VILLAGE GOVERNMENT
line

Recent Village News
Board of Trustees

Planning Board
Board of Architectural Review
Board of Zoning Appeals

line

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 21, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, October 21 at 7pm. 

O’Neal & Gordon – 457 West Lake Road – Greenhouse, Entrance Columns and Gates:
Revised plans for  the project at 457 West Lake Road were presented and reviewed. The applicant has been before the BZA and is awaiting approval of the necessary variances.   In addition to the stonework for greenhouse wall and the proposed fieldstone veneer / paint colors for the entrance columns and  gates, the various types of lighting were discussed at some length. BAR Member Josh Aaron expressed some concern about the greenhouse, commenting that while he felt everything else that was being proposed for the property was a great improvement, he thought that the Greenhouse was a bit too modern of a structure to “plop down” near the lake.  BAR Member Rob McQuilken countered that he felt it was lovely and very much in keeping with the spirit of greenhouses as they have been constructed in the Village for the past 150 years.  Following the discussion, the BAR voted 3-1 I favor of approving the application subject to BZA approval as well as a site visit/review of paint colors and stone work prior to installation, with Josh Aaron voting against. 

Santoianni – 62 Clubhouse Road.- Extend Fence – Replace Deer Fence with Cedar Fence:
BAR Chair Sheila Tralins noted that the BAR was in receipt of a memo from building Inspector John Ledwith pointing out that the drainpipe mentioned on the property was provided as an accommodation to the Village a decade ago to provide for drainage on Club House Road and the DPW has no problem with the application.  It is not a pressurized waterline. 
 Mr. Santoianni noted that the year previous the BAR had approved a similar fence on his side yard, which had subsequently been constructed.  Now they are proposing to run a similar fence (same color, materials dimensions etc.)down the southern side yard, replacing a deer fence that has been there for quite some time.  The neighbors are supportive.  The application does not require any variances.  Following a very limited discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Francis/Farmerie – 119 Laurel Road. – Address Fence Violation, Construction of Fence, Proposed Changes to Fence Code:
The applicant explained that they had erected a fence which had not been approved by the Board and that subsequently their neighbors indicated that they were unhappy with it, particularly its’ height as it is taller than what is permitted by the Village Code.  Following conversations with John Ledwith it became apparent that the plan they were hoping to execute would not be acceptable and therefore, they put together a new plan which they had only just recently submitted for review.  Essentially, they are seeking to maintain the wooden fence that they erected without permission that runs between their “upper terrace” and the neighboring property, but then remove the taller, 8-foot section of the fence that runs along the “lower terrace” and replace it with a simple, sloping  stone wall, which will connect with a retaining wall that currently abuts the driveway below. Drawings/plans were presented and discussion followed.  The portion of the fence that the applicant is seeking to maintain is only 1.5 feet away from the property line.  The applicant suggested that when it comes to fences that are in between properties like this that the regulated setback doesn’t make a tremendous amount of sense.  Noting that this was not a matter for the BAR to opine on, he suggested that he would be interested in the following through and taking it to the appropriate board to either seek a variance or consider a change in the code altogether.  Landscaping was briefly discussed. 
Neighbor Jay Reichgott presented the BAR with photos depicting the fence from his side.  Commenting that he is an engineer by trade and supportive of tasteful and beautiful modifications to the landscape, he suggested that he was not sure the applicant had presented enough detail in his sketches to understand fully what was being proposed, particularly as it pertains to the height and connection of the two stone walls.  Mr. Reichgott suggested that he just wanted to make sure there was one, consistent, cohesive plan.  “Once fence along the property line doesn’t make a lot of sense,” he stated.  “There has been talk about enclosing this for a possible pool in the future or whatever.  Whatever the plan is, it shouldn’t be piece-meal.”
The applicant responded that although they had presented a more extensive site plan originally, Mr. Reichgott had made it very clear that he was against several of things that they had in their proposal and therefore, the pool and tennis court had been shelved because It didn’t seem as though these things would likely be approved in a short amount of time.  However, what they are faced with currently is trying to mitigate something that is clearly an issue between neighbors as well as an issue for the BAR.  “Solving that problem now seems to be the most important  step we can take without looking at the larger picture of tennis courts and pools because I think that is just going to muddy the water.”  He then once again suggested that they mitigate the issue by removing the 8-foot section of fencing and replacing it with a stone wall that would fit more carefully with the landscape. 
BAR Member Christopher Gow suggested that the stone wall seemed to make sense from a BAR prospective, although a detailed plan showing the exact heights would need to be put together and presented. 
Mr. Reichgott stated that the current fence was in his view a monstrosity that ran along the property line and  could be seen from across the lake.  There are in his view a number of issues with it.  “I am all in favor of people being able to do with their property what they want with reasonable restrictions that we have for a reason in this Village…and I look to the BAR and the BZA to enforce the rules that we have in this Village.  That is all we are really asking for.”
The applicant responded that he felt that the key to current discussion was the appropriateness of the design proposal that had been put forward.  “The notion of whether we can get a variance or not, or whether or not this portion of the code even makes sense is not part of this conversation,” he concluded. 
Chair Tralins agreed and further suggested that the applicant and Mr. Reichgott would have to have a discussion about what would be an acceptable compromise but from the prospective of the BAR, getting rid of the 8-foot fence and replacing it with stone was not offensive. 
The applicant reiterated that what he was hoping to do was to remove the 8-foot fence in order to release “the pressure” of the current conversation.  In the midst of that, they would apply for the necessary variance and also begin to lobby for a code change.
The BAR agreed that what had been proposed was a step in the right direction. 
Until a variance has been granted by BZA, they cannot take any action.
Ultimately it was agreed that, as suggested, the applicant would proceed with removing the 8-foot section of fencing while active pursuing a variance.   The BAR commended that applicant for his calm thoughtful presentation and the applicant subsequently invited Mr. Reichgott to reach out so that they could get together and further discuss the specifics. 
Other Business:
Board member Rob McQuilken noted that it was his understanding that the Building Inspector had been in touch with t a resident on Tower Hill West who had made some rather major , unapproved changes to their property on Tower Hill West  and he had been under the assumption that they would be called before the BAR.
Mr. Ledwith responded that a violation notice had been issued but not responded to.  He further noted that he was in the process of issuing them a court appearance ticket. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 21, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86190919844?pwd=bXMrL093YTQ3S094TFlvSW5Fb3ZCZz09

Meeting ID: 861 9091 9844

Passcode: 910887

One tap mobile
+16465588656,,86190919844#,,,,*910887# US (New York)

Dial by your location
       +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 861 9091 9844
Passcode: 910887
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kdAOiH2jk6

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 2, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, September 2 at 7pm. 

Tyhovych – 18 Acoma Rd. Driveway Apron and Entrance Pillars: The BAR is in receipt of drawings and material samples for the proposed driveway apron and entrance pillars at 18 Acoma Road.  No variances are required.  Following a brief review, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

The Tuxedo Club – 1 West Lake Rd – Changes to Parking Area:
Board chair Sheila Tralins opened the discussion by informing the BAR that the Club had been before the BZA the previous session where they had received 3 variances for fencing, sight line, and the cut-out where the egress from the new lot will be.  Although a lighting scheme  was presented  to the BZA, it has not yet been reviewed by the BAR. There was some question as to whether or not a variance would be required for pole height and ultimately the  BZA deferred review of this item until the BAR has had a chance to review it. Because the neighbors were not properly noticed in that regard, Chair Tralins announced that the BAR would have to wait until their next meeting to take any action with regard to the proposed lighting.  The BZA has also deferred to the BAR with regard to landscaping, tree removal and surface area.  The proposed drainage plan has been approved by Village engineers.  Chair Tralins was also contacted by Mayor McFadden, who relayed to her the concerns of Police Chief Dave Conklin as they relate to road safety and the limited sight distance from the proposed egress.
The Club was asked to provide a brief update, highlighting any changes to the application.
Club manager Randy St. John reported that the BZA had been happy with the plan and had approved the variances as requested with the exception of the lighting variance.  The concerns of Mayor McFadden and Chief Conklin as they relate to sight distance had been raised during that meeting as well.  The Village Code requires 250 feet of sight distance, and the Club requested (and received) a variance which will reduce that coverage to 190 feet when making a left hand turn from the egress.  Mr. St. John explained that the 250 foot distance could be achieved but that this would require the removal of landscaping, which they are trying to avoid.  Although there are some arguably valid concerns with the sight distance as it pertains to left hand turns from new egress, the safety condition in the current employee lot is much more dire as employees must back out into incoming traffic when exiting the lot, which is one of the things they are trying to remedy with the new plan.  “While I guess you could make a case for 60 feet of safety,” commented Mr. St. John, “we feel that the 15 employee cars backing into a roadway is far more dangerous for them and on-coming traffic than people taking a left hand turn with a 190 foot sight line.”
The project also aims to address issues with the turning radius in both the main lot and the loading dock/employee lot.  Safety vehicles, namely firetrucks, will now be able to easily access the building from both lots, which the Club believes to be critical. 
BAR member Rob McQuilken asked to take a look at the plan so that he might be able to better decipher where the 60 feet of sight distance was coming from.  The plans were presented on screen and reviewed.  Mr. St. John reiterated that they could achieve the 250 feet by removing additional vegetation, but they did not want to do this. 
Tree removal and replanting was discussed at some length. The Club is in receipt of report from Ira Wicks which dates back 8 or 9 years and which marks several of the trees in question for removal based on their condition. Most of the trees to be removed are hemlocks and white pines, which are known to be weak wooded and to drop branches with ease and frequency during storms.  There are also some oaks and a sugar maple slated to be removed.  Many of these are located along the current stockade fence.  The Club will planting a wide variety of new trees as part of the landscaping plan. 
The fencing plan was reviewed and materials discussed.  An overview of the lighting plan was also provided.
Mr. St. John noted that they were hoping to receive approval for everything except the lighting, which would allow them to commence work on the project this fall with the aim of completing it in the spring.
The issue of sight distance was revisited.  Rob McQuilken commented that what had been proposed appeared to be six in one, half a dozen in the other in terms of safety when compared with the current situation.  He wondered what the existing visibility was from the current employee lot and how this compared to the new plan. 
The answer was that there is zero visibility for almost all of the cars when exiting the existing lot.   
Mr. McQuilken stated that he found this meaningful and that in his view it made the arguments about safety with respect to the new plan almost disingenuous.  
“The plan calls for the removal of 15 entries and exits to the roadway with zero visibility,” stated Mr. St. John, further suggesting that there would not be many vehicles making a left out of the new lot and that when they did, they would have a 190 foot sight distance with which to do it.  Additionally, the arrival experience will be upgraded for everyone, including service vehicles and there will no longer be a line of cars parked along the roadway. 
Mr. McQuilken added that there were also various things that could be done to mitigate the potential traffic hazards including signage to encourage and/or mandate road safety and speed limit, and possible speed bumps. 
Chair Tralins noted that the BAR had a couple of options when it came to handling the safety issues that had been raised by the Mayor and the Chief.  The BAR is an independent Board and has the right to act on their own volition.  To this end, they have the right to vote on the application before them and grant approval if they see fit.  They could also seek to issue a conditional approval to deal with the lighting and any additional variances that may be required and while sending back questions as to whether or not the egress cuts are deemed to be safe by Village experts.  To this end they could ask for an investigation to be completed by the Police Department and subsequently reviewed by the Trustees.  She asked the BAR Attorney to further elaborate on this second option.
The Attorney explained that the Village code allows for the BAR to request a review and/or an investigation  by whomever they believe is most suited to provide input of meaning.  For example, the BAR could ask the Police Department to look into something…or the Village Attorney, or the DPW.  They could ask the Board of Trustees to further articulate the concerns brought forward by the Mayor.  If the Police see the egress as a potential safety issue, they could be asked to articulate which mitigations they feel would be suitable to them or whether what has been proposed is the best of the available alternatives.  The BAR might choose to launch their own investigation, or they could ask the Board of Trustees to do it.  They could also bring in an independent third party if they wanted to.

Rob McQuillen commented that he believed the plan as presented addressed an existing safety hazard while simultaneously increasing the ability for emergency vehicles move around and access the building with ease and that he had a hard time taking concerns about safety seriously given these two facts. In his mind, it is an open and shut case and he proposed that they should issue a clear approval without any further investigation.
BAR member Christopher Boshears agreed, noting that the Club had clearly “done their homework” and presented a plan that was sensitive to the environment and the surrounding neighborhood.
BAR member Josh Aaron also agreed, further stating that the plan clearly addressed a current issue and made things largely safer for everyone.
Recognizing the concerns of Village Management and the fact that the BAR was not comprised of safety experts, Chair Tralins commented that she agreed with her colleagues on many of these points and that she would not be disappointed to see the application approved.
The Board then voted unanimously in favor of approving the plan as presented, save the lighting as previously discussed. 
Following the approval, Chair Tralins read into the record a letter written by former Trustee Barnett to the current Board of Trustees urging them to step in and provide oversight on the application. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 2, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83950260558?pwd=OHhqZXFCYWVBa1ZUNWpmTHFDZjJ0Zz09

Meeting ID: 839 5026 0558

Passcode: 923121

One tap mobile

+13017158592,,83950260558#,,,,*923121# US (Washington DC)

+13126266799,,83950260558#,,,,*923121# US (Chicago)

Dial by your location

        +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington DC)

        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)

        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)

        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)

        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)

        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)

Meeting ID: 839 5026 0558

Passcode: 923121

Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kHakCOIgQ

 

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 5, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, August 5 at 7pm.  Board members Christopher Gow and Christopher Boshears were absent.

Delgado – 20 Ridge Road – Changing Front Door, Awning, Light:
Mr. Delgado began by apologizing for some miscommunication that occurred following the last meeting.  Because the BAR had been largely supportive in their feedback and had given his project a favorable review, he had been under the impression that it was ok to move forward, even though a vote of approval had not been made.  To this end, the new front door has already been installed.  There remains some sealing work to be done, however Building Inspector john Ledwith issued a stop work order once he learned that the project had progressed without an official approval.  The BAR was receptive to this explanation.  Photos of the door were reviewed and it was the recommendation of the Board that when staining the door, Mr. Delgado use something in the oak family as opposed to mahogany and that it be darker in shade.  The proposed awning was discussed.  Mr. Delgado has already ordered the awning and he presented it to the BAR along with images depicting the style, which is known as “The New Yorker.”  Although a green and white striped awning is preferred, Mr. Delgado suggested that he would be amicable to going to with a solid green color should the BAR prefer it and a color sample was presented.  Following some discussion, it was agreed that the striped awning would work best.  Lighting fixtures were discussed next with Mr. Delgado presenting several options and indicating his preference.  Ultimately the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the project as proposed.

Knodel – 80 Crows Nest Rd. – Pool:
Plans/drawings for the proposed  60 x 50 tank pool and surrounding fence were presented and discussed.  Material samples were also presented and reviewed.  Following minimal discussion, the application was unanimously approved by the BAR. 

Szendroy – 1 Camp Comfort Rd. – Adding Shutters to House:
Mr. Szendroy presented the Board with an unpainted sample of the wooden shutters he plans to install on his home, located at 1 Camp Comfort Rd.  Explaining that finding a place to acquire wood shutters (as opposed to Vinyl)  had been quite difficult, he outlined his plans to paint the shutters “Secluded Woods Green.” Following minimal discussion, the application was unanimously approved by the BAR.

Gonzales & Tinari – 55 & 57 Clubhouse Rd. – Porte Cochere, Gates, Windows, Stairs, Connection to Barn and Pool:
As the application will require several variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals before it can proceed, BAR Chair Sheila Tralins asked the applicant to provide a summary of their vision so that they might come to fully understand the proposed design and design intent for the two properties. There are currently three structures at 57 Clubhouse; two primary residences located on either side of a center structure that is currently designed for human occupancy.  The plan is to take the structure in the center and make it the primary residence while maintaining the other structures as more ancillary type spaces.  The primary residence will contain a kitchen and bedrooms.  The intent is to then attach it to the northern structure, where they will put a study and additional bedrooms. The structure on the south side will remain detached.  The stone veneer on the central structure will be maintained and egress compliant windows will be added to introduce natural light. “We would like to make the whole estate a cohesive design,” explained the architect for the applicant.  He went on to explain that the primary focus from an architectural standpoint was trying to maintain the authenticity and the beauty of the existing structure without distraction from the complimentary addition.  To this end, the connection piece that they are envisioning for the two structures will be clear glass and largely invisible from the road.  The slate roofing was discussed.  The previous owner had allowed for significant water damage, which will be addressed as part of the renovation.  There was some discussion about a proposed double height window to be added to the street facing façade, specifically with regard to authenticity and privacy.  The applicants architect explained that part of the thought behind the proposed window was he introduction of much needed natural light, but that also the applicant did not like the current window and was looking to make a change.  Various drawings and photos were presented and reviewed. 
Building Inspector John Ledwith pointed about that a number of the required variances were typical of sizable additions.  He wondered whether the BAR had any comments regarding the proposed covered entranceway on 55 Clubhouse as the BZA will likely be looking for their feedback on the port.  This was discussed.  Other variances will be required for the proposed gates and the proposed dormers on the back.  The addition of a small pool in the back was briefly discussed.  The proposed pool will also require a variance. 
Board member Josh Aaron commented that, overall he thought the proposed project was fantastic and that his only reservation was the proposed double story window on the front of the structure.  Noting that it was a “pretty notable change” to what was probably one of the most architecturally significant carriage houses still standing in the Park, he suggested that they needed to be careful.  Board member Rob McQuilken further commented that if the applicant were to suggest the proposed window was an essential part of their vision, he would sign off on it.  That being said, his concerns centered around the historic nature of the home and, until recently, a very well maintained piece of Village history.  “That whole road is a miraculous piece of the Park’s history, full of certain gestures of privacy and a diminutive scale,” he stated before suggesting that he felt it would be sad to give up the small window that was currently there and that the giant window as proposed was a big, bold statement that would be right on the road.  He would have likely chosen to make use of what is currently there while making the more substantial changes to the back side.  That being said, he feels that the applicant’s commitment and enthusiasm in restoring and renovating the home properly trumps his individual preferences.  He added that if they do end up realizing the front vision as proposed, he would just ask that the color of the muntins and the grade of glass used look as historic as possible.
The applicant will next appear before the BZA before returning the BAR, likely in early September.  

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 5, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 1, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, July 1 at 7pm in person.

Stravchinsky – 50 Cliff Rd. – Adding and Modifying Existing Dormers:
Revised plans were presented and reviewed.  Specs for the proposed windows were briefly discussed as were those for the  French doors.  All of the engineering comments have been addressed.  Following minimal discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Meyers – 25 Tower Hill Loop = Changing House Paint Colors:
A second site visit was conducted and a number of color samples were observed.  The applicant has chosen Ball Green for the trim and Lime White for the stucco.  After a short conversation during which the BAR thanked the applicant for working in conjunction with the BAR to find “an acceptable medium” the application was unanimously approved.

Densford – 1 Ridge Road – Modifications to Stone Wall:
Seeking the BAR’s feedback, Mr. Densford engaged the BAR in a preliminary discussion with regard to a crumbling wall on his property located at 1 Ridge Road. Explaining that he had conferred with stonemason Kristian Matthews and determined that the wall was in an inevitable state of slow collapse, Mr. Denford further informed the Board that he was not interested in the idea of completely dismantling and rebuilding the dry laid wall.  Instead he proposed a couple of solutions one of which included stone buttresses and one which entailed more a “beautiful decay” sort of approach which would entail filling it in and preserving where they could, landscaping around it, hinting at its’ history but not trying to create a spotless wall.
BAR member Rob McQuilken noted that stone walls such as these were very important to both the character and the fabric of the community.  He suggested that there might be a happy medium whereby Mr. Densford would attempt to make interventions to remediate the drainage issues that are likely responsible for the walls’ collapse while simultaneously preserving what exists with the aforementioned “beautiful decay” approach.
This was discussed and it was agreed that Mr. Densford would research the drainage issues and ultimately return to the Board with a formal application.
 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 1, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 17, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural  Review met on Thursday, June 17 at 7pm.  Board member Christopher Gow was absent.

