Zoning Board - Regular Meeting

Now we have our third person, so we can finally begin. We have a quorum. We also have one of our members who's not feeling well is also on Zoom, so there are four of us here. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. Peter McKayless I'm the head of the zoning board. The way the meeting works is our secretary will call out your application and read it. We would then ask you to please come up to the podium here and explain it to us and to the room and to anybody who's on Zoom, as this is a public hearing. At the point that I open it up for the public hearing, please address all comments to us at the board. This is not to be addressed to the applicant. It's to us. We're the ones ultimately making the decision. Whether the decision gets made tonight or not is up in the air. It can be held over for another meeting. Like I stated earlier, on our agenda, application number 2, the 1055 Old Post Road, in bedford is being has been adjourned by the applicant until the september 9th meeting and the very last application the 145 broad brook road bedford hills one has been adjourned to the july meeting so if you were here for those public hearings they will be not they won't be heard tonight um with that said can let's begin technical difficulties here with zoom hopefully that will resolve itself

we're here for time extension request from sherman farm llc is seeking a one-year time extension for 550 guard hill road bedford designated as 73.17-1-6 on the town tax maps in the residential four-year zoning district where a variance of article 5 section 125-50 of the zoning ordinance was granted via Resolution 05-243 to permit the construction of an in-ground swimming pool, which results in 6.06% of building coverage, where the existing building coverage is 5.86%, and where a maximum of 3% building coverage is permitted, and where the impervious surface coverage results in 13.18%, where the existing impervious coverage is 13.17%, and where a maximum of 8% impervious surface coverage is permitted in the residential four-acre zoning district, and where a 12-month time extension was granted via Resolution 04-25-1 to expire on May 1, 2026. Good evening. Good evening.

Good evening chairman members of the zoning board of appeals. My name is Dan Alexander partner at the law firm of cutting and fader here on behalf of the applicant and property owner Sherman farm, New York LLC. I think Kim did most of the work for me at this point. We're seeking another 1 year extension, but we have submitted to the building department for our building permit. It was a long winter. We kind of once the ground was, we woke up from the snow and realized we needed to get our application into the building department. We, essentially made our application to you all for a time extension in April within 30 days of that as we had projected in our letter we made our application to the building department obviously they need time to do their job so we're sort of a little bit of belt and suspenders I guess at this point that's really where we are so is there no reason we can't extend it just to September 1st I mean you don't need if you as long as you've applied for the building permit yeah I don't want to put I don't know how to apply for the building yeah i mean can we give a i mean i don't i think i think the team's doing a good job i think they're giving your building department everything they need and just want to make sure that that's not that's enough time you know they're doing what they can pursuing it right that's that is a new language so you're getting six months i've got to say i prefer six months i mean not because we're going to use it just because i don't have to come back twice let's do six months then okay thank you you need to split If I don't know, it's less, it's less than that. Because if I remember right what happened was the math became the issue because it's an existing horse boarding operation. And so I think it's.

What do you usually give them a year?

Well, this started in 2024. This would be three years.

But if you give them six months, they're diligently pursuing. Now it's out of their hands with us.

Well, he's talking about they put in their letter 30 to 45 days to get a building permit. So, I mean, six months should be plenty of time. Yeah, I think six months. Once they apply for the building permit, then they've satisfied our criteria to seek a building permit within a year. So, yeah.

Six months is fine with us.

Okay.

Yep. Thank you very much.

Can we make note of that? Everybody in favor of that? Aye. Roger, you okay? Yes. Yep. Sounds good then. Six months.

Thank you very much. Have a great evening. Hope your car is better soon.

Okay. Is that mic on for you? I'm having difficulties. I'm trying to get back into Zoom. Is that what you're asking?

No, the mic. Oh, there you go. Okay, good.

I'm there.

Not that I need one. There we go.

Sean Rooney is seeking a variance of Article 3, Section 125-27D2 and Article 5, Section 125-50. of the zoning ordinance for 245 Babbitt Road, Beverly Hills designated section block and lot 60.11-3-26 on the town tax map to permit the construction of a 40 by 70 barn and pergola where the barn ground floor area results in 3200 square feet, where an accessory structure shall not exceed 0.5% or 218.02 square feet. of the area of the lot in the Village Apartment Zoning District and where the rear yard setback results in six feet where 50 feet is required and where the side yard setback results in six feet where 50 feet is required and where the combined side yard setback results in 35.5 feet where 100 feet is required in the Village Apartment Zoning District and where the pergola results in a side yard setback of 10 feet where 50 feet is required in the Village Apartment Zoning District.

Good evening.

Good evening. Good evening, members of the board and chairman. After presenting at both the zoning and planning boards, I carefully considered your feedback. I revised my plans for the proposed structure. In consultation with my engineer, we have reduced the size of the building to 65 feet by 35 feet. resulting in a total area of 2,275 square feet, much less than it was before. It was a reduction of 18.8% reduction. This decrease in both length and width of the building increases the setbacks from the side and rear properties from six feet to 11 feet. representing an 83, excuse me, 83.3% increase, improvement in the distance. Additionally, revised dimensions reduce the overall building height from 30.5 feet to 28 feet, an 8.2% reduction. Regarding the pergola, which is a much less smaller structure, my wife and I have decided to relocate that farther away from the property line. Increasing the setbacks from what I originally asked was 10 feet to 15 feet, a 50% improvement in the distance. These revisions reflect our commitment to address the board's concerns and minimize the impact on neighboring properties while maintaining the intended functionality of the project. I respectfully request the board grant this variance to allow the construction of this proposed pole barn and pergola. We believe that these improvements will enhance the usability of our property while preserving the residential character of the neighborhood. Thank you for your time and consideration. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further, and I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

You have to go back to the planning board.

The planning board told me in an email that I had to come here 1st and after this meeting, They will either put me on on Monday, or they won't put me on.

I don't know what that exactly means, but... Did you go and see them after you left here last time?

Yes. I went and saw the planning board. They did a whole site visit. They came out and looked at the entire site. There are a few things that need to be addressed through them. The size, obviously, I've reduced it from over 2,500 to 2,275. So that's one thing that I don't have to do through them. And then the other thing is just the eight feet over the 20 foot through them.

Gotcha. Okay. So is there anybody in the audience that wanted to speak on this application? Anybody on the zoom call? No. Any discussion here? This was our big concern was the height last time. As well as the general size.

God, it's a 28.

Oh, I did submit new, smaller drawings. Yeah, I saw that. The actual look of the building hasn't changed, just shrunk in all dimensions.

Gotcha. Yeah. And you can get your RV in there?

Yes.

I'm sure that would be a welcome sign.

Did you submit an updated zoning table?

Excuse me, I didn't hear what you said.

Sorry, did you submit an updated zoning table with the measurements?

Yes, there's a whole site plan zoning plan that also the planning board requested, but I submitted it to you guys as well. I have extra copies of it. If you need a hard copy, I emailed it.

No, I have that in front of me. Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah, there's not like a table table. It's more like drawing plans. Construction almost plans.

Do you have an extra copy of the new zoning table?

Say that again?

Do you have an extra copy of the new zoning table? Yes.

I'll give you one second.

Do you remember where we are with coverage?

Well, you brought it down. I mean, the coverage was brought down considerably.

One second on that.

3,200 square feet to 2,275. So my...

Building coverage permitted in that zoning is 20%. Existing is 6%. Proposed is 10.5%. That's only an increase of 4.5%. Okay, thank you. Impervious coverage is allowed 40% on my property. It currently is at 21.4%. It is going to be 25.7%, a 4.3% increase. And this...

that was the impervious yeah he's allowed 25 I also have one did you did you have an updated cycling that shows the because you shifted the location of the building yes dated cycling that shows the

Sheds are and the vinyl shed and the 2 of the metal shed and the. Plastic check here are removed and this is the new location where we'll be removing the gravel that's behind here and putting grass. So there's more. Spaces.

I mean, we're not, I don't think we'll get it.

And then this drops off, you know, down to the correctional.

So, yeah, the back is those corrections. Yeah. So they're not going to be effective.

No, we have the neighbors. Yeah.

And the neighbors, they're worried about the spaces, increasing the space between the 2 and reducing the size. And the neighbors not going to say that he's opposed at this point in time.

Yeah, no, certainly. Well, yeah, I've been driving by here. He's been parking his RV out here in the parking lot with the party visible from the street.

Yeah, this is 100%, well, 99% not visible. It's 300 feet back, set back from my property, set back well beyond the street. Driving down the street, we can even see it except for one little section of my driveway.

the heights down so my my i appreciate the efforts you've taken sorry i appreciate the effort you've taken to bring this more in conformance with what we're looking for the board knows that i'm very sensitive to coverage and impervious which is not not an issue here which is good and i see that you pulled it back also from the property line which is part of what we were looking for given the neighbor's concern it's still an an A larger building than maybe I'd like to see on here. So what I'd like to be cognizant of in the board to take note of is with any variance, any changes to the building, including, I would say a decrease. Normally, it's just increases, but I would say if there's a decrease or modifications to the building, I'm going to ask that return for permitting. And also, if there's a change in use to this particular structure, it has to trigger a revisit to this board. So it's not 1 where we're going to allow for automatic conformance. Um. terms of use on this on the site because this is not a building that's being done in a conforming way with adu intentions cottages or accessory structures alike it's nearly as big as the house itself and it's not an intention of the board to allow for a second structure to be used or occupied as a second primary residence the intention here that the applicant is pursuing is for it to be as a garage structure for really a camper and other vehicles that they have on the site And storage, so any changes to that use, I would say would need to come back to the board here and I would ask the board to consider that as condition.

Yeah, I'm with you on that and then they would have to file.

They would, they would have to file, but I'm also aware of other conversations going on around structures in the community and the like. So I'm making that a condition of this variance. Looking at that and the board, Roger, you have your hands up.

Yeah, Meredith, are you also then suggesting any finishing of that attic space?

Yeah, the attic space in the second loft area or attic space here is intended purely for storage purposes and is not intended to become a finished space and occupiable space. And that's a condition, again, of the variance to the extent that there is a usage change or like. There's two factors that can be bear in mind. I'm just going to put a warning out there because this is a larger structure and not simply because it's, I don't want it to be presupposed that this is the applicant's intent because I don't believe it is in any way, fashion or form, but having been on this board for a number of years and seeing what does take place when properties change hands or the like. The conditions on this is really to preclude it from becoming a 2nd, residential type structure without oversight by the town. So please shape or form the other thing that's not here at this time and that I would look to have given that we do have some spacing is that we had some evergreen screening our providers slide in here.

uh between the two property lines because this is a larger oversized structure um that's going in above the height requirements so go on i currently there are maple trees and large trees that even if i put other trees in that area i don't know if they would have the ability the ability to grow that's why i put the grass there now but there's adequate enough room to plant like you had requested, that you had recommended last time.

Right. So what I'm looking for is not a full wall of straight screening. In other words, I'm not expecting to go down the entire length of the building and add screening the full length in there. What I ask is that I would like to break up the view that that has onto the overall property and the visual aesthetic there.

Okay.

So we have is that that's 70 i can add that to that that's 65 feet yeah so if we had you know five are provided that went in there i was going to say one every 10 feet yeah something like that okay so that there's spacing um sure all right and and see how that goes yeah yeah and and i would i'm not going to make a requirement usually when we go in we do have a minimum size that we're looking for i would just start with up you know, three foot, four foot and let them grow in because that's going to make them the most stable in the long run there than trying to establish something larger up front. But I am looking for variety that gets you that taller height. Yes.

I have to go to the planning board also, right? Yeah. I don't know if they'll have any.

So that part of what I'm mitigating for is the height going over and the neighbor who came, that was a specific concern given the height and the proximity. It's still well within the setback. And I understand that if you try to shift this further up into the setback area, you have a problem with some other aspects of functionality on the property and accessing it, which is not .

It also would bring it closer to that individual's property as well.

Correct. So there's different things that make that, prove that to be not the best choice, but I still want to put in some efforts to mitigate some of that visual impact to a neighbor's property. Okay. Anyone else have any thoughts?

No. All right.

Yep.

Since you started with the other side.

I would move to approve the variance. The board found the benefit to the applicant by granting the variance outweighs any alleged detriment to the community and determined the following. The benefits sought by the applicant could not be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant. In this case, the applicant has represented the fact that they have additional vehicles on the property they would like to store appropriately. Uh, and work on them while that's not tied to the land. What is is the fact that they have room on the property to continue to build and develop. They are looking to put essentially a new garage structure on the property. Garages are in conformance overall with use with the community at large. There will be no undesirable change. The character, the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties to what we're doing to work to mitigate any of the concerns there are to add. A requirement that there be at least 5 are provided planted minimum height of 3 to 4 feet to start planted about 10 feet apart as appropriate. We're not dictating the exact landscape spacing, but the idea is to break up the frontage of the building as it abuts the neighbors property to the is that to the West of your property. So that should be roughly where the landscaping is placed. The variance requested here is not substantial. We've seen both an increase in the requested variance here for the side yard setback as well as a reduction in the overall height that's being requested here and a general reduction in the scale footprint of the building overall. The variance requested will not result in any adverse physical or environmental effects in the neighborhood or community. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but that is only one of the factors to be considered by the board in making its decision, and it's not determinative. The approval of the proposed variance is subject to the following conditions. The applicant shall use their best efforts to ensure a building permit is issued within one year of the board's approval as variance, and then diligently pursue such construction to completion. The applicant shall submit a certified as-built survey, including building and impervious coverage calculations to the building department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Um, the applicant will install the landscaping prior to the issue into the CEO, any changes to the proposed structure, including reduction in space, a change in use and increase in square footage. Uh, will trigger a need to revisit to this to the zoning board in particular. We understand this approval is still condition in part on planning boards approval as well. It's being referred to the planning board for that approval. What else?

