Recent Village News
Board of Trustees

Planning Board
Board of Architectural Review
Board of Zoning Appeals


Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 17, 2017

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, October 17 at 7pm.  All members were present.

Village of Tuxedo Park/Police Station - 1 Tuxedo Rd. - 108-1-12 - Brick Chimney:
On behalf of the Village, John Ledwith presented the Board with plans to remove an old brick chimney, no longer in use, from the Police Station.  After minimal discussion, the BAR gave the plan a favorable review and Mr. Ledwith responded that he would bring this back to the Trustees so that they could proceed with the formal process.

Tuxedo Park Properties - 76 Summit Rd. - 104-1-9 - Garage Doors, New Garage:
The applicant presented the Board with a detailed review of the extensive renovation efforts at 76 Summit Road.  Since purchasing the property, a great deal of work has been done including substantial cleanup efforts on the interior of the building as well as the exterior. The inside was essentially gutted as asbestos was discovered in the plaster and needed to be removed.  All of the windows were removed and restored and a new cedar roof was installed.  Rotting trim was removed and replaced and stucco was restored.  A wrought iron fence was also replaced. He is now looking to cut 4 garage doors into the stucco siding and install new, swinging carriage style doors, similar in style yet not identical to the ones at the Regna carriage house, on the home.  These will have a wood exterior and be painted to match the exterior of the house.

Pictures depicting the property both before and after the applicant began restoration were then presented and reviewed.  Also presented were photos of the proposed garage doors.

Additionally, the applicant commented that the large, barn style doors on the front of the house have been damaged beyond repair, so they are proposing to replace them with custom made steel and glass doors, which would be installed on both the front and back of the house directly across from each other, creating an open “pass-through” space in the center of the home which would serve as a Main Hall/entryway. .

Commenting that she did not have any questions with regard to the garage doors, Deputy Chair Julia Simet inquired as to whether or not there had previously been a fireplace and chimney in the home.  

The applicant responded that the stucco chimney that had been there previously had been for the existing boiler and that he had removed this and added a simple, unadorned, 3x6 chimney at the top of the roof, which straddles the ridge.  This will serve a new fireplace, which will be installed in the Great Room on the second floor of the home.  The Chimney is wood framed with stucco on the exterior.  The fireplace will be prefabricated masonry and will not have a foundation down to the second floor as it will be conveniently located over a very large pre-existing steel beam that will run to a B flu vent.  “It will go from being masonry, with a big 5-foot heath(do you mean hearth?), fire box width, up through masonry and at the top it will transition to the B vent and go right out the flu.”

Deputy Chair Simet responded that she felt this was very modest and did not detract in her view.  

With regard to the proposed doors, she stated that she liked the location, although it was a shame that the original doors could not be restored as she feels they are beautiful.
The applicant agreed, but stated that he would be able to remove the glass from the original doors and use it elsewhere in the home, which would allow for period glass everywhere.

Deputy Chair Simet responded that she felt the proposed steel and glass solution was a good one and in keeping with the orderliness of the home.  Sizing of the doors was then briefly discussed as were some of the interior design plans in terms of materials. 

Board Chair Patrick Donaghy inquired of Building Inspector John Ledwith as to whether or not the chimney as described by the applicant was permissible under the design guidelines.

Mr. Ledwith responded that in the past the Village had not allowed for a wood framed chimney.  Historically they have allowed only masonry chimneys from floor to ceiling.  What has been proposed here has neither been allowed nor seen in the past.  More details are needed.  While it has been clearly explained, how the chimney will actually look on the roof is a concern of the BAR.

The applicant responded that it looked as it was depicted in the photographs. 

Chair Donaghy concurred that more details would be needed.

The applicant agreed to provide this.

With regard to the doors, Chair Donaghy commented that they would also need to see shop drawings and material lists before they could move forward with any approval. 

Landscaping and driveway plans were then discussed and it was agreed that although the pictures as presented were helpful, a full site plan would be necessary so that they could ensure that issues such as grade, drainage and storm water control were being properly addressed.

