because lowering the windows would involve the possible lowering their stone sills as well and this would entail a great deal of complicated work, the Board suggested that the Applicant consider alternatives. Consulting architect Barry Rice inquired as to whether or not it might be possible to relocate said ductwork and pipes, thus alleviating the need to shift everything down, but was told that the sewer pipe would be extremely difficult to move. Board member Julia Simet suggested a chase wall and this idea was discussed, however it was determined that the sewer pipe would cause an issue. The Applicant’s architect then suggested lowering the window heads only and keeping the sills in place, which would create smaller windows. Board member Robert Simon commented that he liked the idea of smaller windows. Barry Rice then suggested rerouting the sewer pipe to run through the floor, which would allow the Applicant to leave the windows high and consider a chase wall. Board engineer Carl stone agreed that this was a possibility.

The Applicant’s landscape architect then presented plans for a 14ft wide patio in the rear of the home. In an effort to avoid installing a guardrail, the Applicant would like to construct several small retaining walls on the hillside below. Building Inspector John Ledwidth inquired as to the square footage of the proposed patio and reminded the applicant that Village Code restricts the percentage of porches and terraces so that they cannot exceed 25% of the ground floor of the home. (Section 100-9) Noting that there are existing terraces, he recommended that the Applicant determine what the percentage would be with the proposed patio included before moving forward. He also commented that because the home is located in the Ridgeline/Precipice Overlay District, photo simulation might be required. Board attorney Rick Golden then stated that if the Board determines that there is not potential for adverse visual effect on the environment from the project as proposed, photo simulation is not necessary. He suggested that the Board contact their visual consultant to come out and review the project.

The Board then discussed landscaping and Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that she would like to see less “hardscape” and more details regarding the plantings to be used. Materials were also discussed and it was determined that due to the amount of sun that section of the property receives, the proposed bluestone might become too hot to comfortably walk on.

It was agreed that the applicant would take these comments into consideration and return to the Board in two weeks time.

The Village of Tuxedo Park – Tuxedo Road Guard Rails:

On behalf of the Board of Trustees, Mayor Stebbins and Trustee Zgonena presented the Board with a packet of information prepared by Village engineers Westin and Sampson outlining several options for guardrails on Tuxedo Road. Explaining that the Village is subject to certain engineering requirements, standards and restrictions as well as monetary constraints, the Mayor informed the Board that the Village has budgeted $300,00 for the project, which requires 3000 linear feet of railing ($100 per linear foot of rail installed) He asked for their feedback on the affordable designs as presented. Board engineer Carl Stone gave a brief review of the options, explaining that the rails must have steel backing in order to meet the necessary standards. A somewhat lengthy discussion ensued. The BAR was in agreement that because these rails mark the entry way to the Village and thus serve as a welcome to all those entering and could have an effect on property values within, the aesthetics are key. It was agreed that although wooden rails with steel posts are more cost effective, that incasing the steel posts in wood would look much better. The Mayor responded that they would take this into consideration and come back to the Board in two weeks time.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 15, 2011

Madden - 64 Tower Hill Loop - Windows, landscaping, pillars, retaining walls - 107-1-1

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 21, 2010

The Village Planning Board met on December 21, 2010 at 7pm. Board members Susan Boylr and Joseph McCann were absent.

Chair Tocci opened the meeting by announcing that the Board of Trustees had appointed Joseph McCann to the BAR at the previous BOT meeting.

MADDEN – Tower Hill Road – Landscaping, windows, utilities, walls – 107-1-1

Mr. & Mrs. Sean Madden, along with their architect Jeffrie Lane, and landscape designer Chris Carlson, were present to discuss renovations to their house and landscaping changes. The plans include replacing a deteriorating retaining wall in the back of the house and installing a new patio area, removing portions of a stone wall that blocks light into the basement windows in the rear, and relocating the existing utility units, including the A/C and tanks, so they are no longer visible from the lake side.

Village Engineer Carl Stone stressed that the removal of portions of stonewall under the elevated terrace should be done in a manner so as not to compromise the support columns for the terrace. He also requested an engineering plans be provided for the proposed new retaining walls and requested drainage calculations for the new patio area.

The Board indicated that in addition to the requested engineering items, it would like to perform a site visit. Mr. Ledwith agreed to notify the applicant of the date and time of the site visit.

SENDOWSKI – Lookout Stable Road – New Construction – 107-1-114

Mr. Sendowski, his lawyer Alyse Terhune, architect Kevin Brodie, and landscape architect Karen Arent, were present to continue to discuss the proposal for a new home on Lookout Stable Road. They confirmed that they had received approval from the Planning Board for sighting of the house and were now prepared to proceed before the Board of Architectural Review.

Chair Tocci discussed a letter received from Village residents, Mr. & Mrs. Guinchard, expressing concerns that the design of the Sendowski house was very similar to their own house. The Board concluded that there were many differences between the two homes.

Architect Kevin Brodie discussed the latest set of plans with the BAR. The BAR made several of the design aspects, including suggestions regarding the window sizes and dormer design.

Mr. Sendowski indicated that he would be providing specs on the building materials at the next meeting and they would be the same materials that had been approved on another house design he presented to the BAR years earlier. The BAR indicated they had no knowledge of the previous approval he was referencing, and regardless of what may have been previously approved on another house, the materials for the current proposed house would have to be of appropriate to its own design.

Chair Tocci indicated that the two newest BAR members, Mrs. Boyle and Mr. McCann, might wish to do a site visit to familiarize themselves with the project.

BAR consulting architect Barry Rice made several suggestions to Mr. Brodie regarding certain design aspects. The BAR encouraged Mr. Brodie to contact Mr. Rice directly outside of the meeting if he had any questions or wished to discuss his suggestions further, and Mr. Brodie agreed to do so.

Landscape architect Karen Arent indicated that the landscaping plans had not changed since their last appearance before the BAR and asked if the BAR had any input regarding them at this time. The BAR indicated that they were not in favor of the proposed Rosetta stone material for the wall and requested that a planting legend be provided.

The BAR discussed that the size of the house and how large it would be in comparison to the other houses in the immediate neighborhood. Mr. Sendowski admitted that he had recently considered making the house smaller, but after 7 years of trying to get the current house approved, did not wish to make any major changes that would prolong the process further. The BAR felt that changing the size of the house would not prolong the approval process. Mr. Sendowski’s architect, Mr. Brodie, expressed concerns that changing the size of the house was not a simple and quick process from an architectural point of view. Mr. Sendoswki agreed to further discuss the possibility of making the house smaller with his architect outside of the meeting.

Mr. Sendowski indicated that he would be returning in the near future with the items requested and after taking into consideration the BAR’s comments.

VTP – Tuxedo Road Guard Rail

John Ledwith informed the BAR that the Mayor had requested that they review the proposed designs for the new Tuxedo Road Guide Rail. At this time engineers were still working on the project and no plans had been submitted yet, but hopefully would be in the near future.

Agenda for Village Board Of Architectural Review Meeting December 21, 2010

Sendowski - Lookout Stable Rd. - New Construction - 107-1-114
Madden - Tower Hill Rd. - Landscaping, windows, utilities, walls - 107-1-1
VTP - Tuxedo Rd. - Guide Rail

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 30, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on November 30, 2010 at 7:30 pm. All members were present.

ZGONENA – Circuit Road – Roof :

Mr. Zgonena was seeking approval to make changes to plans previously approved by the Board back in 2007, for renovations to his home on Circuit Road. He explained that the original roof on the house had been destroyed in a fire and rebuilt differently in the 1970’s. He would like to revise his previously approved plans so as to match the roofline of the original structure. The Board was in favor of Mr. Zgonena’s proposal to restore the house more in line with the original construction, however they informed Mr. him that before a building permit could be issued, proper structural plans would have to be provided. The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving Mr. Zgonena’s application pending receipt of proper structural plans.

WILSON – 24 Pine Hill Road – Windows:

Mr. Wilson was present to discuss proposed changes to his garage at 24 Pine Hill Road. He described the project, which would consist of enclosing the existing carport section of the garage with stonewalls and windows, and installing a small gas-burning fireplace, in order to create an office area. The Board asked questions regarding some low fieldstone walls that had already been constructed around the carport area and Mr. Wilson explained that they were portions of the walls for the proposed project, and that on the upper portions of the walls windows would be installed. BAR engineer Carl Stone asked questions regarding the wall footings and the specs for the proposed gas fireplace. Mr. Stone indicated that the fireplace should be properly installed according to the manufacturers requirements. The Board then advised Mr. Wilson that they would need more detailed drawings and plans for the project before voting on the matter, as well was specs for the proposed doors, windows, and fireplace. Mr. Wilson agreed to return to a future meeting with the requested information. Mr. Wilson was also advised to stop any further exterior work on the garage until the matter had been voted on and approved.

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Nov. 30, 2010

Zgonena - Circuit Rd. - Roof - 107-1-42.1
Wilson - 24 Pine Hill Rd. - Windows - 106-1-56.11
Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 16, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on November 16, 2010 at 7pm. All members were present.

Harris – 57 Clubhouse Rd. – Add window, remove chimney, remove partition, add French door:

Window and shingle samples were presented and discussed. The Board reiterated that the stonework must be completed in two shifts, beginning with a small sample, which must receive Board approval before continuing with the rest. Following this brief review, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

Tuxedo Club – 17 West Lake Road – Addition to Squash Court Building:

Revised plans were presented and very briefly discussed. When asked, Village Engineer Carl Stone commented that there were some additional clarifications needed, however they were minor and could be added as conditions to an approval. Board Chair Paola Tocci expressed some concern with the current condition of the original Tennis House building, commenting that while she felt that the Board was united in favor of the addition she wondered whether or not it made sense to add on when the existing structure is in need of serious repair. She inquired of the applicant how they intended to mitigate some of these issues, citing masonry issues such as a major fissure on the principal façade of the building as well as rotting woodwork on the columns near the tennis courts. The applicant responded that it was their intent to work with a structural engineer and that plans to this regard will be submitted as the project moves forward. Board Attorney Rick Golden commented that structural issues with the existing building and their subsequent repair was a separate issue and should not be considered as a part of this application. Following this discussion, it was agreed that the applicant would return to the Board on December 21 for further discussion and review. The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the project conditional upon the aforementioned clarifications required by the Village Engineer.

Zgonena – Ridge Road – Paint Color Change & Renovations:

Mr. Zgonena presented the Board with a yellow paint color sample for the home on Ridge Rd., which has already been painted. Additionally, he requested permission to paint the two -story carriage house, also located on the property. Finally, he outlined his intent to replace the existing roof and requested permission to begin removing the current slate roof immediately as it is in structural disrepair. He hopes to install either a cement tile or asphalt roof in its place but will need to return to the Board for approval before moving forward in that regard. Mr. Zgonena then commented that it is his intent to completely remodel the home and he plans to reappear before the Board with a complete set of structural plans. Following some brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor.

Zgonena – Tower Hill Road – Site Work:

Mr. Zgonena presented the Board with a packet of information containing a brief narrative of the project and its history as well as a rough plan and some photographs. He explained to the Board that this project was originally conceived in the fall of 2009 when his neighbors, the Mauers, constructed a play structure on their property that is visible from his driveway. The idea was to construct a berm, plant it with grass and line it with trees in hopes of blocking the structure from view. Mr. Zgonena approached building inspector John Ledwith in the spring of 2010 with the rough plans for this project. As the the project appeared to be fairly minor in nature, Mr. Ledwith told him he could proceed with the landscaping. Around this same time Mr. Zgonena noticed that there was a large pile of dirt and rocks located at intersection of Rt. 17 and the NY State Thruway at exit 15A in Hillburn. Upon inquiry, he discovered that the pile of fill was owned by Metro and had been certified by the NY DEC as clean structural fill. Metro was giving it away for free. Mr. Zgonena then approached the Village and suggested that they take advantage of the free fill as there were several upcoming infrastructure related projects (East Lake Road/Gruterich wall, Rack Track/Tuxedo Road guide rails) where it could come in handy. The Village agreed to take some of the fill and Mr. Zgonena set about moving a great deal of it to his property.

Once the Village had taken its share of the fill and the berm had b een constructed, Mr. Zgonenas intent was to level out the land and cover with black dirt before planting. He was also intending to plant on the hillside below the berm. During the berm construction, an old wall had been discovered running along the hillside below. Mr. Zgonena quickly determined that the wall was historic (an old photograph of the wall as it once existed was included with his submission) and he assured the Board that it was not his intent to destroy it. Rather, should it become necessary to refortify or repair the wall during construction of his project, Mr. Zgonena was ready to do so.

As he was preparing to bring in the black dirt and conclude the project, a stop work order was issued.

Building Inspector John Ledwith explained that the project taking place, way exceeded the expectations as originally outlined by Mr. Zgonena in the spring of 2010 and this was the reason a stop work order had been issued.

Village engineer Carl Stone commented that this was the first time he had been made aware of the project and suggested that there could be drainage concerns given the sloping nature of the property. He inquired as to how much fill had been deposited on the site.

Mr. Zgonena responded “a bunch”

Mr. Stone commented that he would like to conduct a site visit.

Board member Julia Simet inquired as to whether or not the imported structural fill would support the plant life Mr. Zgonena had proposed.

Mr. Zgonena responded that it would, commenting that the fill is made up of the same kind of dirt and rocks that make up the entire Village of Tuxedo Park.

Board Chair Paola Tocci wondered if the Board could grant Mr. Zgonena approval for the project conditional upon the Engineer’s review, assuming that if modifications were required, Mr. Zgonena would reappear before the Board.

Mr. Ledwith informed the Board that Mr. Zgonena’s neighbors had not been properly notified of the project by the Village and that approval cannot legally be granted until this happens.

Resident Nancy Hays expressed her concern from the audience that a project of this magnitude had been allowed to progress to it’s current state without an immediate Stop Work Order, She indicated that the land disturbance and the truckloads of fill should have been an indicator that something big was happening.

Board Chair Paola Tocci responded that regardless of timing, a Stop Work Order had been issued and that the reason Mr. Zgonena was before the Board that evening was so that these issues could be addressed.