Tuxedo Club – 1 West Lake Rd. – Changes to Parking Area:
Representatives of the Tuxedo Club and their landscape architect presented the BAR with plans for changes to the both the member and employee parking lots at the Main Club.  The goal in the member parking lot  is to redesign the main entrance to make it more user friendly while addressing some drainage issues with a rain garden and also cleaning up the front of the building in an effort to improve the overall aesthetic.  Additionally, they are planning to rework the employee parking lot and service yard.  The loading dock will no longer be accessible via the member parking lot.  Instead, they have proposed creating new a employee/service entrance and exit along West Lake Road that will lead to and from an employee lot, which will be repressed into the ground by roughly 4 feet so as to keep it out of sight.  The current employee lot, which is adjacent to West Lake Road, will be largely removed, although a few spaces will remain for Boathouse overflow parking and/or members who wish to park there for whatever reason.  Service vehicles will access the loading dock via the new entrance, which will run on a one-way loop.  There will also be designated spots for Club-owned service vehicles in the lot.   The existing fence will be replaced with a new one and this will provide screening for the dumpsters.  A variance will be needed for this fence.   
Drainage, various types of planting, lighting, and traffic flow were discussed.  Engineering comments were reviewed.
Neighbors/members of the public expressed their initial concerns with regard to noise control, lighting, snow removal and traffic flow.  The idea of maintaining three entryways along a busy, curvy section of West Lake Road poses potential safety issues with a significant number of pedestrians who walk, jog and bike in that area on a daily basis.   The idea of seeking some sort of speed limit reduction in that specific area was considered.   
In general, the BAR was largely supportive of the plan.  The applicant will return to the BAR with revised plan in the near future. 

Stravchinsky – 50 Cliff Rd -Adding and Modifying Existing Dormers:
The applicant presented the BAR with plans to both modify existing dormers and add a new dormer to the home at 50 Cliff Road for the purpose of providing more light in various spots throughout the home.  Additionally, they would like to replace a set of existing doors, which have cracked and are currently non-functioning.  Much of the work will not be visible from the street.  There will be no new lighting and the materials will remain consistent with what is currently  there.  Windows in the dormers will be replaced with triple-pained Marvin windows.
Engineering comments were presented and reviewed.
The applicant will return to the next meeting window samples. 

Knodel – 80 Crows Nest Rd. – Pool:
Plans to construct a pool at 80 Crows Nest Rd were presented and reviewed. Engineering comments were also reviewed and materials discussed. No variances are required.  The BAR is largely supportive of the proposed project as presented.  It was determined that the applicant should  review Chapter 31 requirements as they pertain to pool safety and work some of these into the plan.  Additionally,  the BAR will need to take a look at the proposed material samples. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 17, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

Join the Zoom meeting by clicking here

Meeting ID: 821 1702 8961 
Passcode: 027449 
One tap mobile 
+16465588656,,82117028961#,,,,*027449# US (New York)
Dial by your location 
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) 

Meeting ID: 821 1702 8961 
Passcode: 027449
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kwEwWccPK

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 3, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, June 3 at 7pm.

O’Neal & Gordon – 457 West Lake Rd – Garage Addition, Proposed Greenhouse, Architectural Changes to House:
Revised plans for the project were presented and reviewed.  Elevations, project materials and tree removal were discussed.  Setback variances  are required  for both the garage and  the greenhouse and a height variance for  the proposed gates.  Therefore, the applicant will need to appear before the BZA.  Following some discussion, the BAR unanimously approved the architectural changes to the house as proposed.  The applicant will return to the BAR for further approvals after they have been before the BZA.

Ibanez & Karbowska – 102 Turtle Point Rd. – Driveway Pavers:
The Applicant is proposing to change their driveway from stones to grey Belgian block pavers.  There was some discussion with the BAR’s engineer surrounding the proposed drainage system.  Ultimately the BAR approved the plan subject to confirmation with the Building Inspector that the storm water and drainage plans were both acceptable and accurately noted on the plans.

Meyers – 25 Tower Hill Loop – Changing House Paint Colors:
Applicant Charles Meyers provided the Board with a detailed overview of the extensive restoration work that has been done at 25 Tower Hill Loop, known to many as “The Salm House.”  He is looking to change the paint colors on the home from the original Mayflower red with green shutters to a Nantucket grey with tan stucco and charcoal shutters. Computer generated images were presented along with design inspirations and details of the somewhat extensive process they went through to arrive at the proposed slate of colors. The BAR was generally supportive of what was proposed and it was agreed that they would make a site visit in the near future ahead of issuing an approval.  

Santana – 24 Tower Hill Rd. – Paint Color Change:
Following a rejection at the previous meeting, the applicant presented the BAR with revised color choices for their home ay 24 Tower Hill Rd.  While the base color of Metro grey remains the same as originally proposed, they are now looking to do the trim in Vermont Slate, as opposed to Bachelor Blue.   Samples have been painted on both the front and rear of the home, although the BAR was unaware that they were there, so a site visit has yet to be conducted.  Following some discussion, the BAR approved the application subject to a site visit confirming the acceptability of the proposed colors. 

Crawford – 81 Lorillard Rd. – Changing Garage Paint Color:
The Applicant presented the BAR with plans to change the color of their garage from white to green.  They are proposing to paint all four walls and both doors the same color.  Additionally,  they would like to install four, low-light sconces, which will give the appearance of gaslit lanterns and they would like to do some simple molding above each bay door.  The proposed lighting was discussed at some length as the BAR has denied approval to similar fixtures in the past.  It was agreed that the applicant would check with the manufacturer and come back with alternate suggestions.  Additionally, they will paint a color sample on the garage for review.

Mincey – 50 Clubhouse Rd. – Belgian Block Driveway:
Building Inspector John Ledwith called for a discussion of the Belgian Block driveway installation at the Mincey house on Club House Rd.  There was some concern on the part of Mr. Ledwith that what was being installed did not coincide with what had been approved.  There is a 6-step process that the stones will be undergoing in order to create an aged Bettina look and this has not yet begun.  It was agreed that the BAR would allow the applicant to complete this process, which should result in the antique looking stones that were approved by the BAR. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 3, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

Join the Zoom meeting by clicking here

Meeting ID: 811 4863 9828 
Passcode: 944926 
One tap mobile 
+16465588656,,81148639828#,,,,*944926# US (New York) 
Dial by your location 
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) 

Meeting ID: 811 4863 9828 
Passcode: 944926 
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kjihutyP

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 20, 2021

The village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, May 20 at 7pm via Zoom. 

Santana – 24 Tower Hill Road – Paint Color Change:
The applicant appeared before the BAR for a second time to continue the discussion regarding  the proposed paint color change for the historic, Bruce Price home located at 24 Tower Hill Road.  BAR member Josh Aaron provided a brief presentation of the home’s history.  It has undergone a number of marked changes since its’ original construction in 1886, however the contrast of paint colors has remained similar.
Since the applicant’s initial appearance before the BAR, samples/swatches of the proposed color scheme were prepared on the home and a site visit was conducted.  The applicant believes that the Metro Gray stucco with Bachelor Blue timbering as proposed flows perfectly with the columns on the front of the home and looks beautiful.  The BAR had suggested “Ocean Floor” as an alternate to the Bachelor Blue and a sample of this was also painted along with a black sample, however the applicant feels it the Ocean Floor is too dark and will appear black.  She further suggested that although the home in its original Bruce Price configuration was certainly historic, it has not truly been a historic home since 1908, when it was stuccoed over and two wings were added on.  She does not believe the original 1886 color scheme should have an impact on the color choices that are made today.  She feels the home needs a color scheme that will ground it and keep it soft on the eyes.  In her opinion the Ocean Floor color does not do this.
There was a somewhat lengthy discussion.  The majority of the BAR is opposed to the Bachelor Blue and feel that the Ocean Floor would be a compromise.  They feel that the proposed color scheme will ultimately look periwinkle or lavender with blue trim and that it will be too bright. 
The applicant expressed frustration suggesting that she and her husband were either being singled out or discriminated against.  She pointed out that they had complied with the BAR’s recommendations by producing three different samples and that she did not want to be rude or dismissive but could not figure out why they had such a problem with the proposed color scheme of choice. The home does after all belong to them and they are the ones who will be living in it.   BAR Chair Sheila Tralins responded that that the Boards’ focus was more on maintaining the historic appearance of the home in the Village in a way that would be consistent over time.  Noting that they had reached an impasse of sorts because the applicant had not come forward with any alternate color schemes that were acceptable to the BAR, she suggested that they could vote and that if the application were to be rejected, the applicant would have the option of appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Following some further discussion, the BAR voted 4-1 against the application with Christopher Gow voting in favor. 

Shumaker – 104 Clubhouse Rd. – Pool, Patio, Pool, Spa, Wall, Trellis Structure:
Since their last appearance before the BAR the applicant has received the necessary side yard setback variance from the BZA.  Some minor adjustments have been made to the application including measurements of the side yard and the elimination of a patio.  Fencing and pool equipment have been added to the plan.  Engineering comments have been addressed.  Following some discussion primarily focused on landscaping and fencing,  the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 
Friedman and Waltman  - 2 Ridge Road – To Address Installation of Skylights without BAR Approval:
After providing an overview of the situation, the applicant presented detailed plans for plantings to provide screening along both Ridge and East Lake Roads in an effort to conceal the skylights from view.  Updated plans for a garden gate were also presented.
After a somewhat lengthy review and discussion of the proposed landscaping, the applicant agreed to remove the largest of the skylights, visible from East Lake Road, while the other two will remain with screening.  The gate as presented was approved.

Delgado - 2- Ridge Road – Changing Front Doors:
The Applicant explained that the carriage doors in their current state are causing a great emotional and financial hardship to his family.  The current single, side door is too small to move any furniture in or out of the house.  It cannot be widened because the electrical meter and  panel are right beside it.  To move the entire electrical system to the other side of the home is neither prudent nor cost effective.  The carriage doors on the front of the home are not energy efficient and they are not suitable for normal use.  They were constructed  with two color windows and a wooden base on hinges.  They have gaps all around them and allow for water and insect intrusion. The gaps are the result of the warping of wood due to the moisture that comes in during the winter.   His electrical bill for the past winter was as high as $680 for an 1,100 square foot home.  To replicate a similar door would cost well over $10,000, which is way out of their budget.  Therefore, they have provided the BAR with a proposed replacement which is much more cost effective.  The home itself used to be a garage and was only recently subdivided.  Because it was not designed to be a home, there is limited to no drainage with no gutters.  The applicant is also proposing to install a new side door with fabric awning  above.
Following some clarifying questions, it was evident that the BAR was supportive of the proposed door changes.  The applicant was asked to return to a future meeting with awning samples as well as proposed hardware for the doors and any proposed outdoor lighting plans. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 20, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

Join the Zoom meeting by clicking here

Meeting ID: 811 4863 9828 
Passcode: 944926 
One tap mobile 
+16465588656,,81148639828#,,,,*944926# US (New York) 
Dial by your location 
        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York) 

Meeting ID: 811 4863 9828 
Passcode: 944926 
Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kjihutyP

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 6, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

Join the Zoom meeting by clicking here

Meeting ID: 861 6036 5268
Passcode: 023447


By SmartPhone
+16465588656,,86160365268#,,,,*023447# US (New York)


By Phone
+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)
Meeting ID: 861 6036 5268
Passcode: 023447

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 15, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, April 15, 2021 via Zoom. Board Chair Sheila Tralins and member Christopher Boshears were absent.   In Char Tralin’s absence, Christopher Gow led the meeting. 

Friedman & Waltman – 2 Ridge Rd – To address installation of skylights without BAR Approval:
The applicant began by providing a brief history of the project, which included a lengthy design process with the BAR, ultimately resulting in their decision to put the project on hold, following their purchase of the house in 2016.  The current plan was approved at the end of 2018 and work began in the spring of 2019, but Covid put a damper on construction in the March of 2020 when the Governor shut things down for 3 months.  When things commenced during the peak summer months, the applicant discovered that between the additions and the bountiful trees on the south side of the home, the lighting in both the kitchen and the dining room had been drastically reduced.  “I couldn’t read the newspaper in the kitchen without turning the lights on, even on a sunny day,” stated Mr. Friedman.  As a result, the applicant consulted with their architect who recommended the installation of 3 discrete skylights.  With the roofers scheduled to come the following week, the applicant was forced to consider whether or not to put project on hold for several months so that they could bring the skylights before the BAR, which would have delayed installation of the roof until April 2021, or to proceed with the lights as proposed by the architect.  After much deliberation, they made the decision to move forward with the sky lights.  Mr. Friedman reiterated that throughout the entire process they had remained “very sincere” in their effort to do a faithful restoration of the home and really did take to heart the feedback and wisdom of the BAR.  The project is almost completed and they are very pleased with how it has turned out.  Additionally, they hear consistently from their neighbors that they are also pleased, All of this being said, they are seeking retroactive approval for the three skylights.  
Board member Christipher Gow thanked Mr. Friedman for his remarks and for providing the BAR with context, but added that the crux of the matter was that had the applicant come to the BAR approval for the skylights before installing them, the answer would have been no.  The BAR has denied several approvals for skylights in other homes in the Village.  That being said, he noted that he did appreciate all of the work that had been done to the home, although he noted that he was not confident as to what could be done about the skylights.  He suggested that they have a robust discussion in order to explore whether there might be some sort of compromise.  He further suggested that one of the lights was visible from Tuxedo Road and that this was the biggest problem.  He wondered whether the applicant had any suggestions for ways of screening it.
The applicant’s architect gave a brief presentation detailing both the thought and design process behind the skylights, suggesting that perhaps one of them could be obscured by a railing of sorts. 
A discussion ensued with each of the BAR members weighing in.  Al three members agreed that the one skylight that is not visible from any roadway was largely unobjectionable however, they had varying issues with the other two. The applicant expressed some frustration with the idea that skylights were universally unacceptable in the Village.  He wondered why the BAR didn’t establish a vendor or a design technique that they approved of for skylights so that they could work with homeowners, further suggesting that some of the historic homes needed the ability to evolve
The idea of a historic skylight was proposed and briefly discussed. 
Board member Rob McQuiken assured the applicant the work that they had done was both exciting and beautiful, specifically with the branching off on the south end of the house. “I just want you to know that others of us…not just your neighbors….feel that way and are grateful to you for putting so much time and effort and resources into this renovation. It’s an exciting thing,” He went on to suggest that he did not want the overall message to be a “persnickety” focusing on this one, possibly objectionable detail.  Ms. Waltman thanked Mr. McQuilken for his comments.  Noting that she understood that what they had done was wrong and that they would not do it again, she further commented that she didn’t she didn’t feel the BAR was being persnickety as much as she felt that the proper context was not being incorporated somehow.  “It’s such a small piece on a very large renovation.  I understand about setting president, but on the other hand you want more people to come in and do what we are doing.  You want us to tell our friends that this place is great.  You want us to tell people that it’s fun to renovate a house here and that piece of it…I just am feeling a bit of a disconnect.”
Mr. McQuilken empathized with this.  He further suggested that what he would like to see at this point was a gesture of good faith from the applicant in terms of design solution and then they could re-evaluate. 
“Unfortunately, it’s two strikes against you,” added Mr. Gow, “in that it was done without permission…something that we wouldn’t have approved. So, we’ve got a bigger hole to climb out of.  We want to climb out of it with you.  We want to find a compromise.”  He went on to suggest that if they could come up with a way to hide the skylights it would be, in his view, a win/win situation. 
With regard to the deer fence, the applicant presented plans for an access door to their previously approved fencing.  There was some objection on the part of the BAR in terms of what was proposed, the overall design and hardware. 
Ultimately the applicant agreed to consider the BAR’s comments and work to create both an amended design for the gate and proposal for screening the skylights.

Shaw – Tower Hill Rd – Replacing Fence:
Scott Shaw presented the Board with plans to remove a chain link fence along the Tower Hill Loop border of his property and replace it with a less obtrusive deer fence, screened with privet hedge.  There will be an access gate within the fence.  The current fence is quite old and does comply with current zoning setback regulations.  Because Mr. Shaw’s property is quire narrow in that area, he does not have enough space to construct a new fence, which is why he has chosen to replace what is existing.  Building Inspector John Ledwith weighed in, informing the Board that as long as Mr. Shaw agreed to submit a letter to the Village stating that he would not hold them liable for any damage created by snowplowing, he believed the application could be approved.  Following some further discussion the Board voted in favor of approving the application subject to the receipt of the aforementioned letter.

 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 15, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 18, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, March 18 at 7pm via Zoom.

Paes – Tower Hill Road – New Home:
Changes to the plan were presented and reviewed at length.  Discussion centered around various options for the window configuration, relocation of an outdoor condenser and the possible exploration of geothermal options, lighting, gutters and materials/color schemes.  It was agreed that the applicant would assemble various material/color pallets in the field for BAR review. 
Following the discussion, the Board voted 4-1 in favor of granting conditional approval subject to compliance with the resolution of conditional site approval of the site plan granted by the Planning Board and in accordance with the terms of the latest plans set forth by Engineering and Survey Properties and by the landscape architect included in that conditional approval and as discussed with the BAR.  The approval is also subject to the receipt of color, material and lighting samples.  

Rifkin – 97 West Lake Rd. – Demolition of House, New Construction of House and Boathouse:
Plans for the proposed boathouse were presented and reviewed.  The two-story, slate grey boathouse will be designed in keeping with the main house.  It will be built over an existing boat slip, although it will not use the existing foundation, and will tie into an existing pathway leading up to the main house.  The second story will be a covered platform space with ceiling fans.  There will be no enclosed, heated space or bathroom. 
Board Chair Sheila Tralins acknowledged that due to the location of the Boathouse and its direct proximity to the reservoir, the application will require both Army Corps of Engineer and Village BOT approval.
Discussion centered around landscaping the proposed use of Boral, which is not a material current authorized under the Village Code. Although the BAR ultimately believes they have the authority to approve new materials that are in keeping with the guidelines, there was some uncertainty. 
There was also discussion pertaining to the proposed landscaping, with Board member Christopher Gow encouraging more plantings on the hillside to help mitigate drainage into the lake.  The rooflines of both structures were also briefly discussed.
Being that the application will ultimately need Board of Trustees approval before it can proceed with the Boathouse as per the Village Code, there was some uncertainty as to whether or not the BAR could/should issue a conditional approval for the project or wait until the Trustees have issued an approval before moving forward.  Their attorney advised the Board of the applicable code provision (65-2D) and recommended waiting.
Ultimately, the BAR chose to issue an approval for the main house as well as the architecture of the boathouse.  The BOT will need to grant final approval for the Boathouse before it can proceed.  Due to its proximity to the reservoir, the DEC will also need to approve the structure. 

Mailman – 115 Tower Hill Road West – Landscaping:
The applicant’s landscaper presented plans to remediate a landscaping issue created by the previous homeowners which includes removal of any material that encroached the neighboring property, clearing the area of invasive species before stabilizing the soil, re-grading the hillside to reduce the slope, reconstructing a dry laid stone wall that was damaged due to a large pile of soil placed next to it, and then replanting in an effort to stabilize the hillside and prevent erosion moving forward, while making the property look better.   Once completed the remediation will eliminate negative impacts to the neighboring, downhill properties.  Part of the remediation will take place on the adjacent property and before the applicant can move forward, they must obtain written permission from their neighbor to complete the work.  The BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application as presented conditional upon receipt of the neighbor’s permission. 

Denberg – 33 Turtle Mountain Road – Screened in Outdoor Porch:
The applicant described plans for the addition of a screened in outdoor porch to the home located at 33 Turtle Mountain Road.  Plans of the existing home were presented with the applicant describing the proposed design and indicating where it would be located.  The BAR, although generally supportive of the plan as described, felt unable to provide feedback without more detailed plans.  Before the application can proceed, a variance must be obtained from the BZA.  It was agreed that the Building Inspector would refer the applicant to the BZA for consideration at its May meeting.  In the meantime, the applicant will return to the BAR with detailed plans for review. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 18, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 18, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, February 17 at 7pm via Zoom.