A letter from neighbors Houston Stebbins and Dena Steele was then read into the record.  In the letter Mr. Stebbins and Ms. Steele expressed concern with the fact that plans for the project had not been available to them at the Village Office and therefore they had been unable to review and formulate an opinion as to what was being proposed.  Noting that they had previously contacted the Village with regard to the regulatory review process and supervision of renovations, landscaping and asbestos removal and received no response, they further outlined their concerns as they pertained to project, particularly tree removal, the planting of forsythia along West Summit Road as well as their shared driveway which has obstructed the view of traffic, lighting, traffic flow & parking, the removal of original driveway stone drainage gutters, curbs outlining driveway access to what appears to be newly created parking areas that could interfere with access to their property, snow plowing, aesthetics of curbs outlining driveway access and impact of landscaping and paving on storm water runoff.

Ms. Steele and Mr. Stebbins were present and Chair Donaghy invited them to comment further if they so wished.

Ms. Steele explained that she and Mr. Stebbins had lived next door to the property in question for 24 years and that the driveway, owned by the applicant, is a shared one as it is the only vehicular access that has been permitted to their property.  Originally, they had a concern with regard to the planting of forsythia along the driveway as it blocks the view of traffic coming from the north.  It appears now that the main access to the house is going to be from this shared driveway, which was not historically the case.  They had been surprised to see that the roofing was changed without a BAR meeting.  They understood that technically the project was categorized as a restoration, but they had thought that the BAR would be checking up on the materials etc., to make sure that everything was done to code.   They were never informed of the asbestos removal, nor was there any notice outside that there were toxic materials being removed from the site.  Trees were removed.   At the moment their largest concern lies with the curbing that has been installed right next to the shared driveway, which they feel will surely be hit by the plows.  As it is a shared driveway, they would like the ability to know what is going to happen there, how things will be managed and what their ability to access it during a snowstorm will be.  The space cannot be blocked up with parking as it is the only way they have of getting to their house.  She feels it important that there be some consideration given to the fact that this is an active, shared driveway.  On top of all of this, Ms. Steele commented that she was concerned about the process in general and what appeared to be a lack of project oversight.  Thankfully, it appears that things are going well, but she does not understand why the materials and the design for the chimney etc. were not reviewed by the BAR.

Board Attorney Mike Donnelly responded that a site plan would be forthcoming and that this would outline exactly what was being planned.  He further noted that the shared driveway could have an impact on the application and inquired as to what Ms. Steele’s specific interest was in the driveway.

Ms. Steele responded that they had an easement.

The Applicant interjected that it had been his understanding that the driveway was a secondary access for Ms. Steele and Mr. Stebbins and that his title did not show any such easement whatsoever.

Ms. Steele responded that part of the problem lay with the process, which had not been openly communicated.  She further suggested that they could probably claim eminent domain on the driveway currently as this was the access that had been used for years.

“I don’t meant to be argumentative, but I don’t see that in my title work,” stated the applicant.

“Well, what did you expect us to do?” responded Ms. Steele.

“Nothing,” replied the applicant.  He further commented that he did not take any issue with Ms. Steele’s comments.  Tree removal had been done the year previous after a discussion with the Village.  The forsythia had been planted along the driveway, but if Ms. Steele feels that it blocks the view going north, they could discuss it and he would be willing to amend the situation.

“I informed the Village,” stated Ms. Steele.  “I don’t want to have an exchange or an argument with you about it.  I look to the BAR and the structure here to protect us on this.”  She further noted that a number of significant trees had been planted that very day.
The applicant began to address the driveway issue, commenting that the side of the house in question would ultimately be less active when the project was complete.  Mr. Donolly interrupted him however, stating that if they wanted to discuss these things as neighbors after the meeting the could do so, but for now, they needed to remain focused on the BAR process.

The process in general was then discussed. Mr. Ledwith stated that historically the BAR had given him jurisdiction to approve certain roofing materials (asphalt to cedar or asphalt to slate for example) and that the applicant had approached him in this regard prior to commencing the work. Similarly, the applicant also filed for a permit for the demolition work as well as the asbestos removal.   Currently he was before the BAR in connection with the proposed garage doors, however upon review a site plan has been requested by the BAR in order to ensure that everything falls within the guidelines.
Trustee McHugh reiterated the applicant had followed the correct process with the Village to date.