We're using the, Kim, we're using the figures that are in the May 6 letter, not the ones that were in the original.

Okay.

And the other thing would be, I would agree that this would also carry over to the pergola. to the same reduction for the same reasons. There was a 50% decrease or increase in the distance from the side yard.

I would also add that there is a restriction on there. There is a storage space in this barn that can only be used as storage. It cannot be finished and it cannot be used as a recreational space in terms of use or otherwise it's simply a storage space. And lastly, the structure cannot be used for residential purposes. A violation of that particular term could result in a termination of your right to use the barn as a whole. Roger, anything else?

No, that sounds very good. I second that.

And the letter dated May 6, 2026, stating the new dimensions and everything.

All right. Mr. Stern? Yes. Mr. Van Loveren?

Yes.

Ms. Black? Yes. Mr. McAllis?

Yes. You got it. Thank you.

Thank you.

And now you're going to go back to the planning board.

Yeah. Yeah.

Um, actually, we never closed the public hearing. What's that? I missed closing up public here and close the public here.

All those in favor. I public hearings closed.

Thank you. This is mine. This might have been in my pocket. Okay.

the next Edmund Simone is seeking a variance of Article three section 125 dash 11125 dash 15 and Article five section 125 dash 50 of the zoning ordinance for Nottingham Road Katona designated section block and lot 60 dot 10 dash 2 dash 39 in the residential half acre zoning district to permit the construction of a new residence on a pre existing legal nonconforming lot with a lot does not meet the minimum 100 foot effective square requirement in the residential half acre zoning district and where the front yard setback results in 31 feet to the covered porch and where 35 feet is required and where the rear yard setback results in 33.6 feet where 50 feet is required in the residential half acre zoning district and where the retaining wall is greater than six feet in height and where the rear yard setback results in 21 feet where 50 feet is required for a wall that exceeds six feet in height in the residential half acre zoning district.

Hi. The last time we were here, we talked about the project. In the preceding 30 days, we looked at a lot of letters that were received by the zoning board. And what we did is we looked carefully at how to mitigate the wall. We had a lot of conversations with Will. Again, we already have a steep slope approval granted pending Will's approval of our project. He has since done that. But what we did for the project itself to make this less intrusive is we basically foreshortened our wall significantly from before. The wall used to go over to that location. In doing this, we were also able to increase the rear setback for our wall from 21 feet, now we're 28 feet away from the wall itself. And also we looked at just basically providing a little more enhancement of our tree plantings for the particular project. Before I get to that, a lot of the correspondence was confused with what we're actually asking for. And so I was going to sort of just talk through that really quickly. I know we have people in the audience. And so what we have is, again, a front yard setback of 35 feet, side yard 30, rear yard 50. The front yard, we're asking for a four-foot variance to put a covered porch on the front of the house itself. And I have pictures of other houses in the neighborhood, and they all have similar porches, and we're putting a porch right here on our house. It seems to be an element running through the neighborhood. We're just emulating that with the house itself. The house size is similar to houses in the area. I've got some mapping that shows identical scale of the project we're proposing. The problem we have with the property, though, is the property basically isn't uniformly straight in the rear property line. It swages inward, as shown here, while all the other lots are pretty much square. And because of this foreshortening between the front and the rear setback, we end up encroaching on the rear setback itself. In terms of what variances require beyond that four foot for a little porch, we have no setback requirements for variance on the side yards. We're fully compliant. In the rear yard, what we have is for the main house itself, at the eastern side of the house, we are conforming. But unfortunately, the rear setback line, it's not straight like the front. It follows an offset of the property line. And so while at the eastern side, we're conforming with the depth of the house relative to the setback, by the time we get to the other side of the house, we need a variance of about 16 feet. Following the theme that we have here, narrowing down to about a three feet wide front and rear setback offset, we then need a setback for the garage. We stepped the garage and made it very narrow. But even still, we need a variance at that location of 15.4 feet. And as we discussed before, to make the wall and the turning radiuses that Hahn Engineering requested, we have a 28 feet setback requirement in the rear setback line. Everything else is conforming. We have half the building coverage, half the impervious coverage. We're far below what the thresholds are for the lot. So what we did then is we looked carefully at how to mitigate that and because we're working with the rear yard, we put an extensive mixed species of pine tree plants on the rear of the property. This picture before you is our 3D model looking dead above it. So this is 100% to scale and we have all these trees in the rear and they're staggered and again, mixed species so we don't have any problems with them. In the front of the property, we have all these trees proposed. In the front of the building, again, of mixed species. As you can see on my 3D model, they're shown across the site. There are some trees that remain on our property. We're not cutting all the trees in the front, but for clarity purposes, because they're so tall, we turn them off in our model. What we did with the roadway is how do you make the walls look smaller? What we did is we looked at view sheds. When you look at the view shed down the driveway, we set a wall that kicks off at an angle for the parking area. And what that is is shown right here on this picture. We set the area for that not in line with the driveway but hidden. And what happens when you look at a 3D model, this visual effect is shown in this dark gray line. You won't be able to see it because it's out of your view shed where we kicked the wall off at an angle. That means that when you drive down the driveway, you're going to see a grassy hillside here and not a big wall in front of you. Then we did is we took the wall, which is only about six feet high at this location, and we wrapped it around the corner. of our proposed plan to a point at this location where we proposed a planter. That planter is approximately six feet wide. In that planter, we have proposed various species of evergreens within that envelope. When you look down the driveway, you actually see a tall planter. a little over eight feet tall, and behind it, another wall beyond that, but it's buffering with planting strips to reduce the scale of it. We're introducing green species and evergreens. We have species here which will go about eight feet tall. In the end, when they're fully matured, you'll have vegetation along that planter and it'll be permanent. And we can very happily stipulate that has to be maintained for perpetuity basically to include the enhancement of the space. In addition, our little garage area, which we couldn't put underneath the building because I squashed the building down into the ground. Actually, this garage is about two feet higher than the basement. That cladding is proposed along the walls as well. That cladding will match a stone wall, which is shown in my picture in my 3D model, And that extends, it's a stone wall from here toward the street. And this white line you have here is a concrete wall poured in place with cladding on top of it. So everything is natural stone veneer on these surfaces to sort of match up what's happening on the site. We have done test borings on the property, and we did as many as we could. There's an old road on the property. We did test borings on this old road that crosses through the property itself. We have about five feet of overburden on the property, but we expect to hit rock in this particular area, and that will be exposed. We won't be putting a wall in that. But we have to take a very conservative approach to this. And we're assuming that we will need a wall in this area. But because of the rock and the type of rock that's there, we expect to have that as exposed rock versus a wall. But nevertheless, we showed stone cladding or maybe natural rock as we cut the site. We've spoken extensively with the Hahn Engineering, what can we do to help this driveway, but because the ordinance you have in the town, which limits your slopes to 4%, we're stuck with the grade of what's on the road, and we extended that over to the house site. And just for members who haven't seen this presentation before, we located the house on the right-hand side to make it conforming as much as possible because of the strange setbacks we have. And on the other side of the property, we limited it to a septic area with a reserve here or a primary. Because we've received a bunch of comments from the neighbors about the septic system at this area, we have no problem making this reserve and making this the primary. In fact, it's cheaper for us to put the primary septic system here and just not build this one for 40 years plus. We have that flexibility. Our West Virginia County Department of Health permit allows me to do that. And so we offer that. If this is too visible, we can make the septic and have a little bit of lawn area in front of the house site and eliminate any tree disturbance on the western side if that abates the concerns of disturbances. We don't plan on doing anything on this area. Basically, our old roadway and wall system are here. This is just some tree cover. We keep the tree cover if that becomes an issue. It really doesn't matter to us. And so we would just clear this side here. And that clearing, again, we've somewhat depicted in our 3D model. We just took out the trees here and left the trees over there in our model. But you can see we were mitigating that with plantings. So my client, it's a three bedroom house. My client's here in the audience. We spent quite a bit of time working with Will. We tried everything we could to work out this system, which we think we did a pretty good job on. We tried to mitigate it with plantings. Again, we are fully conforming. We're double the side yard setbacks pretty much with the house. The side yards aren't a problem. The front yard, again, only has a variance for that canopy. The rear yard, yes. We have variances, but we're putting all these trees here. The town mentions an issue with walls, and they're over six feet tall. When I read the definition of what a stone wall is and what the height of a stone wall is, it's taken from the grade line and going vertical to the top of the wall. That's how it reads. Baseline to the top of the wall. But in our case, we're doing the opposite. Our walls are starting in a baseline and we're digging a hole into the ground and putting a wall up against the cut. So realistically, we have a negative height on our walls because our walls are going into the ground, not being added to the ground going up. And your ordinance reads that way. baseline to top of wall. So if we did that with this project, taking our baseline and going to the bottom of the wall, it's reverse, it's a negative wall height. And so that's kind of one issue I was trying to clear up with how to interpret what we're doing here on this project with this type of construction. But nevertheless, We did make the wall also two feet lower in this option. We did lower that wall height. Again, we made it much smaller, and we mitigated it, as you can see here before. There's not much to add at this point in time, but I'd like to reserve the right to respond later on with comments from the audience. Again, my client wants to work with the neighbors. He wants to live here. We're doing the best we can to be a good neighbor. We're flexible with the septic area, if that's an issue. I guess that's all I can say.

Great. Thank you.

Okay.

I just had a curiosity regarding your wall. What's the height of the wall from the bottom to the top? Forget what you put below the ground.

Yeah, this wall is a little over eight feet here, and the wall behind it is 10 feet tall. Again, it's just because of the way the grade is situated at this point in time, and we're considering no exposed rock with that option. I'm very conservative. We're taking just grade to grade. To scale, you can see the house is taller than that. There's a lot of issues like that.

Is there anyone that wanted to speak on this application in the audience? If you could come to the microphone, please.

good evening uh my name is uh bill mcintosh and i am my wife jean and i have been residents on nottingham road we are immediately the western border of this lot that is being sought for the variances To develop as described, I have written a couple of letters to this board in the last month. I've lived there for 39 years. I want to speak about several subjects. 1 of them is stormwater runoff. That is. Where I live has been a perpetual problem for us, which we've resolved at great expense to us personally over the years, having to build curtain drains, French drains. replacing damage septic tank, residing of our septic fields, installation of catch basins in both the sides of the front yard, and piping of the northern section of an open water stream that runs along the border of the lot that is seeking the variances and my own. Stormwater flows in this stream come from Cherry Street, Harris Road, and it is directed in great volume during storm seasons to this storm drain on Nottingham Road, which then runs under Nottingham and travels down towards Robin Hood and the watershed area on Route 117. Numerous letters from concerned citizens have cited the five points that must be considered by this board in deliberating the granting of variances on a building lot. It is noted that the Bedford Building Department turned down the request for a permit in April and referred the matter to the ZBA for an appeal. Why is there even a need for an appeal? The matters, the issues that must be considered which you're all quite aware of, is will the variance produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood? I contend that these variances would greatly impact the character of our neighborhood. Can the benefits sought be achieved by means other than that which is proposed? That remains to be seen. I've heard a lot of things here tonight that I did not hear When I audited the meeting a month ago, some of them are positive changes, like the two-foot reduction in the size of the wall, things of that sort. Number three, whether the variance is substantial. I think all of the variances are substantial, perhaps a little less so with some of the reduction in the size of the retention wall. whether the variance will have an adverse effect of physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood, and whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The one I want to focus on is whether the variance will have an adverse effect of physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The proposed five, a little unclear, five to seven variances that are sought are substantial, and they are unwarranted. most egregious is a variance to construct an 18 foot retaining wall which is a height of 300 percent greater than that which is allowed on the existing town code it can be concluded that the wall is intended to protect the residents from periodic heavy storm water However, the wall will divert the stormwater to the western downside of the property directly onto the purported approved septic fields, which are within 15 to 20 feet of the open water stream running along my property and into the storm drain. My concern, and that of many neighbors, is that the stream could become contaminated with sewage that imperils not only my property, but all of Robin Hood, as well as the watershed lands around Route 117. Endangering waterfowl and wildlife that gather in the catchment area. Section 103.2 of the Bedford Town Code, which relates or speaks to stormwater management, cites findings of fact, which I think are important to hear and put on record. The land development activities, first one, land development activities often alter hydrologic response of local watersheds and increase the stormwater runoff, flooding, stream channel erosion, and sediment transport. B, contributes to waterborne pollutants. C, the loss of native vegetation. D, improper design increases velocity of stormwater runoff. E, substantial losses can result from adverse impact, if from the adverse impact. Again, it can be concluded that the wall is intended to protect from heavy stormwater. However, it could cause serious problems in the open water stream. I also just want to mention, you may hear it from others, that the damage from the jack hammering or possible dynamite necessary to remove the rock to build an outsized resident on what I consider to be an unbuildable lot. On this 250th anniversary of the founding of this country, it is noted that this lot is contiguous to a cemetery that was built in 1795 that houses some 50-plus souls, of which reportedly four are American patriots who fought in George Washington's army in the Revolutionary War. What possible damage could blasting do to this sacred site? lastly considering all of the above plus what you have heard and read from neighbors opposing the granting of the proposed variances it begs the question absent the granting of these contested variances would this residence as proposed be built on this lot and conform to the bedford town code obviously the answer is a resounding no as this request is basically akin to a square peg in a round hole. I respectfully ask that the granting of all variances be denied. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, if I could just respond to some minor items.

