tptp

VILLAGE GOVERNMENT
line

Recent Village News
Board of Trustees

Planning Board
Board of Architectural Review
Board of Zoning Appeals

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 6, 2016

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, June 6 2017 at 7pm.  All members were present.

Friedman & Waltman - 2 Ridge RD – New covered porches, windows, landscaping and modifications to driveway:
Revised plans reflecting the BAR’s comments and suggestions from the previous meeting were presented and reviewed.  As per the BAR’s suggestion, the applicant has revised the plans in an effort to make the outside additions more consistent throughout and muntins have been added to the proposed windows as well as the doors leading to the screened in porch.  The proposed kitchen window has been lowered 1 foot.  Transoms have been added, allowing for consistency with all the first floor windows except for the kitchen.  Stonework has also been added into the wall, which will now read like ribbon.  The proposed grill has been relocated from the entryway.  The peaked roof has been lowered and the oculus will no longer be visible from the outside.

Board Engineer Pat Hines suggested that prior to approval more detailed, construction level plans would be necessary.  He also suggested they eliminate the language “where possible” from one area of the plan pertaining to exterior hardware and replace it with more definitive wording.  A detailed landscaping plan will also be required.

This was discussed at some length with the applicant asserting that they had not yet decided on the specific numbers and species of plantings.  They are hoping to move forward in stages, completing the work on the house and driveway first before making decisions as to the specifics of the landscaping. 

Mr. Hines suggested that the proposed landscaping, which includes the reconfiguration of the driveway and the construction of several walls is inherently important to the overall concept that is being proposed and he believes a detailed landscaping plan is necessary before the application can proceed.   The applicant is proposing to modify a lot of outdoor space and the BAR has not received any details or specs for these modifications.

The Applicant suggested that they would be happy to provide technical construction details, but argued that they did not feel they should have to attend another hearing before obtaining approval for the rest of the project.

This was discussed at some length.

Ultimately, BAR Chair Sheila Trelines recommended that the applicant meet with Mr. Hines independently for the purpose of reviewing what baseline items need to be included in the plans prior to approval.  

The BAR attorney suggested that the applicant simplify the plans in order to include the necessary construction specs pertaining to the home and outdoor work and eliminating the new plantings altogether for the time being.  He added that they must have a specific plan, devoid of ambiguity, that can be successfully enforced.

BAR member Chiu Yin Hempel commented that she appreciated the applicants’ having lowered the pitch of the roof.  She further suggested that at the previous meeting they had also discussed the idea of eliminating the proposed space under the gables, noting that this had not been done.  She would prefer to see a closed in gable section.

This was discussed at great length.  The applicant feels strongly about their choice and does not want to eliminate the additional light that the proposed design allows for.  Photos of homes with similar designs were presented, but BAR member Josh Aaron pointed out that ultimately, these homes were of a different style altogether. 

Mrs. Hempel also suggested that simpler windows on the addition, mirroring those on the original house, might play down the intrusion and provide for a more consistent and better-looking façade.

The applicant argued that the windows on the original house had been installed sometime in the 1960s and that felt it made more sense to install windows that were more in keeping with the history of the home and the proposed design.  Then, overtime, the other windows could be replaced to match.

Discussion continued for some time with regard to the screened in porch and the windows.  It was reiterated that more detailed drawings would be necessary prior to approval.  The applicant expressed some frustration with this, noting that for the last several weeks they had been under the impression that they had satisfied the necessary requirements for approval and then earlier that morning had received a request for more specific information and samples.  They do not want to compromise with regard to the kitchen window as proposed because they feel what has been suggested will eliminate a great deal of light in their kitchen and they are not interested in pursuing a dark kitchen.  They are also frustrated by the process in general as the application has been before the BAR for 5 months now and they feel they have complied with multiple requests and suggestions but things are not moving forward.  They requested that the BAR consider approving what was before them, subject to more detailed landscaping plans and various construction specs to follow.  They further suggested that if they could not move forward with the plans as proposed, they would consider abandoning the outside work altogether and focus solely on the inside of the home.  “There are so many houses in disrepair in Tuxedo Park!  Do you really want to discourage people from coming here and spending millions of dollars on renovations?” inquired the applicant.  They then wanted to know whether or not the BAR was in approval of the plan conceptually or if they were planning to reject it based on the gables at their next meeting.

This was discussed with Ms. Hempel and Mr. Aaron asserting that they did not feel comfortable architecturally with what was being proposed.
The idea of an oculus was proposed and discussed.

Ultimately, after some frustrated dialogue, it was determined that the applicant would meet with Mr. Hines in an effort to determine exactly what was needed, before returning to the next meeting.

Giblin-Sink – 34 Tower Hill Rd. East- Garage addition with studio office:
Renderings and revised plans for the project at 34 Tower Hill Rd East were presented and reviewed.  Discussion centered around the windows, front door, stairway, lighting, proposed garden and driveway materials.

Mr. Hines noted that prior to approval, more detailed construction and landscaping plans would be necessary, including erosion & control plans and retaining wall details. 

Ultimately it was agreed that these would be developed and the applicant will return to a future meeting for approval.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 6, 2016

  1. Friedman & Waltman - 2 Ridge Rd. - 106-1-45 - New covered porches, windows,
    landscaping, and modifications to driveway.
  2. Giblin-Sink - 34 Tower Hill Rd. East - 107-1-18 - Garage addition with studio office.
  3. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 16, 2017

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

King – 47 Clubhouse Rd. – Air Conditioning and heat lattice enclosure:
On behalf of the applicant, Owner’s Rep Kathy Norris along with attorney Susan Cooper of Savad Churgin appeared to discuss the status of the application at hand.   Ms. Cooper began by addressing a letter written by attorney to the BAR, Mike Donnelly, which advises that it is not appropriate for the BAR to conduct a review until the Building Inspector can show that the structure is up to code.  Commenting that the application had been given to the Building Inspector long ago, Ms. Cooper pointed out that the Code called for him to make a decision within 45 days, but he did not.  She suggested that sometimes permits were automatically issued when there has been failure to act.  She added that it was the Building Inspector who had told her client to come to the BAR.  She further suggested that her client had done what was required of them by the Building Inspector and that she felt the BAR could conduct their review that evening and issue an approval subject to the Building Inspector’s confirmation that it complies with code.  She stated that she wanted to make it very clear for the record that all that was being asked for was their review of the application to put a heating unit outside the house and the visual protective cover that it will have.  She stated that she had been told that the BAR had suggested that allowing the unit might be in appropriate because it could lead to a future zone code request.

Chair Tralins assured Ms. Cooper that there would be no discussion as to the seasonality of the property as this was not in the purview of the BAR.

Their review is limited to aesthetics.

Photos of the property and the proposed location of the project were then presented and discussed.

An existing hook-up for a heating unit was identified, and Ms. Cooper stated that it had always been present and intended for a heater and had been part of the original plan which was approved before renovations took place.

Village Engineer Pat Hines pointed out that the new unit would not be hooking up to this, but rather hard wired into the electrical system.

Ms. Cooper commented that she would like to have a look at the original plans for renovation and submit them as part of the application as they would prove that the home was heated and always had been heated.  What the applicant is requesting now is an upgrade to a pre-existing system.

The design was then briefly discussed.  Chair Tralins assured Ms. Cooper that the BAR had reviewed the plans previously and that there had not been any great opposition to what was being proposed aesthetically.

Mr. Donnelly  stated that on March 31 the Building Inspector had issued a deficiency letter indicating that they were looking for more information.  He suggested that there had been no delay in response as

Ms. Cooper had suggested earlier. 

Mrs. Norris indicated that she had responded to the letter in writing.

This was discussed, with Mrs. Norris asserting that she had adequately answered all of the Building Inspector’s questions and Mr. Donnelly s suggesting that she had not.  Mr. Donnelly suggested that item number 2 in the letter has not been addressed, which is the clear red flag by the building inspector that the applicant must demonstrate compliance with the energy code.  This is something that must be demonstrated to the Building Inspector so that he can certify compliance to the BAR.  He further stated that because the BAR did not have that certification, they could not take action.

Ms. Cooper disagreed, reiterating her belief that the BAR could vote subject to the Building Inspector’s approval because it had been the Building Inspector who told the applicant to come to the BAR in the first place.

Again, Mr. Donnelly pointed to the March 31 letter, noting that the Building Inspector had cited very specific provisions of the New York State Zoning Code.

“But that doesn’t apply to this house,” stated Mrs. Norris.

“He’s asking you to demonstrate that,” responded Mr. Donnelly.

“But we don’t have to because it doesn’t apply,” argued Mrs. Norris.

“You cannot simply say that you don’t have to comply,” asserted Mr. Donnelly.

Board member Chiu Yin Hempel questioned Ms. Cooper’s statement that the building had been heated previously, wondering what sort of heating had been installed.

Mrs. Norris indicated that it was an electric fireplace.   

Various aspects of the history of the application were then discussed.

Ultimately, it was determined that the BAR could not act on the application without the necessary certification from the Building Inspector.

back to top

line

Agenda for Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 16, 2017

  1. King - 47 Clubhouse Rd. - 107-1-61 - Air conditioning and heat lattice enclosure.
  2. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 2, 2017

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

Herbert – 65 West Lake Stable Rd. – Removable Dock:

Representing the applicant, Kathy Norris appeared for a second time with plans for a removable dock to be installed at the home on West Lake Stable Road.

Revised plans were reviewed and discussed.  Board Engineer Patrick Hines reported having visited the site where he was able to clearly determine the location of the property lines, alleviating many of the issues discussed at the previous meeting.  He also spoke with several neighbors while there, and was given a clear idea of where the waterline would be once the lake was restored to historic levels.  Both the bridging mechanism and the dock size fall within code requirements.  Mr. Hines further commented that he believes the dock as proposed will reach the water, but due to the shallow, rocky nature of the lake in that spot, there is a good chance that it will not float.  He advised that people would not be able to jump or dive off of this dock, but it would provide an access point to the lake.

Materials were briefly reviewed.  Both the dock and the posts will be constructed of cedar.

Board member Chiu Yin Hempel inquired of Mr. Hines whether or not the installation of the dock in such a rocky area would require any site work in terms of moving rocks around.

The answer was no.  If rock removal is necessary, it will be limited and can be done by hand.

Mrs. Hempel then wondered if this type of lake front disturbance was permissible as per the Code.

The answer was yes.

Mrs. Hempel wanted to know if Mr. Hines thought silt fencing would be necessary during construction.

The answer was no.  Mr. Hines feels that if there is any real site disturbance it will be more in the form of moving rocks around than soil. 

The cost of the project was then briefly discussed, with the BAR questioning the low estimate provided on the application.

Mrs. Norris informed them that her client would be making use of some “leftovers from The Club.”

Following some further discussion, the application was unanimously approved contingent upon the issuance of a Building Permit from the Board of Trustees.

Friedman & Waltman – 2 Ridge Road – New covered porches, windows, landscaping and modifications to driveway:

The applicant and her architects appeared before the Board with revised plans for the renovation of the home located at 2 Ridge Road.  It was noted that all necessary variances had been granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals the previous Thursday evening.

The roofline revisions for the addition were outlined and discussed as were other changes including the proportion of the doors as well as several landscaping alterations including the addition of a stone wall and stone steps leading up to the ballroom entrance.

Commenting that this particular home seemed to have “lost its identity” over the years, having once been a shingle house that was at some point covered in stucco and expanded in various ways, Board member Josh Aaron expressed his concern that the current addition, as proposed, was too modern looking.  Further commenting that he felt the addition would ultimately become a competing structure with the house, he stated that he was not sure if it fit in.

The Applicant responded that at the previous meeting, the BAR’s main suggestion had pertained to the roofline and they have complied with this, working very hard to make positive changes.  She further stated that she understood that the home was “an eyesore” in its current state and that she was working hard to change this.  She would like to have some outside space.  Finally, she stated that she had been open to the BAR’s roof change suggestions, but expressed some concern with the idea of “opening the whole thing back up.”

Referencing her notes from the previous meeting, Mrs. Hempel reminded the applicant that the BAR had in fact made more than one recommendation to the applicant, the other having to do with the gables.

Board Chair Tralins commented that the issue was not just the roof and that in her view, the proposed addition looked like a “ski house.”  She further noted that it was an “A frame” design, which did not look at all historic and rather appeared as though it had just been “stuck on” to the rest of the house.

The applicant argued that the section of the existing home where the kitchen is located was also “stuck on” when it was added on to the original house.  She reiterated that she and her team had done an incredible amount of work on this project.

“I feel your pain,” responded Chair Tralins.  She then asked the applicant to describe how they felt when they looked at the plan.

The Applicant replied that they believed that it would not be as dramatic once constructed as most people will not be looking at it head on the way the BAR was in reviewing the plans.

Mr. Aaron noted that the applicant was also proposing to change the way in which the property is accessed.

Mrs. Hempel commented that the proposed plantings were good, however they would not excuse the fact that the house did not marry together.  She further stated that in her opinion, the whole thing looked like a home that had been constructed in the 1980s.

“Isn’t there anything you could do to make it more historic looking?” inquired Chair Tralins.

Mrs. Hempel then questioned the built in BBQ, which the plans show to be located right near the front door.  She suggested that there might be a better spot to locate this.

The applicant agreed and commented that they would be amenable to moving it.

Plantings were then discussed. 

The applicant plans to remove the chain link fence along East Lake Road and is not proposing to replace it with anything at this time.  Among other things, the applicant has also proposed a trellis, on which they would like to grow hydrangea. 

Mrs. Hempel suggested that what had been proposed was “too light weight” and not in keeping with the home. 

Mr. Aaron commented that perhaps something more ornate would be more in keeping with the project and Mrs. Hempel agreed commenting that something more ornamental and less functional might be better.

The general visibility of the home was then discussed.

Following some further discussion, it was agreed that the applicant would return to a meeting in the future.

McHugh – 31 Lorillard Rd. – Add covered porch and stairs to existing porch:

Mr. McHugh and his architect appeared before the BAR with plans to add a covered porch with stairs to the existing porch on his home located at 31 Lorillard Road.  The architect explained the way things are currently situated, when one pulls into the driveway, there are two sets of stairs; one leading to a mudroom and the other to the front entrance, but it is unclear which way to go.  Additionally, Mr. McHugh commented that the existing “front” stairs are steep and becomse incredibly slick in the wintertime, basically rendering that entrance useless during those months.  Therefore, Mr. McHugh is proposing to build a second porch onto the home, with a clear set of prominent stairs leading to it.  This porch will then be connected to the existing porch, which will be raised slightly, to create a wraparound porch. 

Railings, materials and lighting were discussed.

It was determined that no variances are needed. 

Mrs. Hempel inquired as to whether or not the project would require Mr. McHugh to bring in any fill.

The answer was probably not and if so, it would be 2 yards maximum.

The cost of the project was also briefly reviewed.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 2, 2017

  1. Herbert - 65 West Lake Stable Rd. - 104-1-22 - Removable dock.
  2. McHugh - 31 Lorillard Rd. - 104-1-60 - Add covered porch & stairs to existing
    porch.
  3. Friedman & Waltman - 2 Ridge Rd. - 106-1-45 - New covered porches, windows,
    landscaping, and modifications to driveway.
  4. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 18, 2017

The Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, April 18 at 7pm.  All members were present.

Herbert – 65 West Lake Stable Rd. – Removable Dock:
On behalf of the property owner, Kathy Norris presented the Board with plans for the installation of a removable, floating dock at 65 West Lake Stable Road.  Mrs. Norris briefly outlined the plans, explaining that the dock would be constructed by the same individual who had built the Tuxedo Club Docks and made entirely out of cedar.

According to Building Inspector John Ledwith, no variances are required and the property owner is entitled to a removable dock at that location.  He expressed some initial concern with regard to the depth of Pond Number 3 in the proposed area of installation as well as possible growth of Milfoil there.  Mrs. Norris responded that  neither of these things would be an issue, as the dock would float on top of the water and as it will be shielding the water from the sun, would likely kill any milfoil that might be growing there.  BAR Engineer Patrick Hines inquired about the location of the posts, noting that the property line was somewhat unclear as the survey showed it in one place while Mrs. Norris’s plans had it in another.  He suggested that more detailed information might be necessary in the form of a legitimate site plan.  As presented, it is unclear as to whether or not the proposed posts are on the home owners’ property or not.

Mrs. Norris disagreed responding:  “The Owner is not going to spend 2-3 thousand dollars to have a new survey done just to show a post in the ground”  She further suggested that she would go to the site and place red ribbons on the spot in question.

Board member Julia Simet pointed out that the current survey suggested that the dock would be located on somebody else’s property as it showed the property line ending short of the water’s edge.

Mrs. Norris retorted that this was not correct and suggested that the BAR visit the site and have a look.

BAR Attorney Mike Donnelly interjected that it was the applicant’s responsibility to prove that they own the property.

“For $2,000?  for a $600 dock? Ridiculous!” retorted Mrs. Norris. “Put the posts where ever you want!  Draw them on the survey, we’ll put them where ever you want them.”
Mr. Hines pointed out that the plans showed the dock connected to the posts, which were identified as being pressurized yellow pine and not cedar as Mrs. Norris had originally stated.  He further stated that there were no details regarding the insulation of the posts noted on the plans, nor was there any mention of erosion sediment control.  Again, he suggested that more detail was needed, particularly with regard to the posts.

Board member Chiu Yin Hempel suggested that it might be a good idea to have Mr. Ledwith pay a visit to the site with Mrs. Norris in order to determine where the posts were going to be installed.

“No, that is not a good idea,” responded Mrs. Norris.  She further suggested that Mr. Ledwith was welcome to make this visit on his own at any time and that they would put the posts wherever he told them to.

Mrs. Hempel  pointed out that as the Owner’s Rep, Mrs. Norris would need to be present.
Mr. Ledwith expressed concern that it might be difficult to determine an accurate location for the posts with Pond #3 at its’ current lower levels.

Mrs. Norris indicated that all she wanted was to get the dock installed as the owner is looking to sell the property and this process was “holding things up.”

Moving on, Mr. Hines inquired as to insulation in the proposed posts.

“Rope,” stated Mrs. Norris in response.

Again, Mr. Hines stated that more detail would be needed.

“Just put the posts where you want them.  We don’t care!” stated Mrs. Norris.

Mrs. Hempel responded that the issue at hand was determining the accurate location of the property line.

Mr. Donnelly added that the applicant must come forward and propose a place on their property for the posts and that it was not appropriate for Mrs. Norris to instruct the Board or the Building Inspector to do this.

Mrs. Norris responded that she had marked a place for the posts on the survey.
Mr. Hines pointed out that the survey was both outdated and inaccurate.

Following some further back and forth, it was agreed that Mrs. Norris should visit the site and mark the spot where they would like to install the posts.  The discussion then turned to what type of marker she should use.  Mr. Ledwith requested that she use a wooden stick, but Mrs. Norris refused to do this, stating that she would rather use rocks marked with nail polish.  This was discussed at some length after which it was finally determined that Mrs. Norris could use the marker of her choosing provided that the area where the posts are to be installed was very clearly defined.

Mrs. Hempel then reiterated the need for erosion sediment control on the plan.

Mrs. Norris argued that this was not necessary, suggesting that the area was primarily covered by rocks and therefore there was no sediment to control. 

“You are digging holes and pouring concrete,” argued Mr. Hines.

“I guess you will have to get all the docks out of all the lakes,” responded Mrs. Norris.  She then wanted to know exactly what they wanted her to do.

Mr. Ledwith responded that a silt fence should be installed while the work was being done.

“You want a silt fence while we dig a small hole?   Okay,” replied Mrs. Norris.

At this point, Board Chair Sheila Tralins interjected, suggesting that in an effort to move things forward, Mrs. Norris should review the engineer’s comments, visit the property and mark the posts and then return to the next meeting for further discussion.

Before adjourning the discussion, Mr. Hines inquired as to whether or not the BAR was okay with the pressurized pine posts as proposed.

Mrs. Norris stated that cedar posts were neither available nor obtainable.

Mr. Ledwith responded that cedar posts were available.

“You tell me where right now,” replied Mrs. Norris “I think the applicant can do their own research,” suggested Mrs. Hempel.

Mrs. Norris suggested that she did not know what was “going on with cedar in the world” indicating that they had searched everywhere for cedar posts but had been unable to find them.

Following some further discussion with regard to the posts, it was agreed that Mrs. Norris would mark the posts for Mr. Ledwith’s review before returning to the BAR for further discussion.

King – 47 Clubhouse Rd. – Air conditioning & heat lattice enclosure:
On behalf of the property owners, Kathy Norris and John Klimecki  presented the BAR with plans to add air conditioning and heating to the seasonal structure located at 47 Clubhouse Road.  Mrs. Norris provided a brief overview of the plan, which includes the installation of an energy system to be mounted on cement blocks and covered with a lattice box, further noting that the applicants were entitled to heat as per New York State law.  Mr. Klimecki added that the proposed system is small and fairly common in the Village, further noting that his neighbor has a few of them installed.  The necessary electric is already in place and the proposed lattice will be constructed out of cedar.  It is not anticipated that the installation or use of the system will have an effect on neighboring properties.

Noting that the BAR had received several letters from neighbors, which would be read into the record, Chair Tralins noted that because the property in question was identified as seasonal, she would like the attorney to advise the BAR as to whether or not there were any limitations on enhancements.

Mr. Donnelly responded by providing a brief history of the property, which has been the subject of many debates spanning various Village Boards for more than a decade.  The structure, which has no proper egress and is accessed via a stone stairway running between two other homes on Clubhouse Road, was granted a C of O for seasonal use only in 2013 and may be occupied between May 1 and September 30 annually.  It may not be converted to full time use.  While The Code neither allows nor prevents energy from being installed in residential structures used on a seasonal basis, Mr. Donnelly noted that this has nothing to do with what happens there.  He cautioned however that the limited use allowed by law could be more difficult to enforce with heating installed.  This being said, he advised the BAR that the structure’s ultimate use had nothing to do with the application that was currently before them.  Their purview and jurisdiction pertains only to the architectural design of what is being proposed.

Chair Tralins wanted to know what the process would be should the applicant disagree with the BAR’s decision.

The answer was that in this scenario, as per the Village Code, the applicant could file an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Building Inspector Ledwith commented that, as per a letter he had sent to the applicant a month prior, the New York State Energy Code states that spaces must be brought into compliance before energy can be added. 

Noting that the structure was almost 100 years old, and was certainly existing well before 1985, Mr. Klimecki wondered why it was not “grandfathered” in terms of its’ compliance, as per the Village Code.

Mrs. Norris added that as per her conversation with somebody at the State level, these requirements did not apply to the property in question.

Mr. Donnelly suggested that Mrs. Norris obtain and submit a letter from whomever it was that she had spoken with.

Mrs. Norris responded that she had tried to do just that, but the woman did not write letters of this kind and had instead suggested a phone conversation. Mrs. Norris passed the contact information on the Mr. Ledwith and requested that he get in touch with them.

Mr. Donnelly noted that it was not Mr. Ledwith’s responsibility to do this and that there was an appeal process in place if the applicant was unhappy with the BAR’s decision.

“If you are going to deny a 100 year old, grandfathered house heat, it is going to be a problem,” responded Mrs. Norris.

Mr. Donnelly noted that the architecture and not the use was what was being reviewed before the BAR.  The Code related issues were for the Building Inspector.

Mr. Klimecki suggested that the energy could have been added at the time of the initial renovation and wasn’t.  He wondered why it was presenting a problem now.

Noting that everybody was referring  to the structure in a historical context, Board member Josh Aaron wondered if there were any pictures of what it used to look like.

“In a pile in the Village Office somewhere,” responded Mrs. Norris.

Current pictures of the property were then presented and reviewed.

Mr. Aaron suggested that given the size of the house, the proposed apparatus seemed a bit large to be installed in the front and he wondered if there might not be a better location for it.

“We’ll get a smaller one then.  We don’t care!” replied Mrs. Norris.

Mr. Klimecki interjected that the system was, in actuality, not that big.

Board member Julia Simet concurred, pointing out that the elevation made it appear to be larger than it actually was. 

Mr. Hines stated that plans called for the system to be mounted on cinder blocks.

Commenting that he understood the need for elevation and space around the unit, he suggested that the applicant construct a permanent, concrete base, noting that the cinder blocks could easily be knocked over.

“But that is what the engineer said to do!” argued Mrs. Norris “There is already a concrete base there!”

Mr. Hines responded that what was there currently was a concrete pad and what he was suggesting was that they pour and install a concrete base on top of that pad, which would provide stability for the system while still allowing for the necessary amount of space all around it.

Next, Mr. Hines questioned how the proposed lattice would be attached to the ground, noting that if it were not, it could very easily be blown away.

This was debated briefly before Mrs. Norris suggested that they attach a wide angle iron for the purpose of keeping the lattice in place.  Mr. Hines agreed that this was a good idea.

Mrs. Norris then stated “I have been very nasty and I don’t mean to be.  I’m sorry.  I am just overwhelmed with stuff that is going on.”

Next, Recording Secretary Desiree Hickey read into the record two letters from concerned neighbors.  The first came from Joan Riccardi and Richard Donnelly and the second from Charlotte Worthy and Billy Mincey.  Both couples expressed concern with the application, noting the complicated and controversial history of the property, its seasonal occupancy restrictions, and lack of egress.  Both indicated that the lack of egress and parking situation has created a nuisance situation for neighbors and expressed concern that the addition of heating could make it easier for the homeowner to convert the home into a permanent residence.

After the letters had been read, Mr. Donnelly reminded the Board that Occupancy and Code issues were in the purview of the  Building Inspector and that the BAR could only consider the architectural aspects of the application when making a decision.

Mrs. Hempel wondered why the application was being brought before the BAR before all of these other issues had been worked out.

Mr. Donnelly responded that this was a good question.  According to the Code, even though an application may be brought before them, no action should be taken until the Building Inspector has certified that the property is in compliance with the Code.  Based on this, he then stated that it was his recommendation that the BAR not to take any action until these issues had been resolved.

“You are recommending they deny it?” demanded Mrs. Norris.

“Not at all,” responded Mr. Donelly. “You do not understand the Code.”

“Yes I do!” responded Mrs. Norris.  “No zoning changes are being requested!  If you tell us that we cannot put heat in this 100 year old house, you will have to shut down ½ of the houses in Tuxedo Park.  If Gary Parr’s Air Conditioning breaks, I will make sure he cannot repair it because he doesn’t have any insulation in his castle.”

Mr. Klimecki wondered why the applicant had not had to comply with the energy code when they received their initial Certificate of Occupancy.

Mr. Ledwith responded that the Certificate of Occupancy was not hinged on compliance with the Energy Code.

Mrs. Norris wondered if the BAR could not make a conditional approval, after which they could go through the Building Inspector, but Mr. Donnelly informed her that according to the Code, the certification from the Building Inspector must come before approval by the BAR. 

Chair Tralins commented that they had all heard the advice of council.  She noted for the record that she did not have any issues with the architecture as proposed, provided the applicant agree to the permanent concrete base and stabilization of the lattice as discussed.

Ms. Simet concurred.

“You are denying us,” stated Mrs. Norris.

“We are not denying the application,” responded Ms. Tralins, reiterating that they needed the Building Inspector to certify that the structure was in accordance with codes and that all the regulations had been met before they could move forward.

Mrs. Norris objected commenting that she felt this was going to turn into a big lawsuit and she did not want to be anywhere near it.  She proceeded to read into the record a letter sent by the Building Inspector the month prior, in which he outlined 5 questions/concerns that needed to be addressed before the application could move forward.   She believes that everything has been addressed and that there is no reason to delay moving ahead.

Again, Chair Tralins stated that the attorney to the BAR had advised them that compliance with certain codes would be necessary before they could take any action.

“If Gary Parr or Peter Regna put in insulation, I want it denied!” snapped Mrs. Norris.

Ms. Tralins stated that she understood that Mrs. Norris was unhappy, but noted that there was nothing more that the BAR could do for her that evening.

“Make sure Parr or Regna cannot repair their furnaces if they break!” stated Ms. Norris before exiting.

Mersen – 3 Crows Nest Road –Paint Colors, stone walls, utilities, addition:
Revised plans were presented and reviewed.  As per the BAR’s suggestion, some of the colors have been changed and the applicant has decided to move forward with a red cedar color.  The green on the windows and door will remain.  Additionally, they have decided to scrap the proposed utility yard by the garage, relocating the utilities to an area behind the garage surrounded by a cedar fence of the same red color.  The walls in the front of the home will be dry set, samples have been provided.  The entrance pillars have been lowered to meet the 4 foot standard and the light fixture has been changed.  Finally, the nomenclature on the proposed “summer porch” has been changed and the room will now be completely enclosed with removable windows, making it an actual room rather than a patio. 

Mr. Ledwith inquired as to the height of the utility fence and was informed that it would be from 4-6 feet, as per the code.  There was some discussion with regard to the size location of the propane tank , which must be at least 10 feet away from any structure.  Currently, an above ground tank has been proposed, however the applicant is open to the idea of burying it and it was agreed that they would discuss this further with the Building Inspector and determine a good location.

Chair Tralins expressed her gratitude to the applicant for their willingness to work with the BAR and make changes to the project over the course of multiple visits.

The BAR then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Dow – 120 Ridge Rd. – Battery Storage Building:
Expanded plans for the Battery Storage Building on the Dow property were presented and discussed.  New to the plan was landscaping and this was discussed at some length.  Ultimately, it was discovered that the burning bush that has been proposed is in actuality an invasive species which cannot, in accordance with the DEC, be “knowingly introduced.”  The applicant stated that they were open to suggestion and various options were briefly discussed as well.

Ms. Simet inquired about the color choices for the building, noting that the red roof and light color of the walls seemed to make the structure stand out in the natural surroundings.  This too was discussed.  Many of the other structures on the property also have red roofs, so the decision had been made in order to create conformity.  The building is hidden by a ridge and cannot be seen, so the applicant did not feel the light color would be a problem.  They were, however, agreeable to considering other choices and agreed to return with alternate suggestions.  In the  meantime, the landscaping plan was unanimously approved, with the applicant agreeing to replace the burning bush with 2 varieties of native species. 

Sink – 34 Tower Hill Road – Garage addition with studio office:
Together with their architect, the applicant presented the BAR with preliminary plans for a garage addition with studio office at their home on Tower Hill Road.  In brief, the plan has been designed so that the garage will actually be at the level of the basement with connections to the main house at the level of the studio above.  The wraparound porch will also connect to the proposed addition.  The applicant is hoping to make additional improvements to the main house, including the reintroduction of shutters, replacement of windows in the basement and lattice in the rear.  An elevator on the back of the home will be removed and a breakfast nook added.  The main driveway will be shifted to the center of the house.

Mrs. Hempel wondered if it would not be possible to create an entrance to the garage to the side of the home as opposed to on the street.  The answer was no, not without a variance.

Landscaping and the possible need for tree removal was discussed.  The applicant has landscaping aspirations and fully intends to come before the BAR with a full landscaping plan in the future.

Mr. Aaron suggested that in his view, the proposed addition seemed to compete with the house, specifically the windows, which are larger in size.

Mrs. Hempel agreed, commenting that as proposed, the addition would become the dominant section of the home. 

This was discussed and ultimately it was agreed that the applicant would return with renderings which would provide a more accurate picture of how things would actually look.

Mrs. Hempel commented that as proposed, it might end up looking like somewhat of an awkward transition from a beautiful historical structure to something more utilitarian and modern.  She suggested that this was something that the applicant might want to consider.

The idea of lowering the windows on the proposed addition was also raised.

Ultimately, it was agreed that the applicant would make revisions and return to the BAR in the near future for further review and discussion.

back to top

line

Agenda for Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 18, 2017

  1. Herbert - 65 West Lake Stable Rd. - 104-1-22 - Removable dock
  2. King - 4 7 Clubhouse Rd. - 107-1-67 - Air conditioning & heat lattice enclosure
  3. Merson - 3 Crows Nest Rd. - 105-1-13 .1 - Paint colors, stone walls, utilities, addition
  4. Dow - 120 Ridge Rd. - 105-1-40.2 - Battery Storage Building
  5. Sink - 34 Tower Hill Rd. - 107-1-18 - Garage addition with studio office
  6. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 21, 2017

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, March 21 at 7pm.

Board member Chiu Yin Hempel  was absent.  New Board member Josh Aaron was present.

Bruno – Boathouse – West Lake RD - Changes to approved plans regarding the windows, doors and colors:
The applicant is requesting a change in materials for the windows from steel, which was previously approved, to wood.  Samples were presented and discussed.  There are no other proposed changes.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the proposed change.

Mersen – 3 Crows Nest Rd – Changes to approved plans that include a porch addition, paint colors and landscaping:
Updated plans for the project were presented and discussed.  There have been some minor changes to the windows.  Conversation centered around proposed retaining walls, specifically one in the rear of the home, designed mainly to enclose the utilities.  The applicant had proposed uniblock faced with stone, but the BAR would prefer to see full stone masonry there.  Cedar stain colors were also discussed and it was agreed that samples would be made available on site for the BAR’s review.  The applicant will need to obtain a variance from the BZA for the proposed driveway pillar with light.  Finally, there was some discussion with regard to the proposed shutters and their ability to blend in.   Specifically, the BAR is concerned that they may look like a giant X on the home. Additionally they voiced concerns with regard to the garage doors and the possibility that they might be over emphasized as currently proposed.  The applicant’s architect agreed to discuss this with his client, noting that the shutters in question reflected the owner’s preference and had been a specific design choice.  Chair Tralins indicated that the BAR wanted the homeowner to be happy and they understood that they needed to respect homeowner rights.  The home in question is not a historic home, however the BAR exists for specific reasons and as such their opinion was a part of the feedback process.

ASB120, LLC – 2 Circuit Rd – Addition of mudroom and garage:
Plans for the addition of a mudroom and garage at the 2 Circuit Road property were presented and discussed.  Letters from neighbors Joseph Capella and Paola Tocci were read into the record.  Ultimately, the applicant will require variances from the BZA in order to proceed so the BAR is not currently in a position to approve the project; however, the design was reviewed and discussed.  Conversation centered around the visibility of the proposed garage, materials and pitch of the roof.   Because the property lies within the Ridgeline/Precipice Overlay District, there are certain restrictions that apply and Building Inspector John Ledwith briefly reviewed these with the applicant.  In addition what is currently proposed, the applicant hopes to restore the entire home, which will entail repair and/or replacement of all the windows.  The roof will not need to be replaced, rather the intent is to restore it. 

Neighbors Paul and Ellen Gluck were present and Mr. Gluck thanked the applicant for undertaking the project, furthering commenting that they had found the presentation and discussion to be instructional.  Originally, based on the drawings that had been available for public review,  they had some concerns regarding how things would look from the road, but they now understood that this information would be forthcoming and that it would look nice.

Mrs. Gluck inquired as to whether the garage would have a basement.

The answer was no.

Dow – 120 Ridge Road – Battery Shed Enclosure:
Plans for a battery shed enclosure at the 120 Ridge Road property were presented and discussed.  The structure will look similar to the existing shed and will be tucked discretely into a valley on the property.  It will be constructed of concrete block with stone veneer on 3 sides and wood on the access face. 

All associated lines will be tied together underground as best as possible. 

Although not under the purview of the BAR, there was a brief discussion pertaining to the equipment that will be housed within the shed.  The Dow’s solar array and its overall performance to date was also discussed.  The Village Engineer provided the applicant with written comments.  It was agreed that the applicant would return to the BAR in the near future with revised drawings and a landscaping plan. 

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 21, 2017

  1. Merson - 3 Crows Nest Rd. - 105-1-13.1 - Changes to approved plans that include a porch addition, paint colors, and landscaping.
  2. Bruno - Boathouse, West Lake Rd. - 103-1-27 .11 - Changes to approved plans regarding the windows, doors and colors.
  3. ASB 120, LLC - 2 Circuit Rd. - 107-1- 79 - Addition of mudroom and garage
  4. Dow - 120 Ridge Rd. - 105-1-40 - Battery shed enclosure
  5. Review of minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 7, 2017

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on March 7, 2017 at 7pm.

Friedman and Waltman – 2 Ridge Road – New covered porches, windows, landscaping, modifications to driveway:

Chair Tralins began by asking if there were any conflicts of interest on the Board with the application. The answer was no. She then inquired as to whether any variances were required.

Building Inspector John Ledwith responded that one variance was required with regard to a setback issue with the front yard.

The applicant’s architects then provided the Board with an overview presentation, outlining the project which they said is meant to restore many of the historical attributes of the original home.