Mr. Stebbins asked for some clarification that there would be no additions to the exterior plans, which had already been implemented in part, until a site plan with landscape details had been made available to both the BAR and the public so that there would be no more surprises as the project progressed.

Deputy Chair Simet responded that this was the intent.

There followed a discussion about the curbing, which was not approved but has already been installed.  The applicant stated that planting was scheduled for the following day.  Chair Donaghy pointed out that by moving ahead without approval they ran a risk of having things stopped.

Mr. Ledwith concurred, commenting that he wanted to see the plans before anything progressed.

Utilities were briefly discussed.

Bishko - 222 Continental Rd- Design Changes During Construction:
After constructing a deck on their home at 222 Continental Road, the applicant has decided that they would like to make some amendments to the approved plans due to budgetary constraints as well as having hit rock unexpectedly on the site.  Specifically, they are looking to wrap a lattice around what would have previously been an exposed area and re-center a doorway.  They are also looking to eliminate a wrought iron railing along some stone stairs as well as to remove a concrete walkway and replace it with gravel.  There was a somewhat lengthy discussion about the railing removal as the BAR believes that removing said railway could create a dangerous situation.  Ultimately it was determined that the applicant was not required to install the railing and that even though the stairway might be precarious without it, the BAR was not within its jurisdiction to request that it be installed.

Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the amendments as proposed.

Bruner - 134 East Lake Rd. - Rebuild & Enlarge Exiting Stone Patio, Rebuild Stone Wall, Repair Bulk Head, Construct New Retaining Wall:
BAR Member Christian Bruner officially recused himself and came around the table to appear alongside his landscape architect.  Plans to rebuild & enlarge the existing stone patio were presented and discussed as were plans to restore a crumbling stonewall and bulk head along the lake’s shore.  There is currently a dock there, with an existing boat launch (there is a break in the bulkhead with larger stones there) and the Bruners would like to restore this as well and use it as a kayak launch.  In keeping with the Village’s general intention to protect the lake, they are also looking to install a native zone along the shore to help with erosion and to filter out any unwanted chemicals.  In discussing this with their architect, naturalist and stonemason, they have agreed that building a retaining wall will help with this effort while allowing them to have more usable area down by the water.  The proposed patio will be constructed of blue stone. Project details were discussed and it was determined that because the application involved land disturbance within 100 feet of the reservoir, a variance from the BZA would be required before it could proceed.  Engineering comments were presented to the applicant in the form of a memo and it was agreed that these would be addressed.

back to top


Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 17, 2017

  1. Bruner - 134 East Lake Rd. - 105-1-31 - Rebuild & Enlarge Exiting Stone Patio,
    Rebuild Stone Wall, Repair Bulk Head, Construct New Retaining Wall
  2. Tuxedo Park Properties - 76 Summit Rd. - 104-1-9 - Garage Doors, New Garage
    Opening, Enlarging Windows
  3. Bishko - 222 Continental Rd. - 107-1-5 - Design Changes During Construction
  4. Village of Tuxedo Park/Police Station - 1 Tuxedo Rd. - 108-1-12 - Brick Chimney

back to top


Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 19, 2017

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

Board member Christian Bruner was absent.

Giblin-Sink – 34 Tower Hill Road East - Garage Addition with Studio Office:
Revised plans for the project were presented and discussed.  BAR Engineer Pat Hines commented that it appeared as though all of the comments from the previous review had been addressed.  Windows, driveway lighting, gutters and stonework were discussed.  The details of the addition will match those on the existing house.

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

McFadden – 61 Turtle Point Road – Hand Rail, Post and Gate Replacement:
Applicant David McFadden presented the BAR with images of the current pipe-style handrailing in front of his boathouse at 61 Turtle Point Road and requested permission to have an artist come in and do an Adirondack style on the rail, adding an additional piece to the existing rail.  He is proposing the same thing for the handrail that goes down the stairs adjacent to the boathouse on the south side as well as the gate at the end.  The total scope of the projects consists of two handrails and one gate.  The gate is between the lake and the bottom of the steps. 

Board member Shelia Tralins inquired as to whether the neighbors had been noticed.