Just a second. Let you all know that we've received a lot of your letters. They will all be made part of the record of this application. I'm not quite sure where to begin completely. And some of them, your letters talk about an unbuildable lot. and all of that, and I appreciate what the gentleman just said in his response. A lot of this stuff is very, very subjective. Zoning in general, just so you know, is put down across this country in towns like a blanket. It's just put down. It's not looked at specific to neighborhoods, individual properties, or anything. And the way it's put down as a blanket is because there's a zoning board of appeals that's added in every zoning code. And the purpose of the appeals is for a place for people to come and say, hey, this particular thing doesn't exist or doesn't work in the zoning code that you've laid down on this particular property. And people come and they make their case to us, and we listen, and that's how we come to these conclusions. The five criteria which you've listed is what we do look at. You are doing one of the things when you talk about substantial, I can hear it in your mind, you're talking mathematically. Substantiality is not necessarily always mathematical. There have been court cases that have been overturned because, as a judge once said, a huge mathematical, something that seems incredibly over or substantial can have absolutely no impact on a property where a very small amount increase mathematically can have a devastating impact on a property. So we don't look at it just simply as a mathematical issue. It's not 50% over, it's not 100% over, it's not 300% over. We look at how it fits into the general project itself. just as an explanation. Everything else you mentioned is all very valid, and we look at all of those criteria, and to that degree, I appreciate everything that you guys have put into your letters, and we will continue to listen to it. Somebody wanted to come in on Zoom a second ago.

I would just also add for the public's edification. We say that it's a non-buildable lot. And we take a decision to not allow someone to develop where there's a residential use. And what you perceive as substantial is really in the overall code. Insubstantial quite frankly, where the overages are aren't we risk it being considered a takings where the town then and the applicant has the right to seek compensation for us taking away their right to develop a lot. And so we have to be very mindful. When we talk about terms, and we talk about what the town has the ability to do and grants of variance, why, and when we take the role always very seriously. So we understand that on paper, there's a, there's a developable box that we talk about. And we talk about it being that the area that you could fit a footprint in. But if you look at where, as Peter was mentioning, if you look at zoning today, and you look at most of downtown Katona, or many parts of Bedford Hills. There are many lots that are non-conforming to what has happened over the years and whatnot. So I want to hear what everyone has to say because I do think that everybody has their voice contributes to making the community a better place and any type of development that takes place does better because of the community's input and the value on that. But we have to be very careful when we start to ask a question and we say someone doesn't have a right to have a building or a home on what is a residentially zoned lot. Where that lot is not municipally owned and was intentionally sold to a private party along the way over the years. And there's a long history of it. So there's a lot of sensitivity here about when we go go that far and how we balance out the factors and concerns the neighbors have about a new house, new development. Any type of thing going in, so just bear that in mind, we're not trying to. Put down or switch anything that anyone's bringing forward. It's just a very careful balancing act. We have to do is we take into account what everyone wants to share versus what the applicant seeking to do. So, sorry, I just wanted to share that with you. Thank you.

So, for, you know, to me, I live on Robin hood road.

So, again.

Can I go on Robin hood road?

Yeah, speak up a little bit.

I'll try to. Yes.

No, thank you.

I have 3 topographical maps. I'd like you to look at.

Sure.

1 of them will indicate that right behind proper.

As what clients wait, can you share this, but also go and speak from the mic because they need to pick you up, but we do want to see. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. I'll share that.

I just wanted to show you those maps to show you the topographical area that we're talking about. And what I'm personally worried about is the runoff of the water from the roof and from the driveway coming down.

One second, sir. I wasn't focusing on what you were saying, so I want to be able to listen to everything. Thank you very much.

Trying to show here. There's the lock, the building lock. Here's the topo. Down slope, down slope. Showing you the visuals so you can see it with the colored map similarly. Topo. And then what's in between the gray, right?

Oh, there's all these houses too.

But it's all down. It's all down.

Yeah.

So here's the development.

Here's his right through here opens up my property. And then goes to the small middle where the folks down there. Yeah, we'll repeat it. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, yes. Thank you. Yep. Okay. So Yep, so what the, um, what the neighbor has just shown us is he provided a plan a topographical plan that has an aerial overlay of where his house is the parcel number being 265. uh, sorry that's the top line. Uh, his, his properties at the 265 topo line, um, South Nottingham road to develop a lot is north of that. It's got a topo of starting at 315 and coming down. And he was showing or pointing out to us where the. Downstream is and where the drainage flows across and contributes into from Nottingham road down across and essentially north of Robin hood along the backs of the property. They're based on topo lines. Okay, yeah, I'm just going to put this up on the board public. Can you put this up on the board just for a minute? So that does screenshot if anyone's on. Sorry, if you'd like to speak now, please share more.

So by showing you those maps, I just wanted to make everyone very much aware of the problem that I personally will be facing and my neighbors because of the slope and the excess water that will be coming down eventually onto my property, especially if there's a storm coming up and there has nowhere to go. That storm drain right now, which goes, Mr. McIntosh was speaking of, It goes underneath the Nottingham Road. Then it opens up before it gets to my house halfway through 47 Nottingham. It opens up and it's all open halfway through my house to get to my driveway. And even with a lot of rain, it fills up. So I can't imagine with the excess water that's going to be pouring from this development what's going to happen. Also, there's a wetland right behind 51 Nonningham Road, and I worry about that also, what's going to happen with that. And this is some of the things that I wanted to bring up to your attention, because I've heard also that someone had mentioned that there's not a problem with wetlands. Well, they're right there. So I don't know if you have any questions for me to bring to you. Did I make myself clear?

I hope not. Thank you.

I'd like those back from you, though.

Oh, yes. You can come collect them. We just wanted to make sure that we had a screenshot of them if members of the public and whatnot wanted to see them.

Somebody else wants to speak?

Hi, my name is Anna Ribeiro. I'm here with my husband Scott Hodgson and my daughter Sarah Hodgson. We live at 12 Robin Hood Road and I can attest that the concerns that Mr. D'Amico expressed are evident in our property too. Shortly after we moved in 20 years ago, there was a big storm and my in-laws were vacationing, visiting us for the first time, and they woke up to a foot of water in our basement. uh we had a lot of expense to put a french drain all around uh of course it's law of nature but uh it is well known and after every storm i invite each of you to come to our neighborhood to see the water percolating down our driveway now it's not this property's problem that we have this water problem but it will exacerbate it so it's a cost to the entire neighborhood that we will be incurring As evidenced by the number of variances that are being requested, this is not a cookie cutter approval. It's got a lot of issues that require our careful attention. Number one, of course, is the setbacks. The lot is the lot. With all due respect, and I'm very sorry for the situation, you knew what the lot dimensions were. You knew what the topography was. You knew what the concerns would be with rock and with the stream running adjacent to the property. So it is not up to the neighborhood to absorb the cost of a person's property. wish to enter our wonderful neighborhood. And I would like the record to show that this is in Bedford Hills, Nakatona. It's right on the hills of the beautiful hamlet that we live in. Of course, these variances affect many aspects of our livelihood, including the character of our neighborhood. As one of my neighbors sent to you, all of the houses in the neighborhood were developed together, and you could pick from three separate models, and all of them are like this. This, as much as the front porch wants to assimilate into our neighborhood by violating the variance, albeit, it does not look anything like what our houses look like. Of course, also, the problem is the wall, the big wall. If you look carefully at the pictures, Nottingham has an uphill side, which is the Zahn, and a downhill side. If you're standing on Nottingham looking at this, you're already looking at a property that is about that big where they say they are going to place it. The extra two stories that is going to be above that is going to be a castle, a monstrosity in the middle of our neighborhood. Again, I ask the board to drive by to actually see the stream, to actually see the hill that is behind us. We didn't make it. It was there before the developments were made, and that's why it has remained unbuilt unbuilt all of this time because the lot just simply doesn't accommodate to the variances that the town has established for a good reason and we should try to uphold them now in previous application um My family is very much into the history of the town. My daughter and my husband are avid metal detectorists and have contributed many things to the Bedford Historical Society downstairs, et cetera. This road is not this dirt path or I don't remember the exact name that they gave it. dirt road, remnants of a gravel driveway. This was a road built as the milk road to bring the milk to the train station. The family that lived here, who are buried in this plot, were the founding families, like the Wood family did on the Mount Kisco side, Bedford side, in that direction. I think that we have to keep the history alive, maintain it as much as we can, and not simply discredit it as a dirt road, a gravel, walls, whatever they want to say. This was an artery of our town in the 1800s and it needs the respect that it deserves. deserves. So of course, I'm concerned with the Buckabee Cemetery up there. The easement is through this. If we're moving things, if we're disturbing it somehow, the gravestones, I just don't think that it's a good move to consider all of these variances for one property that was well known to be problematic. I thank you for your time and I really hope that you drive Nottingham just to see what the neighbors are so concerned about.

Thank you. Was there anyone else?

Thank you. I'll be very brief. My neighbors have been more eloquent than I could be. I'm Jim Venner. I'm at 47 Nottingham Road. I spoke briefly last month, and I've had a little bit more chance to go through the documentation. For some background, I'm an environmental engineer. I worked for 10 years, got my PE professional engineering certification, and my area of specialty is water and waste, so that's pretty much where my comments are going to be focused upon. First, and this is elucidated in the letter which I shared last week, it's unclear what the variances are. Five were noted in the summary that you provided, four were noted on page one of the application, and they don't quite align. So I was just hoping to get that clarified in the final versions, because also there was reference to a variance related to a garage. And we haven't discussed that, I don't know what that is, et cetera. um the regarding the septic systems which are the main reasons why i'm why i'm here uh there were two proposed and i'm glad to see it's uh being considered to move the one in the west or rethink it a bit there's one in the west one of these uh there are like the actual permits weren't provided by the department of health so i don't have the details on it They're very close to the property boundaries, and they drain in the direction at least partially of the neighboring properties, not Nottingham Road. So the western septics field drains in the direction of 44, and the one in the east drains in the direction of number 60. And that's particularly interesting because of the sensitive land features in the area and we heard a discussion on the open storm drain there's a 40 foot length of unpiped storm drain directly to the West literally 10 feet of the property of the property line so that makes it around 2025 feet of the Western septic tank. So if there is an accident, or if there is a leakage from the septic field it's going to go in the storm drain. It's paved on the bottom, but the sides are pervious soil and vegetation. And I actually spoke briefly with Kevin Wynn, and he mentioned it discharges near a property on 117. I'm not sure which property it discharges to, but it's a problem regardless. And there are also some wetlands alongside 117. So I reviewed the SWPPP, the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, and there's no reference to impacting wetlands. So greater discussion on that I think would be useful. To the east, the Buckbee family burial ground with graves of four Revolutionary War cemetery veterans. The drainage in that direction is more, there is a portion going to the southeast, so I would appreciate kind of more clarification that the septic field wouldn't potentially impact this historic cemetery. The storm drain in the cemetery, by the way, aren't shown on the drawings that were provided so that would provide greater context on where the nearby sensitive features are. And just to wrap up, I'll focus on the jackhammering and blasting. A lot of people in the neighborhood are retired people like me. They work from home. And I'm very reticent to have an extended period of jackhammering. We heard anecdotally, you mentioned there were rock corings. Anecdotally, last time, the team mentioned that the rock was quite weathered. We also heard an anecdote from a neighbor who was there as well. that they were unable to jackhammer through their rock. So it seems that controlled explosives are a viable possibility, and the request for the variances don't provide detail on that, which we're obviously very sensitive to, being on the same rock foundation and with 18th century cemetery nearby to see what controlled explosions would do for that. I will wrap up just by mentioning I'm glad to see the retaining wall looks so much better. It's still 18 feet high, even though it's in two pieces. So that's still a concern and it seems quite substantial. The significance of, you mentioned the significance of variances and how the numbers don't always matter. So the numbers here do seem quite significant with a 300% increase over your regs. And I'm interested in your feelings on creation of precedence of the next next application that comes along if they drop another 300% proposed increase. So that's it. I just want to say thank you for your time.

Let me just clear. I didn't say that numbers don't matter. Numbers do matter. What I'm saying is that substantiality isn't just numbers. It's the effect of the project with the numbers in the project. I understand. Okay. Thank you. It's hard to I understand all of what you're all of you are saying. You're all what you're all saying basically, makes it sound like someone's just decided to build a house right on this property. And there's a lot of town codes that are involved here. We're just being asked for some variances, dimensional variances that we need to consider, obviously. But having built a house in the town of Bedford and starting out rock hammering and not necessarily working and then having to get a lasting permit, I can tell you there are a lot of ordinances that are in place to protect everybody. If blasting were to be necessary, all of you would be looked at. Your basements would all be looked at. It's like a 30-day process or more just to get a variance to blast. And your cracks in your basement would all be looked at. Everything would be looked at. Also, the water runoff and all of that, the New York State speedies permits and things that are required when new construction is built to capture all of the water runoff on this property, on any property that's built today. are incredibly strong. They don't just let water run off the property onto somebody else's property. I'm not going to tell you that things can't happen because that would be silly, but I just can tell you that there's a lot that goes into building a new property. Again, I thank you all for your considerations, and they will all be taken into account as we continue to move through this process. I know you wanted to have a chance to respond.

If I may, Bob.

Could you use the microphone so everybody can hear? Yeah, thank you.

So when we were brought into the project, we first went and met with Hahn Engineering and worked out stormwater issues on the project. All the stormwater is collected with catch basins. We even have a catch basin above the wall to collect any water that may come down. And before it even gets near the walls, we're collecting them with catch basin and a swale. That's to keep the viability of the walls intact. And also aesthetically, we don't want a cascading any water on the walls faces. We collect all the stormwater from the roof. We collect all the stormwater from the from the driveways uh and uh they're all connected uh with a uh approval uh to a uh catch basin on the opposite side of the street uh we are getting a permit for that once this all all this is settled uh with the highway department to um not only to put a pipe in but also to enhance a catch base and that's received it's being received uh it is degraded and uh we a part of our permit with Han Engineering is to improve that catch base. So we're doing the improvements. And where's the water go? Well, we did a big study of the entire neighborhood starting Far to the west, up on the hillside. And we ran all the numbers for all that drainage, which was given and approved by Hahn. And we proved that basically the piping in adequate capacity.

