Scarsdale homeowner sues village over rejection to renovate house

A Scarsdale resident claims that the village exceeded its authority when it denied his request for a building permit to renovate his house.

Mohamed Ahmed, the owner of a house at 25 Tunstall Road, is challenging village laws in a complaint filed July 7 in Westchester Supreme Court.

Ahmed bought the 2-story, 1,407-square-foot house a year ago, for $775,000, according to a county property record, and in April applied for a building permit for a 2-story addition.

The building department referred his application to the Board of Architectural Review and the board considered his plans at a June 14 public hearing.

After the board reviewed and commented on the application, the lawsuit states, the chairman recommended that the matter be adjourned to allow Ahmed’s architect to review the comments and revise the plans.

Another board member, who is not identified in the complaint, allegedly objected to the continuance motion and urged the board to immediately disapprove the application, and the board did so.

Seventeen applications were considered that day, according to a brief account of the meeting posted by the village. The board approved 14, continued two and denied only one.

The village has not posted minutes of the hearing and Ahmed’s complaint does not describe the comments made about his plans.

Village attorney Daniel Pozin did not reply to an email request for the village’s side of the story.

Ahmed argues that the village acted illegally.

While the architectural review board may deny an application, for instance, he said it must cite the harmful effects of the plans and allow the applicant to confer about suggestions for a change of plans.

Instead, the board “summarily disapproved” the application despite Ahmed’s willingness to discuss changes.

The village also exceeded its legal authority by imposing subjective aesthetic criteria, according to the lawsuit, in effect allowing the architectural review board to “control the appearance and design of private property” even where the plans comply with zoning and planning regulations.

The village code allows the board to deny applications for plans that are monotonously similar to the surroundings, for instance, or strikingly dissimilar.

“These conflicting, contradictory grounds for disapproval … encourage arbitrary, subjective actions,” the complaint states.

Ahmed said the village has given the architectural review board “appellate authority” over its own decisions. Applicants whose plans are denied are required to seek reconsideration from the board before seeking judicial review. If the board upholds its decision, the applicant is given 30 days to appeal before a court, instead of the four months typically allowed for such appeals.

Ahmed wants the court to declare the denial of a building permit illegal and unenforceable and to find that parts of the village code impermissibly vague and unenforceable.

He is represented by Nassau County attorney Christian Browne.