VILLAGE GOVERNMENT
Board of Trustees
Planning Board
Board of Architectural Review
Board of Zoning Appeals
Agenda for March 25 Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting
- Gerald Howard & Susanne Williams – 105-1-25 – Patio/Fence/Walls (12 Acoma Road)
- Andy Siegel – Request for Variance Extensions – 107-1-105.1
- Approve Minutes and Decisions
back to top
Agenda for Village Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting April 23, 2009
1. Farhadian – Remove skylights add patio area
2. Education Session for BZA Members
back to top
Village Board of Zoning Appeals to hold Public Hearing April 1, 2009
NOTICE is hearby given that the Board of Zoning Appelas of the Village of Tuxedo Park will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, April 1, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. in the Village Hall, Lorillard Road, Tuxedo Park, New York on the following:
- Application of David Dangoor, Tax Map No. 107-1-96, located at 29 Serpentine Road, seeking relief from Section 100-8 (Miniumum area and bulk regulations) in order to construct a pergola that encroaches on the rear year setback.
All parties interested will be heard at said time and place. Plans are available for review at the Village Office Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
BY ORDER OF THE
BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Gary Glynn, Chairman
back to top
Village Board of Zoning Appeals February 26, 2009
The Village Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, February 26 at 7:30pm.
Board member Wayne Lyski was absent.
McQuilkin – Front Yard Fence Height
Architect Dan Stoica represented the Applicant. Also present was neighbor, Maureen Love.
Chairman Glynn opened the meeting by stating that no Conflict of Interest forms had been submitted. He reminded the Board that the BAR had previously approved the parking area. Mr. Stoica proposed a simple wrought iron arch at the entrance to the parking area. The proposed height of 9’6” requires a variance. Board member Jon Whitney inquired of BZA Attorney Mike Donnelly if the proposed structure is considered a gate or a fence. Mr. Donnelly responded that the Village zoning code treats both structures with the same restrictions.
Chairman Glynn reviewed with the Board each of the five factors they must weigh when granting a variance. After some positive discussion regarding the impact to the neighborhood the Board voted unanimously in favor of granting the variance.
Chairman Glynn noted that the following standard conditions aply:
- The BAR must give their approval
- The variance is only for the specific structure proposed by the artchitect
- The variance will be granted for a 2-year period
BZA attorney Mike Donnelly then gave the Board an educational session.
back to top
Agenda for Village Board of Zoning Appeals February 26, 2009
- McQuilkin - Front Yark Fence Height
- Education Session for BZA
- Approval of MInutes
back to top
Village Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting January 22, 2009
The Village Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, January 22 at 7pm.
Board members Mary Darby and Wayne Lisky were absent.
Meeting minutes were reviewed.
Simet Application - five variances including, lot area, driveway width and deck size as well as rear and side yard setbacks.
Based on their receipt of written approval from the BAR as requested, the Board issued their final approval of the Simet application.
Silvay Appeal r/e Gwathmey Garage:
Mr. Silvay has filed an appeal to the BAR’s August 5 decision approving plans for the construction of a garage by his neighbors, the Gwathmeys. The grounds for this appeal are as follows:
1. The BAR did not receive a letter submitted by Mr. Silvay on August 4 until after
their August 5, 2008 decision.
2. The BAR did not consider or address the concerns in his August 4 letter or any
of the other correspondence he had sent them on the matter.
In addition, Mr. Silvay claims that he has attended a BAR meeting when the Gwathmey application was being discussed for the purpose of voicing his concerns, but was told by the BAR that he could not speak publicly at the meeting and should put his concerns in writing.
After some discussion, during which Mr. Silvay and the Gwathmeys were permitted to speak, the Board adjourned briefly for an attorney/client session before returning to make their decision.
The BZA described and discussed the documentation they had reviewed since the initial hearing date. They allowed comments from Mr. Silvay and the Gwathmeys and their representatives. After some further discussion, the Board adjourned briefly for an attorney client session and returned to make their decision.
The consensus of all the Board was that even though the BAR may not have received the August 4 letter submitted by Mr. Silvay, it was clear from reviewing the evidence, that each of the concerns expressed by Mr. Silvay in his letters to the BAR during the review and approval process of the application had been properly addressed by the BAR. Therefore there was nothing illegal or arbitrary and capricious about the BAR's August 5 decision.