Can I just interrupt you? Hahn Engineering is the town's engineering firm that looks over these plants, in case you don't know.

And so we did a very large drainage study and indicated that we have capacity in the piping to receive our waters. And because the piping has excess capacity and because we're connecting everything to it, it was deemed adequate with our proposal. So we're not gonna discharge any water to any properties except in a minor area in the front yard which will all be grass areas and there's a small area in the rear which will also be draining to the street but when we're done with our project less water will flow to the road than it exists now because all the whole core of it is all being accepted by piping and going into a drain. So we're gonna have less, we were able to prove that we have less of an impact of stormwater onto the Nottingham Road than exists today. It's basically, we collect a lot of area, we put properly into piping, and what about the catch basins? Well, the catch basins have all big sumps in them. They're deep and they collect any sediment that may come off our properties will be running and collected into these catch basins. And we have three of them on the property at the proper locations. And so that's going to basically collect any sediments that come into the stormwater system. So we'll be discharging clean water to the site.

So can I ask you, I have a question here for you. The amount of water, so right now the proposition is that you're going to discharge the water that's collected on the site into the town's drain. Is that right?

Yes.

And what is the current capacity of that drain? Where does that drain lead out?

Yeah, we track the entire thing. This piping system coming down Nottingham then cuts across the street. There's a gigantic drop culvert right here. And the water actually comes in and goes down a hillside, ends up in Robin Hill Court. There's a cul-de-sac. It cuts through that, like diagonally at the face of it, and keeps running toward the highway where there's a wetland.

So what you're hearing though from the neighbors at large, Is that while there is a system in place and a pathway for the water to take that that when you have storms winds up having an overflow effect on the neighborhood. That's what the neighbors are articulating and let me go 1 step further, which is has the applicant explored containing the water. Collecting containing water on its own property, and then allowing it to go through a different state as opposed to a direct kind of. pitch or flow into the public storm water?

We did look at that in discussions with Hahn Engineering. We felt it was better to basically collect the water and divert it. What you're referring to is potentially a underground infiltration system as a potential. We looked at that in this one particular area. But then we've been denuding every tree on there to fit on the site. And it was deemed more appropriate. We weren't gaining enough out of it. Because what's happening here is our watershed starts right at the neighboring property. The peak is right here. And most of the water above this property actually goes the other direction across a driveway and lawn area to the north. And so our watershed is quite small because the apex of it starts here. It's only a quarter of an acre. And so when you do the math, it's minimal.

I got I got that, but I will also tell you that I, I understand the impacts of putting in development. And so while you have a lot, and currently the whole thing soaks up everything that comes in, you're hearing from the neighbors and it's a fair assertion because we've all live in this community and we all have been through storms. The more frequency that lead to flooding on properties where you historically didn't have it. But now you do is any level of development that is looking to take the water that's currently absorbed on that lot through a natural effect and re, discharge it into the system that is already has doesn't have really sufficient capacity for these high level storms is problematic on a regular basis. That discharge would not be problematic. I think most of the community doesn't say on a daily basis or normal storm. They have a problem with hence the request or the interest in seeing it collected and retained on site. I will tell you my own neighborhood, right? I have issues with water flowing across and it being typed onto my property because guess what years ago that was acceptable. So, I then had to put a system that then deals with this overall. I don't I hear the neighbors loud and clear about them saying, I don't want to inherit a problem from this site because you're going to allow them to discharge right away into the public system that we, as a community are experiencing as not being sufficient to handle the capacity.

If I may, we're designing for the 100-year storm event. This whole system is designed for the 100-year, which is the peak storm events. And it's the new extreme precipitation levels, not the standard levels that we work with. So we're working with about 30% higher volumes that your ordinance calls for because that's what the new ordinances are. And one more item, if I may, any area that's remaining and not being collected, we have sandy material on our property. In fact, our perk rates were like one in four, one in five, that's minutes per inch. So this is a very, very sandy soil material. All of our water is going into the ground here. It's a great infiltration spot. And again, you always have to make a decision, what are you getting out of an infiltration system? Infiltration systems, we already have such a small watershed because it's so tiny here that it's insignificant what we're retaining on our property versus what the volumes of the overall system is. Because the system we're working with literally, I don't have the math in front of me, but I sent it in a report. It's almost a hundred acres of water is flowing through this whole area. And so we're only a quarter acre and we're only disturbing about a quarter of it with what we're proposing. It's so insignificant that... Sometimes you have to look at the cause and effect between what we try and do here. I think the best thing we can do is improve that catch basin for the neighborhood. That's probably the best thing we can do because that's a critical path for all their water that exists coming down the hillside. Then what's the problem with some of these houses here is above these houses, there's a big... depressed area which is collecting water above the properties and that's why all this this this curtain drains are required on properties because that hillside We're lucky. We have a tiny little distance between the front of our watershed and the back of the watershed. Everything up the hill from here, the watershed is extremely large. We did the report. We analyzed everything, every house, piping, the whole bit to make this work. And that's the problem is they have a massive uphill watershed. We don't. We start right here. It's only about 150 feet back, 200 feet back. Its size is room, basically, is our watershed. And that's why when we reviewed everything with the consulting engineers, it didn't seem it was going to accomplish anything. And that's what became that decision. But we did have room for one, but I was keeping the trees basically. I was hoping to do that instead. So that's one item. So one thing about the house, everyone's saying it's sticking up in the air. If you recall, I indicated we had to go at a 4% slope into the property. So our driveway is the same heights pretty much as the road exists. And we're digging a hole and pushing that house into a hole. That's kind of how the whole thing works. Because we're dictated that by the driveway. The cemetery. Yeah, the cemetery is up here in this corner. And what we did is when we designed the project, you'll notice there's nothing going on on our property on that corner of the lot. We acknowledged that at the very beginning, and we decided not to do any development in that one area. That's why... All this construction activity is biased to the west because this whole area, that big triangle, there's nothing happening there. Our limit of disturbance is right here. And that whole corner is being not touched because I didn't want to be anywhere near the cemetery with our proposed work areas. Sorry about calling this a dirt road. I didn't know the history, but I apologize for no knowledge. But it exists. We dug holes in it. We checked it out. And then basically... Stormwater and everything else, we've talked about it. Septic system, health department, DEP, everybody's been to the site. That's a curtain drain on the side of us. There's no wetlands around our property because we did a study on that. It's across the street down the hill. I acknowledge that because I walked every single pipe from way up here all the way down through here. I went to the cul-de-sac and tracked it all. I had to track it out to figure out where it went. Our analysis is everything here And we looked at all the impacts as we go through the system to the very end. So it was favorable for us because it's so small, very porous soils, and only a limited area is being picked up. The septic areas, of course, we don't pick up. That's all free draining. The back of the property is free draining. We're only working at this little area here. That's it. It's a tiny little area, which is all the impervious is all being picked up. Everything else is free draining. So it took a lot of thought working with the consulting engineers and the health department to kind of come up with something that made sense. The last item is, yes, we have, what are our variants? One more time. My variants is basically our rear setback. and a front canopy, that's it. But for discussion purposes, I described our setback issue as we moved through the house site and any structures, just to show you that we're narrowing things out as best we can as the property narrows out. That was the intent of that. And again, we're complying on the eastern side with our house setback. We're in the setback. If this had been a straight line and it had been a straight line as normal, it wouldn't be here.

That's it.

And again, we're 50% of coverage, more than 50% on lot development in terms of the site itself. I hope I answered all your questions. Anything else I can help you with?

I had a question.

Go ahead.

I had asked when you left last time if you could bring a 3D rendering showing how this house would fit with the neighbors next to it. So I could get a visual as to how high this house is going to stand, how the, you had indicated that the porch matches the neighborhood. My observation of the neighborhood is everybody else's porch goes up to the top of the first floor. This porch goes to the top of the second floor. So I wanted to get a visual to see how this house would fit with its neighbors on both sides. And of course, in the context, because all of the houses are pretty much the same, would give us a visual as how it would fit in with the houses across the street. And of course, just by way of clarification, as I see from the photos, the stone wall I'm gathering starts at the roadway. On the side for the driveway, it starts at the roadway. Yes, it does. And it goes all the way around. So the entire side of the property is stone through up and all in the back.

Yeah, what I did is I want to demarcate the driveway on this one side. This is two feet tall, three feet tall. And normally what we do on a slope coming down is we like to have a wall there so the water doesn't wash. It's filtered by the wall before a short wall before it gets to the driveway. So you don't have that.

I understand what I was thinking about it in the context of how many other neighbors in the area. have stone wall driveways two feet from the front of their property all the way to the back and wrapping all the way around, which is why I wanted the visual to see how it would compare with the other houses in the neighborhood. Because that is a considering factor as to how it fits with the neighborhood. yeah i i i have to be candid no one has walls on the side of their property we could take the wall out if it's deemed necessary my personal visual and i'm not the person that can say it i can only say what my personal vision my personal visual on the spot on when i went to the spot on several occasions says to me that this house is going to be higher than the houses on either side of it so it would be out of context potentially, which is why I had asked for that photograph. Because I think it's going to be higher than the houses on either side of it. And of course, as I mentioned, the terrace is two stories high when all the other neighbors have single story

if that's an issue we could lower that i'm just pointing out what my comments right okay uh yes uh it would be sitting higher than the houses on each side of it i can tell you right now for the record uh it's uh the uh because the first floor uh is uh sitting on the grade we have in front of the house and so basically because the grade climbs about uh six to eight feet from the front of the street i would say this house is sitting six feet to eight feet higher than the people on each side.

That was what my personal visual was. Thank you for that.