The driveway will be greatly reduced and gardens planted with a walkway running from the reduced parking area, through the gardens to the front door. A series of additional gardens and walkways will be installed in front of the home, where historically there was landscaping, and the existing walls to be fully restored. There will be new terraces with outdoor seating.

A covered porch linking the kitchen to one of the outdoor terraces is proposed. There is a structurally compromised overhang coming off the ballroom and they would like to remove this and replace it with a slightly smaller overhang, while also adding a couple more doors leading from the ball room onto one of the new terraces. Lastly, in the back of the home, they are proposing a non-enclosed covering roof overhang, which would be over a proposed picnic area just to the west of the house.

Other than these things, they would like to replace some broken shutters and windows in need of repair, fix some of damaged stucco, repaint the entire home and replace the cedar shake roof.

The overall symmetry of the home was discussed in connection with the proposed addition to the kitchen as well as the various sections that have been added over time. Window dimensions were also briefly discussed.

The required variance and the process for obtaining it was then outlined by the Building Inspector. Basically, a portion of the proposed plan encroaches on the road and will require a setback variance. The existing property also encroaches, but the proposed changes will make it even more noncompliant.

The applicant wondered if they might be able to move forward with the installation of some condensers and subsequent screening while waiting to move forward with the other proposed aspects of the project and this was discussed. It was agreed that they could proceed.

The proposed landscaping was then discussed along with a few other project details.

It was agreed that the applicant would go before the BZA for their variance and then return to the BAR with revised plans, although Mr. Ledwith advised that if they wanted to, they could come before the BAR again while awaiting their appearance before the BZA.

The BAR then adjourned into executive discussion to review applicants for the open positions on their Board.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 7, 2017

1. Friedman & Waltman - 2 Ridge Rd. - 106-1-45 - New covered porches, windows, landscaping, modifications to driveway
2. Exectutive Session

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review February 7, 2017

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday February 7, 2017.

All members were present.

The meeting began with a review and approval of meeting minutes.

Board Chair Sheila Tralins announced that Board member Patrick Donaghy had tendered his resignation from the BAR.  They are currently reviewing applications and invite all interested Village residents to contact Chair Tralins at stralins@tuxedopark-ny.com, whether they are interested in being considered now or even in the future for a position.

The BAR hopes to make recommendations to the Board of Trustees shortly to fill their open positions.

Dow – 120 Ridge Road – Exterior connection between garage and house:
Plans were presented for an addition connecting the current free-standing garage to the main house. Photographs, renderings and elevations were reviewed.  Materials and lighting will match the existing house in order to create a cohesive visage.  There is a stone wall that will need to be reworked.  A sight visit has already been conducted. 
Following minimal discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.
 
Hennessy - 15 West Lake Stable Rd. Changes to windows, doors, balcony:
Revised plans for the project were presented and discussed. 

Board member Chiu Yin Hempel inquired about the proposed railings and specifically why they had chosen to change from wood to iron.

The applicant responded that the existing real wood had begun to deteriorate over time and they preferred the “lighter” look.

Mrs. Hempel responded that she understood that they would like the railings to basically disappear into the visage in order to provide for a better view, but architecturally this type of railing was quite modern and more suitable for a loft or a public place.  She feels that they will be making tremendous improvements to the house with the new windows and the façade on the roadside will be exquisite, but she feels the matching of this very modern design with a historical carriage house provides for a discrepancy in the original intent.  It compromises the integrity of the design in her view.

Mr. Hennessy responded that he felt the railings as proposed would “disappear” from both inside and outside of the house.  They are dark and will not be seen. He likes the juxtaposition of having some modern elements as part of the design.  This was talked about at some length.

The rear windows were also discussed.  Referencing the increase in amount of glass in the back, Mrs. Hempel wondered whether there might be places where they could add mullion side windows in order to bring the motif that they have now completed on the lakeside around the corner.  

Plans for the deck and its installation and colors were reviewed next, with a focus on cables, beams and rails.  It was agreed that the applicant would investigate the possibility of extending the wood posts up to the second level.

Ultimately, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application with the addition of the mullions on the north façade as discussed and possible extension of the balcony posts up to the second level with additional supports if required.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review February 7, 2017

1. Hennessy - 15 West Lake Stable Rd. - 104-1-29 Changes to windows, doors, balcony
2. Dow - 120 Ridge Rd. - 105-1-40 - Exterior connection between garage and house

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 3, 2016

The Village Planning Board met on Tuesday, January 3 at 7pm.  Board member Patrick Donaghy was absent.

Mueller – 59 Clubhouse Rd – Changes to rear of house, windows, doors:

Revised plans were presented and discussed.  As per the BAR’s request, drainage plans have been incorporated into the drawings.  On behalf of the Village Engineer, who was not present, Building Inspector John Ledwith stated that the drainage as proposed was adequately sized for a 6 inch rain event.  He further requested that the applicant clearly identify the dimension of the gravel layers on the plan and also recommended that they consider installing geotextile fabric between the layers of drainage.  Windows were briefly discussed, as were gutters and general symmetry on the back of the home. 

The application was then unanimously approved contingent upon the Engineer’s requests and recommendations. 

Hennessy – 15 West Lake Stable Rd – Changes to windows, doors, balcony:

Together with his architect, Miguel Hennessy presented the BAR with plans to update/restore the outside of his home located at 15 West Lake Stable Road.  In brief, Mr. Hennessy would like to replace all of the windows, centering the ones on the front of the home and raising those on the south elevation (lake side) to provide for an improved view.  Additionally, he would like to update the garage to provide more character in keeping with a “stable” look, set the Front Entrance back from the curb, creating a small vestibule where he will install two sidelights.  He is also looking to eliminate a back door and cut in a concealed side entrance, which will lead to a mud room. A double sliding door on the rear of the home will be replaced with a triple slider.  Finally, a Juliette balcony will be added on the South Elevation, overlooking the water.

There was a great deal of discussion with regard to the windows as those proposed in the rear of the home (facing the water) are different from the ones in the front.  Board member Chiu Yin Hempel suggested that the rear windows as proposed were more of a “1980’s” style and wondered if there might not be another option in terms of style.  Mr. Hennessy’s architect explained that the options are somewhat limited due to the structure itself and the placement of the windows, however it was agreed that this would be researched.  Additionally, materials for the proposed balcony were discussed.  The plans currently call for metal railings but the BAR pointed out that this would not match the existing railings on the home.

Ultimately, it was agreed that the applicant would look into these things return to BAR in the future with revised plans. 

Donaghy – 17 Patterson Brook Rd.:

Mrs. Donaghy and her landscape architect presented the BAR with revised landscaping plans for 17 Patterson Brook Rd.  Previous plans for a garage have been indefinitely tabled.  The current plan calls for the installation of several stonewalls and the re-grading of some property, which will ultimately provide the Donaghys with more usable, flat space in the form of a tiered lawn.

Discussion centered around whether or not the proposed landscaping would be in keeping with the natural terrain and the size/dimension of the stones to be used within the multiple walls that will be constructed.

The BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Race Track Nature Preserve – Tuxedo Road:

Representing the Race Track Nature Preserve, Tree Advisory Board Chair Chiu Yin Hempel gave a brief presentation to the BAR outlining the general plans for this beautiful, natural space. 

To view a copy of this presentation click here.

The BAR will be conducting an informal review of the plan for the purpose of providing constructive feedback.  As such, there will be no official approval process.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 3, 2016

1. Mueller- 59 Clubhouse Rd.- 107-1-61- Changes to rear of house, windows, doors
2. Hennessy -15 West Lake Stable Rd. - 104-1-29 Changes to windows, doors, balcony
3. Donaghy -17 Patterson Brook Rd.- 103-1-35.1- Stone walls and landscaping
4. Race Track Nature Preserve- Tuxedo Rd.- 108-1-8

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 20, 2016

1. Mueller – 59 Clubhouse Rd. – 107-1-61 - Changes to rear of house, windows, doors
2. Hennessy –15 West Lake Stable Rd. – 104-1-29 Changes to windows, doors, balcony
3. Donaghy – 17 Patterson Brook Rd.- Parcel No. 103-1-35.1 - Stone walls & landscaping
4. Race Track Nature Preserve – Tuxedo Rd. 108-1-8

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 6, 2016

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on December 6 at 7pm.  Board member Patrick Donaghy was absent.

Merson – Exterior Alteration – 3 Crows Nest Rd:
The applicant and their architect presented the BAR with revised plans for exterior alterations to their home at 3 Crows Nest Road.  As per the BAR’s previous comments, various changes and additions have been made, including the stabilization of some columns as well as the addition of a rear balcony.  The exact color schemes have not been determined yet, nor is there a concrete landscaping plan due to the time of year.  Because the home sit amongst a large plume of leafy trees, it has been determined that it would be more logical to select colors and finalize landscaping once the leaves have returned to the trees.  The applicant plans to invite the BAR for a return visit in the spring, for the purpose of reviewing these plans.    In the mean time, they are seeking a building permit so that they can begin demolishing an existing chimney (to be rebuilt) as well as interior work, which can be completed during the winter months.  The BAR had previously expressed some concern with the proposed masonry work and the applicant stated that they would utilize some of the existing masonry as an example when putting together their mock up.  There was some conversation about this, and ultimately the BAR was in agreement that it was a good idea.  Additional materials and hardware were also discussed.  Doors and windows will be wood, with a mahogany door and copper gutters.

Deputy Chair Julia Simet inquired about the lighting.

The applicant informed her that it was not their intention to alter any of the lighting at this time but should that change, they would include this in their landscaping plan.

Board member Chui Yin Hempel inquired about the construction of a new chimney, noting that architecturally, its proposed placement was not optimal as it inhibited the homeowners view of the forest.  This was briefly discussed.  Ultimately, the applicant is aware of the situation, but would like to keep things as they are.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the proposed exterior alteration, noting that a color palate and landscaping plan were to follow in the spring.

Bishko – Enlarge Deck – 222 Continental Road:
The applicant and his architect presented the BAR with revised plans for the wrap-around deck at their home on Continental Road.  Plans for the stone walkway and front door were also reviewed.  There was a discussion about lighting.  Mrs. Hempel and Deputy Chair Simet both expressed some concern with brightness and shielding, noting that in the winter time the property was visible from Tuxedo Road and that bright lighting could interfere with traffic. The applicant expressed his desire to have some sort of motion sensor lighting that can illuminate both the driveway and the somewhat precarious stone steps to side.  Ultimately, it was agreed that he would return to the BAR in the future to discuss this particular issue. 

The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Race Track Nature Preserve: - Tuxedo Road:
This item was deferred until the December 20 meeting of the BAR.

Tuxedo Park Police Booth:
Project architect John Kinnear, accompanied by Mayor Guinchard, reviewed the most recent plans for the Police Booth with the BAR. Notable changes include the elimination of the roof overhang and the addition of sliding, bulletproof window, which will allow for direct, face-to-face contact between the officer and the individuals entering the Village.  The size of the structure has been increased to allow for a second window bay and also to provide a bit more space for the officer inside.  The protective planter in front has been lowered.  The windows will be Marvin and will match those in the Keep and the Lodge.  The stonework will be the same as that of the other structures, although the stones will be smaller.  They are reconsidering the idea of parking in the rear of the Keep and would like to revisit the idea of installing pads there through which grass can grow. 

Addressing the proposed crosswalk between buildings, Mrs. Hempel expressed her concern with the use of Belgian block, commenting that in her experience, most of these stones had a very modern look to them, which she feared might contrast with the “iconic” stonework of the historic buildings.  She also noted that DPW Superintendent Jeff Voss had indicated that plowing could be an issue.  She further commented that she understood that need to delineate the walkway, but wondered if there might be an alternative.  This was discussed at some length.  The architect indicated that he would like to come up with something other than paint on the road to delineate the walkway.  The Mayor wondered what they could possibly do to make it safe without creating “an eye sore.”  The idea of rumble strips was proposed.   Village Trustee and BAR liaison Alan McHugh commented that he did not like the appearance of rumble strips and he feared that many of the residents would share this view.  While he understands Mrs. Hempel’s previous point about the difficulties of marrying in the Belgian Bock, he feels that to date it is the best alternative they have come up with.  He is also concerned about snow related issues in that area.  The idea of heating the steps and crosswalk was briefly discussed and abandoned.  Ultimately, it was determined that plans for this area would need some further deliberation. 

Chair Tralins brought up the idea of having a BAR member serve as a liaison to the Booth project, offering input to the process and in turn bringing information back to the BAR.   She further suggested that with her knowledge of historic architecture, Mrs. Hempel might be the best candidate for this position.

Mrs. Hempel responded that she worried that appointing a BAR liaison to the project could detract from the Village’s intent to continue presenting at BAR meetings.  She does not feel comfortable representing the BAR as a whole in reviewing any aspect of the project.  She would, however, be agreeable to serving as a conduit of information, specifically with regard to the stonework.

Chair Tralins assured Mrs. Hempel that the BAR was not tasking her with the responsibility of representing them as a whole.  Based on this discussion, Mrs. Hempel agreed to help out as suggested.

Deputy Chair Simet expressed her concern with the proposed parking pads in the rear of the Keep, noting that she had a neighbor upstate, who utilized similar mats there were supposed to allow grass to grow through them.  While they are a great idea in theory, in her experience, they do not really remain concealed and there are some notable things that can detract from the ability of the grass to grow through them, such as a lack of rain.  She fears that residents will be unhappy with the appearance and wondered why they were needed at all.

The architect explained that the Department needed to be able to access the holding room at the back of the building through the rear entrance, and although this did not happen more than 2 or 3 times a month, it was necessary that they be able to park a car there for short periods of time.

Mayor Guinchard suggested that they give it a try, noting that the pads were temporary and could be removed if people were unhappy with them.

Deputy Chair Simet replied that she could see how parking back there might become habit forming if the pads were installed.  She cautioned that they should not allow for that.

The Mayor assured her that parking would not occur in this area on a regular basis and would only be allowed when transferring a prisoner to the holding area.  She further suggested that the Village could request that nobody park there otherwise.

Deputy Chair Simet then suggested that they consider using more of an organic shape for the pads, which would be more in keeping with the existing terrain. 
Mrs. Hempel agreed that this was a good suggestion.

There followed a brief discussion about the stone slabs on the top of the giant pilars which house the lighting fixtures just inside the Gate.  The Deputy Chair suggested that these should not be bluestone as proposed, as this will have a machine cut look and thus will not be in keeping with everything else.

Mrs. Hempel agreed. 

Chair Tralins then thanked both the architect and the Mayor for bringing the plans forward for review and allowing the BAR to take part in the process.  She hopes that they will continue to be involved as the project progresses.

The architect then inquired as to whether or not the BAR would/could issue a positive declaration with regard to the plans as reviewed.

Mrs. Hempel cautioned against use of the word approval, noting that the drawings they had reviewed were not entirely accurate. 

The Deputy Chair agreed, commenting that it was her understanding that the BAR was not responsible for approving the project.

Chair Tralins suggested that what the Village was looking for was general acceptance of the design intent for the project and that this, they could safely offer if they wanted to.

Mrs. Hempel responded that she thought this would be ok, but it was important to note that the actual look and feel of the stone work as well as the pathway and the parking behind The Keep were all still to be determined. 

Trustee McHugh stated that it was his understanding that the Village did not require BAR approval to move forward with the project.  They had chosen to bring the plans to the BAR for review in order to appease the community and keep the process in the public eye while encouraging input, and also to set an example by adhering to the processes that are in place in the Village.   While he does not wish to marginalize this, he does not feel that the BAR is in a place to approve the project.  The Village does not need their approval and frankly, the BAR does not want to take ownership of the project by way of approval.

Chair Tralins concurred and thanked Trustee McHugh for his remarks.  She feels that the BAR should continue to serve in an advisory capacity. 

Addressing Trustee McHugh, Mayor Guinchard suggested that they report back to the Board of Trustees, updating them with regard to the BAR’s feedback and suggesting that they move forward.

Trustee McHugh agreed with this, suggesting that the next step would be to make the proposed drawings available to the public for feedback, prior to pricing out the project.

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 15, 2016

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday November 15 at 7pm.  All members were present.

Board Chair Sheila Tralins opened the meeting by introducing newly appointed BAR member Chiu Yin Hempel.  Mrs. Hempel then provided a brief summary of her many credentials, commenting that she felt privileged to have been asked to rejoin the BAR.

Mueller – Changes to rear of house, windows, doors – 59 Clubhouse Road:
The applicant presented the Board with plans for changes to the rear of their home located at 59 Clubhouse Road.  The proposed switch from oil to propane was discussed as was drainage at the rear of the property relative to the proposed extension of a wall there.

Roofing materials, window specs and boiler and roof ventilation were also reviewed.  The application as proposed does not require any variances.  Ultimately, it was agreed that the applicant would revise the plans to more clearly identify the proposed excavating and grading at the rear of the property as well as to include more detailed insulation specs and updated window details along with the other details that were discussed.

Shore – Garage – 19 Patterson Brook Road:
Sketches of the proposed garage at 19 Patterson Brook Road were presented and briefly reviewed.   The BAR was generally supportive of the drawings as presented, however the application requires 2 setback variances from the BZA, so following a relatively brief discussion, the applicant was referred to that Board for approval.  Once the variances have been granted, they will return to the BAR with more detailed drawings.

Madden - Changing Windows – 64 Tower Hill Loop:
Anne Madden opened the discussion by explaining that a recent leak in the kitchen at her home on Tower Hill Loop had led to serious damage which had ultimately brought about her decision to renovate the entire room.  She further explained that historically, the home had a wrap-around porch that went through the middle of the kitchen and into what is now her living room.  As part of the revision, she would like to rebuild a portion of the porch and enclose it, installing windows that will be symmetric with the rest of the home as it was originally built (1889) and fixing the “schlocky” construction that is left behind from when the kitchen was originally created.  Mrs. Madden’s architect then expanded on this, providing window specs and details regarding the necessary partial reconstruction of a portion of the roof.  Photos and drawings were presented and reviewed.  The application does not require any variances and will not alter the footprint of the home in any way.  Siding will match what is existing.  Following some further discussion with regard to materials and gutters, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Merson – Exterior Alteration – 3 Crows Nest Road:
The Applicant presented the Board with plans for alterations to the home at 3 Crows Nest Road to include replacement of all the windows, which have rotted due to neglect, as well as a change in the pitch of the roof and a change from oil to propane.  Drawings and renderings were presented and reviewed.  A survey will be completed and added to the application as soon as possible.  In keeping with their guidelines, The BAR expressed their desire to see wooden windows as opposed to the proposed aluminum clad ones and also a wooden deck instead of a composite.  Mrs. Hempel pointed out that there were some discrepancies between the drawings and the existing condition and asked that these be corrected.  Chimneys were discussed as was landscaping.  The applicant will revise the plans accordingly and return to the BAR in the near future for further review.

The Booth:
Building Inspector John Ledwith reported that plans for the booth were still under review by various members of the BOT, BAR and the architects.  Some proposed changes to the plan include the relocation of the gate arm to an area opposite the booth as well as lowering the wall in front of the structure.  Removal of the lantern in front of the booth and installation of lighting within the outside walls in order to better illuminate cars and license plates is also being considered as is increasing the depth of the structure itself in order to allow for more room inside.  Mr. Ledwith will update the BAR as the review process continues.

Other Business:
Chair Tralins announced that the BAR was working towards making some process improvements and that they would like to keep the public informed and aware of these are they are being discussed and adopted.  To this end she further stated that they had decided that the first of these would  be a change in the process for applications involving a change in paint color to a home.  Moving forward, submission of paint swatches with an application will not be sufficient.  Rather, applicants will be required to paint color samples on the structure for review (3x3 for walls and 1x3 for trim) Additionally, notices to the neighbors will include names of sample colors and any neighbors who wish to review the sample on the home can call Mr. Ledwith, who will arrange for a site visit. 

Village Trustee Alan McHugh wondered if this was to be the process with all color change applications, noting that currently subtle changes were in the purview of the Building Inspector and did not require BAR review.

Board member Patrick Donaghy stated that this was the first time he was hearing about this change in the process.   He expressed concern over the fact that Chair Tralins had stated that the BAR had decided to move forward with this policy change, but in actuality they had never discussed it or agreed to it as a Board.

Chair Tralins responded that she had spoken to 2 of the BAR members.

Mr. Donaghy responded that 2 members did not equate to the entire Board.

Chair Tralins replied that she had not thought that this would be a controversial change.
Mr. Donaghy stated that he felt they should be reviewing these types of applications on a case-by-case basis.

Ms. Hempel commented that she felt it was a good idea and that although they were ultimately asking a bit more from the applicants, it would provide for consistency across the Board.

Mr. Donaghy responded that he did not feel there was any problem with the process it currently exists.  He further stated that his real issue lay with the fact that Chair Tralins had suggested that the entire BAR was on board with the policy change but they had never discussed it.  He went on to say that he felt the new BAR appointments had been made in order to “tighten things up” and right out of the gate, the new Chair had taken it upon herself to institute policy change.

Again, Chair Tralins commented that she had not felt that what was being proposed would be considered controversial.  She feels that the new policy will keep things consistent, but agreed that subtle changes in color could remain in the purview of the Building Inspector if this was preferred.

Mr. Donaghy reasserted his belief that the applications should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis.

Ms. Hempel commented that she understood the point that Mr. Donaghy was making and that although the way the discussion had come about might not be his preferred method, they were in fact discussing it has a Board now.  She further reiterated that she felt it was a good idea as it will provide consistency with the process and applicants will know what to expect moving forward.

Mr. Donaghy responded that he understood this and that ultimately he felt it could make sense however he was not comfortable with the way in which Chair Tralins had misrepresented the BAR.  “A lot of things have been done inside a vacuum over the last several weeks,” he stated.

“I don’t believe things have been done inside a vacuum” responded Chair Tralins.

“That’s your opinion,” responded Mr. Donaghy, “they have.”

Chair Tralins replied “If that is how you feel, I welcome you to put your opinion on the record.”

“I just did,” responded Mr. Donaghy.  He went on to suggest that ordinarily, policy changes took place when there were problems with an existing policy.  He feels that what is being proposed is basically consistent with what already exists.

Chair Tralins responded that she did not agree with Mr. Donaghy’s assessment that changes only occurred when problems arose.  She feels that changes are brought about in order to improve the process.

Trustee McHugh commented that he agreed with the discussion in general as the Village had recently seen two residents choose to make drastic changes (from yellow to black) without undergoing any BAR process at all.  He feels it is important to make the process easier and more resident friendly so that people will comply.  Again, he noted that currently subtle changes were in the purview of the building inspector and that only drastic changes in color required BAR approval.

Chair Tralins commented that the goal was to decrease the levels of subjectivity in the process.  She further stated that she could appreciate Mr. Donaghy’s position and that she felt they should try to have open discussions on each application as they came forward in order to avoid further problems in the future.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 15, 2016

1. Mueller – Changes to rear of house, windows, doors - 59 Clubhouse Rd. – 107-1-61
2. Shore – Garage – 19 Patterson Brook Rd. – 103-1-50
3. Madden – Changing Windows – 64 Tower Hill Loop – 107-1-1
4. Merson – Exterior Alteration – 3 Crows Nest Rd. – 105-1-13.1

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 18, 2016

The Village Board of architectural review met on Tuesday, October 18 at 7pm.
All members were present.

New Board Chair Sheila Tralins opened the meeting by introducing herself.  She is an attorney by training with a passion for historic preservation and antiques.  After leaving law firms, she has spent the last 28 years at a public energy-from-waste company, which designs, builds, owns and operates waste energy plants around the world.  As Deputy General council she interacts daily with project managers, engineers, environmental experts and technical consultants on issues relating to the operation and construction of multi-million dollar garbage plants that turn garbage into electricity and steam.  She hopes to live in Tuxedo Park forever and she agreed to volunteer when asked by the Mayor and members of the BAR.  Her focus will be on the BAR process and combining her skills with the excellent skills of the other members of the BAR, who all have different skills to make decisions in the best interest of the Village and the entire community.  She looks forward to meeting everyone. 

She went on to report that on the previous day two members of the BAR had tendered their resignation.  On behalf of the Village she expressed gratitude to former BAR Chair Paola Tocci and Deputy Chair Robert Simon for their longevity, dedication and service.  Their wisdom will be sorely missed.  She is grateful that Julia Simet has agreed to stay on as Deputy Chair and Patrick Donaghy as a member.  Their institutional knowledge and expertise are great assets to the BAR.  The Mayor and Trustees are taking the BAR vacancies seriously and will update the community as there is progress in filling the seats.
Finally, she noted that it was important that one procedural inaccuracy in Mr. Simon and Ms. Tocci’s resignation letter be corrected for the record, relating to the appeal process from a decision of the BAR in order to avoid future confusion.  She then asked the BAR attorney to explain the appeal process.

The attorney explained that under Village Code, any appeals to the decisions of the BAR are brought before the Board of Zoning Appeals.  There is no input by any local judge or magistrate.  With respect to appealing a decision made by the BZA, that would be taken to an Article 78 and the Supreme Court of Orange County.  The Village court would have no interaction.

Dow – Pool Reconfiguration – 120 Ridge Road:
Revised plans for the reconfiguring of a swimming pool at the Dow home were presented and discussed.  The plan calls for the pool to be rotated, allowing for the creation of an infinity edge as well as an unrestricted western view.  Water will flow over the infinity edge in a waterfall, to be collected in a basin below and recycled back into the pool. The mechanicals will not be moved.   Pictures were presented and reviewed. As per the BAR’s previous request, sediment control details and soil erosion comments were submitted and all of the necessary elevations provided.

Materials and reconstruction of a wall were briefly discussed.

The BAR then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Romero – Changing House Color & New Fence – 167 E. Lake Rd:
Sue Heywood, who has purchased the Romero House on East Lake Road effective November 1, appeared before the Board with plans to repaint the home and construct a new picket fence.  The home and accessory buildings will be painted a “Milky Way” color (off white) and the trim will be Newport Green.  Samples were presented, but ultimately it was agreed that they were not a good representation of the actual color and the BAR requested that a sample 3x3 square be painted on the site for their review.  It was agreed that this would be done and the BAR then voted unanimously in favor of approving the paint color, subject to their review.

The picket fence was then discussed.  It will be made out of cedar.  Building Inspector John Ledwith reported that the fence as proposed was in compliance with all height and setback requirements.  There was a brief discussion with regard to whether or not the fence would be painted.  Mrs. Heywood indicated that it was her plan to waterproof the fence and then pain it to match the house, but both Mr. Ledwith and Mr. Donaghy argued that this might not be affective, as the waterproofing process would prevent the paint from sticking properly. 
The BAR then voted unanimously in favor of approving the fence as proposed.

Madden – Adding Lights, Changing Door Style, New Floating Dock – East Lake Road:
Together with their architect, the Maddens presented the BAR with plans for some basic renovations to their boathouse on East Lake Road.  Plans include a new, true divided light, glass style door (likened in design to the door on Howard Shore’s Boathouse) as well as the installation of two copper sconces on either side.  Additionally, the Maddens would like to install a cedar floating dock (designed to be removed in the winter) and a “bridging mechanism” by which the dock will be connected to the boathouse deck.   Finally, they are looking to repaint the building a Wyndham Cream with Terry Town Green trim.

Mr. Ledwith reported that both the floating dock and the bridging mechanism as proposed comply with code regulations.

Mr. Donaghy wondered if there were any issues with regard to accessing the lake with respect to the project, commenting that he had “heard so many things over the past couple of years” and felt it was very important that they remain consistent.

Mr. Ledwith responded that this had been discussed.  The existing supports are actually on the corner of the structure and they do not have to be so far out where they are going to be inset.  The footings will not be in the water or on top of the rock.

The applicant responded that the beams would cantilever out from the boathouse and that the deck would ultimately support the bridging mechanism and dock.

Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application conditional upon their on-site review of a 3x3 paint sample, to be conducted later this week.

Tuxedo Park –Booth Reconstruction – 2 Tuxedo Road:
Representing the Village, Attorney Brian Nugent and Architect John Kinnear presented the Board with basic plans for the Booth reconstruction as well as the construction of a new parking lot just inside the gates and adjacent to The Keep.  Prior to the presentation Chair Tralins explained that this was not an official application but rather a request for guidance from the Village with regard to the booth reconstruction and related issues. 

Deputy Chair Simet wondered if it should be considered an “informal review” and Chair Tralins deferred to the Village Attorney for a more detailed explanation as to what the BAR’s jurisdiction was with their review.

Mr. Nugent then provided a brief overview, explaining that the reconstruction of The Booth was being undertaken by the Village and in the State of New York there is a concept called Immunity from zoning in which a municipality is not subject to it’s own zoning unless the code states otherwise.  The Board of Trustees has asked that the project be presented for consultation and input from the BAR as to the design and architecture standards, especially because of the location of the Booth and the fact that it is such a prominent sight when entering the Village.  A formal application has not been submitted and a vote of the BAR is not required.  What is taking place is basically a consultation and the members of the BAR are welcome to provide comments and/or feedback both individually and collectively if they choose.  The Village Board’s purpose is to get input.  They are not looking to impose anything, rather they are attempting to collect architectural design input as well as input from residents if the BAR wishes to allow it.  The process may go on for a while.  There could be changes presented down the road.  The idea is to continue to receive input as the project progresses.

Deputy Chair Simet inquired as to whether the standards imposed within the Gateway Overlay District would be relevant to the project or taken into consideration by the Village.
Mr. Nugent responded that the location of the project was within the Gateway Overlay district however; this would be a regulation that the municipality would be able to exempt itself from.

Deputy Chair Simet wondered if they Village wanted to exempt itself from these standards. 
Mr. Nugent responded that the BAR could certainly look at those standards and that this could be a part of their comments and part of their input might be to say if there is particular criteria within the regulations that they feel should be addressed or is relevant to the reconstruction.  The BAR is welcome to consider anything that they normally would; the only difference being that this is not a formal application and therefore, they would not be in a position of voting to either deny or approve. 

The Deputy Chair then wanted to know what the classification of the Booth would be because of its occupancy. 

The answer was that the classification has not changed.  It is a Police Station.

Mr. Kinnear then proceeded with his presentation.  The preliminary design plan was originally presented to the community at a meeting last winter, however since that time there have been numerous meetings and a community survey addressing potential concerns.  One such concern was whether or not the booth should be manned or unmanned and it was ultimately decided by an overwhelming majority that a manned booth was the community preference.  The booth has been redesigned to be more in keeping with the Keep and the Lodge.  It will be a stone structure with a wood shingled roof to match the other buildings.  It will be a very secure building although the security will not be obvious.  It will be designed to be impact proof against cars and small trucks.  There have been a few notable changes to the original plan as follows:

  1. The original design included a planter in front of the booth that extended over onto Town property.  The size of the planter has since been reduced so that the entire thing will remain on Village land.
  2. Previously, they had been planning for gates both entering and exiting the Village but they have since determined that this will not be necessary.  Instead, they will install rumble strips to slow motorists down as they are leaving.
  3. They have extended the roof on the booth to allow for more protection in accessing the pedestrian crossway when coming and going.
  4. The Chief has proposed that there be the ability to park some cars near the rear entrance of the Keep.  They are proposing a lot constructed of material that will allow grass to grow through it.

With regard to this last change, the Deputy Chair immediately commented that this material was, in her view, horrible.  She further commented that if there were “a really lush year” where the grass was coming in strong, it would look okay, but otherwise, it did not look good.
Mr. Kinnear responded that he had seen many examples used before in various situations.
Deputy Chair Simet stated that she believed the area would look like pavers from Home Depot.  Grass only grows when cars are not parked on them, but if cars are parked there, it remains like dirt.  She recognized the good intent in attempting to have the space look like the existing lawn, but reiterated that she didn’t feel it was the right choice.

Mr. Kinnear went on to explain that they are also recommending additional screening to the North and the West so that the vehicles could not be seen and that they would be open to suggestion from the Garden Club as to what types of vegetation should be used.

Mr. Donaghy questioned whether or not the vehicles would still be visible, despite the screening.   He further commented that when vehicles are exiting the Park they come down a hill and around a curve and he feels there would actually have to be trees in the middle of the roadway in order to fully block the view.

“You are making a statement that you are not going to see the vehicles.  Don’t tell people they are not going to be able to see the vehicles, when they are going to be able to see them,” he commented.  Again, he asked Mr. Kinnear if he was sure the vehicles would not be visible.

Mr. Kinnear responded that this was something they would need to determine.

Mr. Donaghy then wanted to know whether there had been any traffic flow studies done.

There are a lot of cars, trucks and busses coming and going there.  He suggested that if they are going to move forward and spend money on a venture like this, a traffic study should be done

Mr. Ledwith responded that he was not aware of any traffic study having been done.
Mr. Donaghy stated that he would like to hear from experts whether or not it would be wise to put a parking area there, as cars are moving in and out.  Will it exasperate the current congestion problems to have cars cutting across there?

Mr. Kinnear stated that their main concern was the request of the police to have a safe place to bring detainees, as there is a holding room back there.  They don’t want to have to block traffic to bring people in and out.

Mr. Donaghy then stated that it seemed as though there were a host of people in the Village who have commented that this is being pushed through and should be better understood.
“I’m not sure it is being pushed through,” responded Chair Tralins.

“I am just relaying what people are saying to me.  You don’t know what people have said to me,” responded Mr. Donaghy.

“No I do not,” agreed Chair Tralins.

Mr. Kinnear responded that there had been a huge meeting when the designs were originally presented with many community members, however the lot was not included in those plans.  He feels it should be addressed now.

Moving back to the Booth, Mr. Donaghy wondered if they needed to have a slot for the gate.  He questioned the way it looked.

Mr. Kinnear replied that they were doing some investigations to see if they could get a gate the breaks back before the roof and still allows for a truck.

Mr. Donaghy questioned the decision to put a slot in a roof just to receive a gate.

He then inquired as to whether or not there would be “proper drawings” at some point.
“These are the detailed drawings,” responded Mr. Kinnear.

Deputy Chair Simet wondered whether the detailing on the new windows match those in the Keep.  The answer was yes.  She then questioned a note on the drawing that read “monitor or surveillance in the window,” wondering what exactly this meant.

Mr. Kinnear explained that if there were not a Guard in the Booth late at night, there would instead be a monitor with a “Skype Situation” to a Guard stationed in the Keep.  The Guard’s face will be visible on the monitor.

The Deputy Chair suggested that this might be a tricky installation what with all the wires etc.
Mr. Ledwith explained that the monitor, swing-arm and wires would be located inside.  He further suggested the plans showed that the building has been designed to integrate all of the cameras, speakers and microphones into the structure. 

Mr. Donaghy wondered if there were any other communities where this type of practice was employed (looking at a monitor through a window.)  He suggested that there were many communities where Guard Houses were done very well, with proper traffic flow and a person to talk to.  These communities are welcoming and it feels as though one is entering a good place.  “The way this thing is getting teed up, I don’t feel like I am entering a good place.  I feel like I am entering…I’m not sure what I am entering!  Especially if I am talking to a monitor.”

“That would only be very late at night,” responded Mr. Kinnear.

“That’s exactly when crimes occur,” called somebody from the audience.

“The details that are missing from this drawing…..I mean just as a taxpayer here….and you’re going to have a BID package…at what point do you have a complete set of drawings?

Because, there is a tremendous amount of interpretation here,” suggested Mr. Donaghy.
“Once we correct all the information.  We also have consultants who are helping with the actual design and the equipment that will be going in here,” replied Mr. Kinnear. 

Again, Mr. Donaghy wondered if there were other guardhouses that had used this type of monitoring system.

Mr. Kinnear replied that this had been a suggestion of the consultants.  If there is a recommendation that it not happen, they will take this into account.

Chair Tralins suggested that the middle of the night was probably the prime time period when residents would want to have somebody in the Booth.

Mr. Kinnear reiterated that the officer would be in the Keep.

Chair Tralins responded that she understood this but felt that one of the main reasons for having the Booth was that there should be a live person there to make residents feel comfortable coming in late at night.

“That is procedural decision which can be made,” responded Mr. Kinnear.

Chair Tralins agreed, noting that the good news was that this was a manpower decision and not a logistical problem with the construction.  She further commented that personally speaking, if she was coming home very late at night she would like to know that there would be somebody in the Booth she could speak with.  If she is paying to have the Booth, she would like to have somebody in it when she arrives to affirm her safety.