Mr. Zgonena then stated for the record that the project in question had commenced prior to his election as a Village Trustee. He apologized for any excessive noise associated with the project but pointed out that all the work had been done within the confines of the law.

Following some further discussion, it was determined that an approval could not be granted until neighbors had been properly notified. Mr. Ledwith agreed to send out notifications in a timely manor so that Mr. Zgonena can reappear before the Board at their next meeting on November 11. In the meantime, Carl Stone will conduct a site visit in order to determine whether or not drainage issues exist

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Nov. 16, 2010

Harris - 57 Clubhouse Rd. - Add window, remove chimney, remove porch partition, add French door - 107-1-64
Santana - 24 Tower Hill Rd. - Pool- 107-1-19
Tuxedo Club - 17 West Lake Rd. - Addition to Squash Court Building - 107-1-3
Zgonena - Ridge Rd. - Paint Color Change & Renovations - 106-1-57.2
Zgonena - Tower Hill Rd. - Site Work - 106-1-22

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 2, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on November 2 at 7:30pm.

All members were present. Village Engineer Carl Stone was absent.

El-Rayess – 50 Crows Nest Rd. – Construction of a pool house/Permit renewal:

Mr. El-Rayess and his architect presented the Board with revised plans for a pool house, based on previous feedback from the Board. Changes included relocation of the structure as well as the addition of a gazebo and a new set of steps. Following a review of the changes, Mr. El-Rayess formally requested an extension on his Building Permit, which has expired. As this is the third extension requested by the Applicant, Attorney Rick Golden advised the BAR that the Board of Trustees must issue a new permit. This process requires that the BAR reaffirm their previous approvals, which they did. It was agreed that once the new permit has been issued, the applicant should return to the Board with a set of structural plans depicting the changes as discussed.

Biagioni – 35 West Lake Stable Rd. – Renovations to the house:

Together with their architect, Mr. and Mrs. Biagioni presented the Board with detailed drawings depicting renovations to their home on West Lake Stable Road. Some of the proposed changes include slight alteration to the roofline to accommodate the addition of new windows in both the front and the back of the house as well as new sconces on terraces on the back and side of the home.

Board member Susan Boyle expressed concern that the additional windows on the back of the home would “glow on the lake” and that the increased intervention on the back of the house would cause it to become “too open to the community.”

After further discussion, the Board voted 3 to 1 in favor of the project with Susan Boyle voting against.

Santana/Steyer – 24 Tower Hill Rd. – Construction of a pool:

Applicants Ms. Santana and Mr. Steyer along with their engineer and contractor presented the Board with plans for the construction of a pool at their home on Tower Hill Road. There was a lengthy discussion with regard to drainage issues as per a letter written by Village Engineer Carl Stone. Following this discussion it was clear that there were still some drainage issues to be worked out. It was agreed that the Applicant would work with Carl Stone to resolve these issues and return to the BAR as soon as possible.

Harris – 57 Clubhouse Rd. – Add window, remove chimney, remove porch partition, add French doors:

The applicant’s architect and contractor presented the Board with plans for exterior modifications to the home at 57 Clubhouse Road. Modifications include the removal of a chimney and the addition of French doors in the rear of the home and the removal of a parlor window as well as an intermediate porch wall in the front of the home. There was a great deal of discussion regarding the removal of the chimney. Consulting Architect Barry Rice openly wondered if there might be another way to save it. Although the home is historic, the applicant is proposing the removal of the Chimney in order to open up a quadrant of living space within the small house. Saving the Chimney would be a very complicated and costly process involving the use of steel beams as well as additional stonework.

Board chair Paola Tocci reminded the applicant that there is a high standard for all stonework in the Village and that all work must be done properly, keeping in mind the correct balance of mortar and stone. Board member Susan Boyle suggested that the applicant begin by completing a small section of the stonework and then waiting for the Board’s approval before moving forward with the rest of the project.

Window samples were also requested.

Other Business:

Board Chair Paola Tocci announced that architect Stephen Lilly has been busy revising the 2nd draft of the Design Guidelines based on BAR feedback. A new draft is expected soon.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 2, 2010

EI-Rayess - 50 Crows Nest Rd. - Construction of a pool with pool house/Permit renewal - 105-1-8
Biagioni - 35 West Lake Stable Rd. - Renovations to the house - 104-1-27
Santana - 24 Tower Hill Rd. - Construction of a pool - 107-1-19
Harris - 57 Clubhouse Rd. - Add window, remove chimney, remove porch partition, add French doors - 107-1-64

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 5th, 2010

The Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, October 5, 2010 at 7 pm. All members were present.

CHESNEY – 30 Lorillard Road – House Addition

Mr. Chesney was present with his architect Grey Davis and landscape architect Karen Arent to discuss renovations to his home at 30 Lorillard Road. They presented the latest updated architectural and landscaping plans. The new plans showed that an existing non-conforming dock would be replaced with a new removable conforming dock, and also indicated the trees that would be removed during the project.

The BAR asked questions regarding the trees that would need to be removed and Ms. Arent assured the BAR that the trees being removed were either unsafe or impeding the growth of other trees, and their removal would improve the growth of the larger trees on the property. Ms. Arent also discussed the reorientation of the driveway, driveway materials, plans for stone terraces and lawn areas, the proposed stone walls near the entrance, and the plans to install deer fencing.

Mr. Davis presented a sample board to the BAR showing the proposed materials and paint colors to be used for the house and discussed them in detail.

BAR engineer Carl Stone requested that Mr. Chesney incorporate drainage solutions into the driveway in order to protect the Wee Wah Lake from additional run-off and the applicant agreed.

The BAR requested that a stone wall sample be constructed for the BAR to approve prior to installing the entire wall.

The BAR voted to approve the Chesney application for renovations to the house at 30 Lorillard Road as presented in the plans by a vote of 4-0.

WITTE – Tower Hill Loop

Mr. and Mrs. Witte, along with their architect, Jim Collins presented the Board with the latest spec books for their proposed new house on Tower Hill Loop. They also presented updated plans which had been changed to show elevations of the house.

Mr. Collins reviewed the plans with the BAR and confirmed that they had incorporated the changes discussed at a previous meeting.

The BAR voted to approve the Witte application for construction of a new home as presented in the plans by a vote of 4-0.

BIAGIONI – 35 West Lake Stable Road – Exterior Renovations

Mrs. Biagioni, along with her architect and her landscape architect, Karen Arent presented initial plans for the proposed renovations to her house. The proposed changes include renovation of the roof, the addition of dormers on the roof, installation of windows in order to enclose the stone porch, replacement of garage doors, repairs to the chimney and replacement of the gutters. Presently, the disrepair of the roof and gutters is causing water to get into the house.

Ms. Arent reviewed the proposed landscaping changes that will include restoration to stone walls, improvements to the curb on the roadside of the house to assist with drainage, changes to the exterior stone stairs, creation of a stone patio & other changes to the property on the Wee Wah Lake side to make it more functional, and installation of a conforming dock.

The BAR informed Mrs. Biagioni’s architect that their consultilng architect has reviewed the plans and made some recommendations. Mrs. Biagioni’s architect agreed to contact Mr. Rice directly to discuss his suggestions.

Members of the BAR had some questions as to the design. One of them was if all the additional windows on the Wee Wah lake side would create an excessive amount of light to emit from the house at night and cause it to be highly visible.

The applicant agreed to consider the BAR’s comments and to return to the BAR with updated plans after having contacted Mr. Rice for his input.

SANTANA/STEYER – 24 Tower Hill Road – Pool Construction

Mr. Hume Steyer and Ms. Nanaya Santana were present to discuss their initial plans for construction of the pool on their property at 24 Tower Hill Road. They indicated that the pool size would be 20 x 44 feet and presented the BAR with samples of the pool limestone coping and stone patio materials.

The BAR’s consulting engineer Carl Stone said that he would need drainage calculations for the increase in impervious surface, and he also had some questions regarding some other drainage issues. The applicants agreed to have their engineer contact Mr. Stone directly to make sure all the engineering issues were being addressed.

Several neighbors were present at the meeting. Neighboring property owner Ed Stegman and his son provided the BAR with a letter outlining their concerns with the project. Mr. Stegman made a statement to BAR indicating that there was already a huge water run-off problem on Continental Road that affected himself and other neighbors that he believed was caused by Mr. Steyer and Ms. Santana cutting down trees on their property over the last 3 years. He expressed concern that the construction of the pool and the need to remove more trees for the project would only make the water run-off problem from the property worse.

Building Inspector John Ledwith provided the BAR and the applicants with a copy of a letter received from another neighboring property owner, Gwendolyn Wright, regarding her concerns with the project.

The applicants agreed to return to the BAR at a future date with responses to the engineering issues and more details about the pool design and aesthetics.

ALDERISIO

It was noted for the record that the Alderisio matter was removed from the agenda prior to the meeting.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review October 5th, 2010

Chesney - 30 Lorillard Rd. - House Addition - 104-1-40
Alderisio - 25 Mtn. Farm Rd. - House Addition & Landscaping - 103-1-37.2
Biagioni - 35 West Lake Stable Rd. - Exterior Renovations - 104-1-27
Santana - 24 Tower Hill Rd. - Pool Construction - 107-1-19
Witte - Tower Hill Loop - New Construction - 107-1-12.21

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 14th, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, September 14 at 7:00pm. Board member Susan Boyle arrived 45 minutes late.

Tuxedo Club – 17 West Lake Rd. – Tennis House Addition:

Bill Lamb, who’s property directly abuts the Tennis House, announced to the Board that he had filed an appeal against John Ledwith’s recent decision that the application does not require a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals. Citing Village Code, he further stated that until the appeal had been resolved, there should be a stay on all proceedings regarding this application and that it should not be reviewed or discussed at the Board level. Upon reviewing the Code, Board Attorney Rick Golden commented that the restrictions as noted by Mr. Lamb do not apply to appeals filed by a third party and that the Board could proceed with their review of the application. Mr. Lamb responded that he would not object to this, however he suggested that the Board should seriously consider requiring a further setback for the proposed wall that will run along the north side of the addition next to his driveway and also requested that the Board allow him to be involved in their discussions regarding aesthetics.

Following this exchange, revised plans for the addition were presented and reviewed. Discussion revolved around construction materials and column design. There was a somewhat lengthy conversation regarding the aforementioned wall and specifically whether or not it would restrict access to the tunnel portion of Mr. Lambs’ driveway, which leads directly to the house. It was agreed that a site visit would be necessary and the applicant was asked to stake out the location of the wall.

Laukitis – 16 Brook Rd. – Landscaping:

Mrs. Laukitis along with her architect and engineer presented the Board with revised landscaping plans for her property at 16 Brook Rd. Drainage was discussed. Board Attorney Rick Golden expressed some concern with regard to a proposed retaining pond, commenting that historically retaining ponds have not been allowed in the Village and that approving this one could set a precedent for the future. Following a brief discussion on this topic, and a review of some other minor changes that need to be made, it was agreed that the Village Engineer would make a site visit to the property within the next week.

Coen/Honor – 14 Petterson Brook Rd – House Renovations:

The applicant has received the necessary variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals and can now move ahead with the new garage as proposed. Sample materials were presented and discussed. Driveway renovations were also discussed (materials, lighting etc) and it was agreed that the applicant would update the drawings to reflect this discussion before returning to the Board next month for a final vote.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review September 14th, 2010

Tuxedo Club - 17 West Lake Rd - Tennis House Addition - 107-1-3
Laukitis - 16 Brook Rd. - Landscaping - 103-1-12
Coen - 14 Patterson Brook Rd. - House Renovations - 103-1-30.3
Witte - Tower Hill Loop - New Construction - 107-1.12.21

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 26th, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, August 26 at 7:00 pm. Board member Jackie Green was absent.

CHESNEY – 30 Lorillard Road – House Renovations – 104-1-40

On behalf of the applicant, architects Grey Davis, and Kelly Ardoin presented the Board with continued plans for major renovations at 30 Lorillard Road. Building materials as well as treatment, paint colors and trim were discussed.

Landscape architect Karen Arent inquired about the possibility of constructing a structure near the lake, and mentioned that a number of trees on the property are dead and have been marked for removal. Additionally, she inquired about making changes to an existing dock on the property.

Building Inspector John Ledwith responded that he would need to inspect the trees before they are removed, and that no structures are permitted within 100’ of the lake.

The Board held a brief discussion regarding timing for their next meeting and it was determined that because several Board members as well as the Building Inspector have conflicts with the regularly scheduled September 7 meeting, the next meeting will take place on September 14 at 7:00pm.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review August 26th, 2010

Chesney - 30 Lorillard Rd. - House Renovations - 104-1-41

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review August 3rd, 2010

Sendowski – New Construction – Lookout Stable Rd. – 107-1-114
El-Rayess – Indoor Pool Orangerie – Crows Nest Rd. – 105-1-8
Tuxedo Club – Squash Court Building Addition – West Lake Rd. - 107-1-3

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 20th, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on July 20, 2010 at 7:30pm.

Tuxedo Club – Squash Ct Addition:
Plans for an addition to the squash court area of the Tennis House building at the Tuxedo Club were presented and discussed. The proposed addition will house 2 singles courts (international regulation) a doubles court and an improved fitness center. Plans for a different addition to the same building were approved in 2004, but the addition was never built. Building Inspector John Ledwith indicated that the applicant WOULD need to appear before the Zoning Board of Appeals in order to obtain 2 variances; one for road setback and the other as part of the SEQRA process. Neighbor Bill Lamb expressed concern with the setback of one of the proposed walls, commenting that he wanted to make sure that the extension did not effect the egress of his driveway and that he had concerns about the aesthetics of expanding the brick wall.

He would like to see a setback distance of 8.2 feet, as per the plan that was approved in 2004. Following a brief discussion regarding drainage, in which Village Engineer Carl Stone commented that he would need to see additional calculations, it was agreed that the applicant would pursue the Zoning Board of Appeals before returning to the BAR for further review.