So let's just be clear here. There's three variances that are being sought by the applicant so that the public understands what the variances are. Three variances being sought are a front yard setback is a requirement for 35 feet and the applicant wants the house to sit or the porch to sit at 31 feet. That's the first variance. The second variance that's being requested is to allow a rear yard setback of 33.6 feet where 50 feet is required. That means the house is sitting at 33.6 feet from the rear property line where normally the code required 50. The third variance that is being requested is the wall, that is really the subject of the issue, that is in excess of six feet at 21 feet into the property line, where normally if- 28 actually. Sorry, 28 feet, where a wall in excess of six feet would have to be more than 50 feet back from the front property line. Those are the three variants the applicant is seeking. What this board's purview is when we talk about variances and we go and talk about the benefits and we balance it out and we talk about character, this board is not an architectural review board and the applicant is not seeking a variance with regard to height of the building. The applicant's building design is within the conformance of the height code requirements. It's also in conformance with coverage and impervious coverage, which means this overall footprint of the house is actually in conformance with what the code would allow for a building on this lot. What is not in conformance because the town has a very unique idea of how to define a buildable lot and it was deemed and identified in the application and by the building department appropriately as a pre-existing, not legally non-conforming lot because you don't have a square that creates the 100 square foot effective square required, which is normally you see an outside rectangle with a smaller rectangle inside of it. The odd shape of this lot precludes them from creating that. That is not a variance that just shows that this is a pre-existing non-conforming lot. It doesn't preclude use on the lot. So now we go to the questions that are really at the bands, which are, is the first part of this, which I'm gonna start with the front yard setback. The property, and that's really the overhang and that's more of an architectural element. Okay. That doesn't impact the area of the questions about runoff and stormwater. And quite frankly, the applicant, you could remove that from the structure. The majority of the structure sits behind the property line there. And it's more of an architectural detail. I'm just throwing this out there for the board to talk about and understand and the public to understand what the considerations are and how it's looked at. Because the second board this is going to is the planning board. And the way they look at the site and application is very different than how the zoning board looks at it. So I want you to just understand that, not that you think that we're at all dismissing what each of you is bringing forward as a concern here about what we're looking at, okay? So when we look at it, the first part, as I said, is the front yard setback. You have essentially the ports that's being requested. That's an architectural element. It's certainly within the board's purview to say, yay or nay, quite frankly, that's what we're here to do. The applicant can also choose to remove that if they want, and they would still have a building then that would conform with CODIS to the front yard setback. That is a choice the applicant makes in how they can look at the design. To Roger's point, generally, we don't have an architectural review board. We could keep the applicants making the argument that being in the setback for the front overhang is because it makes it architecturally consistent with other houses in the neighborhood. And hence it can be justified as being consistent with the character of the neighborhood. We could strike that off. That's really what the variance is about on the front yard. So aesthetically, we don't make a judgment call as to the aesthetics, except to say the applicant's argument is consistent with character. We can either adopt that provision or not adopt that position. Um, Eric, would you share anything differently on that? That's very comprehensive. Okay. That's the front when I'm not making a motion, I'm not ruling on it. I'm just sharing for informational purposes. The 2nd aspect that's before the board is the rear yard setback with the applicant has shown is that when they design a rectangular shaped building, what happens is a portion of the building winds up in the setback because the depth of the lot overall. is shallow. The depth of this lot is with regard to the length of the lot. So it has much wider side yard setbacks as opposed to the traditional depth that you get from front to back. So when we look at this, I can tell you from what we've experienced as a board, this type of request is not unusual. The shape of the lot is unusual. but a request that pokes a house or a portion of a house into a rear yard setback is not unusual. What is unusual and would tend to lead me to find this more acceptable as far as a variance would go is that when I look at that type of aspect and that nonconformity, I'm usually looking at the scale of the house and asking if it's meaning the coverage on the lot, so how much of a footprint the building takes up on the ground. and the impervious coverage that's going on, so the house plus the driveway areas that may be a concrete area, is that in excess of what the code allows? Because what it's saying then is that footprint that you have, those are areas your water is not being absorbed. And as a community and from an environmental point of view, our code is that usually we're looking at that and saying, if we are gonna allow X amount of lot to be covered by impervious or building area so that that land won't absorb um water and runoff and we deem that generally acceptable from a building point of view so when i look at my variances for a front yard or setback or side yards part of the considerations i look at is the overall massing and scale of that house and ask where am i with my building and my impervious because to me that weighs into some of the points that you're making as a community and saying i have a concern about RAINWATER AND STORMWATER AND RUN OFF FROM THE SITE. AND SO I'M LOOKING AT THOSE NUMBERS AND SAYING WHEN I LOOK AT THEM OVERALL WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF NOT ONLY WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING, I NEED TO HAVE, I WANT TO PUT MY HOUSE IN THIS SETBACK. ONE OF THE THINGS I LOOK AT THEN IS ALSO WHAT AM I LOOKING AT FOR THAT FOOTPRINT AND WHETHER THAT FOOTPRINT IS HAVING THE IMPACT THAT I WANT IT TO. In this case, the massing of the house is within, is conforms with codes. The next thing that goes into that aspect of asking in the setback is then what is the visual impact of allowing that a house to encroach either in front yard setback, a side yard setback, or a rear yard setback. Usually that's a visual aesthetic on the neighbor. Is the house then looming over another property that's creating a problem? You heard me in the first application talk about the pole barn and the need for screening and that one was in a side yard setback. The neighbor had come and said, I have a concern about that house looming over my side yard and imposing my privacy. and we push the applicant to drive that side yard setback ledger and have screening. In this case, where that imposition is to the rear yard setback, you don't have a neighbor that's being negatively impacted because of where the house is located, and the applicant's also providing screening. Essentially, they're offering what we would see as the traditional mitigation for dealing with that particular issue when it comes to the encroachment of the rear yard setback and the things that we look to mitigate. THAT'S USUALLY THE ANALYSIS THAT I DO HERE, SO WHEN I LOOK AT IT, WHILE IT IS A LARGE SETBACK VARIANCE FROM 50 FEET TO 36.5, 33.6 FEET, THE IMPACT THAT THAT'S HAVING AND IMPACTS THAT I'M ANALYZING AND ASKING IF THEY'RE SIGNIFICANT ARE NOT AS TO THAT REAR YARD SETBACK ISSUE. AGAIN, WHAT I'VE HEARD THE COMMUNITY SAY, AND I'M HEARING LOUD AND CLEAR, is dealing with the question of really the runoff from the property and the calculation of it from my point of view for that and what the applicant is represented if they talk more with the town and i apologize i don't have it in front of me maybe you submitted it and i just don't have it but that those discussions with hans recommendations and where they come out did they provide that stormwater report did you pre did you previously provide that to us or is that just the applicant has it and works through um Okay, what and that's that's actually that is appropriately place. What? What I'd like to just see and understand it also, because I think that that in general is a question that goes to the 3rd behind still for me, which is different. So the first two, I've given you how I think about them. The third variance, and that's why it led in with that question about your stormwater analysis and how you're doing it, which is the variance for the wall in excess of six feet at 21, sorry, at 26, 28. 28. 28 feet, sorry, I wrote this down wrong. 28 feet where 50 feet is required. Now, your point is our wall regulation is above height. Okay. Fair assertion. But I would assert this. The other aspect as to why we deal with stone walls and height and the like, and we're very sensitive to it, quite frankly, is a safety provision and concerns about safety. So here, this isn't your traditional wall that's just standing on grade and going up and you're concerned about it. being properly supported. What we have is a concern about the safety of a retaining wall, a significantly scaled retaining wall. And while it is downgrading, you don't have a huge amount of area behind you that has the water pressure coming in behind it. I do have concerns when we have such a significant retaining wall at any site, because I have very unfortunately had the professional experience of knowing people that have been significantly injured when these walls fail. So that being said, what I would like to see before I would agree to a wall of this scale, and I know, and you do have been provided the cuts for this and flip it like, is I would like validation from our engineering department. They're comfortable with how the drainage and whatnot has been accounted for through this wall, which I'm sure it's been designed and dealt with, but I just don't have that in front of me. Because for me, part of the issue with having these walls in proximity to where there's actually activity taking place, which is, again, another reason for the setback is that there could be injury associated with it. And I certainly would never want to see that happen to anyone on the site. And I also wouldn't want there to be damage off site.

Go on. Can you give the microphone?

Have you gotten an engineering memo on this?

I have not, and that's why I'm asking for these questions.

I was going to say we need to post this.

For me, some of these elements dealing with the runoff become really important. because it's not just a freestanding wall, even we're talking about. It's something that's obviously retaining a significant amount of force behind it once you start to have storms.

Real quick, I know I get a memo from Han. I asked him to try and put it together. We did respond to everything he wanted. I spoke to him this last week. We took care of everything with him, but unfortunately, I don't have a piece of paper because he's sending it to the planning board. But in regards to how these projects work, we're loading the back of these walls with broken rock. They have weep holes in, so we don't have any hydrostatic pressure behind the walls. And because there's no big watershed behind it, and we have a belt and suspenders, we have a... collection system above the walls taking any minor runoff to come that direction all these walls have been designed uh uh with uh free drainage behind uh and and we use a computer program uh where we designed to a factor safety a minimum of of 1.6 uh and we did look for overturning and sliding and we gave them a full package uh and so what happens with walls is We design the walls and we give them to the town engineer. We own these once we design them. When we excavate the property and get all the work done, we reanalyze them based upon the soils that are evident at the foot of the walls. It could be rock or it could be some material that's left. We have to reanalyze it one more time. And then we have to submit our findings in total to the building department. We get a building permit for the walls. And at that point in time, again, the engineer is brought in to review it a second time. So we've provided them deep test hole studies. Everything's completely designed with our computer programs. And then we have one more round of when it's excavated. And in the end, as the engineers have recognized, we have to sign off on these as they're being not only designed, but we have to do an as-built at the end to verify compliance with our own plans. It's a state of New York requirement. It's called a third-party inspection process. And we do the third party inspection processes as well. So there's like four bites of the apple. And at the end, our company is signing off of this. And so we do walls as very large structures. And that's kind of one of our expertise. But again,

this is not a homeowner special this is a fully integrated project i understand that i'd like to see some information from the town and their their opinion on that okay um something else just from i guess a couple aspects for the community at large is looking at the wall itself this is it's a large stone face i understand you're going to try to allow it for it to be as natural as possible if you have natural rock you come upon But I would also look to have this screen with appropriate. Plantings and by that, I mean, climbing Ivy or something that's more native that would be sure that there won't just be a rock, a large rock wall, a rock face that the neighbors drive by and seek. Again, we're not, we don't customarily look at that element, but since it is on the part of the variance request is a substantial scale and a substantial wall. or consider more additional terracing to break up that single point of line.

We have a landscape architect in our company and we can provide hanging plants. The most efficient wall for us to build is an eight foot high wall because our forms come in those sizes. And so we try and do increments of eight feet because that works best for us in terms of building the wall. So that's why this exposed wall is eight feet high. We step them up the hillside in that increment if we can. And an ideal situation is if we lowered, we made this upper wall an eight foot wall, if we had suitable rock, you'd see eight foot space, eight feet. That's ideal for us.

Um, I would also so so that's my take on the wall. I'd like more information before I really would open on it. I would say broadly from this board and for the members of public to understand. My recommendations is knowing this is being referred and really the site planning aspects that many of the members of the public have raised and our underlying concerns about this site design, such as the septic location itself, such as the overall aesthetic appeal of the building. such as how the runoff is being handled on the property and going through the summer those are all things that i would ask the planning board to pay attention to in their review of the site and note that the zoning board we're solely opining with regard to the three variances and that the issues that have been raised with the neighbors as they're applying to septic and runoff are not pertinent to the variances that are being requested at hand because those largely would be To variances that would deal with impervious services or building coverage, because those would be that ramifications of those things going over as opposed to setbacks. So, I really like the planning board to know that we're asking them to take particular attention to those concerns, given the location of this property at the top of the topography for the neighborhood at large. And also, given the fact that what's being asked is for that storm water to be allowed to flow off site into the existing town drainage system. As opposed to an onsite sedimentation, and that is something that the applicant and the town have reviewed and have an opinion on. And I asked the planning board to review that in more depth depth with them to understand the ramifications of that and make sure they have confidence. In that that perspective, those, those are my questions and comments and alike at this moment.

Okay, I would just add to that. I agree with what you're saying. I would add to that, that with regard to the town aspect of it, we get something from Kevin Wynn about the actual culverts or the basins and all that kind of thing. Correct.

Yeah. I would ask if it's possible that the zoning board put a request to Han engineering to get the memo.

Yeah, we'll do that. We'll do that. No.

Yeah. I can't get anything to happen.

We'll definitely do that.

We'd like a copy of the ZBA. We'd like a copy of the memos that Han is sending to the planning board so that we can understand.

We can understand these issues better, yeah. I agree with you.

Um, I would ask that we hold the meeting open until we get that information so that I can close out the questions with regard to the walls. I would ask the applicant. To look at and consider whether the front yard variance, if there's a different way to treat that, or a better way that might mitigate that particular variance at hand, but it is not a mandate. It is just a request to take a look at that.

Thank you very much. Yep. So we get you back on.

Were there any other members of the public that want to speak? Because I think there may have been a few earlier that didn't.

You know, we have a lot of letters, so we'll be part of the record, but I think we heard from most of them. Oh, yeah, I'm sorry.

Yeah, go ahead. Roger. So Meredith, amazing, very well laid out. And I would certainly add to that, that with respect to the front yard setback, consider also that this lot is significantly wider road frontage than a lot of the lots in the neighborhood. So where this frontage is only gonna have one house, there are plenty of, two lots in that same length in this neighborhood. It's certainly not from that perspective overdevelopment. I totally agree with the drainage critique. uh and i think it's it's an it seems like it's an issue for the whole uh neighborhood that the town you know needs to pay attention to and and to that point i would ask that the certainly that the report from the town engineer confirms that the direction that they've taken and how they seem like they want to approve this, that it certainly doesn't impact, that it doesn't negatively impact the infrastructure of the neighborhood. So that we as a board also don't feel like we would approve something that we just don't know or could potentially negatively impact the neighborhoods drainage. That may not be specifically a ZBA thing, but certainly ought to be addressed. I'm glad that that commentary goes back to the planning board because they certainly ought to delve into that. I was a big critic at the last meeting of the massiveness of the driveway and the excavation and the walls. I'm very happy with how the architect has modified and addressed that. Although it's still a massive structure, I think it went a long way in softening the impact on this property. I think with the adequate landscaping, I think that this will be all right. That's where I'm at.

Thanks, Roger. Anyway, so we'll hold it over. And we'll keep the public hearing open for other people if you want to send any more, you know, another letter or you want to, you know, we'll let you know when the next meeting is going to be. Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay.

I just want to make sure Mr. Cullinan did not want to speak on this application and you were raising your hand to make sure the next applicant...

Yes, thank you, Kim. Yep, I saw that my time was probably coming up soon, so thank you for that.

Okay, I need to read the notice. Are we taking a break?

Sorry, we're taking a little break here.

Well, I'm afraid I'll have to take.

Oh, shoot.

of article 5 section 125-50 of the zoning ordinance for 24 old cross river road katona designated section block and law 50.12-1-6 to permit the installation of a generator where the front yard setback results in 50 i'm sorry 30 feet where 75 feet is required in the residential four acre zoning district and where a variance was granted a 9 10 25 resolution 09-259 for 5.71% building coverage and 12.93% impervious coverage, and where the building coverage will result in 5.72%, where the existing building coverage is 5.71%, and where 3% is the maximum building coverage permitted, and where the impervious surface coverage results in 12.94%, where the existing impervious surface coverage is 12.93%, and where 8% is the maximum impervious surface coverage permitted in the residential four-acre zoning district.

Good evening.

good evening mr chairman members of the board thank you uh thank you all for hearing me this evening my name is eamon cullinan i'm the owner of 24 old cross river road in katona uh as kim just mentioned seeking three modest uh area variances under 125 uh dash 50 uh to permit installation of a generac 26 kilowatt emergency standby generator on uh what is likely to be at maximum i think a four by four foot concrete pad so 16 square feet at the high end i think it technically winds up being something like three and a half by four and change so i think it was like 14 or 15 square feet uh which is uh essentially at the existing pool equipment area on the um sort of pool side of the house so even though it's described as a front a front yard variance it's actually at the rear of the house uh along the road As Kim outlined, I'll try to be brief. The relief I'm asking for is, yeah, the front yard setback of 30 feet where 75 feet is required, building coverage of 5.72%, increasing the previously approved uh 5.71 by approximately i think just shy of one one hundredth of one percent i think it was point zero zero nine percent by my math and third uh impervious surface coverage of 12.94 which is increasing the previously approved 12.93 percent again by uh about one one hundredth of one percent uh the most important point i'd like to make uh is this it's that the generator is actually being placed uh on or immediately adjacent to the existing pool equipment pad which sits uh within the footprint that this board already approved under resolution uh 09-25 in september of 2025. um so no further encroachment toward the front property lines proposed beyond what the board already considered in the fall of last year and the added uh uh 16 square feet again at the high end uh represents uh just a small uh one one hundredth of one percent additional coverage uh which uh i i you know i hopefully uh we all view as a de minimis again just really quickly on the five area variance factors number one i don't see any undesirable change to the neighborhood character the units fully screened from old cross river road by mature pine trees stone walls and other existing plantings I attempted to include some photographs in the application. There's a bit of a construction undergone already in progress around the pool, so it's tough to get close, but hopefully it gives you somewhat of a visual. Two, in terms of feasible alternatives, I think conforming location 75 feet from the front line would require significant clearing of mature plantings and vegetation, and it would place the unit a substantial distance from the gas service, as well as the electrical panel, which would meaningfully increase costs and also disturbance. Then number three, I think the request is substantial only in label, but not really in substance. I think the one one hundredth of one percent coverage increase hopefully fits the definition of minimus. No adverse environmental impact. The unit operates um it's a brand new machine and operates 67 decibels at 23 feet under normal load and uh does a weekly self test for about five minutes at 57 decibels uh which based on my research is quieter than typical conversational speech at that distance and so uh again with testing limited to one five minute uh five to ten minute max a brief weekly cycle um And with that, let me pause and then they'll open it up for any questions.