The Deputy Chair commented that aesthetically speaking, her other big concern was the parking lot.  She feels there are a few prospectives from which cars will be visible and that this is a study that must be done but overall, she feels it would be a shame to do this to the Park.  She feels it would be a mistake, both architecturally and from the landscaping prospective.  The rest of the Village abides by the Gateway Overlay District standards, which are all about setting the tone as one travels through the Park.  This is the first green space that one sees as they come through the Gate and to carve that away would be in her view, a real shame.  She feels the Village should really try not to do it.   She feels that the proposed materials and design are sensitive to the existing structures, but to have that activity right near entrance and to have this be the first impression as one enters the Village is not good. 

Mr. Donaghy inquired as to what the rumble strips would be made out of.

The answer was that they would be embossed into the paving.

Mr. Ledwith added that several different materials had been discussed but no final decision had been made. 

Mr. Donaghy commented that when entering the Village he felt it was supposed to feel as though one was entering an actual park, but the addition of speed bumps and embedded strips (things that are common at crosswalks and places like Home Depot) detract from that. 
Mr. Kinnear responded that they had originally had Belgian block there and they could certainly go back to that.  The strips are an indicator that one is exiting the Park and should slow down.  There have been concerns with regard to high speed in that area.

Chair Tralins then asked Chief Melchiorre to speak to them with regard to whether he felt there was a need for the parking area as a basis for security in bringing arrested persons in through the back door.

The Chief responded, “You have arrested persons and you have suspects.  There is a processing room in the back of the police department.  It has a holding area, some computers and some files.  That is where they process.  That is where the prisoners will be brought to, processed and then be released or sent to Orange County Jail.”  He went on to explain that they were trying to avoid parking in front, walking with a handcuffed person through the entrance of the Park, up the flight of stairs where the door opens outward, through the operating area, down a flight of stairs and into a back room.  It is important for the police department to be able to get at least one vehicle into the back area where they can unload/load a prisoner or suspected person.  It is a visibility issue as well as safety of the officers and safety of the arrested person, who also has rights.  They need to be cautious about “parading” this person through the community.  By creating the parking space in the back, they can avoid all of that.

Chair Tralins suggested that the Chief was now talking about one parking space instead of the proposed 4.

The Chief responded that he could see there was some reluctance to the idea of multiple parking spaces.  He believes it can be modified somehow.

Chair Tralins then wondered whether there might be a simpler way to construct one spot. Specifically she wondered whether a pad could be put down temporarily so they could determine whether or not something like that might work without undergoing a major construction project. 

The Chief responded that he thought there was.  They could possibly bypass an actual driveway and shrubbery and allow the vehicles to drive over the grass.  He does not feel that the amount of traffic they will see in that area will kill the grass.  

Chair Tralins commented that the Chief had referred to the privacy rights of those individuals they might need to bring in and wondered whether he felt additional screening might be necessary in that regard.

The Chief responded that he did not as it was a short distance between the car and the back door.  The prisoner is entitled to certain rights.  They have the right to go through process of the law.  “I don’t know if the general public wants to see handcuffs of leg shackles on people walking in and out of the community.”

Deputy Chair Simet wondered if, functionally speaking, the “shackled people” needed to be brought into the Keep or if they could be brought into the Lodge instead, as there is adequate parking in the back of that building.

The Chief responded that they could not.  He feels that the processing room is in the best possible location where it is now and provided they have access to that back door, it is safe and secure.  He reiterated that the size of the lot could be modified.  Vehicles will not be parked there all the time.  They will be parked out front.

Mr. Donaghy wondered why, if they were going to go to all this trouble, they did not just revisit the idea of creating a separate entrance for resident traffic by cutting through the St. Mary’s wall and directing some traffic around the back of the Keep.  He suggested that while people had initially seemed very opposed to this idea, the creation of this lot would effectively be the same as more than half of what had been proposed with that plan.
Mr. Kinnear suggested that this had originally been explored but abandoned because residents seemed to be very opposed to it.

Mr. Donaghy suggested that this might look a lot more appealing than just cramming everything in, not to mention it would be an improvement in terms of cost, efficiency and traffic flow. 

At this time Chair Tralins invited members of the public to comment.

Jim Hays commented that he was also concerned about the parking area and he felt that the Village was probably concerned as well, since they were proposing a screen around it.  He wondered how high the screening would be.  He further suggested that it would need to be tall enough to hide the cars, which in his estimate would be at least 6 feet.

Mr. Kinnear replied that this was correct, and that the specifics of the screening was yet to be determined. 

Mr. Hays asserted that the screening in and of itself would be an eyesore in his view and he feels that it would be a very bad idea to put a parking lot there.  He then inquired as to what kind of annual prisoner flow there was to the Keep.

The Chief responded that he could not speak to the last year, but in the last few weeks there had been 5.

Mr. Hays then inquired as to whether they were coming from the Park or the Town.

“A lot of them are contractors.  A lot of them are commercial….a lot of trespassers…..a lot of  people using an excuse that they are visiting someone or going to the Club and then they are going to somewhere else to commit an incident.”

“and you put them in handcuffs?” inquired Mr. Hays.

“Yes.  If there is an arrest involved we will put them in handcuffs.”

Mr. Hays then wanted to know what happened after they were arraigned and where the prisoners were taken.

The Chief informed him that they were either released or transported to Orange County Jail.
Mr. Hays responded that he was strongly against the lot and that he felt perhaps there were too many people being arrested. 

Suzanne Williams commented that she could not imagine anything worse to introduce into the Park for a number of reasons, predominantly aesthetics.  She suggested that instead of seeing a beautiful sweep of green lawn punctuated by historic buildings which the Village has spent a lot of money to bring up to their very best, and beyond that a beautiful, natural mountain, one would be seeing cars.  In addition to this real compromise and detraction from what we have, there is no way that the lot would not create accidents.  She is strongly opposed to it.  The Tuxedo Park Garden Club is also strongly opposed and they have submitted letter to the Board.  Besides compromising the existing natural beauty, a parking lot would also require salt and plowing.  It would potentially compromise the health of the surrounding grass as well as the beach tree that was planted in memory of Cordelia Wheeler by her husband, Ed.  People want to see the beauty and it is what they should see.  Not something which is, in her view, not entirely necessary.  There has to be another way to handle the issue.  She implored them not to introduce this potential ugliness into an area that is already “absolutely stunning.”

Susan Goodfellow commented that she agreed with all of the comments and questions that had been raised, specifically Mr. Donaghys’ questions about the traffic study, which she feels is extremely important.  Having sat on the Board of Trustees on and off for 7-years, she knows that there are thousands of cars that come through the Gate and this is a very important issue.  She was disappointed to hear that they had not the proper fact-finding as part of the presentation as to what exactly the need is and how often a facility like this would be needed.  She feels it is of interest to note that the Town, due to the recent issues with their police department, has shut down their holding cell.  They now go exclusively to the Orange County jail.  She feels that the Village needs to spend more time exploring all of the options.  Given the fact that this structure, architecturally, is one of the most important structures designed by Bruce Price that it is really important that all of these annoying details be addressed and that data is collected to support the decisions that are made.

Mr. Donaghy commented that it was a combination of the design and general aesthetics as well as planning for the future in terms of what the anticipated flow of traffic might be.   He further suggested that they should look into what the Town was doing as surely, they put a lot more people in shackles than the Village does.

As there were no more comments from the public, Chair Tralins thanked everyone for their comments.  She stated that she felt the BAR would have a long list of suggestions that they might want to develop and she encouraged and invited the Trustees to come back to the BAR as the plans developed.

Mr. Nugent inquired as to whether or not the BAR would be providing a list of comments based on what they had seen and heard that night or if they would prefer to wait for more detailed drawings before they provided comments.  He further stated that he wanted to respond to Mr. Donaghy’s suggestion that the project was being “pushed through,” suggesting that the fact that the project was before the BAR asking for input and also input indicated that it was early on in the process.  This was also evidenced by the fact that the plans were not in their final form.

Mr. Donaghy replied that they would definitely like to see more detailed drawings.  There is a lot of room for error when it comes to how GCs will interpret what has been presented. 
Mr. Nugent wondered whether the Board wanted to submit their comments with regard to what was being proposed conceptually now, especially since they seemed to take issue with some of it, rather than to wait for more detailed drawings. 

The Deputy Chair wondered if they had not just made comments that would be considered public record as a part of their minutes.

Mr. Nugent responded that they had, but he wondered whether the Trustees should expect something more specific from the BAR or if they would just be submitting the minutes. 
“I thought these were introductory comments based on introductory plans,” responded Chair Tralins.

Mr. Donaghy stated that he did not like the way the project was laid out.  If it is still going to be pushed through however, there is a lot more work that needs to be done on the drawings, which are seriously lacking in detail.  He doesn’t know whether any of his comments regarding traffic flow or any of the other comments made will make a difference.  Is this the new Guardhouse?  When will the plan be executed?  When do they intend to start work?  Is there a timeline attached to any of this?

Mr. Kinnear replied that they were talking about commencing next spring.

So it is starting to get pushed through,” responded Mr. Donaghy.

“No, no.  We are still collecting information,” stated Mr. Kinnear.

Mr. Donaghy suggested that it would take at least 2 months vetting out and finalizing a General Contractor and at least a month to six weeks to get pricing.  That is three months right there.

The Deputy Chair added that with the Holidays in there as well, really, they would need to start now so that they could be done in a month in time to get it out there.

“It’s gonna start to get pushed through,” stated Mr. Donaghy.  “It’s very losey-goosey,”
Mr. Kinnear replied that there were procedural issues that needed to be defined, such as whether or not the Guard would always be in the booth and if there would be a parking lot or just one spot.

Mr. Donaghy agreed.  He further stated that this was why he felt that having somebody understand the traffic flow, whether the project was going to stay within the existing footprint or expand, and combining this knowledge with input from the Chief and consultants prior to the design process, would allow the architects to design something that was more fitting to the actual needs.  “I think we have kind of put the cart before the horse a little bit,” he stated. He suggested that a professional who understands traffic may well advise them that they would be out of their minds to put the lot so close to the entrance because of the potential for accidents.

Mr. Nugent wondered whether Mr. Donaghy felt there would still need to be a traffic study if the parking lot was removed from the plan.

The answer was no.

Chair Tralins commented that there seemed to be two issues at hand here; the parking and the booth.  She stated that she believed the parking was secondary to the actual structure.
Mr. Kinnear responded that he had not heard any negative comments about the structure and that it seemed that the BAR was just looking for more detailed drawing, which will be created as the progress progresses.

Mr. Donaghy reiterated the need for a traffic study.

Mr. Kinnear suggested that generally, with larger projects, they worked with traffic consultants and if a consultant was needed here or if it were a recommendation, then the decision would need to be made.

Mr. Nugent suggested that if they considered the Chief’s comments and modified the plan to accommodate for only one police car coming in and out, he was not sure a traffic study would be necessary.

The followed a discussion with regard to the use of building.  Mr. Donaghy pointed to the fact that the Town of Tuxedo was taking their prisoners to Orange County for processing and the Chief countered that the Town was doing this because they were in trouble and had lost an entire shift along with their dispatchers.  It would take an officer 90 minutes round trip to transport prisoners to Orange County jail from Tuxedo.  The Village is not in the business of prisoner transportation and they don’t want to get into it.  They are already using the back door, they just need to have something permanent so they don’t damage the lawn with future use.  They are already in cooperation with the Town police, but they have budget issues and are losing services.  Tuxedo is known to be an island.  The Village is already on its’ own as it is and the Chief does not feel that he can jeopardize the safety of the community because they cannot have a parking space in the back.  He has already modified the plans.

Mr. Donaghy wondered how it had been handled in the past.

The Chief responded that he did not want to go backwards.  He is here to implement policies and procedures that should have already been in place.  The Village is lucky that they were not sued because of these things.  He is only trying to prevent that.  He is more than willing to work with the municipality in terms of approach and modifications.  “I can bend a little bit, but I cannot break.”

“This is a classic example of doing work and not understanding logistics,” stated Mr. Donaghy.  “We started work on this building, re-worked how the Keep was going to be used and did not understand the logistics of how flow is.  Usually this is all done together.

This is why it seems like it is being pushed though, because the Village started the project but now we need parking.  Usually one does not start anything until they have a full understanding of how the facility is going to be used.”

Mr. Kinnear replied that this was the understanding that they had and now it has been modified because of community feedback.

Mr. Nugent stated that he felt part of the question was functional with regard to the public safety.  If the decision is that there is going to be a parking space there, then the question for the BAR is going to be how should it look and what are the design elements.  If that is the Chief’s recommendation and they end up going with one spot, he feels this alleviates the need for a traffic study because one car would not have much of an impact on the overall flow.

Mr. Donaghy agreed with this, commenting that he had been asked for his opinion and had given it.  He feels that the Village is making things up as they go.

“I hope we are, cause it’s not done,” responded Mr. Nugent.  “That’s why we are gathering the input.”

“That is how we waste time and money and get everybody in a tizzy,” suggested Mr. Donaghy.

Mr. Kinnear offered that there had been a number of meetings with a lot of different people in Town and that the plans had not been slapped together quickly.

Mr. Nugent suggested that If the Village had stated that they did not want to waste time and money and listen to what the BAR and the people had to say, they would have been criticized for not accepting input.

Both the Deputy Chair and Mr. Donaghy responded that the BAR had been requesting involvement in the process for a long time.  

Mr. Nugent responded that the BAR was not limited in their recommendations. 

Mr. Donaghy indicated that he understood this.

There followed a brief squabble between Mr. Donaghy and Mr. Nugent as to whether or not the project was being pushed through, with Mr. Nugent maintaining that this was not happening and Mr. Donaghy questioning Mr. Nugent’s defensive attitude.

Paul Gluck commented that all of this was part of a process that started some time ago, and the last publicly available renderings were presented quite a while back.  Updated drawings have not been made generally available to the public.  He encouraged the BAR, together with the Trustees, to determine how the updated drawings would be made available to the public and the methodology for collecting  Village wide comments on them as he believes there is both a great deal of expertise and a wide range of comments to be made.

Ultimately, the BAR will submit their comments, in the form of meeting minutes, to the Trustees for their review and consideration.  The project will progress accordingly and the Village will bring the amended plans back before the BAR at some point in the future.

back to top

line

Agenda for Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 18, 2016

1. Dow- Pool Reconfiguration- 120 Ridge Rd. - 105-1-40.2
2. Romero- Changing House Color & New Fence- 167 E. Lake Rd. - 105-1-27
3. Madden- Adding Lights, Changing Door Style, New Floating Dock- East Lake Rd.- 105-
1-30
4. Tuxedo Park - Booth Reconstruction - 2 Tuxedo Rd. - 108-1-12

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 20, 2016

The Board of Architectural Review met on September 20, 2016 at 7pm.

All members were present.

Bishko – Enlarge Deck – 22 Continental Road:

The applicant presented the BAR with a brief overview of their plans to enlarge the deck space at their home on Continental Road.  Three variances are required.  The first is because the new deck will exceed the 25% 1st floor living requirement.  The second is a side yard setback and the third is also a side yard variance.

As is the process, the BAR rejected the application as proposed so that the applicant will now appear before the Board of Zoning Appeals in order to obtain the necessary variances.

Simon – Change of Paint Color – 5 Clubhouse Rd. Ext:

Board Chair Paola Tocci stated that there had been a lot of comment with regard to this application.  She assured the public that the BAR had read all of the emails and letters that they had received both against and in favor of the application.  Further stating that the public would be afforded the opportunity to comment, she first asked Mr. Simon if he would give an overview of what was being proposed.

Mr. Simon stated that the application concerned the painting of his home on Club House Ext, which was formerly yellow.  When he purchased the home 3 years ago, it had not been painted in a long time and was in need of repainting.  At the time he felt that an appropriate and attractive color would be a pale blue/grey; similar to the color it had been back before it was painted yellow.  He duly applied for this before the BAR.  There were some samples of other colors painted on the side of the house and many people thought these were the colors that were being proposed, but they were not.   Because Mr. Simon’s painter was booked, he requested permission from the Building Inspector to move forward with preparation of the house to consist of power washing, repainting the windows white and priming.  Permission was granted and the work proceeded, however the paint contractor in his spot priming of the areas that had lost paint and were in need of repair, chose to use a very vivid blue color which, everyone seems to agree, was quite disturbing.  As it was explained to him, the reason for using this vivid color was so that the painters would easily be able to identify the areas that were in need of either another coat or special attention.  Because of the concern over this, a Stop Work Order was issued.  The proposed color, which has remained the same since the application was filed, is Whipple Blue.  The shutters and doors will remain the same.  Mr. Simon presented color samples along with a painted shingle to show what the proposed color will actually look like when painted on wood.

Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that while the BAR does consider paint colors, there is nothing in the guidelines to guide them as to what is appropriate and what is not.

Building Inspector John Ledwith commented that there are two sections of the Village Code that he believes gives the BAR authority over color.  He further commented that several years back the BAR had informed him that subtle paint changes, such as white to off-white etc, did not need to come before them for review however, complete changes, such as yellow to blue in this case, would require a review.  This is why the application came before them.

Board member Patrick Donaghy thanked Mr. Simon for bringing clarity to the primer situation.  He further commented that he did not like telling people what they can and cannot do.  The Village is not a co-op.  Everybody likes to get along.  Clearly, Mr. Simon has neighbors who do not like what he is doing.  They do not like the color choice.  He feels there needs to be compromise on both sides and that the BAR should not be put in the position of having to pick colors.  Choices like this are a matter of personal opinion.  If the BAR were to approve the color as presented, there would be a lot of unhappy neighbors.  He does not feel they should be put in that position.  The neighbors should be able to work it out.

Mr. Simon wondered if there were any precedent for someone’s not liking another color being a determining factor in the BAR’s process.

Ms. Tocci responded that things had never gotten that far as it has always been a relatively pleasant process.

Mr. Simon stated that he believed the proposed color to be inoffensive and that he felt most of the objection was to the primer color.

Mr. Donaghy replied that he was only stating his opinion.  Personally speaking, he was not sure if he liked the proposed color but this does not mean it is either a good or bad color.  The BAR has never encountered this much resistance to a paint color choice.  He feels that if there are that many neighbors who are going to be unhappy…they are the ones living next to it….this should be taken into consideration.  He believes there should be a happy medium and compromise made.  Let common sense prevail.

Mr. Simon replied that all of the commentary thus far had not been directed at him.  Rather, it had been given to the Mayor, Trustees, Building Inspector and Police.  Therefore, the possibility of compromise and discussion has never been permitted.

Mr. Donaghy responded that he did not agree with the way a lot of things were handled around here, particularly this one, but he felt it was important to keep things moving forward.

“I have been asked to keep the same color,” stated Mr. Simon “which I don’t like and I don’t think I have to be forced to do that.”

Mr. Donaghy suggested that there might be a shade of blue that everyone could compromise on, pointing out that there was a blue home directly across the street from Mr. Simon’s property.

Chair Tocci then listed several other blue homes in the Park, including the blue stable.

Mr. Simon indicated that he would be happy to go with the blue of the stable, which he felt, was quite more brilliant, but if it would please his neighbors he might consider it.  He chose the proposed color because it was quieter, paler and more muted.

Joya Buettner inquired as to whether or not the painted shingle reflected paint over primer.  She then wanted to know whether it were possible for the electric blue primer to alter the final color of the paint job.

Mr. Donaghy stated that if the painters went over the blue primer with another coat of primer, things would be fine, but if they painted directly on top of the electric blue primer, it would show through.

Mr. Simon indicated that things would be reprimed and that the sample reflected what the end result would be.  He further suggested that all the “hysteria” had been caused by the primer.

Neighbors in the audience instantly objected to Mr. Simon’s use of the word “hysteria.”

Joya Buettner commented that she had been looking at the blue primer that had been left on Mr. Simon’s home for the last week, further stating that it was quite a vivid blue.

Mr. Simon responded that he was aware of this.

Mrs. Buettner wanted to know why it was still there.

Mr. Simon responded that it was still there because he had not been able to do anything.

“Why is that?” inquired Mrs. Buettner.

Mr. Simon, Ms. Tocci and Mr. Donaghy all responded that there was currently a Stop Work Order in place.

Mrs. Buettner replied that Mr. Ledwith had sent Mr. Simon an email this past Saturday requesting that he cover the vivid blue color up and not leave the house in that condition.  In the email he had indicated that this would not constitute a noise disruption and would therefore be allowed.

The members of the BAR indicated that this was news to them and that they had not been privy to the email.

Mr. Simon concurred that he had received a email from Mr. Ledwith inquiring as to whether or not it could be done and that he had responded and stated that he would make sure to cover the areas close to the ground, but could not paint over the rest himself.  “I am not climbing on the ladder!  I am partly disabled.”

Mrs. Buettner replied that she had been misunderstood and that she would never expect anyone to do that.

Mr. Simon then reiterated that as per the Stop Work Order, he could not bring painters on to the property.

“Hold on,” stated Bob Buettner, “John Ledwith sent Mr. Simon an email after the Stop Work Order and said, on Saturday, please put the home back in it’s original condition.  It is a non-noise creating activity, so it would be permitted on a Saturday.  If you want to see the email, I have it.”

Again, Ms. Tocci indicated that this was news to her and that she had not seen any such email.

“How would that be accomplished might I ask,” inquired Mr. Simon.

“That is not my problem,” responded Mr. Buettner.

Mr. Ledwith commented that he had sent a letter to Mr. Simon the previous Friday asking him to cover the blue.  He informed him that it would be permissible for him to bring in painters to do this work.  Mr. Simon responded that he had been unable to bring in the painters on such short notice, however he indicated that he had covered over the areas that he was able to on his own, including the bright purple and orange on the side of the house.

“Somebody did that,” stated Mr. Buettner. 

“Yes, I did it,” responded Mr. Simon.  “My tenant painted over the those colors.”

“After the Stop Work Order,” added Mrs. Buettner.  “We had to bring to your attention that there was GRAPE AIDE and ORANGE SPICE                  written in graffiti above the color splotches. Then you were able to have your tenant paint that.”

“Yes” Mr. Simon replied

“Your point is that you would have liked him to paint over everything?” inquired Chair Tocci.

“I don’t think an electric blue primer should have ever been allowed,” stated Mrs. Buettner

“We all agree with that,” responded Chair Tocci.

Mr. Buettner interjected that what Mr. Simon should have done was to comply with Mr. Ledwith’s email the previous Friday.  Mr. Ledwith is the Building Inspector and presumably when he issues directive to a resident, they should comply with what is being asked for.  Some painting was done, but it was not the painting that Mr. Ledwith asked for.  Rather, it was the painting that Mr. Simon chose to do.  Mr. Buettner cannot understand why Mr. Simon has not complied with the directive he was given by the Building Inspector.

Mr. Ledwith responded that Mr. Simon had called him within an hour of receiving the email and informed him that he would paint over the areas that he could himself, but was not sure that he would be able to bring in the painters on such short notice to take care of the remainder.  “That is all I can ask of him.  What more can I request?” stated Mr. Ledwith.

“Now it is Tuesday,” stated Mr. Buettner.  “This is Tuesday evening.  These painters were not available within the last 48 hours?”

“No,” replied Mr. Simon.

Mrs. Buettner then wanted to know whether it had “infuriated” any of the BAR members to see the electric blue color on the side of Mr. Simon’s home.

Chair Tocci responded that she believed everyone had been quite alarmed by it.

Mrs. Buettner then wanted to know what happens when the BAR becomes alarmed.

BAR member Julie Simet responded that this had occurred two days prior.  They made a site visit over the weekend and observed it.  They knew they would be having a meeting the following Tuesday to address it.  It was surprising to all of them to see the bright color.

Mrs. Buettner then wondered if they could understand that, as a neighbor,  she felt “absolutely upset” that the home was allowed to be painted that “absolutely horrendous” color.  She further suggested that she did not believe this was a subjective description and that she felt everyone could agree that the color was bad.

Mr. Donaghy replied that when it comes to primer, the process is temporary.  Why the bright blue was used however, is beyond him, but the BAR’s focus is the end result.

 “The Interesting thing is that this controversy is of your own making,” stated Mr. Buettner to Mr. Simon.  “You’re the Deputy Chair of the BAR.  Nobody should have greater familiarity with the rules than you do.”

“There is nothing wrong with the rules,” asserted Mr. Simon.

“You proposed this on September 9,” continued Mr. Buettner.  “You asked for a meeting on September 20.  You couldn’t wait to get approval before you started?  All of this has happened because you accelerated the timeline to do work before this meeting.  In effect you have neutered your fellow members of the BAR.”

Mr. Simon responded that the application had originally been slated to be on the agenda for the previous September 6 BAR meeting, which was cancelled.  As the painter had already been engaged, Mr. Simon asked Mr. Ledwith if he could move forward with the prep work.  He had no idea it would be like this.  He believed it was going to be the normal, benign process of repair. This turned out not to be the case and he was not happy with the process that the painter took.  There was enough controversy that it was stopped and so be it.  It will be willingly covered up as soon as the color has been approved and Mr. Simon was hopeful that this would happen at tonight’s meeting.

Pam Cromey commented that nobody had seen the actual color that Mr. Simon was proposing before that evening.  The blue primer color that was actually painted onto the home looked like the blue color of Mr. Simon’s other home.  While she understands this, Mr. Simon’s other home is a Painted Lady from San Francisco and the bright color is suitable there.  She does not feel  it is  suitable for the little cottage  on Club House Rd. Ext..

Mr. Simon agreed with this assessment, further commenting that the application with the color choices had been on file at the Village Office for more than 10 days and if there were concerns they should have been brought forward properly.  He reiterated that it was never his intent to paint it the electric blue color of the primer.

Mr. Donaghy reiterated the need to compromise and come to a meeting of the minds of what color would be acceptable.

Mr. Simon then inquired of his neighbors as to whether they found the proposed color to be objectionable.

Mrs. Buettner responded that she felt it was an inappropriate color for a home that was surrounded in such close proximity by other homes.  The Blue Stable sits alone.   The home in question is surrounded by hedges.  She feels that if the BAR allows this color, whether it is Mr. Simon or somebody else, it  the will be opening the door to multiple color homes in the Village. She suggested that the members of the BAR take a drive and a look around.  The majority of homes are neutral in palate with colors that compliment both their surroundings and nature.  What is being proposed is not.  Mr. Simon has referred to the proposed color as light blue but Mr. Buettner thinks it s dark blue.  Mrs. Buettner is in design and she believes it to be medium blue.  Benjamin Moore calls it medium blue on their color swatches. She went to go and get them.   That is why everyone came to the meeting, because color is subjective.  The proposed color, in her view, is the wrong color for Tuxedo Park.  It is most especially wrong on a home that can be viewed by every single neighbor.

Mr. Simon countered that he did not believe that he should have to hide his home.

Mr. Buettner stated that he agreed with Mr. Donaghy in that a color such as this that has created this much controversy needs to be addressed.  “We all have to look at it,” he asserted.  He further stated that he believed that the majority of comments and letters that had been received by the BAR had been in opposition to the proposed color.

Mr. Simon disagreed, commenting that he felt that those people who were either in favor or indifferent or recognize that he has the right to paint is house whatever color he chose were not present. 

Mrs. Buettner responded that this was a community and that everything that each person did had an effect on everyone else.  She further pointed out that there was a Code in existence and that the BAR was in place to enforce the code.  “We don’t live on an island by ourselves. We live in a gated community with codes.”

Mr. Simon wantded to know if he had violated the Code with his submission or by following the process.  He countered that he believed that had actually followed it to the letter.

“Mr. Simon, your tenant was building a fence on your property to conceal a propane tank that he installed.  Those are two code violations.   So when I saw the electric blue primer being placed on your home, I was a bit nervous and I think I was justified,” stated Mrs. Buettner.

“I was a bit nervous when the backhoe went in and nobody had called 911 to mark anything on the property and it started wheeling around your back yard,” stated Anne Gwathmey.

Mr. Simon suggested that they were getting off topic.

Mrs. Gwathmey responded that she did not think they were.

Mr. Simon wondered whether marking was required if a resident wanted to bring in a backhoe to plant trees on their own property.

“If you start digging in the ground without having proper marking there could be serious safety concerns,” replied Mrs. Gwathmey.

“Especially next to your propane tank,” added Mr. Buettner. “Which I believe John Ledwith has said isn’t even installed properly!”

Mr. Buettner then asked the Building Inspector to confirm that he had inspected the propane tank and that not only was it was not supposed to be there, but it had not been installed properly. 

Mr. Ledwith replied that he had brought it to Mr. Simon’s attention that the tank was crooked and not sitting on all four legs.

Mr. Simon stated that the tank had been there for a while and was closer to the house.  When the service man originally came, he said that while the tank had been installed according to Code when the house was built, it no longer conformed with the Code as it was too close to the house.  Therefore Mr Simon relocated it and it has been in its current spot for a year now. ”

Mrs. Buettner concurred and further commented that she had been asking Mr. Ledwith to go and look at the tank for a year now in order to determine that it had been installed correctly.  She asserted the fact that she had not issued a complaint, rather asked for confirmation that everything was ok.

Mr. Buettner then asked Mr. Ledwith to confirm that he had been asked numerous times by the Buettners to check on the propane tank.

At this point, the Attorney to the BAR interrupted the conversation stating that he felt things were getting off topic.  He stated that the application at hand had to do with the color of the house and he did not feel it was proper to be questioning the Building Inspector about specific code issues.

“I am asking for confirmation,” responded Mr. Buettner.

The Attorney suggested that Mr. Buettner should do this on his own time.

“Mr. Simon said that he has been in compliance with all of the rules.  He opened up that line of questioning since he is not,” stated Mr. Buettner.

The attorney replied by suggesting that they should not filibuster.  He commented that they should get to the point with regard to the color of the house.  It had already been made clear that there was a primer put on the house and that this would not be the color of the house. 

“Let the audience speak!” demanded Mr. Buettner. 

“You have already spoken quite a bit Sir,” responded the attorney. He then wondered whether anyone else had comments pertaining to the color choice so that they could move the process forward.

Michael Bruno stated that he did not want to comment on the color of the house as he agreed with Mr. Donaghy except for the complications of being in a Village.  He has been through BAR meetings many times before and he has seen a lot of pushing from the BAR, including by Mr. Simon, to go for natural stone colors that fit right in.  People have had to go to great expense to bring in stone that was not cut on site, that was the right stone and the right color.  The BAR has really pushed this point in other applications and he does not feel it should be any different now for the sake of a process.

Anne Gwathmey stated that she was Mr. Simon’s next-door neighbor and that he had both stone and brick against blue.  She looks at one side of his house and most of his yard.  The sample that Mr. Simon painted on his house was put on the shadiest part, where it looks ok but, she suggested, perhaps he should put a sample in a sunnier spot.  If he were to do this, showing the painted shingle in contrast to the windows etc, everybody might have a clearer picture of what it is Mr. Simon is trying to do.

Mr. Simon responded that he appreciated this, but he pointed out that the samples that had been done were done for his consideration, not the consideration of the entire neighborhood.  He purposely put them where he did so that they would not be visible and disruptive to everyone. 

“If you paint the house this color, do you care that it bothers your neighbors?  Yes or no?” inquired Mrs. Gwathmey.

“To a certain degree, I don’t,” replied Mr. Simon.  “I am not a libertarian by nature, but unless there is something truly offensive, I think it is irrelevant.”

Mrs. Gwathmey responded that Mr. Simon’s house was the youngest house in the neighborhood and was surrounded by historic homes.  Nobody else has a bright house like this. 

There followed a brief disagreement over whether or not the home had previously been painted blue.

Mrs. Buettner commented that after 11 years of living in the Village she had never been through this process.  She apologized if she had either offended anybody on the BAR or taken up too much of their time, commenting that this had been very upsetting to her.  “It’s very upsetting because I don’t complain about my neighbors.  I don’t talk about my neighbors to people even if they talk about me.  So for me to be sitting here and even have to say to Mr. Simon that he has an unwarranted propane tank, he was building a 13 X 4 fence in prefab lattice, he was storing building supplies, now he has electric blue primer and now we need to give him our opinion of his color.  I don’t care.  This is America.  That could be the best blue in the world.  It  could be so darn good that everyone in the Park is going to say ‘ I too want that blue’ and I hope that happens Mr. Simon, but I’m sorry if it happens next to my home.”

Mr. Simon responded that he felt that when a resident had an issue with a neighbor, they should speak to that person.  He indicated that prior to this evening he had never met the Buettners, however they had met his tenants and perhaps a word to them directly, rather than essentially calling the cops, would have been a better way to go.

Mrs. Buettner countered that she had never called the cops.  She further stated that over the course of the year and a half,that there had been multiple infractions on his property, she had only ever complained about the motor boat that was parked in the driveway for a year.  The other things, she did not call about.

Mr. Simon responded that all he was suggesting was that if Mrs. Buettner had an issue; she should speak to either the tenant or himself in an attempt to resolve them.

“I don’t know you,” stated Mrs. Bittner in response.

Julia Simet stated that she felt they needed to work towards making a compromise.  She further commented that Mr. Simon had described the proposed color as a blue/grey.  She is not sure that the colors the BAR viewed on the house were truly the same as the sample that was being presented.  She suggested that they probably needed to have a proper sample.  She also stated that she agreed with Mr. Donaghy in that in this case, it probably would be a good idea for Mr. Simon to listen to his neighbors and consider a compromise that might be more in keeping with the stonework on the house and the natural hues in the Park.

Mr. Simon wondered whether they wanted to see a bluer color or a greyer color.

The answer was greyer.

Ms. Simet also suggested that Mr. Simon prepare a proper sample with the right primer on the house so that the BAR could see it with the right context and people would feel more comfortable.

Ashley Hardgroves, who lives right across the street, commented that she was relieved to hear that Mr. Simon was not going with the electric blue color and that while ultimately he would paint it whatever color he chose, she hoped he would consider the proximity to the other homes and the peaceful, serene setting as one approaches the curve. 

Mr. Simon asked her if she found the proposed color to be disturbing.

She responded that she did not consider it to be disturbing, but she felt uncomfortable commenting on that one way or the other.

Mr. Simon stated that he understood this but just wanted to know if she had any objection to it.

“I like the yellow,” she responded.

Chair Tocci stated that the BAR had worked very hard to make the It a collaborative, friendly and non-combative board.  It really breaks her heart when everybody gets so up in arms over these things and she was hopeful that they could come to a solution that would please everyone.  She further suggested that if Mr. Simon would paint the house the softer color with the correct primer underneath it might go a long way toward alleviating the concerns.

Mr. Buettner interjected that it would not.  There was an application currently before the BAR for a particular paint color, but simultaneously there was a home that was in a half primed, half finished state.  What he would like is for the BAR to reject the color before them and that the home, pursuant to Mr. Ledwith’s order, be put back in the proper condition with the proper color and that Mr. Simon can then apply again with a different color.

Mr. Simon stated that he felt this was a completely unreasonable demand. 

The arguing back and forth between the Buettners and Mr. Simon continued for several more minutes.  Ultimately, following some more discussion, the BAR requested that Mr. Simon tone down the color as presented to create three new samples which would be painted on the front of the house for review. 

*Ultimately Mr. Simon withdrew his application the following day. 

Royan – Greenhouse Conversion – 1 Brook Farm Rd:

The Board reviewed plans for the conversion of a greenhouse located at 1 Brook Farm Rd.  The house is currently in serious disrepair and the applicant is looking to restore it to what it once was and restore the structure.  Although it will eventually be converted to a livable space, the current plans are only seeking to repair damage and prevent any further damage from occurring.  A shingle sample was presented and materials were discussed.

Following this review, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Dow – Pool Reconfiguration – 120 Ridge Road:

The applicant presented the BAR with plans to reconfigure a swimming pool on the property.  The existing pool is in disrepair and has been leaking.  The plans call for rotating the pool  to create an infinity pool in the same location.  An existing stone wall will be incorporated.  Materials were discussed.  The BAR engineer had some questions with regard to grading and the wall. 

It was agreed that the applicant would address the questions and comments of the BAR and return at a later date.

Flores – Removal of Lattice and Upgrade of Front Columns – 242 Continental Road:

The applicant presented plans to remove a lattice and upgrade the front columns at their home on Continental Road.  Following minimal discussion, the application was unanimously approved.

Mahan – Side Entrance Cover – 81 Ridge Road:

The applicant presented plans and drawings concerning the construction of a side entrance cover.  It will be painted white to match the house.  The door is existing.  Materials were briefly discussed.  The application was then unanimously approved by the BAR.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 20, 2016

1. Royan- Greenhouse Conversion- 1 Brook Farm Rd.- 103-1-14
2. Flores - Removal of Lattice and Upgrade of Front Columns
- 242 Continental Rd. - 1 07-1-9
3. Simon- Change of Paint Color- 5 Clubhouse Rd. Ext. - 104-1-52
4. Bishko- Deck- 222 Continental Rd.- 107-1-5
5. Dow- Pool- 120 Ridge Rd.- 105-1-40.2

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 19, 2016

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, July 18 at 7pm.  Board members Patrick Donaghy and Christian Brunner were absent.