Witte – New Construction – Tower Hill Loop
Revised plans for the new home on Tower Hill Loop were presented and discussed. Changes included the elimination of terrace steps as well as swapping of a stone roof for cedar shingles. Following a brief review it was agreed that the applicant would submit a final set of plans reflecting minor changes as discussed.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review July 20, 2010

Elene de Sainte Phalle Irrevocable Trust & The Tuxedo Club – Lot Line Change – West Lake Rd. – 103-1-47 & 107-1-3
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 1, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, June 1 at 7pm. All members were present.

Beard – Lorillard Rd. – House Renovations:
Chris Chesney, contract vendee for the Beard property located on Lorillard Road, and his architect Grey Davis presented new plans for renovations to the home. Mr. Chensey explained their desire to improve upon the previously approved plan by creating something both architecturally appropriate for the Village and in scale while remaining respectful of the neighbor’s concerns. To that end, they are proposing a home constructed primarily of wood shingles with a dry stacked stone foundation. The mass of the house has been reduced with every attempt to tuck the second floor into the eves. Because the driveway approaches the home from its’ side, the idea of relocating the front entrance was proposed and slight driveway modifications were also discussed. Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that in her view the plans were beautiful and an overall improvement from what was originally approved. She is in favor of the proposed building materials and likes the idea of relocating the front entrance to the side of the home. She expressed some mild concern with the precariousness of the different rooflines and suggested that moving forward the applicant evolve to more fluent language. Board member Jackie Greene agreed with this assessment and comment that the applicant is off to a great start. Board member Julia Simet inquired as to whether stucco would be used anywhere aside from the rear, lake facing faÁade and was informed that it would not. Finally, Deputy Chair Robert Simon commented that the proposed plans depict a very handsome home and that he was pleased to see such interesting rooflines as most people look down on the home from the roadway. Paola Tocci presented the applicant with a copy of a letter written by neighbors Ronald and Elizabeth Reed in which they express concern with the height of the home, as previously proposed, specifically as it pertains to obstructing their view of the lake. This was briefly discussed and the applicant confirmed that the new design is no higher in elevation than the previously approved plan. It was agreed that the applicant could move forward with the plans as proposed and will return to the next Board meeting on June 17.

Coen – Patterson Brook Rd. – Exterior Renovations:
Maureen Coen, along with her two design architects, presented the Board with 4 different potential plans for exterior renovations to the Coen/Honor home on Patterson Brook Road as well as the construction of a new garage. Of these 4 plans, 2 would require BZA variances while 2 would not. Ms. Coen went through each plan and explained to the Board why she was not in favor of the variance-free plans. Following some discussion, during which plan A was omitted, it was agreed that the Board would need to make a site visit before they could make a determination as to which plan they prefer. Ms. Coen and her architects agreed to stake the site in the coming week in order that the site visit could take place as soon as possible.

King – 47 Clubhouse Rd – Renovations:
The Applicant presented the Board with a copy of a letter in which most of the Village Engineers questions and concerns as outlined at previous meetings were addressed. After some discussion it was determined that there were a few outstanding issues to be addressed. Specifically, water and sewer lines as well as electrical connections must be noted on the site plan. Parking both during the construction phase as well as upon completion was discussed. It was agreed that parking would be allowed on a gravel portion of the triangle located on Clubhouse road, with no more than two vehicles to be allowed during the construction phase. Following a great deal of detailed discussion the Board unanimously approved the application contingent upon the following:
Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the applicant must:

Show proof that the waterline is functional to the satisfaction of the Water Superintendent
Provide safe electrical service to the site to the satisfaction of the Village Building Inspector
Be entirely in compliance with the New York State Building Code
Show that parking is in accordance with the plan and does not block the roadway as presented in a letter dated 5/17/10
Agree to seasonal occupancy as per the Village Building Inspector
Show all sewer and water line as well as electrical connections on the site plan.

Discussion of Board Vacancy:
Board Chair Paola Tocci announced that the Board had reviewed a couple of applications submitted by residents interested in filling the current BAR vacancy and had agreed that Susan Boyle was the most qualified of these applicants. Susan is a practicing architect and has served the Village previously on the TAC and the Planning Board as well as the Viewshed Committee. Her resume has been submitted to the Board of Trustees along with a letter of recommendation from the BAR.

Review Design Guidelines:
Paola Tocci announced that Board comments and feedback to Architect Stephen Tilly’s cover letter along with comments from BAR consulting architect Barry Rice had been submitted to Trustee Liason Charlotte Worthy, who will pass the information back to Mr. Tilly.

Due to the Village Election on Tuesday, June 15, the next BAR meeting will take place on Thursday, June 17, 2010 at 7:00pm.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review June 1, 2010

Beard – Lorillard Rd. – House Renovations - 104-1-41
Coen – Patterson Brook Rd. – Exterior Renovations – 103-1-30.3
King – Clubhouse Rd. – Renovations – 107-1-67
Review Design Guidelines

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 18, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday May 18, 2010. Board member Jackie Greene was absent.

Alderisio – Mtn Farm Rd. – Garage, Driveway Modifications:
Plans for garage and driveway modifications were presented and discussed. It was unanimously agreed that drainage and storm water run off will be a significant issue with this application both during construction and afterwards and therefore, a professional engineer must be brought in to the project. Plans for a new driveway design were discussed at length. It was agreed that the proposed pavement coverage could be reduced. Stone samples were presented and discussed as well. The Board would like to see a detailed landscaping plan. Plans for a 6ft cedar fence in the back yard were briefly reviewed, as were plans for a new, detached garage. It was agreed that the applicant would make some changes as discussed and return to the Board in two weeks time.

Sendowski – Loookout Stable Rd. – New Construction:
While their application has not yet received site plan approval from the Planning Board, the Sendowskis and the their architects appeared before the BAR for initial feedback on the amended plan. As per the Planning Boardís suggestion, the proposed home has been set further back on the lot. Additionally, the number of proposed walls has been reduced from 3 to 2 with a slight increase in wall height. The applicant has received 3 of 5 requested variances from the BZA. The BAR was unanimously in favor of the revised plan and expressed no major issues with the style of the home. When questioned about the size, Board Chair Paola Tocci said that she did not see a problem however it would be important that this home not diminish the others in the neighborhood. Board member Julia Simet suggested a slight change to the window alignment on the front of the house. The applicant will now return to the Planning Board for site approval.

Craig – Ridge Rd. – House Color Change, Doors:
Mr. Craig appeared before the Board to request permission to change the color of his home from Barn Red to Bleaker Beige. Although the home had already been repainted prior to approval, the board granted the request without penalty. Replacement of the front door was also discussed and Mr. Craig presented the Board with photos of an antique door he previously purchased. The Board reviewed the photos and granted Mr. Craig approval to proceed. Mr. Craig then requested permission to add a Belgian block apron at the top of his driveway, but this request was denied for the time being. Building Inspector John Ledwith recommended this request be formally submitted in the future along with any proposed driveway modifications. Board Chair Paola Tocci reminded Mr. Criag that detailed plans must be submitted and approved before he could proceed with the work.

Review Design Guidelines:
Because Board member Jackie Green, consulting architect Barry Rice and Trustee Liason Charlotte Worthy were all absent, the Board decided to table the review of Design Guidelines until the next meeting.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review May 18, 2010

Alderisio – Mtn. Farm Rd. – Garage, Driveway Modifications – 103-1-37.2
Craig – Ridge Rd. – House Color Change, Doors – 106-1-58.2
Coen – Patterson Brook Rd. – Exterior Renovations – 103-1-30.3
Sendowski – Lookout Stable Rd. – New Construction – 107-1-114
Review Design Guidelines
Executive Session

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 20, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, April 20 at 7pm. All members were present.

Williams/Howard – Lanscaping, fencing, generator, pavers – 12 Acoma Rd:
The Applicant and their architect presented the Board with a revised landscape plan. Changes included the addition of a generator and subsequent plantings for screening purposes in addition to patio additions. There was some discussion with regard to noise level as it relates to the proposed generator. Board attorney Rick Golden reminded the Board that noise level had been an important issue during the installation of generators at the Tuxedo Club and suggested that the Board consider those discussions when moving forward. A small typo was discovered on the revised plans in that the date on the site table revisions did not comply with the revision date as set by the BZA. Although the Applicants architect assured the Board that this was a typo and that the application was in compliance with the variance, Rick Golden suggested that the Board confirm the accuracy of the date with Building Inspector John Ledwith before proceeding. Board Chair Paola Tocci reported having spoken with John Ledwith a day earlier at which time he informed her that everything was in order. She stated that she was confident that the mistake was indeed a typo and that in her view the Board should feel comfortable moving ahead.
Board member Jackie Greene inquired as to whether or not the applicant was required to install a fence as a screening mechanism for the proposed generator as a precaution in case the plantings died out. She was in formed that they were not. Following this discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

King – Exterior Renovations – 47 Clubhouse Rd:
On behalf of the Applicant, Kathy Norris addressed the Board with regard to the proposed renovations. She referenced a letter written by John Ledwith and dated April 19, 2010, in which Mr. Ledwith outlines several open issues with the application that need to be addressed as well as a report issued by Village Engineer Carl Stone. She stated that the applicant is more than willing to spend the money required (which she estimated to be roughly $40,000) to complete the studies and surveys requested, however, before spending that money, they would like reassurance from the Board that the application will be approved. A letter from architect Tobias Guggenheimer, in which he requests that the Board consider swift approval of the application in order to save the Applicant money and move the project forward, was read into into the record by Board chair Paola Tocci.
A somewhat heated discussion between Kathy Norris and the Board ensued with Ms. Norris continuing to demand that the Board assure the applicant approval before he invested in answering the questions laid out in Mr. Ledwiths’ letter. The Board carefully explained to Ms. Norris that they could not promise approval for the project at this stage in the process and that once Mr. King had addressed the issues as presented, they would review the information and the process would move forward. Following some further discussion it was agreed that the applicant will review Mr. Ledwiths’, letter and attempt to answer the questions before returning to the Board for review at a later date.

Design Guidelines – Answers to Consulting Architect Questions:
Because neither of the consulting architects (Barry & Rice) was able to be present and because Trustee liaison Charlotte Worthy was also absent, this discussion was tabled until the next meeting.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review April 20, 2010

Williams/Howard –Lanscaping, fencing, generator, pavers – 12 Acoma
Rd. – 105-1-25
Design Guidelines – Answers to Consulting Architect Questions
Approval of Minutes

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review April 6, 2010

Diem – Driveway – Summit Rd. – 104-1-16.2
Witte – New Construction – Tower HIll Loop – 107-1-12.21
Heibel – New Construction – Camp Comfort Rd. – 101-1-11.1
Coen – New Garage & House Addition – Patterson Brook Rd. – 103-1-30.3
Village Boat Club – Docks – Chastellux Lane – 105-1-45
Review of Draft Design Guidelines

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 2, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on March 2, 2010 at 7:00pm.
All members were present.

Howard/Williams – Garage Door –Acoma Road:
The Applicant and their architect presented the Board with plans for new garage doors, which they feel are more in keeping with the home. The proposed doors will emulate the front door of the house. Possible colors were discussed and it was decided that the doors would either be painted yellow to match the house color or dark green to match the color of the front door. After some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the plans as presented.

Witte – New Construction – Tower Hill Loop:
Mr. Witte and his architect presented the Board with proposed building materials for a new home to be located on Tower Hill Loop. A slate shingle roof was proposed and samples presented. Mr. Witte is proposing stucco walls with timber accents with a “veneer stone treatment” to be applied to the stucco, which would consist of large pieces scattered throughout, mainly concentrated at the corners of the home. The applicant compared his proposed plan to the Main Club House, commenting that he would like it to have a similar look. Protruding terraces will be constructed of all stone.
Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that she has reservations about the proposed veneer stone treatment as this practice has not been well executed in the Park and she is concerned about setting a bad precedent. Consulting architect Barry Rice commented that while the treatment appeared balanced in the drawings, he also had some reservations and would need to take a better look at what is being proposed.
This was then discussed. Samples of the proposed “treatment” stone, quarried from the building site, were presented. The manner in which the stone would be spaced throughout the stucco and the exact surface area of the structure to be covered with the “treatment” was then reviewed and discussed.
Plans to remove a stone stairway in order to allow for better basement access were also discussed. The BAR was in favor of this change.
Mr. Witte then suggested that it might be necessary to move one of the proposed doorways during construction and asked the Board to approve this change should it become necessary. Board chair Paola Tocci responded that all changes must be formally proposed and approved and that the Board could not approve a “possible change” without seeing concrete plans. She suggested that Mr. Witte and his applicant revise the specs accordingly and resubmit plans to be discussed at the next BAR meeting.
Building Inspector John Ledwith inquired as to whether or not the proposed timber accents would be constructed of actual timber or an alternate material. The applicant’s architect responded that they would not be constructed of timber but rather a PVC based material. Deputy Chair Robert Simon expressed some concern about this and wondered why the applicant would choose PVC over real timber. The response was that the PVC weathers better and stains less. Consulting Architect to the BAR, Barry Rice confirmed this. He then asked Board Chair Paola Tocci if this was the first time the use of PVC timbers had been proposed in the Park. She responded that to the best of her knowledge it was. Mr. Rice then commented that although this material may not have been used in the Park before, it is, in his view, a good, reliable material that has been used in fine construction all over the country.
A sample was requested the Board.
Finally, Mr. Witte presented the Board with a photograph showing a railing, which he was hoping to install in the front of the house. After a brief review, The Board rejected the proposed railing on the basis that it was “too fancy” and not in keeping with the rest of the home.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 2, 2010

Howard/Williams – Garage Door - Acoma Road – 105-1-25
Witte – New Construction – Tower HIll Loop – 107-1-12.21

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 2, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, February 2, 2010 at 7pm. All members were present.

Cliffside Partners (McCann) 112 Turtle Point Road – Changes to Approved Plans:
Architects for the applicant presented the Board with revised plans for the project, which included a shift in siding material from all stone to partial stucco for the purpose of softening the overall composition of the structure. Following a brief review of the plans and some basic discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the revisions.