Yeah, thank you. So anybody that wanted to speak on this application in the room or on the zoom, if you're on the zoom, please raise your hand.

I don't see any hands.

Okay. Seeing. So no 1, can I have a motion to close the public hearing?

I'll make it 2nd.

All those in favor. All right. I was out there today. What you're saying is very accurate. Where you're locating this would basically you have the road as the neighbor. There's no house right nearby or anything. So I had no problem with his location or sighting of it. Seemed like the logical place for it. And as you said, you've already got the tank there and the other pool equipment there.

Yeah, I think there was actually just for what it's worth, I think there's a small outsized chance that the generator itself could fit on a pool pad that's going to be installed, which would be ideal. And that's sort of what we envisioned. In fact, we had actually talked about this. It might have been you, Mr. Chairman, I think that mentioned, I think we got into Kohler versus Generac at the last discussion. But, yeah, in any case, I think there's certain rules around the distance it needs to be from the heat pump, and I think that has to be at least three feet, and so it gets pretty tight. And so this is sort of – I think the crux of it is really not the surface coverage because that may not even be necessary, but it's more the 30-foot, which is consistent with where the other equipment is. Got you.

Anybody else want to talk about this?

Nope.

Nope. Okay. I'll make a motion that we approve the variance. And the numbers as. Sighted the benefits of the applicant cannot be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant as he said, given the location of where he wants to put it. It's where the. source of the fuel is and there's already other similar type equipment in that location. There'll be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties as there really aren't any in that direction or nearby. There's just the road keeps going. The variance requested we don't believe is substantial. The variance requested will not result in any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or community except that he'll have light nobody else will no that's not true other people have generators too the alleged difficulty is not self-create or is self-created um but that's just one of the factors and uh to minimize that um the if approved the applicant will use their best efforts to ensure that a building permit is issued within one year of construction uh one year of the board's approval and diligently pursued such construction to completion. What we've been doing in the past in situations like this, do you have a current survey?

That's got everything on survey and with the previous resolution that was approved, he is required to provide mass built survey coverages. So that I would say, I'm sorry, he needs a new survey. He does see the as built survey for the previous resolution that we granted not long ago. So he can use the same survey if he waits till he's done with everything and do one survey.

Do you understand that? Uh, yes, yeah. Yes. Okay. So there, you would need a new survey that once this is completed, that would include building an impervious coverage calculations prior to the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. Can I have a 2nd, do we need to mention plans? Oh, Dave, based on the plans. No. Well, what plans are we dating?

I have a plan dated 8, 125, 8, 125. I'll 2nd, thank you. Mr. Stern? Yes. Mr. Van Lovren?

Yes.

Ms. Black? Yes. Mr. McAllis?

Yes. You got it.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thanks, everybody. Yep. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't know how anybody survived without a generator. I was doing one of my block games.

Tough.

Okay. 524 Guard Hill Road LLC is seeking a variance of Article 3, Section 125-15A1 of the Zoning Ordinance for 504 Guard Hill Road designated as Section Block and Lot 84.5-1-16 and 524 Guard Hill Road of Katona designated as Section Block and Lot 84.5-1-15. to permit the installation of piers at a height of 93 and a half inches and an automatic gate at 87 inches in height where six feet is the maximum permitted height, maximum height permitted for piers and gates if located 20 feet or more from the front property line in the residential four acre zoning district. And I'm gonna make you a panelist, Nick, so you can speak.

Who's speaking on this?

Nick. I don't. There he is. He's on mute. There he is.

Hello.

Hello.

Are you guys hearing me all right? Yep. All right, good evening to the chairman and the other members of the board. Ms. Kowalski did sum it up pretty well there. The goal here is to prevent the cars that are coming down Baldwin Road, which is facing pretty much directly into the front of the house and through the driveway. The homeowners would like to build a gate so that at night when cars are driving down that road, the headlights aren't lighting up the entire house. And that's essentially the whole goal there. Okay. I also have a photo that I took this morning from Baldwin Road. If I can share my screen real quick so you all can see how exactly the issue is here. So over here, this is a photo that I took this morning from Baldwin Road. We're not seeing the photo. We're seeing the gate. There we are. Thank you. Yeah, there we go. Okay, yeah, so as you can see, any car that's driving down Baldwin Road, they are facing directly into the front of the house there. And at night, obviously, nowadays, the LED lights, headlights especially, they are complaining that it's lighting up the entire house at night. And so they are trying to prevent that from happening any further. And this is 524 for the record.

Okay. Is there anyone that wanted to speak on this that's in the audience or on the Zoom call?

I have somebody here, yes. What? I do have a speaker on Zoom. Hold on.

Okay.

Mrs. Segal, you should be able to speak now. You can unmute yourself.

Who is this? Yeah, I'm sorry. It's Steve Segal, alert 590 for Old Post Road. I mean, I sent a pretty exhaustive letter. I would just say, like, This is completely out of character for Bedford, especially on one of the most historic roads in Bedford. I cannot find any examples like this, and I assure you I would know if there were examples like this, because I'm the person in Bedford that raises these issues and files FOIA requests when I see gates over 7 feet. The applicant is claiming that this is the reason, and that is potentially a concern. But I think the plot has kind of given up. Like, why does it need to be seven feet and not six feet and not ten feet? There's no diagram. There's nothing to show us that that's actually the reason. What I think is much more likely is that the applicant wants a Hampton style estate where I have big hedges. I have a big gate. No one ever sees into my historic property. They bought the house recently when LED lights existed. They, the fact that they want to do it at 504, which doesn't have this issue again, I think gives up the plot of what's actually going on here. I think that there's a nonconforming likely a nonconforming fence already on the property. It's totally unclear. It's totally unclear. what height they're actually requesting, because it says 8 feet in some places and not in others. If it was just to block the lights, again, they should probably show some substantiation that it will block the lights, but then they should probably find a gate that has no piers above it, so you do the absolute minimal thing that you could do. And then there are other means of resolving this that haven't been explored, not to be an asshole, but blackout shades. Are like our own option and quite frankly, I think that the applicant may have made this issue worse because they recently went in front of the historic district commission and added windows to the front of the house. So they made this issue worse. And I think they're doing something that's pretty unprecedented. If this board thinks that they regularly approve such things, let me know. I submitted a FOIA request. I mean, obviously, 24 hours, it can't be turned around.

like i'm pretty aware of these things i drove down guard hill road i don't see many other gates i don't see any other gates over six feet that are like solid in nature um so that's my contention thanks thank you thank you um i will add that um we have a letter from um mr seagal um that brought up numerous things about the historic building preservation commission and scenic roads um i just wanted to point out um for the record that while your letter we will submit your letter um as part of the record um uh the historic building preservation commission law doesn't call for the public to be able to see a house um it's it's it's there's nothing there's no mention of that in the law itself and guard hill road is not a scenic road you asked if There was a gate that was similar in terms of, you know, being all essentially solid. And the only other one I'm aware of is on Route 22, the George Soros gates, which are solid. Which were too high.

What's that? Say again? Which were too high and had to be reduced.

Got you. Anyway, they're solid gates. But anyway, we have given gate permissions before. In this particular one, I mean, I agree with you to the degree that it's always a joy to look down when you go down Baldwin Road and you see the house in the background to look through the fence there or not the fence, but the hedges and see the house in the back. It's a very pretty sight. That said, I don't live there and I'm not familiar with how strong the headlights, which today can be incredibly strong, hit that house. I'm assuming that's the reason for the almost five and a half feet of solid wood before you get to the spindles on the top. But more importantly, we've got to make sure that what they're asking for is the right size gate. I also would agree with you. There's nothing at the 504. Other than having a similarity of gates, there's no headlight issue at 504 where there might be at 524.

There's a couple of things here. Firstly, what is that front yard set back for this? Our 4 zone block at 524.

What is the front yard set back? Yes. 4 acres zoning district is 75 feet. 75. Okay. So.

This 524 where you have this issue with headlights, there are lots of ways to deal with it besides installing an 8-foot fence that's out of custom with the code. You can add shrubbery along here.

There is shrubbery.

Let me finish. If you add shrubbery going further back, if you add it more in front of the house, you're going to help provide more screening. The 8-foot fence, or if you really want to create something tall and blocks view, do a further setback in the property. If you go back 75 feet, you can just go over a lot more height than what you can do at 20 feet. We don't have a precedent largely for allowing an 8-foot fence, let alone along two property lines close. We have had mirrored fences as Pete points out on some of other lots where we have contiguous ownership. and they want to have a consistent look. But this, to me, this is a very big ask, all right? It's a very big ask. We have lots of people that want fences for all kinds of reasons. We have talked about security. We have talked about privacy. We have talked about headlights. All of these things come before us. And the question is whether it's appropriate mitigation or not, and whether there's things that can be done to offset what's being asked and not. To Pete's point, 504 does not have the same headline issues that's being presented to justify an eight-foot fence. So my automatic response on 504 is I'm not granting an eight-foot fence for a headline issue that doesn't exist. That's not a reasonable justification. Again, we have other properties that if you tell me it's for security purposes, we have dealt with providing peers and posts and have heard justifications for why those peers or posts need to be more substantial than the six foot limit, and we've dealt with that. But having a walled eight foot fence at 504, I would not be inclined to grant, and I cannot see the justification the applicant has presented to warrant that in any way, shape, and form. When we go to the question with regard to 524, I have questions as to whether, first of all, the applicants made this representation. I'd like to see pictures from the applicant's house at night with a car headlight coming at the house. If this is really what this is, if it's really that they're getting the headlights coming into the house at night and lighting up the rooms and the like, please i'm happy to see that evidence of it but i'm reluctant to think that that's the only basis here or that an eight foot fence is the only way that could possibly dealt with this when you do have a significant area here i'm sorry to scale the property of the survey here is such that i can't read the print here but our house is certainly set back quite a ways from from where that uh where that intersection is and the entrance so You know, the applicant has presented one option for how they like to deal with it without seemingly considering other options. That's concerning to me too, because this does set the precedent when we start to talk about allowing offense In this location to that purposes, because we do have other properties that also close are actually much, much closer to the road. And when we deal with questions of fences and scales offenses and proximity offenses in order to deal with headlight use. So we do have a sensitivity that, but it needs to be warranted and justified and I haven't seen enough to feel comfortable with that type of ruling. And again, I'm not sure if the 8-foot fence is really going to deal with it and if it's really the most appropriate measure. Those are my initial takes on things. I don't know how the rest of the board feels.

Yeah, I'm with you, Meredith.

Excuse me for being obnoxious, what she said. Okay.

So is there any way for you to come back with some, I guess, well, I guess we could all take our own cars out and see how they... Well, part of it, though, is it's not how the car from the road

That's not the problem. It is in terms of historic view and the like, but there is nothing that preserves the public's right to a view of a house.

No, that's true.

But the impact is what the applicant is saying is there is an impact internally to them, to the resident, that is the reason that they are seeking this particular thing. And they haven't provided any evidence of that being it, other than them saying, well, I'm having this issue. We don't have any evidence from their perspective looking out at the road with cars shining in at night to understand how significant it is. As pointed out by Stephen, curtains and blinds can do a lot too. That's what people have done historically to deal with this. They haven't just shielded the whole property by way of putting a fence in direct line. There are different ways. I'm open, though, to hearing the applicant and hearing that point of view, and that's why I'm bringing it up and not just saying, don't bother me with this. That's not a fair assertion. I haven't seen the totality of what the applicant could present to try to justify their position and why other mitigation or other efforts wouldn't be appropriate. So those are some of my points. It looks like the applicant's representative has his hand up, though, who would like to ask a question.

Yeah, please. You're part of this conversation.

I just wanted to add a couple things for the record for 504 guard hill. We can absolutely do a smaller gate. That's no problem. The idea that this isn't for headlights is just wrong. This is absolutely for headlights. If we wanted to do for privacy, we wouldn't have done the spindles at the top. We didn't design the gate for the record, but this is the design that the homeowners would like to go with. um and uh the issue like i said in that photo that you that i shared my screen and you guys all saw uh the road goes almost straight into the house so any car with their lights on will be lighting up uh the property for sure i'm sure uh if we do have to come back another day uh i will i can ask the homeowners to provide me photos of this happening at night uh you guys are also welcome to come down and take a look for yourself As far as why I wouldn't do 10 foot or 12 foot as Mr. Segal said, that's because that is unrealistic. So we went with eight foot instead or seven and a half feet rather. And then as far as shrubbery goes, there is shrubbery pretty much all around the property, but obviously you can't put a tree right in the middle of the driveway. Uh, that really the only option that you have is, I mean, if we're not doing the current option, like you guys are recommending, then the only option really there is the gate.