Trevor – Patterson Brook Rd. – Fence:
Mr. Trevor presented the Board with plans to fence in the patio and a section of the back/side lawn at his home on Patterson Brook Rd.  He would prefer to use a pre-painted white, scalloped fence.  There will be two gates, one in the back and one on the side.  Hardware will be black. 

Following minimal discussion, the application was unanimously approved.

Donaghy – Patterson Brook Rd. – Remove existing accessory structure, new garage, new driveway extension, stone wall and landscaping:

The BAR conducted a site visit the Sunday prior and this was briefly discussed.  Board Chair Paola Tocci suggested that there was a possible re-design on the garage forthcoming, so these plans were not reviewed in detail.  The application will require two variances from the BZA; one for the garage setback and the other for the stone walls.

BAR Engineer outlined several areas where more information is necessary.  Some of these included sediment control, wall details, cut and fill analysis, landscaping details and a planting schedule.    The driveway will be stabilized grass and this was briefly discussed.  Engineered design plans for both the stone walls that exceed 4 feet in height as well as the garage will be required post approval, prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Ultimately, the application was denied by the Building Inspector and referred to the BZA for the necessary variances.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 19, 2016

1. Trevor – Patterson Brook Rd. – Parcel No. 103-1-36 - Fence
2. Donaghy – Patterson Brook Rd.- Parcel No. 103-1-35.1 - Remove existing accessory
structure, new garage, new driveway extension, stone wall and landscaping

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 5, 2016

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, July 5.  Deputy Chair Robert Simon was absent.

Turnbull – Garden Walls – Clubhouse Road:
Since their previous visit to the BAR, the applicant has been granted the necessary height variance from the BZA. Plans and photographs were presented and reviewed .   The applicant would like to restore the walls to what they once were, based on a historic drawing.  Materials were briefly discussed as well.  The Terrace walls will be made of stone and will be in keeping with the stucco home.   Detailing on the railings will match.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

McFadden – Change lights & door – Turtle Point Rd.:
David McFadden presented the Board with drawings as well as a series of photographs and outlined in detail his plans for replacement lighting and a new door at his boathouse located on Turtle Point Road.  Brightness of bulbs and door materials were briefly discussed.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

O’Sullivan – Driveway – Ridge Rd.:
The O’Sullivans appeared before the BZA in response to an appeal filed by neighbors with regard to their recently approved driveway.  The attorney for the BAR announced the decision of the BZA, explainng that there had been two complaints filed.  First, next door neighbors claimed that they had not received proper notice from the Village with regard to the initial application and secondly, the neighbors alleged that the driveway as approved was too close to their property line.  With regard to the first objection, the BZA decided that it had no merit and need not be considered by the BAR.  Regarding the second claim, they remanded the decision to the BAR, suggesting that they revisit and determine whether or not there was sufficient space between the south east corner of the driveway and the nearest boundary line.

Based on this decision, Building Inspector John Ledwith reached out to applicant’s surveyor and requested a second reading.  The reading as presented (dated 6/22/16) stated that there was a total distance of 18.04 feet, which by code is sufficient  space for the applicant to proceed without a variance.

Board Chair Paola Tocci asked the applicant about their plans for landscaping.  Mr. O’Sullivan responded that there would be an initial burst of planting along the southern end of the property, which should provide screening for the neighbors.  Additional plantings will follow as time goes on.

Next door neighbor, John McKenna, inquired about the classification of the proposed driveway as existing, noting that the area in question had not been an active driveway since the late 60s/early 70s and had, in fact, been covered with grass and trees ever since he bought his home, 20 years ago.  He noted that on both the notification received by his neighbors as well as the agendas for those meetings where the application had been discussed prior to approval, the project was classified as “modifications to existing driveway” but the existing driveway was not actually what was being discussed.  Commenting that it was not his intention to be condescending, he read aloud the definition of the word midfication (the making of limited change to something that is preexisting) and further stated that what had been approved was an entirely new entrance, completely independent of what is existing.  He suggested that the notices and agendas had been misleading and that he had other neighbors who would have objected to the project had they understood the scope of what was truly being discussed.

Mr. Ledwith responded that he had classified the project the way he had based on conversations he had with Mr. O’Sullivan during the early stages of the project and the original set of plans.  He further stated that there is documentation to support the fact that there was a driveway there in 1969 and that this makes sense as there is a garage at the base of the home where the driveway would have been.

Again, Mr. McKenna suggested that what had been approved did not constitute a modification to the existing driveway, but was rather the construction of an entirely new driveway.

The BAR’s attorney stated that the BAR is not obligated to provide the neighbors with detailed project plans.  The plans are kept on file at the Village Office and are available to the public upon request.  It is the responsibility of the neighbors to request copies and view them.

Mr. McKenna then stated that at the BZA hearing, the attorney to the BZA had suggested that once a non-conforming driveway had been out of service for more than a year, it was not considered a driveway anymore and could not be “grandfathered” back in to compliance.

The BAR attorney refuted this, suggesting that Mr. McKenna was confused and that the non-conforming use clause as referenced did not apply with respect to an individual home or property.

Mr. McKenna then questioned the two surveys that were done, pointing out that the originals show a distance of 19 feet and the new ones show 18.5.

He was informed that regardless, both surveys showed that there was sufficient space for the driveway.

Mrs. McKenna then wondered whether or not the BAR considered the new parking area to be constructed at the base of the driveway as “a modification” to what currently exists, seeing as they seemed to consider the resurfacing of a new driveway in that way.

Mr. Ledwith responded that the parking area was new.

Mrs. McKenna the inquired as to whether or not the applicant might consider eliminating this as it cuts into a piece of  land that has always served as a part of their back yard and which they have maintained for 20 years.

The BAR began to discuss this however, their attorney quickly reminded them that the application had already been approved and that the only decisions they had the power to make were those that were handed to them by the BZA as a result of the appeal and that it would be improper for them to consider anything else.

Following this, the Board voted unanimously in favor of upholding their approval of the application, based on the second survey.

Board Chair Paola Tocci then commented that she felt both parties were reasonable, lovely people and she hoped that they could reach some sort of neighborly agreement.

Mrs. O’Sullivan responded that they would be happy to talk with the McKennas, further stating that they considered themselves to be approachable people.

back to top

line

Agenda For Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 5, 2016

1. Trevor- Fence- Patterson Brook Rd. - 103-1-36
2. Turnbull- Garden walls- Clubhouse Rd. -106-1-19.22
3. McFadden- Change lights & door- Turtle Point Rd.- 103-1-24
4. O'Sullivan- Driveway- Ridge Rd.- 108-1-3.2
5. Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 17, 2016

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, May 17 at 7pm.  Board members Julie Simet and Christian Bruner were absent.

Madden – East Lake Road – Adding Utilities:
Together with his contractor, Bill Fairclough, Mr. Madden presented the Board for a second time with plans to install a utility pole on his boathouse property, located on East Lake Road.   As per their discussion at the previous meeting, Mr. Madden originally attempted to install the lines underground, but was served a stop work order when it was determined that a portion of the excavated paper road that services the Boathouse belongs to the Village.  After a handful of meetings and limited deliberation, the Trustees determined that they would not grant an easement allowing Mr. Madden to install the lines underground because of their proximity to Village water and sewer lines that exist on the property.  According the to Building Inspector, the Village lines are right on top of each other and should an issue arise whereby they need to be upgraded, they will need the surrounding space to do so.  As a result of this decision, Mr. Madden is now pursuing above ground electricity and is requesting permission to install an electric pole on his property.  Two additional polls will need to be installed on Village property in order to complete the hook-up.   Since the last meeting there have been no changes to the proposed plan although, at the recommendation of the Village Engineer, Mr. Madden tracked the exact location of the Village lines and discovered that not only are they not right on top of each other, but they are actually separated by distances spanning 5.5-12.5 feet.

Chair Tocci thanked Mr. Madden for this information, reminding him that it had no impact on the application before them, which concerned only the installation of 1 poll, labeled “poll #3” on the plans. 

Mr. Madden concurred.

The Board attorney advised the BAR that they should condition their approval upon the applicant providing proof that Orange and Rockland has the right to install the remaining two polls on Village property.

Chair Tocci then made a motion to approve the application.

Before they could vote, Mayor Guinchard spoke from the back of the room, asserting that the approval must be conditional upon the applicant being able to provide proof, as just put forth by the attorney, that Orange and Rockland has the right to install their polls. 

It was then reiterated by the attorney that the BAR approval would not allow the Maddens to have electricity as they still needed to procure an approval from another entity.

Mr. Madden objected to all of this.  He suggested that the conditions that Mayor was requesting had nothing to do with the BAR.  Stating that he was sorry his attorney was not present, he further commented that he believed the installation of the Orange and Rockland polls was a matter for the BOT.  He is well aware that the BAR approval will not allow him to move ahead with his project.

Following some further discussion, the condition as outlined by both the Mayor and the attorney was added to the motion and the application was subsequently unanimously approved.

Mr. Madden then wondered if he were being officially referred back to the BOT.
The answer was yes.

He inquired as to whether he could get onto the agenda for next week.

The Mayor responded that he should have his lawyer contact the Village Attorney to determine if anything else was needed.

Mr. Madden responded that this communication had occurred and that everything was up to date.

Chair Tocci interjected, pointing out that there were several other items on the BAR agenda and that this really had nothing to do with the application that had just been approved.

Mr. Madden apologized, agreeing with Chair Tocci.  He further commented that the BAR had been very professional and positive to work with.  “Now the Village has one more opportunity to the right thing.”

Vanderlee – Cliff Rd – Change Paint Color:
Representing his parents, one of the Vanderlee children presented the BAR with color samples for the proposed color change of their home on Cliff Road.
Following minimal discussion, the application was unanimously approved.

Shore – Patterson Brook Rd. – Greenhouse:
A representative for the applicant presented the BAR with plans to install a pre-fab greenhouse on an existing concrete pad at the back of their property on Patterson Brook Road.  Materials were briefly discussed. 
The BAR then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

McQuilkin – Circuit Rd – Change of Roof Material:
Plans were presented for a change in roof material for the guesthouse located behind the main home on Circuit Road.  The previous approval called for a slate roof, however the structure is in bad shape and ultimately it cannot support the weight of the slate.  Instead, the applicant would like to install a cedar shake roof.  Samples were presented and materials briefly discussed.  Following some minimal discussion, the application was unanimously approved.

Villa Inna – Camp Comfort Rd. – Change Stone Supplier:
The applicant is requesting permission to change stone suppliers as the current supplier has informed them that they will need to resample the site.  The reason for this has to do with the color palate selected and the accessibility of stones within the approved range.  After receiving this information, the applicant has located another supplier who is willing to provide the same stone for $500,000 less.  Samples of both the approved stone from the current supplier and the proposed stone from the new supplier were presented.  There was little to no difference.

Chair Tocci inquired as to whether the new supplier intended to saw and cut the stone on site or if it would be delivered ready for installation.  The previous approval calls for the latter.  Sawing and cutting the stone on site could create a noise disturbance and also calls into question the issue of debris and run-off.

This was discussed at some length, with the applicant asserting that the stone was always to be sawed and cut on site and the BAR disagreeing.  It was suggested that perhaps the variation in price between suppliers was connected with the stone prep.  Following some further discussion the application was approved conditional upon the Owner’s Representative providing a letter clearly indicating how the stone will be fabricating and certifying that it will be sawed and cut off site and delivered ready to be installed, as per the previous approval.  If the applicant cannot procure such a letter, they must return to the BAR for further discussion.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 17, 2016

1. Madden – East Lake Rd. – Adding Utilities
2. Vanderlee – Cliff Rd. – Change paint color
3. Villa Inna – Camp Comfort Rd. - Change Stone Supplier
4. Shore – Patterson Brook Rd. – Greenhouse
5. Mahan – 81 Ridge Rd. – Driveway Cobble Border/Design
6. McQuilkin – Circuit Rd. - Change Roof Material
7. Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 3, 2016

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, May 3 at 7pm.  Board members Patrick Donaghy and Chris Bruner were absent.

Chair Paola Tocci opened the meeting by introducing the new Board Engineer, Patrick Hines.

Flores – Deck Railing – 242 Continental Road:
The Applicant presented the BAR with drawings outlining the proposed replacement of a deck railing at their home on Continental Road.  The current railing is falling apart and in general disrepair.  Following some general discussion with regard to design and materials, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Madden – Utilities – East Lake Road:
Together with their contractor and attorney, Sean and Anne Madden presented the Board with plans to install 3 utility poles in an effort to service their boathouse, located on East Lake Road, with electricity.  Only one of the proposed polls is located on their property, with the other two to be installed on Village owned land. A survey of the property was also presented.  In an effort to fully educate the BAR with regard to the application, Mr. Madden provided them with a brief history as follows:

The Maddens purchased the boathouse from the Clark family about a year ago and their first order of business was to service it with electricity so that they could have a boat there.  Access to the property is via a paper road of sorts, which is owned by the Village.  Unaware of this, the Madden’s contractor went about preparing to install the electric service via underground conduit, and to this end, he dug several trenches on Village owned land.  The Village Building Inspector, upon discovering this work had been done on Village property without permission, issued a Stop Work Order and the Madden’s contractor subsequently appeared before the Board of Trustees to discuss the situation at their next meeting.  During this discussion, the Building Inspector informed that Board that there are water and sewer lines located on the property in question.  He expressed concern regarding the close proximity of the Madden’s electric lines to these and suggested that it would not be in the best interest of the Village to have them there.

Mr. Madden attended the following Trustee’s meeting, where he attempted to discuss the situation with the Board.  He explained that the trenches had been dug in good faith and that he had not been aware that they were trespassing on Village owned land at the time.  Being that they were already there, and keeping in mind that underground lines would (in his view) be safer and more aesthetically pleasing for everyone, Mr. Madden attempted to come to a compromise solution with the Board.  To this end, he suggested that if the Board would allow him to go ahead and install the lines as planned, he would also put in a “kill switch” which would allow the Village to shut off the power immediately should they deem it necessary.  He also offered to provide a legal document, to run with the land, stating that should the lines ever need to be moved the owner would do so immediately at his own expense and if he  refused to do this, the Village could go ahead and do the work themselves and bill the owner for the expense.  When he left that meeting, Mr. Madden thought that he had reached an agreeable compromise with the Trustees however, this was not the case.  Two days later he received a notice stating that he had to remove the conduit and fill in the trenches within 6 days.  Mr. Madden is not sure what transpired following the meeting that resulted in this letter, but he feels that to date, he has not received a satisfactory reason as to why he cannot go underground.

Building Inspector John Ledwith responded that the Village owned water and sewer mains that are located on the property in question are right on top of each other.  If these lines should ever need to be upgraded, they will need to be 10 feet apart and if the Madden’s electric lines are there, this will not be possible.

Mr. Madden countered by inquiring as to whether or not a analysis of the probability of this occurring, or a risk assessment had been done.  He wondered how many linear feet of water lines existed within the Village and of these, how many had been replaced and moved in the last 15 years.  He noted that to the best of his knowledge, these lines were usually repaired in place.  He stated that he found this answer to be arbitrary at best and further noted that they had offered to relocate the lines at no expense to the Village should this ever become a legitimate issue.  He then wanted to know whether or not there had been a formal vote of the Board with regards to this as it was his understanding that such decisions had to be made by vote and that this vote should occur in public.

Mr. Ledwith responded that the Trustees had been in agreement with his assessment and that no official vote had taken place.

At this point Board Chair Paola Tocci and Deputy Chair Robert Simon both interjected that it was not in the purview of the BAR to comment on this situation.  Chair Tocci further noted that they were in agreement that it would be better if the lines were underground.   Getting back to the application at hand, they inquired as to exactly what the Maddens were looking for them to approve. 

Mr. Madden responded that they were seeking approval of the pole to be located on their property.  Orange and Rockland has an agreement with the Village, which ultimately gives them Right Of Way with installation or maintenance of utilities and this should account for the other two poles.  He further commented that all lines on their property would be underground.
Village Engineer Patrick Hines then presented and reviewed a Technical Review of the application that he put together following a recent site visit to the property.

He too believes the lines would be better underground.  Possible removal of some trees was discussed.  Ultimately, it was determined that the Maddens must update their plans to clearly and accurately show where the Village owned lines run.  They must also show any trees that need to be removed on this plan.  In addition, an erosion and control plan is needed as is an agreement from the Village with regard to the various impacts to their property.  The Maddens will return to the next BAR meeting on May 17.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 3, 2016

1. Flores - Deck Railing - 242 continental Road - Parcel 107-1-9
2. Madden - Utilities - East Lake Rd. - Parcel 105-1-30
3. Minutes.

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 19, 2016

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday April 19 at 7pm.

Deputy Chair Robert Simon and Board member Julia Simet were both absent.

Christensen - Change garage doors from two to one - 9 Ridge Rd:
On behalf of the applicant, architect Peter Cooper presented the Board with plans for the replacement of two garage doors two.  The doors will be stained to match the existing structure.  Mr. Christensen explained that the reason for the change is that the current openings are extremely narrow and therefore, it is very tight when he is entering and exiting the garage. 

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Shapiro - Change color of house - 107 East Lake Rd:
Board Chair Paola Tocci announced that Mr. and Mrs. Shapiro were unable to be present.

They have are looking to change the color of their home from yellow back to more of the original palate, which is a medium to dark, slate grey. 

Unfortunately, the applicant has already completed the requested paint job.

This was discussed as was the idea of a possible update/amendment to the Village Code, which would do more to prevent applicants from moving forward with projects without the required approvals. 

Following this discussion, the application was unanimously approved.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 19, 2016

1. Christensen - Change garage doors from two to one - 9 Ridge Rd.
2. Shapiro - Change color of house - 107 East Lake Rd.
3. Minutes.

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 15, 2016

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, March 15 at 7pm.  Deputy Chair Robert Simon and Board Member Patrick Donaghy were both absent.

O’Sullivan – Dormers, windows, driveway modifications – 14 Ridge Road:
Together with their architect, the O’Sullivans presented the Board with revised plans for the renovations to their home located at 14 Ridge Road.  The plans included renderings as previously requested by the BAR.  Materials and colors were discussed after which the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Bruno – Boathouse Renovations:
The applicant presented the Board with additional information as requested at the previous meeting.  Windows and lighting fixtures were briefly discussed, as were some other minor adjustments that were made to the plan.  The BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.  As per the Building Inspector, the applicant must submit Lake Protection and Utility Plans to be approved by himself and the Village Engineer prior to the issuance of a Building Permit.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 15, 2016

1. O'Sullivan- Dormers, windows, driveway modifications - 14 Ridge Rd.- 108-1-3.2
2. Bruno - Boathouse renovations- West Lake Rd.- 103-1-27.12

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 1, 2016

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, March 1 at 7pm.  Board member Julia Simet was absent.

O’Sullivan – Dormers, Windows, Driveway Modifications – 14 Ridge Road:
Together with their Architect, Peter Cooper, the O’Sullivan’s presented the BAR with plans outlining proposed renovations to their home at 14 Ridge Road.  The BAR had completed a site visit prior to the meeting. Proposed renovations include reconfiguration of the driveway, replacement of the deck, new railings and pathway, replacement of French doors in the rear of the home, all new windows, new roof, new gutters, enhancement of the front entry, enlargement of existing dormer and addition of two new dormers.

Materials and color schemes were discussed.  There was some concern with regard to the multitude of colors proposed and Board member Patrick Donaghy suggested that elevation renderings might be helpful.

Ultimately it was determined that the O’Sullivans would return to the next meeting, with more of these details ironed out.

Bruno – House Entrance Restoration – West Lake Road:
On behalf of Mr. Bruno, Catherine Morris and a team of architects presented the BAR with plans to restore the lake facing entrance to Mr. Bruno’s home on West Lake Road.  It appears as though at one time or another the previous owner “remuddled” this area and Mr. Bruno would like to restore it to its original design.  He is therefore proposing to remove what is currently there entirely and reconstruct it based on Bruce Price’s drawings.  Plans were presented and reviewed.  In addition to the main entrance, the roof deck located off the second floor will also be remodeled.  Materials were reviewed and discussed. 

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Bruno – Boathouse Renovations – West Lake Road:
Plans for the renovation of Mr. Bruno’s boathouse on West Lake Road were presented and discussed.  The structures foundation is in good shape, so the intent is to reuse it and rebuild on the original footprint.  Mr. Bruno does not want to deviate too much from the original design.  The exterior will be a white stucco.  The bottom will be constructed with masonry blocks and the top framed with wood.  There will be a bluestone belt dividing the top from the bottom.  Doors and railings will be custom made and Hope windows will be installed throughout.   The slip itself will be “vintage style” at 6 feet. A previously existing driveway will be refurbished with pavers, a skirt with stone drainage swale.  The original walkway and stairs to the boathouse will be restored as will the pathway to the bridge.

The proposed sewage ejection system was then discussed as was heating.  There will be heating upstairs and in the mechanical room downstairs.    Outdoor lighting was also briefly discussed. 

There remain some technical and engineering issues that need to be resolved prior to approval.  The sewage ejection plan must be finalized along with a Lake Safety plan. It was agreed that the applicant would return to the next meeting on March 15 with proposed style numbers for the windows and details on the custom doors.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 1, 2016

1. O’Sullivan – Dormers, windows, driveway modifications – 14 Ridge Rd.
2. Bruno – House entrance restoration – West Lake Rd.
3. Bruno – Boathouse renovations – West Lake Rd.

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 15, 2015

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on December 15, 2015.  Deputy Chair Robert Simon and Board member Christian Bruner were both absent as was engineer Carl Stone.

Gazin – 60 Lorillard Rd – Adding Balcony, Balcony Door:
Owner’s Rep and lead contractor Bill Fairclough, together with the project architect briefly reviewed plans for the renovations at 60 Lorillard Road.  The Board has completed a site visit and was pleased with what they saw.

Materials were discussed, with conversation centering around the use of mahogany vs. cedar for the posts and more specifically the ability to effectively stain the mahogany to match the home and have it last for a decent period of time.  Ultimately, it was determined that this could be done and following a very brief round of positive comments from the Board, they labeled the project Type Two under SEQRA and voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 17, 2015

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, November 17 at 7pm.  Board member Patrick Donaghy was absent.

Heywood – 68 Fox Hill Road – Fence:
Mrs. Heywood appeared before the Board to discuss her application for the installation of a fence in the front of her home located at 68 Fox Hill Road.  The BAR had completed a site visit the previous Sunday afternoon.  Mrs. Heywood explained that the enclosed area behind her home receives little to no sun in the winter time and therefore becomes incredibly icy and difficult for her to navigate.  She would like to bring the fencing around the front of the house in order to provide a sunnier spot for her dogs and also to allow for a sunny garden during the warmer months.  Following a very short discussion, the Board unanimously approved the application.

Pulver – 202 Continental Road – Stone Walls:
Mr. Pulver is a new Village resident, who is looking to construct a stone wall at his home on Continental Road. 

Board chair Paola Tocci inquired of Mr. Pulver as to whether or not he had reviewed the Design Guidelines with regard to stone walls in the Village.   He responded that he had not and she encouraged him to do so. 

Various issues were then discussed.  The Board inquired about the footings as well as the origin of the stones being used.

Mr. Pulver responded that he had 20+ years experience constructing walls.  The footings for this wall are gravel based.  The wall will be constructed so that the water can/will run straight through it.  While some mortar will be used it will appear to be dry-stacked.  The stones are coming from The Rushmore Estate, which is another property Mr. Pulver owns north of Tuxedo. 

There followed some discussion about some large vertical stones that Mr. Pulver has already installed.  While they are appreciative of the consistent vocabulary and use of indigenous stones, the BAR does not feel that these particular stones are appropriate for the Park.  It was agreed that Chair Tocci would provide Mr. Pulver with some specific examples of approved walls within in the Village for his review.  Additionally, as the wall constitutes a change in the property’s topography, more detailed engineering plans are required.

Following some further discussion about possible other modifications to the home and how these might be bundled together with the current application, it was agreed that Mr. Pulver would come back before the BAR with revised/updated plans in the near future.

Beard – 214 East Lake Road – Changes to Driveway and Tennis Court Lights:
Following a site visit to the property the previous Sunday, the BAR was dismayed to discover that Mr. Beard had not only replaced the driveways to both the Main House and the service entrance with asphalt, but also added curbing to both entrances without approval.  Additionally, it appears as though he has begun installing curbs to the new driveway and these were not a part of the approved plans.  The BAR was also displeased with Mr. Beards’ use of asphalt as the approved plans call for tar and chip on the new driveway and they had hoped he might be consistent with the other two entrances.  Chair Tocci pointed out that these things constitute a significant change to the approved plans and that Mr. Beard should have returned to the BAR before moving forward with his project.  She also noted that there appear to be some issues with storm water runoff from the property and the rain gardens and that the driveway renovations will surely have an effect on these.

Mr. Beard explained that he would be willing to tar and chip the driveway as originally planned.  Commenting that asphalt is the base layer regardless, he suggested that it might make more sense for him to wait until his kids had outgrown riding bikes and skateboards in the driveway before taking this step, but was agreeable to moving forward in whichever way the BAR preferred.   He further commented that since the installation of his tennis court, the amount of run-off moving towards the roadway had been drastically reduced and that currently, a majority of this water flows in the direction of the reservoir.  As a result, giant dry wells have been installed.  Mr. Beard has been working together with the Building Inspector over the course of the last year to increase the level of storm water management in an effort to abate these issues.  The curbs help with this. 

Mr. Beard’s engineer then gave a brief review of the curbs as they were cut and installed, explaining how they were a helpful addition to the project.

Building Inspector John Ledwith inquired as to what assurances the applicant could provide the Village that the water coming off the driveway would pitch in the right direction.

The applicants’ engineer explained that the driveway had been re-pitched with an additional drain added.  He further pointed out that more water would have been running into the roadway with the previous design. 

Village Engineer Carl Stone commented that this would be great provided the plan actually worked with the repaving and re-pitching of the driveway directing the runoff toward the rain gardens. 

Mr. Beard reiterated that what he is requesting is permission to finish installing curbing consistent with what has already been installed on the remainder of the new driveway before the winter months.  Again, he commented that he would be agreeable adding the tar and chip and suggested that he would like it to be white in color, which he stated was reminiscent of what was there previously.

Chair Tocci responded that she could not recollect what the previous color had been but she did not feel white would be the right choice of color and that perhaps Mr. Beard should consider other options. 

Mr. Beard responded that he had some photos of the previous condition and that he would be willing to return to the BAR with these and also to discuss additional options in a few weeks time.

Chair Tocci suggested that Mr. Beard take a look at the Spooner/Stroz driveway, which the BAR feels is an excellent example of well done, understated work.

The Public was then invited to comment.

Speaking as the applicant’s next-door neighbor, Mayor Guinchard commented that she did not find the curbing to be at all acceptable.  She pointed out that rain gardens were only effective during the late spring and summer months and not at all during the winter time.  She expressed concern that during the first melt of spring water could spill over the hill and down onto her property.  There is an existing catch basin in that area which the Guinchards installed during the construction of their home, however it was engineered for their property and is at capacity.  The Mayor is concerned about sheeting on her side of the hill and specifically about water pooling up in the lower portion of her driveway by the garage.  She feels that there have been a lot of changes made to Mr. Beard’s plan and that these need to be addressed.  Among other things, one of the rain gardens has been relocated.  She stated that her architect had submitted a letter to the BAR addressing many of these issues and inquired as to whether or not the letter had been received.

Chair Tocci acknowledged that it had.

Claude Guinchard reiterated his wife’s concerns and suggested that the applicant add a catch basin to the plan to prevent any spill over.

Mr. Beard’s engineer pointed out that the basin the Guinchards were requesting had in fact been installed.  He pointed this out to Mr. Guinchard on the plans, stating that there was less water leaving the site currently than there had been 2 years ago. 

Moving on to the issue of tennis court lighting, Mr. Beard commented that the court had been in place for several months but had only been used a handful of times.  He reminded the Board that he had an approval in place for 19 foot lighting poles, however because there seemed to be a great deal of controversy over this, he was suggesting that the polls be lowered to 16 feet.  He believes that these 16 foot polls will produce less spillover light and therefore, despite being more costly, will be better/more acceptable to the community than what was originally approved.  Additionally he will be planting more evergreens, which should reduce the impact and make the lights much less visible.

The specs of the proposed lights were then reviewed and discussed. 

Building Inspector John Ledwith pointed out that there were a lot of individual specs for these lights that needed to be considered such as the lenses, light color, bulb size and wattage, number of LEDs, type of light emitted, ect. 

An image of the lights was circulated to the BAR.  Mr. Beard’s architect explained that the type of light to be emitted is Quatro Light.  While the lights meet Dark Sky Compliance standards, they are not certified as Dark Sky Compliant.

Board member Julia Simet wondered whether or not the lights could be dimmed.
She was assured by the architect that the lights would not be visible as they would be entirely screened in by evergreens.

Ms. Simet argued that the light would still be visible from above and suggested that there was a greater, view-shed issue at hand.

Mr. Beard stated that he believed that the Guinchards would be able to see the lights from the second story windows. 

Mayor Guinchard commented that when the lighting studies had been done, there were leaves on the trees and that they should have been done at a time when the trees were bare in order to adequately assess the situation.  When Mr. Beard began his project they had an agreement that neither of them would disturb an area she labeled as “the buffer zone” between the two properties, but now all of that has changed.  She then read aloud a portion of the letter her architect submitted to the BAR.  She argued that the light would not only be visible from above, but also from across Tuxedo Lake.

Mr. Beard responded by stating that he had a deal to offer the Guinchards.  He currently has permission to install 19 foot polls, but he would be willing to forego the lighting altogether if the Guinchards would, instead of paying him what he believes they owe him,  replace the multiple, mature trees which he alleges they cut down without permission on his property.  He went on to suggest that in addition to trespassing on his land and cutting down a multitude of trees, Mayor Guinchard had been personally harassing him practically since the project began and he wanted that behavior to stop.

Mayor Guinchard adamantly denied any such behavior to which Mr. Beard responded “If my house is on fire, don’t call the police.”

Mayor Guinchard responded that there had been a fire at the Beard’s house and she had subsequently called the police to report it.

Mr. Beard retorted that there had been no such fire, rather a smoking pile of mulch.  He further stated that he had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on screening for the specific purpose of blocking the Guinchards view of his Home.

Deputy Chair Robert Simon interjected at this point, reminding everyone that Mr. Beard already has approved plans for the 19-foot polls.  The approval was subject to the normal BAR process, during which the Guinchards could have, at any time, come to a meeting and voiced their opinions and concerns, but they did not.  He advised both parties that if they wanted to discuss the situation and come to some sort of agreement, that would be lovely, but the place to do it was not the current meeting.

The attorney to the BAR concurred with this, commenting that it was not appropriate for the audience members to be directly addressing the applicant and visa versa.

Mr. Guinchard stated that he blamed the BAR for the current situation as he believed they had made a decision and ultimately grated an approval that was not in the best interest of the Village.  He feels that he and his neighbors have subsequently been forced into the current situation because of that.  In his view, the BAR should be looking out for/protecting the entire Village when they make decisions with regard to lighting.

Ms. Simet stated that as a result of all the controversy, she had revisited the recordings of those meetings at which the 19 foot polls had been discussed and ultimately approved.  During these discussions, all of the pertinent concerns such as foot candles, dark sky compliance and radiance of spread were questioned by the BAR and adequately addressed by the applicant. 

The issue of Village Notices was then discussed as many of the neighbors present claim not to have been notified of the lighting as part of the original application.

Mr. Ledwith admitted that while the neighbors had indeed been notified, standard notices do not usually include the specifics of an application.

Chair Tocci pointed out that the Beards’ application had been before the BAR for almost 3 years undergoing the process, but that they had only recently been informed of any objections to the lighting from the neighbors.  While this was“heartbreaking,” she reminded everyone present that they certainly could have come forward and voiced their concerns at any point during the process.

Mr. Beard stated that he had been forced to go on a “calling campaign” to refute the massive amount of misinformation that had been spread around the community with regard to his application.  At this point, he beseeched the BAR to please approve his application so that he could move forward.  He stated that he “didn’t care” and would be willing to forego the lighting if the Guinchards would accept the deal he had offered them earlier.

Chair Tocci suggested that if Mr. Beard was amicable to the idea of striking a deal with the Guinchards, she felt it would be better for them to work it out before they issued an approval.

Mr. Beard rejected this idea, commenting that if they were not willing to grant him this approval tonight, he would just move forward with the 19 foot polls as already approved.
Mayor Guinchard stated that the Village has actually required other residents to decommission their lights because of wattage concerns with the night sky.  She further pointed out that the Village utilizes 100 watt light bulbs in their street lamps and that when O & R provided them with a test LED bulb (installed in a fixture near St. Mary’s) they had received multiple complaints about its’ brightness.   The Village will not employ the use of bright lights on their own roadways as a safety precaution for the community!  Imagine the intensity of what Mr. Beard has proposed!!!  In her capacity of Mayor, she feels she needs to look out for the best interest of the entire Village.  She has serious concerns about the light reflecting off the lake and creating dangerous glare for those traveling along the West Lake Causeway.

Mr. Beard responded that he supposed all the money that he had spent on lighting studies had been a waste as people don’t believe the information laid forth.  Science is telling them that the light will not leave the given area.  He has also spent a ton of money on plantings for screening purposes.  All of these plants are being tended pretty much around the clock to provide the ultimate environment for speedy, healthy growth. 

The architect for the applicant concurred commenting that in her view, there was really nothing more that the Beards could be doing.

Sue Niblo commented that while she could relate to Mr. Beard’s frustration with the process, she could not support the lights.  She and her husband underwent a very lengthy process themselves during the construction of their home on Cliff Road, a process which took them more than 4 years.  Not only were they required to install in-ground construction lights, but they were also told exactly which shade of tar and chip they were to use.  Throughout the entire process, the Niblos were told what to do and were not given choices.  Despite their frustrations with the process, they complied with the Village “200%.”  Following a complaint by a neighbor, they were required by the Building Inspector to remove 60 watt light bulbs from their driveway and replace them with lower wattage lights.  Mrs. Niblo takes offense to the 19-foot lighting polls.  While she will not see them from her home, she knows that others will.  Having been used to make an example herself, she feels that the Beards should be held to a similar standard.

Chair Tocci reiterated that there is a process in place and she feels that it is within the best interest of the Village that this process be upheld.

Inger Rein commented that she lived above the Beards and had not received any sort of notification from the Village regarding the lights.  While she has no personal ax to grind with anyone, and she was displeased with tone of some of the comments that had been made, she cannot believe that the 19-foot polls were approved to begin with and she blames the BAR for creating the rift.  She understands that the Beards have gone to great lengths to plant evergreens and screen the lights, however she believes that she will probably be dead by the time the trees grow tall enough to effectively screen the light and she would like to retain the opportunity to enjoy her surroundings as they are now.

Again, Chair Tocci pointed out that there was an approval process in place which had been followed.  Concerns such as these are precisely why there is a system of neighbor-notification in place.

Mr. Guinchard challenged this by commenting that many of the neighbors had not in fact been notified and that he had in fact gone on a calling campaign to inform residents as to what was going on.

Chair Tocci then pointed out that the BAR does not actually have the final say on building permits and that it is the Board of Trustees who ultimately approves or denies each permit.  Mayor Guinchard, in her former capacity as a Trustee, signed off on Mr. Beards permit for the 19-foot polls.

Mayor Guinchard denied this stating that it was her belief that the Trustees did not have the power to reject an application that had been approved by the BAR.

Chair Tocci argued that this had, in fact, taken place with an application filed by the Tuxedo Club.  She further reiterated that the Beards had gone through an extensive 3-year process and that nobody had thought to object to the lights until after they had been approved.

Deputy Chair Simon again stated that at the time the application had originally been made, evidence was presented which supported their approval.  Extensive studies had been done.  The lighting was dark sky compliant.  Village Engineers had reviewed the plans, according to which no light would be shining upwards.  While he understands why the Guinchards are concerned that the lights might have some adverse effects, there is no evidence to support that they will.

Mayor Guinchard then asked the BAR whether they would allow similar, 19-foot lights to be installed on the Race Track property.