Regna – 117 West Lake Road – Retaining Wall and Path:
Together with his engineers Travis Ewald and Joe Pfau and architect Leonard Mazzone, Mr. Regna presented the Board with revised detailed plans for a retaining wall and path to be added to his property at 117 West Lake Road. The Board and Mr. Regna then discussed many of the project details including the installation of an iron fence, which will be fit into grounded pipes in sections to allow for removal at the south side of the property near the garage as well as the necessary proportional adjustment of baluster depth for the new wall. Included in the project will be the bolstering of a wall, running along the property line adjacent to West Lake Road.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 2, 2010

Cliffside Partners (McCann) – 112 Turtle Point Rd. – 103-1-7.2 - Changes to approved plans
Regna – 117 West Lake Rd. - 103-1-33 - Retaining wall & path
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 19, 2010

Board of Architectural Review
January 19, 2010
The Board of Architectural Review met on January 19, 2010 at 7pm. Deputy Chair Robert Simon was absent.

WITTE – New Construction – Tower Hill Loop – 107-1-12.21

Mr. Witte, his architect James Collins, and Chad Wade of Esposito & Associates were present to discuss Mr. Witte’s proposal for construction of a new home on Tower Hill Loop. Mr. Wade presented the landscape plans which had been approved by the Planning Board and discussed potential plantings and hardscape materials that would be used. Mr. Witte said that at this time he is proposing a gravel driveway. Mr. Collins discussed the latest architectural plans with the Board. The exterior materials proposed include a fieldstone foundation and stucco and timber siding. Several roofing material possibilities were discussed. The Board asked Mr. Witte to provide samples of the proposed roofing materials at a future meeting.

Mr. Witte’s mentioned that he believed that there may be an old basement from a preexisting building on the property which he would like dig out and use. He indicated that if the basement was discovered and they could utilize it, they may need to make some changes to the plans architectural plans. The Board asked Mr. Witte to do some probing to determine if the old basement exists and if to present new plans with changes if necessary at a future meeting.

VANUM PROPERTIES – New Construction – Tuxedo Road – 106-1-26

Property owner Mr. Umanski and his architect James Collins were present to discuss the proposal to build a new house on Tuxedo Road near the bottom of Tower Hill Road. The application is still before the Planning Board but at this time they wished to seek preliminary feedback from the BAR. Mr. Collins presented the latest architectural proposal and discussed the plans in detail. A discussion was held between BAR consulting architect Mr. Rice and Mr. Collins regarding the possibility of enlarging the chimney.

The Board and requested further architectural drawings and details, and more information about proposed building materials.

Building Inspector, John Ledwith believes that a sight line variance may be needed and aid he would research the issue.

HEIBEL – New Construction – Camp Comfort Road – 101-1-11.1

Architect Tobias Guggenheimer appeared on behalf of Mr. Heibel to discuss the architectural plans for construction of a new home on Camp Comfort Road. The application is still before the Planning Board but at this time they wished to seek preliminary feedback from the BAR. Mr. Guggenheimer presented the architectural plans and discussed them in detail. The proposed house is a neo-classical design and will be faced with stucco or masonry.

Chair Tocci read into the record a letter dated January 14, 2010 to the Planning Board and Board of Trustees received from neighboring property owner John Boyle. The letter discussed Mr. & Mrs. Boyle’s concerns with both the Heibel project as well as the Overton Sub-division.

The Board indicated that they would need more details on certain aspects of the plan before they could comment. Issues raised by the Board included the choice of a neoclassical design for that neighborhood, proposed materials to be used for exterior, window & door proportions, and the type of excavation, which might be needed to prepare the sight such as chipping or blasting.

Mr. Guggenheimer questioned why the Board had not performed a sight visit prior to the meeting. The Board explained their reasons for not performing a sight visit including that they prefer to have the presentation of the plans before visiting the sight to better understand it. They indicated they would be performing a sight visit in the future. Mr. Guggenheimer offered to be available to walk the sight with them if it would be helpful.

Neighboring property owners Mr. & Mrs. Casis voiced their concerns about the project. Their concerns included:
- The close proximity of the Heibel house to their house;
- Why the additional parking area near the road was needed;
- Headlights from the driveway would sweep across their property and house;
- Concerns that the masonry/stucco design would not blend in with the landscape;
- The visibility of the courtyard and driveway from the road;
- Concerns that blasting will be needed;
- Concerns that the differing styles of the Heibel house and their house
would clash being so close to one another.

Mr. Guggenheimer responded that his client was doing all he could to address the concerns of the neighbors. He said the proposed house style and location was driven by the restrictions of the new Ridgeline & Precipice Law. He said the location and size of the driveway was driven by the Village Code and grading limitations. Mr. Guggenheimer also indicated that Mr. Heibel’s landscape architect was working on coming up with landscape solutions to help resolve concerns of the neighbors.

KING – Exterior Renovations – Clubhouse Road – 107-1-67

Architect Tobias Guggenheimer and Mr. Robert Klimecki were present to continue to discuss Mr. King’s proposal to renovate a cottage located on Clubhouse Road.

Mr. Guggenheimer and the Board discussed a letter prepared by BAR Engineer Carl Stone, regarding the inspection of the foundation. The Board requested that the applicant indicate whether they would be proceeding with the restorations on the same foundation or removing the current structure in its entirety and rebuilding it.

Building Inspector John Ledwith discussed the discovery of a sewer main which passes directly beneath the building approximately 4.5 feet down. Mr. Guggenheimer indicated they intended to resolve the sewer main issue and felt it could be done fairly easily.

Mr. Guggenheimer disputed the Board’s ability to comment on and get involved in engineering issues that can be solved with the Building Inspector and Board engineer. A discussion was held between BAR attorney Rick Golden and Mr. Guggenheimer regarding the Board’s jurisdiction and right to be involved in such issues.

Mr. Guggenheimer asked the Board when they would be ready to vote on the project. The Board reminded Mr. Guggenheimer and Mr. Klimecki that there were still items requested at prior meetings, which had not been provided by the applicant. Some of the items include a certified property survey by a licensed surveyor, construction plan and construction parking plan, and proof of easements if any. In addition the applicant needed to provide information regarding how the sewer line under the building issue will be resolved.

Mr. Guggenheimer asked Mr. Ledwith whether a building permit would be issued if the Board approves the application. Mr. Ledwith indicated that a building permit was separate from the Board approval and that one would be issued if and when all Village Code and NY State Building Code requirements are met.

OTHER - Scheduling Conflict

Mr. Ledwith informed the BAR that there was a conflict between the scheduled February 16, 2010 BAR meeting and the Village tax grievance night. A motion was made and passed to cancel the February 16, 2010 meeting.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 19, 2010

Witte – New Construction – Tower Hill Loop – 107-1-12.21
Vanum Properties – New Construction – Tuxedo Rd. – 106-1-26
King – Ext. Renovations – Clubhouse Rd. – 107-1-67
Heibel – New Construction – Camp Comfort Rd. – 101-1-11.1

Opening on the Village Board of Architectural Review

There is an opening of the Board of Architectural Review for a term expiring in June 2011 that needs to be filled by appointment of the Board of Trustees after the BAR's review and recommendation of qualified candidates.

Please contact the BAR Chair, Paola Tocci, at 845-351-2060 or email her at PJTBAR@aol.com, or alternatively leave word with John Ledwith at the Village Office 845-351-4745 x3 if you have an interest in serving on this Board. Kindly provide your credentials for this position to assist in the evaluation of all candidates.

Thank you,
Houston Stebbins
Mayor

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 5, 2010

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday January 5 at 7 pm with 4 members present.
Chair Tocci began the meeting by announcing that Board member Celeste Gebhardt had suddenly resigned from the Board.

Williams/Howard – 12 Acoma Road
Ms. Williams and Mr. Howard were present to discuss their proposal for renovations to their home including removal of an existing deck, installation of a stone patio, installation of a granite block driveway, and relocation of a fence along the property line.

Variances will be needed to for the additional patio area and for location of a fence closer than two feet to the property line. The applicants were aware of the need for variances but were seeking preliminary feedback from the BAR regarding the project before proceeding to the Board of Zoning Appeals for variances.

Regna – 117 West Lake Road
Engineer Phau presented a retaining wall application for the Regna’s of West Lake Road. Their project involves reinforcing a road-supporting wall and reconstructing a larger retaining wall in the South yard to prevent erosion of a soil embankment.
This application will require input from the Village Engineer and some additional notes and details before consideration.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 5, 2010

Williams – 12 Acoma Rd. - Removing deck, addition of patio, granite block driveway - 105-1-25
Regna – 117 West Lake Rd. – Retaining wall, path – 103-1-33

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 1, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on December 1, 2009 at 7pm. All
Deputy Chair Robert Simon was absent

ALDERISIO – Modification to Approved Plan – Mountain Farm Road – 103-1-37.2
Mr. Alderisio wished to amend his previously approved plans by changing the façade of the garage and relocating the garage doors. Mr. Alderisio presented detailed plans and discussed them with the BAR.

The BAR voted to approve the changes to Mr. Alderiso’s previously approved plans.

LAUKITIS – Renovations and New Garage – 16 Brook Road – 103-1-12
Mrs. Laukitis, her architects Blake Goodman and Antonio Aiello, and her landscape architect Karen Arent were present to discuss proposed house renovations and the addition of a free standing garage.

Mr. Goodman presented the architectural plans for the house and garage and Ms. Arent presented the landscaping plans which include relocation of the existing driveway.

Village Engineer Carl Stone requested that the calculations of impervious surface as shown on the plans be reconfirmed because they did not look correct, and requested a drainage plan if the amount of impervious surface increases from the current condition.

The BAR requested that the applicant provide several other items related to the landscaping plans.

Mr. Goodman asked if the BAR could vote on the plans under the condition that the missing information is provided in the future so that the Laukitis’ could begin construction before it gets to cold. The BAR was reluctant to vote n the matter without reviewing certain information including the impervious surface calculations and the possible need for a drainage plan.

It was agreed that if the project was divided into two phases, Phase 1 being only the house renovations and the phase 2 being the garage, driveway and landscaping aspects, that the BAR would consider voting on Phase 1 only. The applicant agreed to divide the project up into the phases as discussed.

The BAR voted to approve Phase 1 of the project which includes renovations to the house only.

At a future meeting the Laukitis’ will provide the BAR with the information requested necessary to proceed with approval of Phase 2 of the project.

The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 1, 2009

Laukitis – Renovations and new garage – 16 Brook Rd. – 103-1-12
Alderisio – Modification to approved plans – Mtn. Farm Rd. – 103-1-37.2

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 17, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on November 17, 2009 at 7:00pm. All members were present.

CLIFFSIDE PARTNERS – 103-1-7.2 – Turtle Point – Renewal of Building Permit, New Construction
Bill Longeri and John Cunniffe, representatives for Cliffside partners, were present to seek renewal of the building permit for construction of a new home on Turtle Point Road.

Mr. Longieri presented plans showing the current status of the project. Building Inspector Ledwith confirmed that he had been visiting the sight regularly to do inspections and that it was being constructed according to the approved plans.

The BAR voted to approve the extension of the building permit for Cliffside Partners.

SIMET – 106-1-134 – 40 East Lake Road – Change in approved roofing materials
Julia Simet recused herself from the BAR to speak as the applicant.
Mrs. Simet informed the BAR that she wished to change the roofing material which was previously approved on her renovation project from asphalt shingle to cedar shingle. She showed the BAR photos of the proposed cedar shingle and provided specs.

The BAR voted to approve the change in shingle material from asphalt to cedar shake.

MINUTES

The draft minutes from the BAR meetings which took place on October 20, 2009 and November 3, 2009 were reviewed and approved as amended.

The meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 17, 2009

Cliffside Partners – New Construction – 112 Turtle Point Rd. – 103-1-7.2
Sendowski – New Constructio – Lookout Stable Rd. – 107-1-114
Simet – Roofing Material Change – 40 East Lake Stable Rd. – 106-1-34
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 3, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on November 3, 2009 at 7:00pm.
Deputy Chair Robert Simon was absent.

Tuxedo Club – Awning – West Lake Road:
The Tuxedo Club’s application to install a dark green awning with removable side curtains over the staircase that ascends to the ladies locker room in the Tennis House was reviewed. After minimal discussion, the Board unanimously approved the application.

El-Rayess – Changes to Approved Plans – Crows Nest Road:
The Board discussed limestone samples submitted by Mr. El-Rayess. The process for sealing the limestone in order to protect it from moisture and discoloration was also discussed. 5 of the windows have been completed and are ready for inspection. A timetable for completing the rest of the windows was discussed. Additionally, structural plans for the pool have been submitted as requested by the Board. Consulting Architect, Barry Rice, will conduct a site visit and report back to the Board.

Dangoor – Driveway Entrance Gates, Stone Wall, Lights – Serpentine Rd:
Board Chair Paola Tocci confirmed receipt of the BZA’s written decision with regard to the application. Tim Hanes and landscape architect Karen Arent were present to discuss the possible phasing of the project. A phasing time-line was presented and Ms. Arent inquired as to whether or not the Board could approve both Phase One and Phase Two at the same time, which would alleviate their need to appear before the Board for another approval. Building Inspector John Ledwith commented that once the building permit expires, which is scheduled to take place in July of 2010, the applicant would have to appear before the Board anyhow in order to request a new permit. Following further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving Phase One of the Landscape Master Plan.

Vanum Properties – New Construction – Tuxedo Road:
An architect for the applicant presented the Board with plans for a new home to be constructed on Tuxedo Road at the bottom of Tower Hill Road and across the street from the property known as “The Breezes.” After a great deal of discussion, focusing on the prominence and visibility of property in question as well as the other homes situated around that property, it was decided that the project, as proposed needed some reworking in order to be more responsive to the site. Consulting Architect Barry Rice offered to sit with the applicant in an effort to revaluate some of the “architectural opportunities” that exist within the proposed plan.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 3, 2009

Tuxedo Club – Awning – West Lake Rd. – 107-1-3
Witte – New Construction – Tower Hill Loop – 107-1-12.21
Vanum Properties – New Construction – Tuxedo Rd. – 106-1-26
El-Rayess – Changes to Approved Plans – Crows Nest Rd. – 105-1-8
Dangoor – Driveway Entrance Gates, Stone Wall, Lights – Serpentine Rd. – 107-1-96
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 20, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on October 20, 2009 at 7:00pm.
Board member Celeste Gebhardt was absent.