After a short discussion the answer was unclear, although it was agreed that the BAR could move forward with a review of the design intent. It was noted that the BAR was in receipt of two letters, both received on September 19, with regard to this application.

The fist submission came from Kathy Norris and consisted of one written page and three photographs.   It was noted that while the letter did pertain to Mr. McFadden’s boathouse, it did not have anything to do with the application currently before the BAR for handrails.

The second submission also came from Kathy Norris and consisted of one typed page along with a copy of a letter written by the Village clerk to Rob Zgonena and two photographs.  This subject of this submission also had nothing to do with the application at hand.

Board member Sheila Tralins wondered whether an application was right to come before the BAR if there was arguably an issue of non-compliance with a structure.  She wondered whether the Building Inspector had examined these issues, noting that she knew they had been raised in the past.

Mr. McFadden noted that the issues in question had been resolved. 

“There’s no unclean hands here because there was no violation,” he noted. “So, that would not prevent me from coming before the BAR.”

Ms. Tralins wondered whether there had ever been an inspection in order to determine this.

The BAR attorney commented that when an application to come before the BAR is filed, if there are outstanding violations on the property, many times the Building Inspector will make sure they are either resolved or abated before the application proceeds.  In this case however, it does not appear as though there are any current violations and therefore there is no reason why the BAR cannot review the application.

Ms. Tralins asserted that her question was whether or not an investigation had ever been done in order to determine that there were no violations.

The procedure for this process was then briefly outlined.  The Attorney added that with respect to unfounded allegations, it is somewhat unusual to see two letters submitted, such as these from Mrs. Norris, outlining specific issues she has with the property.  “If she has a problem she should be here and speak about the application that is before the Board,” he concluded. He further commented that the letters would be fine if they pertained to the application, however neither of these had anything to do with the proposed handrails that were before the BAR.

Mr. Hines pointed out that as currently proposed, the handrails are too thick to comply with the code and therefore approval should be contingent upon the Building Inspectors review and approval of what is to be installed.  It was agreed that they could in fact be widdled down to code.

Following some further discussion, the BAR voted in favor of approving the application.  Board member Sheila Tralins abstained. 

back to top


Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 19, 2017

  1. Giblin-Sink – 34 Tower Hill Road East - 107-1- 18 – Garage Addition with Studio Office.
  2. McFadden – 61 Turtle Point Road – 103-1-24 –Hand Rail, Post and Gate Replacement.
  3. Review of Minutes

back to top


Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 5, 2017

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, September 5 at 7pm.  Board members Shelia Tralins and Christian Bruner were absent as was BAR engineer Patrick Hines.

Cheung – 90 Lorilard Road – Dock Replacement:
Owner’s Representative Kathy Norris presented the Board with plans for a floating dock off the property located at 90 Lorilard Road.  Engineer to the BAR Patrick Hines had prepared a memo and this was briefly discussed.  Following a review of the plans and some  general discussion with regard to materials and placement, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top


Agenda for Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 5, 2017

  1. Cheung – 90 Lorillard Road- 104-1-46.2 – Dock Replacement.
  2. McFadden – 61 Turtle Point Road – 103-1-24 –Hand Rail, Post and Gate Replacement.
  3. Review of Minutes

back to top


Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 1, 2017

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, July 31 at 7pm.

Deputy Chair Julia Simet was absent.

ASB120, LLC – 2 Circuit Rd. – Addition to mudroom and garage:
The applicant’s architect presented the Board with revised plans for the home renovation at 2 Circuit Road.  Following their previous appearance before the BAR, the applicant appeared before the BZA seeking the necessary variances that would allow them to move forward with the project as originally proposed.  The BZA requested a visual analysis amongst other things.  The applicant subsequently decided to abandon plans for the addition to the mudroom and garage and will instead be focusing on renovation and restoration of the home.  At the time the application was initially filed, they were informed by then Building Inspector John Ledwith, that a building permit would not be needed for much of this work however, things in the Village have changed since that time and they are prepared to file for the necessary permits.  In total, they are proposing roughly 3 million dollars worth of renovations.