Chair Tocci responded that she did not understand the relevance of the question and the BAR attorney agreed that the question was irrelevant.  He went on to point out, once again, that Mr. Beard had gone through a rigorous process with the BAR after which he received an approval.  At this point, the BAR does not have any legal right to revoke that approval.  If they were to try and do so, Mr. Beard would be in his right to sue the Village and he would likely win such a suit!  Any residents who had objections to what occurred could have at any time pursued an Article 78 against the Village, but this has not been done.  Mr. Beard has rights. At this point, the BAR cannot renegotiate whether or not Mr. Beard can install the lights, because he can.  If they attempt to take that right away from him, they will be sued, successfully.

Mr. Guinchard inquired as to whether or not Mr. Beard would still be entitled to his lights if the Village had not followed the process correctly in terms of notification to the neighbors.

The Attorney advised him that if he wished he could take out an Article 78 to be decided by the Supreme Court in Goshen.  He reiterated that the BAR was not empowered to withdraw an approval that had already been granted.

Mayor Guinchard wondered whether the BAR had discussed any potential conflicts of interest that might exist with the applicant.

Deputy Chair Simon responded that he felt this was an inappropriate question.

The Mayor responded that she disagreed and felt it was entirely relevant as there is a law in place requiring conflicts of interest be identified.  She further commented that the Board of Trustees always clearly identified any such conflicts and recuse themselves when necessary and wondered whether or not the BAR followed the same process.

Chair Tocci wondered what this had to do with the issue at hand and the Attorney informed her that it had nothing to do with it.

Deputy Chair Simon commented that historically, the BAR has followed this process.

Ms. Simet stated that she was offended by the question.  She went on to state that she had no conflict of interest either personally or professionally with the applicant, although she had hear it alleged many times.

The Attorney stated that it was inappropriate for the Mayor to grill the BAR in such a manner.
Another concerned neighbor commented that he lived in a home nearby which had a great number of windows and he believes that the lighting will kill the ambiance in this “beautiful vista.”

At this time the BAR closed the public portion of the meeting.

There followed a discussion with regard to some of the more specific lighting specs (fixture details, glare shields, lenses etc) It was suggested that these specs needed to be explored in more detail and that perhaps Mr. Beard should return in two weeks for a final decision.  Mr. Beard was not agreeable to this however, commenting that he wanted to see the issue settled that evening and if it were not, he would simply move forward with the 19-foot polls that had already been approved.

An audience member suggested that Mr. Beard bring in a sample light and set it as a test so they could observe what the actual impact would be.

This idea was rejected.

Mayor Guinchard noted that Mr. Beard had previously made reference to the possibility of flooding the Tennis court to allow for ice hockey and skating in the winter.  She wondered whether the necessary calculations had been done to provide for this.

Mr. Beard responded that the court was on a slope and therefore, this would be difficult to do.

There followed some more discussion with regard to the proposed fixtures. 

Chair Tocci advised the audience that the fixtures could be viewed on the manufacturers website:
http://visionairelighting.com/

Mayor Guinchard once again interjected that she believed allowing these lights would be “going against the grain of Tuxedo Park.”

Yet again, the Attorney pointed out that the approval could not be legally revoked.

Board member Christian Bruner suggested that the Board ask the audience which light they preferred; the 19 foot as originally approved or the newly proposed 16 foot as this is the only decision the BAR currently maintained any control over.

Mr. Guinchard stated that in his personal opinion the newly proposed 16-foot lights were “more stadium like” and would provide more of a glare.

Deputy Chair Simon pointed out that this view was directly contradicted by the SPECs are presented.

Inger Rein stated that she was not informed enough to make a choice.

Chair Tocci commented that she felt it was unfortunate that this whole mess was being “pinned on the BAR.”  She pointed out that the Trustees could have chosen not to sign the building permit.

The Mayor disagreed commenting that building permits in the Village had been signed illegally for years and that this had recently been rectified by a change in the law.

Mr. Beard stated that he had spoken with one Trustee who confessed that he had signed the permit without really looking at it.  He feels it is unfortunate that the Village has officials who will sign paperwork without reading it.  That being said, he stated “If that is what has happened here….that’s too bad.”

Ms. Simet stated that her natural instinct would have been to go with the newly proposed, shorter polls however she respects the views of Mr. Beard’s neighbors and if they favor the 19-foot polls, this is worth considering. 

Mr. Beard stated that if the BAR approved the shorter polls, they would likely be screened by plantings by the following summer while it would probably take a few years to shield the 19-foot polls in their entirety.

Mr. Bruner commented that he felt it was important to take into account the opinion of the neighbors, even if it appeared to the BAR that the shorter poll was the better option.

Mr. Beard marveled at the idea that the BAR would allow the neighbors to dictate their decision.  In his view, the 16-foot poll would be the better choice for the community.

Following some further discussion, it was agreed that Mr. Beard would be allowed to complete the curbing and asphalt on the driveway.  He will return in two weeks time to discuss tar and chip options and once a decision has been made, he will move forward with this as soon as possible.  

Both Chair Tocci and Ms. Simet again voiced their displeasure with the curbing and Mr. Beard’s lack of respect for the process.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the 16-foot lights as proposed.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 17, 2015

  1. Heywood – 68 Fox Hill Rd. – Fence – 108-1-14
  2. Gazin - 60 Lorillard Rd. - Adding balcony, balcony door – 104-1-46.32
  3. Pulver – 202 Continental Rd. - Stone walls – 107-1-21
  4. Beard – 214 East Lake Rd. - Changes to driveway and tennis court lights – 105-1-48

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 6, 2015

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on October 6, 2015 at 7pm.  All members were present.

Beard – 214 East Lake Rd – Change Style of Tennis Court Light Fixture:
Board Chair Paola Tocci announced that the BAR was in receipt of a late afternoon e-mail from the applicant requesting that they be removed from the agenda.

Before moving on to the next applicant, Claude Guinchard requested permission to address the Board with regard to the Beard application however, Chair Tocci explained that as the applicant was not present, it would not appropriate for them to discuss the application.  This was affirmed by the attorney, who further explained that the reason the Beard application had been removed from the agenda was that Mr. Beard was unable to attend the meeting and without his presence, the application would be invalid. He advised the BAR not to receive any public comment in absence of the applicant.

 CC Road TP – 81 Camp Comfort Rd. – Changes to Architectural Plans:
Architects for applicant presented the Board with revised plans and renderings for the home to be located at 81 Camp Comfort Road.  An alternate garage door is being proposed as well as a reconfiguration of windows on the house itself.  Glass samples, both clear and frosted were presented and briefly discussed.  In addition to the changes outlined above, the applicant is also seeking to increase the amount deck space on the home by a small amount.  As the request as presented exceeds the amount of deck space allowed by the code, the applicant will need to seek a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the changes as proposed, with the exception of the deck space, which was rejected as is the process that will the applicant to seek the necessary variance.

Denberg – 33 Turtle Mountain Rd. – Storage Shed:
Laura Denberg presented the Board with drawings a brief overview of the project as proposed.  The Denbergs are looking to construct a 9x9 storage shed on their property. The Board has already completed a site visit and it was agreed that for the most part, the structure would not be visible from the roadway.  Materials and landscaping were discussed.  The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Calabrese – 3 Old Park Road – Parking Area & Fence:
The applicant and his architect presented the Board with plans, which include the addition of two parking spaces in the front of the home.  In addition, the applicant would like to remove an existing fence near the front of the home and construct a cedar one along the rear of the property, which will better frame the back yard and allow for privacy.  There are some minor issues involving easements and these were briefly discussed.   6-foot wide stone steps will be constructed leading from the porch, through an existing rock wall, into the back yard area. Neighbor Steve Maurer was present and commented that supported the plan. 

Materials were briefly discussed and it was determined that as gravel is considered to be an impervious material, the new parking spots will be left grassy and framed out with pavers.

Following minimal further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

McHugh – 31 Lorillard Rd. – Construct Detached Garage & Covered Porch:
Alan McHugh presented the Board with revised plans for his project.  He has been before the ZBA and the necessary variances have been granted.  He has made some changes to the roof of the covered porch, the overall design of which has been softened and a weather vane added.  Additionally, Mr. McHugh would like to rotate the garage in order to provide more turn-around space in the driveway.  The new design tones down the side door and Mr. McHugh believes that it is more in keeping with the house.

Rear and side setbacks were discussed.  Neighbors the Groskins were present and expressed some concern with the setback from their property line.

Ultimately it was determined that the ZBA has granted a variance that allows for less of a setback than will be needed and everyone came away with a clear and favorable understanding of what is being proposed.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 6, 2015

  1. Beard- 214 East Lake Rd.- Change Style of Tennis Court Light Fixture- 105-1-48
  2. Denberg- 33 Turtle Mtn. Rd- Storage Shed- 103-1-18
  3. Calabrese- 3 Old Park Rd.- Parking Area & Fence- 106-1-30
  4. CC Road TP - 81 Camp Comfort Rd. - Changes to Architectural Plans - 1 0 1-1-11.1
  5. McHugh-31 Lorillard Rd.-Construct Detached Garage & Covered Porch-104-1-60

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 18 2015

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, August 18 at 7pm.  All members were present.

Board Chair Paola Tocci began the meeting by introducing Steve Honan, who is the newly appointed attorney for the Board.

Klimecki - 11 Ridge Rd. - Change driveway materials from approved plans, gravel to asphalt:

Mr. Klimecki began by stating that he had read the minutes of the previous meeting as published on TPFYI and that he had a few comments to make in response.  He went on to say the he had misspoken when he had referred to his situation as a “hardship” and that he wanted to both apologize and retract that reference.  He further stated that the meeting report had indicated that Board member Patrick Donaghy had suggested that he had deviated from his approved plans and that he had affirmed this remark.  Mr. Klimecki adamantly denied that he had ever deviated from the approved plan and commented that he did not understand why this had been reported.

Mr. Donaghy responded that he had no idea what Mr. Klimecki was talking about.  He did not read the TPFYI report, but he reminded Mr. Klimecki that it was he who had identified that gravel was the material approved by the Board originally.

From the audience, Trustee Alan McHugh commented that TPFYI was a private website run by a select group of residents and that the information published there in no way reflected the official minutes of the meeting or the views of the Village.

Representing TPFYI, Meg Vaught provided a brief summary of what had been reported, commenting that she would review a recording of the meeting and follow up.  She further stated that in her view Mr. Klimecki’s concerns were more a matter for discussion with herself or TPFYI and not a matter for the Board to consider or discuss.
 
(A copy of the report in question can be viewed directly below this report.  Click here to listen to a sound byte from the meeting that clearly affirms the reporting as published.)

The discussion then turned to Mr. Klimecki’s driveway.  The Board completed a second site visit and provided Mr. Klimecki with their feedback. 

Ultimately, it was the general consensus of the Board that Mr. Klimecki should move ahead with a layer of tar and chip on top of the asphalt, as he had previously agreed to do.  They believe this will be more in keeping with the design guidelines and that ultimately it will look better without being cost prohibitive.

There was some further discussion with regard to Mr. Klimecki’s choice to abandon gravel and then the life span of tar and chip vs. that of the asphalt alone, following which the Board voted unanimously in favor of the tar and chip as recommended and agreed to by Mr. Klimecki. 

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 4, 2015

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, August 4 at 7pm.  Board member Christian Bruner was absent.

Klimecki - 11 Ridge Rd. - Change driveway materials from approved plans, gravel to asphalt:
Mr. Klimecki appeared before the Board to request a change to the originally approved plans for driveway renovations at his home on Ridge Road.  Although the plans call for gravel, Mr. Klimecki requested permission to use asphalt.  Explaining that he had commenced work on the driveway last fall but that ultimately his contractor had gotten half way through the job before going out of business, Mr. Klimecki suggested that moving forward with tar & chip as laid out in the Village Design Guidelines would be cost prohibitive.  He feels that asphalt is a more practical choice and will last a lot longer before needing to be replaced.  He then listed several other homes in his neighborhood with asphalt driveways, wondering why it was that the BAR preferred tar & chip.

Deputy Chair Robert Simon responded that tar & chip was preferred because it was more aesthetically pleasing and that cost was not a factor that the BAR needed to take into consideration when issuing approvals. 

Mr. Klimecki disagreed commenting that in a way, enforcing tar & chip would be a hardhship for him.

Chair Tocci interjected that Mr. Klimecki had agreed to tar & chip when they had suggested it during the approval process.  She further stated that this was an unfortunate, on-going issue in the Village and that there several instances where tar & chip had been approved, but asphalt was used.  The BAR does not feel that “ribbons of asphalt” look good winding through the woods and they have also experienced some drainage issues with it.

Board member Patrick Donoughy pointed out that the approved plans called for gravel and that Mr. Klimecki had deviated from what was approved when he initiated the driveway work using asphault. He further pointed out that this was not the first time that Mr. Klimecki had deviated from the approved plans.

Mr. Klimecki acknowledged that it was not.

Following some further discussion, it was agreed that the BAR would review the minutes from the meeting where the driveway plans had originally been discussed and then perform another site visit.  Mr. Klimecki will return to the next BAR meeting.

McHugh - 31 Lorillard Rd. - Construct detached garage and covered porch:
Together with his architect, Mr. McHugh presented the Board with plans to construct a detached garage and covered porch at his home on Lorilard Rd.  Because the proposed structure will be non-conforming in terms of setback, a variance from the BZA will be needed before an approval can be given.  The plans were reviewed and discussed at some length before the BAR officially referred Mr. McHugh to the BZA.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 4, 2015

  1. Klimecki - 11 Ridge Rd. - Change driveway materials from approved plans, gravel to asphalt 106-1-50.1
  2. McHugh- 31 Lorillard Rd. - Construct detached garage and covered porch - 104-1-60
  3. Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 7, 2015

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, July 7 at 7pm.
Board member Patrick Patrick Donaghy was absent.

Board Chair Paola Tocci opened the meeting by welcoming new Board member Christian Bruner. 

Wang – 37 West Lake Rd. – Change window manufacturer from Marvin to Pella:
The applicant presented the BAR with a request to change the previously approved window manufacturer (Marvin) to Pella.  New specs were also presented.  The applicant feels that the Pella windows look better then the Marvins and will also weather well.  Following some minimal discussion, The BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the request and amending the approval to reflect it.

Turnbull – 105 Clubhouse Rd. – Exterior Painting:
The applicant presented the BAR with sample paint choices for their home at 105 Clubhouse Road.  As previously discussed, the home will be re-stuccoed and the color will be Pharos’s Cream with an eggshell finish.  At the BAR’s request, the applicant will paint a shutter on the front of the home for their review.  Following a brief discussion, the BAR unanimously approved the color choice subject to their review of the sample.  Should the decide after viewing that it is not appropriate (not likely) the approval could be rescinded. 

Nicholson – 25 Mtn. Farm Rd. – Modification to previously approved wall from 4’ to two stepped 2’ walls:
The original engineering for this project called for 1 4’ wall which tapered down to 2’ however, as the project progressed it was determined that this looked weird and that 2, 2’ walls would provide a cleaner condition.  Everything else will remain the same with the addition of one row of plantings.  Following a discussion with regard to the masonry of the wall, the BAR approved the proposed modifications unanimously.

David – 43 Crows Nest Road – Skylights, rooftop air conditioning unit, roof vents, French doors, and wrought iron railings:
The applicant presented the BAR with revised plans for the project based on comments from the previous meeting.  A fire place has been removed. The proposed balconies (railings basically) will only extend 8inches off the side of the building and will not surpass the roof overhang, therefore the overall footprint will not increase.  A pair of doors located in the back of the home will be sealed. 

The AC unit on the roof was discussed in some detail, with the applicant presenting rough drawings as well as photos of a mock-up they created using cardboard boxes that show the unit to be roughly 33 feet from the property line.   The applicant asserted that it would not be visible from the adjoining property.  As its purpose is to service the indoor pool, the unit will not contain a compressor but rather two fans, which should reduce the overall amount of noise that is generated. 

Representing Anthill Partners, owners of the adjoining property, Attorney Brian Nugent pointed out that according to the Village Code a variance would be necessary in order for the project to proceed because the building is a non-complying structure.  Mr. Nugent read aloud the section of the Code that requires all non-complying structures to receive a BZA variance prior to any expansion and/or extension.

BAR Attorney Rick Golden explained that it was up to the Building Inspector John Ledwith to determine whether or not a variance was needed and that based on this determination, either the applicant or Anthill Partners could make appeal to the ZBA.

Mr. Ledwith and Mr. Golden then left the room for approximately 5 minutes to converse privately.  After their return, Mr. Ledwith informed the applicant that Variances would be necessary for both the proposed sky lights and the AC Unit.  The balconies however, are in compliance.

The applicant suggested that this decision could set a dangerous precedent for other projects moving forward.  He stated that while it might be possible to relocate the proposed AC Unit, the skylights were a “deal breaker” for the homeowner.

Mr. Golden pointed out that the decision reflected what was written in the Village code.

Mr. Nugent suggested that the proposed balconies also required a variance but Mr. Golden reiterated that the Building Inspector had determined otherwise and that this decision was final, with an appeal being the only recourse moving forward.

Mr. Nugent then wondered whether or not the Mr. Ledwith had considered the Ridgeline Precipice guidelines as they relate to this application.

Mr. Ledwith responded that he was not aware that the property was within the Ridgeline and Precipice District.

Mr. Nugent assured him that is was and offered to present a map.

Mr. Ledwith commented that he was not sure why it mattered.

Mr. Nugent countered that it mattered because the applicant was proposing the indoor pool, and that the amount of water and its subsequent weight would have a direct impact on the earth below.  He further pointed out that he believed  that the surveys as presented by the applicant were outdated as they reflected things that were no longer there and he suggested that current surveys should be required. 

Again, the applicant suggested that this decision, in his view, set forth an unfortunate precedent. 

Board Chair Paola Tocci responded that while she understood the applicants frustration, the decision did reflect the Village Code.  She further commented that Code revisions are currently underway.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the balconies and denying the skylights and the AC unit.  The applicant was subsequently referred to the BZA for the necessary variances.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 7, 2015

  1. Turnbull - 105 Clubhouse Rd. - Exterior Painting - 106-1-19.22
  2. David- 43 Crows Nest Road- Skylights, rooftop air conditioning unit, roof vents, French doors, and wrought iron railings - 105-1-7
  3. Nicholson- 25 Mtn. Farm Rd.- Modification to previously approved wall from 4' to two stepped 2' walls- 103-1-37.22
  4. Wang- 37 West Lake Rd.- Change window manufacturer from Marvin to Pella-103-1-47
  5. Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 19, 2015

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday May, 19 at 7pm.

Bruno – Boathouse Renovation:
Michael Bruno appeared before the Board to discuss plans for his boathouse renovation at 177 West Lake Road.  After having been asked by the BAR to reconsider the color of white for the exterior, Mr. Bruno has ultimately decided that he would like to restore the boathouse to it’s original design.  Plans to this end are on file with the Building Inspector.

Board Chair Paula Tocci inquired as to how Mr. Bruno was planning to mitigate the project with the lake both currently and during the construction phase.

Mr. Bruno responded that a mitigation plan had been prepared and submitted.  He believed it was similar to the plan utilized by the Tuxedo Club when constructing their boathouse.

Building Inspector John Ledwith responded that they were in receipt of the plan, which Village Engineer Carl Stone would review.  There is a possibility that the footings might need to be reconstructed and if so this would involve work beneath the lake surface.

When the Club undertook similar work, not only did they require extensive fencing, but a small dam was constructed as well. 

Mr. Bruno was open, to this commenting that if these measures were necessary and not currently on his plan, that he was agreeable to adding them.

Mr. Ledwith then indicated that there were a couple of zoning issues relating to the expansion of a non-conforming structure.  Specifically, the proposed renovated building will be slightly larger and taller than the existing one.  This was briefly discussed.  A variance will be necessary.  Landscaping and walkway plans were also discussed.  Chair Tocci suggested that it would be important to construct the walkway in such a manor that the building retained the vernacular of a boathouse rather than a guest cottage.

It was agreed that Mr. Bruno would submit an application for a variance to the BZA and while undergoing that process would more carefully review his walkway plans as well planting choices and color schemes.
 
Turnbull – Landscaping and Exterior Painting:
The Applicant and their Architect presented the Board with plans for a garden terrace in the rear of their home in addition to exterior painting.  The terrace was discussed fist at some length.  The previous owner had developed plans for a similar project and these have been enveloped into the existing proposal, which includes a walled in stone terrace with benches.  Materials, lighting, grading, drainage and construction were all addressed.  Board Attorney Rick Golden noted that the plans did not include any dates, contours or grading information.  He inquired as to the height of the proposed stonewall and was informed that at its highest point the wall would be 10’6.  Mr. Golden pointed out that the Village code restricts fences (stonewalls are identified as fencing in the code) to 6 feet and therefore, a variance will be necessary. 

The applicant is also hoping to re-stucco and repaint the exterior of the home.  They would like to clean the stucco and then resurface with a fresh, even layer.  While they have not selected paint colors yet, they are hoping to lighten up the look of the home. 

It was agreed that while initiating the variance process for the stonewall with the BZA, the applicant would also select paint colors and return to the BAR for their approval in that regard.

Chair Tocci thanked the applicant for all of the solid work they have put into their home over the last year commenting that sure “the house must be happy.”

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 19, 2015

  1. Bruno – Boathouse Restoration – 177 West Lake Rd. – 103-1-27.12
  2. Turnbull – Landscaping & Exterior Painting – 105 Clubhouse Rd. – 106-1-19.22

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 5, 2015

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, May 5 at 7pm.  Board member Patrick Donaghy was absent.

Wang – Changing dormers, windows, balcony details -37 West Lake Road.:
Revised plans for the project were presented and discussed.  At the suggestion of the BAR, the gutters have been changed to the copper and the dormer design has been revised.  Screening for condenser units and generators on both sides of the home has also been added, the details of which were briefly discussed.  The applicant will require a variance from the BZA for a proposed staircase that will come within 100 feet of the lake.  Following some brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor approving everything but the staircase. 

Village Boat Club – Dock extension – 1 Chastellux Lane:
Boat Club president Greg Libby thanked the Board for the time spent conducting their site visit the previous weekend.  Following that visit as well as another to the home of resident Gary Glynn (who resides just across the lake from the Club) and in response to some of the concerns expressed by neighbors, the Club has agreed to provide some screening around the Water Plant.  Various types of plantings were proposed and briefly discussed.  Ultimately it was agreed that some mature Eastern White Pines would be planted.  Following this discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application conditional upon the fact that the Boat Club agree not to add any additional dock fingers or boats to their current set-up and also upon final approval from the Board of Trustees.

Regna – Permit Extension – 15 Mountain Farm Road:
Peter Regna presented the Board with photographs and plans for the ongoing project at 15 Mountain Farm Road.  When asked why the project was taking so long, Mr. Regna sited unforeseen problems with the structure of the home (rotted beams and footings that needed to be rebuilt) as well as contractor issues.  The initial contractor hired by Mr. Regna to complete work on the garage, did not do a very good job and this necessitated the hiring of a new contractor to complete the rest of the project.  Additionally, the work on the garage needed to be redone. As Mr. Regna has already received 2 extensions for the project (the maximum allowed) a new application was filed.  Following some minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.  Mr. Regna hopes to see the project completed within the next 3 months.  

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 5, 2015

  1. Wang – Changing dormers, windows, balcony details – 37 West Lake Rd. – 103-1-47
  2. Village Boat Club – Dock extension – 1 Chastellux Lane – 105-1-45
  3. Regna – Permit extension – 15 Mountain Farm Road – 103-1-39

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 7

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday April7 at 7pm.  All members were present as was consulting architect Barry Rice.

Skutinik – Changing Balcony Doors to Windows:
Mr. Skutnik presented the Board with revised plans for the project, which entails replacing a pair balcony doors which opened to nowhere on the second floor of his home with windows.  After a brief review and some discussion, it was determined that there was an inconsistency between the previous plans and the new set as to the manufacturer of the windows.  Also, there appeared to be some errors with the drawings as presented in that some details were missing.  Following a call to his architect to confirm the manufacturer (Anderson) and a review of the specs, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the plan conditional upon the submission of accurate drawings.

Wang – Changing dormers, windows, balcony details:
On behalf of Mr. Wang, an Owners’ Rep and architect presented the Board with plans for revisions to the home located at 37 West Lake Road.  Part of the home suffered a fire during 1940s after which renovations were done.  The new owner is looking to bring the home back to more of its original design and to this end, photos, both historic and current, were presented.  Plans to add windows and dormers with a gable to the third floor on the Lakeside elevation were discussed.  Ultimately, it was determined that the plans for this portion of the project appeared too busy and that a more subdued design would be more in keeping with the overall design of the house.  Various options were suggested.  The applicant is also seeking to add patio doors in the kitchen, which will lead to a 1-story porch.  A garage door will be shifted. Gutters were discussed and the Board recommended that the applicant consider using copper, as per the design guidelines, instead of the white aluminum that was proposed.  Landscaping was also briefly discussed along with the replacement and installation of generators and compressors.  It was agreed that the applicant would make some revisions to their plans based on the recommendations of the Board and return in the near future.

Romero – Changing Windows:
Mrs. Romero presented the Board with plans and specs for the addition of 5 windows on the second floor of her home located at 167 East Lake Road.  Ultimately, Mrs. Romero will be turning what is currently a “loft space” on the third floor into two separate rooms.  Two windows will be located on the side of the house with the remaining three on the front façade along with 3 shed dormers, which Mrs. Romero believes will be in keeping with the style of the home.

Following some minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

David – French Doors, Skylights:
The David’s Architect presented the Board with plans for the addition of French doors and skylights at the home on Crows Nest Road.  Additionally, the applicant will be renovating the section of the house that was once a school gymnasium by raising the floor outside of the giant room so that it is level with the rest of the flooring and installing a pool.  Air conditioning units will be installed both under the raised floor as well as on the roof.  A fireplace and subsequent chimney will also be added. 
Following a close review of the plans and some discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Dow – Windows, Solar Array:
Together with his Architect and Engineer, Mr. Dow presented the Board with plans to replace all of the windows in his home on Ridge Road.  Window samples were shown and discussed.  All of the windows will remain in the original frames with the exception of a turret located off the master bedroom suite, which was renovated by the last homeowner in the late 1980s.  Mr. Dow plans to restore these windows to their original design based on the original plans for the home.

Next, the Board reviewed revised plans for the proposed solar array, which Mr. Dow estimates will represent roughly 20% of the home’s energy.  Revisions to the plan include the staggered installation of the 42 panels across the 1.9 acres of land so that they are more in keeping with the property contour.  Also discussed was size and height of the panels, cleaning methods, warranty, maintenance and replacement of panels, and visibility & screening. 

Board member Patrick Donaghy inquired as to whether he could see a picture of how it would look, commenting that although he was able to easily visualize projects from their plans, he had no experience with solar arrays and was having trouble formulating a visual.  He further stated that he understood that they would not be able to show him exactly how this array would look, but perhaps they could provide a picture of another, similar array.

The applicant responded that they could not provide such a picture immediately but would be able to provide one in the near future.

Board Chair Paola Tocci then read into the record the criteria used by the BAR in evaluating and approving projects after which she made a motion for approval.  She noted that there is nothing currently in the Village Code with regard to Solar Arrays or projects of this nature.

Board member Julia Simet expressed some concern with the project as a whole and the precedent it might set within the Village.  Commenting that she did not like it, she acknowledged her understanding that the project met the necessary criteria and that her view was subjective.  She further expressed her dismay with the pressure she feels the Board was under in the approving this project.

Again, Mr. Donaghy stated that he would feel more comfortable approving the project if he could see a photo of what it would look like.

Deputy Chair Robert Simon commented that conceptually speaking he did not like the project either but he felt that the location was unique and that this particular piece of property was, in his view, probably the only place in the Village where something like this could work.  In terms of precedent he noted that all applications that come before the BAR are unique and need to be handled on an individual basis.  Like Mrs. Simet he acknowledged that his dislike of the project was subjective and stated that he was prepared to vote in favor of it.

Mr. Donaghy expressed some concern with the degree of some of the slopes where the panels are to be installed, wondering if the BAR would allow “normal” structures to be constructed on such slopes.

Building Inspector John Ledwith confirmed that the slopes were not an issue and that everything as proposed was in compliance.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 7

  1. Regna- Permit extension- 15 Mountain Farm Road- 103-1-39
  2. Skutnik- Changing balcony doors to windows- 54 Tower Hill Road East- 107-1-39
  3. Wang- Changing dormers, windows, balcony details- 37 West Lake Rd.- 103-1-47
  4. Romero- Changing windows- 167 East Lake Rd. - 105-1-27
  5. David- French Doors, skylights -43 Crows Nest Road- 104-1-61

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 17, 2015

  1. 1. Skutnik - Changing balcony doors to windows – 54 Tower Hill Road East - 107-1-39
  2. Wang – Changing dormers, windows, balcony details – 37 West Lake Rd. – 103-1-47
  3. Dow – Solar Panels & windows – 120 Ridge Rd. – 105-1-40.2
  4. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 11, 2015

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Wednesday, February 11, 2015. 

All members were present.

Simon – Decking Material Change – 53 Tower Hill Road North:
Robert Simon requested permission from the Board to change a previously approved deck from cedar to Ipe.  A sample was provided and discussed.  Mr. Simon believes that Ipe is a superior material as it does not splinter and will not require nearly as much upkeep as the cedar would have.

Following minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the change.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 11, 2015

  1. Skutnik- Changing balcony doors to windows- 54 Tower Hill Road East- 107-1-39
  2. Simon- Decking material change- 53 Tower Hill Road North- 107-1-38.22

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 20, 2015

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, January 20 at 7pm.  Board member Patrick Donaghy was absent.

Mahan – Garage paint color change and main house window change – 77 Ridge Road:
The applicant presented the Board with plans, accompanied by giant photographs, to restore and replace windows on the main house as well as paint one of the free standing garages located on the property.   It is the applicant’s intent to return the home to it’s original state by replacing the current windows (installed sometime in the 1960s) with new ones consistent to the original design.  The trim color will also be changed from white to black.  Both historic and current photographs depicting the desired change were presented and discussed.   Additionally, the applicant would like to return the front door to its original design by adding glass to the upper portion.  This was also shown in the historic photographs.  Finally, the free standing garage located closest to the home will be painted a rust color to match the other out-buildings located on the property.

Following some minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Village Boat Club – Extension of Dock – 1 Chastellux Lane:
Village Boat Club President Greg Libby and Vice President Mike Santoianni presented the Board with plans for and photographs depicting the Clubs proposed 12 foot dock extension.  Lower lake levels combined with the increase in sediment on the bottom of the lake has made it more and more difficult for the Club to dock their boats.  As a result, they are proposing to add a 12 foot extension to a section of the dock referred to as “The Causeway” which will in turn push the actual docking area 12 feet further out into the lake.  The number of boats docked at the club will not increase with the extension.  Mr. Libby provided the Board with a brief history of the Club, emphasizing the fact that it is comprised solely of Village taxpayers, most of whom rely on these docks as there only point of access to the Lake.  He then walked them through both the plan and the pictures, providing additional information where needed.

Board member Julia Simet commented that she understood the reason for the request as she had been to the dock many times and was aware of the functional issues.  Speaking to the issue of general aesthetics, she wondered if there had been any complaints from either of directly neighboring properties.

Building Inspector John Ledwith informed her that the only complaint had come in the form of a letter from Gary Glynn, whose two properties are located directly across the lake from the Club.

Board Chair Paola Tocci wondered why the Village, as property owners, could not simply dredge the area where the sediment had become a problem, thus alleviating part of the issue.

She was informed that there was a water line there which would make this impossible. 
Mr. Santoianni reiterated that the sediment was only part of the issue and that the consistent low water level in the Lake was also a major problem.

Acknowledging Mr. Glynn’s presence and commenting that he did not wish to make light of his aesthetic concern, Mr. Libby commented that the visual impact of the expansion from ½ mile away would be minimal.  Using a photograph taken not far from Mr. Glynn’s home to reiterate this point, he further commented that the Club would be willing to discuss possibly screening the boat racks with plantings, which might help to alleviate some of Mr. Glynn’s issues.

Chair Tocci pointed out that there was also an issue of precedent to contend with as, if approved, these docks would stretch further into the lake than any other existing dock around it.

Again, Ms. Simet expressed some concern about the neighbors located on either side of the project and specifically the visual impact the project would have on them.

Mr. Libby responded that the Club was very willing to work with the neighbors in order to create a plan that everybody would be happy with.  He further commented that when the docks were originally installed, they had willingly altered the plans and shifted the location at the suggestion of the property owner next door. Once again, he stressed that the Club was a taxpayer organization and suggested that while he understood the concern, the views and needs of one taxpayer should not necessarily carry more weight than those of a larger group who also pay taxes in the Village.  He then reiterated the Club’s willingness to install plantings as a method of screening, which he feels should help to soften the view for Mr. Glynn.

At the invitation of the Board, Mr. Glynn then expressed his concerns with the proposal at some length.  While he understands the reasons behind the request and supports the idea of the Boat Club, he feels that it already looks like “a commercial marina” and he urged the BAR to deny the application.  He further suggested that before making their decision, the BAR should wait and make a sight visit at a time after the boats have gone back into the water so that they can accurately judge what the visual impact will be. 

The conversation continued for quite some time after which it was determined that before they could reach a decision the BAR would need to first determine the answers to several questions as well as complete a sight visit. 

Skutnik – Changing balcony doors to windows – 54 Tower Hill Road East:
Mr. Skutnik presented the Board with plans to replace an existing set of balcony doors that “lead to nowhere”  (no balcony exists there) with windows.  There will be minimal impact to exterior of the home.  Mr. Skutnik created a “mock-up” which he shared with the Board.   Following some discussion with regard to detailing around the windows, it was agreed that Mr. Skutnik would return to the next meeting with more detailed drawings.

Meeting Schedule:
Due to a lack of Quorum, the Board voted unanimously in favor of rescheduling their next meeting (originally set for Tuesday February 3) for Wednesday, February 11 at 7pm.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 20, 2015

  1. Mahan- Garage paint color change and main house window change -77 Ridge Rd. -106-1-74.3
  2. Village Boat Club - Extension of dock- 1 Chastellux Lane - 105-1-45
  3. Skutnik- Changing balcony doors to windows- 54 Tower Hill Road East- 107-1-39

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 16, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural met on Tuesday, December 16 at 7pm.  All four members were present.

Matthews – Change in window and door configurations:
Together with his architect, Jake Matthews presented the Board with revised plans for minor exterior revisions at his home located on Pine Road.  Changes of note included the addition of an in-take for the boiler and a change in height for one of the windows.  At the request of the BAR, Mr. Matthews contacted Orange & Rockland to inquire about the possibility of burying some of the power lines, which are currently located in the front of the home.  He discovered that in order to do this, the utility company would need to drop a new pole on his property, which would cost roughly $7,000.   With the cost of trenching and conduit factored in, the entire project would run around $10,000.  Mr. Matthews explained that this was not a project he was interested in pursuing at the moment, but he thanked the Board for their suggestion.

Following some further brief discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor approving the application.

Tyler –Change in window manufacturer:

The applicant was not present, but as per the Board’s previous request, a window sample was present and the Board briefly examined it.  Color samples were also present and discussed.  Following minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the change conditional upon the applicant’s agreeing to paint the wooden window frame white rather than go with the pre-finished white window.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 16, 2014

  1. Matthews - Change in window and door configuration - 87 Pine Road - 108-1-5
  2. Tyler - Change in window manufacturer - 457 West Lake Rd. - 102-1-15

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 18, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, November 18 at 7pm.  All members were present.

Tyler – Change to approved plan (window and door sizes) 457 West Lake Road:
The applicant has decided that they would prefer taller doors than were originally approved.  Additionally, they would like to change the windows as approved from Pella to Hurd.  All of this was discussed.  Having never seen or worked with Hurd windows, the BAR would like to see a sample prior to approving their installation.  A few minor hardware issues were also raised.

It was agreed that the applicant would bring a sample to the Village Office for BAR review as soon as possible and would also supply hardware clarification at that time.

Following this discussion, the BAR unanimously approved the application subject to their review of the window sample.

Matthews – Change in window and door configuration – 87 Pine Road:
Together with his architect, Mr. Matthews presented the Board with plans for minor renovations to his home located at 87 Pine Road.  The Matthews are converting an existing boiler room into a family room/bathroom and in the process would like to remove and fill in two windows, add two new window in different locations, replace and relocate and existing doorway and replace two additional existing windows. Plans were presented and the design was discussed at length.  The home has multiple windows that differ in size and this is of some concern to the BAR, who would like to see a little more consistency.  Ultimately Mr. Matthews agreed to consider changing the sizing on one of the windows, but expressed some concern that he did not want to open a general review of all the windows on the house.   Boiler and plumbing ventilation was also discussed.