Paes – Tower Hill Rd. – New Home:
Changes to the project plans were presented and discussed.  Neighbor Christopher Cummings submitted a letter of concern to the BAR regarding the proposed landscaping and this was read into the record and discussed.  In an effort to mitigate noise concerns raised at a previous meeting by neighbors Hume Steyer and Nanahya Santana, the applicant is proposing to relocate the HVAC units further away from the property line by constructing a pit closer to the south side of the home and sinking the units partially into the ground.  Mr. Steyer thanked the Paes for their effort, noting that they had clearly gone to some trouble in order to address their concerns.  He further noted that he hoped the proposed plan would successfully mitigate the potential issue.  If, after implementation, there are noise-related issues, they will let the Paes know about it and Mr. Steyer is confident that they will work together to figure something out.  Additional changes to the landscaping plan include the installation of a mulch pathway and granite steps leading down towards Continental Road.  Several options for changes to the windows on the front elevation were presented, analyzed and discussed.  Additionally, lighting consultants were present and an informal review of the preliminary lighting plan took place. 
Christopher Cummings reiterated his concerns with regard to landscaping.  Specifically, he pointed out that as part of the Planning Board discussion the neighbors had been led to believe that the agreed upon landscaping plan would be memorialized as part of the building permit process.
Board member Rob McQuilken assured Mr. Cummings that the landscaping had been analyzed at length.  Briefly summarizing what been agreed to, he further stated that he believed that the concerns regarding screening and privacy were being attended to scrupulously and that moving forward there would be more cover/barrier than what had been previously proposed. 
Chair Sheila Tralins added that the BAR approval would include a reference that the requirements of the Planning Board be implemented.  
Michael O’Neal inquired as to how this type of memorialization would come together in terms of a legal document and more specifically how they could ensure that it would be continued in perpetuity.
The attorney for the Planning Board has created a legal document of which the BAR is in receipt.  Chair Tralins suggested that the document provides legislative history in terms of what was intended were there to be a problem, but ultimately she believes this is a question for the Planning Board attorney.
The Paes will return to the BAR with a spec book and material samples.

Bazylevsky – 122 Turtle Point Rd. – Pool, Spa, Patio, Wall, Pool Fence and Trellis:
Updated plans for the project were presented and reviewed.  As per the request of the engineer, a detail sheet has been prepared.  The engineer noted that the sheet adequately addressed all of his concerns. Following some brief discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Shumaker – 104 Clubhouse Rd. – Pool, Patio, Spa, Wall, Trellis Structure:
Building Inspector John Ledwidth confirmed that the neighbors had been notified. He will work with the BZA to determine which variances are needed.  The proposed pool has been sited roughly 25 feet away from the property line.  Preliminary plans were presented and reviewed.  The property predates the zoning code, and is irregularly shaped with more lawn space in the front and not as much on side or in the rear, which makes siting the pool somewhat of a challenge.  Due to the layout of the property, what has been proposed does not conform to the current setback regulations.  Pictures showing the proposed location were presented. Board member Rob McQuilken noted that historically there was a tennis court in the same location.  Lighting was briefly discussed.  The fencing will be concealed behind a boxwood hedge.  The applicant will return to the BAR after they have been before the BZA.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 18, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeeting

Zoom Instructions

By Computer:

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83054478953?pwd=K1VHUDhTMjNEOEJqL0pPRHZ4TDVidz09

Meeting ID: 830 5447 8953

Passcode: 345068

By SmartPhone

+16465588656,,83054478953#,,,,*345068# US (New York)

By Phone

+1 646 558 8656 US (New York)

Meeting ID: 830 5447 8953

Passcode: 345068

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 4, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review at 7pm on Thursday, Febraury 4, 2021 via Zoom.

Rifkin – 97 West Lake Rd. – Demolition of Existing House and Construction of New Home:
The applicant is in receipt of variances from the BZA.
Revised plans for the project were presented and reviewed.
Suggestions and comments made by the BAR at the previous meeting including the chimney cap, stone wall ledge at the back of the house and stone patterns were discussed first.  Various changes/adjustments have been made to the plan to incorporate the BAR’s comments.  Next, a list of items put forth by the building engineers was reviewed.  Several of the items pertained more to planning aspects of the project as opposed to architectural issues.  Some of the items reviewed included building permit costs, materials and material colors, construction and demolition drawings and plans, erosion control, walkways, screening of the generator, drainage, cuts and fills and driveway materials. 
An initial landscape plan has been submitted. 
The proposed lighting fixtures were also briefly discussed. 
The Rifkins are considering adding a boathouse and an initial design was presented with general feedback requested from the BAR. 
Board member Christopher Gow wondered whether or not the addition of a boathouse was permissible under the current code.
Building Inspector John Ledwith noted that several years back the previous home owner had presented evidence that a boathouse had previously existed on the property.  He further noted that back in 2008 there had been an opportunity for lake front property to owners who were able to present proof that a structure of this nature had previously existed to retain the right to build the structure moving forward.
The BAR will require more time to review these plans as well as details pertaining to materials, etc.  Their initial feedback on the proposed design was positive.  As any construction within 100 feet of the reservoir must receive a variance from the BZA before it can proceed, Mr. Ledwith will refer the Rifkins to that Board once he has received the updated application.  There was some discussion with regard to whether or not the Rifikins would like to consider having two separate applications for the home and the boathouse as the addition of the boathouse to the existing application will likely delay the project approval. 
The Rifkins would like to keep the application for both structures as one. 
Following some further discussion as to the type of information the BAR will require for the proposed boathouse

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 21, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, January 21 at 7pm via Zoom.

Paes – Tower Hill Road – New Home:
Although this application is still undergoing the Planning Board process, revised plans were presented and reviewed.  Notable changes include the addition of a rusticated base at the water table, which was very well received by the BAR as well as the reduction in scale to some of the dormers on the garage.  A handful of other architectural details were discussed including walls and windows.  A landscaping plan was also presented and reviewed in detail.  Discussion centered around the entrance way, proposed Belgian block design, columns, screening, lawns, the swimming pool and surrounding deck, stone steps, retaining walls and the addition of a mulch pathway.  Various types of proposed plantings were also reviewed and discussed.
Neighbors Hume Steyer and Nanahya Santana were present and expressed their concerns with regard to the location of the proposed HVAC units and more specifically the potential for detrimental noise impact.  Both noted that 3 HVAC units had fairly recently been installed at the Sink house (two houses up from the Paes lot on Tower Hill) and expressed concern that if the proposed Paes units were as loud as these, they would be surrounded by the sound of HVAC and that this noise would make it difficult if not impossible for them to enjoy the tranquility outdoors on their own neighboring property during the warmer months.
This was discussed and it was agreed that there might be a way to relocate the proposed HVAC units to another area of the property.  The applicant is willing to consider this. 
The Paes will return to the BAR with updated plans in the near future.

Bazylevsky – 122 Turtle Point Rd. – Pool, Spa, Patio, Wall, Pool Fence and Trellis:
Plans were presented for the addition of a new pool at the home located at 122 Turtle Point Rd. and otherwise known to many as the blue stables.  The applicant noted that they understood that many residents considered this home to be a landmark in the Park and that they did not want to change how it looked to the community.  In planning their pool they have made a conscious effort to make it look as though it has always been there, by keeping it simple in design and making sure to blend it with both the landscape and the existing home.
The plans were reviewed in some detail. In addition to the pool and surrounding deck, the applicant is proposing to build a retaining wall, pathway and some steps.  They would also like to install a trellis over the existing patio.  Some material samples were submitted.
It was noted that the BAR had received letters from neighbors Gary Glynn and Michele Lindsay and these would be entered into the record.  Mr. Glynn’s letter was focused on the potential noise impact of the pool.  The applicant presented the Board with a video he had made in which it was demonstrated that music played at full volume in the area where the pool was barely, it at all, audible from the Glynn property.  The Bazylevskys would like to work with their neighbors in order to try and ensure that everyone is pleased with the outcome of the project.  Following some further discussion, it was agreed that the applicant would continue to develop their plans before returning to the BAR for additional review. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 21, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81153336859?pwd=REpGMXIyMDBoQ3RFWWNPdUZSQldRUT09

Meeting ID: 811 5333 6859

Passcode: 344410

One tap mobile

+16465588656,,81153336859#,,,,*344410# US (New York)

+13126266799,,81153336859#,,,,*344410# US (Chicago)

Dial by your location

        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)

        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)

        +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington D.C)

        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)

        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)

        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)

Meeting ID: 811 5333 6859

Passcode: 344410

Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kWQb7N5by

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 7, 2021

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, January 7 at 7pm via Zoom.

Novacek – 127 East Lake Rd. – New Front Porch Addition, Generator and Windows:
Since their last appearance before the BAR, the Applicant has received the two necessary variances from the Board of Zoning Appeals for lot coverage and front yard setback.  Revised design drawings were presented and discussed.  Changes include the addition of a detailed roof plan, as well as details pertaining to project materials, colors, and lighting.  Photos of material samples were presented.  Engineering comments were also reviewed and landscaping was discussed. Over all the BAR was pleased with the project as presented and following the review voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Rifkin – 97 West Lake Rd. – Demolition of Existing House and Build New Home:
Revised plans were presented and reviewed as were engineering comments. Discussion centered largely around material specs, elevations, stone coping, railings and light fixtures.  Use of the synthetic material boral was also discussed.  The applicant will return to the BAR in the future for further project review.

Palazzola/Guinchard – 66 Clubhouse Rd. – Addition to Home:
Drawings and preliminary plans for an addition off the rear of the home located at 66 Club House Rd. were presented and reviewed in detail.  The applicant is looking to remove the 1957 second floor, rear addition, which is supported by beams and in disrepair, and replace it with a centered, two-story addition and deck, which will be slightly more modern but in keeping with the historical style of the home.  Additionally, they would like to turn the current garage into a living space, replacing the current bay doors as well as the front door with carriage house style doors.  Finally, they are looking to relocate the driveway to the north side of the home, and replace the current parking pad with a garden. 
The applicants’ architect went through the drawings of each elevation with the Board in great detail laying out exactly what was being proposed, including general/basic information with regard to proposed materials and design choices.
The Board was largely in support of the plans with several members commenting that they felt the proposed project would improve both the integrity of the home and the surrounding neighborhood. Neighbor Jake Matthews praised the project as a whole but expressed some concern with regard to the relocation of the driveway, specifically its’ size and configuration, suggesting that there could be numerous negative impacts to their property in terms of noise and light. 
This was amicably discussed.  The applicant presented pictures depicting where cars would be parked and the potential impact of headlights on the Matthews property.  Potential landscaping/screening as well as elevations and topography of the proposed project were also touched upon.
Neighbor Mike Santoianni expressed his support for the project, noting that he really liked what had been proposed and felt that relocating the driveway and thus moving the cars further off the road would be an improvement for the entire neighborhood.
Side-yard setback and volume variances are required from the BZA before the application can proceed.  The applicant will appear before that Board in early February before returning to the BAR.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 7, 2021

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

Join Zoom Meeting

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81658160834?pwd=ZzREUFJJY1RxRHN6M0YxQ0hyZ3J2dz09

Meeting ID: 816 5816 0834

Passcode: 424839

One tap mobile

+16465588656,,81658160834#,,,,*424839# US (New York)

+13017158592,,81658160834#,,,,*424839# US (Washington D.C)

Dial by your location

        +1 646 558 8656 US (New York)

        +1 301 715 8592 US (Washington D.C)

        +1 312 626 6799 US (Chicago)

        +1 346 248 7799 US (Houston)

        +1 669 900 9128 US (San Jose)

        +1 253 215 8782 US (Tacoma)

Meeting ID: 816 5816 0834

Passcode: 424839

Find your local number: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kbbNh5Mpul

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 17, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, December 17 at 7pm via Zoom.

Paes – Tower Hill Road – New Home:
Revised plans for the new home on Tower Hill Road were presented, and discussed.  The applicant has been before the BZA and received the necessary variances.  Some changes include reduction in size of terraces, changes to the windows, reconfiguration of French doors, archways and stairs on the rear elevation, slight alteration to roofline elevation and changes to dormers.  Various design elements were discussed with the applicant’s architect pointing to various photographs of historic homes that were used as inspiration.  Landscaping and drainage were also discussed.  It was suggested that the applicant consider planting trees in the open spaces on the downward slope behind the home in an effort to mitigate any potential drainage/runoff impacts on the houses below on Continental Road.
Now that the applicable variances have been granted from the BZA, the applicant needs site plan approval from the Planning Board as well as Architectural/Design approval from the BAR before they can proceed.

Following a somewhat lengthy discussion of all these things, it was agreed that the applicant would return to the BAR in the near future with updated plans.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 17, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 5, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, November 5, 2020 via Zoom.

Sunnymede LLC – 194 East Lake Road – Swimming Pool with Gazebo and Fireplace:
Modifications to the plan, including the relocation of the pool and gazebo as previously discussed as well as relocation of spa were briefly reviewed and discussed.  Shifting the location will alleviate the need for blasting.  Engineering comments were also reviewed.   Following some minimal discussion the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application subject to an update of the plans to reflect comments made on the consulting engineer’s analysis of the project as well as confirmation from the Code Enforcement Officer that the previously granted variance for decks continues to be valid based on the relocation of the pool.

Subocz – 38 Pine Road – Garage Doors:
The BAR expressed some confusion over the application as presented, which calls for steel doors.  At the previous meeting, the applicant had been advised of the Design Guidelines, which show a clear preference for wooden doors. “As we discussed at the last meeting,” noted BAR Chair Sheila Tralins “anything other than wood, given the implementation of the design guidelines over time, and what we have required of neighbors and the Building Inspector, who has issued violations requiring residents to replace non-wood garage doors installed without the approval of the BAR, has not been acceptable.  Given that, I am not sure we really have much room to consider this application with this material as the basis of the doors.”
The other BAR members were asked for comment and they concurred.  “I guess the question to applicant,” stated BAR member Rob McQuilken “is can you find an alternative to this constructive wood that will still function the same way and will look as beautiful or more so.”
The Applicant responded that she worked in interior construction and the whole idea behind the proposed doors was sustainable material.  She does not like to use wood because of what she intimated was a global situation.  She had been hoping that the BAR would look at the photos she had provided along with the sample panel and re-evaluate their recommendation.
Chair Tralins responded that the Board did not feel comfortable approving the proposed material.  “If you want us to vote we will,” she stated “which would result in probably a denial, but then you could appeal to the ZBA if you chose.”  Conversely she suggested “you could also come back to us with another option that included wood doors, which is the precedent and what we have required of your neighbors throughout the Village.”
“Not all doors are wood doors on the garages throughout the Village,” countered the applicant.
Chair Tralins responded that this might be so, but when replacements were sought, the BAR worked to bring them into compliance.  “We can’t go with what might have happened in the past. We’re just trying to maintain the aesthetic.  The guidelines and the precedent have relied on the wood doors.  I’m not sure we are willing to make an exception here at this point in time.”
Rob McQuilken reiterated that if the applicant felt strongly about it, they could take the vote, which he believed would be negative, and then the path would laid for an appeal to the BZA, where they could try to get a variance.  “If you feel strongly that these are superior doors and a superior solution, it just simply would need a variance in order to be fair and right as far as what everyone else has been required to do when they make a change.” He added “If there are existing doors throughout the Park that don’t conform, it may be that the Building Inspector hasn’t asked them to change it because they haven’t tried to make a change.”  He further suggested that once a change is proposed, grandfathering of any kind is lost.  “Perhaps a variance would be in order as far as the BZA is concerned, and they can give it to you.”
The applicant reiterated that she would prefer to use a more sustainable material and that perhaps the BZA appeal was the route she would take.
Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously against approving the steel doors as proposed.  The applicant now has the option to move forward with the BZA.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 5, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 15, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, October 15 at 7pm via Zoom.

Novacek – 127 East Lake Road – New Front Porch Addition:
The applicant’s architect presented the BAR with plans for a new front porch on the home located at 127 East Lake Rd as well as the installation of an emergency generator and buried propane tank and full home window replacement.  The proposed porch will require a variance from the ZBA due to setback regulations.  The BAR’s consultants have provided a memo, and the applicant went through each of the items.  Lighting was briefly discussed, as were the specs for the windows, porch and railings.  There was a conversation regarding precedent for the proposed roof on the porch.  BAR member Rob McQuilken expressed some concern over what had been proposed, suggesting it looked a bit awkward and that the applicant should consider rethinking and refining the design in an attempt to come up with a more simplified resolution of the different rooflines there.  BAR member Christopher Gow expressed some concern over the prosed standing seem metal roofing, commenting that the color might stick out and detract from the architecture.   It was agreed that the applicant could move forward with the generator and that they would return to the BAR following their meeting with the ZBA.
Gazin – 60 Lorillard Road – Driveway Entrance Columns:
Following some technical difficulties, the applicant joined the meeting and briefly presented preliminary plans to construct stone pillars at the foot of the driveway at 60 Lorillard Rd.  The BAR’s engineer ran through a number of items including the need for stone samples as well as cap materials, foundation detail, lighting and sight distance.  Board Chair Sheila Tralins reiterated that most importantly samples of the stone and cap materials would be necessary. 
Mr. Gow suggested that new stone pillars tended to “stick out like a sore thumb” and that it was often difficult to make them blend and look appropriate, especially when not connected to a wall or a gate.  He suggested that the pillars might detract from the beauty of the home and make things look “a bit more suburban.”
Mr. Gazin responded that the genesis of the project had to do with the fact that they often experienced people wandering off the roadway and onto his property.  He wondered if adding a low wall around the driveway to frame it in a more meaningful way would be helpful.
Mr. Gow suggested that this would make things even worse.  “It’s like pretending to be something,” he stated.  He went on to suggest that now that they understood the motivation behind the project, perhaps there was an alternative that could be considered that might be more appropriate.
Mr. McQuilen commented that he had just redone a small stone wall on his property and in the course of that project they had discovered that parts of the wall were made up of extremely small pieces.  Ultimately, they ended up sourcing some boulders on the property and putting them in their place.  He suggested that perhaps a pair of “big, hefty, chunky” boulders might fit well there and that they could even paint the house number on the boulder which would make it clear that it was an egress.
A neighbor commented that she understood the reason for the project and that she liked the idea of the boulders. 
Following some further discussion, the applicant agreed that he liked the idea and would be willing to consider it.  He stated that he would speak with his landscaper and follow up.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 15, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 17, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, September 17 at 7pm via Zoom.

Wang – 37 West Lake Rd. – Glass Porch Enclosure and Sunroom Addition:
The BAR is in receipt of updated drawings, per their request as well as comments from the Engineer pertaining to the project.  Building Inspector Ledwith reported that the items in the Engineering memo had been sufficiently addressed.  Windows and materials are consistent with what was previous discussed.
The BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the project with the understanding that there will be a question with regard to the construction cost and whether that should be amended at this stage.