In addition, they commented that even though it is not illegal under Village Code or State law, it is very unfortunate that the BAR did not allow Mr. Silvay to speak at the public meetings as allowing the public to have a say in the approval process is an important part of that process.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of denying Mr. Silvay’s appeal.
back to top
Village Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting October 23, 2008
The Village Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, October 23, 2008 at 7pm.
Board members John Whitney and Mary Darby were absent.
The meeting commenced with the Simet application for five variances including, lot area, driveway width and deck size as well as rear and side yard setbacks. An architect for the applicant presented and reviewed plans with the Board. After some discussion, the Board approved all variances conditional upon the Board of Architectural Review’s approval.
The public hearing for the Heibel Application was continued.
The Board discussed a letter written by the Heibel’s Attorney to the Village in which he suggests that the proposed Moratorium on ridgeline building would be fundamentally unfair to his client. As the Board Trustees approved the moratorium on October 15, the letter was outdated and there was discussion amongst the Board as to the intent of the Applicant moving forward.
John Boyle expressed his concern with regard to the clear-cutting of trees, stating that even if the Heibels were granted their variance to build, they would still need to clear-cut close to 100 trees in order to obtain a lake view and Village law prohibits this type of clear-cutting.
Board member Wayne Lyski commented that the timing of the moratorium seems to coincide directly with the Heibel application.
Board Chair Gary Glynn responded that while the timing may be coincidental, the purpose of the moratorium is to allow the Viewshed Committee time to continue their work in an unencumbered fashion.
Following a brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of keeping the public hearing open.
back to top
Agenda for Village Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 23, 2008
- Simet - 106-1-34 - Addition and renovations
- Heibel (continuation from 2/28/08) 101-1-11.1 - New Construction
back to top
Village Board of Zoning Appeals Public Hearing October 23, 2008
NOTICE is hereby given that the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Tuxedo Park will hold a public hearing on Thursday, October 23 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Village Hall, 80 Lorillard Road, Tuxedo Park, New York, on the following:
- Application of Jeff & Julia Simet, 40 East Lake Stable Road, Tax Map No. 106-1-34, seeking relief from SEction 100-8 (Minimum area and bulk regulations ) of the Village Code for lot area, rear year setback, and side yard setback, Section 100-9 (Permitted yard intrusions; decks and terraces), and SEction 100-21 (Driveways) for driveway setback in order to construct a two story addition, open and covered porches, and new driveway location.
- Continuation of February 28, 2008 hearing for the application of Richard Heibel, Camp Comfort Road, Tax Map No. 101-1-11.1, seeking relief from Section 100-13A (Ridge lines and elevations) from the Village Code in order to construct a new single family dwelling on a ridgeline.
The application and plans are available for review Monday through Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. at the Village Hall, Village of Tuxedo Park, 80 Lorillard Road, Tuxedo Park, NY.
All neighbors and/or parties interested will be heard.
By order of the Board of Zoning Appeals
Gary Glynn, Chairman
back to top
Village Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting October 1, 2008
The Village Zoning Board of Appeals met on Wednesday, October 1, 2008.
Board member Maureen Coen was absent.
The purpose of the meeting was for the Board to hear the appeal from an approval of the Board of Architectural Review granted to the Gwatmeys by Robert Silvay in regard to the addition of a garage at their property at 17 Clubhouse Rd.
Board attorney Mike Donnelly began by advising the Board that their job was to determine whether or not the Board of Architectural Review had abused their discretion “to an extreme degree” by being arbitrary and capricious with regard to this application.
Mr. Silvay stated that the BAR should not have requested that the Gwathmeys locate their proposed garage so close to his property line and back door. Because the property is particularly steep in this area, Mr. Silvay is concerned about drainage issues. He also voiced concern regarding the aesthetics of the project.
Gwathmey attorney Mr. Conway responded that the Gwathmey project has been before the Board of Architectural Review 16 times during the past few years and that all persistent issues had been adequately addressed.
After much discussion, the ZBA decided to review the relevant Board of Architectural Review minutes and engineering reports along with the 4 originally proposed sites for the garage submitted by the Gwathmeys in July of 2006 before continuing the discussion at their next meeting on November 20, 2008.
back to top
Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting June 19, 2008
The Village Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday June19, 2008.
Board member Darby was absent.
Board Attorney, Mike Donnelly, was also absent, as was his replacement.
The Public Hearing for the Richard Witte application was continued. Mr. and Mrs. Witte were present as were their architect and landscaping designer. As previously requested, Mr. Wade of Esposito & Assoc. (landscape architects) presented photo simulations of the property taken from various vantage points along West Lake and Turtle Point Roads. These gave a reasonable idea of the proposed home’s visual impact during “off-leaf” (winter) conditions. Mr. Wade also presented a 3 dimensional drawing of the property.