Well, I'm going to disagree with the landscaping point of view. I've seen houses where they do. I think it's from right? Create the landscaping going up along either side of the drive with plantings and the like, and trees also in cover the like, or you have a center island where you can plant something. But I understand it's the applicant's interest in doing what they want to do. But I think it's also a matter of the applicant to demonstrate that they've looked at other opportunities and they don't work. So the board doesn't have to agree with me. The board is allowed to feel differently. The board can say, you know, we want to vote today. You can say you want to carry it over. Those are all options.

The board is more or less in agreement with you from what I've heard from both Roger and from Howard, and I agree as well. I think what I would like to do is maybe put this back on for the next month and have us take a look at it ourselves. And if you can get something from the applicant that shows something, what they're talking about, that would be great. i mean it's it's uh it's kind of interesting this uh that one area there's no question i mean i drive that all the time when you're coming into off of exit four and you're you want to miss bedford village you go down clark and then turn on baldwin and uh there's no question that is you know for a certain point you're you're driving straight towards the house But I do remember during the master plan 20-plus years ago, the big consternation there was that nobody stops at that stop sign. So there are no cars that are stopping straight on with their headlights going straight at that house. They all make the rolling stop and keep turning either in either direction, going either north or south. So the... the amount of headlight time actually hitting the house, I would just like to see for myself as well. The movie does lead straight in. Well, it does lead straight in, but what I'm saying is there's a stop sign there.

I flash my lights going down, and you can see it goes in, but Meredith's point is, there may be other ways to mitigate it. That doesn't require and that's why I'm in agreement with Meredith. I do think that the headlights will affect the house. Meredith's point is, is there may be other ways to mitigate.

Sorry, that's my point. Okay. So we'll hold it over till next month. Okay, thank you.

Keep public hearing open.

What's that? Yeah, keep public hearing open. Yeah, absolutely.

moving along david little and darcy alexander are seeking a variance of article 3 section 125-11 and article 5 section 125-50 of the zoning ordinance for 33 the terrace katona section block and lot 49.19-1-31 to permit the construction of a one-story addition for a den a future bedroom and bathroom to a pre-existing legal non-conforming structure where the front porch setback resulted in 22.5 feet where 35 feet is required in the residential quarter acre zoning district and where the rear yard setback to the addition results in 27.79 feet where 40 feet is required and where the side yard setback to the existing chimney resulted in 5.5 feet where 15 feet is required and where the side yard setback to the terrace results in 7.25 feet and the side yard setback to the addition results in 28.39 feet where the zoning yard requirements for a corner lot requires a side yard on a side street to be equal to the required front yard setback of 35 feet in the residential quarter acre zoning district, and where the building coverage results in 33.12%, where the existing building coverage is 28.17%, and where 20% is a maximum permitted building coverage, and where the impervious surface coverage results in 53%, where the existing impervious surface coverage is 40.26%. And where 40% is the maximum permitted in pervious surface coverage in the residential quarter acre zoning district.

Just reading all of that made me want to say no. Well, then I see your plans and very much a cute house though. No, no.

Well, thank you for your time. It's been a long evening. And this is the first for me where there is absolutely no conformity to this lot. We have a corner lot with two front yard setbacks, which The lot itself is non-conforming. I think we have a 75-foot width required for a quarter-acre lot. Ours is 50. You put on a 15-foot side yard, and it completely obliterates any conformity. So this house was built in 1900.

I'm sorry, I didn't get your name.

Oh, I'm sorry. Craig Antinarelli, architect for David Little and Darcy Alexander. So David and Darcy bought this house about 15 years ago. And Darcy used to be the executive director of the Katona Museum of Art. That's when I first met her. And they fell in love with the community. And they've done a lot of work to the house. and they would like to stay in the community and projecting you know uh right now their bedroom is up on the second floor they would like to build a uh one-story suite on the ground floor so they can live in place and stay in the in the village they have connected to the new sewer system that was run down ashby so they have the ability to add this extra bedroom without any health department issues The addition is modest. It's a one-story. We're not encroaching any further onto the, I guess that's the eastern side of the property.

Can I just interrupt you for one second? I'm sorry? Can I interrupt you for one second? Sure. So when I was out there today, I wasn't quite sure what I was looking at. There's a neighbor that's on the other side. And so, basically, where you're talking about adding an addition would be sort of near their garage, essentially.

Well, that is actually the owner's garage.

No, no, no, no. The garage that's on the neighbor's property as you're going down the terrace. Their next-door neighbor.

Nancy's house?

There's a driveway next to, you know, not on the corner, the one house in from the corner. Not this house, but the one house in. Make sure. The driveway immediately to the right of the house.

There's a driveway immediately to the right, yeah.

And they go back to a garage. Yeah, okay. And their garage is the one that's right there. That's their garage. And so where you're building out right now is that nice green lawn. Yes, there's a beautiful green lawn there.

In the back of their house.

Yes, and that's where you're talking about building out there.

Well, it's a little bit further east of that because we also would like to build an outdoor hardscape terrace.

So you're going to get rid of the lawn for a hardscape terrace.

Yeah, and the idea is to elevate this so that stepping in and out of the house isn't too difficult.

Okay.

And so just having access to an outdoor space from the house.

But the work you're really doing is all on the back, is on the side away from the road. And so, and have you spoken to your neighbor?

Yeah. Well, we received, I believe there was at least four letters that were sent.

Oh, yes, you're absolutely right. You're right. I'm sorry. You're right. The next door neighbor wrote. I'm sorry. I apologize. The immediate neighbor did write and say they all approve. Yes. Yeah. All your neighbors were very enthusiastic about your project. Yeah. I apologize. I just remember we got those. Yeah. Okay. And we'll make all those a part of the record.

Thank you.

Yeah. Gotcha.

So being a substantially smaller lot than what is – what the zoning code requires along with, I mean, I've done a few of these projects in the village and not all of them have to come in front of you. Yeah. Some form of a variance or other. And as you had mentioned earlier, this kind of blanket zoning really, you know, this one gets kind of crushed.

Well, no. So you're, you've got two front yards, which also doesn't help you at all.

And the neighbors on both sides of Ashby on the other side have given letters of support.

Yeah. Is there anyone in the audience who wanted to speak on this application or on the Zoom call? If you're on the Zoom call, please raise your hand.

There's no one on the Zoom call.

What does that say up top?

It says, town clerk is talking. Oh, okay. That would be me.

Oh, that's you? Okay. Then can I have a motion to close the public hearing?

I will make it. Second.

All those in favor?

Aye. Discussion? The second floor is in context of all the neighbors. Everybody across the street, everybody all has second floors as well, so it would not be out of context for the neighborhood to add a second floor.

Well, it does have a second floor. They have a second floor.

It's not out of context for the area.

The one-story addition is not out of context. It still maintains a very charming cottage aesthetic.

So I think the fact that it's in line with the existing side yard set back there, when you look at the addition on that side is you're already impacting the neighbor on that side. That's their driveway side anyway. So that kind of votes to your favorite. I do know too that you've been mindful of that aesthetic coming out to place windows there and the likes that retain that cottage appearance as opposed to. You know, more like a garage or a shed that maybe wouldn't have the same level of static associated with it. So, I think that that's very beneficial from that aspect. I don't love all of the variances for. The coverage is, that's always something I'm super sensitive to. So my question to you is, with regard to those, how are we currently dealing with runoff and stormwater? And what is the plan for dealing with those additional impervious?

I believe it has a very small footprint that we're adding to the property.

Well, you have both your impervious and your building coverage. So both of those are eating up what is an undersized lot to begin with, additional square footage. And we are going over even more over on our impervious and on our building coverage by doing this. So how is our water handled and what is the plan for handling? handling it. Everyone likes to say it's just a little bit of water, but a little bit of water on this lot, a little bit of water that lot. Next thing you know, we have larger problems. So just what is the plan to how that's being handled?

I mean, I think currently the house has leader drains that I think they are splash blocked right to the surface. I don't think there's like storm drains.

Okay.

I don't love it.

Can you do a subservice sorption under the patio?

Potentially. There is an abandoned tank there that I know of from when they tied into the new sewer line. There may be the opportunity to put a recharger behind the new addition. that could take some of the roof runoff.

How much water do you think we're talking about on that roof runoff from that addition?

How much? 280 square feet.

Talking about 70 cubic feet. 72 what? 70 cubic feet of retention for a three-inch storm, 24-hour storm.

So that's two and a half yards. A big infiltrator could do that.

there is there any approval required from the planning board on this one or no i don't think so this is really my my only particular concern with it because i don't we have a very tight neighborhood there as it is so we're in the setbacks on a non-conforming lodge I do think you're trying to also be mindful of the front yard setbacks by having this addition placed already in line with the rest of the house on the back. But I do have my concerns about runoff just because this is going to be more and more of a consistent theme. While we don't have neighbors opposing it for that reason, I'm just sensitive to it in the community at large. And we're not just doing the addition, we're also doing the stone terrace. Those 2 things just on an undersized that just makes me a little bit. Leary when I know it's not going to planning board would otherwise be looking at this. I'm not concerned about screening. I mean, we have, we have the fence here. That's already some level of screening. We have a front here. The terrorists is being done in a, I think a mindful way that that's. A static to the community. But this is just an area I have a concern about. I don't know how the rest of the board feels about this.

Yeah, we do have plans for plantings around the terrace just to keep it private. But there is a thought about maybe putting some type of stormwater retention under this terrace.

If you could put it under the terrace, that would be great.

That we could capture. We are elevating it a little bit, so maybe we can clear that existing tank and find some way to put a couple of galleys in there just to manage some of that stormwater.

Yeah. Yeah, I think a net solution would be a minimum.

Mm-hmm.

Yeah.

Yeah, and again, I'm not looking at saying capturing the whole house or the house is already the issue, but the proposed addition, the more we're getting into this coverage and impervious area and we're impacting that and that's just that's my concern. So.

So, do you want to do a motion with that in there that they need to figure out how to do that? Or do you want to have them come back?

Um.

I think you can make a note.

Yeah. Roger, what do you think on it? I'm the lawyer, not the architect on this.

No, but I would suggest that for the increase in impervious at a minimum, for the increase in impervious area to provide a storm drainage detention. And then Al knows that he needs to look for it in the building permit drawings.

Okay.

What happens right now? Because your garage is lower than your backyard.

I mean, honestly, I don't know. We've never, we've been very fortunate. We haven't had any, like, groundwater in the garage.

At one point, we had the water glitter ones down the street. Yeah, I can see that. And then there's also, like, And I think if there's a, there's a, there's a thing that runs, I believe. In the back of the season around not exactly.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

But there isn't all I can say just. That area does not collect more where that is does not collect more. Yeah, no, I different terms though.

Yeah, no. And what my concern starts to be is what we have to think it's the downstream effect. So while we're not, if we don't collect the water and retain the water. and have somewhere for it to absorb. It's going exactly what you're saying. It's flowing off site somewhere else and it's landing somewhere else that may be a downstream problem. And so when I think about it, I was just saying in the break, like I'm on a property and years ago, someone got the okay from their property, put a pipe on, you know, across and it drained into my property. This was years and years ago, right? Today, they wouldn't allow that. But with the increase in rain flow, what had happened is what became essentially like not an issue. ultimately resulted in a whole front yard constantly being flooded. So we had to install a drainage system, right? So what I want to do when we look at this stuff and we deal with stuff that deals with coverage or impervious is have sensitivity to saying, while we understand that your lot isn't having problems, I don't want your lot to contribute to a downstream impact. And when you're coming in for coverage issues, dealing with building coverage or impervious coverage, That's really the thing that we're looking to mitigate is the runoff and the aspect of the water park. So to me, I just have sensitivity, particularly in our tighter neighborhoods.

You're also taking away all the green space behind the house, which obviously contributes to capturing the water, which will now be gone because of the backyard.

Right. So those two things.

Is the backyard where the septic is now?

The old tank, yeah.

But are there any fields there, or is it just a tank?

So, I think my, my position be, I've been inclined to grant the variance.

with the condition that the applicant would make sure that they provide a containment unit. I don't know the right technical terms.

A cold tech system or something underneath that.

To retain the water from the runoff associated with both the addition and the terrace, because those are both our coverage areas, retain that onsite as opposed to that contributing to the offsite or natural splash from our drainage. Um, and in that way, when we, when we look at it, right is the rest of the board in general agreement.

Sounds good.

All right. Then I'm going to make a motion to approve the variance as noticed. The variance, the benefit to the applicant, but there's a benefit to the applicant by granting the variance that outweighs any alleged detriment to the community and determines the following the benefits off of the applicant cannot achieve. another means feasible to the applicant we're dealing with a pre-existing non-conform legally non-conforming law the applicant would like to expand the first floor footprint of the house to create a single floor living situation there is no additional space on the lot to do this that would be in conformance with the code the applicant has tried to line up the proposed addition in conformance with an already non-conforming side yard setback and then also try to take into account keeping the Main structure of the addition set back from the, from the road as well as keeping in mind that the nearest of butter to that that area is has a driveway on it and a garage. It is minimal input packs to the neighbors and the neighborhood at large by the placement of this particular edition. There will be no undesirable change the character, the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The nonconforming nature. The lot is is actually consistent with other legally preexisting legally nonconforming lots. Over the years, many of these properties have grown slowly. This is simply a one story addition that's being proposed on this particular lot. It's in conformance with other properties in the area. The variance is, it is substantial when you look at the overall numbers, because there are a number of them. But the real reason for that is that we're dealing with a pre-existing non-conforming lot to begin with. The variance will not result, the variance request will not result in any adverse physical or environmental effects in the neighborhood or community. The 1 environmental impact we were that I noted, I was particularly concerned with was dealing with runoffs off because of the coverage and impervious areas of variance associated with those. But the applicant has agreed that they would put in an appropriate storm water system in order to deal with the runoff associated with the proposed addition as well as the proposed terrorists. And so, so as to continue to deal with the water onsite, as opposed to letting it contribute to the downstream impact. Even though the balance of the runoff on the property is largely done as a splash system, which means it flows into the onto the street and into the public stormwater without being mitigated along the way that is an existing condition. And we're not asking the applicant to mitigate that particular impact, but just solely those pertaining to the proposed addition and the terrorists. The alleged difficulty is self created, but that's only 1 of the factors to be considered by the board and making its decision. It's not termitive approval of the proposed variance would be subject to the following conditions. The applicant will use their best efforts to ensure that a building permit is issued within 1 year of the board's approval of this variance and diligently pursue such construction to completion. The applicant shall submit a certified as built survey, including building that purpose coverage calculations to the building department. Part of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.

and the variance is granted in accordance with plans d may 5th 2026 filed may 13 2026 miss black all right i'll second mr stern yes mr van loveran yes ms black yes mr mccallis yes got it thank you Thank you. If you take the extra plan, you won't need them. Thank you. It's a beautiful little house. I can see why. Thanks, Craig.

