Documents and Photos for the
| ||
IF YOU AGREE ... in this age of Global Warming and species collapse, East Hills -- and elsewhere in our region -- needs far better environmental and ecological stewardship, please attend the hearings and/or provide me written testimony expressing your desire to preserve the trees and halt the over-building to: Richard Brummel (516) 238-1646, Email: rxbrummel [at] gmail [dot] com. Other assistance is also welcome. Thank you. |
||
Application Documents: 113 Revere -- original-documents
This application was revised since the October meeting to modify the
house-design. However nothing changed in the size of the house --
inferring from the absence of a revised "ARB Application" -- or the
reprehensible proposal to cut numerous trees from the property.
Furthermore the watercolor rendition of the house shows a much softer
image than the simple sketch, from which it appears the house remains
large bulky and overbearing. Our original comments thus stand: Once
again a developer proposes to build a massive new house blatantly out
of character with the neighborhood, roughly doubling the size and
creating a bulky, garish, box-like presence that dominates the
property and the streetscape. Norgate is characterized by houses that
minimize their front-facing bulk and soften it by classic angular
lines and modest front-facing windows. The prosed house turns all
these architectural techniques on their head -- resulting in a house
that directly contradicts Village law requiring protection of the
architectural integrity of the neighborhood by restricting
construction of homes and changes in them to what is "in harmony" with
the neighborhood and the site (Section 271-186). A canvass of nearby
houses revealed there may be strong opposition to this application.
Most of the neighbors may not know that in August the board approved a
massive bulky make-over and tree removal located a half block away at
35 Deerpath, whose now-approved application we repeat below for
reference and to show the potential cumulative effect of the new
houses now creeping into 'Old Norgate'. The Revere Road application
also calls for the removal of three or seven trees depending on which
document is to be believed -- the Tree Permit Application or the Site
Plan. After years of semi-abandonment, the greenery on the property is
likely home to some local indigenous animals whose welfare should also
be considered in this process.
(For Norgate Reference) -- Previous Nearby Application Approved August, 2016: 35 Deerpath
The current house at 35 Deerpath The owner seeks to completely change the appearance and character of this demure, classic Norgate house: to double its size, add another story and cut down a handsome healthy tree on the front lawn to accommodate a massive new driveway for three cars. This contradicts Village law requiring protection of the architectural integrity of the neighborhood by restricting construction of homes and changes in them to what is "in harmony" with the neighborhood and the site (Section 271-186). The law also mandates the "intent" of the Village code is "to protect the tree canopy for current and future generations" (Section 186-1). The application lacks a mandated "tree warden" report to evaluate the impact of the tree removal on neighboring properties. There is no such requirement for an architectural report. (APPROVED DESPITE OBJECTIONS RAISED)
Application Documents: 160 Redwood Drive
A HIGHLY destructive application to cut down EIGHTEEN trees, many of
them magnificent healthy soaring trees, simply to expand the footprint
of the house and grade massively, it appears. No tree permit
application was present in the ARB folder we inspected so the actual
"justifications" are not know. But as seen from the photos this
proposal will remove an amazing and beautiful collection of trees
that the prior owner obviously carefully tended and maintained. The
new house is proposed for over 6000 square feet - but it is
impossible to specify the change in size as the original dimensions
are omitted from the application. It appears to be at least a doubling
of the house. As we repeatedly tell the ARB, the trees are homes to
wildlife and should be evaluated for their impact on local wildlife as
part of the process. Surely these trees provide rich habitat for some
local animals. The panoramic photo of the front of the house in the
PDF (above) shows trees all along the roofline. It appears that every
one of those trees are proposed for removal. In addition to the
absence of the tree removal application there is no Tree Warden
Report in the file, despite its requirement by the Village code. We
have been told a report by the Village independent arborist Tree
Health will be submitted by Monday.
Application Documents: 80 Heather #3 (11/2016)
This property has already lost many beautiful trees. The ARB recklessly approved the removal of seven trees in 2015, and (we believe) another two trees in August (as indicated in the request, see PDF above. Now the applicant is back to finish off destroying almost every tree on the property, this time for a swimming pool etc. The Board is likely to refuse the trees for the swimming pool -- which is under the authority of the zoning appeals board (for a variance) -- but the Board has proved far too 'accommodating' to other such requests. Our arborist felt many of the trees previously removed were not properly reviewed and should have been left alive, including magnificent Tulip trees. There is no Tree Warden Report in the file, despite its requirement by the Village code. We have been told a report by the Village independent arborist Tree Health will be submitted by Monday.
Application Documents: 115 Sycamore Drive #2
The applicant, who recently demolished a perfectly good house and destroyed two beautiful trees is now returning to destroy two more massive Oaks that appear to be in perfect health. There is no Tree Warden Report in the file, despite its requirement by the Village code. We have been told a report by the Village independent arborist Tree Health will be submitted by Monday.
Application Documents: 385 Chestnut Drive
This application proposes a massive new house. |
||
Background
The East Hills Village Code contains provisions to protect the local environment: to preserve the tree canopy (Section 186), to preserve the architectural harmony of the community (Section 271-185), and to halt the rampant demolitions *and* rebuilding of large over-bearing massive new houses (Section 271-225). The Architectural Review Board (ARB) is the de-facto front-line environmental regulator of the Village. The Zoning Board of Appeals has a role but it hears far fewer cases, and does not deal with multiple demolitions and rebuildings, and proposed tree 'removals-by-the-dozen' each month, as the ARB does. Anyone passing through East Hills will notice that the ARB has been grossly failing in its environmental duties, voting in favor of the real-estate speculation that the Village administration now favors. But for a few years now, we have been trying hard to oppose this policy, including by taking the Village to court. |
||
Top | ||
Homepage |