There followed a lengthy review of all that is being proposed including restoration, refurbishment and refinishing of some windows and replacement of others, the removal of one chimney to allow for the installation of an elevator and the capping/topping of the remaining chimneys, extension of the roof to allow for a parapet where air conditioning will be installed, restoration of roof and water table, replacement of parapets near the entryway, the blanking out of a window in the kitchen to allow for the installation of a stove and adjustment of kitchen windows and replacement of gutters.  Venting and insulation were also discussed as was the replacement of water and sewer lines and the installation/burying of updated utility lines.  The home will have all new plumbing, electrical and HVAC service. 

Questions from the BAR centered around the location of the HVAC units as well as the removal of the above ground propane tanks and the installation of hydronic boilers.  BAR member Josh Aaron pointed out that the Guidelines advised against the window changes as proposed and this was briefly discussed.  He also expressed some concern over the removal of the chimney to allow for the elevator and wondered if there might be room to construct the shaft beneath it.  He was informed that that the chimney in question had already been removed.  He then wondered whether the applicant had retained BAR approval for this change and was informed that they had not.  “Interesting,” he responded.

There was also a short discussion with regard to a proposed doorway on the basement level of the west elevation.  The applicant submitted that this was the only grade-level entrance to the basement and that they wanted to allow for the possibility of constructing a swimming pool nearby, which would be accessed by this door.  However, since the time when the plans were drawn, they have changed their mind with regard to the proposed changes.

Landscaping was touched upon and the applicant informed the BAR that they were in the process of interviewing landscape architects.  Once they have retained one, they will submit a plan and come back before the BAR for approval. 

Board Chair Patrick Donaghy commented that the plans as discussed demonstrated the applicant’s willingness to use the right materials and approach to restoring the home while at the same time bringing it up to date. 

Neighbors Paul and Ellen Gluck expressed concern with the proposed HVAC units on the roof and more specifically any potential noise impact on the neighboring properties and/or across the lake. It was explained that the split-style units in question are known to be extremely quiet and with the addition of the proposed parapet, the unit would be walled in, which would help to reduce any noise they might produce.  The rooftop units will not be visible from the ground.

Following some further discussion it was determined that the applicant was free to move forward with the renovation of existing windows on the first two floors as approval is not required for repairs.  The applicant will return to the BAR in the near future with a full set of plans including specs as well as various material samples.

back to top


Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 1, 2017

  1. ASB120, LLC - 2 Circuit Rd. 107 - 1 - 79 - Addition to mudroom and garage.
  2. Friedman & Waltman - 2 Ridge Road - 106 -1- 45 - New covered porches,
    windows, landscaping, and modifications to driveway. (Discussion with BAR).
  3. Review of Minutes

back to top


Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 18, 2017

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, July 18, 2017.  Board member Christian Bruner was absent.

Freidman & Waltman – 2 Ridge Road – New covered porches, windows, landscaping and modifications to driveway:
The applicant’s architect and landscape architect presented the BAR with revised plans for the renovations taking place at 2 Ridge Road.  Revisions focused on two particular issues as discussed in the previous meeting; the articulation of roof where it meets the proposed screened in porch and details surrounding the landscaping.

The architect laid out two options for the roof, accentuating the “hipped” design, which carries the slope of the roof on 3 sides.  The existing home has a hipped roof, and the architect commented that he had taken his cue from this pre-existing design, carrying it across to the porch in an effort to make the addition “feel at home” with the existing structure.

BAR Engineer Pat Hines noted that he had reviewed the plans and that, minus a few technical details, they looked to be in good order.

Board Chair Patrick Donaghy inquired as to what type of venting system the applicant was intending to use for the roof and how they planned to insulate that system.  He further noted that currently, there does not appear to be any venting and cautioned that this can cut the lifespan of a roof in half.  He suggested that construction such as this would be the optimal time to resolve the issue as venting a roof after the construction has been completed can prove to be quite difficult, not to mention costly. “How you insulate will drive how you vent,” he added.

This was discussed at some length.

Ultimately, the applicant’s architect asserted that the applicant had no plans to replace or alter the existing roof at this time.

Deputy Chair Julia Simet suggested that not venting might ultimately drive roof replacement.

The applicant’s architect thanked the BAR for their advice, commenting that he would bring their thoughts back to  his client and that when and if they decided to move forward with ventilation for the roof, they would be sure to move forward accordingly.