Chair Tocci raised the issue of possibly burying the electrical lines located in the front of the house, although this was not a part of the application.  Mr. Matthews thanked Ms. Tocci for her recommendation and acknowledged that eventually, burying the lines would be a nice thing.  Chair Tocci requested that either he or his architect contact O&R to discuss the possibility as it might be done at a reasonable cost.  She further requested that they report back and let the BAR know what they had found out.

Chair Tocci then inquired of Mr. Matthews whether he would contemplate replacing the roof on the home in the future, noting that the current roof does not comply with the new Design Guidelines. 

Mr. Matthews indicated that at some point in the future he would like to do this and Chair Tocci suggested that when the time came he should consider both shingles and cedar shake.

Following some further discussion centered around the windows, it was agreed that the Matthews would revise their plan to incorporate the window suggestions and possibly some of the other issues that had been discussed before returning to the BAR in two weeks time.

Dow – Photovoltaic Panels – 120 Ridge Road:
Architect Andrew Wright presented the Board with revised plans for the installation of photovoltaic panels at the Dow home on Ridge Road.  The plans have been revised to encompass a larger area and what is now being proposed is more of a solar farm, to include 40 large panels in 13 rows on 2 acres of land. 

Board member Julia Simet expressed her concern with the overall size of the project, commenting that it seemed as though excess energy was being harvested.  She wondered what calculations had been used to determine the scope of the panels and whether or not the BAR could review them.

Chair Tocci agreed, noting the tremendous land disturbance that the project would create and further pointing out that it was important for the BAR to consider precedent in  a case like this as there was a lot of other “not as private” open space in the Village where panels such as these would not work aesthetically.

Village Engineer Carl Stone inquired about the number of trees that would need to be removed and Mr. Wright guestimated the number to be somewhere between 130 and 140, but further stressed that they would be replanting twice that many once the project had been completed.  Mr. Stone expressed concern with the tree removal, stating that the Village Code allowed for clear cutting like this with the construction of a new home, but did not specify that it was ok for something like this.  Furthermore, the removal of that many trees is sure to create drainage and erosion issues.

Building Inspector John Ledwith pointed out that the house was not losing as much electricity as it was heat and perhaps there were other things that could be done to make the house more efficient before calculating how much solar energy would be needed.

Mr. Wright responded that electricity was an issue for the Dows and pointed out that they had 7 refrigerators alone.

Board member Patrick Donaghy suggested that the applicant should attempt to make the house “smarter” and then revisit the calculations that would determine the size and scope of the project at hand, commenting that what was being proposed was a huge undertaking for a small residential village.  He further commented that in his view, it did not make sense to proceed on this scale when the house has obvious inefficientcies, namely the windows. 
Mr. Wright replied that Mr. Dow does not want to replace the windows as they are historic and he likes them the way they are. Further, replacing all of the windows would be a big deal.

“This is an ever bigger deal” retorted Mr. Donaghy “and we all live here.”
Mr. Ledwith interjected that he felt it made more sense to make the house as efficient as possible first.  The proposed project involves major disturbance to a huge piece of land, which should be, in his opinion, based on the need of a more efficient home.

Mr. Wright countered that Mr. Dow was working on other ways to make the home more efficient and that solar power was the most efficient form of energy.

“Not necessarily” responded Chair Tocci, stating that she had read articles which suggested that solar energy was not as efficient in the North East.

Mr. Donaghy pointed out that for every article Mr. Wright might put forth touting the efficiency of solar power, he could find 5 more that countered it.  He reiterated concerns that it would set a bad precedent if the BAR were to approve a massive, 2-acre soalr farm based on an insufficient house.

Again, Ms. Simet requested the calculations.

Chair Tocci reminded everyone of the Village’s listing on the National Register of Historic Places and wondered if something of this nature should even be installed here.

Mr. Donaghy inquired as to what the panels were made of and specifically whether or not they were recylable.

The answer was primarily silicone and aluminum.  They are recyclable.

Mr. Donaghy then expressed concern about what would happen to the panels at the end of their 25-year life.  Would they need to be replaced?  Would something better come along before the 25-years was up, making these panels obsolete?  If Mr. Dow should sell the house, would the next owner be responsible for maintaining the solar farm and if they chose not to maintain it, would it become a “solar panel graveyard?”

Deputy Chair Bob Simon expressed his concern about the general scarring of the land and suggested that the project might create a broad aesthetic issue for the Village.

Chair Tocci wondered whether something of this scope was even in their purview, given the amount of land disturbance involved.

John Ledwith suggested that he and Mr. Wright and Carl Stone get together at some point in the near future to further discuss these concerns as well as additional ways the Dows might be able to “smarten” the home.  More technical data is needed.

Following some further discussion, it was agreed that the three men would meet and that the applicant would return to the BAR at a later date.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 18, 2014

  1. Matthews- Change in window and door configuration - 87 Pine Road- 108-1-5
  2. Dow- Photovoltaic panels - 120 Road Road - 105-1-40.2

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 4, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, November 4.  Board member Patrick Donaghy was absent.

Turnbull – Roofing Material Change –4 Clubhouse Rd:
 The applicant is seeking a change in roofing material from cedar shake, previously approved by the BAR, to slate.  Samples were presented and discussed.  Three different colors will be used - black, purple and grey -  with black being the primary color at 70% of the roof and the other colors making up 15% respectively.  Gutters, conductors, down spouts and flashings will all be copper.

Following a fairly brief discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the material change in the form of an amendment to their original approval.

CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC – New construction – Camp Comfort Road:
A draft resolution was presented to the Board for their approval.  Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that the Board was appreciative of the applicants’ willingness to change the granite color for the façade from pink to salmon.  She cautioned that they should be very careful when selecting this granite and suggested that they visit the quarry and hand pick the palate in order to assure that the color would blend well with the natural surroundings of the property.  It is crucial that it not have a diamondized or overly bright look.  Should the palate appear too bright, she encouraged them to come back before the BAR so they could review it and make necessary changes before the work has been done. 

An attorney representing neighbor Michael Bruno questioned the BAR’s position with the SEQRA review process and specifically whether or not the Village’s standing on the National Register of Historic Places would have any effect on the application’s status as a Type Two Action.  He also wondered if the significant amount of grading required would have any effect.

Board Attorney Rick Golden explained that neither of these things affected the application’s Type Two status.  The BAR had legitimately determined that no further action was necessary under SEQRA.

Mr. Bruno’s attorney then wanted to know whether or not the BAR had used the criteria set for in the Ridgeline and Precipice Guideline within the Code when making their determination.

The answer was yes.

There followed some back and forth between Mr. Bruno’s attorney and the attorney for the Applicant regarding whether or not Mr. Bruno’s objections were justified, however Chair Tocci quickly shut this dialogue down as it had nothing to do with their approval process.

BAR Attorney Rick Golden read into the record a condition of the approval specific to the granite, which specified that the granite must come from Hillburn Granite Company and that it could not be brighter than any of the samples previously presented to and approved by the BAR.  Should the granite used differ from the samples, the Building Inspector will have the ability to issue Stop Work Order so that the problem can be addressed. 

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 4, 2014

  1. Turnbull- Roofing Material Change- 4 Clubhouse Rd.- 106-1-19.22
  2. CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC -New construction- Camp Comfort Rd. - 101-1-11.1

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 21, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, October 21 at 7pm.  All members were present.

Tyler – Doors, enclosing porch – 457 West Lake Road:
Following a very brief discussion with regard to the chimney and windows as well as a brief review of the landscaping plan, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 21, 2014

  1. Tyler – Doors, enclosing porch – 457 West Lake Rd. – 102-1-15
  2. Dow – Photovoltaic panels – 120 Ridge Road – 105-1-40.2
  3. CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC – New construction – Camp Comfort Rd. – 101-1-11.1

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review October 7, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, October 7 at 7pm.  Deputy Chair Robert Simon was absent.  Consulting Architect Barry Rice was present.

Tyler – Doors, Enclosing Porch – 457 West Lake Road:
The Tyler property at 457 West Lake Road had a chimney fire last Thanksgiving during which the living room and a portion of the roof suffered considerable damage. The Tylers would like to make the necessary repairs and are hoping to make some subtle improvements to the property at the same time.  Together with his architect, Mr. Tyler presented the Board with plans for a new living room, to include an additional set of French doors with an enlarged landing.  He is also hoping to enclose an exterior porch on the rear/lake side of the home, which will necessitate a series of steps with landing as well as a railing.   Additionally, in an effort to ““provide some architectural interest where not a lot currently exists,” the Tylers would like to add two bay windows on the ground floor, one on either side of the front façade.  There will be no increase in the overall footprint of the home.  The roof, gutters etc will be constructed in the same manor as they were prior to the fire. 

Specs for the doors, windows and railing were submitted and briefly discussed.

It was agreed that the Board would conduct a site visit within the next two weeks and that the applicant would return to the next meeting for possible approval.

Dow – Photovoltaic Panels – 120 Ridge Road:
An architect and Owners Representative presented the Board with basic plans for the installation of 42 Photovoltaic (solar) panels at the Dow home on Ridge Road.  Explaining that Mr. Dow is looking to decrease his overall energy costs, the architect explained that the rotating tracking panels could generate up to 250 kilowatts of power on an average sunny day.  The Dows will continue to use both oil and gas, but with much less frequency.

Having had some experience with solar panels such as these, Consulting architect Barry Rice inquired as to the life expectancy of each panel.

He was informed that it was 25 years and possibly up to 10 additional years after that.
Mr. Rice expressed some concern over the overall aesthetics and whether or not the panels would be visible from either public roadways or neighboring properties.

Location of the panels on the Dow property was then discussed.  Mr. Dow is hoping to install the panels on the South East side of the property in an area that is not visible from any roadways.  There is one neighbor on Cliff Road who might be able to see them, however this is uncertain and Mr. Dow intends to screen the area with evergreens none-the-less.

It was agreed that the BAR would conduct a site visit to survey the area and that the applicant would return to the next meeting with a picture of the panels as well as a landscaping legend.  Additionally, Building Inspector John Ledwith will determine whether or not the property falls within the Ridgeline Precipice District, which could make it susceptible to certain restrictions and guidelines.

CC Road Tuxedo Park – LLC – New Construction:
The applicant presented the Board with two stone samples as well as updated drawings and a spec book as previously requested.

Some minor engineering issues were discussed.  Village Engineer Carl Stone acknowledged receipt of an updated plan earlier in the day, but remarked that he had not had enough time to thoroughly review it. With regard to the green roof, he suggested that there were some discharge points that had been missing from the previous drawings and the applicant assured him that these were shown on the most recent submission.  Mr. Stone commented that he had some further questions with regard to the construction phase of the project (methods, oversights, blasting, permits etc) but that ultimately these would not hold the process up any longer.

The applicant assured Mr. Stone that as per the Planning Board’s request there would be no blasting on the site and that they had put this in writing as a condition of that Board’s approval.

Board Attorney Rick Golden acknowledged that this was true but referenced a report from the geo-consultant which referred to the possible need for either chipping or blasting and suggested that this report would need to be edited and resubmitted without any mention of the word “blasting” before Planning Board approval would be granted.

This was discussed for several minutes and eventually it was agreed that the report would be edited and resubmitted as per Mr. Golden’s suggestion.

Building Inspector John Ledwith informed the applicant that he would need to have a complete set of structural plans before he would issue a building permit.

The applicant is scheduled to appear before the Planning Board for approval on October 20th and it was agreed that they would return to the BAR on October 21 for their approval as well.  Following this, the application will go before the Board of Trustees at their Meeting on October 28, at which time they are free to approve it contingent upon the structural plans as requested by Mr. Ledwith. 

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review October 7, 2014

  1. Tyler- Doors, enclosing porch- 457 West Lake Rd.- 102-1-15
  2. Dow- Photovoltaic panels- 120 Road Road- 105-1-40.2
  3. CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC- New construction- Camp Comfort Rd.- 101-1-11.1

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 16, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday September 16 at 7pm.

Fergus- Add windows and doors - 24 Pine Hill Rd:
The applicant presented the Board with plans to enclose a partially completed extension by adding some siding, windows and a door to provide for an unheated,” three season room” in which to garden.  .   Photos of the existing structure were presented and visibility from adjoining properties was discussed.  The area in question is not visible from the roadway.  Structural plans were also discussed.  Given that the prior work does not appear to have been thought through, some further detail as to whatever framing will be needed in order to support the windows and the roof will be required and this work must be completed by a licensed architect or engineer.  Additionally, the structural stability of an existing stone wall will need to be verified.  Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application, conditional upon the submittal of structural plans as requested by the Building Inspector.

CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC - New Construction - Camp Comfort Rd:
At the request of Chair Tocci, BAR Attorney Rick Golden provided the Board with a brief overview of the applicants’ appearance before the Village Planning Board on the previous evening, at which that Board discussed the BAR’s concern with the siting of the proposed home and how this might affect the overall design.  Specifically, the BAR was not happy with the newer plan for the driveway and the fact that the garage doors would be the primary façade on entry.  The idea of moving the driveway down a bit in order to provide more room was discussed and the applicant stated that they were unsure as to whether or not they wanted to do this and would like to speak with the BAR first before making a determination on the final design.

An engineer for the applicant commented that the more he had thought on it, he had come to agree with the Planning Board’s thinking in that the environment of the site is more important than a kind of attitude towards garage doors, which really has its history in the estate.  The more he has looked at houses in the Park, where there are many garage doors visible from the street, he feels that preserving the rocky garden is important to the property.  He believes that he can mitigate the garage doors in a manner that the BAR will be happy with.   Rough plans for a mitigated garage, including the addition of a pergola/trellis were then presented and discussed.  The BAR liked the new design very much and it was agreed that the plans would be amended to reflect the changes.  Proposed project materials were then reviewed.  The applicant will return to the BAR once they have received Planning Board approval.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 16, 2014

  1. Fergus- Add windows and doors - 24 Pine Hill Rd. - 106-1-56.11
  2. Keating- New Construction- 96 Cliff Rd.- 107-1-75.2
  3. CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC - New Construction - Camp Comfort Rd. - 101-1-11.1

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 19, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, August 19, 2014 at 7pm.  Board member Anne Gwathmey was absent.  Consulting Architect Barry Rice was present.

Gebhardt - Sunroom Conversion:
Mrs. Gebhardt and her architect presented plans for enclosing an existing sunroom.  Mrs. Gebhardt stated that historically the room had been enclosed and that once the project was completed it would remain seasonal and unheated.  Brick and mortar will match that of the existing house.  The gutters will also match what is existing and samples were presented and briefly discussed.  Window restoration was also discussed. 

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Nicholson – Garage, Driveway Material Changes, Landscaping – 25 Mountain Farm Rd.:
Revisions to the plan, including updated engineering and landscaping plans were presented and discussed.  Notable changes include the relocation of a rain garden, the addition of fence specs and screening details and a new pattern for driveway pavers.  Additionally, a door originally slated to be painted, will be replaced with a mahogany door.  Following some minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Keating – New Construction – 96 Cliff Road:
Revised plans were presented and reviewed.  The applicant received their final approval from the Planning Board on August 18.  Although the overall plan remains very similar to what was presented to the BAR back in June, several small amendments have been made and the overall dimensions of the home altered slightly.  The changes were outlined and briefly discussed along with some window alterations and roofline revisions.  The applicant’s landscape architect presented the Board with landscaping plans.  Slate and fencing samples were presented as were pavers.  Board chair Paola Tocci expressed some concern with the proposed cobblestone driveway and pavers and wondered if the applicant would consider an alternate material.  This was discussed at some length.  The idea of gravel was proposed, but the applicant was unhappy with this suggestion for a number of reasons. .  Plans for the pool and surrounding landscape were also presented.

During this part of the review it was determined that brick would be a good material for this area and possibly also a suitable replacement for cobblestones in the driveway. 

Lighting plans were also discussed and it was determined that there will be no landscape lighting aside from the pool area.  Board Attorney Rick Golden reminded that Board that this property lies within the Ridgeline and Precipice district and as must comply with certain regulations.  Specifically, Building Inspector John Ledwith must confirm that the height of the structure is in compliance, the materials mist be earth toned and blend with the surrounding natural area, the landscaping must also ensure that the structure blends in and the lighting must comply with specific regulations.

It was agreed that the applicant would return to BAR with revised plans reflecting the material changes in the driveway as well as updated planting choices.

Beard – Tennis Court Changes to Plan:
Together with their design and landscape architects, Greg and Laurie Beard presented the Board with revised plans for the tennis court at their home on East Lake Road.  The landscape architect explained that during construction they had encountered large quantities of rock beneath the surface and so, in an effort to minimize hammering on the site, they were proposing that the tennis court be raised.  They are hoping to use some of the fill generated from the pool construction to aid in this process.  Additionally, there is an existing concrete stairway, described as steep, narrow and dangerous, leading to the court area and they would like to remove it altogether and replace with grass risers and bluestone treads.   They are also proposing to remove an existing asphalt area and replace it with grass and would like to shift the motor court back slightly.  The tennis court itself will have a rock border around it, which will be visible from the inside only and will allow them to create a berm, which will assist in the screening of the entire court area. Privet will be used for the screening. 

There was a great deal of discussion with regard to the proposed lighting.  Building Inspector John Ledwith pointed out that the property is in the Ridgeline and Precipice District, which makes it subject to certain regulations and questioned the height of some of the fixtures at 19 feet.

Village Engineer Carl Stone expressed some concern with regard to additional rain gardens that were not on the previously approved plan and requested that the applicant provide up-to-date storm water specs, which take the additional gardens into account.
The Building Inspector also expressed concern with the overall amount of land disturbance at the site, commenting that he knew the work had been approved but there seemed to be “a lot of terrain interruption going on” which was creating a greater visual impact than had been originally anticipated.

Ultimately however, it was determined that the work had been approved and that while things might appear chaotic during the construction phase, it would not look this way once the work had been completed.

Cut and fill amounts were then discussed.  There appears to be more fill on the site than originally calculated.  The revised plan (raising the tennis court and creating a berm to one side) will make use of some of this fill.  Village Engineer Carl Stone pointed out that raising the court and constructing a wall around it to make it appear sunken would alter the grade of the land.  He requested an up to date cut and fill summary for the entire project.

Mr. Beard asserted that ultimately, they were trying to make use of as much of the fill as possible in order to avoid having to remove it by the truckload.  He pointed out that the revised plan would have less of an impact in terms of fill amounts to be moved and noise (not as much hammering required)

Neighbor Maryjo Guinchard commented that she and her husband were generally supportive of the project but had some concern with regard to the lighting, especially at the proposed height, and it’s impact on their home at night.

The Beard’s landscape architect explained that this should not be an issue, pointing out that the larger poles will call for a steeper angle downward and that the fixtures would all have back shields.

Mrs. Guinchard also paraphrased some remarks written by her husband, Claude, who could not be present.  His main concerns were lighting and visibility from Tuxedo Lake. He also feels that moving forward all residents must be treated equally in terms of tennis courts and lighting and afforded the same courtesies that are given to the Beards.

Following some further discussion, the Beards and their architects retreated to the back room, where some notes were added to the plan as requested by the Village Engineer.  When they returned, the application was approved unanimously contingent upon submittal of a complete lighting plan as well as written proof that the additional rain gardens and bern will result in the same drainage area and volumes as previously approved.

CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC – New Construction – Camp Comfort Road:
Although this application is still before the Planning Board, the Applicant appeared before the BAR with revised plans for the project looking to receive their initial feedback.  Major changes include driveway relocation and elimination of the previously proposed cantilevers.  Attorney for the Applicant, Brian Nugent, informed the BAR that although his client had appeared before the BZA with regard to the cantilevers and that ultimately it had been determined that there was nothing in the Village Code that specifically prevented him, the decision had been made to eliminate them from the design.  Instead, the applicant is proposing to construct a stone retaining wall and use struts where the cantilever previously existed. A model and drawings were presented.  The driveway has been shifted as per the Planning Board in order to avoid a large rock outcropping.  There was a great deal of discussion about this.  Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that she preferred the original design and wondered whether the BAR had any authority to challenge the Planning Board’s decision.  Attorney Rick Golding explained that ultimately they did not as it was not within their purview to determine the building envelope.  Rather, this is the responsibility of the Planning Board.  Chair Tocci pointed out that the previous design had shielded the motor court from site and she lamented the fact that site disturbance seemed to take precedent over good architecture, commenting that the first thing people would see when driving up the driveway would now be the garage.

It was pointed out that the previous design would have called for the complete destruction of an existing knoll and because the property lies within the Ridgeline and Precipice District, it must adhere to specific regulations, specifically minimal site disturbance.

The applicant assured the BAR that the garage would not look like a typical garage from the driveway approach.

Following some further discussion, it was determined that the applicant would return to the BAR once the Planning Board process has been completed.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 19, 2014

  1. Nicholson- Garage, Driveway Material Changes, Landscaping- 25 Mtn. Farm Rd. - 103-1-37.22
  2. Gebhardt- Sunroom Conversion- 107-1-88
  3. Keating - New Construction - 96 Cliff Rd. - 107-1-7 5.2
  4. Beard- Tennis Court Changes to Plans- 105-1-20.21 & 105-1-48
  5. CC Road Tuxedo Park, LLC - New Construction - Camp Comfort Rd. - 101-1-11.1

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 20, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on May 20 at 7pm.

Christensen- Vestibule, screening tea house windows & doors- 9 Ridge Rd:
Revised plans were presented and reviewed.  As per the BAR’s request, sewer hookups were added to the revised plans.  Detail of the foundation and the door were also shown.
There were no comments from the Board.

Board Chair Paola Tocci commended the applicant for having taken “a sows’ ear and turned it into a silk purse” commenting that she feels the work they have done is “absolutely beautiful” and has bettered the neighborhood. 

The board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Laukitis- Roofing Material Change- 16 Brook Rd.:
On behalf of the applicant, Bill Fairclough presented the BAR with plans for a new roof for the Laukitis home located at 16 Brook Road.  The existing asphalt roof will be removed in its entirety and replaced with a standing seam metal roof.  The color will be black.  The new roof will be raised by 3 inches in order to provide more ventilation.   The copper gutters will be reinstalled.  Material samples were presented.  After a brief review, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Nicholson- Renovations to existing garage, construction of new garage, landscaping - 25 Mtn. Farm Rd:
Revised plans were presented and discussed.  A previously proposed shower has been eliminated from the floor plan for the attached studio/two-car garage in an effort to avoid any potential zoning issues and a door which had originally contained glass, has been changed to solid.  At the request of the BAR, landscape elevations have been added and after further review the applicant is encouraging the BAR to again consider the location of proposed split rail fence, which is off to the side and in a natural area.  Although it is visible, the applicant feels it can be made obscure with plantings and is preferable to a more highly evolved design.  
Board Chair Tocci suggested no fence.  Ultimately, however, it was agreed that the fence would be largely concealed by landscaping; however this must be shown on the plans.  The type of mesh must also be shown and samples were requested.

Decking materials were discussed.  The deck will be entirely upgraded with materials, posts and rails to be replaced.  The materials used will be consistent with the house. 

A mock-up of the stone will be created during construction as per the BAR’s request.
The applicant’s engineer and Village Engineer Carl Stone discussed drainage issues at length.  As per Mr. Stone’s suggestion, a rain garden will be relocated in order to better accommodate the driveway as per a previous plan which was never realized. 

The number of proposed pavers was addressed. Commenting that the BAR would like to see the applicant keep the property as “organic” as possible, Chair Tocci suggested that they reconsider the pavers as proposed.

Board members Julia Simet and Robert Simon agreed.  

It was agreed that the pavers should continue but would be simplified to match what is existing.

Turnbull- Dormers- 105 Clubhouse Rd: On behalf of the applicant Barbara Romero along with the applicant’s architect presented the Board with plans for dormers and roof renovations for the home at 105 Clubhouse Road.   The BAR completed a sight visit and Chair Tocci reported that they all love what the applicant is doing with the house and feel that it will be a major improvement. 

The current asphalt roof will be replaced with cedar shake and two shed dormers will be added.  Pluming stacks will be rerouted to the back of the house.   The roof over the main entry way will also be replaced with cedar shake shingles   Details will be taken from the three existing dormers and utilized on the new shed dormers so that everything matches up. 
Selection of a contractor was briefly discussed. 

Board member Julie Simet inquired as to whether all of the existing windows would remain.
The answer was yes.  Trim details will be copied for the new windows.  Window samples were presented and reviewed and stucco color was also briefly discussed.   

Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Tuxedo Club- Walkway and hedge removal- 1 West Lake Rd:
On behalf of The Tuxedo Club Martin Badinelli and Tom McKay presented the Board with some photos depicting their plans for what they are calling a restoration effort along the bottom of their lower front lawn, consisting of hedge removal and installation of a walkway.  Some landscaping work was already completed over the winter months, namely the removal of the hedges, as The Club viewed this work as maintenance and restoration and did not feel they were in need of a permit.  The Village however feels differently and The Club was subsequently notified that they would not be granted final approval for their proposed addition to the Tennis House (squash courts) until the issue had been resolved.  Therefore, they are requesting approval from the BAR to complete the restoration of the walkway as planned, repair the soil disturbance and landscape appropriately.

Chair Tocci inquired as to what would be planted there.

Mr. Badinelli explained that in response to the Village’s concerns The Club had engaged engineers Lank and Tully to come and analyze the work that had been done and its’ impact on the lake and they had recommended low ground cover such as ivy, or something along those lines.  They would also like to install an erosion control silt fence along the area of the pathway on the Clubhouse side.  Rocks and debris will be removed by hand from the berm and then it will be carefully raked/sloped inwards towards the path after which plantings will be done by hand all along the path.  The gravel will be replaced with a gravel to match in size and color with that on the pathway leading from where the flagpole used to be to the Boathouse.  Soil will then be lightly tucked along the Clubhouse side of the pathway.  They would also like to repair the bottom section of the 24’ clay pipe that empties the Villages roadway drainage water directly into the lake as they feel this is a safety hazard. 

Board Attorney Rick Golden suggested to Building Inspector John Ledwith that if the Village did in fact own the pipe, when the application came before the Board of Trustees for final approval, this must be clearly indicated.

Mr. Badinelli stated that there were several village owned pipes that crossed Club property and that the Club would be happy to make the necessary repairs to this one while they were doing the rest of the work as it was the principal cause for any “wash-outs” they experience during rainstorms. 

Lastly, the Club would like to install a nautical flagpole where the flagpole historically stood, by the lake.

Building Inspector John Ledwith commented that the primary issue at stake was that the work that has already been completed and the site disturbance, is so close to the reservoir.  What is needed is a plan detailing how they plan to preserve what is remaining and how they are going to handle any water that runs down towards the gravel path. 

Village Engineer Carl Stone commented that his associate Rich Messer had been to the site and he had discovered that there was another 12-inch pipe, which also crosses the path further down that might be undersized.  He wondered whether they might put in some sort of water quality containment there as that water drains right off the hillside. 

Mr. Badinelli responded that unfortunately, Lank and Tully was not able to be present and he did not wish to speak on their behalf, but they had reviewed Mr. Messer’s letter and it had been their conclusion that storm water containment in that area was not necessary.

Mr. Stone responded that the pipe was immediately adjacent to the reservoir so if something could be achieved there, they would certainly like to see that.  If there is hardship there, the Club should let the Village know.  It does not need to be anything extravagant; perhaps some grass swales or a rain garden with an overflow catch basin. From what he understands if the overflow piles up behind the walkway, it will eventually wash right out into the reservoir.

Mr. Badinelli stated that over the course of the past two months, it had just been settling in and gradually seeping down.

Mr. Stone pointed out that in a heavier storm the ponding would get higher and higher and eventually instead of being able to seep in, it would run over the pathway and erode it right into the lake.  He suggested maybe a shallow trench and a swale with a discharge going out underneath the path so that it doesn’t get washed out. 

Board member Patrick Donaghy pointed out that the path was only 18 inches above the surface of the water and so the bottom of the pipe would be only 8 inches above.

Mr. Stone suggested that they could put in several small pipes with a shallow trench
Commenting that he had been down there and watched some storms come through, Mr. Donaghy stated that when the wind started blowing it pushed the water up and he was concerned that it blow over and backfire on all these proposed safety measures.

Mr. Stone responded that he felt a series of 4 inch pipes in the gravel would give it a better conduit from behind and then a shallow trench with some gravel fill, soil or sand over it, “like a seepage pit in reverse.”

Mr. Badinelli commented that the Club’s Ground Superintendent who oversaw the work had suggested the same thing to them, but they had not wanted to do any work by the lake without permission.

Mr. Stone explained how the system would work as a filter for the water to prevent sediment from entering the lake. 

There was discussion as to whether or not the BAR could approve the plan that evening conditioned upon the implementation of this drainage plan or if they had to wait.  Mr. Donaghy pointed out that in its current state there is exposed soil on the property that is leaking into the lake. 

Deputy Chair Robert Simon expressed some concern with the Clubs plan to plant ivy or some such other low lying plant as recommended by the engineer.  He wondered whether it was important enough in terms of it’s’ durability and utility to have something more specific in mind as recommended by a landscaper.

It was agreed that the Club would consult with a landscaper. 

Mr. Simon then wondered why the siltation fence would be installed on the Club-side of the path. 

Mr. Badinelli explained that their engineer had suggested that installing the fence on the berm site could create more trouble than it was worth.  The plan is to put some top soil along the path on Clubhouse side and then seed it in order to establish a nicer lawn.

The installation of additional riprap between the dam and lake was discussed.  Building Inspector Ledwith expressed some concern and suggested that even though the ultimate purpose is to prevent erosion along the shore, the Board of Trustees should ultimately make the decision regarding things that would be in the reservoir.

Board member Patrick Donaghy asserted that the riprap was not a foreign material and had already been approved by the Board.  What they were discussing here was merely finishing off what had already been started, which would ultimately improve the situation and make it look much cleaner.

Board members Julia Simet and Robert Simon agreed, however commented that it was a matter of precedent and should probably go to the Trustees as a separate application.
Building Inspector Ledwith reiterated that he was not comfortable approving something that would be going into the reservoir.

After some further discussion/debate, it was agreed that the riprap was not connected to the application for the restoration and as it will come into direct contact with the reservoir, should be brought before the Board as its own, separate application.

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application with the addition of the storm water and landscaping provisions as discussed.

Klimecki- Skylights- 11 Ridge Rd:
Mr. Klimecki thanked the BAR for having made a site visit and commented that he was in compliance with all of their suggestions.  He agrees with their assessment that the skylight in the master bathroom should be changed to match the others.  Flashing materials were discussed, specifically the use of copper vs. aluminum.  The BAR would like Mr. Klimecki to use copper as opposed to the exposed aluminum that is currently in place.  Following a short debate, he agreed to do so.  He is also hoping to relocate the electrical service to the north side of the house.  Patrick Donaghy inquired about the existing pole. 

Mr. Klimecki responded that his electrician has recommended contacting O & R as another pole might need to be installed.

Mr. Donaghy suggested underground installation.

Mr. Klimecki agreed that this would be his first choice.

Relocation of the plumbing vents was also discussed and Mr. Klimecki admitted that he had not had time to contact his plumber about this yet, but he would also like to move these to the back of the house.

Finally, colors were discussed.  Mr. Klimecki would like Apple wood Grey, although he has painted two sample sections on the side of the house the other being Navajo White.  It was agreed that the BAR would take a look at the samples over the next week or so before rendering their decision.

Mr. Klimecki will return to the next meeting.

Simon- Removal of Chimney- 53 Tower Hill Rd.:
Robert Simon presented that Board with an application for a revision to the previously approved plans for an addition at his home on Tower Hill Road.  Although they had initially decided to leave one of the chimneys in place, they have now decided that they would like to remove it as it is not functional and serves no purpose.  Following some minimal discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 20, 2014

  1. Christensen- Vestibule, screening tea house windows & doors- 9 Ridge Rd. - 106-1-51
  2. Laukitis- Roofing Material Change- 16 Brook Rd.- 103-1-12
  3. Nicholson- Renovations to existing garage, construction of new garage, landscaping - 25 Mtn. Farm Rd.- 103-1-37.22
  4. Turnbull- Dormers- 105 Clubhouse Rd.- 106-1-19.22
  5. Tuxedo Club- Walkway and hedge removal- 1 West Lake Rd.- 107-1-3
  6. Klimecki- Skylights- 11 Ridge Rd.- 106-1-50.1
  7. Simon- Removal of Chimney- 53 Tower Hill Rd. - 107-1-38.22
  8. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 15, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, April 15.  Board Member Anne Gwathmey was absent. 

Nicholson – Renovations to existing garage, construction of new garage, landscaping – 25 Mountain Farm Road:

The applicant and her architect presented the Board with plans for renovations and additions to the property located at 25 Mountain Farm Road, otherwise known as Glocomora.
A brief overview of the project, to include tear down of current garage and construction of new 2-car garage with studio, was provided and then discussed.  A former owner of the property has converted the original garage into a master suite and although the applicant’s previous owners had plans  to renovate the space and return it to it’s original function, these were never realized.

Additionally, the applicant is hoping to reconstruct a deck on the rear of the home and grade a small area of the lawn to become a play area, for their son.   This they hope to fence in.   They would also like to rebuild two stone walls , currently in disrepair.  Plans for a rain garden were also discussed. 

Building Inspector John Ledwith suggested that the grading as proposed might be an issue due to it’s close proximity to Patterson Brook, which feeds directly into Tuxedo Lake.  He stated that he would take a close look at the rules and restrictions and report back to the applicant as soon as possible.  With regard to the proposed studio, he pointed out that there are restrictions regarding the accessory use of structures and that these would need to be examined. 

The issue of drainage was briefly discussed with Village Engineer Carl Stone.  Ultimately, he is waiting on some calculations.

Board Chair Paola Tocci expressed some concern over the proposed fence around the children’s play area, commenting that fences in general were somewhat of an issue in the Village. 

It was agreed that the Board would schedule a site visit as soon as possible.

Christensen – vestibule, screening teahouse windows & doors – 9 Ridge Road:
Mr. Christensen and his architect presented the Board with plans for 2 projects at the property on Ridge Road.  The first is the construction of a new front entrance with vestibule.  Photos of the existing conditions were presented and briefly discussed,as were drawings of the proposed project.  Mr. Christensen finds the current entrance to be fairly impractical. The addition of steps and a mostly glass vestibule with zinc roof will add a prominent look to the new front door. 

The second project concerns an existing teahouse on the property.  Mr. Christensen presented the Board with a historic photo of the teahouse along with the current conditions.  While the house used to be almost entirely open on all four sides, previous owners have installed inserts in an attempt to close in the structure,  Mr. Christensen would like to bring it back to it’s original look and is proposing to remove all the inserts and replace with screening, to appear almost translucent.  Additionally, he would like to construct a small blue-stone patio in front of the teahouse where historically there was a grass tennis court.

Sewer lines and water hook-ups were briefly discussed. 

It was agreed that Mr. Christensen would return to the next meeting with more detailed plans to include full project specs.

Klimecki – Skylights – 11 Ridge Road:
Mr. Klimecki and his architect appeared before the Board to discuss skylights in his home on Ridge Road, some of which were installed without permit.  Mr. Klimecki suggested that following his last appearance in December, the Board had signed off on the wrong set of drawings.  He argued that all of the work completed had been discussed at the meeting. 
Both Building Inspector Ledwith and Chair Tocci pointed out that whether or not an error had taken place, Mr. Klimecki was still bound to the drawings that had been approved.

The number of pre-existing skylights was then debated and discussed.  Mr. Klimecki claims to have installed only 2 of the existing 8 skylights, however there seems to be some doubt about this and the work that has been done does not reflect the drawings signed off on by the Board.  It was agreed that the Board would schedule a site visit in order to properly assess the situation. 

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 15, 2014

  1. Bruno - boathouse renovations - West Lake Rd. - 103-1-27.12
  2. Nicholson- renovations to existing garage, construction of new garage, landscaping - 25 Mtn. Farm Rd. 103-1-37.22
  3. Christensen- vestibule, screening tea house windows & doors- 9 Ridge Rd. - 106-1-51
  4. Klimecki -skylights - 11 Ridge Rd. - 106-1-50.1

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 18, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, March 18 2014.  Consulting Architect Barry Rice was present.  Board member Anne Gwathmey was absent. 

Bruno – Boathouse Renovations:
Together with his contractor, applicant Michael Bruno presented the BAR with plans to renovate his boathouse, located on West Lake Road.  Commenting that he liked the history of the structure and hoped to maintain its simple appearance, Mr. Bruno briefly outlined plans for new windows and modest roof alterations.  Lighting was also briefly discussed.