Subocz – 38 Pine Rd. – Replace House and Garage Doors and Add Driveway Gates:
The applicant provided the BAR with a brief overview of the proposed project, which includes replacing the existing garage doors, as well as the side door next to the garage.  The garage doors are proposed to be mahogany, while the applicant is looking to  make the side door a steel door in a color to match the garage with French windows.  They are also looking to replace the front door of the home with a custom iron made door with glass.  Finally, they would like to install gates at both driveway entrances.  The Village engineer reviewed their comments with the applicant and the BAR.  Gates larger than 4 feet in size require BZA approval.  No scale is depicted on the plans for the proposed gates.  Discussion is needed regarding the proposed ornamental ironwork doors that were submitted. 
BAR member Christopher Gow inquired to the purpose of the proposed gates wondering whether their purpose was security based or more aesthetic.  The answer was a little of both, but mainly aesthetic.  Mr. Gow cautioned that decorative, largely non-functioning gates, which would not be pillared by either pre-existing stone pillars or a wall of some sort, might detract from the work that the applicant has already done to the house.  “It’s maybe a little bit too much,” he commented, further suggesting that the addition of a gate in such a naturalistic area might  “stick out like a sore thumb.”   Turning to the proposed doors, he expressed some concern that because much of the existing, historic ironwork in the Village is of such a high standard, anything new and modern will likely appear inferior.
BAR Member Rob McQuilkin agreed with Mr. Gow, further expressing concerns about the gate and its lack of pillars.
The applicant responded that it would not be a stand-alone gate and that the drawings that had been presented were preliminary. 
Mr. McQuilken responded that it might difficult for the BAR to talk about the proposed driveway gates until they could view the entire plan.  Moving back to the doors, he suggested that they all looked fine to him and that if the applicant had a craftsman who was capable of doing the work depicted in the some of the photographs presented, he could see the iron working on the front door as well, however it would be interesting to see how that kind of work would fit into the existing building.  “At the moment it’s a bit of a leap of faith,” he stated, noting that they had been provided with pictures of the existing front door and separate pictures of ironwork, but there was nothing to connect them. 
The Project designer added that the doors would be constructed in the same style as those shown in the picture and that they would be made of bronze so that they would fit the color of the shutters and the roof and the overall color scheme of the house.  
The design of the gates was briefly discussed.  The applicant is proposing that they also be constructed of bronze to match the doors and compliment the overall look.  It was agreed that the BAR would need a lot more information before they could really review this part of the proposed project.
Neighbor Leslie Devore commented that when she and her husband had built their home, they were before the BAR for over a year seeking approvals.  At that time it had been required that they have wooden garage doors and she wondered whether or not that provision had changed.
It was revealed that although the proposed doors had a mahogany finish, they were actually constructed out of steel.
BAR Chair Sheila Tralins acknowledged that this was a fair point and that the applicant should consider this.
Building Inspector John Ledwith concurred noting that he did not believe the proposed doors would meet the design guidelines. 
The project designer suggested that the steel doors would be much more sustainable than wooden ones.  He further suggested that he felt that people need to start looking at the contemporary times and the fact that “what we did 20 or 30 years ago is not necessarily what we should be doing today.”  There are materials that are available that provide the same feel and look but are much more sustainable.
Chair Tralins responded that she understood this point and further suggested that once the applicant had submitted a sample they would be in a better position to assess what was being proposed.
BAR member Josh Aaron commented that they had always required wooden doors in the Village and that in the past when applicants had proposed metal or aluminum, they had been asked to alter their plans and install wood.  Whether it is sustainable or not is not relevant to the fact that it is part of the BAR design Guidelines.
Chair Tralins acknowledged this but further suggested that she believed the BAR should take a look at what was being proposed with the understanding that it would be an aberration if approved.
Following some further discussion it was agreed that the applicant would continue to develop the plans and return to the BAR for further review.

Shaw – 126 Tower Hill Rd. – Construct Retaining Wall for Gravel Terrace:
The applicants provided the BAR with an overview of the project, which is the construction of a simple retaining wall on the hillside behind their home, where they are looking to add a 20x20 foot gravel terrace.  Because sections of the proposed wall are greater than 3 and 4 feet, approvals are necessary.
The engineer read through a list of comments, which were discussed, including project materials and costs, height of the wall and terrace barriers. 

It was agreed that the applicant would construct a sample of the wall for the BAR to come and look at. 
The BAR then unanimously approved the application, subject to the aforementioned site visit. 

Santoianni – 62 Clubhouse Rd. – Fence in Front and Side Yard:
The applicant presented the BAR with an overview of the project, which consists of the installation of a 4-foot, cedar, scalloped, picket fence along the side of the home in order to enclose the yard at 62 Clubhouse Rd.  Additionally, deer fencing is proposed in the rear of the home.  The applicant hopes to eventually install a hedge in this area to screen the fence.
The engineer read through his comments, which pertained mainly to the height of the fence and setback regulations and these were discussed.  Building Inspector Ledwith noted that although the proposed fence enclosed approximately 1/3 of the property it was not considered a perimeter fence. 
Fence color was discussed.  The applicant is considering either A dark green or white. 
BAR member Rob McQuilken expressed some disappointment at not being able to see what the proposed fence would look like in conjunction with the house.  It was determined that the applicant would construct a sample of the fence and paint it so that the BAR could subsequently make a site visit.  The BAR is in support of the deer fencing as proposed with screening.  Various screening options were discussed.
The BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application as proposed subject to approval of color of the cedar following a site visit. 

Rifkin – 97 West Lake Rd. - Demolition of Existing House and Build New Home:
The applicants’ architect presented the BAR with a brief description of the plans to tear down the existing home at 97 West Lake Road and replace it with a new home that is “more fitting on the lake and a beautiful piece of architecture.“  They are aware that the project will need variances from the BZA before it can proceed but they wanted to bring it before the BAR in this preliminary stage in order to get some initial feedback on the overall plan and design. 
BAR Member Christopher Dow commented that he loved it and felt it would be a “fantastic change” to what is currently there.  “The sensibility of it reflects a lot of the best about Tuxedo Park,” he added. 
The rest of the BAR was in agreement.  The proposed home is in keeping with the community and will look as though it has been there for 100 years. 
Various design elements were discussed such as downspouts, windows and gables. 
Preliminary engineering comments were briefly reviewed.
Ultimately it was agreed that the applicant could proceed to the BZA for the necessary variances before returning to the BAR with more detailed plans.

Tuxedo Park Tree Advisory Board – Tuxedo Road – NYS Historic Marker Plaque:
Christopher Gow explained that the sign would be installed at the south entrance to the Racetrack.  It would be mounted on 4-foot high, galvanized steel mounting pole and placed by the DPW in a spot visible to those driving up Tuxedo Road.  The goal is for the sign to look like all the other official historic marker signs in the area (for example there is a similar sign in front of the Sloat House on Route 17 South in Sloatsburg) and the purpose is to alert people to the historic and environmental aspects of the property and to encourage residents to visit the park. 
The BAR was supportive of the sign and agreed that it was both good looking and fitting for the proposed spot.  Once the BAR has approved the sign, Mr. Gow will present it to the Board of Trustees for final approval.
The BAR then unanimously approved the sign as proposed, with Mr. Gow recusing himself from the vote.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 17, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 20, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, August 20 at 7pm via Zoom.


Sunnymede LLC – 194 East Lake Rd. – Gazebo and Blasting for Pool Excavation:
It was brought to the BAR’s attention that after the application was amended to include blasting all of, the neighbors were not properly notified.  This has been remedied. 
Board Chair Sheila Tralins noted that the BAR was in receipt of 4 letters from neighbors and others in the Village including Elizabeth Cotnoir, Inger Rein-Grueterich, Sue Heywood and Paola Tocci.  These lengthy letters have officially been entered into record.   The main focus of the letters pertained to the impacts from potential blasting involved with construction of the pool.  Some of the concerns listed were noise, impacts on the lake with regard to runoff and leakage, timing of the construction, potential damage to bedrock and foundations of homes, damage to landscaping, quantity and length of time of the blasting, truck traffic and safety concerns as well as wear and tear on the Village roads. 
Chair Tralins inquired whether any of the letter-writers were present on the call  and if so, if they wanted to speak to their letter.
Sue Heywood noted that Jim Hays, Chair of the Lakes Committee, had also submitted a letter, citing environmental concerns with potential lake pollution. 
Ms. Tralins responded that she had not seen the letter but once it had been determined that others had indeed received it, she further noted that it would be attached to the record.
Jim Hays commented that his main concern was with the state of the slope between the house and the lake, which has been deforested and stripped of vegetation. While much of this was done before the currently owners took possession of the property, more has possibly been done since.  The deforestation causes extreme erosion because the soil has been exposed to rain and the consequent runoff pulls the soil into the lake.  This is “a damage” to the property of the owners, which they are likely concerned about.  The vegetation needs to be restored.  He suggested that before any permit for blasting was granted that there should some sort of commitment on the part of the owners that the slope between the house and the lake will be re-vegetated.  He further suggested that he felt a landscape architecture could draw up a plan, which could in turn be reviewed by the BAR.  He also feels that an extensive vegetative barrier should be planted along the margin of the lake to keep the runoff from going directly into the water.  The soils contain a lot of phosphate, which fuels the development of both blue/green algae and Eurasian Water Milfoil in the lake..
The applicant noted that they had seen all of the letters with the exception of the one written by Mr. Hays.  They appreciate the comments from neighbors and their concern for maintaining a quiet, peaceful area with safe roads.  Everyone wants the lake to be in a strong environmental position and they stand with their neighbors on that front.  They chose the location of their pool because they felt it would be the least offensive as it cannot be seen from the road, the lake or by any of the neighbors.  Building a pool in the proposed location comes at a greater expense.  They were told that while historically only chipping had been allowed in the Village, in recent years this method had greatly elongated the construction of a handful of swimming pools and so blasting was now permitted as a potential alternative.   After reviewing the letters it seems clear that the neighbors would prefer they not blast.  If this will make everyone happy, they are agreeable and will amend their plan accordingly.  The intent behind the proposed blasting was to minimize the amount of overall noise over a prolonged period of time.  “We’re happy to do it the long way,” the applicant noted, further suggesting that they could also relocate the pool on the property.  “We only have one patch of grass on our entire property,” the applicant stated, “but if we move the pool down to that patch of grass, the project would entail mostly digging and touch of chipping and it’s quieter and faster.  We lose the only grass we have, but it’s also sort of in a valley so there is zero runoff potential down to the lake.”  She further suggested that they could develop and resubmit a plan with the pool in a new location, agreeably delaying the project until the spring.  Ultimately, they have respect for the community and their neighbors and while they certainly want to have a pool, they want to go about it in an agreeable way. 
Chair Tralins thanked that applicant for their agreeable nature and good faith throughout the process.  She further noted that should the request for blasting be withdrawn and replaced with chipping, this would become an issue for the Building Inspector and the Engineers, although the BAR would still review the revised application for the relocated pool and gazebo. 
Following some further discussion, centered around both importance of the landscape so close to the lake and the process moving forward, the applicant stated that they would formally withdraw their application and submit a new one in the coming weeks.

Wang – 37 West Lake Rd. – Glass Porch Enclosure and Sunroom Addition:
The applicant noted that following a site visit from the BAR and further contemplation of their suggestions, they had decided not to pursue the glass enclosure on the lake side of the house as previously proposed.  On the other side of the home, where there has been some foundation damage, they are going to adopt the suggestion of the BAR which is to install a portico that will be very complimentary to the lake side portico and then add a glass enclosure with glass comparable to that of the existing windows. 
Board member Rob McQuilken thanked the applicant for the proposed revisions to the plan further noting that he felt they represented a great outcome that would preserve the view of the house from the lake while simultaneously solving the problem of the drainage on the East side of the home and creating an opportunity to enhance the look and return some of the house to something closer to what it once was. 
There followed a discussion pertaining to project materials.  Ultimately it was agreed that the applicant would submit an updated set of drawings for approval and barring any apparent issues, these would be approved at the next meeting.

Laukitis – 16 Brook Rd. – Two-Story Addition to House:
The applicant presented the BAR with revised plans for the project at 16 Brook Rd.  Developments include the addition of a site plan identifying the location and slope of proposed driveway addition that would link the existing driveway to the new garage space, also newly proposed.  They feel that the proposal meets code requirements in terms of both slope and setback. 
Drainage and runoff were discussed along with other engineering related details and landscaping concerns. 
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application subject to the receipt of a detailed landscaping and outdoor lighting plans
.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 20, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 6, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 16, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, July 16 at 7pm via Zoom.
All members were present.

Sodora – 157 Tower Hill Rd. West – House Paint Color Change and Window Shutters:
Following minimal discussion, the BAR unanimously approved the paint change color for the Sodora home at 157 Tower Hill Rd.

Howard – 12 Ridge Rd. – Extending Wooden Fence in Front of Driveway:
Notices have been sent to the neighbors with no negative response. After a brief review of the project, the BAR unanimously approved the replacement and extension of the fence with stain color change at 12 Ridge Rd.

Sunnymede LLC – 194 East Lake Rd – Swimming Pool with Gazebo and Fire Place:
That BAR completed a site visit and examined the sight lines for both the Gazebo and the pool.  Engineering comments have been submitted. The need for an erosion control plan was discussed. The proposed gazebo will have multiple rooms, including a shower as well as electric power.  Details must be added to the plan showing where the various lines will run, the wiring and the shower drain/septic connection.  Additionally, some updates need to be made to the architectural drawings, specifically pertaining to the height of the chimney and the peak of the roof.  The location of the windows and flashing was also briefly discussed.
Ultimately it was determined that the architectural drawings should be revised to include the engineer’s suggestions pertinent to the chimney and roof, and that most of the other concerns related to pipes, drains and wires could be addressed in the construction plans.  In the meantime, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the pool. 

Farmerie – 119 Laurel Rd – Open Pavilion/Trellis:
The applicant explained that due to the location of the home, which is essentially on the side of a mountain, there is an excessive amount of wind that regularly comes through the back yard, making it impossible to maintain any sort of umbrella-type structure for more than a season.  To this end, they would like to install a permanent pavilion/trellis there.  The width of the proposed pavilion will be the same as the house while the height of the trellis will relate to that of the front porch and mud room in the back.  The plan is to plant the pavilion with wisteria once constructed. 
Neighbors have been notified.  Engineering comments were discussed.  Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application subject to the final submission of footing plans.

LCTP Resources, 30 East Lake Rd – Path Lighting:
The applicant presented plans for standard, low voltage lighting to illuminate the steps to the dock on their property located at 30 East Lake Road.  Neighbors have been notified with no complaints received.  Future landscaping plans for the property were discussed.  The applicant owns two, contiguous lots in that location with a boathouse on one and dock on the other.  They are hoping to begin a greenhouse renovation project on the 30 East Lake Road property some time next year. Following this discussion, the BAR unanimously approved the application.

Wang – 37 West Lake Rd – Glass Porch Enclosure and Sunroom Addition:
The applicant and his architect presented the BAR with plans for a glass porch enclosure and sunroom at the home located at 37 West Lake Road.
Weather conditions and winds coming of the lake are one of the issues driving the application.  The applicant’s current living room does not have a foyer to protect it from the elements and there is a serious draft. The Tennis House, located right next door, uses removable enclosures to protect it from wind off the Lake during winter months.  The Wang house is on a higher elevation and as a result the wind issue is more severe there, but they do not wish to pursue the same type of industrial solution that the Tuxedo Club has done with the Tennis House. Historically (100 years ago) the home did have a two-story glass enclosure to protect it from wind and a photograph depicting this was presented.
On the Club side of the house just beyond the terrace there is a stone wall and underneath, just behind this wall there is a room, located in the basement.  The unprotected terrace area is causing leaks in the basement, which cannot be resolved.  The applicant is proposing a sunroom enclosure here.  Permission to extend the terrace was granted back in 2015.  This will provide for a connection between the enclosed porch and the new sunroom. Various options for enclosing the spaces were presented and discussed at some length.  The ceiling and the angling of the roof on the proposed sunroom addition were also discussed primarily in terms of what was there historically vs. what currently exists on the opposite side of the house and whether these things can somehow be integrated into the proposed design for what many of the BAR members feel might be a more appropriate look for the historic home. The applicant is open to suggestions.  Ultimately it was determined that while the BAR generally supports what has been proposed for the lake-facing side of the home, they would like to see another solution for the club-facing side/sun room.  The applicant will take the BAR’s comments and suggestions into consideration and return with a revised plan in the near future.

Subocz – 38 Pine Road – Belgium Block Aprons and Curbing:
The applicant began a driveway project without BAR approval last fall.  A stop work order was issued and the applicant was brought before the BAR at which point it was determined that they would formulate and present a plan for for completing the project subject to BAR review.   Unfortunately, the applicant chose to complete the project without BAR approval during the month of May.  Before and after pictures were presented.  The landscaping was discussed.  The BAR feels that some of the ornamental planting that has been done highlights the urban look of the Belgian block, making it stand out.  The idea of planting shade tolerant ferns/plantings in and among the rocks, anchoring the trees and cantilevering out over the Belgian block was suggested and discussed.  The applicant was not opposed to this idea.  The installation of a fountain in front of the home was briefly discussed.  Building Inspector John Ledwith noted that he did not believe it was visible from the roadway.   The applicant indicated that she was considering installation of a gate, but this needed to be further mapped out and formally proposed.
Neighbor Leslie Devore commented that it seemed as though the applicant had been strip mining the property during the course of the project.  She further commented that a large fountain had also been installed and was visible from the roadway. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 16, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 2, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, July 2 2020 via Zoom.

Howard – 12 Ridge Rd – New Front porch and Pergola, Siding Color Change, Fencing, Lighting:
Engineering comments for the application were reviewed and discussed. 
The proposed front porch has also been resized to meet the maximum square footage requirements.  The applicant will also be replacing the existing cedar fence, which is in disrepair, with a new cedar fence and extending it to the edge of their driveway.  It will be stained a darker color to help it recede and blend with the house.   This represents a small change to the application and so the neighbors will have to be noticed and given time to comment.  The applicant will return in two weeks for final approval.

Ibanez & Karbowska – 102 Turtle Point Rd. – Garage Paint Color Change:
This application was unanimously approved.

Sunnymede LLC – 194 East Lake Rd – Swimming Pool with Gazebo and Fire Place/Change Trim Color of House:
The applicant presented revised schematics for the Gazebo, which included an additional stone column on the backside.  Since their last appearance before the BAR, a site visit was performed.  An arborist has also visited the site and determined that a significant tree in the project area can be saved despite removal of roughly 30% of its root structure.  Blasting and pool depth was briefly discussed.  The engineer provided notes. Setback details must be clearly labeled on the plans, more details on the pool specs are required.  Soil erosion and sediment control plans are needed as are more detailed plans for the gazebo. These details will emerge as the project emerges.  The applicant has determined that, based on BAR feedback at the previous meeting, they no longer wish to change the trim color on the home.  The applicant will return to the BAR with more detailed plans in a couple of weeks.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 2, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 18, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, June 18 at 7pm via Zoom.

Huntington – 107 Tower Hill Loop – Change Color of House:
The applicant presented the BAR with revised plans for the color of his home, located at 107 Tower Hill Loop.  Following the advice of the BAR, the applicant has decided to go with Bleeker Beige instead of white on white as originally proposed.  Following minimal discussion the BAR approved the color choice subject to first hand inspection of a sample currently painted on the home. 

Howard – 12 Ridge Road – New Front Porch and Pergola, Siding Color Change and Lighting:
Noting that she had removed both the front porch and pergola from the items she was hoping to get approval for that evening, Mrs. Howard asked the BAR to consider approving the back deck, as discussed at the previous meeting (installation of wood decking over existing brick), as well as stained cedar siding, window trim and the installation of planter boxes. 
Materials and lighting were discussed as was the whitewashing of the brick chimney and the addition of some stucco there.  Additionally, two windows on the street-facing façade of the home will receive awnings.  Following some further discussion, the Board voted in favor of approving the resurfacing of the back deck and lighting, siding color change and the installation of flowerboxes.  The Applicant will next work to amend plans for the front porch and pergola before returning to the BAR.

Sunnymeade LLC – 194 East Lake Road - Trim Color Change/Swimming Pool with Gazebo and Fire Place:
The home currently has dark green colored trim and the applicant is looking to change it to “white dove.”
BAR member Christopher Gow noted that although the home in question was new, it appeared from a distance to be more historical and this was in part because of the trim.  He expressed concern that the lighter color would highlight the newness of the home.  He recommended a compromise, such as a lighter green. 
The applicant responded that in looking at a number of other homes in the Park, they had deduced that most of the shingle homes had either dark green or white trim.  The Bruce Price cottages all have white trim as do several others.  Although their home is not historic and the others are, they were still hoping to lighten things up.  The carriage house on their property has a white trim and so they were hoping to marry the two structures together a bit.  That being said, they are open to compromise and would be willing to put samples of white as well as lighter green on the home for consideration.   They are also open to keeping the dark green if need be.  Whichever trim color they choose, they will match it to the proposed gazebo. 
The location of the pool and gazebo were discussed as well as the possibility of site work/rock hammering associated with installation.  The BAR is largely in support of the location, although it was agreed that they would make a site visit in the near future to look at it first hand.  Utilities and materials for the pool were also briefly discussed.  It was also noted that the existing indoor pool would be removed. 
The plans for the project are still being developed, so ultimately it was agreed that the BAR would make their site visit and the applicant would return to a future meeting.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 18, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 4, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, June 4 via Zoom.  All members were present.