Jackson – Fence – Clubhouse Road
Nathaniel Jackson was present to discuss his application to install a four-foot high fence around a planting bed on the side of his home. Mr. Jackson and the Board discussed the style, color and exact location of the fence.
Following this discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application

Laukitis – Exterior Changes and Garage – Brook Road
Mrs. Laukitis and her architect Blake Goodman were present to further discuss the application for exterior renovations and construction of a freestanding garage.
Mrs. Laukitis confirmed they had appeared before the Board of Trustees to seek approval to extend the roadway in order to accommodate the new proposed driveway and that this decision was still pending from the Board of Trustees.
Building Inspector John Ledwith confirmed that because the property was located within 500 feet of the Village/Town border, that the County had to be notified of the application before any decision could be made by the BAR. The notice had been sent but the County had not yet responded.
Mr. Goodman then presented samples of some of the materials they propose to use and discussed them with the Board. He also provided them with updated plans and spec books to review.
The Board agreed to review the plans and materials and requested that the applicant return after a response to the notice is received from the County.

Dangoor – Driveway Walls & Gate – Serpentine Rd
Tim Hanes and landscape architect Karen Arent were present to discuss changes to the Dangoor's previously approved driveway plan. The changes include an increase in entrance wall height, entrance pillar height, and entrance gate height. The applicant has received the required variances from the BZA but that the final draft of the BZA decision was still pending. Ms. Arent discussed some of the details of the plan. The brightness of the pillar lights was discussed and it was determined that any approval of the lights would be conditioned upon an inspection after inspection and the lights being able to be adjusted if necessary. The sample stone wall was then discussed and the Board requested that a
new sample be made in order to better match the existing surrounding walls near the property. Ms. Arent then outlined additional changes to the plan, which included the installation of some low level lights around the property and replacing existing path lights with fixtures. She also informed the Board that Mr. Dangoor wishes to complete the approved work in phases. The Board requested drawings clearly outlining each phase.
Since no vote could be taken on the application without the final BZA decision, the BAR asked the applicant return to the next meeting. Another site visit will be conducted once the new sample wall has been finished.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 20, 2009

Jackson – Fence – Clubhouse Rd. – 107-1-44.1
Laukitis – Exterior Changes & Garage – Brook Rd. – 103-1-12
Dangoor – Driveway Walls & Gate – Serpentine Rd. – 107-1-96
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 15, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on September 15, 2009 at 7:00pm. All members were present.

El-Rayess – Crows Nest Road – Architectural Details:
Board Chair Paola Tocci opened the discussion by announcing that consulting architect Barry Rice was unable to attend the meeting due to emergency circumstances. However, he had conducted a site visit the week prior and submitted his comments in writing. These comments were briefly outlined and discussed. Mr. Rice would like to see further details and possibly material samples for the proposed chimneys. Likewise, he would like to see a site plan for the driveway/entrance area complete with samples. A timeline for driveway/entranceway plans were then briefly discussed followed by a brief presentation and discussion of slate samples for the roof.

Honor/Coen – 14 Paterson Brook Rd – Pool:
The Board completed a site visit along with their consulting architect Barry Rice. Various aspects of the plan including pool dimensions, placement of utilities, lighting and self-closing gates were discussed. Building Inspector John Ledwith commented that he had some concern regarding hydraulics as the pool will be located at the base of a hill. His main concern is the potential for the pool to lift should it need to be drained. He was informed that there would be a plug built in which can be removed should the pool need to be drained in order to relieve hydraulic pressure. Safety issues were discussed. An Engineer for the Applicant confirmed that there would be no drainage into the Village sewer system. Construction time is expected to be roughly 1 month. Consulting architect Barry Rice’s comments were conveyed by Board Chair Paola Tocci. Mr. Rice’s main concern is the fencing around the pool and he requested that the applicant remove a top portion of the proposed railing, which made the fence enclosure flat and easy to climb over. The Board also asked for a color sample and requested that the color of the slide match the color of the pool as closely as possible. The applicant agreed to make all the necessary changes and notations and return before the Board within the next month.

Witte – Tower Hill Road – New Construction:
Having completed a site visit, consulting architect Barry Rice has asked to see drawings of what existed there previously. Additionally, he asked that a site plan complete with setbacks be submitted and further requested that all materials be clearly noted on the plan. The applicant responded that a site plan and material list had already been submitted. Finally, Mr. Rice expressed some concern regarding the height of the tree canopy as seen from across the lake relative to the height of the house. Mr. Witte responded that this issue had been discussed at great length with the BZA and resolved. Board Attorney Rick Golden commented that although this issue had been discussed before both the BZA and the Planning Board, it still needs to be addressed by the BAR so that they can confirm that the actual height of both the trees and the house are equal to what is being shown on the plans.

Laukitis – 16 Brook Road – Exterior Renovations:
An Architect for the applicant presented the Board with plans detailing a complete renovation to the exterior of the home. The applicant is proposing a complete re-cladding of all exterior materials in an effort to update the home. Additionally, they are proposing a new, stand-alone garage as well as a new driveway entrance and patio. Paola Tocci relayed Barry Rice’s comments, which were all very general in nature. The Board requested a more detailed plan including setbacks, building specs and materials to be used.

Christensen – 9 Ridge Road – Installation of Solar Panels:
Building Inspector John Ledwith confirmed receipt of a letter from the applicant’s engineer regarding the stability of the roof. Both he and Village Engineer Carl Stone would like to see more details with regard to how the tubular panels will be secured to the roof. This was then discussed in detail. The tubular panels are the first of their kind to be installed on a home in Tuxedo Park. Board member Celeste Gebhardt expressed her desire to see the meeting agenda changed to reflect this, commenting that because they would be setting a precedent by approving these new panels, the public had a right to know the specifics. The Tubular panels are said to reduce energy costs by 50 – 70% and are 3 to 6 times more efficient than regular solar panels.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 15, 2009

El-Rayess – Crows Nest Road – Architectural Details – 105-1-8
Honor/Coen - 14 Paterson Brook Rd. – Pool – 103-1-30.3
Witte – Tower Hill Rd. – New Construction - 107-1-12.21
Laukitis – 16 Brook Rd. – Exterior Renovations – 103-1-12
Christensen – 9 Ridge Road – Installation of Solar Panels – 106-1-51
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 1, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, September 1, 2009 at 7:00pm. All members were present. Board member Julia Simet arrived late.

Riordan – Cliff Road – Demolition Permit:
Mr. Riordan appeared to request a building permit to demolish a partially constructed house on his property on Cliff Road. Construction of the house originally began in 2002 but the building was declared structurally unsound in 2006. Due to a legal dispute between Mr. Riordan and his business partner, the demolition of the house was held up by the courts. Now that the legal action has been resolved, Mr. Riordan wishes to proceed with the removal of the structure. Mr. Riodan’s architect and his builder presented the demolition plans to the BAR and discussed the demolition process. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the demolition permit under the conditions that Mr. Riordan seek the appropriate approval from the Board of Trustees and that he properly notify his neighbors 48 hours prior to the demolition.

Parr – 174 East Lake Rd – Replacement of Windows:
Mr. Parr appeared seeking approval to replace some metal-framed windows in his home on East Lake Road with custom wooden windows that would match the rest of the house. He presented the plans for the replacement windows to the Board. After a brief review, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Christensen – 9 Ridge Road – Installation of Solar Panels:
Gilles Depardon, architect for the applicant Mr. & Mrs. Christensen, appeared and presented plans to install solar water heating panels on the roof of the Christensen residence at 9 Ridge Road. Mr. Depardon presented a sample of the panels to be installed and described that they would be located on a section of roof not visible to neighbors or from the road.

The Board informed the applicant that before a vote could take place they would require structural plans of the roof showing that it could support the panels. The applicant agreed to provide the roof plans for the Building Inspector and Engineer Stone to examine.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 1, 2009

Riordan – Cliff Road – Demolition Permit – 106-1-75.2
Parr – 174 East Lake Road – Replacement of Windows – 105-1-20.1
Christensen – 9 Ridge Road – Installation of Solar Panels – 106-1-51
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 4, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on August 18, 2009 at 7pm. Board member Robert Simon was absent.

Vanum - Proposed single-family home – 2.5 stories: The Applicant‘s initial BAR appearance was scheduled at the request of the Planning Board. The Applicant’s previous Planning Board meeting resulted in questions being raised about the proposed home’s site relative to the property, and its orientation on the property. The Board of Architectural Review concluded that a site visit will be needed prior to any meaningful discussion about siting and orientation. Property access will most likely be off of Tower Hill Road.

Coen/Honor: The Applicant brought detailed plans for a proposed swimming pool complete with highly detailed sketches. The plans were initially met with favorable comments by the BAR members, and now a site visit is planned prior to final approval.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 18, 2009

Coen & Honor – 14 Patterson Brook Rd. – Pool – 103-1-30.3
Vanum Properties – Tuxedo Rd. – New Construction – 106-1-26
Review of Minutes

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 4, 2009

King - 47 Clubhouse Rd. – 107-1-67 – Public Hearing regarding Exterior Renovations

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 21. 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on July 21, 2009 at 7:00pm
All members were present. New Board member Jackie Greene was introduced.

Farhadian: The Applicant requested a change to the approved color for home’s exterior and window trim, providing samples of both. After a discussion of these changes, the Board approved them unanimously.

Dangoor: The Applicant requested several changes to existing driveway, stonewall, retaining wall stone stairway and gate plans. After a thorough review of the actual revised plans and a discussion of same, the Board voted unanimously to approve requested changes.

El-Rayess: New home construction. The Applicant requested ten changes to existing exterior approved home construction plans to include pool location, stairs leading from library, new exterior door location, door materials, pool equipment location, home ac location, and landscaping changes among others. The Board unanimously approved eight of the requested changes and asked for more detailed information on the remaining two. The Applicant then requested as a separate item, a change in window trim color from white to bronze, which the board discussed and approved. The Applicant concluded by discussing possible changes in the home design to include additional third floor dormer windows and a change of roofing material from cooper to slate. The Board liked these suggestions but did not vote pending detailed plans.

King: The Applicant did not appear. Board Chair Paola Tocci indicated that there seemed to be public interest in the Applicant’s initial architectural plans as discussed at the previous meeting. Board attorney Rick Golden informed the BAR that they could request a Public Hearing at any time should they determine that sufficient interest existed among the public. Therefore, the Board determined to schedule a Public Hearing on the application for its August 4th meeting at 7 PM. Discussion at the hearing will be limited to items within the BAR’s jurisdiction and this will be clearly noted in the Public Hearing announcement.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 21, 2009

Farhadian – Color Change – Brook Farm Rd. – 103-1-13.24
Dangoor – Exterior Change to Driveway plans – Serpentine Rd. – 107-1-96
El-Rayess – Changes to pool, patio, stairs, stone walls – Crows Nest Rd.
– 105-1-8
King–Exterior Renovation - 47 Clubhouse Rd. – 107-1-67
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 7, 2009

Alderisio – Vestibule, Screen Porch, Garage Renovation – 25 Mtn. Farm Rd.
Christensen – Skylight, Windows, Painting, Deck Removal – 9 Ridge Rd.
Beard – Dock – 214 E. Lake Rd.
Beard – Renovations & Addition – 30 Lorillard Rd.
Dangoor – Relocation of wall, windows, door - 29 Serpentine Rd.
King – Exterior Renovations - 47 Clubhouse Rd.
Honor/Cohen – Pool - 14 Patterson Brook Rd.

All members present. Attorney Golden arrived at 8:20 PM due to a family emergency.

Alderisio: Board had completed its on site visit. Applicant had revised its application and modified some of the proposed designs based upon previous Board meetings and comments. After a thorough discussion of these changes, the Board voted unanimously to approve this project as revised.

Christensen: Board had completed its site visit. Applicant revised its application and modified some of the proposed designs based upon previous Board meetings and comments. After a thorough discussion of repairs to be made to windows, doors, color, and proposed demolition needed, the Board voted unanimously to approve this project.

Beard - Dock: Although the Board unanimously approved the design, distance from shoreline, and materials to be used in the construction of applicant’s seasonal dock, the exact location of said dock has been left to the Board Of Trustees to determine since the applicant has two separate, adjoining shoreline lots.

Beard – Home: Board site visit had been completed here. This application is a complete demolition and the revised application now reflects a building design that mirrors the existing foundation footprint. The demolition, revised design, materials to be used, landscaping, colors and estimated completion time were all discussed. The Board voted unanimously to approve this project.

Dangoor: The Applicant presented revised plans reflecting Board input from previous meetings. The Board voted unanimously to approve this project.

King: This was the applicant’s initial meeting. By way of background, theapplicant purchased a non-conforming one-story cottage designed solely for seasonal use that has been vacant for several years and has no working water supply. Thus, no Certificate of Occupancy was issued at the time of purchase, and the applicant knew the property usage potential was seasonal only. The cottage has no insulation. Access to the cottage is by a pedestrian path only. Thus, no vehicle access exists. The Village Code is very clear that no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued unless said structure has running water. Since the applicant’s cottage is totally surrounded by private property, they will need to work out an agreement with at least one neighbor to obtain water access. The Board listened to the applicant’s restoration plans for this property. A site visit needs to be undertaken by the Board, although it can take no action on the applicant’s plans until the water access issue is resolved.