Building Inspector John Ledwith stated that due to the structure’s proximity to the reservoir, a project management plan, to include a full set of structural plans, a complete list of materials and a review by engineers Link and Tully would be necessary.

Construction precautions such as the installation of a silt curtain in the reservoir and accessibility of a spill kit were briefly touched on.

BAR attorney Rick Golden inquired as to whether or not the plans included complete demolition of the existing structure followed by rebuilding. 

The answer was yes, however the hope is to maintain the stone foundation.
Attorney Golden then identified the project as Type 2 – Non Residential under SEQRA. 

There followed a discussion regarding Zoning, specifically whether or not the code would allow for rebuilding on the site once the structure had been demolished.

Attorney Golden stated that he would look into this and assured the applicant that if the code did not allow for it, there were ways for the project to legally proceed.

It was agreed that the applicant would submit the project management plan as soon as possible and in the meantime, the BAR, together with Barry Rice, would schedule a site visit prior to their next meeting.

Keating – New Construction – 96 Cliff Road:
Although the applicant has not yet received site plan approval from the Planning Board, he appeared before the BAR for initial feedback.  General plans and project materials were discussed.  There was some concern over the rear and left side elevations of the home and it was agreed that the applicants’ architect would schedule a meeting with Barry Rice to discuss.  There are still some drainage/storm water management issues that need to be ironed out by the Planning Board and percolation tests cannot be completed until the weather improves.  Once this process has been completed and site plan approval granted, the applicant will return to the BAR with more detailed plans, to include full project specs as well as lighting and landscaping plans. 

CC Road Tuxedo Park LLC – New Construction – Camp Comfort Road:
This application has not yet received Planning Board approval, however an architect representing the applicant appeared before the BAR for the purpose of obtaining their initial feedback.  A 3D model of the proposed home was presented along with initial plans.  As the home will be visible from the Tuxedo Lake, sight tests have been completed and a picture depicting how the home might fit into the visage from the Causeway was presented.  The general design/layout of the proposed home was discussed, as were project materials.  Barry Rice expressed some concern over the proposed cantilever and specifically the precedent that it might set.  This was briefly discussed and it was agreed that the Mr. Rice and the architect would discuss the details further as the project progresses.  Overall feedback from the BAR was favorable.  Building Inspector John Ledwith pointed out that there remain some concerns with regard to site

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 18, 2014

  1. Mahan - Windows in Garage - Ridge Rd.
  2. Keating- New Construction- 96 Cliff Rd.- 107-1-75.2
  3. Bruno- Boathouse Renovations- West Lake Rd.- 103-1-27.12
  4. CC Road Tuxedo Park LLC- New Construction- Camp Comfort Rd. - 101-1-11.1

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 4, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, February 4, 2014.  Board member Anne Gwathmey and Village Engineer Carl Stone were both absent.  Board member Julia Simet was late due to traffic.

Tuxedo Club – 1 West Lake Road - Squash Court Addition Change in Materials:
A representative for the Tuxedo Club appeared to discuss the requested change in materials for the addition to the Squash Court. (brick is to be replaced with cedar in some spots) As per last month’s meeting, an EAF was submitted and subsequently reviewed by Board Attorney Rick Golden.  After a slight revision, the document was resubmitted to the Board for their approval. As per the SEQRA process, the Board determined that the application should be classified as a Type One Action.  Next, they quickly determined that they did not believe it posed any significant environmental impacts and could therefore be awarded a negative declaration, which was passed by a unanimous vote.  Attorney Golden advised the Board that earlier questions about the drainage had been answered by Village Engineers Westin and Sampson, who had determined that the material change would not create any issues. 

The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application contingent upon the receipt of updated specs.

Ford/Barnes – 22 Lookout Stable Road – Site Plan Changes:
Mr. Ford appeared before the Board with revised site plans for the project at 22 Lookout Stable Road.  Having received approval from the Village Engineer for the installation of a septic field/system, the issue of landscaping was now discussed.  Board Chair Paola Tocci recalled a letter previously submitted by neighbor Barbara du Pont, which raised some screening issues and wondered if these had been addressed.  Mr. Ford assured her that they had and that a mixture of shrubs, vines and evergreens would be planted in an effort to screen the property.  Plans for a bluestone patio and steps were also reviewed and briefly discussed, after which the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Chuey – 43 Crows Nest Road – AC Unit Relocation:
A representative for Mr. and Mrs. Chuey presented the Board with plans depicting the relocation of an AC unit from the back to the side of the home located at 43 Crows Nest Road.  After a brief discussion, it was determined that in it’s new location, the unit did not violate any of the setback regulations.  Noise level was also discussed and a letter written by neighbor Aubrey de Bordenave prior to the relocation was read into the record.  It was quickly determined that Ms. De Bordenave’s concerns had been alleviated by the move.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Schedule of Meetings:
Because the next regularly scheduled meeting of the BAR falls on February 18, which happens to be Grievance Day in the Village, the Board agreed by unanimous vote to cancel the meeting.  The next meeting of the BAR will take place on March 4, 2014 at 7pm.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 4, 2014

  1. Tuxedo Club - 1 West Lake Rd. - Squash Court Addition Change in Materials - Parcel 107-1- 3.2
  2. Ford/Barnes- 22 Lookout Stable Rd.- Site Plan Changes- Parcel107-1-115
  3. Chuey- 43 Crows Nest Rd- AC Unit Relocation- Parcel105-1-7

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 7, 2014

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, January 7 at 7pm.  Board member Anne Gwathmey was absent as was Board Attorney Rich Golden.

Klimecki – Garage Door, Windows, Entrance Door – 11 Ridge Road:

Together with his architect, Mr. Klimecki presented the Board with plans for renovations to the home at 11 Ridge Road.  Installation of a boxwood garden and new walkway were discussed.  The current driveway is in a state of disrepair and Mr. Klimecki would like to remove what is left of the asphalt and replace it with a new, gravel driveway.  Additionally, he would like to replace some of the existing windows with new ones of the same design and also the garage door. 

There was a somewhat tense conversation with regard to the fact that Mr. Klimecki installed a new roof on the home and also repainted it without BAR approval.  Board member Patrick Donaghy expressed not only his frustration with Mr. Klimecki for having done this, but also his concern with regard to precedent.  He pointed out that Mr. Klimecki’s neighbors had somewhat recently completed renovations on their home and had had to attend several meetings before obtaining permission to paint areas of the home a new color.  Although it might have been somewhat arduous for them, this was the correct process.  Mr. Klimecki, on the other hand, had no regard for the process at all and went ahead and painted his home an entirely new color without any feedback from the BAR, as is required by the Village Code.  Mr. Donaghy suggested that Mr. Klimecki had been well aware of what the correct process was but had taken it upon himself to do the work any way.  He stated that he felt the BAR should review the situation with their Attorney in order to determine what the appropriate course of action should be.

The Board was in agreement.

Mr. Klimecki was apologetic.

After some further discussion, the Board voted 3 to 1 in favor of approving the application with Patrick Donaghy voting against it.  

Naeve – Pergola, Stairs, Windows, AC Condenser – 26 Lookout Stable Road:

The Applicant and their architect presented the Board with basic plans for general repairs/renovations to the home on Lookout Stable Road.  Some rotting wood decking has already been removed, but plans to remove more rotting wood due to safety concerns and possibly a rotting fence were also discussed.  Window replacements were proposed and discussed at length.  Presently, the applicant is only planning to replace a few windows, however over time he would like to replace them all.  This was discussed at length as was a possible roof replacement at some point in the future.  A brief narrative and rough specs were created on site, after which the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Tuxedo Club – Façade Material Change:

Representatives for the Tuxedo Club presented the Board with a façade material change for the addition to the Tennis House as approved back in 2004.  The original plans called for brick and the applicant would like to change this to cedar shake.  Following some minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of the material change.  Because The Tuxedo Club is a commercial enterprise, an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) will need to be completed before the project can proceed.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 7, 2014

  1. Klimecki- Garage Door, Windows, Entrance Door- 11 Ridge Rd. - 106-1-50.1
  2. Naeve- Pergola, Stairs, Windows, AC Condenser- 26 Lookout Stable Rd.- 107-1-110.1
  3. Tuxedo Club - Facade Material Change - 1 West Lake Rd. - 107-1-3.2
    D:\1

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review December 17, 2013

  1. Tuxedo Club- Facade Material Change- 1 West Lake Rd. - 107-1-3.2
  2. Klimecki- Garage Door, Windows, Entrance Door- 11 Ridge Rd.- 106-1-50.1
  3. Naeve- Pergola, Stairs, Windows, AC Condenser- 26 Lookout Stable Rd.- 107-1-110.1

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 5, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, November 5 at 7pm.  Board member Anne Gwathmey was absent.

Simon - Demolition of house on parcel 107-1-3 7 .2, 82 Clubhouse Road and demolition of garage, and addition to house on parcel 107-1-38.2, 53 Tower Hill Road –

The BAR reviewed the Environmental Assessment Form prepared by their attorney and quickly agreed that the project as proposed did not pose any significant adverse environmental impact.  They voted unanimously in favor of giving the application a Negative Declaration under SEQRA.  Following some discussion, it was determined, that because the project involves demolition, which requires a special permit, the Board of Trustees must approve the application before the work can proceed.

Mr. Simon and his architect presented the BAR with revised plans for the addition, including new drawings and a 3D computerized model. Changes to the roofline and windows were noted and discussed.  It was agreed that the applicant would return to the next meeting with more detailed project specs.
Before the renovations can begin, the applicant must combine his lots and before that can be done, the demolition must take place.  It was agreed that Mr. Simon would write a letter to the Board of Trustees in hopes of procuring an approval via a Special Meeting to take place before their next regularly scheduled meeting, which is not until the end of the month.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 5, 2013

  1. Simon - Demolition of house on parcel 107-1-3 7 .2, 82 Clubhouse Road and demolition of garage, and addition to house on parcel 107-1-38.2, 53 Tower Hill Road

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 1, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, October 1 at 7pm.  All members were present as was consulting architect Barry Rice.

Simon – Demolition of house on parcel 107-1-37.2, 82 Clubhouse Road and demolition of garage, and addition to house on parcel 107-1-38.2, 53 Tower Hill Road:

Mr. Simon, together with his architect, presented the Board with revised plans for the project, which in summary consists of demolishing the home located on the Clubhouse Road lot before combining the two lots and then doing away with the freestanding garage and adding an addition onto the Tower Hill home.  The proposed demolition requires that the Board go through the SEQRA process, which entails an E.A.F. (Environmental Assessment Form) as well as an official Determination of Significance, however after much discussion it was ultimately determined that a detailed demolition plan must be submitted and reviewed before this process can be completed.

The revised plans were discussed at length.  The roofline, possible chiminey removal, layout of floor plans, over all mechanics of the house, driveway, general landscaping, materials, and lighting were all discussed.  Building Inspector John Ledwith briefly addressed the sculptures currently displayed on the property, commenting that they seem to have become more prominent in recent months and that this was beginning to wear on the neighborhood.

Following a brief discussion about how the statues were classified in the Village Code, the way in which they  were grounded and whether or not the installation of their bases required Board approval, it was ultimately determined that there is nothing in the Code that regulates the display of such sculptures and that it is within Mr. Simon’s rights to have them there.

It was agreed that Mr. Simon would return to the next meeting with a detailed demolition plan as well as a refined list of materials and updated landscaping and exterior lighting plans. 

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 1, 2013

  1. Simon – Demolition of house on parcel 107-1-37.2, 82 Clubhouse Road and demolition of garage, and addition to house on parcel 107-1-38.2, 53 Tower Hill Road

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 6, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday August 6, 2013.  Board member Annes Gwathmey was absent.

King – Patio, Wall/Fountain:
The applicant presented the Board with a gravel sample as previously requested and this was discussed at some length, specifically it’s coloration.  The BAR has completed a site visit and spoken with the contractor in some detail about the future of the project.

The need to screen some currently exposed plumbing on the side of the house with plantings as well as the placement of a pump which will power the fountain was then discussed.  Specific plantings were suggested and the applicant was agreeable.  It was also agreed that the electrical connections will be buried and the pump housed inside of a box.  Board member Patrick Donoughy suggested that the applicant consider digging a hole and keeping the pump in a bucket within, which would cut down on potential noise.  The applicant was not in favor of this suggestion and suggested that noise would not be an issue with this particular pump.  Board Chair Tocci advised the applicant to proceed with caution commenting that his neighbors are already unhappy with the project and any noise that might be generated from the pump would surely become cause for complaints.

Next the discussion turned to the stone steps and the applicant revealed that he had moved forward with staining them.  This admission was met with dissatisfaction on the part of the BAR as the applicant has been issued a Stop Work Order and was therefore not authorized to move forward with this work.  BAR Attorney Rick Golden confirmed that alteration of the steps by staining denoted a physical change to the property, which should have been brought before the BAR.  The applicant claimed that he hadn’t realized that the S.W.O. pertained to anything other than the wall.  Following some further discussion it was agreed that the BAR would have to make another site visit and take a look at what had been done before they could make any recommendations for the steps.

The wall was then discussed.  Chair Tocci reiterated the BAR’s stance that the craftsmanship was poor and that the wall was not up to Village standards.  She inquired as to whether or not the applicant had taken it upon himself to stain the wall as well as the steps and the applicant confessed that he had.  This was met with more dissatisfaction from the BAR, Chair Tocci then reported that following a discussion with the contractor, the BAR was recommending that the applicant cover the wall entirely with plantings and suggested a cascading evergreens in particular.  The applicant agreed to this suggestion.

Chair Tocci then inquired of the Building Inspector as to whether or not they had been able to determine whether or not there was an existing gas line underneath the site. 

The Building Inspector responded that there was a gas line there and that the Village could not be responsible for any disturbance costs associated with possible excavation there of.  It was agreed that Attorney Golden would draft something up to protect the Village in this regard.

Following some further discussion, the BAR issued the applicant a partial approval, which will allow him to move forward with plantings as discussed and patio gravel.  A site visit will be made in the near future at which point it will be determined how to proceed with the steps.

Simon – Demolition of house on parcel 107-1-37.2, 82 Clubhouse Road and demolition of garage and addition to house on parcel 107-1-38.2, 53 Tower Hill Road:

Applicant Robert Simon has purchased the property adjacent to his residence and would like to combine the lots.  He has been before the Planning Board and received permission to move forward with a lot line change, which will allow the parcels to merge.   Once the properties have been combined Mr. Simon would like to demolish the house on the newer lot (82 Clubhouse Road) as well as an existing shed. He then hopes to add a sizable addition onto his current home, which will include a new garage.  Once construction is complete, he would like to demolish the existing freestanding garage on his current property.  Plans for the addition were presented and reviewed.  The BAR was generally in favor of the plan as presented.  Materials were briefly discussed.  The addition will be cedar shake with a new roof, also cedar shake, to be installed on the entire home.  The existing house will be stained to match the cedar shake on the addition.

Board member Julia Simmet expressed some concern with the ornate details on the proposed addition, commenting that the as it stands currently the home is relatively square and does not have a lot of detail.  She wondered if the addition as proposed might look “too busy” next to the current home.  This was briefly discussed.

Board Attorney Rick Golden the addressed the issue of process, commenting that the BAR would be legally unable to approve the addition until the lots had been combined and that the lots could not be combined until the demolition had taken place.  The demolition cannot occur without the approval of both the BAR and the BOT.  Before they can approve the demolition, the BAR must first go through the SEQRA process and because of the Village’s listing on the National Registry of Historic Places, it will be listed as a Type 1 action, which means that an Environmental Assessment Form must be completed.  As part of this process, the Board must issue a determination of significance as to whether or not the project as proposed constitutes any serious negative impact to the environment.  Once this process has been completed, Mr. Golden recommended that the applicant put forth a demolition schedule in 2 phases, the first phase to include the home and shed on the newer parcel and the 2nd phase to include the garage as the applicant as expressed an interest in keeping the latter until the addition has been completed.

General engineering was also discussed and Village Engineer Carl Stone requested that the applicant provide more details especially with regard to the demolition, specifically in terms of storm water runoff and the associated calculations. 

It was agreed that Mr. Golden would draw up the necessary paperwork to initiate the SEQRA process and that the applicant would return to the BAR with more detailed specs for the project, including landscaping and lighting plans as well as window and hardware samples.

When asked for comment, neighbor Jake Matthews stated that he hoped that the BAR would closely monitor the demolition in terms of excess dust and possible asbestos and Chair Tocci assured him that they would.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 6, 2013

  1. King – Patio wall, fountain – 47 Clubhouse Road – 107-1-67
  2. Simon – Demolition of house on parcel 107-1-37.2, 82 Clubhouse Road and demolition of garage and addition to house on parcel 107-1-38.2, 53 Tower Hill Road

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 16, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, July 16 2013 at 7pm.  All members were present with Julia Simet and Patrick Donoughy arriving late due to traffic.

Flores – Relocating Door, Light Fixture:
Representing the applicant, Alexis Hughes presented the Board with photographs depicting proposed changes to the home on Continental Road.  The Applicant is looking to put in a sliding door on the side of the house where a bay window currently exists as well as replace and upgrade some French doors in the rear of the home to match.  Additionally, they would like to replace the outdoor lighting fixtures.  Following a brief discussion the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

Witte – Changing Driveway Material:
The Wittes appeared before the BAR seeking a change in driveway material from gravel to tar and chip.  The BAR has completed a site visit and they expressed some concern with potential drainage issues and subsequent runoff into the roadway. This was discussed at length.  Board Engineer Carl Stone pointed out that there was an existing trench drain further up the driveway that the BAR might not have seen on their visit.  He believes it is sufficient and the BAR was satisfied with his assessment.

Board Chair Paola Tocci inquired as to whether or not the Wittes were planning to install a driveway border.  Mrs. Witte responded that they were not. 

Chair Tocci replied that she feels that the driveway should be lined in order to prevent tar and chip residue washing down into the road.  She referenced the Spooner/Stroz residence as an example of quality work.  James Cooper, representing the Witte’s paving company, discussed his methods and suggested that an asphalt apron covered with tar and chip might be most appropriate.  It was agreed that the Wittes would run this by DPW Superintendent Jeff Voss for his opinion.

Landscaping was then discussed.  It was agreed that the applicant would plant around both the trench drain area and existing berm.  Board Chair Paola Tocci inquired about the old granite boarder stones, which were originally discovered on the property during excavation and scattered along the property line .The initial intent was to find a way to work the stones into the landscaping plan, however an ongoing situation involving unauthorized driveway use seems to have prompted the Wittes to leave them where they are. Chair Tocci feels the stones look sloppy and that their varying sizes and erroneous placement detracts from the overall look of the property.  Board member Susan Boyle concurred.

Mr. Witte replied that the situation with his driveway was ongoing and problematic and suggested that hat the stones played a role, however he said he would not be unwilling to reposition them in an effort to neaten the property up.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of the change in driveway material from gravel to tar and chip in addition to the landscaping changes as discussed.

Keating – New Construction:
Representatives for the applicant presented the Board with drawings and rough plans for the new home on Cliff Road.  Materials were discussed.  The Board expressed some concern with use of artificial slate as proposed for the roof, however they agreed to visit a church in Newburgh where the slate is currently installed and have a look.  Chair Tocci suggested that in her view Cedar Shake shingles would work just as well if not better and cautioned the applicant that historically the BAR has frowned upon the use of synthetic materials.

Siding, windows, garage doors, patio plans, fencing and railings were also discussed with the Board providing general feedback to the initial design.  The Applicant must complete the Planning Board process before they can move forward with the BAR.  Chair Tocci wished them luck and thanked them for bringing the initial plans forward for their review.

King – Patio Wall, Fountain:
Chair Tocci began by reading a letter written by Jean and Rich Donnelly, neighbors of the applicant, into the record.  The Donnelly’s are concerned with Mr. King’s recent construction of a porch on the side of his home and suggested that the construction had taken place deceptively without permission   As a result, they lodged complaints with both the Village Police and the Building Department.  A stop work order was put in place and the Donnelly’s were assured that the project would be minor in nature, however they feel that it is not.  They urged the BAR to take action against Mr. King and put a stop to the project. 

Chair Tocci pointed out that the addition of a porch had in fact been a part of the original plan and was abandoned by the applicant during the process.  She stated for the record that the BAR had been in favor of Mr. King taking what was once a derelict structure and making it look much better and she believes that many of his neighbors feel the same way.  With that being said, she stated that they had made a site visit and were appauled with the atrocious workmanship they discovered.  Commenting that in its current state the porch does nothing but detract from the property, she produced photographs depicting sloppy mortar work, which she said was far below standard.  She also inquired about some plastic geraniums prominently displayed on the property.

The situation was discussed at length and plans were reviewed.

The BAR also expressed their concern with regard to exposed electric lines on the side of the home, which must be concealed.

Ultimately, Mr. King was asked to revise his plans in order to remediate the situation and  it was agreed that he would return to the BAR’s next meeting along with his contractor, to review said plans.  A sample of pea gravel was also requested. 

Approval of Letter r/e Zgonena Application to the BZA:
The BAR has reviewed the letter written on their behalf by attorney Rick Golden to the BZA with regard to their position on the Zgonena Application.  Following minimal discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the letter along with supporting documentation, with Board member Julia Simmet recusing herself from the vote.

New BAR Member:
Susan Boyle has decided to retire from the BAR.  Chair Tocci thanked Ms. Boyle for her dedication and hard work and presented her with a small gift of appreciation on behalf of the BAR. 

Longtime Village Resident Anne Gwathmey has volunteered to take Ms. Boyles place.  Chair Tocci noted Mrs. Gwathmeys experience with landscape architecture and enthusiastically welcomed her to the BAR.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 16, 2013

  1. Witte – Changing driveway material – 67 Tower Hill Loop - 107-1-12.21
  2. Flores – Relocating door, light fixture – 242 Continental Rd. - 107-1-9
  3. Keating – New construction – 96 Cliff Rd. – 106-1-75.2
  4. King – Patio wall, fountain – 47 Clubhouse Rd. – 107-1-67

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 2, 2013

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, July 2 at 7:00pm. Deputy Chair Robert Simon and Board Member Patrick Donoghy were absent.

O'Neal - Siding and Roof - Continental Road:
Board Chair Paola Tocci opened the discussion by informing the applicant that the board had performed a site visit and were in agreement that the O’Neals were doing a commendable job replacing the siding with cedar shake shingles and it appeared as though they were now looking to replace the roof with cedar shingles as well.

Mr. O’Neal concurred, explaining that in it’s current state the home was made from 3 different building materials, asphalt on the roof, Cedar on the mansard and aluminum on the siding and it was the O’Neal’s goal to have it be one, natural material; cedar.

Ms. Tocci asked Mr. O’Neal whether there was any other work being done to the house that the BAR should discuss or review, specifically in the front entrance or with the columns. 
Mr. O’Neal stated that the columns were going to be replaced and would be exactly the same except rather than aluminum, they would be made from wood.  Additionally, the aluminum gutters will be replaced with copper.  A sample was presented.

Chair Tocci asked the applicant to submit a sketch of the columns with proportions for the BAR to review and he agreed to do so. 

The BAR then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application conditional upon the submittal of the column sketch. 

Zgonena – Landscaping:
Mr. Zgonena has appealed the BAR’s denial of his plam to the Board of Zoning Appeals.

BZA attorney Mike Donnelly has suggested that the BAR provide the BZA with a summary of what occurred, along with all associated documents that were part of the record and more specifically the BAR’s decision making process that were NOT submitted as part of Mr. Zgonena’s appeal.  BAR Attorney Rick Golden has prepared a summary and he distributed to the BAR for their review.  He cautioned the BAR that the ZBA would not be reviewing the entire application for the purpose of determining what should have happened, but rather reviewing the BAR’S decision to determine whether or not it was made in error (or was arbitrary or capricious) 

Following a review of Mr. Golden’s Summary and some minor tweeking it was agreed that the Board would call a special meeting in the near future to approve the summary as they did not have a quorum that evening (Julia Simet has recused herself from the Zgonena application)

There followed a brief discussion with regard to unauthorized work and the associated repercussions, specifically with regard to the King/Duchan application. There followed a brief review of the process, the short hand of which is that after stop work orders and BOT intervention, the next step would be an enforcement action in Justice Court.

back to top

line

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

  1. O’Neal – Siding, roofing, gutters – 212 Continental Rd – 107-1-4

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 21, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 16, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Board then voted unanimously against the application. 

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 2, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 5 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 5 2013

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 21, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 5, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 15, 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 15 2012

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 18, 2012

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

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

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

Zgonena- Landscaping:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chair Tocci suggested that it could have been.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Chair Tocci assured her that this would be addressed.

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

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

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

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 18 2012

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 4 2012

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Octobe 16, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 2, 2012

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

Regna – Renovation – 15 Mtn. Farm Rd:

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 18, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 21, 2012

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

Beard – Lakeside Patio & Balustrade :

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

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

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

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

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

Biagioni – Modifications to original plans:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hanson – Modifications to Shed:

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

The Board confirmed that they had performed a site visit.

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 7, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Addition of a patio gate was also discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 17, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bruno – Restoration of Porches:

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

Witte – Changes to Previously Approved Landscaping Plan:

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

Penguin – Asphalt and Paver Driveway:

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

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 17 2012

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 5, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change of Meeting Dates:

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 15, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review May 15, 2012

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 26 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

Agenda for Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 26, 2012

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 3, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 23, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review February 23, 2012

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

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review February 7, 2012

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Cancelled

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 20, 2011

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 20 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 20 2011

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 19, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

Sendowski – Lookout Stable Road – New Construction

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 7, 2011

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

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

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

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

Sendowski – Lookout Stable Rd. – New Construction:

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

Craig – 23 Ridge road – Belgian Block Apron –

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

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

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

Zgonena – Roofing Change:

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

Zgonena- Grading/site Work:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    1. The original grade of the property;

    2. The existing grade of the property; and

    3. The proposed grade of the property with the toe of the slope set back 15 feet from the property line.

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

    1. The existing grade of the property; and

    2. The proposed grade of the property.

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Rescheduled

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

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

back to top

line

May 3 Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting cancelled

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 19, 2011

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 29, 2011

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

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

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

Mr. Hanson if he would address them.

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 15, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Village of Tuxedo Park – Tuxedo Road Guard Rails:

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 21, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VTP – Tuxedo Road Guard Rail

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 30, 2010

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

ZGONENA – Circuit Road – Roof :

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

WILSON – 24 Pine Hill Road – Windows:

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 16, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

Zgonena – Ridge Road – Paint Color Change & Renovations:

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

Zgonena – Tower Hill Road – Site Work:

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Zgonena responded “a bunch”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 2, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Window samples were also requested.

Other Business:

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 5th, 2010

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

CHESNEY – 30 Lorillard Road – House Addition

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

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

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

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

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

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

WITTE – Tower Hill Loop

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

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

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

BIAGIONI – 35 West Lake Stable Road – Exterior Renovations

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

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

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

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

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

SANTANA/STEYER – 24 Tower Hill Road – Pool Construction

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

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

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

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

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

ALDERISIO

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 14th, 2010

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

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

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

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

Laukitis – 16 Brook Rd. – Landscaping:

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 26th, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 20th, 2010

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review July 20, 2010

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 1, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review June 1, 2010

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 18, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review May 18, 2010

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 20, 2010

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

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

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

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

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review April 20, 2010

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

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review April 6, 2010

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 2, 2010

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 2, 2010

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 19, 2010

Board of Architectural Review
January 19, 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OTHER - Scheduling Conflict

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Opening on the Village Board of Architectural Review

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

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

Thank you,
Houston Stebbins
Mayor

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 5, 2010

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 1, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The meeting adjourned at 7:50 p.m.

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 17, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

MINUTES

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

The meeting adjourned at 7:14 p.m.

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 3, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 20, 2009

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 15, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 1, 2009

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 4, 2009

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 21. 2009

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

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

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

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

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

back to top

line

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

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

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 7, 2009

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

All members present. Attorney Golden arrived at 8:20 PM due to a family emergency.

Alderisio: Board had completed its on site visit. Applicant had revised its application and modified some of the proposed designs based upon previous Board meetings and comments. After a thorough discussion of these changes, the Board voted unanimously to approve this project as revised.

Christensen: Board had completed its site visit. Applicant revised its application and modified some of the proposed designs based upon previous Board meetings and comments. After a thorough discussion of repairs to be made to windows, doors, color, and proposed demolition needed, the Board voted unanimously to approve this project.

Beard - Dock: Although the Board unanimously approved the design, distance from shoreline, and materials to be used in the construction of applicant’s seasonal dock, the exact location of said dock has been left to the Board Of Trustees to determine since the applicant has two separate, adjoining shoreline lots.

Beard – Home: Board site visit had been completed here. This application is a complete demolition and the revised application now reflects a building design that mirrors the existing foundation footprint. The demolition, revised design, materials to be used, landscaping, colors and estimated completion time were all discussed. The Board voted unanimously to approve this project.

Dangoor: The Applicant presented revised plans reflecting Board input from previous meetings. The Board voted unanimously to approve this project.

King: This was the applicant’s initial meeting. By way of background, theapplicant purchased a non-conforming one-story cottage designed solely for seasonal use that has been vacant for several years and has no working water supply. Thus, no Certificate of Occupancy was issued at the time of purchase, and the applicant knew the property usage potential was seasonal only. The cottage has no insulation. Access to the cottage is by a pedestrian path only. Thus, no vehicle access exists. The Village Code is very clear that no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued unless said structure has running water. Since the applicant’s cottage is totally surrounded by private property, they will need to work out an agreement with at least one neighbor to obtain water access. The Board listened to the applicant’s restoration plans for this property. A site visit needs to be undertaken by the Board, although it can take no action on the applicant’s plans until the water access issue is resolved.

Honor/Cohen: This was the applicant’s initial meeting with the Board to discuss the construction of a swimming pool and they were seeking Board input on the tentative plans. A detailed discussion took place regarding the applicant’s desire to have a water slide as an integral part of the pool design. The Board needs to conduct a site visit. The applicant’s pool architect was asked to provide pictures of similar work he has executed, as well as renderings of the proposed pool, and various material samples.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 7, 2009

  1. Alderisio – Vestibule, Screen Porch, Garage Renovation – 25 Mtn. Farm Rd. – 103-1-37.2
  2. Christensen – Skylight, Windows, Painting, Deck Removal – 9 Ridge Rd. – 106-1-51
  3. Beard – Dock – 214 E. Lake Rd. – 105-1-20.21
  4. Beard – Renovations & Addition – 30 Lorillard Rd. – 104-1-40
  5. Dangoor – Relocation of wall, windows, door - 29 Serpentine Rd. – 107-1-96
  6. King – Exterior Renovations - 47 Clubhouse Rd. – 107-1-67
  7. Honor – Pool - 14 Patterson Brook Rd. 103-1-30.3
  8. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Vacancy on the Village Board of Architectural Review

In June of each year, the term of one member on each of our appointed Boards expires. In some cases, the individual member may want to revew his or her service to the Board for another five-year term. In other cases, a vacancy is created when the individual can no longer serve or would like to step down. In all cases, our Board Chairs would like to know of your interest in serving on their Board. In July, the Board of Trustees reviews and votes on all Board appointments after considering the recommendations of each of the Boards.

At present, there is a vacancy on the Board of Architectural Review. If you would like to serve the community and be considered for any appointed Board position, please inform the respective Chairperson by expresssing your interest and forwarding your qualifications. For the Board of Architectural Review, pelase contract Paola Tocci at 351-2060; for the Planning Board, contact JoAnn Hanson at 351-5913; and for the Board of Zoning Appeals, contact Gary Glynn at 212-826-8420. Also, please send a copy of your email to my attention at houstonintuxedo@hotmail.com.

Thank you for your interest in Village government and expressing your interest in serving on one of our Village Boards.

Houston Stebbins
Mayor

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 2, 2009

  1. Alderisio – Vestibule, Screen Porch, Garage Renovation – 25 Mtn. Farm Rd. – 103-1-37.2
  2. Christensen – Skylight, Windows, Painting, Deck Removal – 9 Ridge Rd. – 106-1-51
  3. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 19, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on May 19, 2009 at 7pm.
Board members Robert Simon and Julia Simet were absent.

Beard – Renovation/Addition
On behalf of Mr. Beard, architect Peter Cooper presented detailed plans for a complete renovation as well as an addition to his home at 30 Lorilard Road. A mock-up showing what the wood trim and freeze boards will look like was presented along with sample windows. Mr. Cooper is recommending the use of Azek as opposed wood (as required by the Village Code) for some of the columns associated with the trim as well as the windows. He suggested that Azek holds up over time far better than wood does and recommended that Board consider allowing the use of this material in the Village moving forward. Following a brief discussion on this, Board Chair Paola Tocci commented that the Board would take this request into consideration.
Building Inspector John Ledwith expressed some concern with an oil tank currently located in the front of the house and inquired as to whether or not Mr. Beard plans to examine and/or remove the tank. Additionally, he inquired about dampness in the home and more specifically mold, commenting that this has been an issue with this particular home in the past.
Mr. Cooper responded that the plan is to revisit the shell of the home during construction at which time damaged boards will be replaced.
Board Chair Paola Tocci read a letter written by neighbors Ronald and Elizabeth Reed into the record. While the Reeds recognize that the proposed renovation will be a great improvement to the property, they are very concerned that the second story addition will obstruct and possibly eliminate their view of the Wee Wah. They also expressed concern regarding noise, suggesting that perhaps the construction closest to their property could be done all at one time.
Mr. Cooper commented that it was his understanding that the role of the BAR was to address architecture and aesthetics and that by law they were not permitted to address height or bulk issues. He further commented that for the Board to entertain individual “egregious self serving requests” such as this one and to expect Mr. Beard to revisit his plans as a result of these requests is entirely unreasonable. He reminded the Board that the proposed renovation and addition is entirely within the limits of the law as set forth by the Village Code.
Chair Paola Tocci responded that she had had a conversation with Mr. Reed during which he indicated that he had spoken directly to Mr. Collins and that he had been assured that steps would be taken to see if his concerns could be addressed.
Mr. Collins reiterated that in his view, the BAR would be out of their jurisdiction to consider Mr. Reeds’ concerns and questioned whether or not it was in fact arbitrary and capricious for them to do so.
BAR attorney Rick Golden commented that the definition of arbitrary and capricious is “without foundation in fact or law” and that this situation does not fit that definition. He further commented that the Board is not required to rubber-stamp any project with approval just because it complies with the Village Zoning Code. He stated that while the BAR is bound by the criteria set forth in the Village Code, there are no general rules for the Board.

Mr. Collins responded that he felt the Reeds concerns were unreasonable, stating that the project currently being proposed is drastically smaller in size and scope than the original.
Paola Tocci asked Mr. Collins to please reiterate the Reeds’ concerns to Mr. Beard. She commented that part of the BARs’ job is to listen to comments from neighbors and take them into consideration.
On a different note, Board member Celeste Gebhardt commented that because the neighboring houses are historic homes with traditional finishings, it might be nice if Mr. Beard would consider traditional finishings as well (as opposed to the Azek) in an effort to create homogony in the neighborhood.
The Board will make a site visit to the property within the next few weeks.

Christensen – House Renovations
An architect representing the Christensens presented the Board with rough drawings and simulated before and after photos depicting proposed changes to their property at 9 Ridge Road. The applicant is proposing to replace all aluminum windows with doubled pained windows, replace the roof, remove a second floor balcony and expand a giant window on the front of the home. Additionally, they would like paint several exterior panels, which are currently white, pea green. The Board commented that while all the changes sounded fine, they were somewhat unsettled with the choice of pea green for the exterior panels. A site visit will be scheduled in the next few weeks.

Alderisio – House Renovations
Mr. Alderiso and his architect Peter Cooper presented the Board with proposed plans for renovations to Mr. Alderisio's home at 25 Mountain Farm Road. Plans include connecting the garage to the house so it can be converted into living space, and construction of a new entry vestibule. The Board seemed favorable of the project but told the applicant that they would need to make a site visit.