Okay. Lion Walk Manor LLC is seeking a variance of Article 5, Section 125-50. for 44 West Patton Road, Bedford Hills, section block and lot 72.10-1-11 to permit an existing overhang to a studio where a variance was granted on June 6, 2024, resolution 06-24-7 for 3.214% building coverage where the overhang to the preexisting studio was to be removed and where the overhang will now remain and results in 3.514% of building coverage where 3% is the maximum permitted building coverage in the residential four-acre zoning district.

Thank you, Kim. Good evening. Good evening, Chairman and members of the Board.

Thanks for your patience.

Thank you all. No worries. Thank you for your time and your consideration of this request. My name is Sean Flood. I am the project manager for Pruning and Company Custom Builders, and I'm here on behalf of the owners of 44 West Patton Road, who respectfully request that your consideration to retain an existing overhang on a 34-year-old pre-existing, originally a pole barn, now a dance studio. This overhang more or less creates a 1,500 square foot open-air covered terrace, uninhabitable exterior space. IT WAS ORIGINALLY SLATED FOR REMOVAL IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS, THE COVERAGE REQUIREMENTS. THIS BOARD GRANTED A PREVIOUS VARIANCE BACK IN JUNE OF 2024 IN ORDER FOR THE OWNERS TO BUILD AN INDOOR LAP POOL FOR THE OWNER WHO IS AN ELDERLY GENTLEMAN AND THIS IS HIS MEANS OF EXERCISE. By adding that additional 3,200 square feet, we agreed to remove some terraces, some steps. There's a one and a half story garage we're going to take down. There's a four bay, one story garage that we're going to remove. There's a shed behind this particular studio with the overhang, and there's also a deck, as well as a bunch of asphalt surrounding this particular studio, all of which is going to come out. When I got involved in the project, I started looking at the feasibility of these removals And we did some exploratory demo on the building, and we quickly realized that there's no sheathing on the house. We would essentially have to remove one side of the overhang at a time, strip back all the sheathing, resheathe. I'm sorry, strip back all the old 34-year-old barn siding, install exterior sheathing, and then reinstall. and fix the roof as well. It's a much more involved process than just a simple demo as the other removals are. To us, this structure sits at the very southern end of the property. It's a 13 and a half acre property. There are no immediate neighbors within visual sight of this building. I believe the Bedford School District owns the property surrounding this area. We don't believe that it would adversely affect the neighborhood. We do believe that removing that overhang would adversely affect the charm and character of this particular building, to be honest with you. We'd be left with kind of a mundane square or rectangular structure, whereas currently we believe there's some... some aesthetic charm to this building right now. It's rarely used. It's not used as a residence by anybody. Like I said, there's a dance studio there and a treadmill. But other than that, it's been there for 30 years and they haven't done any work to it. And I think they just, they love the aesthetic charm of it. What else can I say? We were very cognizant that we're asking for an additional 0.3% of building coverage here. We went ahead and scaled back some of the impervious surfaces that were granted in the original variance back in June, specifically around the steep slopes area. There were some garden walls up by the greenhouse. There was a serpentine switchback paved walkway that led down to a vegetable garden. All of that has been simplified. The walls have been removed. The walkway has been turned into gravel, except for the landscape steps. So we've been able to decrease the impervious coverage so that that stayed the same with the additional 1,500 square feet of building coverage. So with that, I would open up to questions and hear your thoughts.

Unfortunately, the person who enjoyed most hearing about the macadam being removed is not here tonight.

Ah, darn. Hopefully they'll watch the video.

In any case, yeah, I remember the house. It looks nice.

Yeah, I mean, I have several other views. Well, I'm just finishing up right now. I would say, just to show you, we did take apart the siding. It's literally just framing behind the siding. So, I mean, I think the architect, when they included this removal in the original request, they weren't really cognizant of how much work was going to be involved to maintain this building. That overhang essentially is the structure for the building. various variants in order to build that pool. Like I said, I think the architects were trying to be as tight to the existing coverages and impervious surfaces as possible.

i don't think they really considered how much work removing this roof would be um and it's you know it certainly is is far far exceeds the expense of the other removals that we will be doing uh to satisfy that variance so i i think the way i would view this is rather unique is is that i would say i'm amenable to what the applicant's suggesting however i would add a note in the variance that if and when The building was removed. That number as to building coverage comes down. It is not one of these where you have time to restore or the like, or that gets carried over. Or you do a 50% reduction in the ability to recapture that. Because the intent here was to take off the overhang. You're on it, and they've already gotten more than their fair share of the benefit from getting a full build on the pool when it comes to the building coverage and the light, but I'm not inclined to go back and tell the applicant. No, you have to conform and then that results and you have to rebuild the entirety of the building. Because that's certainly that wasn't the intent of the board. But if.

I'm sorry, I didn't hear most of that.

I apologize. No, that's okay. So what I'm getting at is I'm not usually so inclined to grant these as freely when it comes to building coverage or impervious. I have respect and appreciate the applicant's efforts to try to keep the impervious, you know, and in fact just a slight reduction in terms of what we're looking at.

Yeah.

What I would say is normally when you get a variance on coverage, it flows to that number that is the coverage for the site that's the accepted number based on the plans that we have in front of us. So what I would say is that when we're dealing with this particular variance and noting that the issue on the coverage is coming from us and we're going to grant you the variance to retain this building. in its current form and state that that calculation of coverage does not in urge to the ongoing benefit of the property if this particular structure is removed or rebuilt so under the town code there's a 50 provision that allows you to grandfather or something should happen to the building you have the right to rebuild it and so and that would be preserved for a certain period under the code I'm going to ask that with regard to this variance, because there was another benefit already given to the applicant based on the fact that the removal of the overhang and the like to allow for the offset of the pool that has now in fact been built, that the variance is conditioned upon the fact that that coverage overage pertains solely with is recognized as pertaining to the one story frame studio, and that if and when modifications of any kind are made to that building, that results in the applicant either having to come back entirely to the board, and that the right of preservation of that variance as it pertains to coverage resulting frame studio is nullified if the building is removed or destroyed. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

Because here the applicant's already gotten the benefit of having that coverage offset in the pool that we've allowed them to build. And I understand the construction issues.

So you're saying if this structure is removed, then the proposed coverage variance, they have to come back and reestablish the coverage that they're entitled to, to take into account the removal of that building?

Yes.

So you can't just replace it with another structure.

Correct. You don't get the benefit of that.

We don't get to keep that 2,500. The same footprint. Yeah, we don't get to keep the same footprint if we were to rebuild it. Understood. Okay. Fully understood, yes.

He could theoretically make it smaller and not have to come back. Or remove it all. He doesn't use the same footprint.

He has to come back. I'm saying the changes are based on the plans today. Okay? Showing that. Any changes to that structure requires him to come back because the consideration that's being asked for allowing to go forward is that the applicant's saying it's costly and inefficient for us to remove the portion of the building you asked us to because I essentially have to demo the entire building and rebuild it. And so I'm taking that into account today in looking at that. My analysis of how much coverage I would allow for a property of this scale with the buildings it has, I probably would not have approved a 2,400 square foot building to go back in its place if you were building something new, because that would not be in conformance with what we would say an accessory building size would typically be allowed for on the lot, even a lot of this overall scale. That's why I'm framing this the way I am. It's an unusual situation.

Basically, I think it is if you remove this structure, you lose your coverage variance. If you put anything else in, you'd have to come back. I think that's the easiest way to frame it.

Yeah. The coverage that you're looking for here, when you first did this and the pool was given, was for the overhead to be removed and that would bring you to 3.5, whatever it was. Correct. Now, if he goes back and comes and takes off that porch, and brings it to the number that originally, as long as nothing's altered, if the building's left as an A-frame and the porch is taken- No, because this is a retrade in my mind.

This is a retrade. This is not the first time the applicant's before us to seek this. The first time they came before us, the offer was, we're going to take down this exterior here to get us this pool, and we granted that. The precedent I don't want to set is that when they don't want to do it or there's a hitch that comes along the way.

Just come back later.

You just come back later and we'll correct it and allow for it, which is what we are essentially doing here, all right? The offset to that is saying if there are any changes to this particular structure in the future, the coverage variance doesn't naturally carry forward the way it traditionally would. it is essentially nullified as to that 2 458 square feet and that's because i don't want to set a precedent that encourages applicants to say i'm going to do but now i have a hurdle and this is going to slowly eek up and so it i understand the app what the applicant has presented i'm i I may have looked at it differently or asked for something differently in the first go around, had that been the way it had been presented or the issue at hand, or I may have said, then take the whole structure down. But I can't go back and change that dialogue. So I'm trying to account for that in today's conversation. being mindful of what the applicant is presenting as the challenge and what their consideration is and saying i can i can i appreciate that um and the applicant certainly has gotten more than their fair share of use out of the property the benefit of the variance that we've granted so i think that's a very fair yeah construction has to come back before the board yes any alteration to this

Yeah, we don't get to just keep that that square footage, any alteration to this, right?

You can't, you can't remove it and then say, All right, I'm gonna put some other part of the property coverage in addition in another place fully understood.

Fully understood.

I'm okay with it. It's not the standard way of dealing with it. But you know that it runs with the land, but I understand the concern.

And this is one of those ones where we just want the record to reflect why this is being handled the way it is

it's not how we usually do with it deal with it but um again i'm trying to take into account what the applicant's presenting as the how this arose the concern and whatnot interesting did anyone want to comment on this application there's no one to comment okay can i have a motion close the public hearing so moved second all those in favor aye public hearing is closed meredith you want to just translate that little bit into uh I would move to approve the variance as noticed. In particular, the Board found that the benefit to the applicant by granting the variance outweighs any alleged detriment to the community and determined the following.

The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant. The applicant in the first instance sought a variance of coverage and impervious surfaces and other aspects in order to allow for the construction of a pool on the site. That prior variance, one of the conditions was the removal of the overhang associated with the one story studio frame building. That was part of the consideration the board took into account when they granted the variance for the pool. Since then, the applicant has investigated whether or not, investigated removing that overhang and has discovered that if they remove that overhang, they will likely need to either remove or fully rebuild the one-story studio frame. They have presented mitigation efforts and removed other areas of impervious coverage on the property in order to try to offset some of the issues associated with not removing that overhang. However, they've asked us to consider these variances to account for allowing that one-story frame studio to remain in place and allow for the increased coverage variance above what was previously granted through PAR to the indoor pool that they were building. The board is amenable to that provided, however, that the 2,458 square feet associated with one story frame studio is solely pertains to the studio in its current condition. And should the studio be removed or modified in any fashion, then that's the applicant is required to, if they want to rebuild the studio or modify the studio required to return to us, and the applicant does not have the benefit of the 2,458 square feet of coverage, provided by that studio to allocate it elsewhere on the property pursuant to this particular variance. And in fact, upon the removal of that studio, that portion of the coverage will be deemed really to not carry forward as a variance and will essentially be null and void. Through this, there'll be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood of detriment to nearby properties. The one story frame studio has been there for over 30 years. The applicant has tried to offset or mitigate some of the issues associated with this requested variance by proposing other areas of impervious surface that they can remove from the property in order to deal with some of the environmental issues associated with coverages, including impervious and building coverage.

The variance is not substantial.

The variance requested will not result in any physical or environmental effects in the neighborhood or community. and the alleged difficulty is self-created, but that is only one of the factors to be considered by the board in making its decision and is not determinative. Approval of the proposed variance is subject to the conditions noted above, as well as the fact that the applicant shall use their best efforts to ensure that the building permit is issued with one year completion of the board's approval of the variance In this instance, it's solely pertains to a certified as built upon closing of the pool showing that in fact, the impervious areas have been removed and the coverage calculations have all been computed such that they're in conformance with the variances that are currently being proposed and looking to be approved. The applicant will submit their certified as-built survey including building impervious calculations to the building department prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy. for the pool, and the variance is granted in accordance with plans dated... February 1st, 2024.

2024 are the only plans we have.

It's got a revised date, though, of March 26th, 2026.

Yeah, 3-26, I think, is the revised site plan.

But all the other things that are listed on here is being removed. That's all coming out.

Everything else is coming out except for that overhang. Correct.

Second that. Kim?

I know.

She wants to stay late. My apologies. Mr. Stern? Yes. Mr. Van Loveren?

Yes.

Ms. Black. Yes. Mr. McHale.

Yes. You got it. Thank you all.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Take the extra plans with you. I was asking a question. Showing me something. That's all good.

Thank you.

Okay.

Good night. Can I have a motion to, um, adjourned until our last one that was adjourned yes okay uh july 9th july 9th no no no oh that was july is our next meeting okay the other one was september we can stop the recording now then thank you peter i'll agree second all those in favor aye aye