Volstad – West Lake Rd. – House Paint Color Change:
The applicant presented the BAR with revised color choices as discussed at the previous meeting.  Although it was clear that applicant had taken some of the recommendations previously laid forth by the BAR, they would still prefer to see a darker palette than what has been proposed, and this was discussed.  
Chair Tralins commented that although the BAR was not in full agreement with the design choice, she felt that because the home was not historic, not visible from the roadway and far from its neighbors, she would be inclined to move forward with the applicant’s proposed choice, knowing that the BAR had provided advice to the applicant during the process.
Board member Rob McQuilken inquired of Mr. Volstad whether he would be willing to consider to inverting the proposed color combination so that the windows were not distinguished by the darker color.  
Mr. Volstad responded that if this was what the Board would like him to do and they would accept it, he would be willing to make the change.  
Board member Christopher Gow commented that he believed this would be an excellent compromise. 
Following some minimal discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Huntington – 107 Tower Hill Loop – House Paint Color Change:
The applicant explained that they are looking for approval to continue the existing color that was painted on the west face of their home, which was painted more recently than the front-facing/north facade of the home.  The area in question has not been painted in at least 50 years and is patch stucco.  The applicant would like to continue the existing white color currently on the west facing façade, which will also match the existing white garage door on the east facing side of the home. 
Chair Tralins wondered if the entire home would then be white.
The applicant responded that the original windows have ledge rims on them, the gutter lines are copper and they intend to propose painting the front door black.
Board member Josh Aaron expressed some concern with painting over the stucco on the historic home, noting that it could fall under the purview of being historic fabric.  
Board member Rob McQuiklen added that indeed the home was incredibly historic having been one of the earliest Bruce Price homes built in the Park.  Pierre Lorillard himself lived there while he constructed his other home on the lake.  He wondered if there might be a way to move away from the dirty color of the existing stucco but still preserve the ability for the trim to ump (WHAT?)  off a bit, further suggesting that he believed this was the original architectural intent and it felt it would be a shame to muffle it.    He proposed a somewhat more silver or gray for the stucco as a base. 
The applicant responded that he was not married to the white color as proposed and that the feedback was helpful.  He then pointed out that there were a handful of homes in the Park that were “white on white” including the athletic center (Tennis House) and two homes adjacent to it, some of which are stucco and some of which are not.  They do not feel that the proposed white on white would be dissimilari to some of the architecture that exists in the Park today.  They feel that the extensiveness of the trim and the façade will stand on its own given its detail, even with the white.  However, they are amenable to considering different shades of white with grey or potentially something in the lighter grey pallet if this were the consensus of the BAR.
Board member Christopher Gow agreed that the proposed project was quite important and could wind up changing the look of the house, so if the applicant was amenable to choosing a few options and painting swatches onto the stucco and part of the trim, he was certain  it would “sing and be perfectly harmonious and respectable.”
The applicant responded that the challenge was that they had already done multiple swatches and the interpretation from both builders and painters was that what “sung” was the existing white that they have proposed. 
Again Mr. Aaron expressed concern with painting over the original stucco, noting that the stucco the currently exists on the main part of the house is a natural stucco that would be considered traditional of the time and that he felt painting over it would probably be inappropriate in this case.  Rather he suggested attempting to clean it up a bit, which he believes would be possible.
The applicant countered that the stucco was not original to the house.
Mr. Aaron agreed, but noted that it was likely at least 100 years old, having been added sometime around the turn of the century.  
Following some further discussion it was agreed that the applicant would look to pull together some additional color suggestions that would provide more contrast.

Sodora - 157 Tower Hill Road West – House Paint Color Change and Window Shutters:
The applicant presented plans to change the color of the home at 157 Tower Hill Rd. West from a yellowish “bone white” color to a “white dove” with “tree moss” colored trim and doors. 
Sheila Tralins inquired about the materials for the windows, specifically wondering if they would be operable. 
She wondered if the applicant had considered adding full shutters which would allow for accents such as shutter-dogs and hinges. 
The applicant noted that he would be open to exploring this.
The door of the home is currently painted the “tree moss” color that has been proposed for the rest of the trim.  Mr. Gow suggested that the applicant paint a swatch of the proposed “white dove” on the home next to the door so that the BAR could get a better idea of what the contrast would look like.  He further suggested they might also choose a slightly darker color and paint a swatch of that one as well.
Following some further discussion, it was agreed that this would be done.  Additionally, the applicant will submit shutter detail in the form of cut-sheets prior to the next meeting.

Laukitis – 16 Brook Rd. – Addition to House:
The Applicant and their architect presented the BAR with plans for an addition on the home at 16 Brook Rd.
Mr. McQuilken began the discussion by noting that the proposed plans had been a pleasure to review.  He feels that what has been proposed makes perfect sense for a growing family and is respectful of the existing house.  He also noted that the plans are perfectly calibrated with the previous changes the applicant made to the home.
Board member Christopher Boshears agreed.
The engineer for the BAR read through a relatively brief list of notes/comments.
It was agreed that these would be addressed and that the applicant would return to the next BAR meeting. 

Ibanez & Karbowska – 102 Turtle Point Rd. – Garage Paint Color Change:
Chair Tralins noted that she had conducted a site visit earlier that day and noted that the applicant was in the process of repairing the garage.  The proposal is to make the garage conform to the stone house by painting a grey color on the siding of the garage as well as a “starless night” deep blue on the doors.
This was discussed at some length with BAR members offering various opinions.  Mr. Gow suggested that the darker the better and that possibly adding some landscaping in front in the form of evergreens would help to hide it. 
Mr. Boshears suggested they explore a darker color in the grey pallet for the garage doors such as charcoal.
Mr. McQuilKen agreed with this suggestion.  
It was recommended that the applicant paint swatches on the garage and the applicant agreed that they would do this. 
Noting that it might not be a viable suggestion, Mr. Gow inquired as to whether the applicant had ever considered removing the garage altogether.
The applicant responded that they had not and that they needed the space for their car as well as for storage purposes. 
The idea of painting the trim white was proposed and discussed.
Mr. Gow suggested that the idea was to hide the structure as much as possible and therefore, painting the trim a different color and a light one at that would not be a good idea in his view.
Following further discussion it was reiterated that the applicant would paint swatches on the garage for the BAR to view ahead of the next meeting. 

Howard – 12 Ridge Rd. – New Front Porch and Pergola, Siding Color Change, Lighting:
The applicant presented the Board with plans to construct a new front porch and pergola, as well as a siding color change and lighting changes to the home located at 12 Ridge Rd.  Noting that the current siding is dark in color, the applicant explained that it was deteriorating in spots and that the idea was to fix it while making it darker in color in order to help the home recede into the landscape.  Speaking to the proposed front entryway modifications, she noted that the front of the home is asymmetrical and unbalanced and that the thought with the porch and pergola  was to try and hide the front façade while making for a grander entrance to the house without doing any major architectural interventions.  They are also looking to install planter boxes at the windows and to fix the trim by making to wider.  Although they were originally planning to repair/replace the back porch, they have removed it from the current application for the time being.
Mr. McQuilken noted that the proposed additions to the home were quite sensible.  He inquired about the color of the proposed pergola and specifically whether it would be darker than the home.
The applicant responded that the color of the pergola would relate back to the color of the roof and would be a bit darker than the siding as proposed.
This was discussed.   Mr. McQuilken also questioned the decision to dignify the windows at the basement level with white trim while making the pergola darker.  This was also discussed.  Mr. McQuilken commented that the proposed pergola did not feel to him to be integral to either the home or the period.  He recommended that the applicant take a look at the Emily Post home  to explore what solutions Bruce Price might have come up with for some of the neighboring houses…something that might be an open porch but have more of a connecting rationale to the shingle style period.
Chair Tralins noted that since the home was so set back and low down, most of the pergola would not be visible from the street.
The applicant agreed, noting that she did not believe it would be at all visible from the road.  She further noted that there were not a lot of homes in the Park with uncovered front porches.  She agreed to take a look at the few homes that did.  She further commented that she had “grand schemes” for the front façade of the home that would entail major architectural intervention but she did not believe they would be ready to undertake them for a year or two.  She reiterated that the idea behind the pergola was that it would be a simple way to hide the façade of a home that had not been fully thought through.  Additionally, the existing front porch is not to code, with only one front railing and the applicant has a 15-month old baby.  
Speaking to the proposed lighting, Chair Tralins noted that she felt the applicant should consider frosting the either the shade or the bulbs and lowering the wattage.
Materials for the railings were briefly reviewed
Engineering comments were provided and briefly discussed.  
Ultimately it was agreed that the applicant would put together sample board of colors on the proposed materials for the BAR to review.  She will also look at possible alteration for the proposed pergola.
The applicant then asked the BAR for some basic feedback on her idea for the back deck, which is essentially to build over the existing brick with wood, which would allow for the installation of a railing.  She noted that she did not plan to make any enlargements or alter the footprint in any way.
Mr. Boshears suggested that as long as there was consistency in materials, he felt it would likely be ok.  Chair Tralins suggested that the BAR would be willing to look at any application Mrs. Howard chose to submit.
Neighbors were asked for comments.  Mrs. Hickey commented that she felt Mrs. Howard had done a beautiful job both inside and out with the home.  Fatima Sanadaji asked for confirmation that the back deck would not be enlarged.   Mrs. Howard confirmed that this was so.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 4, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 7, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday May 7 at 7pm via ZOOM teleconferencing.

LCTP Real Estate, East Lake Rd – Floating Boat Dock:
Comments from Village Engineers McGoey, Hauser were presented and reviewed.  It was agreed that those comments pertaining to proposed underground electric would not be discussed with BAR as any agreement that needed to be reached would be between the applicant and the Village and this would be worked out at the Trustee level.
Lighting was discussed.
Mr. Madden explained that the reason for constructing the dock was to facilitate the use and enjoyment of the lake by two young families who had recently joined the community.  At this point in time, they do not anticipate the need for any lighting as they believe the dock will be utilized during daylight hours.  If this should change, they will return to the BAR with proposed lighting.
Anchoring of the concrete platform, preventing leech from flowing into Tuxedo Lake and installation of stone steps were briefly discussed.
The BAR then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application as proposed conditional upon the receipt of certain measurements laid out in the engineering report and with the caveat that the BAR was not making any decisions pertaining to the underground electric.

Paes – Tower Hill Rd. – New Home:
The Village is in receipt of an updated application for the proposed project reflecting the changes as outlined in the previous meeting.  Updated drawings were presented, reviewed and discussed.  Minor changes to the plan have been made including the addition of a window to the front elevation at the garage, a closed, rectangular portico with elliptical arch at the entry way, case-stone railings along the balcony on the second floor, scissor stairs flanking the rear terrace and a conceptual basement plan.  Minor adjustments have also been made to the roofline.  Some changes were also made to the proposed driveway turn-around so that all of the large trees on the property can be maintained. 
Regarding the BAR’s concerns pertaining to the height and width of the proposed home and more specifically how these compare to the houses surrounding it, the applicant’s architect presented measurements for these other homes, indicating that the measurements proposed are right in line with those of the neighboring homes. 
Landscaping plans were also reviewed and discussed as were modifications to the garage. 
Board member Christopher Gow acknowledged the applicants efforts to retain mature trees with gratitude. 
Materials were briefly discussed. 
Once an updated site plan and bulk table have been submitted, the building inspector will be able to determine what variances will be required. 
Board member Josh Aaron noted that while he certainly appreciated the changes that had been made, the proposed home would still be the second widest on the street.  Further noting that he felt they needed to be more sympathetic to the historic homes that surrounded it, he expressed his hope they might be able to condense the proposed home a bit more.
The applicant’s architect responded that he would speak with the Paes family to see what, if anything, they could do. 

 Volstad – West Lake Rd. – Roof and House Color Changes:
The applicant presented the BAR with plans to paint their home on West Lake Rd grey and upgrade the shingle roof.
Board member Rob McQuilken expressed some concern with the brightness of the grey that been proposed.  He wondered whether a notch or two of greater value (darker) might not be an improvement.
The applicant indicated that he did not have a problem with this, further wondering if they might be able to select something different without having to wait two weeks for another meeting before they could proceed with the project.  
Christopher Gow agreed with Mr. McQuilekn, suggesting that a darker color would be more appropriate given the location of the home. 
Trim color was discussed.  White has been proposed.
Mr. McQuilken cautioned that the applicant might want to consider avoiding “amping up” how loudly details such as trim register and, in his experience, white is among the loudest colors when viewed through trees or across distances.  He wondered whether the applicant had considered either a pea or moss green or perhaps a different hue of grey. 
The applicant indicated that he could not make this decision on his own and that he would have to confer with his wife.  He expressed concern that green would clash with grey. 
Following some further discussion the board unanimously approved the proposed color scheme subject to its being several shades darker than what was presented and with consideration to the detail color being equal to the existing gray and subject to a final review by the BAR of a mock-up.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 7, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 16, 2020

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, April 16, 2020 via Zoom Conferencing.
All members were present.

Paes – Tower Hill Road – Parcel No. 107-1-20, New Home:
An Architect representing the applicant led the BAR through a somewhat detailed review of the project drawings/plans.  Explaining that the Paes had recently changed architects because they were unhappy with the design initially proposed, he indicated that the floors plans were largely the same in the revised plan, with most notable changes having been made to the structure’s façade. 
Basic elevations were presented and project materials were reviewed.
BAR engineer Andy Warren noted that a great number of changes had been made and that revised plans were needed.  Additionally they will need to see tree removal and detailed landscaping plans, rain garden plans, erosion and sediment plans, land disturbance plan, material staging plans as well as those for soil and stockpiling.  There is a 30-foot elevation change between the road and the rear of the home.  The proposed utilities must be shown on the plan and the Highway Superintendent should weigh-in on the proposed driveway, particularly as it pertains to sight distances.   Finally, he noted that the proposed home will front on two Roads (Tower Hill and Continental) and suggested that the BAR might wish to request photo renderings in order to fully assess the visual impact of what is being proposed.
Board Chair Sheila Tralins inquired as to whether or not the applicant had completed a revised application to reflect the changes to the plan.
The answer was that an electronic one had been submitted with a hard copy forthcoming.
Building Inspector John Ledwith noted that he would need updated information on the porch and patio, as these might require a variance from the ZBA in terms of deck coverage.  Additionally, he will require detailed information on the proposed pillars and walls as these may also require height variances.
The individual BAR members then weighed in with their comments.  Landscaping was discussed at some length, particularly as it pertained to saving particular trees on the property.  Josh Aaron expressed some concern with the overall width of the proposed home, noting that the original structure on that property had been articulated 90 degrees from what has been proposed so that it sat longways and that if constructed as proposed, this home would be the widest one on the street.  He feels that there is far too much frontage for the home and that it will compete too much with the other historic homes on Tower Hill Road.  He further noted that the previous home was actually larger than the one that is currently being proposed, but it had been built in a different configuration.  He understands that the applicant has a specific floor plan that they are looking for, but he feels they need to be more sympathetic to the topography and the other houses that are around it so that they do not become overpowered. 
Board member Christopher Gow agreed to circulate a picture of the previous home, which was apparently built around the turn of the 19th Century. 
Noting that there was clearly a long way to go, Chair Tralins noted thanked the applicant for coming before them noting that she felt they were off to a good start.
Sunnymede LLC – 194 East Lake Road – Adding Sky Lights to Roof:
The new owner of 194 East Lake Road noted that they were hoping to visit the home every weekend during the year and, as they have a 3-year-old daughter, they are looking to create a space for her to play during the winter time with natural light. 
Referencing the Design Guidelines, which suggest that that exterior equipment is supposed to be both conspicuous and placed in way that it is camouflaged from most view points, Chair Tralins commented that the BAR is not a “great fan” of skylights. 
BAR engineer Andy Warren noted that the proposed sky lights appear to be minimally visible by day but suggested that the applicant must address the visibility at night time and specifically whether interior light would be visible through them.  Additionally, he inquired as to whether or not they had any coating or anti-glare features designed to prevent glare at certain sun angles.
The applicant’s architect, John Kinnear, noted that the proposed lights would be anti-glare and that they would in fact be quite small and located near the ridge of the roofline.  Photographs depicting the visibility to both neighboring houses and homes across the lake have been submitted.
BAR member Rob McQuilken noted that the roof was very visible from West Lake road where many residents walk, boat and fish.
Photographs depicting visibility from West Lake Road were presented and reviewed.
BAR member Christopher Gow noted that the home was highly visible to those who were boating on Tuxedo Lake.  He feels that the skylights would spoil the look of the home and would not be an improvement.  He wondered if there was not an alternative that would be more appropriate.  He suggested reproducing two dormers that are lower down on the façade up above in order to provide the light.
The architect responded that they had considered this option but because of the pitch of the roof relative to the room inside, there would not be much daylight penetration, certainly nothing similar to what would be gained from the proposed skylights.
This was discussed at some length.
BAR member Josh Aaron suggested they look into light tubes as a compromise. 
Ultimately it was agreed that the applicant would take a look at couple of different options and return to the BAR.

LCTP Real Estate – East Lake Rd. – Floating Boat Dock:
Representing the Applicant, Bill Fairclough lead the Board through plans for a floating dock at the Madden’s property, located off of East Lake Road.  The proposed dock, the sister to the stationary one on the neighboring property that was constructed back in 2017, is traditional cedar with black floats.  The only difference between the two docks is that one is floating while the other is attached to the boathouse.  The new dock will be attached to the shore via a 4x4 steel pad in the shape of an “L,” topped with concrete and then faced with natural stone.  Because the dock has a westerly exposure, chained anchors will secure the end of the dock.  These are installed on the inside and are not visible.  They have chosen a rock-free location for the dock where the water depth will not go below four feet. 
Noting that the proposed dock complied with the Village code, Andy Warren noted that the plans must provide mechanism for connecting dock to the shore and water depths at the proposed location, including both at the shore and the dock must be provided.  Additionally an Environmental Assessment Form (EAF) must be completed and DEC Protection of Water Permit must be acquired.
Chair Tralins pointed out that ultimately, the Trustees would need to approve the application as well.
Christopher Gow inquired about access to the dock
Mr. Fairclough noted that they had discovered some beautiful, pre-existing granite steps, which they had rescued and that they were intending to utilize these to create a walking path to the dock.  The path will follow the topography of the land, will be hidden and will not get any closer than 10 feet to the lake.  The greenhouse ruin, also located on the property, will not be disturbed.
Mr. Gow then inquired as to whether or not electricity would be run to the dock.
The answer was yes, via underground, direct burial for the purpose of boat charging.
Building inspector John Ledwith suggested that they would need to see an updated landscaping plan detailing where the electric would be run, along with the number of steps and the details of the anchoring system.
Josh Aaron inquired about potential plans to restore the greenhouse, noting that it might be premature to consider adding a new structure when there was already an existing on that was in need of care.  He further noted that it was awfully close to the lake and wanted some assurance that there were no impending issues with either asbestos or lead.
Mr. Madden responded that restoring the greenhouse was on their “wishlist” of projects for the next few years.  Me. Fairclough added that there were no concerns relating to either asbestos or lead with that particular structure.  There was never any insulation in it and it was heated via a stove. 
It was agreed that revised drawings would be submitted and that the applicant would return to the next BAR meeting.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 16, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting January 16, 2020

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 19, 2019

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, December 19 at 7pm.  Board Chair Sheila Tralins was absent.  Deputy Chair Christopher Gow led the meeting in her absence.

Laukitis – 16 Brook Road – Garden Shed:
Lisa Laukitis appeared before the Board with revised plans for a garden shed on the property at 16 Brook.  The Laukitises initially installed the shed roughly a year ago without realizing that they needed BAR approval for the project.  Their initial plan was subsequently rejected by the BAR in February of 2019 because it not comply with the either the zoning code or the design guidelines.  Since that time the Laukitises became aware of another, similar shed in the Village, made by the same manufacturer but with some key modifications.  After some careful review, the Laukitises have revised their plan to eliminate the existing windows, either by paneling them over or cutting them out completely, which should bring it into compliance with the design guidelines.  Additionally, they are proposing to relocate the shed in order to bring it into compliance with zoning regulations.  They have the support of their neighbors. 
Following a brief discussion, Mr. Gow thanked the applicant for taking the time and making the effort to bring the project into compliance.  The BAR then voted   unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Tuxedo Club – 1 West Lake Road – Renovation of Tennis House parking area:
Representatives of the Tuxedo Club presented the BAR with revised plans for renovations to the Tennis House parking lot, which originally came before them back in March.  As per the request of the BAR, the revised plans showed a great more detail than the original, including both the turning radius and drainage plans.  The proposed raised divider at the mouth of the lot has been revised and will be constructed using Belgian block.   A total of 4 trees will be removed and the Club is amenable to replanting at a later date.   The lot will be resurfaced and striped.
Landscaping was discussed at some length, particularly the stones that line the lot.  Board member Christopher Boshears wondered if their might not be  a way to naturalize the look of the proposed stones to give them less of a clean/crisp appearance.  This was discussed at some length as were various other landscaping options.   Ultimately it was determined that the existing stone border adjacent to the tennis courts would remain. 
Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.  The Club hopes to initiate the project in late March and complete it in May, after the initial phase has had time to settle.

