Planning Board Ponders Subdivisions and Development

Development is thriving in Scarsdale where homeowners and developers are actively applying to subdivide properties, tear down existing homes and build ever-larger homes; all in evidence at the monthly meeting of the Scarsdale Planning Board. At their August 12 meeting the Planning Board reviewed four subdivisions considered an appeal from a developer to divert a stream along Paddington Road, an appeal to the moratorium on using gravel driveways to meet lot coverage requirements and an application to replace a 4,300 square foot house with an 8,000 square foot manse.

All told, if approved these decisions could result in an additional four new homes on subdivided lots, the demolition of existing homes and replacement with larger homes, submersion of a watercourse and the loss of countless trees to accommodate these projects.

Experienced lawyers congregated at Village Hall, practiced at finding ways to demonstrate the "unique" nature of their client's circumstances and well-versed in appealing to the Board about why their particular project should be permitted - despite existing Village Code.

And if this is the work of just a single month, it's pretty clear why the streets of Scarsdale look they way do – with outsized homes springing up in weeks; jarring neighbors and neighborhoods.

Residents who attended the meeting to voice their objections to the projects also expressed skepticism that the decisions of the Planning Board would be enforced .... for example if the board ordered a developer to preserve trees, who would make sure that the trees remained?

Here are just a few of the cases of the Planning Board reviewed at their meeting on Wednesday August 12:

At 31 Paddington Road developers wish to cover up an

open watercourse to accommodate a large driveway and an expansive lawn. They propose to build a culvert, or a tunnel underneath the front lawn to accommodate the stream. The application was first considered in May and then re-submitted for the August meeting when the size of the proposed culvert was reduced. Jeffrey Gelles, a neighbor at 29 Paddington Road presented a petition with 50 signatures objecting to diversion of the watercourse. He argued that the property is in a flood plane, the diversion would be "detrimental to the welfare of the village," and that permitting the culvert could set a precedent for future development. Gelles reviewed 15 years of applications to the Planning Board and found that no other similar request had ever been approved.

His concerns include safety, possible flooding, maintenance of the underground watercourse and the aesthetics. If fencing were installed at either end of the culvert he believed it could create a safety issue for children and would also catch trash and cause flooding. He said his group is prepared to pursue an article 78 appeal.

Another neighbor, Lynne Elcik from 26A Paddington Road said that the brook runs through her property and she is concerned about potential flooding and a change in the beauty of the neighborhood. She called the brook "a wonderful benefit" and reports seeing ducks, beavers and wildlife in the watercourse.

Neighbors surrounding 21 Rodney Road came to express concerns about the subdivision of the one-third acre property to accommodate the construction of two new homes. They questioned the tree plan that calls for the developer to take down many mature trees, screening and crowding on the street where several new homes have already been built. Others said that the addition of three homes on their street was making parking very difficult, with homeowners jockeying for a space to leave their own cars in front of their homes.

A proposal to build an 8,000 square foot home on a flag lot at 69 Mamaroneck Road was questioned by Planning Board members. One member said he had visited the property and was not able to see where the new home would be sited or which trees would be taken down to accommodate it. The architect said that the home is currently occupied so he was unable to mark the trees or cordon off the area for the new home, though he had plans to move the driveway and put in a double row of trees to the north to accommodate one of the neighbors. Eric Londa, whose home on Colby Lane backs the Mamaroneck Road property, expressed concerns about the clean up of an oil spill that had occurred when a tank was removed and also asked if the new project would require access to an easement on his property for electric and sewer service. He reported that there have been drainage issues in the past from water running off the property onto his own.

Attorney's, representatives from Quaker Ridge Golf Club and residents attended the meeting in anticipation of a discussion about renewing approval for golf safety netting along the border between the golf course and homes on Brittany Close. The current netting is 40 feet height – and the club had applied to raise it to 60 feet and extend it behind two additional homes at 8 and 10 Brittany Close. Before the matter could be considered, the group of attendees asked the Planning Board to hold the matter over to their September meeting to give them time to reach an agreement.

The Board reviewed another subdivision, this one spanning

areas of Scarsdale and Mamaroneck at 12 Stonewall Lane. The property owner wished to subdivide the property so that he could "dispose of it." The two-acre property now includes a house, a pool and a tennis court. As the applicant had not submitted a site plan showing where new homes would be built, the board had questions about the subdivision and removal of many trees.

The Director of Operations from Ginsburg Development, who runs the retail spaces at Christie Place, came before the Board about an application to open Flora Nail Salon in a 517 square foot store front on Christie Place. There were no objections though Board Member Linda Doucette Ashman inquired about health, safety and ventilation.

Perhaps the most interesting case involved an application from Mr. and Mrs. Andy Saperstein at 45 Cushman Road who were asking for relief from the newly-imposed moratorium on utilizing gravel surfaces to meet lot coverage requirements. At the time the moratorium was imposed, site plans for the driveway, pool, pool house and sports court had not been filed. If built, the site would exceed maximum lot coverage rules as the circular gravel driveway would be considered impervious. The owners demolished a 1905 home on the property along with a guesthouse and pool to build their new home.

Attorney Lucia Chiocchio from Cuddy and Feder

told the Planning Board that the Sapersteins want to "invest in family life," "entertain friends, family and colleagues" and "were drawn to the character of the neighborhood." They submitted plans for the house in February 2014 but did not submit plans for the other structures on the site before the moratorium was imposed in February 2015.

They are currently approved for a one-lane ribbon driveway but this will not facilitate circulation around the property or enough parking for their cars and guest's vehicles. They wished to build the 1,000 square foot circular gravel driveway that was originally planned for the project.

Planning Board Chair Dan Hochvert told the attorney that appeals to the moratorium need to be made to the Board of Trustees. The BOT had referred the matter to the Planning Board to make a recommendation only. What impact would this appeal have on the proposed new law that is scheduled for a public hearing in September? Would it set a precedent? Was the situation unique? Another Board member asked why the Sapersteins did not apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance.

Decisions on all of the above matters will be posted on the Scarsdale website at Scarsdale.com.