The Board then carefully considered the five factors relevant to the granting of a substantial variance. (i.e. building on a ridgeline) Due to the absence of council, no final decision was made. However, after having made site visits to the property, the general consensus of the Board is that there is not a better spot on the property to locate the proposed home and that to deny the Wittes their right to build would constitute a “taking”.
Building Inspector Ledwith, reminded the Wittes that neither the Planning Board nor the Board of Architectural Review could consider their application without a signed statement from the Board of Zoning Appeals. Therefore, the application was delayed until the next BZA meeting.
The Public Hearing for the Mengel application was continued. Representatives for the Mengels were present. The list of variances, originally presented in May, and status of each were discussed. It was decided that a request for a variance for stone slab steps would be withdrawn as the steps do not require a variance. However, a proposed modification to a stonewall might require a variance not previously requested. No decisions were made due to the lack of council and it was decided that the applicant will return to the next BZA meeting for a final discussion.
back to top
Board of Zoning Appeals to hold Public Hearing on June 19
NOTICE is hereby given that the Board of Zoning Appeals of the Village of Tuxedo Park will hold a meeting on Thursday, June 19, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. in the Village Hall, 80 Lorillard Road, Tuxedo Park, New York. Also being held is the continuation of the public hearings on the Richard Witte and Philip Mengel BZA applications.
BY ORDER OF THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS
Gary Glynn, Chairman
back to top
Village Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting May 22, 2008
The Village Board of Zoning Appeals meeting convened at 7PM on Thursday May 22 with the Lin/Ma application for front yard, rear yard and yard-intrusion variances. Rothe Architects and Planners represented the applicants. Specifically, the project includes a new 3-car garage with a terrace patio above; conversion of an attached garage to living space, driveway modifications, demolition of a detached garage, and an enclosed play-yard space for children.
After hearing considerable explanation and applying their own evaluation, the BZA voted 5:0 to grant those necessary area variances to enable the proposed construction and demolition.
The application of Robert Zgonena sought a variance for a 2-story addition including porches, dormer, driveway etc. Mr. Zgonena was represented by Peter Cooper, architect. The site is less than an acre and very steep. After a full review, the BZA voted to accept the requested area and dimensional variances with a vote of 5:0.
An application from the Mengels was considered for 11 modifications to the original approved site plan for a new house and appurtenances on West Lake Road. The Mengels were accompanied by their contractor/construction manager and Ms. Cerbone, a landscape designer. Mr. Mengel explained that the entire lot is within our Village’s 100’ no-build buffer zone of Tuxedo Lake.
The variances and modifications sought included walkways, walls, a tree well, steps, fencing, a hot-tub spa and new driveway materials.
A neighbor, Peter Regna, expressed his opinion that the hot-tub, at 5’ from his property line, was too close and might become a source of noise and activity usually requiring a 50’ set back.
Mr. Mengel stated that his wife required the hot-tub as therapy for her back. Mr. Regna recommended two other locations on the site which might accommodate a hot-tub, but with less visibility and proximity.
After considerable discussion with the Mengels and their professionals, the BZA elected to table 2 of the 11 issues, approve 6 more and decline the remaining 3. Concerns about aesthetics, safety, public health, set-backs and precedent were voiced as major concerns prompting the denials.
An open discussion of the revised Gateway Overlay proposal (Local Law 3 of 2008) ensued with all BZA members seeming to support this initiative. It’s objective is the further protection of our East and South “Gateway” (entry) roads. The tools this document provides include deeper house setbacks, no new driveways onto both Tuxedo and South Gate Roads and new-house orientation guidelines.
Chairman Glynn called for a vote of support or rejection of this proposed legislation so as to determine whether passage would require 3 or 5 Trustee votes in favor. A motion to support this draft legislation resulted in 4 ayes, no nays and 1 abstention for lack of familiarity.
The BZA meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:30 PM.
back to top
Village Board of Zoning Appeals Meeting March 27, 2008
The Village Board of Zoning Appeals met on Thursday, March 27, 2008.
Chairman Glynn called the meeting to order. Board member Mary Darby was absent. None of the members present signed a conflict of interest form.
Mr. and Mrs. Witte were represented by their architect, Mr. Collins, and their landscape architect, Ms. Esposito. The parties had done a great deal of preparation, including studying the Village Code and the proposed Ridgeline Overlay District Regulations.