Subocz – 38 Pine Road – Belgian block aprons and curbing:
For the second time in a row the applicant failed to appear.  The Building inspector noted that he would send them letter indicating that if they failed to respond or appear at the next meeting, they would be issued an appearance ticket.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 19, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 5, 2019

Meeting was cancelled

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 21, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 7, 2019

Meeting was cancelled due to lack of quorum

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 7, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 17, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 19, 2019

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, September 19 at 7pm.
All members were present.

Village of Tuxedo Park – Replacement of Traffic Booth:
Representing the Village, Mayor McFadden appeared before the BAR with their architect to review and discuss plans for the replacement of the Traffic Booth, located at the front entrance of the Village.
Chair Tralins opened the discussion by explaining that BAR was not responsible for reviewing the technical, engineering & design and safety components of the booth or its contents.  These things remain in the purview of the Village and the BAR will be leaving them to the architect and any experts or consultants that the Village determines should be appointed for that purpose.  They would also not be discussing the pros and cons of having a booth or alternate structures.  Their focus would be primarily on the architectural design of the booth as presented in the application.
Mayor McFadden then gave a brief presentation of the booth design.
Discussion centered on the proposed bollards, landscaping, material used for transaction drawers and the possible addition of a stone veneer around the concrete pad.
The BAR recommends that the Village consider eliminating vegetation altogether from the landscaping plan.  Additionally, they suggest adding a stone veneer around the concrete slab.  Finally, they recommend a new frame to hold signage as well as a change in the proposed transaction drawers from straight up stainless steel silver to something that might blend better with the structure, such as a bronze finish.   Lighting was also briefly discussed.  The BAR feels that the Christmas lights, currently installed on both buildings at the main entrance, must be removed.
It was unanimously agreed that the BAR is satisfied with the plans as presented taking into account the suggestions that were made.

 

ASB 120 – 2 Circuit Road – Entrance Pillars and Light Fixtures:
The Applicant and the BAR discussed the proposed lighting fixtures for the driveway at 2 Circuit Road.  Following their previous appearance before the BAR, the Applicant has agreed to reduce the wattage of the proposed spun bulbs from 60 watts to 25, emitting 160 lumens.  They would prefer to use a clear chimney rather than a frosted one.  A sample was presented and reviewed by the BAR.  The Applicant has received approval from the BZA with regard to the necessary height variance, however that approval is conditional upon BAR review and approval.
The BAR’s attorney has reviewed both the Village Code and design guidelines and come to the determination that it is responsibility of the BAR to review the aesthetics and decide what will be appropriate.  The guidelines are merely guidelines and although the BAR typically aims to adhere to them, they not set in stone, so to speak.  Down lighting is not required by the Village code.  Historically, some entrances in the Village have been lit while others have not.  It is within the BAR’s jurisdiction to recommend lumen levels.
A letter from neighbor Paola Tocci, expressing concern with the style, color and lumens was read into the record.  Mrs. Tocci does not feel that what has been proposed is in keeping with the architectural standards of the neighborhood or the BAR guidelines.  She provided several examples of designs that she believes to be acceptable. 
Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application as presented.

Matthews – 72 Clubhouse Road – Asphalt Roof:
Representing his mother, the Applicant, Jake Matthews presented the BAR with a proposal to replace the existing cedar shake roof at 72 Club House Road, with GAF, weathered wood asphalt shingle styled roof.  He further explained that in 1999 his mother had replaced the asphalt roof with the cedar shake, but unfortunately it had not held up well and was currently compromised and in a state of deterioration.  In looking at the neighborhood, Mr. Matthews noted that there were 22 homes on Club House Road and that 19 of them had asphalt roofs, while 2 had cedar shake (this includes the applicant) and 1 was slate.  Photos along with samples of the proposed shingles were presented.
Board member Christopher Gow expressed some concern with what he called “back tracking” meaning reverting to the asphalt after the upgrade to cedar had been made.  Cedar shake is more in keeping with the design guidelines.
Board member Josh Aaron inquired as to the age of the home and was informed that it had been built in the late 1890s.
Mr. Aaron suggested that although it may have been asphalt when the Matthews family purchased the home, historically, the roof must have been a different material.
Mr. Matthews pointed out that the cost concerns associated with cedar shake were not inconsequential, further noting that the asphalt shingle they were proposing was a good product and once shaped and installed would be a very close second to cedar shake.   The product has been used for other projects in the Village.  He reiterated that 90% of the homes in the neighborhood had asphalt roofs.
Mr. Gow suggested that using a product of secondary quality could decrease the value of the home. 
Mr. Matthews asserted that if the quality product did not hold up over time, as was the case here, this created a larger problem.
Chair Tralins agreed, but suggested that when cedar shake is installed properly, aerated and maintained properly, it should last.
Again, Mr. Matthews suggested that the cost differential between the two materials was not inconsequential.
Ms. Tralins responded that the BAR was not unsympathetic to this, however she noted that the design guidelines point to the architectural integrity of the individual structure and not those of the entire neighborhood.
Mr. Gow stated that he could relate to dilemma at hand as he is currently in the position of having to replace his asphalt roof with cedar shake.  He suggested that the best thing to do was to upgrade to the high quality material and hope that others would follow suit.
Mr. Matthews responded that he did not feel it was his responsibility to set precedent in order to bring his neighbors along.  He wondered if the BAR would be willing to take a look at some other homes where the proposed material had been used in considering their decision.
Mr. Gow suggested that although this might be an unfortunate situation, he felt that the BAR needed to “stay strong.”
Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously to deny  the application.

Hartmann – 116 Tower Hill Road – Porch Roof & Windows:
Lisa Hartmann and her Real Estate agent, Walter Deane, appeared before the BAR to discuss necessary renovations to the home at 116 Tower Hill Road.  This home has recently been put on the market.  It has been agreed that whoever purchases the home will be required to sign a contract indicating that they will repair and restore the balcony and windows as indicated to the satisfaction of the BAR. 
There followed a lengthy discussion with regard to the balcony/porch roof.  This section of the home is currently unstable and although it is beneath the driveway and rarely if ever accessed, the Building Inspector feels that it must be stabilized and repaired.  Ms. Hartmann has indicated that she does not have the means to fully restore it, however everyone is in agreement that removing it altogether would compromise both the structural and architectural integrity of home.  This was discussed at some length.  Ultimately it was agreed that the area would be temporarily blocked off and that the issue would be revisited in 6 months time if the home has not been sold.

Delanner – 66 Summit Road – Replace Brick or Stucco the Outer Walls:
The Applicant appeared before the BAR citing a dilemma at her home located at 66 Summit Road.  The brick veneer around the ground floor is crumbling and must either be removed or replaced.  The homeowner feels she has two options: replace the brick or remove it entirely and continue the stucco all the way down to the ground.  There is a substantial price differential.  She would also like to repaint the home grey and two different shades were presented one of which would accompany a brick veneer and the other the stucco.  These were reviewed and discussed.  The BAR seemed to generally prefer the brick over the stucco.  The next step in the process will be for the applicant to make the ultimate determination as to which style she prefers and to reappear before the BAR with plans for the project.
Next, the applicant raised the issue of deer fencing, noting that she has had frequent interactions with bears on her property and would like to fence it off.  She proposed a wire mesh fence in either green or brown, which would blend in with the thick vegetation on the property.  Building Inspector John Ledwith noted that a portion of the property abutted state park and was essentially on a cliff/ledge.  He further noted that a majority, if not all, of the property could not be seen from either the road or neighboring properties.  All the same, he will need to a see map, delineating exactly where the proposed fencing would go and he will also need to make a site visit in order to officially determine which side of the home is considered the front, vs. the sides and the back.  He further noted that mesh fencing of this type has not typically been approved in the Village and is not in keeping with the Design Guidelines. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting September 19, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 15, 2019

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Thursday, August 14, 2019.  All members were present.

Heywood – 167 East Lake Rd. – Window Changes:
The Applicant presented the Board with plans to reconfigure the windows at her home on East Lake Rd.  The plans call for the construction of a bay window on the rear of the home and the relocation of an existing window.  A fuel tank and generator will need to be relocated as a result of the construction.  Any additional stucco needed will match the existing and the trim on the new windows will be the same color as the existing trim.  There was minimal discussion, which was primarily focused on screening for the relocated utilities.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 

Other Business:
Traffic Booth - BAR attorney Steve Honan advised them that he was in receipt of an email from Mayor McFadden regarding the Traffic Booth Project.  At their meeting the night before, the Trustees passed a resolution, which will allow the project to move forward with several contingencies.   One of these contingencies is that the BAR conduct a formal review of the project.  This section of the resolution was read aloud as follows:

The Project be approved by the Board of Architectural Review (“BAR”) after a review that is to the same extent and in the same manner as a project submitted by a resident, it being understood that such review and approval or failure to approve shall be non-binding.

Mr. Honan noted that the BAR had previously provided feedback on the plans.  He further noted that he did not believe they had changed since that time.  He suggested that he was uncertain as to exactly what the Trustees were looking for.  Trustee Alan McHugh, who also serves as the official BOT liaison to the BAR, was present and responded that he could provide some granularity.  Mr. Honan questioned the BAR as to how they wanted to proceed and offered that they might enter an Executive Session to further discuss.  Board Chair Sheila Tralins responded that she was comfortable holding the discussion in public, however Trustee McHugh stated that he was not, and therefore an executive session was executed.  Prior to leaving the room, Meg Vaught inquired as to the official, legal reason for the Executive Session.  Mr. Honan informed her that it was for the Board to receive procedural advise from council.
Following an 8-minute executive session the BAR returned to the public session.  Chair Tralins stated that while the BAR was an independent Board, they served at the pleasure of the Trustees and therefore, they would agreeably give the booth application a rigorous review to the same standard as any resident.  To this end, the BAR will require that an architect be present during the review and that suitable public notice be given as per the Village Code.

 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 15, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 16, 2019

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

Tuxedo Park Properties – Exterior Renovation and 2nd Floor Addition: 
The applicant presented the Board with revised/updated plans for the renovation and 2nd floor addition to the home at 15 Summit Road.  Windows, Chimneys, columns and the new porch were all discussed as were project materials.  Following the review, Board Chair Sheila Tralins commented that she admired both the applicant’s passion for the restoration of homes in the Village and his meticulous attention to detail.  After some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

ASB 120,LLC – Entrance Pillar and Lighting Fixture:
The applicant presented the Board with plans to install entrance pillars with lighting at the mouth of their driveway on Circuit Road.  Because of the proposed pillar height, the application will require a variance from the BZA.  There was a lengthy discussion with regard to the proposed lighting fixture, which is a clear glass fixture, containing a spun light incandescent bulb.  The applicant suggested that the bulb would be no greater than 60 watts.  Several letters from the neighbors were read into the record, many of which expressed concern with regard to the potential amount of light that would come from the fixtures.  The Glucks, who live directly across the street from the applicant, submitted a letter but were also present and verbally echoed these concerns, referencing the design guidelines, which clearly suggest that outdoor lighting fixtures should be angled towards the ground, dark sky complaint and not visible to neighbors.  Additionally, the amount of light given off should be measured in candellas  (a measurement of brightness) in order to ensure the appropriate low level of light.  They are concerned that 60 watts will be too much.   The Applicant argued that there were many other non-compliant fixtures existing throughout the Village.  Mr. Gluck pointed out that most, if not all, of these had been grandfathered in and that the expectation was that new fixtures would comply with the design guidelines.  Frosting was discussed as an option.  The applicant feels that the spun light will alleviate the need for frosting and expressed some concern that if they were to frost the fixture, there would not be enough light.   Similar fixtures were recently approved by the BAR and installed at the Sink home on Tower Hill Road and the Applicant presented pictures of these, pointing out the similarities between them and what has been proposed.  This was also discussed at some length.   Operation as it pertains to timing of the lights was also reviewed.  The applicant suggested that the lights would be on a timer, however Mr. Gluck was sharply opposed to this, commenting that the darkness is welcomed and enjoyed by that neighborhood and that when there was nobody at home or the lights were not needed for whatever reason, they should not be on.  Commenting that the Guidelines were Guidelines and not code, Board member Christopher Gow suggested that they should look to find a compromise.  He wondered if 40 watts and frosted would be amenable to the applicant.
Again, the applicant expressed concern that the combination of the spun glass and the frosted globe would shield the light too much.  He reiterated that the spinning would diminish the amount of light projected.
Ultimately, the applicant was referred to the BZA for a variance on the pillars and the BAR agreed that they would all take a look at the fixtures at the Sink home and would then be prepared to make a decision at their next meeting.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 16, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 20, 2019

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

Tuxedo Park Properties – 15 Summit Rd, - 2nd Floor Addition:
The Applicant appeared before the Board with preliminary plans for renovations to include a modest 2nd floor addition at 15 Summit Rd.  A 3D model was presented, depicting the proposed concept, which entails coverting the space immediately over the garage, currently a den and a bedroom, into an eat-in kitchen and then removing what appears to be an old addition on the side of the home and reframing it to include a second floor, where bedrooms will be located.  From an aesthetic point of view, nothing on the house will change aside from the addition, which amounts to roughly a1000 square foot increase.  Additionally, the applicant would like to add a balcony on the right side of the house in order to enjoy a view off the Master Bedroom.  Everything else about the house will be restored, including the stone and brick.  Where windows are added, the existing brick will be retained and reused elsewhere on the home.  The roof will also be replaced.
Materials were discussed.  There are no landscaping changes.  The Building Inspector is in need of structural plans.  Following some further discussion it was agreed that the applicant would return to the next meeting with updated plans.

McGrath – 22 Brook Farm Rd. – Re-facing the House with New Brick:
The applicant and his architect presented the Board with revised plans for the home at 22 Brook Farm Road depicting, among other things, a change in the type of proposed brick to fired, clay, glazed brick.  There was a somewhat lengthy conversation about the proposed brick as it is quite modern and the Board was not in agreement about how it would look. 
Board Chair Sheila Tralins expressed concern that the sheen on the brick made it look unnatural.  Commenting that she appreciated that what was being proposed was a good quality material, she noted that personally speaking, she did not particularly like it.  She feels it makes the house look very dark.
Board member Christopher Gow on the other hand stated that he loved the proposed material in that it is so enigmatic.  The color changes with the light and he feels this dynamic aspect is wonderful.  He inquired as to whether or not the applicant was intending to do the chimney as well and the answer was yes.  Mr. Gow noted that he supported the idea of upgrading this home by adding something that reflected the 21st century. “Yes, we are a traditional park, but I think it’s important to live with the times.  The placement is fortunate in that it is hidden away so that traditionalists will not be driving past it every day getting upset.  People with a more modern sensibility will embrace it.”  He feels that adding some modern architecture in to the Village is a good thing. 
Board member Josh Aaron agreed that the proposed brick was extremely dark.   He further noted that it was extremely modern and he felt it walked a fine line in terms of what the BAR had the capability to approve.  He pointed out that ultimately it was a matter of taste. 
Discussion of the proposed brick continued for a short while, and the idea of looking into possible alternatives was also touched on. Ultimately, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Farhadian – 7 Brook Farm Rd. – Landscaping:
Mr. Farhadian and his landscape architect presented the Board with plans to alter the landscaping at the home on 7 Brook Farm Rd. in order to alleviate a drainage issue there.   Specifically, they are looking to create a small grass swale, which will allow the water to disperse onto a different area of the lawn and percolate into the ground.  They will then seed with a turf grass.  They understand that the property will always be somewhat saturated but are hoping that with subtle grading, filling in puddles and adding some native plants they can alleviate the issue. 
Board member Christopher Gow asked about the condition at the front of the property noting that it currently looked “not perfect.”
Mr. Farhadian indicated that he was hoping to put some topsoil there and plant grass.  Mr. Gow responded that one of the neighboring properties had done this and that it had not worked as the property is sloped and over time water had caused erosion. 
Mr. Farhadian acknowledged this concern, but said that it was his belief that with both topsoil and hay the grass would hold. 
This was discussed for several minutes, with Mr. Farhardian noting that he did not intend to do the entire area, only the “pot holes.”
The entire project will necessitate 20-40 yards of fill and Mr. Farhardian’s architect indicated that if the BAR knew of another local project that was on-going and involved digging/soil, they would be happy to obtain the fill from there so as to keep things native. 
Various of species of plantings were discussed, with the applicant agreeing to add native honeysuckle around the fencing.
Ultimately, the application was unanimously approved.

 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 20, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 21, 2019

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, May 21 at 7pm.  All members were present.

Reffkin, 22 Mountain Farm Road, Outdoor Spa:
The applicant and their architects presented the Board with revised plans for a Spa at 22 Mountain Farm Road.  They have received the necessary variance from the BZA. Landscaping plans were discussed at some length.  Next, materials were presented and discussed.   Lighting plans were also reviewed.  Raised beds will be installed along the roadway in order to create more of a visual barrier. The engineer’s comments were reviewed and discussed.  There was some discussion about planting trees in an effort to better screen an existing play structure on the property.    Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Proposed Traffic Booth Design:
Mayor McFadden appeared before the BAR with the recently proposed design for a new traffic booth at the Front Gate.  Explaining that the Trustees were frustrated with him for having brought the project before the BAR without first noticing the community, he read a statement into the record.  That statement can be read here.
The history of the proposed 2016 booth replacement project was then briefly discussed.  It was determined that the previous administration had appeared before the BAR with their architect and drawings and informally requested feedback.  The BAR’s attorney explained that the BAR does not have the authority to either approve or deny plans brought forth by the Village; however in this case they had been acting as an advisory board as an accommodation to the BOT.  The same process can occur now. 
“You won’t make a formal decision even if we wanted one?” inquired the Mayor.
“We are not authorized to do that,” responded the attorney.
The Mayor then provided an overview to what is being proposed, noting that the plans had not changed since he had asked for their opinions a few months back and focusing on what he referred to as “unique approaches to the project.” (The BAR previously issued informal comments on the proposed plans, which were included with the project binder submitted by the Mayor on May 15.)
There are issues that come with constructing a new booth such as prevailing wage and the impeding of traffic during the construction process, which could take up to 3 months.  In order to alleviate this, the proposed project calls for in-house management with construction to take place off site.  The metal skeleton of the booth will be purchased and sent to an offsite warehouse, where it will be customized with a steel cage, bullet proof glass and walls, HVAC and electric as well as some of the stone facing.  Engineers will be brought in to design the concrete slab, making sure it has adequate strength to support the booth.  They will also review and verify the integrity of the steel cage.  Finally, they will both manage the DPW and oversee installation of the final product.  
A warehouse space has been located in the Town, where the booth will be put together prior to its installation.
Board Chair Sheila Tralins commented that the BAR had not reviewed the plans since having provided their initial comments.  She further stated that as nothing seems to have changed with the plans since that time, she did not feel they had anything to add.
Mayor McFadden asked Chair Tralins if she would mind going over the recommendations.
Noting that the comments were preliminary and informal and not meant as an approval, Chair Tralins said she had no problem reiterating her thoughts.
Mayor McFadden thanked her and stated that one of the comments he had most appreciated was that leaving the foundation/slab with a concrete finish made the booth appear unanchored and transient. 
Chair Tralins responded that this was her biggest concern although she recognized that it might be prove costly to address.
The Mayor replied that roughly $100,000 had been raised to offset the overall cost of the project, which is currently coming in at roughly $128,000.  He is hopeful that additional funds can be raised and that possibly some of the remaining insurance funds from the previous booth can be applied to this project.  Regardless, he is happy to address this issue.
Chair Tralins stated that felt they could conclude that the BAR had no further comments beyond the ones the preliminary ones they had provided, which were based on the renderings they saw a couple of months back.
Mayor McFadden noted that the bullet proof windows were not true divided light.  He wondered if this would be acceptable to the BAR.  An alternative is to purchase regular windows and install bulletproof glass on the inside, similar to what was done in the keep.  The downside to this however, is that the windows become inoperable.   They could also go with an “over/under” model to include 9 panes.  He asked for the BAR’s opinion on this.
Reiterating that the project did not need a formal approval, Board member Christopher Gow suggested that it might be nice if they went with windows that would be consistent with what would be approved if a formal approval were needed.
“So if we go with the over/under with 9 panes you would prefer to see true divided light.  If we go with wood, we would be installing the bullet proof sheet.”
“My only concern is safety,” stated Chair Tralins “and the safety of the officers in the booth.”
The Mayor noted that the proposed booth was both larger in design than the old one and ADA compliant.  Metal tubes filled with concrete and revarb (WHAT IS THAT?) will be sunk into the ground in both the front and back of the booth to protect it. “That can withstand quite a hit,” commented Mayor McFadden. “It’s what you see around The World Trade Center now.”
“We love the aesthetics as discussed,” replied Chair Tralins, “but we acknowledge that safety is an important issue.”
“The police told the previous administration that they would not work in the booth unless it was bullet proof,” responded the Mayor “and if the Police determine that they do not want to work in the booth, then the Board has the alternative of hiring people who would just work in the booth that are not in the Police Department.”
“That’s one for you,” replied Chair Tralins. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 21, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 16, 2019

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, April 16 at 7pm.