Honor/Cohen: This was the applicant’s initial meeting with the Board to discuss the construction of a swimming pool and they were seeking Board input on the tentative plans. A detailed discussion took place regarding the applicant’s desire to have a water slide as an integral part of the pool design. The Board needs to conduct a site visit. The applicant’s pool architect was asked to provide pictures of similar work he has executed, as well as renderings of the proposed pool, and various material samples.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 7, 2009

Alderisio – Vestibule, Screen Porch, Garage Renovation – 25 Mtn. Farm Rd. – 103-1-37.2
Christensen – Skylight, Windows, Painting, Deck Removal – 9 Ridge Rd. – 106-1-51
Beard – Dock – 214 E. Lake Rd. – 105-1-20.21
Beard – Renovations & Addition – 30 Lorillard Rd. – 104-1-40
Dangoor – Relocation of wall, windows, door - 29 Serpentine Rd. – 107-1-96
King – Exterior Renovations - 47 Clubhouse Rd. – 107-1-67
Honor – Pool - 14 Patterson Brook Rd. 103-1-30.3
Review of Minutes

Vacancy on the Village Board of Architectural Review

In June of each year, the term of one member on each of our appointed Boards expires. In some cases, the individual member may want to revew his or her service to the Board for another five-year term. In other cases, a vacancy is created when the individual can no longer serve or would like to step down. In all cases, our Board Chairs would like to know of your interest in serving on their Board. In July, the Board of Trustees reviews and votes on all Board appointments after considering the recommendations of each of the Boards.

At present, there is a vacancy on the Board of Architectural Review. If you would like to serve the community and be considered for any appointed Board position, please inform the respective Chairperson by expresssing your interest and forwarding your qualifications. For the Board of Architectural Review, pelase contract Paola Tocci at 351-2060; for the Planning Board, contact JoAnn Hanson at 351-5913; and for the Board of Zoning Appeals, contact Gary Glynn at 212-826-8420. Also, please send a copy of your email to my attention at houstonintuxedo@hotmail.com.

Thank you for your interest in Village government and expressing your interest in serving on one of our Village Boards.

Houston Stebbins
Mayor

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 2, 2009

Alderisio – Vestibule, Screen Porch, Garage Renovation – 25 Mtn. Farm Rd. – 103-1-37.2
Christensen – Skylight, Windows, Painting, Deck Removal – 9 Ridge Rd. – 106-1-51
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 19, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on May 19, 2009 at 7pm.
Board members Robert Simon and Julia Simet were absent.

Beard – Renovation/Addition
On behalf of Mr. Beard, architect Peter Cooper presented detailed plans for a complete renovation as well as an addition to his home at 30 Lorilard Road. A mock-up showing what the wood trim and freeze boards will look like was presented along with sample windows. Mr. Cooper is recommending the use of Azek as opposed wood (as required by the Village Code) for some of the columns associated with the trim as well as the windows. He suggested that Azek holds up over time far better than wood does and recommended that Board consider allowing the use of this material in the Village moving forward. Following a brief discussion on this, Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that the Board would take this request into consideration.
Building Inspector John Ledwith expressed some concern with an oil tank currently located in the front of the house and inquired as to whether or not Mr. Beard plans to examine and/or remove the tank. Additionally, he inquired about dampness in the home and more specifically mold, commenting that this has been an issue with this particular home in the past.
Mr. Cooper responded that the plan is to revisit the shell of the home during construction at which time damaged boards will be replaced.
Board Chair Paola Tocci read a letter written by neighbors Ronald and Elizabeth Reed into the record. While the Reeds recognize that the proposed renovation will be a great improvement to the property, they are very concerned that the second story addition will obstruct and possibly eliminate their view of the Wee Wah. They also expressed concern regarding noise, suggesting that perhaps the construction closest to their property could be done all at one time.
Mr. Cooper commented that it was his understanding that the role of the BAR was to address architecture and aesthetics and that by law they were not permitted to address height or bulk issues. He further commented that for the Board to entertain individual “egregious self serving requests” such as this one and to expect Mr. Beard to revisit his plans as a result of these requests is entirely unreasonable. He reminded the Board that the proposed renovation and addition is entirely within the limits of the law as set forth by the Village Code.
Chair Paola Tocci responded that she had had a conversation with Mr. Reed during which he indicated that he had spoken directly to Mr. Collins and that he had been assured that steps would be taken to see if his concerns could be addressed.
Mr. Collins reiterated that in his view, the BAR would be out of their jurisdiction to consider Mr. Reeds’ concerns and questioned whether or not it was in fact arbitrary and capricious for them to do so.
BAR attorney Rick Golden commented that the definition of arbitrary and capricious is “without foundation in fact or law” and that this situation does not fit that definition. He further commented that the Board is not required to rubber-stamp any project with approval just because it complies with the Village Zoning Code. He stated that while the BAR is bound by the criteria set forth in the Village Code, there are no general rules for the Board.

Mr. Collins responded that he felt the Reeds concerns were unreasonable, stating that the project currently being proposed is drastically smaller in size and scope than the original.
Paola Tocci asked Mr. Collins to please reiterate the Reeds’ concerns to Mr. Beard. She commented that part of the BARs’ job is to listen to comments from neighbors and take them into consideration.
On a different note, Board member Celeste Gebhardt commented that because the neighboring houses are historic homes with traditional finishings, it might be nice if Mr. Beard would consider traditional finishings as well (as opposed to the Azek) in an effort to create homogony in the neighborhood.
The Board will make a site visit to the property within the next few weeks.

Christensen – House Renovations
An architect representing the Christensens presented the Board with rough drawings and simulated before and after photos depicting proposed changes to their property at 9 Ridge Road. The applicant is proposing to replace all aluminum windows with doubled pained windows, replace the roof, remove a second floor balcony and expand a giant window on the front of the home. Additionally, they would like paint several exterior panels, which are currently white, pea green. The Board commented that while all the changes sounded fine, they were somewhat unsettled with the choice of pea green for the exterior panels. A site visit will be scheduled in the next few weeks.

Alderisio – House Renovations
Mr. Alderiso and his architect Peter Cooper presented the Board with proposed plans for renovations to Mr. Alderisio's home at 25 Mountain Farm Road. Plans include connecting the garage to the house so it can be converted into living space, and construction of a new entry vestibule. The Board seemed favorable of the project but told the applicant that they would need to make a site visit.

Farhadian – Modifications to Roof and Porch
Mr. Farhadian and his architect Tobias Guggenheimer came before the Board to present final detailed plans for a proposed renovation to Mr. Farhadians’ home at 7 Brook Farm Road. The renovations call for removal of a section of roof with skylights and reconfiguring it into a porch. After reviewing the final plans and materials to be used in the project, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Shaw – Tree Removal
Mr. Shaw was present to seek approval to remove two additional trees on his property, over the four per year allowed under the Village Code. Mr. Shaw presented a site plan and described the location of the trees to be removed and his reasons for wishing to remove them. After a brief discussion with the Board, which included how the arborist would access the property to remove the trees, the Board voted unanimously to approve the application.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Board Meeting
May 19, 2009

Beard – Renovation/Addition – 30 Lorillard Rd. – 104-1-40
Christensen – House Renovations – 9 Ridge Road – 106-1-15
Alderisio – House Renovations – 25 Mountain Farm Road – 103-1-37
Farhadian – Modifications to Roof and Porch – 7 Brook Farm Rd. – 103-1-13.24
Shaw – Tree Removal – 126 Tower Hill Road – 106-1-15
Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 5, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday May 5 at 7:00pm.
Board members Robert Simon and P.A. Howard were absent.

Dangoor – Pergola
On behalf of the Applicant an architect presented plans for the addition of a pergola on their property at 29 Serpentine Road. Prior to reviewing the plans, he informed the Board that the Applicant has received the necessary variance from the ZBA pending BAR approval. Following a brief discussion regarding whether the wood will be stained or allowed to weather, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

Farhadian – Modifications to Roof and Porch
The Applicant’s architect presented the Board with vague plans for the removal of a greenhouse roof in order to extend a second floor balcony/patio. The Applicant has received a variance from the ZBA because the area of the proposed balcony exceeds that which is permitted by the zoning code. There was a brief discussion with regard to a railing that will connect two sides of the balcony. Following the review, the Board requested that the applicant return to their next meeting with detailed drawings, including all measurements and critical dimensions, which is information they will need in order to vote on the application.

McLain – Air Conditioning Condensers and Outdoor Lighting
An architect and engineer presented the Board with plans for an air conditioning compressor, walkway enhancement and outdoor lighting at the McLain property at 15 Ridge Rd. As per the Board’s recommendation, the Applicant has shifted the proposed air conditioning condenser to the corner of the home furthest from the road, making it much less visible. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to relay a stone pathway with the addition of guide rails. Finally, an outdoor lighting plan was outlined and discussed.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

McQuilken – Arbor and Gate
As per zoning requirements, the Applicant has received the necessary height variance for their new arbor and gate from the ZBA. After a brief review of the plans, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 5, 2009

Dangoor – Pergola – Serpentine Rd. – 107-1-114
McLain – Air Conditioning Condensers, Lighting – 15 Ridge Rd. – 106-1-53
McQuilkin – Arbor & Gate – Circuit Rd. – 107-1-84
Farhadian – Modifications to Roof and Porch – 7 Brook Farm Rd. – 103-1-13.24
Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 21, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday April 21, 2009 at 7:00pm.
Board members PA Howard and Julia Simet were absent.

Dangoor – 29 Serpentine Rd – Pergola
Due to the fact that there was not proper Owner Representation present, review of this application was moved to the May 5, 2009 meeting.

El-Rayess – Crows Nest Rd – Plan Alterations
With the help of his landscape architect, Mr. El-Rayes presented the Board with alternative plans for a previously approved swimming pool and stone wall to be constructed at his new residence on Crows Nest Road. The proposed alterations include moving the pool further away from the road and into the sunlight as well as doubling the height of a stone wall. Additionally, Mr. El-Rayes would alike to install a hot tub. While these changes would result in a slight change to the line of disturbance, there are no zoning issues with the proposed plan. After a brief discussion, the Board determined that they would like to make another site visit before moving forward. They requested that the applicant submit structural plans for their review.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 21, 2009

McQuilkin – Gate & Arbor - 81 Circuit Rd. – 107-1-85
Dangoor – Pergola – 29 Serpentine Rd. – 107-1-96
El-Rayess – Alterations to Plans (pool, planting area, stone wall, post lights) – Crow's Nest Rd. - 105-1-8

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 7, 2009

The Board of Architectural Review met on April 7, 2009 at 7pm. All members were present.

Farhadian – Removal of Skylights and Porch Addition – 7 Brook Farm Rd.

An architect for the Applicant presented the Board with plans for renovations, including the removal of a portion of the roof in order to extend a second floor balcony/patio. A variance from the BZA will be required, as the area of the proposed extended balcony will exceed that which is permitted by the zoning code. This application has already been filed. The Board expressed their unanimous support of the proposed changes and will write a letter of recommendation on the Applicant’s behalf to be submitted to the BZA.

Love – Cottage Renovations – Circuit Rd.

An architect for the Applicant presented the Board with plans outlining a gut renovation of the home. After some discussion regarding various aspects of the plans, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Beard – Demolition & New Construction – 30 Lorillard Rd.

The Applicant’s architect presented the Board with a preliminary plan for major renovations to the property including a small addition to the first floor of the home as well as a second floor addition. Previous, more aggressive plans have been abandoned in favor of a more simple design with the intent of respecting the home’s current footprint while making the property more attractive. After some discussion the Board expressed unanimous support for the project and granted the applicant approval to proceed with a schematic plan.

Witte – New Construction – Tower Hill Loop

The Village Planning Board was invited to participate in the discussion regarding the Witte application for the purpose of moving the application along in a more expeditious manor. Because the proposed home has been sited on a ridgeline, a viewshed study has been completed by the BZA as part of the process and submitted to the Planning Board as a directive. During the Planning Board review process, it was determined that the simulation drawing was not verifiable. Therefore, before moving forward with their review, the Planning Board felt it necessary to have the BAR review the proposed design in terms of it’s visual impact (total mass and height of the structure) and determine whether or not they felt any major changes to the design will be necessary. This will provide the Planning Board with a firmer sense of what will actually be built and therefore provide them with helpful information toward their determining the house siting and area of site disturbance.

On behalf of Mr. Witte, his architect Mr. Collins presented initial plans for the new home on Tower Hill Loop. There was a great deal of discussion with regard to the removal of trees, and Mr. Witte commented that he has decided not to remove any trees for the purpose of providing a lake view. The variance granted to Mr. Witte by the BZA was conditional upon his agreeing not to remove trees from the viewshed, however members of both Boards expressed concern that Mr. Witte be allowed to remove some trees, some of which are dying and a few whose roots are posing a direct threat to a stone road-wall. After some further discussion regarding various differences between the renderings and the plans as well as various architectural aspects of the project, the BAR expressed their unanimous support of the application as presented.

Simet – Addition – 40 East Lake Stable Road

The Applicant and her architect presented revised plans for addition to her home on East Lake Stable Road. Various aspects of the plan including the location of a propane tank, the addition of an air conditioning unit, the burying of a utility line and the construction of a new chimney were briefly discussed.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 7, 2009

Farhadian – 7 Brook Farm Rd. – Removal of Skylights and Porch Addition – 103-1-13.24
Love – Circuit Rd. – Cottage Renovations – 107-1-84
Beard – 30 Lorillard Rd. – Demolition & New Construction – 104-1-40
Witte – Tower Hill Loop – New Construcion – 107-1-12.21
Simet – 40 East Lake Stable Rd. – Addition 106-1-34

March 17 Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Cancelled

Please be advised that the March 17, 2009 BAR meeting has been canceled due to the lack of any agenda items.

The next scheduled meeting of the BAR is April 7, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.

Village Board of Architectural Review March 3, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on March 3, 2009 at 7pm.
Board Chair Paola Tocci, and Board Member P.A. Howard were absent. BAR attorney Rick Golden was also absent.

Tuxedo Park School – Electric Solar Panels
Jim Berger and his architect Jeffrey Lane appeared before the Board in order to continue the application to install solar panels on the roof of the School. They completed Part 1 of the EAF (Environmental Impact Form) as requested at the previous BAR meeting. The Board reviewed their answers and then moved on to answer the questions in Part 2 of the EAF as required. After some discussion the Board determined that the environmental impact from the proposed project is minor, and that no changes to the plans are required. Therefore, the project was given a negative declaration in connection with the EAF. The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

Sendowski – New Construction
The Applicant and her architect were present. The application is a continuation of a previous application for the construction of a new home on Lookout Stable Road, which was previously before the combined PB/BAR in early 2006. At that time, based on a preliminary design, the Planning Board approved the maximum build-able envelope for the home. The purpose for the applicant’s return to the BAR is for a preliminary review of an entirely new design. The applicant's architect discussed the general aspects of the new design with the Board. Building Inspector Ledwith informed the applicant they would need to provide proof that the new design fits within the approved maximum build-able envelope. Engineer Carl Stone requested a new storm water plan and also confirmation that the previous waste water management plan met the requirements of the new design. Building Inspector Ledwith informed the BAR that there had been some recent complaints about low water pressure from neighbors in the area near the property. The Board will conduct a site visit and advised the applicant to return to the BAR with he requested information as well as more detailed plans for the project.