Farhadian – Modifications to Roof and Porch
Mr. Farhadian and his architect Tobias Guggenheimer came before the Board to present final detailed plans for a proposed renovation to Mr. Farhadians’ home at 7 Brook Farm Road. The renovations call for removal of a section of roof with skylights and reconfiguring it into a porch. After reviewing the final plans and materials to be used in the project, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Shaw – Tree Removal
Mr. Shaw was present to seek approval to remove two additional trees on his property, over the four per year allowed under the Village Code. Mr. Shaw presented a site plan and described the location of the trees to be removed and his reasons for wishing to remove them. After a brief discussion with the Board, which included how the arborist would access the property to remove the trees, the Board voted unanimously to approve the application.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Board Meeting
May 19, 2009

  1. Beard – Renovation/Addition – 30 Lorillard Rd. – 104-1-40
  2. Christensen – House Renovations – 9 Ridge Road – 106-1-15
  3. Alderisio – House Renovations – 25 Mountain Farm Road – 103-1-37
  4. Farhadian – Modifications to Roof and Porch – 7 Brook Farm Rd. – 103-1-13.24
  5. Shaw – Tree Removal – 126 Tower Hill Road – 106-1-15
  6. Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 5, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday May 5 at 7:00pm.
Board members Robert Simon and P.A. Howard were absent.

Dangoor – Pergola
On behalf of the Applicant an architect presented plans for the addition of a pergola on their property at 29 Serpentine Road. Prior to reviewing the plans, he informed the Board that the Applicant has received the necessary variance from the ZBA pending BAR approval. Following a brief discussion regarding whether the wood will be stained or allowed to weather, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

Farhadian – Modifications to Roof and Porch
The Applicant’s architect presented the Board with vague plans for the removal of a greenhouse roof in order to extend a second floor balcony/patio. The Applicant has received a variance from the ZBA because the area of the proposed balcony exceeds that which is permitted by the zoning code. There was a brief discussion with regard to a railing that will connect two sides of the balcony. Following the review, the Board requested that the applicant return to their next meeting with detailed drawings, including all measurements and critical dimensions, which is information they will need in order to vote on the application.

McLain – Air Conditioning Condensers and Outdoor Lighting
An architect and engineer presented the Board with plans for an air conditioning compressor, walkway enhancement and outdoor lighting at the McLain property at 15 Ridge Rd. As per the Board’s recommendation, the Applicant has shifted the proposed air conditioning condenser to the corner of the home furthest from the road, making it much less visible. Additionally, the Applicant is proposing to relay a stone pathway with the addition of guide rails. Finally, an outdoor lighting plan was outlined and discussed.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

McQuilken – Arbor and Gate
As per zoning requirements, the Applicant has received the necessary height variance for their new arbor and gate from the ZBA. After a brief review of the plans, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 5, 2009

  1. Dangoor – Pergola – Serpentine Rd. – 107-1-114
  2. McLain – Air Conditioning Condensers, Lighting – 15 Ridge Rd. – 106-1-53
  3. McQuilkin – Arbor & Gate – Circuit Rd. – 107-1-84
  4. Farhadian – Modifications to Roof and Porch – 7 Brook Farm Rd. – 103-1-13.24
  5. Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 21, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday April 21, 2009 at 7:00pm.
Board members PA Howard and Julia Simet were absent.

Dangoor – 29 Serpentine Rd – Pergola
Due to the fact that there was not proper Owner Representation present, review of this application was moved to the May 5, 2009 meeting.

El-Rayess – Crows Nest Rd – Plan Alterations
With the help of his landscape architect, Mr. El-Rayes presented the Board with alternative plans for a previously approved swimming pool and stone wall to be constructed at his new residence on Crows Nest Road. The proposed alterations include moving the pool further away from the road and into the sunlight as well as doubling the height of a stone wall. Additionally, Mr. El-Rayes would alike to install a hot tub. While these changes would result in a slight change to the line of disturbance, there are no zoning issues with the proposed plan. After a brief discussion, the Board determined that they would like to make another site visit before moving forward. They requested that the applicant submit structural plans for their review.

back to top

line

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

  1. McQuilkin – Gate & Arbor - 81 Circuit Rd. – 107-1-85
  2. Dangoor – Pergola – 29 Serpentine Rd. – 107-1-96
  3. El-Rayess – Alterations to Plans (pool, planting area, stone wall, post lights) – Crow's Nest Rd. - 105-1-8

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 7, 2009

The Board of Architectural Review met on April 7, 2009 at 7pm. All members were present.

Farhadian – Removal of Skylights and Porch Addition – 7 Brook Farm Rd.

An architect for the Applicant presented the Board with plans for renovations, including the removal of a portion of the roof in order to extend a second floor balcony/patio. A variance from the BZA will be required, as the area of the proposed extended balcony will exceed that which is permitted by the zoning code. This application has already been filed. The Board expressed their unanimous support of the proposed changes and will write a letter of recommendation on the Applicant’s behalf to be submitted to the BZA.

Love – Cottage Renovations – Circuit Rd.

An architect for the Applicant presented the Board with plans outlining a gut renovation of the home. After some discussion regarding various aspects of the plans, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Beard – Demolition & New Construction – 30 Lorillard Rd.

The Applicant’s architect presented the Board with a preliminary plan for major renovations to the property including a small addition to the first floor of the home as well as a second floor addition. Previous, more aggressive plans have been abandoned in favor of a more simple design with the intent of respecting the home’s current footprint while making the property more attractive. After some discussion the Board expressed unanimous support for the project and granted the applicant approval to proceed with a schematic plan.

Witte – New Construction – Tower Hill Loop

The Village Planning Board was invited to participate in the discussion regarding the Witte application for the purpose of moving the application along in a more expeditious manor. Because the proposed home has been sited on a ridgeline, a viewshed study has been completed by the BZA as part of the process and submitted to the Planning Board as a directive. During the Planning Board review process, it was determined that the simulation drawing was not verifiable. Therefore, before moving forward with their review, the Planning Board felt it necessary to have the BAR review the proposed design in terms of it’s visual impact (total mass and height of the structure) and determine whether or not they felt any major changes to the design will be necessary. This will provide the Planning Board with a firmer sense of what will actually be built and therefore provide them with helpful information toward their determining the house siting and area of site disturbance.

On behalf of Mr. Witte, his architect Mr. Collins presented initial plans for the new home on Tower Hill Loop. There was a great deal of discussion with regard to the removal of trees, and Mr. Witte commented that he has decided not to remove any trees for the purpose of providing a lake view. The variance granted to Mr. Witte by the BZA was conditional upon his agreeing not to remove trees from the viewshed, however members of both Boards expressed concern that Mr. Witte be allowed to remove some trees, some of which are dying and a few whose roots are posing a direct threat to a stone road-wall. After some further discussion regarding various differences between the renderings and the plans as well as various architectural aspects of the project, the BAR expressed their unanimous support of the application as presented.

Simet – Addition – 40 East Lake Stable Road

The Applicant and her architect presented revised plans for addition to her home on East Lake Stable Road. Various aspects of the plan including the location of a propane tank, the addition of an air conditioning unit, the burying of a utility line and the construction of a new chimney were briefly discussed.

The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 7, 2009

  1. Farhadian – 7 Brook Farm Rd. – Removal of Skylights and Porch Addition – 103-1-13.24
  2. Love – Circuit Rd. – Cottage Renovations – 107-1-84
  3. Beard – 30 Lorillard Rd. – Demolition & New Construction – 104-1-40
  4. Witte – Tower Hill Loop – New Construcion – 107-1-12.21
  5. Simet – 40 East Lake Stable Rd. – Addition 106-1-34

back to top

line

March 17 Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Cancelled

Please be advised that the March 17, 2009 BAR meeting has been canceled due to the lack of any agenda items.

The next scheduled meeting of the BAR is April 7, 2009 at 7:00 p.m.

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review March 3, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on March 3, 2009 at 7pm.
Board Chair Paola Tocci, and Board Member P.A. Howard were absent. BAR attorney Rick Golden was also absent.

Tuxedo Park School – Electric Solar Panels
Jim Berger and his architect Jeffrey Lane appeared before the Board in order to continue the application to install solar panels on the roof of the School. They completed Part 1 of the EAF (Environmental Impact Form) as requested at the previous BAR meeting. The Board reviewed their answers and then moved on to answer the questions in Part 2 of the EAF as required. After some discussion the Board determined that the environmental impact from the proposed project is minor, and that no changes to the plans are required. Therefore, the project was given a negative declaration in connection with the EAF. The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the project.

Sendowski – New Construction
The Applicant and her architect were present. The application is a continuation of a previous application for the construction of a new home on Lookout Stable Road, which was previously before the combined PB/BAR in early 2006. At that time, based on a preliminary design, the Planning Board approved the maximum build-able envelope for the home. The purpose for the applicant’s return to the BAR is for a preliminary review of an entirely new design. The applicant's architect discussed the general aspects of the new design with the Board. Building Inspector Ledwith informed the applicant they would need to provide proof that the new design fits within the approved maximum build-able envelope. Engineer Carl Stone requested a new storm water plan and also confirmation that the previous waste water management plan met the requirements of the new design. Building Inspector Ledwith informed the BAR that there had been some recent complaints about low water pressure from neighbors in the area near the property. The Board will conduct a site visit and advised the applicant to return to the BAR with he requested information as well as more detailed plans for the project.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 3, 2009

  1. Tuxedo Park School – 150 Camp Comfort Rd. – Electric Solar Panels – 107-1-107
  2. Love – 82 Circuit Rd. – Renovation – 107-1-84
  3. Sendowski – Lookout Stable Rd. – New Construction – 107-1-114

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 3, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on February 3, 2009 at 7:00pm.
Chair Paola Tocci and Board member P.A. Howard were absent.

Tuxedo Park School – Solar Electric Panels
On behalf of T.P.S. Head Master Jim Burger presented plans for the addition of solar electric panels on the roof at the school. The Installation of the panels is an effort on the part of the school to “go green” and also reduce electricity costs. The proposed panels will be gravity based and therefore will not penetrate the existing roof.
After some brief discussion regarding the reflectivity of the panels and wind calculations, it was determined that Mr. Burger must complete an Environmental Assessment form before the Board can move forward with approving the project. Additionally, the Board decided that they would like to complete a Visual Impact Assessment form as part of the SEQRA process at their next meeting.

Dangoor – Pergola
Architects for Mr. Dangoor presented the Board with preliminary plans for a pergola at their residence on Serpentine road.
Board member Robert Simon questioned the area of the proposed project commenting that should the proposed structure extend beyond the existing footprint, it will be non-conforming in terms of setback and a variance will be required.
Otherwise, the Board had nothing but positive feedback to offer.
Mr. Dangoor’s architects commented that they would report back to Mr. Dangoor with the Board’s concerns.

Farhadian – Juliet Balcony & Window
Representatives for Mr. Farhadian presented the Board with slight modifications to the existing application, which include removing a separation between two balconies in order to create a Juliet balcony as well as the addition of a window.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving these modifications.

Love (McQuilken) – Renovation
Architects for Mr. McQuilken and Mrs. Love presented plans for the renovation of a carriage house at 68 Circuit Road. The renovation will include a comprehensive restoration of the exterior (new roof, windows and stucco) in conjunction with interior work. The Board agreed to schedule a site visit.

McQuilken – Gate and Arch
An architect for Mr. McQuilken presented the Board with a minor change to the previously approved plan. The Applicant would like to construct a gate at the end of their driveway and also add a 9 ft decorative arch. A variance will be required for the latter. The Board expressed their support for the application and encouraged the applicant to proceed to the BZA for the necessary variance.

Simet – 2 Story Addition
The Applicant and her architect presented the Board with plans for a two story addition to her home at 40 E. Lake Stable Rd.. The addition will include a new living room, sit-in dining room and formal entrance for the home. Also included in the plan are a wooden fence with a gate to allow separation between the driveway and side yard, the construction of a utilities shed, relocation of an existing propane tank, installation of central air and expansion of the driveway to allow for a 3-car parking area. The Applicant also plans to install a new fireplace with chimney and expand the current porch to wrap around the side of the house. She has selected wall-mounted light fixtures which she would like to install on either side of the living room windows as well as at the entrance to the mud room. Plans to expand the basement were discussed. Additionally, the Applicant mentioned her desire to eliminate an existing utility pole located in the center of her yard and bury the utility lines.
The Board will schedule a site visit.

back to top

line

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

  1. Tuxedo Park School - 150 Camp Comfort Rd. - Solar Electric panels - 107-1-107
  2. Dangoor - 29 Serpentine Rd. - Pergola - 107-1-96
  3. Farhadian - 7 Brook Farm Rd. - Juliet Balcony & Window - 103-1.13.24
  4. Love (McQuikin) - 68 Circuit Rd. - Renovation - 107-1-84
  5. McQuilkin - 82 Circuit Rd. - Gate & Arach - 107-1-85
  6. Simet - 40 E. Lake Stable Rd. - 2 Story Adddition - 106-1-34
  7. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 6, 2009

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on January 6, 2009 at 7pm.
Board member Robert Simon was absent.

Lin – Lorillard Rd. – Landscaping Changes
The Applicant’s architect presented amended plans for the project, which directly addressed concerns expressed by the BAR at their previous meeting. After some brief discussion the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the project conditional upon the Applicant’s upholding the variance granted them by the BZA as well as their agreeing to keep construction 2-3 feet away from manhole covers located on the property.

Dangoor – Serpentine Rd – New Driveway and Gates
Architects for the Applicant presented detailed drawings of the proposed new driveway and gates. T he Applicant plans to cut a hole in the existing stone wall and create a new, primary entrance with gate for the residence. Landscaping as well as the distance between the existing wall and the new gate were briefly discussed.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving project conditional upon the Applicant’s agreement that no lighting changes or improvements be made without further BAR approval.

back to top

line

Agenda for January 6 Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting

  1. Lin - Lorillard Rd. - Landscaping changes - 104-1-41
  2. Dangoor - Serpentine Rd. - New driveway and gates. - 107-1-96

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 2, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on December 2, 2008.
All members were present.

McClain – Ridge Rd. – AC Compressor
The Applicant presented photographs showing proposed locations for an AC compressor. Placement of the compressor is particularly difficult as the property can be viewed on all sides from 3 different roads. After some brief discussion, the Board recommended that the compressor be located on the corner opposite from that which had been proposed. The Applicant was asked to return to the BAR with a screening plan for the compressor.

Lin – Lorillard Rd. – Changes to Approved Plans
The Applicant’s architect presented several changes to the approved plans including front entrance and window modifications. In addition, the Applicant would like change a previously approved stone retaining wall to a concrete wall with a stone veneer and due to the discovery of two manholes in close proximity to the wall, would like to shift it 4 feet. The Board asked that the neighbors be notified of these proposed changes and requested that the applicant return to the next meeting with finalized plans.

Dangoor – Serpentine Rd. – Driveway
Architects for the Applicant presented renderings for a new driveway. The Applicant hopes to cut a hole in the existing stone wall and create a new, primary entrance with gate for the residence. Materials for the new gate along with loose landscaping plans were discussed. The Board requested that the Applicant return to the next meeting with a formal presentation complete with dimensions for the project.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 2, 2008

  1. Mclain - Ridge Rd. – AC Compressor, Entranceway, Railing, Light - 106-1-53
  2. Lin – Lorillard Rd. – Driveway – 104-1-61
  3. Dangoor – Serpentine Rd. – Driveway – 107-1-96
  4. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 4, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, November 4, 2008 at 7pm.

Bartlett - 161 Continental Road - Pool House Renovation
Architects for the Barletts presented plans for revisions to their pool house including interior modifications, the replacement of sliding glass doors with true divided light doors and covering of an existing concrete patio with bluestone.
After some brief discussion, the application was unanimously approved.

197 Wee Wah Road LLC - 197 Wee Wah Rd. – Demolition
Representatives of the 197 Wee Wah Rd LLC appeared before the board to request permission for demolition of the home located on this property. The Board voted unanimously in favor of the demolition. Once approved by the Board of Trustees, the LLC will have 30 days to demolish the home. The demolition work must take place Monday - Friday between the hours of 9am-4pm.

Mclain - Ridge Rd. - AC Compressor, Entranceway, Railing, Lights
The Applicant appeared without plans to discuss the addition of an AC compressor, stone steps with railing and driveway lighting to her property at 15 Ridge Rd. The Board informed the applicant that they had received 3 letters of concern from neighbors. Screening of the AC Compressor was briefly discussed. A site visit will be made and the applicant was asked to return to the Board along with her architect and engineer to present a landscaping plan as well as samples of the materials to be used on the steps and railing.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 4, 2008

  1. Bartlett - 161 Continental Road - Pool House Renovation - 107-1-71
  2. Gazin - Lorillard Rd. - Changes to former approvals (roof replacement, window relocation and new dormers) - 104-1-46.32
  3. 197 Wee Wah Road LLC - 197 Wee Wah Rd. - Demolition - 104-1-43
  4. Mclain - Ridge Rd. - AC Compressor, Entranceway, Railing, Lights, 106-1-53
  5. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 7, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on October 7, 2008 at 7:00pm.
Board Member P.A. Howard was absent

Reporter’s Note: This was an extremely efficiently run meeting, with five applications being handled in thirty minutes.

Ewing – 8 Pepperidge Road – Changing House Exterior Color – Initial Meeting
Applicant requested changing home’s external primary color to cream yellow; the trim to brilliant white; the door to black; and the porch floor to platinum gray. Several board members recalled when the home had been yellow previously, and this request was unanimously approved.

Farhadian – 7 Brook Farm Road – Changing Doors and Windows
BAR members visited site. Applicant and architect presented revised plans to change a number of existing windows, to create a door where currently a window exists, and to add one additional window. New windows will match existing windows. No changes to home’s current footprint were proposed, nor were there any zoning code issues. There were also no structural changes proposed. Applicant’s proposal was unanimously approved.

Bartlett – 161 Continental Road – Pool House Renovation
Applicant’s architect presented revised plans for completely renovating the existing pool house with out changing its footprint. The project would involve a complete re-cladding of both the existing interior and exterior walls. The Board agreed the proposed changes represented a meaningful improvement in the existing structure. However, since only the applicant’s architect was present, and the applicant or his/her representative was not present, the Board was unable to take a final vote on this proposal. Vote postponed until the next BAR meeting.

Rein – 74 Cliff Road - Kitchen Extension + Window Replacement
Applicant’s current home is in the shape of a capital “H”, with the southern portion of the “H” filled in by a previous addition some years ago. Applicant would now like to fill in the northern portion of the “H”, with a kitchen addition and also replace all of the existing windows with more thermal efficient ones. Proposal meets all zoning and set back requirements. The Board expressed pleasure with the proposed project as revised from previous BAR meeting. Applicant’s proposal was unanimously approved.

Mcquilken/Love – 82 Circuit Road – Exterior Renovation – Initial Meeting
Applicant proposing a total exterior renovation of the entire secondary home behind the main residence/stable, to include rebuilding the existing roof using slate and repairing, replacing, repointing all exterior stone and brick work. Board was encouraging about this proposal. Applicant will bring detailed plans a specifications book to next meeting.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 7, 2008

  1. Ewing – 8 Pepperidge Rd. – Changing house color – 106-1-39
  2. Farhadian – 7 Brook Farm Rd. – Change in Doors & Windows - 103-1-13.24
  3. Bartlett – 161 Continental Road – Pool House Renovation – 107-1-71
  4. Rein – 74 Cliff Road – Kitchen Extension – 106-1-76
  5. Love – 82 Circuit Road – Exterior Renovation – 107-1-84
  6. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 16, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on September 16, 2008.
All members present

Beard – 21 Laurel Road - Railing & Landscaping
The Applicant and architect presented a complete set of plans for proposed site work. Prior to this meeting, the Board had conducted a site visit. The Village Counsel, Engineer and Inspector had no comments. The Applicant will be adding some additional steps to existing stairs leading to road plus a black handrail, and properly finishing the existing steps. The Applicant’s plans will improve the property’s overall drainage. The plans were unanimously approved and the Stop Work Order thus lifted.

Simet – 40 East Lake Stable Road – Addition – Initial Meeting
The Applicant’s existing home has a footprint of less than 1,000 square feet and is on a small parcel of land. The initial plans called for creating parking space for three vehicles, enlarging the existing small kitchen, and adding on to the existing second floor to create a larger master bedroom along with two children’s bedrooms. Waivers from the Board of Zoning Appeals will be needed regarding the non-conforming lot, both rear and side set backs, and total square footage. The Village Building Inspector will write an initial denial letter, which is necessary for the Applicant to appeal to the BZA. The Board will then write a letter recommending that the waivers be granted based upon the Applicant’s proposed plans.

Farhadian – 7 Brook Farm Road – Changing doors and windows – Initial Meeting
The Applicant and architect presented plans to change a number of existing windows, create a door where currently a window exists, and to add one additional window. No changes to the home’s current footprint were proposed, nor were there any zoning code issues. There were also no structural changes proposed. The Applicant plans to return to present the Board with some additional revisions to the current proposal and the BAR will then schedule a site visit.

Bartlett – 161 Continental Road – Pool House Renovation – Initial meeting
The Applicant’s architect presented plans for a complete renovation of the existing pool house with out changing its footprint. The project would involve a complete re-cladding of both the existing interior and exterior walls. The Board was in agreement that the proposed changes represent a meaningful improvement in the existing structure. A site visit will be scheduled.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting
September 16, 2008

  1. Beard - Laurel Rd. - Site Work - 107.-1-74.1 & 107-1-75.2
  2. Simet - 40 East Lake Stable Road - Addition - 106-1-34
  3. Farhadian - 7 Brook Farm Rd. - Change in Doors & Windows - 103-1-13.24
  4. Bartlett - 161 Continental Road - Pool House Renovation - 107-1-71
  5. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 2, 2008

All members present [four since Mrs. Hempel’s replacement has not yet been appointed.]

Rein – Kitchen extension + windows; Initial Meeting:
Applicant’s current home is in the shape of a capital “H”, with the southern portion of the “H” filled in by a previous addition some years ago. Applicant would now like to fill in the northern portion of the “H”, with a kitchen addition and also replace most of the existing windows with more thermal efficient ones. Applicant appeared with the architect and initial plans. No BZA waiver appears to be required here. The Board’s general feeling was this proposed addition and window replacement had positive potential, and suggestions about materials and sky light fixtures will be reflected in a more detailed applicant presentation at the next meeting.

Granito – Driveway:
The Applicant had recently completed a mitigation of the Belgium blocks leading out to the roadway from the home’s original property boundary stonewall, by eliminating them. This was done at the request of the BAR at its August meeting. All Board members had seen the final results of this mitigation, and after discussion about the appropriateness of staining the remaining Belgium blocks verses letting them age, it was agreed to simply let them age. A vote was then taken approving the changes the applicant has made to the driveway.

Beard – Railing & Landscaping:
A stop work order pertaining to exterior substantive property changes that had not previously been reviewed and approved by BAR is still in force. Applicant seeks to move some earth berms and improve property water drainage. BAR requested applicant to provide landscape architect and engineering drawings. A BAR site visit was conducted since the last meeting. However, applicant failed to appear at this meeting, so no action of any type was taken.

A general discussion took place in regards to a proposed moratorium on all new construction on what may potentially be defined as a ridge line or precipice. Said moratorium has not yet been enacted by the Village Board of Trustees, but will be fully reviewed at its September meeting. Moratoriums of this nature are effective for up to nine months, and can be extended once for an additional three months. If Village Board passes a moratorium, it is expected to be prospective and not retroactive.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 2, 2008

  1. Beard - Laurel Rd. - Site Work - 107-1-74.1 & 107-1-75.2
  2. Rein - Cliff Rd. - Kitchen Extension - 106-1-76
  3. Granito - Tuxedo Rd. - Driveway Alteration - 106-1-29.2
  4. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 5, 2008

The Village Board of architectural review met on August 5, 2008. All members were present.

Tuxedo Club – Lighting:
Lighting plans for the Main Club and pool area were presented. Although the total number of fixtures proposed will only be increased by three [24 older fixtures are to be replaced], the amount of lumens emitted by the new proposed fixtures will almost double the existing lumens. Because the estimated project cost of $12,000 exceeded the limit for projects not requiring architecture and engineering drawings by only $2,000, the requirement for architect and engineering drawings was waived. Project approved.

Mengel – Landscaping & Lighting:
The Applicant came back with revised plans reflecting prior comments by the BAR. The Applicant recently received all requested BZA variance waivers. Revised plans for lighting, landscaping, driveway, outside walls and stairs were reviewed. After some on-the-spot revisions, the plans were voted on. Project approved.

Beard – Railing & Landscaping:
The Applicant appeared based upon a stop work order pertaining to exterior substantive property changes that had not previously been reviewed and approved by the BAR. The Applicant seeks to move to earth berms and improve property water drainage. The Applicant requested permission to provide landscape architect and engineering drawings, to be followed by a BAR site visit.

Lin – Garage, French Doors, Landscaping & Terrace:
The Applicant reappeared with revised plans to reflect suggested changes by BAR at previous meetings. The Board voted upon these plans subject to the most recent changes and conditions. Project approved.

Graetzer – Changes to an approved plan:
Although the Applicant’s existing BAR approved plan called for the installation of a small section of property fencing as well as permission to place a tool shed on the property, the Applicant appeared before the Board to ask for relief from executing both of these items. The Board discussed the concept of “essential items”, and concluded in this case, that neither of the two items now unwanted by the Applicant, failed to meet the “essential elements” test, and thus approved the request.

Gwathmey – Garage, Stonewall, & Landscaping:
The Applicant returned with revised plans reflecting the BAR’s most recent comments. This application dates back to November 2005. After BZA variances were granted and numerous meetings with the BAR, the Board voted on the most recent plan revisions. Project approved.

Marcus – Garage & Pond:
The Applicant submitted revised plans reflecting prior BAR meetings, that included a corner garage door, as well as a two foot-deep pond and revised andscaping plans. After discussion on the revisions, the Board voted. Project approved.

Granito – Driveway:
After much discussion by Board members about what elements of the Applicant’s rebuilt driveway needed to be either redone or eliminated, it was agreed that the Belgium blocks leading out to the roadway from the home’s original property boundary stonewall, would be eliminated. While the elevated apron just inside the stonewall entrance would remain.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 5, 2008

  1. Mengel - West Lake Road - 103-1-32 - Landscaping, LIghting
  2. Lin - Lorillard Road - 104-1-61 - Garage, French Doors & Landscaping
  3. Tuxedo Club - East Lake Rd. - 107-1-3 - Lighting
  4. Beard - Laurel Rd. - 107-1-74.1 - Railing, Landscaping
  5. Graetzer - Clubhouse Road - 107-1-59 - Changes to Approved plan
  6. Gwathmey - Clubhouse Road - 104-1-49 - Garage, Stonewall, Landscaping
  7. Marcus - Turtle Mtn. Road - 103-1-9.2 - Garage
  8. Granito - Tuxedo Road - 106-1-29 - Driveway
  9. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 15, 2008

  1. Devereux - Lorillard Rd. - Fence Replacement - 104-1-50
  2. Gwathmey - Clubhouse Rd. - Garage, Landscaping - 104-1-49
  3. Tuxedo Club - West Lake Rd. - Docks - 107-1-3
  4. Tuxedo Club - West Lake Rd. - Lighting - 107-1-3

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 1, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on July 1, 2008 at 7:00pm.
All Board members were present.

Board Chair Paola Tocci opened the meeting by welcoming new board member Jackie Urra. Jackie was appointed to the BAR by the Board of Trustees in the month of June to fill seat left vacant when former Board Chair Chiu Yin Hempel resigned and Vice Chair Paola Tocci moved up to the Chair position.

Applicant Gwathmy was removed from the agenda as their architect was unable to attend the meeting.

Diem – Landscaping
Modifications to the original landscaping plan, including the option for stone steps, construction of entrance pillars and alterations to an existing ruin (stone header), were discussed. All modifications were approved by the Board with the condition that the stone header be deconstructed by hand and a fence installed bellow it for safety purposes.

Lin - Garage, terrace
The Architect for applicant Lin presented and reviewed plans for a new garage. In addition, the applicant would like to remove an existing wooden deck as well as a detached 1-car garage and replace them with a new terrace and enclosed out door play area. As the property in question sits on a hillside and construction will involve some grading changes as well as moderate driveway alterations, drainage concerns were discussed. Village Engineer Richard Messer expressed a desire for more detailed information with regard to grading and drainage, specifically the redirection of potential runoff. It was agreed that the Applicant will gather the necessary information and present more detailed drainage plans at the first meeting of the BAR in August.

Zgonena - Garage, Changes to house design
The Architect for Applicant Zgonena reviewed plans for changes to their home design as well as garage reconstruction. As the applicant received all the necessary variances from the Village Board of Zoning appeals, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 1, 2008

  1. Diem - Summit Rd. - Landscaping
  2. Gwathmey - Clubhouse Rd. - Garage, Landscaping
  3. Zgonena - Circuit Rd. - Garage, Changes to house design
  4. Lin - Lorillard Rd. - Garage, terrace
  5. Marcus - West Lake Rd. - Garage addition
  6. Devereux - Lorillard Rd. - Fence

back to top

line

BAR Appointments Come into Question at Monthly Meeting

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on June 3, 2008 at 7pm.

All Board members were present with the exception of Board Chair C.Y. Hempel, who resigned last week

Prior to the first applicant being heard, there was a discussion about David McFadden’s written comments to the effect that Acting Chair Paola Tocci had been appointed in secret by Mayor Stebbins, and such “backroom dealing like this is a violation of the spirit of the municipal government’s Sunshine and Open Meetings Laws.” Building Inspector Ledwith passed out a memo regarding his interpretation of Village Code 100-51 (c) in that Board of Architectural Review appointments are to be made by a decision of the Board of Trustees. Attached to the memo were the minutes from the Board of Trustees meeting dated March 21 2007, indicating that then Mayor McFadden appointed PA Howard to the Board of Architectural Review without any Trustee approval or public candidate search. [An additional review of past Board of Trustees minutes shows that then Mayor McFadden appointed entire committees {specifically the Transition Advisory Committee - BOT minutes date October 19, 2005} without seeking Trustee approval or consensus of any kind.]

Applicant Granito – Stop work order: Applicant’s driveway and curbing being rebuilt without prior Board review. The stop work order was upheld pending a site visit. The Board agreed that the work performed was not part of any prior BAR approval. The Board informed the applicant that they will perform a site visit during the month of June, and asked them to return to the next BAR meeting scheduled on July 1, 2008 at 7:00 p.m.

Applicant Mengel – Driveway, Retaining Wall & External Stairway plus Lighting: The Applicant reviewed in detail waivers recently obtained from BZA, although written confirmation of same have not yet been sent to BAR. After detailed discussion, the Applicant asked to return with a material’s specifications book; external lighting plans; driveway Belgium block sample(s); and written confirmation of the BZA waivers regarding the external stairway and retaining wall.

Per information below, Peter Ashby Howard was appointed without BOT vote*.

BAR appointments

BOT minutes March 2, 2007

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 3, 2008

  1. Granito - Tuxedo Rd. - Driveway - Stop Work Order issued
  2. Mengel - West Lake Rd. - Landscaping

back to top

line

CHIU YIN HEMPEL RESIGNS FROM BAR

Effective May 27th, Chiu Yin Hempel resigned from the Board of Architectural Review, on which she served under Mayors Kroeber, McFadden and Stebbins. When a question was raised about non-US citizens serving on NY State Town/Village Boards in an appointed capacity, and this legal issue was properly researched by BAR attorney Golden, it was discovered that US citizenship is one of the requirements for serving on any such Boards. Mrs. Hempel learned of this yesterday and, in light of her United Kingdom citizenship, immediately offered her resignation to Mayor Stebbins, who regretfully accepted it.

TPfyi believes it speaks for all of our residents in thanking Mrs. Hempel for her many years of service on the BAR, as well as for the high standard of impartiality that she set as Chairman of this Board for the last eleven months. Thank you Chiu Yin!

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 20, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on May 20, 2008 at 7pm.
Board member Simon was absent.

Applicant Dangoor: Last appeared on January 2, 2008 - Driveway application

Key comments from prior meeting were reviewed. The Applicant presented several driveway design concepts and asked the Board to review prior to presenting a final plan. These concepts included wall heights and designs as well as the number of walls to be used. The Board commented on drainage, amount of fill required, the need for wall design to incorporate natural contours and to minimize site disturbance. A modular wall design was also reviewed along with the driveway entrance pillar design.

Applicant Gwathmey: Last appeared on March 4, 2008 – Garage and driveway application

The Board used the Applicant’s letter of May 9, 2008, which summarized in detail the issues raised at the prior applicant meeting, starting with the amount of fill the revised design concept would require and the amount of site disturbance (ground fill and tree cutting) needed for plans execution. The Village Engineer stated that most of the previous engineering issues have been addressed in the revised plan. The applicant suggested a retaining wall concept to further minimize the revised plan concept, which the Board liked. The applicant will return with a plan in final form.

After a brief Board discussion about noise levels being reduced by the Tuxedo Club’s new fan venting and landscaping design on the exterior east wall of the Club kitchen, the meeting adjourned.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 20, 2008

  1. Dangoor - Serpentine Rd. - Driveway - 107-1-96
  2. Gwathmey - Clubhouse Rd. - Garage & Landscaping - 104-1-049
  3. Review of 2006 Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting, May 6, 2008

Members Howard and Simon absent

Applicant Sammann: Last appeared on 4/15. This Application was revised to reflect previous meeting Board suggestions in regards to proposed shrubbery, drainage, driveway, and wall. Applicant’s architect provided detailed information, to include drawings, of how the proposed stonewall would look and be constructed to include wall ends and wall’s scale. Wall set back was fixed at three feet with input from the Village DPW. Finalized applicant plans were approved subject to a number of conditions to include construction of a stonewall sample section; notifying Orange & Rockland of wall plans; providing an as built survey to be followed by a completion survey; and the incorporation of the existing rock outcroppings into the planned wall.

Applicant Lin: Last appeared on 4/15. Applicant asked at previous meeting to appear again before the BAR to review plans prior to seeking multiple BZA waivers. Current plans were scaled back to from prior meeting to address Board concerns. At this meeting, there was considerable discussion regarding size and composition of the existing asphalt driveway. Regarding the proposed landscaping plan, the Board suggested retaining a landscape architect who is familiar with the Village deer problem. Applicant will next proceed to the BZA.

Applicant Mengel: New home construction. Applicant presented a sample of the wrought iron railing they wanted to use. Since there were no code related issues and the neighbors had been notified, none of the three Board members present objected to the proposed rail design.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 6, 2008

  1. Sammann - Landscaping
  2. Lin - Landscaping, doors, garage
  3. Mengel - Railing change from approved plans
  4. Mengel - Landscaping
  5. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 15, 2008

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on April 15, 2008.
All members were present.

Applicant Worthy: Last appeared on April 1. Neighbors were notified of proposed painting changes. There were no comments. Application was approved unanimously by the Board in less than three minutes.

Applicant McQuilkin: Last appeared on April 1. Board reviewed a laundry list of points raised in prior meeting pertaining to a Landscaping Application pertaining to shrubbery, a parking area, and stonework to include a stonewall. Application was approved unanimously, subject to a review of a sample portion of the proposed stonewall, Application was approved unanimously.

Applicant Sammann: Last appeared on April 1. This Application was revised to only include proposed shrubbery, driveway, and wall. The Board requested that the Applicant’s architect return to the next meeting with detailed information, including drawings constructed to include wall ends and wall’s scale and to show
how the proposed stonewall would look.

Applicant Lin: Last appeared on 4/1. Since this meeting, the Board completed a site visit, and identified a number of code issues to include lot size and non-compliant front, side and rear structure setbacks. In addition the proposed deck addition would exceed current Village standards. All of these will require BZA waivers prior to work commencing. Applicant asked to appear again before the Board of Architectural Review to further fine-tune its application before proceeding onto the BZA, and the Board agreed to this request.

Applicant Zgonena: Applicant desires to meaningfully update and restore the existing structure. The Board was supportive of the applicants desire to totally rebuild the existing garage and slightly expand it as well as adding porch stairs to house’s front and expanding existing house porch. The entire property is substandard, so there is a catalogue of issues that will need BZA waivers before proceeding. Materials to be used, specifications, and landscaping were all discussed and applicant’s ideas appeared to be well received. Projects that could proceed not needing a BZA waiver were also reviewed.

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review April 15, 2008

  1. Worthy - Painting - Clubhouse Rd. - 107-1-27
  2. McQuilkin - Landscaping - Circuit Rd. - 107-1-85
  3. Sammann - Landscaping - Clubhouse Rd. - 107-1-41
  4. Lin - Garage/Deck/Terrace - Lorillard Rd. - 104-1-61
  5. Zgonena - Additions/Garage Modifications - 106-1-57.2
  6. Proposed Viewshed Legislation

back to top

line

Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting Tuesday
April 1, 2008

McQuilkin - Landscaping - Circuit Rd. - 107-1-85
Lin - Garage/Deck/Terrace - Lorillard Rd. - 104-1-61
Review of Minutes

back to top

 





www.tpfyi.com