Libby – 29 West Lake Drive – Installation of an 8x10 Shed:
Mr. Libby presented the BAR with plans for a wooden shed, which will be designed to match the house and installed in the back yard at 29 West Lake Drive.  The shed will replace a playhouse/swing set and will not have any electricity.  It will not be visible from the street.  Materials were discussed and reviewed.  BAR member Sheila Tralins pointed out that it was the preference of the BAR not to have utility sheds installed on properties in the Village however the guidelines does not prohibit them, rather it suggests that they must be reviewed and approved with the same vigor as a primary structure.  She recognized that Mr. Libby had made an effort to mirror construction materials to match the main home to the best of his ability.  Setbacks were discussed and it was determined that variances would not be needed.
Following some further discussion, the application was unanimously approved.

McGrath – 22 Brook Farm Road – Refacing the House with New Brick Veneer:
The applicant and his architect presented the BAR with plans to replace existing brick with new brick veneer at 22 Brook Farm Road.  Ms. Tralins expressed concern with the fact that the project had already undergone extensive review and now, as what was seemingly the 11th hour, the applicant was looking to change the facing. She further expressed concern with the idea of the veneer, wondering whether it would look artificial or more like veneer the brick once installed.
The applicant responded that it would not look artificial in fact he suggested that no one would be able to tell the difference. 
BAR Member Christopher Gow inquired as to whether or not there was an example of another home close by that they could look at.
The applicant’s architect responded that he would have to check with his partner, but he did not think so.
This was discussed at some length.
BAR member Josh Aaron pointed out that covering over a natural siding, like actual brick, with veneer would not fit within the guidelines of the BAR.  The question they must address is whether or not the home is considered a historic structure and further does it have to conform to the historic structure in order to follow the guidelines.  He does not believe that faux brick veneer conforms with the guidelines.
Building Inspector John Ledwith commented that they had experienced some issues with veneers elsewhere in the Village in the past as many of them were not designed to withstand Northeastern winters. 
Ms. Tralins suggested that the applicant construct a 2x3 foot sample, including a corner section so that the BAR could appreciate how the veneer would look on the home.
Mr. Gow added that they would also like to see an example of another home that had been done so that they could see how it looked.
Ultimately, it was agreed that a sample would be erected.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 16, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 19, 2019

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

Scherer – 1 East Lake Road – Installation of Swimming Pool and Patio:
Revised plans were presented and discussed.  Conversation centered around the access gate, lighting, fencing, drainage and discharge, noise, and hedges/screening, General comments from the BAR engineer were reviewed, during which it was determined that the plans must be amended to show erosion sediment control measures, specifically silt fencing around catch basins and placement of stock piles. 
Ultimately, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the plans conditional on revisions as requested by engineer, which will be subject to approval by the Building Inspector.  

Haberkorn – 222 East Lake Road – Landscape Changes:
Revised landscaping plans were presented and discussed.  Revisions show a reduction in the amount of grading.  An arborist was called in and ultimately determined that two large oaks will need to be removed.  The location of the hot tub has been changed, allowing for the elimination of a previously proposed wall.  They are no longer proposing to cut stone on the site.
Two sets of steps, one wooden and one stone, leading down from the house to the patio were proposed.  Bluestone walls will be constructed on either side of the stone steps and some low lying lighting will be installed.  The existing dock will remain and as previously recommended by the BAR, a buffer hedge will be installed between the lawn and the lake.  Plantings were discussed in some detail. 
A revised cost estimate for the project is needed.
Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 19, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 5, 2019

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, March 5, 2019.  Chair Patrick Donaghy and Board Member Christian Bruner were absent.

Haberkorn – 222 East Lake Road – Landscape Changes:
The applicant and their landscape architect presented plans for changes to the lake front property at 222 East Lake Road.  Board member Sheila Tralins opened the discussion by noting that because there was “a lot going on” in the plans, it was difficult for the BAR to visualize what was being proposed.  She suggested that following their discussion, the applicant prepare renderings depicting both what is existing and what is being proposed and that subsequently the BAR would schedule a site visit so they could take a first hand look.  Soil erosion, proposed cut and fill plans and spa details were reviewed and discussed.  The applicant is proposing to re-grade and stabilize a portion of the property. Board member Christopher Dow explained that these days there are issues that come hand-in-hand with all properties that border the Tuxedo Lake Reservoir.  Things that were once allowed are not allowed anymore.  It is very important to strike a compromising balance between meeting the property owner’s needs/desires and maintaining the health of the Lake.  He further noted that grassy lawns rolling directly to the shoreline were pretty much the worst possible thing, and that vegetative buffers were strongly encouraged between the lake and the abutting properties. The applicant was very agreeable to this, commenting that for them it was not an issue of view and that they were open to whatever would make the best sense for the Lake.  There followed a more detailed discussion centering on the various types of vegetation that have been proposed.  Finally, plans for two brownstone walls and more specifically, the cutting of the stone on-site were briefly reviewed and discussed.  Both the Building Inspector and the BAR have some concerns regarding the associated noise.  Ultimately it was determined that the applicant would prepare the renderings previously requested and that the BAR would schedule a site visit.

The Tuxedo Club – 1 West Lake Road – Renovation of Tennis House Parking Area:
Representatives from the The Tuxedo Club presented the BAR with plans for renovations to the Tennis House parking area.  Essentially, the plans call for resurfacing of the lot with some minor expansion on the pool side.  Additionally, parking spots will be reconfigured and a low-raised, stone divider installed at the mouth of the lot to delineate between entrance and exit.
The BAR had a number of questions for the applicant. 
There was a lengthy discussion with regard to vegetation as none of the plantings surrounding the lot were depicted on the plans.  The BAR wanted to know whether the existing hedgerows would remain and if the Club was intending to remove any trees.
The applicant responded that they were planning to leave the hedgerows in tact.  There are a couple of trees that have suffered severe woodpecker damage that they would like to remove. 
The BAR informed the applicant that prior to approval they would need a more detailed plan, including all vegetation, in which the applicant makes a firm commitment to what they plan to remove vs. what they are going to retain. 
There was also some discussion with regard to the proposed raised divider at the mouth of the lot.  The BAR raised several potential traffic concerns and also wanted to know whether or not there would be room for a fire truck to both get in & out and turn around within the lot.  The applicant suggested that perhaps the delineation could be made with Belgian Block and rumble strips rather than raised stone. 
Ultimately, it was determined that the applicant would submit more detailed plans for review, clearly identifying plantings and answering questions that had been raised by the Village engineer.  Once these have been received and reviewed, they will be forwarded on to the Fire Department.
There followed a discussion with regard to the Tuxedo Lake.  Board member Christopher Gow inquired as to whether or not the Club might consider installing a vegetative buffer along the shoreline.
Governor of the Club, Tom McKay, responded that the issue in Tuxedo Lake was no longer algae, rather it was Eurasion Milfoil.  He further suggested that because the Club did not use any pesticides on their property, they were not a part of the problem and that nothing they were doing was contributing to the spread of milfoil, which is an aggressive, invasive, aquatic plant.
Mr. Gow responded that the specifics of the problem (algae vs. milfoil) were not as important as the overall issue, which is general protection for the reservoir.  He pointed out that most reservoirs have DEC enforced, chain link fences around them and that the Village was both unique and lucky in that they have not been required to install one.  He suggested that it was more an issue of proactively taking care of the reservoir that had inspired the discussion.  He referenced the Haberkorn application from earlier that evening, noting that the same type of buffer had been recommended to them for the very same reasons. 
Mr. McKay reiterated that algae was not the issue at hand in the lake and that the Tuxedo Club was not a part of the problem.  He commented that if the Village’s Lakes Management folks had suggested otherwise, they were wrong. 
The conversation then turned briefly to the dam, where several years back the DEC required the Tuxedo Club to remove several large trees.  There was a brief debate over whether or not said tree removal was in the same category as buffer removal, with Mr. McKay asserting that it was and Mr. Gow suggesting that these were two different things entirely.
In the end, neither an understanding nor an agreement was reached on a vegetative buffer and the meeting was adjourned. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 5, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 5, 2019

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, February 6, 2019.  Board Chair Patrick Donaghy was absent.

Scherer – 1 East Lake Road – Installation of Swimming Pool and Patio:
Together with his landscape architect, the applicant presented plans to install a swimming pool and spa in courtyard behind his home at 1 East Lake Road.  Construction will necessitate the removal of a wall for the purpose of equipment access, but the applicant plans to replace the wall once the project is complete.  The pool itself will be 14x35 feet and will range in depth from 4 to 5 feet.  Additionally part of an existing fountain will be removed and the part will be relocated on the property. The applicant would also like to take the opportunity to bury an above ground fuel tank, which is currently screened by plantings but still visible.
Materials were briefly discussed, as was lighting.  Ultimately it was agreed that the applicant would return to the BAR in the future with a more detailed plan, including description of materials along with lighting and landscaping plans.

Laukitis – 16 Brook Road -  Shed Installed Without A Permit:
The BAR formally confronted Mr. Laukitis with regard to a pre-fabricated shed that was recently installed on his property without a permit, further explaining that as per the Village Code, all accessory buildings must be treated as new structures and are therefore subject to the permitting process as well as the Design Guidelines.  The shed on the Laukitis property is not in compliance with either the Village Code or the Design Guidelines.  Additionally, there are zoning issues with it.  Furthermore, the BAR is concerned with the precedent that allowing the shed to remain would set in the Village.  Board member Sheila Tralins asked Mr. Laukitis what he proposed to do.
Mr. Laukitis responded that he felt the situation was an unfortunate misunderstanding.  Prior to installing the shed he spoke with some of the Village Trustees as well former members of the BAR and was led to believe that as long as the structure did not have a foundation, a permit was not required.  He further explained that when he had originally renovated his home, he had been planning to construct a garage, but as time went by, he decided to back off of this plan.  As a result, he was left with a large amount of “stuff” on his lawn and he needed a place to put it.  He had believed that so long as the shed was of decent quality and not Home Depot variety, it would be ok.
Board member Christopher Gow expressed empathy for Mr. Laukitis’s situation.  He outlined two possible solutions: 1. Mr. Laukitis can dismantle the shed and construct a garage as originally planned or 2. Mr. Laukitis can relocate the shed on his property and bring it into compliance with both the Code and the Guidelines.  He reiterated that sheds are viewed as secondary structures and that as such, they require the same level of detail and high construct as primary structures do.  He further reiterated the concern with precedent, stating that he understood that the Laukitis shed was not of Home Depot quality, but if it were allowed to remain, what would stop other folks from installing Home Depot sheds on their properties.
Mr. Laukitis inquired as to what would need to be done to bring the shed into compliance.
Board member Josh Aaron explained that the building would need to be re-sided,  have new wooden windows installed and that the roof would need to be replaced with a suitable material.
Mr. Laukitis expressed remorse, commenting that he wished he had investigated this prior to investing in the shed.
The BAR thanked Mr. Laukitis for his time and he theirs.

Langdon – 30 Lorillard Road – Approval of Demolition and Fill for the Construction of a New House:
The approval for this portion of the project suffered a bit of a snafu as it should have been granted by the BAR, but the instead the Planning Board approved it.   As per the process for demolition, the application then went to the Trustees, who approved it and in turn bounced it back to the BAR. 
There followed a brief discussion with regard to some suggested conditions from the Engineer, which pertained to marking the area of disturbance, drainage, tree removal, time frame for the permit and the establishment of an escrow account to cover possible post-demo engineering. 
The BAR then unanimously approved the application. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 5, 2019

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 18, 2018

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on December 18, 2018 at 7pm.  Chair Patrick Donaghy was absent.

Reffkin – 22 Mountain Farm Road – Outdoor Spa:
Plans for an outdoor spa at 22 Mountain Farm Road were presented and reviewed.   The applicant is planning a round spa, to be concealed behind a raised wall and screened with vegetation.  A letter from neighbor Peter Regna was read into the record.  There was a great deal of discussion regarding the location of the spa on the property and whether or not it would be visible from the nearby roadway.  Ultimately it was determined that it would not.  Board member Christopher Gow inquired as to what types of plantings the applicant was intending to put in and subsequently recommended they use native species.  He offered to provide the applicant with a list of native plantings that could work.  Lighting was also briefly discussed. 
The applicant must obtain a setback variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals before the project can proceed.  It was agreed that after receiving this variance they would return to the BAR with updated plans, to include landscaping.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 18, 2018

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 20, 2018

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, November 20 at 7pm.  Board Chair Patrick Donaghy and Board member Christian Bruner were absent.  The meeting was led by Board member Sheila Tralins.

Langdon/Chesney – 3 0 Lorillard Rd – Demolition & Construction of New House:
Since the applicant last appeared before the BAR, they have received Planning Board approval for demolition.  A spec book and landscape plan have been developed and both were presented and discussed.  Sample materials were also presented.  There was a somewhat lengthy discussion regarding landscaping along the shoreline of the Wee Wah as well as tree removal on the property.  Following the review, the BAR unanimously approved the application.

Friedman/Waltman – 2 Ridge Rd. – Architectural Design Changes to Previously Approved Plans:
Work on the interior of the home at 2 Ridge Road is almost complete and before proceeding with exterior work, the applicant is requesting some changes to what was previously approved.  Modified plans for both the exterior of the house and landscaping were presented at discussed at length.  Changes to the roofline and screened in porch as well as the addition of several windows were reviewed along with scaled back landscaping plans for the area that was once a driveway but will now become a lawn/garden.  There was also a discussion with regard to the chain link fence, which borders the property along East Lake Road.  The applicant does intend to remove it eventually, but plans to live in the space for a while first in order to determine whether they want to replace it with plantings or another type of screening.   The BAR was unhappy with the eyebrow windows as proposed and this was analyzed at some length.  Ultimately, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the revised plans subject to some changes to the eyebrow windows as agreed to by the applicant.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 20, 2018

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 2, 2018

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday October 2, 2018.  Board member Christian Bruner was absent.

McGrath - 22 Brook Farm Rd. – Pool Construction:
The applicant and his architect presented the BAR with revised plans for the pool at 22 Brook Farm Rd along with material samples and a fencing sample.  A portion of the fence, not visible from the road, will be chain link.  This was discussed at some length.  The pool will have an automatic cover as well as cartridge filtration, which will alleviate the need to drain it.  Water that collects on the pool’s cover will be drained via a small pump onto the lawn.  The pool itself will have a dark grey/black interior with granite piping.  Landscaping plans/ideas were reviewed and it was determined that several trees will be planted.  Additionally, the applicant will plant around the portion of the chain link fence that will be visible to his neighbor.  There will be low wattage lighting installed that will illuminate the pool only and will not be visible from the neighboring properties.
Following some further discussion, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

Tavani – 52 Turtle Mountain Rd. – Removal of Dormers:
Mr. and Mrs. Tavani are planning to install a new roof.  They will be upgrading from asphalt to cedar.  While in the process, they would like to remove two “fake” dormers, which have no apparent purpose.  A cedar sample was presented.  Ventilation was discussed as were flashings and gutters.  After the roof has been installed, the Tavanis would like to repaint.  Although they know what color they want in a general sense, they have not yet made a final decision.  Rough samples were presented and briefly discussed.  It was agreed that the BAR could approve the repainting now, subject to a site visit and approval of color at a later date.  Everyone was in unanimous agreement that the dormers could be removed.
Following some further discussion, the Board unanimously approved the application.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting October 2, 2018

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 21, 2018

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, August 21 at 7pm.  All members were present.
BAR Chair Patrick Donaghy opened the meeting with a moment of silence for Village resident Derek McFadden, who passed away tragically on August 17.

McGrath – 22 Brook Farm Rd – Pool Construction:
The applicant’s architect presented the Board with plans for a pool, patio, deck, pump house and generator enclosure at 22 Brook Farm Road.  The plans include removal of an existing patio off the rear of the home and construction of a new stone one in the same spot, with steps leading down to an ipe deck.  The deck will run directly into the infinity pool, which will have dark stone capping and walls.  The interior of the salt-water pool will be pebble grey.  Material samples were presented and reviewed.  Ipe screening, similar to what has already been approved for the main house, will be installed around the pump house and utility enclosure.  Samples were presented.  Pool safety, namely in terms of fencing and the dark color choice were discussed as was the proposed location of the pump house and utility enclosure. It was agreed that the applicant would consider relocating the utilities to a site closer to the garage and further away from neighboring homes.  The plans will be revised to reflect this change and also more clearly show how the patio flows into the ipe deck.  The BAR would also like to see any proposed lighting as well as a sample of the proposed fence. 

Langdon – Lorillard Rd – Demolition & New Construction:
Since appearing before the BAR in the spring, the applicant has been before the BZA, where they were granted 2 variances; one for a 4-foot front yard setback and the other for the proposed deck, which takes up more area than permitted by the code.  They will be appearing before the Planning Board on August 22, where they hope to receive approval to demolish the existing home, but presented their revised plan for the new home to the BAR for general feedback all the same. The new home will be constructed on the same footprint as the existing home. Roofing, decking, windows, gutters, railings and chimney plans were discussed as were materials. A landscape architect presented general landscaping and driveway plans.  Drainage and grading were briefly addressed.  The applicant was asked to provide a plan for dealing with/removing invasive plants.   