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 3, 2009

Tuxedo Park School – 150 Camp Comfort Rd. – Electric Solar Panels – 107-1-107
Love – 82 Circuit Rd. – Renovation – 107-1-84
Sendowski – Lookout Stable Rd. – New Construction – 107-1-114

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 3, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on February 3, 2009 at 7:00pm.
Chair Paola Tocci and Board member P.A. Howard were absent.

Tuxedo Park School – Solar Electric Panels
On behalf of T.P.S. Head Master Jim Burger presented plans for the addition of solar electric panels on the roof at the school. The Installation of the panels is an effort on the part of the school to “go green” and also reduce electricity costs. The proposed panels will be gravity based and therefore will not penetrate the existing roof.
After some brief discussion regarding the reflectivity of the panels and wind calculations, it was determined that Mr. Burger must complete an Environmental Assessment form before the Board can move forward with approving the project. Additionally, the Board decided that they would like to complete a Visual Impact Assessment form as part of the SEQRA process at their next meeting.

Dangoor – Pergola
Architects for Mr. Dangoor presented the Board with preliminary plans for a pergola at their residence on Serpentine road.
Board member Robert Simon questioned the area of the proposed project commenting that should the proposed structure extend beyond the existing footprint, it will be non-conforming in terms of setback and a variance will be required.
Otherwise, the Board had nothing but positive feedback to offer.
Mr. Dangoor’s architects commented that they would report back to Mr. Dangoor with the Board’s concerns.

Farhadian – Juliet Balcony & Window
Representatives for Mr. Farhadian presented the Board with slight modifications to the existing application, which include removing a separation between two balconies in order to create a Juliet balcony as well as the addition of a window.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving these modifications.

Love (McQuilken) – Renovation
Architects for Mr. McQuilken and Mrs. Love presented plans for the renovation of a carriage house at 68 Circuit Road. The renovation will include a comprehensive restoration of the exterior (new roof, windows and stucco) in conjunction with interior work. The Board agreed to schedule a site visit.

McQuilken – Gate and Arch
An architect for Mr. McQuilken presented the Board with a minor change to the previously approved plan. The Applicant would like to construct a gate at the end of their driveway and also add a 9 ft decorative arch. A variance will be required for the latter. The Board expressed their support for the application and encouraged the applicant to proceed to the BZA for the necessary variance.

Simet – 2 Story Addition
The Applicant and her architect presented the Board with plans for a two story addition to her home at 40 E. Lake Stable Rd.. The addition will include a new living room, sit-in dining room and formal entrance for the home. Also included in the plan are a wooden fence with a gate to allow separation between the driveway and side yard, the construction of a utilities shed, relocation of an existing propane tank, installation of central air and expansion of the driveway to allow for a 3-car parking area. The Applicant also plans to install a new fireplace with chimney and expand the current porch to wrap around the side of the house. She has selected wall-mounted light fixtures which she would like to install on either side of the living room windows as well as at the entrance to the mud room. Plans to expand the basement were discussed. Additionally, the Applicant mentioned her desire to eliminate an existing utility pole located in the center of her yard and bury the utility lines.
The Board will schedule a site visit.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 3, 2009

Tuxedo Park School - 150 Camp Comfort Rd. - Solar Electric panels - 107-1-107
Dangoor - 29 Serpentine Rd. - Pergola - 107-1-96
Farhadian - 7 Brook Farm Rd. - Juliet Balcony & Window - 103-1.13.24
Love (McQuikin) - 68 Circuit Rd. - Renovation - 107-1-84
McQuilkin - 82 Circuit Rd. - Gate & Arach - 107-1-85
Simet - 40 E. Lake Stable Rd. - 2 Story Adddition - 106-1-34
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 6, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on January 6, 2009 at 7pm.
Board member Robert Simon was absent.

Lin – Lorillard Rd. – Landscaping Changes
The Applicant’s architect presented amended plans for the project, which directly addressed concerns expressed by the BAR at their previous meeting. After some brief discussion the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the project conditional upon the Applicant’s upholding the variance granted them by the BZA as well as their agreeing to keep construction 2-3 feet away from manhole covers located on the property.

Dangoor – Serpentine Rd – New Driveway and Gates
Architects for the Applicant presented detailed drawings of the proposed new driveway and gates. T he Applicant plans to cut a hole in the existing stone wall and create a new, primary entrance with gate for the residence. Landscaping as well as the distance between the existing wall and the new gate were briefly discussed.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving project conditional upon the Applicant’s agreement that no lighting changes or improvements be made without further BAR approval.

Agenda for January 6 Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting

Lin - Lorillard Rd. - Landscaping changes - 104-1-41
Dangoor - Serpentine Rd. - New driveway and gates. - 107-1-96

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 2, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on December 2, 2008.
All members were present.

McClain – Ridge Rd. – AC Compressor
The Applicant presented photographs showing proposed locations for an AC compressor. Placement of the compressor is particularly difficult as the property can be viewed on all sides from 3 different roads. After some brief discussion, the Board recommended that the compressor be located on the corner opposite from that which had been proposed. The Applicant was asked to return to the BAR with a screening plan for the compressor.

Lin – Lorillard Rd. – Changes to Approved Plans
The Applicant’s architect presented several changes to the approved plans including front entrance and window modifications. In addition, the Applicant would like change a previously approved stone retaining wall to a concrete wall with a stone veneer and due to the discovery of two manholes in close proximity to the wall, would like to shift it 4 feet. The Board asked that the neighbors be notified of these proposed changes and requested that the applicant return to the next meeting with finalized plans.

Dangoor – Serpentine Rd. – Driveway
Architects for the Applicant presented renderings for a new driveway. The Applicant hopes to cut a hole in the existing stone wall and create a new, primary entrance with gate for the residence. Materials for the new gate along with loose landscaping plans were discussed. The Board requested that the Applicant return to the next meeting with a formal presentation complete with dimensions for the project.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 2, 2008

Mclain - Ridge Rd. – AC Compressor, Entranceway, Railing, Light - 106-1-53
Lin – Lorillard Rd. – Driveway – 104-1-61
Dangoor – Serpentine Rd. – Driveway – 107-1-96
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 4, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 7pm.

Bartlett - 161 Continental Road - Pool House Renovation
Architects for the Barletts presented plans for revisions to their pool house including interior modifications, the replacement of sliding glass doors with true divided light doors and covering of an existing concrete patio with bluestone.
After some brief discussion, the application was unanimously approved.

197 Wee Wah Road LLC - 197 Wee Wah Rd. – Demolition
Representatives of the 197 Wee Wah Rd LLC appeared before the board to request permission for demolition of the home located on this property. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the demolition. Once approved by the Board of Trustees, the LLC will have 30 days to demolish the home. The demolition work must take place Monday - Friday between the hours of 9am-4pm.

Mclain - Ridge Rd. - AC Compressor, Entranceway, Railing, Lights
The Applicant appeared without plans to discuss the addition of an AC compressor, stone steps with railing and driveway lighting to her property at 15 Ridge Rd. The Board informed the applicant that they had received 3 letters of concern from neighbors. Screening of the AC Compressor was briefly discussed. A site visit will be made and the applicant was asked to return to the Board along with her architect and engineer to present a landscaping plan as well as samples of the materials to be used on the steps and railing.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 4, 2008

Bartlett - 161 Continental Road - Pool House Renovation - 107-1-71
Gazin - Lorillard Rd. - Changes to former approvals (roof replacement, window relocation and new dormers) - 104-1-46.32
197 Wee Wah Road LLC - 197 Wee Wah Rd. - Demolition - 104-1-43
Mclain - Ridge Rd. - AC Compressor, Entranceway, Railing, Lights, 106-1-53
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 7, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on October 7, 2008 at 7:00pm.
Board Member P.A. Howard was absent

Reporter’s Note: This was an extremely efficiently run meeting, with five applications being handled in thirty minutes.

Ewing – 8 Pepperidge Road – Changing House Exterior Color – Initial Meeting
Applicant requested changing home’s external primary color to cream yellow; the trim to brilliant white; the door to black; and the porch floor to platinum gray. Several board members recalled when the home had been yellow previously, and this request was unanimously approved.

Farhadian – 7 Brook Farm Road – Changing Doors and Windows
BAR members visited site. Applicant and architect presented revised plans to change a number of existing windows, to create a door where currently a window exists, and to add one additional window. New windows will match existing windows. No changes to home’s current footprint were proposed, nor were there any zoning code issues. There were also no structural changes proposed. Applicant’s proposal was unanimously approved.

Bartlett – 161 Continental Road – Pool House Renovation
Applicant’s architect presented revised plans for completely renovating the existing pool house with out changing its footprint. The project would involve a complete re-cladding of both the existing interior and exterior walls. The Board agreed the proposed changes represented a meaningful improvement in the existing structure. However, since only the applicant’s architect was present, and the applicant or his/her representative was not present, the Board was unable to take a final vote on this proposal. Vote postponed until the next BAR meeting.

Rein – 74 Cliff Road - Kitchen Extension + Window Replacement
Applicant’s current home is in the shape of a capital “H”, with the southern portion of the “H” filled in by a previous addition some years ago. Applicant would now like to fill in the northern portion of the “H”, with a kitchen addition and also replace all of the existing windows with more thermal efficient ones. Proposal meets all zoning and set back requirements. The Board expressed pleasure with the proposed project as revised from previous BAR meeting. Applicant’s proposal was unanimously approved.

Mcquilken/Love – 82 Circuit Road – Exterior Renovation – Initial Meeting
Applicant proposing a total exterior renovation of the entire secondary home behind the main residence/stable, to include rebuilding the existing roof using slate and repairing, replacing, repointing all exterior stone and brick work. Board was encouraging about this proposal. Applicant will bring detailed plans a specifications book to next meeting.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 7, 2008

Ewing – 8 Pepperidge Rd. – Changing house color – 106-1-39
Farhadian – 7 Brook Farm Rd. – Change in Doors & Windows - 103-1-13.24
Bartlett – 161 Continental Road – Pool House Renovation – 107-1-71
Rein – 74 Cliff Road – Kitchen Extension – 106-1-76
Love – 82 Circuit Road – Exterior Renovation – 107-1-84
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 16, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on September 16, 2008.
All members present

Beard – 21 Laurel Road - Railing & Landscaping
The Applicant and architect presented a complete set of plans for proposed site work. Prior to this meeting, the Board had conducted a site visit. The Village Counsel, Engineer and Inspector had no comments. The Applicant will be adding some additional steps to existing stairs leading to road plus a black handrail, and properly finishing the existing steps. The Applicant’s plans will improve the property’s overall drainage. The plans were unanimously approved and the Stop Work Order thus lifted.

Simet – 40 East Lake Stable Road – Addition – Initial Meeting
The Applicant’s existing home has a footprint of less than 1,000 square feet and is on a small parcel of land. The initial plans called for creating parking space for three vehicles, enlarging the existing small kitchen, and adding on to the existing second floor to create a larger master bedroom along with two children’s bedrooms. Waivers from the Board of Zoning Appeals will be needed regarding the non-conforming lot, both rear and side set backs, and total square footage. The Village Building Inspector will write an initial denial letter, which is necessary for the Applicant to appeal to the BZA. The Board will then write a letter recommending that the waivers be granted based upon the Applicant’s proposed plans.

Farhadian – 7 Brook Farm Road – Changing doors and windows – Initial Meeting
The Applicant and architect presented plans to change a number of existing windows, create a door where currently a window exists, and to add one additional window. No changes to the home’s current footprint were proposed, nor were there any zoning code issues. There were also no structural changes proposed. The Applicant plans to return to present the Board with some additional revisions to the current proposal and the BAR will then schedule a site visit.

Bartlett – 161 Continental Road – Pool House Renovation – Initial meeting
The Applicant’s architect presented plans for a complete renovation of the existing pool house with out changing its footprint. The project would involve a complete re-cladding of both the existing interior and exterior walls. The Board was in agreement that the proposed changes represent a meaningful improvement in the existing structure. A site visit will be scheduled.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting
September 16, 2008

Beard - Laurel Rd. - Site Work - 107.-1-74.1 & 107-1-75.2
Simet - 40 East Lake Stable Road - Addition - 106-1-34
Farhadian - 7 Brook Farm Rd. - Change in Doors & Windows - 103-1-13.24
Bartlett - 161 Continental Road - Pool House Renovation - 107-1-71
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 2, 2008

All members present [four since Mrs. Hempel’s replacement has not yet been appointed.]

Rein – Kitchen extension + windows; Initial Meeting:
Applicant’s current home is in the shape of a capital “H”, with the southern portion of the “H” filled in by a previous addition some years ago. Applicant would now like to fill in the northern portion of the “H”, with a kitchen addition and also replace most of the existing windows with more thermal efficient ones. Applicant appeared with the architect and initial plans. No BZA waiver appears to be required here. The Board’s general feeling was this proposed addition and window replacement had positive potential, and suggestions about materials and sky light fixtures will be reflected in a more detailed applicant presentation at the next meeting.

Granito – Driveway:
The Applicant had recently completed a mitigation of the Belgium blocks leading out to the roadway from the home’s original property boundary stonewall, by eliminating them. This was done at the request of the BAR at its August meeting. All Board members had seen the final results of this mitigation, and after discussion about the appropriateness of staining the remaining Belgium blocks verses letting them age, it was agreed to simply let them age. A vote was then taken approving the changes the applicant has made to the driveway.

