Village of Dering Harbor
Architectural Review Board
Minutes

March 8^th, 2025, 11:00 AM 

• The meeting was called to order at 11:05am
• Attendance: Rob Feris (chair), Stephanie Deautch, Kay Lawson; absent- George Birman, Melinda Carroll; Vicki Shields (village clerk), Donna Ritzzmann (stenographer), Ted and Debbie Nelson, Patrick Ahearn, Karen Kelsey, James Eklund, Jon Eklund, Christopher Sprigman, Leslie Saltzmann
• A motion to accept the minutes from the October 19, 2024 meeting was moved by Stephnaie and seconded by Kay. All Board members present voted in favor.
• New Business
  • A motion to open the Public Hearing to hear the following application was moved by Stephanie and seconded by Kay. All Board members present voted in favor.

1. 1. 1. Leslie Saltzman and Christopher Sprigman
         SCTM# 701 – 1 – 3 – 21.1
         Street Address: 2 Dering Woods Road, Dering Harbor

Building permit application for construction of house, carriage house, driveway, and parking.

Patrick Ahearn gave his presentation. He explained that it basically includes all of the elements that a new construction should have. He went on to describe what is nice about the site. In terms of the general organization of the site, they are well within the setbacks. The pool is located in the back of the house and not visible from the road.  The series of renderings are meant to convey the spirit of the project. He went on to go page by page to highlight some of the features. The carriage house is subordinate in scale to the main house. He then went on to speak on the houses that served as inspiration for the proposed project, followed up by explaining some of the architectural details, both of which are contained in the design set submitted to the ARB. He also explained the construction sets that were submitted as part of the application.

Questions from the board:

1. 1. 1. Stephanie had some questions for clarification. She thanked the applicant for hiring such a great architect. Stephanie said there is a discrepancy between the plans that were submitted electronically is different from the hardcopies that were submitted. She also asked for some clarification about the tree survey. Stephanie then asked for clarification about lot coverage. Patrick Ahearn read from the small ARB set that he submitted during the meeting. She asked if the pool equipment was sunk into the ground? Patrick said no but it will be behind a fence. The Board suggested additional screening for the sake of the neighbors. She pointed out that the chimney is different in the ARB rendering than in the construction set. Patrick asked to follow what is listed in the construction set. Regarding the windows, they are “wood/wood”. She then asked about the pool and Christoper explained. She asked about the lack of lighting on one side of the house and Patrick explained what would be there.
      2. Kay asked for further clarification regarding the tree application. She asked if the trees looking to clear are within the building envelope? Christopher said that it’s actually smaller than that. She then asked about the previous version where shutters were included on the sides. In the new version, the shutters are no longer included on the sides. The applicant explained the reasoning. She asked about the solar array. Christopher explained that it’s going to be very low profile, very high quality, and well-screened. He explained what he considered and the tradeoffs.
      3. Rob Ferris asked what the physical dimensions of the solar array were. Patrick called it out on the plans. Rob explained the concern about where it could be seen from. Christopher. Patrick said the plan is to screen it with vegetation. He went on to express concerns about what was included in the presubmission plan versus what is now being proposed (little window in attic, shutters, hot tub). Christopher explained they took away the hot tub because it is not energy efficient. Rob also asked about the railing.
      4. Stephanie expressed dissatisfaction with the removal of the shutters and was struggling with the west facade. Patrick explained the reasoning behind the change. He thinks from a historical point of view, not having the shutters on the sides is more appropriate. Christopher said he is ok with bringing the shutters back. The applicant agreed to add the shutters back, as well as the little window. She then went on to comment on the landscaping. Currently, the lot is wooded, but it won’t always be that way. So she thinks it’s important to approach that over time, there will be less natural screening over time than more. In terms of the landscaping that has been proposed, much of it won’t thrive or survive. Arborvitae will not survive. Boxwood will survive and stay green all year long. She shared what else does well. Temporary fencing helps to protect vegetation in the winter. She suggested re-submitting a landscape plan that includes plantings that are more deer resistant. Christopher said their goal is to stick with native plants as much as possible, but will also include plants that will provide the screening needed.

 Public comments:

1. 1. 1. Ted Nelson asked how far the building envelope and features are from his property line. The Board invited Ted to come up and look at the plans.

Board Comments:

1. 1. 1. Kay Lawson stated that she would be comfortable voting and approving the plans with specific conditions submitted and signed off on by the chairperson.
      2. George Birman’s 4 main points from his email dated March 4th were shared.
      3. Rob clarified what needs to be submitted. Patrick said they are willing to add back the shutters, window in attic, and update the landscape plan.

• A motion to close the Public Hearing was moved by Kay and seconded by Stephanie. All Board members present voted in favor.
• A motion to approve the plan submitted, subject to the following conditions, was moved by Kay and seconded by Stephanie.

1. 1. Add the attic window to the rear elevation.

1. 2. Add back the shutters as submitted for the pre submission conference.

1. 3. Revise landscape plan to include plant material listed in the Design Principles, specifically to exclude arborvitae and include privet, boxwood, and osmanthus.

All Board members present voted in favor, 3-0.

• Next meeting date (if needed)- Saturday, April 26^th, 11am
• A motion to adjourn at 12:13pm was moved by Kay and seconded by All Board members present voted in favor.