Mr. Glynn gave an overview of the Board’s general response for a variance to build on a ridgeline. The landscape architect presented photos of the proposed site taken from various vantage points. He also produced two topographical profiles running from the lake to the proposed site. The Board questioned the visual impact of a house at the location. The general consensus was that moving the building site to a lower elevation would have more impact on the neighbors. Mr. Toal, an attorney representing the neighbors Sean and Anne Madden, voiced their concerns regarding water run-off onto their property. Mr. Ledwith, building Inspector, stated that the property is not heavily vegetated and that it would be difficult to screen the house. Mr. Donnelly, the BZA lawyer, and Mr. Esposito briefly discussed the possibility of a conservation easement to safeguard the existing trees. Mr. Glynn observed that the Board does not like to rely on vegetative screening.
A lengthy discussion ensued. The Board unanimously agreed that the property is on a Ridgeline. The board ultimately suggested that the architects prepare photos/simulations of what the house would look like from 3 specific vantage points. The Board did not feel that a balloon test was adequate to show the visual impact. All parties agreed and the hearing was held open until the next Board meeting in April.
Mr. Goodfellow discussed his concerns regarding the variance for the Samman wall. His letter follows:
March 10, 2008
Mr. Gary Glynn
Chair, ZBA
Village of Tuxedo Park
Tuxedo park NY 10987
Dear Gary,
In re: BZA Variance for Sammann wall
I am writing to express my concerns about the variance granted to the Sammanns for “relief” from Section 100-18 Fences “no fence shall be located closer than five feet to any roadway”.
The 5 foot setback was established to give the DPW adequate room for managing snow plowing and other road work in order to decrease the likelihood of damage to residents’ property and provide for safe passage of vehicles. In addition, it was hoped that larger setbacks would help the Village avoid the kind of problem that has surfaced on properties throughout the Park where plowing and expanded road surfaces are creating knotty problems for the Village when it comes to establishing who is responsible for the costs of repair of walls that are close to the roadway. The Cathcart wall (now Zgonena) on Tower Hill and Grueterrich walls are but two examples of what is becoming a vexing challenge to the Trustees.
Susan reviewed the file in the Village Office on Thursday, March 6 with Ms. Matthews. First of all, she was surprised to note that there was no letter from the applicant requesting the variance or explaining his hardship, nor was there a site plan delineating the request. There was a site plan showing a 5 foot setback. The only letter in the file was from Chiu yin Hempel, Chair of the BAR, who wrote to the BZA endorsing the variance for aesthetic reasons.
It has always been our understanding that the ZBA grants variances 110-48 “where there are practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships in the way of carrying out the strict letter of any of the provisions of this chapter, the Board of Appeals shall have the power, in passing upon appeals, to vary or modify the application of any of the regulations or provisions of this chapter relating to the use, construction or alteration of buildings or structures or the use of land, so that the spirit of this chapter shall be observed, public safety and welfare secured and substantial justice done.”
In this instance, not only does there seem to be an absence of hardship or practical difficulty, or even a letter from the applicant, but also the rationale is based upon an aesthetic judgment by the BAR that the wall will look better closer to the road. (See Ms. Hempel’s letter of 9 February 2008). Nothing in the record indicates that the DPW was consulted in any way.
So, the BZA has made a decision based upon an aesthetic judgment of the BAR that is not grounded in an established and approved set of guidelines. Further, the decision is quite different from the way the BZA has handled such requests in the past. Four houses away on Clubhouse Rd. is the home of JoAnn Matthews. Ms. Matthews sought to build a wall close to the road because, in part, she thought it would look better. She was denied a variance and her wall is set back 5 feet.
Question for the BZA: Are aesthetics proper grounds for a variance? Does this decision, based as it is upon such an arbitrary aesthetic observation of wall placement help establish a new precedent that might create difficulties for the Village in the future?
We hope that you will be able to revisit this decision after involving the DPW.
Sincerely,
James C. Goodfellow
cc. BZA Members, BAR Members, Building Inspector, Head of DPW
My Donnelly, reading from the minutes of last month, said that the variance granted had been conditioned upon DPW, Board of Architectural Review and engineering approval.
The Board agreed that there were some troubling procedural issues:
The absence of an application for a variance from the applicant.
The precedent of previous decisions regarding stone walls adjacent to roadways were not considered.
Everyone agreed that the five-foot setback was a valid requirement given the possible liability of the Village.
It was unclear what action, if any, the BZA would take with regard to this issue.
back to top
|