Board Chair Julie Simet inquired as to the color of the proposed shutters.
The answer was white or off white. 

Gutters were also discussed at length.  The applicant has proposed to repair what exists in kind with copper, however they are proposing white aluminum K gutters  on the addition and in the spots where total replacement is needed.

Chair Donaghy suggested that the applicant must pick one type of gutter for the entire home and stick with it.  He further explained that the Design Guidelines specify the copper gutters must be used.  He cautioned that the BAR had an obligation to remain consistent and that neighbors who had been required to use copper gutters on their homes would surely complain if this project was permitted to go forward with the aluminum gutters as proposed.

The applicant’s architect argued that the choice had been made in an effort to both keep costs down as well as to have the gutters blend in with the white house.  The applicant is not interested in replacing all of the gutters at this time, and half round red copper gutters are extremely pricey.

Chair Donaghy responded that he understood the applicant’s intent however what was being proposed had neither rhyme nor reason.  He pointed out that this was a historic home and that, as per the guidelines, the copper would give it a more historic look.  That being said, he further suggested that the code did not require gutters and that the applicant could always consider doing away with them altogether.

The applicant’s architect responded that he did not feel that his client would want to do that, as there were many benefits to maintaining gutters on a home.  He further stated that he believed that what they wanted was the white K gutters as proposed but if the BAR would only approve the project with red copper or copper half round, he felt they would accommodate this.

There followed a discussion as to the different types of copper gutters, which was more expensive and what would be the most practical choice for the applicant.  It was agreed that the white aluminum would not be permitted.

Ultimately, it was decided that the applicant’s architect would bring the two choices back to his client and let them make the final decision.

Next, the landscaping plan was discussed.  The revised plans show more structural details for the various stone walls as well as more grading details.  Trees, bushes and shrubs have been removed for the time being as the applicant is not yet ready to decide on specific species.  Mr. Hines reiterated that the applicant will have to return to the BAR with a detailed landscaping plan before they can move forward with planting.

Chair Donaghy then inquired about the project estimate as listed on the application, suggesting that $102K was not an accurate estimate of the cost of the entire project.  He wondered if this number included any of the interior work or the HVAC work, which has already taken place.

The response was that the estimate presented represented the plans as presented and did not cover any of the other items as the applicant was under the impression that these other things were not in the purview of the BAR.

The attorney for the BAR explained that the estimates were used partly to interpret the need for various permits from the Building Inspector and although some of the renovation did not fall under the purview of the BAR, ultimately the number would need to be adjusted to reflect the true scope of work.

Chair Donaghy acknowledged this.  He further suggested that there was a “complete gut job” going on at the house complete with demolition work.  He wondered if the proper permits had been obtained for that type of work.

There followed a brief discussion as to whether or not the applicant needed to obtain a separate permit for the interior work.  The applicant’s architect asserted that John Ledwith had assured them that a separate permit would not be necessary.

The attorney for the BAR advised that this was an issue for the Building Inspector and that they would need to investigate further.

It was confirmed that currently there is not structural permit on file for the applicant.
Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of granting the applicant approval, conditional upon a number of factors including use of compliant gutters, submission of a ventilation plan for the roof as well as a detailed lighting plan amongst other things.

Other Business:
Prior to closing the meeting, the BAR briefly discussed the possible issue of work occurring on projects in the Village without the oversight of a Building Inspector.

Following a brief exchange, BAR member Sheila Tralins suggested that they might not want to have such a conversation on the record, and the discussion was brought to a close.

Deputy Mayor McHugh then presented the Board with copies of a plan for Booth Renovations that were originally put together back in 1999 when the Train Station was renovated.  He informed them that it was the Board’s intention to both refine and tweek the plan before moving forward and once that has been done they will formalize it and make an official submission to the BAR.  This preliminary plan was being shared as a “heads up.”

back to top


Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting, July 18, 2017

  1. Friedman & Waltman - 2 Ridge Rd. - 106-1-45 - New covered porches, windows,
    landscaping, and modifications to driveway.
  2. Review of Minutes

back to top


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


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


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


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


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


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
  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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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, 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


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


Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 3, 2017

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


Agenda for Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 3, 2017

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


Click Here to View BOAR Archives