Beard – Railing & Landscaping:
A stop work order pertaining to exterior substantive property changes that had not previously been reviewed and approved by BAR is still in force. Applicant seeks to move some earth berms and improve property water drainage. BAR requested applicant to provide landscape architect and engineering drawings. A BAR site visit was conducted since the last meeting. However, applicant failed to appear at this meeting, so no action of any type was taken.

A general discussion took place in regards to a proposed moratorium on all new construction on what may potentially be defined as a ridge line or precipice. Said moratorium has not yet been enacted by the Village Board of Trustees, but will be fully reviewed at its September meeting. Moratoriums of this nature are effective for up to nine months, and can be extended once for an additional three months. If Village Board passes a moratorium, it is expected to be prospective and not retroactive.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 2, 2008

Beard - Laurel Rd. - Site Work - 107-1-74.1 & 107-1-75.2
Rein - Cliff Rd. - Kitchen Extension - 106-1-76
Granito - Tuxedo Rd. - Driveway Alteration - 106-1-29.2
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 5, 2008

The Village Board of architectural review met on August 5, 2008. All members were present.

Tuxedo Club – Lighting:
Lighting plans for the Main Club and pool area were presented. Although the total number of fixtures proposed will only be increased by three [24 older fixtures are to be replaced], the amount of lumens emitted by the new proposed fixtures will almost double the existing lumens. Because the estimated project cost of $12,000 exceeded the limit for projects not requiring architecture and engineering drawings by only $2,000, the requirement for architect and engineering drawings was waived. Project approved.

Mengel – Landscaping & Lighting:
The Applicant came back with revised plans reflecting prior comments by the BAR. The Applicant recently received all requested BZA variance waivers. Revised plans for lighting, landscaping, driveway, outside walls and stairs were reviewed. After some on-the-spot revisions, the plans were voted on. Project approved.

Beard – Railing & Landscaping:
The Applicant appeared based upon a stop work order pertaining to exterior substantive property changes that had not previously been reviewed and approved by the BAR. The Applicant seeks to move to earth berms and improve property water drainage. The Applicant requested permission to provide landscape architect and engineering drawings, to be followed by a BAR site visit.

Lin – Garage, French Doors, Landscaping & Terrace:
The Applicant reappeared with revised plans to reflect suggested changes by BAR at previous meetings. The Board voted upon these plans subject to the most recent changes and conditions. Project approved.

Graetzer – Changes to an approved plan:
Although the Applicant’s existing BAR approved plan called for the installation of a small section of property fencing as well as permission to place a tool shed on the property, the Applicant appeared before the Board to ask for relief from executing both of these items. The Board discussed the concept of “essential items”, and concluded in this case, that neither of the two items now unwanted by the Applicant, failed to meet the “essential elements” test, and thus approved the request.

Gwathmey – Garage, Stonewall, & Landscaping:
The Applicant returned with revised plans reflecting the BAR’s most recent comments. This application dates back to November 2005. After BZA variances were granted and numerous meetings with the BAR, the Board voted on the most recent plan revisions. Project approved.

Marcus – Garage & Pond:
The Applicant submitted revised plans reflecting prior BAR meetings, that included a corner garage door, as well as a two foot-deep pond and revised andscaping plans. After discussion on the revisions, the Board voted. Project approved.

Granito – Driveway:
After much discussion by Board members about what elements of the Applicant’s rebuilt driveway needed to be either redone or eliminated, it was agreed that the Belgium blocks leading out to the roadway from the home’s original property boundary stonewall, would be eliminated. While the elevated apron just inside the stonewall entrance would remain.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 5, 2008

Mengel - West Lake Road - 103-1-32 - Landscaping, LIghting
Lin - Lorillard Road - 104-1-61 - Garage, French Doors & Landscaping
Tuxedo Club - East Lake Rd. - 107-1-3 - Lighting
Beard - Laurel Rd. - 107-1-74.1 - Railing, Landscaping
Graetzer - Clubhouse Road - 107-1-59 - Changes to Approved plan
Gwathmey - Clubhouse Road - 104-1-49 - Garage, Stonewall, Landscaping
Marcus - Turtle Mtn. Road - 103-1-9.2 - Garage
Granito - Tuxedo Road - 106-1-29 - Driveway
Review of Minutes

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 15, 2008

Devereux - Lorillard Rd. - Fence Replacement - 104-1-50
Gwathmey - Clubhouse Rd. - Garage, Landscaping - 104-1-49
Tuxedo Club - West Lake Rd. - Docks - 107-1-3
Tuxedo Club - West Lake Rd. - Lighting - 107-1-3

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 1, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on July 1, 2008 at 7:00pm.
All Board members were present.

Board Chair Paola Tocci opened the meeting by welcoming new board member Jackie Urra. Jackie was appointed to the BAR by the Board of Trustees in the month of June to fill seat left vacant when former Board Chair Chiu Yin Hempel resigned and Vice Chair Paola Tocci moved up to the Chair position.

Applicant Gwathmy was removed from the agenda as their architect was unable to attend the meeting.

Diem – Landscaping
Modifications to the original landscaping plan, including the option for stone steps, construction of entrance pillars and alterations to an existing ruin (stone header), were discussed. All modifications were approved by the Board with the condition that the stone header be deconstructed by hand and a fence installed bellow it for safety purposes.

Lin - Garage, terrace
The Architect for applicant Lin presented and reviewed plans for a new garage. In addition, the applicant would like to remove an existing wooden deck as well as a detached 1-car garage and replace them with a new terrace and enclosed out door play area. As the property in question sits on a hillside and construction will involve some grading changes as well as moderate driveway alterations, drainage concerns were discussed. Village Engineer Richard Messer expressed a desire for more detailed information with regard to grading and drainage, specifically the redirection of potential runoff. It was agreed that the Applicant will gather the necessary information and present more detailed drainage plans at the first meeting of the BAR in August.

Zgonena - Garage, Changes to house design
The Architect for Applicant Zgonena reviewed plans for changes to their home design as well as garage reconstruction. As the applicant received all the necessary variances from the Village Board of Zoning appeals, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 1, 2008

Diem - Summit Rd. - Landscaping
Gwathmey - Clubhouse Rd. - Garage, Landscaping
Zgonena - Circuit Rd. - Garage, Changes to house design
Lin - Lorillard Rd. - Garage, terrace
Marcus - West Lake Rd. - Garage addition
Devereux - Lorillard Rd. - Fence

BAR Appointments Come into Question at Monthly Meeting

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on June 3, 2008 at 7pm.

All Board members were present with the exception of Board Chair C.Y. Hempel, who resigned last week

Prior to the first applicant being heard, there was a discussion about David McFadden’s written comments to the effect that Acting Chair Paola Tocci had been appointed in secret by Mayor Stebbins, and such “backroom dealing like this is a violation of the spirit of the municipal government’s Sunshine and Open Meetings Laws.” Building Inspector Ledwith passed out a memo regarding his interpretation of Village Code 100-51 (c) in that Board of Architectural Review appointments are to be made by a decision of the Board of Trustees. Attached to the memo were the minutes from the Board of Trustees meeting dated March 21 2007, indicating that then Mayor McFadden appointed PA Howard to the Board of Architectural Review without any Trustee approval or public candidate search. [An additional review of past Board of Trustees minutes shows that then Mayor McFadden appointed entire committees {specifically the Transition Advisory Committee - BOT minutes date October 19, 2005} without seeking Trustee approval or consensus of any kind.]

Applicant Granito – Stop work order: Applicant’s driveway and curbing being rebuilt without prior Board review. The stop work order was upheld pending a site visit. The Board agreed that the work performed was not part of any prior BAR approval. The Board informed the applicant that they will perform a site visit during the month of June, and asked them to return to the next BAR meeting scheduled on July 1, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.

Applicant Mengel – Driveway, Retaining Wall & External Stairway plus Lighting: The Applicant reviewed in detail waivers recently obtained from BZA, although written confirmation of same have not yet been sent to BAR. After detailed discussion, the Applicant asked to return with a material’s specifications book; external lighting plans; driveway Belgium block sample(s); and written confirmation of the BZA waivers regarding the external stairway and retaining wall.

Per information below, Peter Ashby Howard was appointed without BOT vote*.

BAR appointments

BOT minutes March 2, 2007

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 3, 2008

Granito - Tuxedo Rd. - Driveway - Stop Work Order issued
Mengel - West Lake Rd. - Landscaping

CHIU YIN HEMPEL RESIGNS FROM BAR

Effective May 27th, Chiu Yin Hempel resigned from the Board of Architectural Review, on which she served under Mayors Kroeber, McFadden and Stebbins. When a question was raised about non-US citizens serving on NY State Town/Village Boards in an appointed capacity, and this legal issue was properly researched by BAR attorney Golden, it was discovered that US citizenship is one of the requirements for serving on any such Boards. Mrs. Hempel learned of this yesterday and, in light of her United Kingdom citizenship, immediately offered her resignation to Mayor Stebbins, who regretfully accepted it.

TPfyi believes it speaks for all of our residents in thanking Mrs. Hempel for her many years of service on the BAR, as well as for the high standard of impartiality that she set as Chairman of this Board for the last eleven months. Thank you Chiu Yin!

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 20, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on May 20, 2008 at 7pm.
Board member Simon was absent.

Applicant Dangoor: Last appeared on January 2, 2008 - Driveway application

Key comments from prior meeting were reviewed. The Applicant presented several driveway design concepts and asked the Board to review prior to presenting a final plan. These concepts included wall heights and designs as well as the number of walls to be used. The Board commented on drainage, amount of fill required, the need for wall design to incorporate natural contours and to minimize site disturbance. A modular wall design was also reviewed along with the driveway entrance pillar design.

Applicant Gwathmey: Last appeared on March 4, 2008 – Garage and driveway application

The Board used the Applicant’s letter of May 9, 2008, which summarized in detail the issues raised at the prior applicant meeting, starting with the amount of fill the revised design concept would require and the amount of site disturbance (ground fill and tree cutting) needed for plans execution. The Village Engineer stated that most of the previous engineering issues have been addressed in the revised plan. The applicant suggested a retaining wall concept to further minimize the revised plan concept, which the Board liked. The applicant will return with a plan in final form.

After a brief Board discussion about noise levels being reduced by the Tuxedo Club’s new fan venting and landscaping design on the exterior east wall of the Club kitchen, the meeting adjourned.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 20, 2008

Dangoor - Serpentine Rd. - Driveway - 107-1-96
Gwathmey - Clubhouse Rd. - Garage & Landscaping - 104-1-049
Review of 2006 Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting, May 6, 2008

Members Howard and Simon absent

Applicant Sammann: Last appeared on 4/15. This Application was revised to reflect previous meeting Board suggestions in regards to proposed shrubbery, drainage, driveway, and wall. Applicant’s architect provided detailed information, to include drawings, of how the proposed stonewall would look and be constructed to include wall ends and wall’s scale. Wall set back was fixed at three feet with input from the Village DPW. Finalized applicant plans were approved subject to a number of conditions to include construction of a stonewall sample section; notifying Orange & Rockland of wall plans; providing an as built survey to be followed by a completion survey; and the incorporation of the existing rock outcroppings into the planned wall.

Applicant Lin: Last appeared on 4/15. Applicant asked at previous meeting to appear again before the BAR to review plans prior to seeking multiple BZA waivers. Current plans were scaled back to from prior meeting to address Board concerns. At this meeting, there was considerable discussion regarding size and composition of the existing asphalt driveway. Regarding the proposed landscaping plan, the Board suggested retaining a landscape architect who is familiar with the Village deer problem. Applicant will next proceed to the BZA.

Applicant Mengel: New home construction. Applicant presented a sample of the wrought iron railing they wanted to use. Since there were no code related issues and the neighbors had been notified, none of the three Board members present objected to the proposed rail design.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 6, 2008

Sammann - Landscaping
Lin - Landscaping, doors, garage
Mengel - Railing change from approved plans
Mengel - Landscaping
Review of Minutes

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 15, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on April 15, 2008.
All members were present.

Applicant Worthy: Last appeared on April 1. Neighbors were notified of proposed painting changes. There were no comments. Application was approved unanimously by the Board in less than three minutes.

Applicant McQuilkin: Last appeared on April 1. Board reviewed a laundry list of points raised in prior meeting pertaining to a Landscaping Application pertaining to shrubbery, a parking area, and stonework to include a stonewall. Application was approved unanimously, subject to a review of a sample portion of the proposed stonewall, Application was approved unanimously.

Applicant Sammann: Last appeared on April 1. This Application was revised to only include proposed shrubbery, driveway, and wall. The Board requested that the Applicant’s architect return to the next meeting with detailed information, including drawings constructed to include wall ends and wall’s scale and to show
how the proposed stonewall would look.

Applicant Lin: Last appeared on 4/1. Since this meeting, the Board completed a site visit, and identified a number of code issues to include lot size and non-compliant front, side and rear structure setbacks. In addition the proposed deck addition would exceed current Village standards. All of these will require BZA waivers prior to work commencing. Applicant asked to appear again before the Board of Architectural Review to further fine-tune its application before proceeding onto the BZA, and the Board agreed to this request.

Applicant Zgonena: Applicant desires to meaningfully update and restore the existing structure. The Board was supportive of the applicants desire to totally rebuild the existing garage and slightly expand it as well as adding porch stairs to house’s front and expanding existing house porch. The entire property is substandard, so there is a catalogue of issues that will need BZA waivers before proceeding. Materials to be used, specifications, and landscaping were all discussed and applicant’s ideas appeared to be well received. Projects that could proceed not needing a BZA waiver were also reviewed.

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review April 15, 2008

Worthy - Painting - Clubhouse Rd. - 107-1-27
McQuilkin - Landscaping - Circuit Rd. - 107-1-85
Sammann - Landscaping - Clubhouse Rd. - 107-1-41
Lin - Garage/Deck/Terrace - Lorillard Rd. - 104-1-61
Zgonena - Additions/Garage Modifications - 106-1-57.2
Proposed Viewshed Legislation

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Tuesday
April 1, 2008

McQuilkin - Landscaping - Circuit Rd. - 107-1-85
Lin - Garage/Deck/Terrace - Lorillard Rd. - 104-1-61
Review of Minutes