 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting August 21, 2018

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review MeetingAugust 7, 2018

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

McGrath- 22 Brook Farm Road – New Garage, Replace and Add Dormers New Windows and Doors:
The applicant and his architect presented the BAR with revised plans for the project.  As per the Village Engineer, revisions include the addition of silt fencing as part of a sediment/erosion plan as well as detailing on the gravel driveway and utility service.  Building Inspector John Ledwith indicated that he and the architect had met to discuss details on the windows as well as the various types of doors to be installed.
Samples and paint colors were discussed as was lighting. 
BAR member Josh Aaron expressed some concern with the proposed garage, suggesting that based on the rendering presented he felt it was going to look very different from the rest of the house and more specifically, as though it had been built in the 1960s.
Sheila Tralins agreed, noting that what was being proposed was not a historic home.  She thanked the applicant for their willingness to work with the BAR throughout the process and for their compliance with all requests including materials. She further commented that although there may be some difference of opinion as what might look best, that ultimately these were stylistic choices and that this was the applicant’s home and not the BARs.
BAR member Christian Bruner agreed that these were stylistic preferences and that everything else appeared to be in compliance. 
There followed a discussion regarding painting vs. staining of mahogany doors.  The applicant has proposed to paint them black but based on the rendering, the BAR expressed some concern that they would be too dark.  Ultimately it was determined that the rendering might not present what was being proposed in the best possible light and that the applicant would first construct the doors and then create “mock-up” samples of each for the BAR to review before moving ahead with a color choice.
The BAR then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review MeetingAugust 7, 2018

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 17, 2018

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, July 17 at 7pm
All members were present.
ASB120, LLC – 2 Circuit Rd. – Landscaping:
The applicant and their landscape architect presented the BAR with a landscaping plan for the property at 2 Circuit Road.  There was a lengthy discussion concerning the proposed hillside meadow in the rear of the home.  Invasive bushes have already been cleared from the slope and the applicant would like to remove several small trees before killing off the remaining vegetation in swaths using an herbicide and then re-planting.  The property is within the Ridgeline and Precipice overlay zone, which makes it susceptible to more stringent regulations. The BAR expressed concern with the tree removal and suggested that the applicant should be replanting trees as well as removing them.  There was also some discussion  regarding the proposed meadow.  It was suggested that the reason for the meadow was to allow the homeowner an unobstructed view, however it was suggested that a hillside meadow might not appear natural as it was not conducive to the surrounding, wooded  landscape.
Landscaping in the front of the home was also discussed.  The applicant is proposing to bring in a minimal amount of fill for the purpose of slightly altering the grade to one side of the home.  It was agreed that 2 unhealthy trees in this area should be removed and replaced.
Neighbors were asked for comments.
Noting that a portion of the property is clearly visible from the Wee Wah (and reiterating that it is within the Ridgeline and Precipice overlay district) , Paul Gluck expressed some concern with the potential visual impacts of the proposed meadow/tree removal.  He further commented that using the materials on file, it was not possible to decipher how the view might be effected.  If there is a tool or a mechanism that will allow the BAR to gage what the impact will be, he urged them to use it. 
He further commented that he would like some more details about the herbicide that would be used to kill off the existing vegetation prior to the seeding of the meadow, such as how much would be used, how it would drain and where the run-off would go.
Following some further discussion the landscaping plan was unanimously approved with the following conditions:

  1. Submission of a planting mitigation plan for the rear of the home that meets the satisfaction of the BAR engineer.
  2. The number and types of trees to be removed must be clearly identified and approved by the Building Inspector
  3. The type of herbicide to be used must be clearly identified and approved along with suitable certification for the company who will be administering it.
  4. The plan will be modified to indicate the removal of two diseased trees in the front of the home.

McGrath – 22 Brook Farm Rd. – New Garage, Replace Dormers, New Windows and Doors:
The applicant and his architect presented the BAR with revised plans for the renovations at 22 Brook Farm Road. A window sample was also presented. As per the suggested of the BAR, the applicant has revised the dormers to allow for a more consistent look across the front of the home.  The garage doors have been altered slightly and the screening from the front porch removed.  The proposed pool has been removed from the application for the time being. 
The BAR was pleased with the changes as presented.  The applicant must now create  a site plan to include proposed changes to the driveway, any grading changes, proposed lighting  and utility plans.  It was agreed that this would be done and that the applicant would return to the next BAR meeting for project approval.

Hennessy – West Lake Stable Road – Relocate Propane Tank, Front Yard Landscaping:
Most of the previously approved work at the property has been completed and the applicant is now looking to remove some railroad tie planters in the front of the home and replace them with paving stones.  The planters are in a shady spot, which makes it very difficult to grow anything in them and moisture coming off the back has caused some damage to the foundation of the home, which the applicant has repaired.  As the home was once a carriage house, the proposed paving stones will be in keeping with the original structure.
Additionally, the applicant has agreed to relocate their propane tank.  The details of this were not discussed however the Building Inspector noted that everything was in good order.
Following minimal discussion, the BAR unanimously approved the plan.

Bruner – East Lake Road, Landscaping to include Patio, Stone Wall, Relocation of Boat Dock, Rebuilding Stone Stairs, Plantings:
* Prior to review of this application, Mr. Bruner recused himself from the BAR and came around the table to face them as an applicant.
The applicant and their landscape architect presented the BAR with plans for a new patio and stone wall on their lake front property along East Lake road.  Also proposed is the reconstruction of some stone steps and the relocation of the current boat dock.  The necessary variance required for working within 100 feet of the reservoir has been granted by the BZA.
Plans to plant grass over a portion of the existing driveway and remove a curb were outlined.  The home will then be connected to the lake path using stepping stones.  The proposed stone wall will be held together in the center with dry concrete but constructed to look as though it is dry stacked.  The dock, to be constructed of cedar, will be shifted from its current location in the center of the property over to one side and the rocks along the lake there will be lowered to allow for access.  A small cedar connector will be installed.  Pictures were presented and discussed.  The applicant is also proposing to create kayak storage using large tree trunks (pictures were circulated and reviewed) with the are to be screened in using various plantings.  Rain gardens will be installed as a buffer along the lake for erosion control.  Finally, a chain link fence along the property line will be removed.
The BAR was in agreement that the proposed project would both enhance and tidy the property.  Following some further discussion, they voted unanimously in favor of approval. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting July 17, 2018

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 5, 2018

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

Turner – 49 West Lake Stable rd. – Deck:
Together with his architect, the applicant presented revised plans for the restoration of the deck on the rear of his home on West Lake Stable Rd.  A letter in response to comments previously made by the Village engineer was submitted.  Since their last appearance before the BAR, the applicant has received the necessary variance from the BZA.  Landscaping, paint colors, lighting, materials and stain were all discussed. 
The BAR then voted unanimously in favor of approving the application.

ASB120 LLC – 2 Circuit Rd. – Potting Shed:
Renderings depicting the visual impact of the proposed potting shed on neighboring properties were presented and reviewed.  Also presented were some minor changes to plans for the main house, namely the removal of a covered area on the side as well a change to proposed windows on the rear of the home in the basement.  During construction, some of the original stucco dating back to 1905 was uncovered behind the walls and the contractor presented a sample of this and outlined plans to clean and paint the original material in hopes of mirroring it/matching it to the house as they moved forward.   Initial landscaping plans were also presented.  There was a very lengthy conversation regarding the proposed removal of trees in the rear of the home.  The applicant has proposed to remove several hemlocks in addition to roughly 10 other mature oak trees in an effort to create a natural meadow.  The BAR expressed concern with this plan, siting code restrictions and potential erosion control issues.  It was suggested that if they wanted to remove large trees for any reason, they should be replanting new trees in their place.  A letter from neighbor Paul Gluck was read into the record, expressing concern with said proposed tree removal as it pertains to erosion and storm water control as well as soil disturbance and public safety and pointing out that the property in question lies within the Ridgeline and Precipice Overlay District, where projects requires more rigorous review and are subject to more stringent restrictions.  Some of these restrictions were outlined in the letter.  Following further discussion, the BAR agreed that the applicant could move forward with the removal of hemlocks in the front of the home, however for the time being any tree removal in the rear should be left alone.  If the applicant wishes to create a natural meadow, more detailed plans will need to be submitted and reviewed moving forward.
The Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the plans for the potting shed, changes to the main house as presented and landscaping plan for the front of the home, subject to submission of erosion control and drainage plans as well as the engineer’s satisfaction.

McGrath – 22 Brook Farm Rd. – Replace Dormers, New Windows & Doors, New Garage, Pool:
The Applicant and his architect presented the Board with plans and renderings for changes to the home located at 22 Brook Farm Road.  In brief, the applicant is hoping to expand the living space to include the existing garage and add a new garage on to the end of the home.  Additionally, they would like to replace the existing dormers and add new windows and doors.  There was a lengthy discussion regarding the pitch of the roof on the proposed garage.  The BAR feels as though what has been proposed does not blend well with the home and gives it the look of three distinct pieces, both contemporary and traditional, rather than one homogenous structure.  The idea of adding an additional dormer to balance things out was also touched upon. The applicant did not have information ready to present on the proposed pool.  Requirements, materials and general specs were discussed so that it could be discussed at the next meeting.  A letter from neighbor John Dawson was read into the record, expressing general concern with the project’s proximity to the property line as well as lighting on both the tennis court and the pool, chemicals that may be associated with the pool and potential noise issues.  Building Inspector John Ledwith noted that it was possible that Mr. Dawson was referring to an earlier version of the project, whereby work was slated to take place much closer to the property line than is now being proposed in the revised plans.
It was agreed that the applicant would return to the BAR in the near future with revised plans for the garage, samples of the proposed windows and doors and detailed specs for the proposed pool.

Gold – 154 East Lake Rd. – Dock:
An owner’s rep presented the BAR with plans for a floating dock at 154 East Lake Rd., explaining that lower water levels in the lake at certain times of the year make it impossible for the applicant to access their boat from the shore.  The 6 x 10 floating platform will be constructed of cedar and accessed via a flat foot down ramp/bridge.  Floaters will be black and fasteners will be stainless steel.  There is an existing concrete bulkhead. 
Following minimal discussion, the Board unanimously approved the application.

Scherer – 1 East Lake Rd. – Driveway Apron:
The applicant was not present.  Building inspector John Ledwith explained that they are looking to install a driveway apron to match the existing Belgian block curbing.   Gutters will be masonry.  Following minimal discussion, the BAR approved the application unanimously subject to the notification of both the Village DPW and the neighbors.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting June 5, 2018

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting May 1, 2018

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 3, 2018

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, April 3 at 7pm.  BAR member Christian Bruner participated via video conference.

Turner – 49 West Lake Stable Road – Changes to Existing Rear Deck:
Together with their architect, the applicant presented the BAR with plans to rebuild an existing deck on the rear of their home at 49 West Lake Stable Road.  The deck will remain largely the same, although the applicant is proposing to relocate the stairs down to the water slightly so that they will be concealed by lattice. The location of the stairs was discussed at some length as was the overall design and project materials.  The application required a variance for side yard setback, so the applicant will proceed to the BZA before returning to the BAR for approval in the near future.

ASB 120, LLC, 2 Circuit Road – Potting Shed:
Following the previous meeting of the BAR, the applicant appeared before the BZA and subsequently received setback variance for the proposed potting shed, although the final version of the variance has yet to be submitted.   Revised plans and renderings of the potting shed were presented and discussed.  The shed will have stucco walls with a white painted trim and a cedar shake roof to match the main house. 
Building Inspector John Ledwith read into the record two letters from neighbors, which expressed concern with the potential visual impact of the pointed roofline as proposed.  They would like to see a mock-up done in order to determine what the impact will ultimately be.
There followed a lengthy discussion with the BAR attorney noting that the draft decision from the BZA (which grants the variance necessary to proceed) appears to be conditioned on the allowing an option for either the BAR or the neighbors to request a mock-up, and the applicant arguing that this was not their understanding of the approval.  The proposed roof is compliance with height restrictions and does not require a variance.  The applicant argued that it was not within the BZA’s purview to condition their variance upon allowing the neighbors to request such a structure be erected and that rather the BZA’s comments were meant to be recommendations to the BAR, under whose purview this type of thing fell. 
Ultimately it was determined that they would need to wait for the final, written decision from the BZA before they could decide how to proceed in this regard. 
Plans for the main house were then reviewed.  These remain largely the same as what has been presented in previous meetings.  A landscaping plan will follow in May. Window samples were requested.  It was agreed that the applicant would return to the BAR in early May, at which point the BZA’s decision should have been issued.

Chesney – 30 Lorillard Road – Demolition & New Construction:
This application was originally before the BAR in 2010, at which point it was approved, however the Chesneys ultimately decided not to move forward and the permits expired.  They have recently revived the application and made some minor changes.  They have initiated the Planning Board process and must also go before the BZA for a number variances.  Plans were presented and reviewed.  The overall footprint of the home will not change much, save for a small deck extension on the rear of the home as well as slight extension to the ground floor.  Historically, neighbors living across the street from the property expressed their concern with regard to the proposed height of the new home and the applicant assured the BAR that although the code allows them to build up to 70 feet, they would be keeping the structure at 30 feet.  A landscape architect has been hired and will be putting together a plan in the near future.  Project materials as well as two sets of stairs leading down from the rear deck were discussed.  The applicant will return to the BAR with revised plans once they have finished with the Planning Board process.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting April 3, 2018

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting March 20, 2018

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

The Village Board of Architectural Review Seeks One New Member

Interested parties should submit their resumes to Village Clerk Debbie Matthews in the Village Office.

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 6, 2018

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday February 6 at 7pm.  Board members Julia Simet and Christian Bruner were absent.

Shore/Cotnoir – 19 Patterson Brook Road – Landscape and Accessory Building:
The applicant’s architect and landscape architect presented the Board with plans for the construction of a 1,100 square foot accessory building (or potting shed) and subsequent landscaping at the property at 19 Patterson Brook Road.  The shed will be used primarily for storage and will be constructed of stucco, with mahogany and cedar barn-style doors to match the pre-existing structures on the property.  It will have true divided light windows and a standing seam metal roof.  It will be climate controlled.  The configuration of various stone walls, proposed lighting, and intended tree plantings were reviewed and discussed as well as grading changes and drainage.  Building Inspector John Ledwith requested that a note be added to plan indicating hat the structure was not for habitable use.  Ultimately, the BAR unanimously approved the application, subject to receipt of the grading and erosion plan as discussed, approval of stucco color samples and the notation of some minor changes on the plan itself.

ASB 120 LLC -  2 Circuit Road – Generator, Landscape and Potting Shed:
Together with an Owner’s Representative, the applicant’s architect and landscape architect presented the BAR with revised plans for the restoration that is underway at 2 Circuit Road.  The applicant was before the BAR once previously, after which they went before the BZA for various variances associated with the freestanding garage (setback, ridgeline & precipice) that was a part of the original plan.  Since that time, they have revised the plans and eliminated the garage, opting instead for a smaller potting shed, which will be used for storage.  Additionally, they are planning to replace all of the windows on the 3rd floor.  Restoration of the windows on the 1st and 2nd floors is taking place on site.  A pair of French doors on the rear of the home will be eliminated where an old Butler’s Pantry once was and replaced with a cabinet top window.  A window on the side of the building will be removed and replaced with French doors, which will allow for direct access to the kitchen from outside.  Replacement of the roof is underway.  The new roof will be cedar shake with copper gutters.  The hope is that once the restoration is complete, the home will look as it did when it was built, back in 1910.
Plans for the potting shed were reviewed and discussed.  A short video rendering was presented.  The structure will be roughly 15x15, large enough to store garbage and recycling receptacles as well as bicycles and various other outdoor equipment.  The proposed height is within the ridgeline/precipice guidelines, however a setback variance will be required.  The building will be constructed of stucco and has been designed to match the main house with similar windows, wood trip and a cedar shake roof. 
The location of generators and HVAC equipment was briefly discussed.
Board member Josh Aaron noted that the plan called for the removal of two dormers on the front of the home that were an original feature of the house and that this was not something that fell within the approved guidelines.
There followed some discussion of this topic with the architect asserting that the dormers seemed to have been almost an afterthought and did not serve any real purpose.  There are two similar dormers on the back of the home and these will be retained for venting. 
The landscaping plan and driveway configuration was reviewed at some length, including discussion of materials, lighting and plantings.
Following this discussion, the BAR agreed to refer the applicant to the BZA for their setback variance, commending them on the overall restoration of the home and property and noting that once completed, it would be a great improvement. 

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting February 6

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 19

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, December 19, 2017.  Board Chair Patrick Donaghy and Board member Christian Bruner were absent.

The Tuxedo Club - 1 West lake Road – Gravel Path:
On behalf of the Tuxedo Club, Tom McKay presented the BAR with plans for the restoration of a pathway on the main lawn at the Clubhouse.  The pre-existing path stretches from the top of the lawn down to the water, but it has not been maintained in many years and has therefore become overgrown.  The plan calls for re-digging the path, treating the earth and installing a rock base, before coving the path with crushed gravel to match the other pathways on the property.  The side stones, many of which are still in place will also be restored.
The Village Engineer expressed concern with the current status of the project, indicating that work had already begun and that what was there had not been installed correcting, resulting in some erosion control and run-off issues.  He further stated that these issues needed to be amended quickly.

Mr. McKay responded that as soon as approvals were granted, the work could be completed in one day.

Building Inspector John Ledwith commented that there were two reasons that the application had come before the BAR.  The first was concern with the proposed project’s proximately to the reservoir.  The second was the resulting change in appearance to the property.  Provided the BAR does not take issue with either of these, and the new path is consistent with the existing paths, Mr. Ledwith does not see any reason why the project should not move forward.

From the audience, Jim Hays expressed concern with regard to the Village Reservoir, commenting that for years the Village had been requesting that The Club install a vegetative boarder along the lake’s edge and to date nothing had been done.
Mr. Ledwith concurred, further stating that a Landscaping Plan had been formally requested on numerous occasions and the Club had indicated that they were working on it.  The Village has approved the removed of several large trees on the Club property and would appreciate some planting, be it a vegetative buffer or otherwise.
Mr. McKay suggested that all of the Club’s previous plans had been approved by the former BAR.

Dena Steele responded that many things had happened in the past but now they knew a lot more than they had previously and the DEC has specific rules and regulations with regard to planting along a reservoir.  She stated that she felt the Village needed to see “increasing sensitivity” to the reservoir from the Club and cautioned that otherwise, the DEC could come in and install both a chain-link fence and 100-foot vegetative buffer.

Mr. McKay indicated that The Club was in the process of reassessing all of their properties and creating a master plan for improvements and enhancements moving forward.  They are hesitant to establish a landscaping plan until the Master Plan has been completed and then strategized, which he anticipates happening sometime within the next 6 months.

Deputy Chair Julia Simet wondered whether the BAR could humbly request that the Club work with the DEC when formulating their plan.  She further suggested that the issue of planting along the reservoir needed to have more visibility and wondered if it might not be prudent to put the issue on an agenda for the Board of Trustees to discuss and possibly put together guidelines.

Mr. McKay commented that as per the DEC, the Club was not permitted to plant anything along the Dam and the surrounding berm between the lake and the tennis courts.
It was pointed out to him that while they could not plant large trees there, bushes, shrubs and grasses were permissible.

Following some further discussion, the Board voted unanimously in favor of approving the application. 
It was agreed that the permitting fees would be paid the following morning so that the work could commence immediately.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting December 19

Click here to view the agenda for this meeting

back to top

line

Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 7, 2017

The Village Board of Architectural Review met on Tuesday, November 7, 2017 at 7pm.  Board Chair Patrick Donaghy and Board member Christian Bruner were absent.

Tuxedo Park Properties – 76 Summit Rd. – Garage Doors, New Garage Opening, Enlarging Windows & Site Plan Review:

The Attorney for the BAR began the meeting by announcing that they were in receipt of a letter from neighbors of the applicant with regard to unresolved issues pertaining to a driveway and in particular an agreed right-of-way.  In the letter, the BAR is asked to address these issues in an effort to help resolve them.  The Attorney advised the BAR that they could not address or adjudicate the access issues as it was not within their purview to do so. 

The applicant then presented and reviewed revised drawings for the project.  A letter from the Village Engineer was reviewed and discussed point-by-point.  Doors, chimney caps, trees, utilities, screening, curbing, drainage, stone walls and driveway configuration were discussed.

Neighbor Houston Stebbins expressed concern over the shared driveway, landscaping and utility plans as well as parking and lighting, stressing that his concerns should not be interpreted as criticism of the overall project as he and his wife both feel that the property looks a lot better, but rather they would like a better understanding of what the overall plans are moving forward. 

The issue of the shared driveway was discussed and it was ultimately determined that the lot-line/easement issue was one for the Zoning Board, however the issues relating to the driveway such as use, drainage and sight distance were within the BAR’s purview to discuss. Both Mr. Stebbins and the applicant were in agreement that the issues at hand did not need to be adversarial and that they could likely be solved through discussion and open sharing of information.

Neighbor Diana Larson thanked the applicant, commenting that the back of her property abuts the site and that it was exciting to see the home being cared for and restored with vision, creativity and strong craftmanship as they had been watching it fall into disrepair for the last 30 years.

Following some further discussion it was determined that the applicant would need to return to the BAR with (with what?) to discuss a stone wall as well as to present and review full landscaping and utility plans however, the BAR voted unanimously in favor of allowing the applicant to proceed with the doors and windows as proposed so that the home can be properly sealed up during the winter months.

back to top

line

Agenda For Village Board of Architectural Review Meeting November 7, 2017

  1. Tuxedo Park Properties –76 Summit Rd. - 104-1-9 – Garage Doors, New Garage Opening, Enlarging Windows & Site Plan Review.
  2. Review of Minutes

back to top

line

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

line

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
    Removal

back to top

line

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

line

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

line

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

line

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

line

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

line

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

line

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

line

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

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, 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

line

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

line

Click Here to View BOAR Archives





www.tpfyi.com