Good evening, everyone.

Try this again.

My name is Erica Eisner.

I'm the chair of the New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals.

I'm just going to introduce everybody that's sitting in front of you tonight.

We have Kevin Kane, the director of planning, and to his right, Jeffrey Bream, Deputy Corporate Counsel for the City of New Rochelle.

To his right is Paul Vaca, the building commissioner for New Rochelle.

And to his right is Bob Stanziel, followed by Charlotte Abadier.

To my right is Elder Mark McLean, our newest member of the zoning board.

Welcome.

To his right is Abel Rodriguez and Carla Clapper, Fernando Arias, and then we have Regina O'Hare, who is the clerk of the building department.

As Regina said, we have a very full calendar.

We're going to hear from each applicant, and then we will hear voices of opposition or in support of the application.

Please do not speak from your seat.

Everybody will have a chance to speak one at a time.

We are going to limit everyone to three minutes, though, and we're going to be strict about that, otherwise we'll never get out of here this evening.

We are paperless, so uh you see us up with up here with computers.

We're looking at the submissions and the applications.

I promise we're not uh shopping for Cyber Monday or giving Tuesday or whatever day of the week it is.

So uh with that, I will turn it back over to Regina to call the roll.

All right, I'm just calling the roll.

Just raise your hand if you're here.

Uh first case tonight's gonna be case 27, 2025, 44 Country Ridge Road.

The applicants here.

Yes.

And oppositional voices to be heard on that case.

Case 30, 2025, 25 Morris Lane South.

Applicant is here.

Okay.

Opposition of voices to be heard on that case.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay.

Case 19, 2025, Lincoln Avenue and Risley Place.

Applicant is here.

Yes.

Opposition of voices to be heard on that case.

Yes.

It's okay.

Case 32, 2025, 91 Cortland Avenue.

Applicants here.

Yes.

Opposition of voices to be heard on that case.

Case 33, 2025, 16 Rock Ridge Circle.

The applicant is here.

Opposition of voices to be heard on that case.

Okay.

Case 34, 2025, 46 Hillary Circle, applicants here.

Opposition of voices to be heard.

Case 35, 2025, 765 Pelham Road, applicants here.

Opposition of voices to be heard on that.

Case 36, 2025.

1313 Weaver Street.

Applicant is here.

Opposition of voices to be heard on that case.

Case 37, 2025, 255 Wilmont Road.

The applicant is here.

Opposition of voices to be heard on that case.

Case 38, 2025, 121 Caligny Avenue.

Applicant is here.

Not yet, he'll be here.

Opposition of voices to be heard.

Yes.

If everybody could try and find a seat if they're in the case.

Okay, yeah.

You have to clear the seats under next to you.

There's some seats up here, please.

Also, there's one over here.

You have to squeeze in.

That's all the space we have in this room.

Also gonna ask if anybody needs to speak, please step outside of the room and down the hallway.

The voices travel.

We're being recorded this evening, so we can't have background noise.

If you if you didn't raise your hand for voices to be heard, you can you'll still have an opportunity to speak after you hear the presentation.

Right, you can just raise your hand.

Okay, I'm gonna ask for quiet in the room, and we're gonna call the first case.

Case 27, 2025, 44 Country Ridge Road.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Jahaida Colombo.

I'm the applicant of record, and I'm representing the owners of the single dwelling located at 44 Country Reach Road.

Um we're here presenting again because we did some modifications to our original proposal, uh, which included uh the addition to have a total depth of 16 feet.

After further discussion with the homeowner, we reassessed the design and agreed to reduce the depth of the proposed addition by 18 inches.

The updated extension now measures 14 and a half feet, which is 20% less from our original proposal.

We want to reaffirm that the area where we're doing this addition is currently contains a paved patio, which is larger than the footprint of the proposed extension.

The new audition will be constructed entirely at grade level as our results.

Any activities that currently take place on the patio where sounds naturally carries and activities are more exposed, are already more likely to generate noise and disturbance than all the enclosed activities that would occur within the proposed addition.

In practical terms, enclosing the space that is now used outdoor, we'll reduce, not increase any potential impacts on neighboring properties.

Meaning that the um addition only will be about 20% of the total width of the lot.

So the remaining 80% of the lot will maintain a fully compliant rear yard that will exceed zoning requirements by approximately 127% because there's about 18 18 feet rear yard right now.

In summary, we have significantly reduced the size of the proposed addition compared to our initial proposal.

The extension replaces a larger existing patio, and it enclosed any activities that currently happen in open space, and only the 20% of the width of the lot will contain the non-compliant condition, while the remaining 80% will have uh 127% compliant required yard.

Uh in addition, the there is a very dense high, about 12 feet high evergreens screening, um, ensuring that no unverse impact will happen on adjacent properties.

Thank you.

Anyone in the audience want to come up?

Okay.

Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?

Regina.

Regina, are there any new voices of opposition received?

No.

Thank you.

I wanted to thank you for the modification that you made and listening to our comments at the last meeting.

So thank you for that.

Um, does anyone want to make a motion?

Okay, I'll make a motion.

This is for case number 27-2025.

Alan Halburn for permission to construct a one-story addition at the rear yard of an existing one-family dwelling, whereas the proposed 22.15 rear yard setback is less than the minimum required of 30 feet in an R1-10 zone district at the premises of 44 country ridge road, block 3407 lot 67 in seeking an area variance.

When applying the balancing tests, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, um, I would suggest that it cannot.

Um, anything smaller would be um just unusable and impractical.

Um, whether it will create an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or the nearby properties.

This is um directly behind the house.

It's extremely screened in by the landscaping, which is extensive and dense.

Um, so I don't think that it's going to have any impact whatsoever on the neighborhood character.

Whether the request is substantial, it's less substantial than it was when the applicant first appeared before us.

Um, while it's not in insignificant uh variance, I don't think it it warrants denial.

Whether the request will have an adverse physical or environmental effect.

I don't believe that it will, and we've heard no uh we've had no testimony or information that otherwise, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, it is, but again, I don't feel that that warrants denial of the application.

So I move that we approve this application.

Second Bob Senziel?

No.

Erica is I'm sorry, Fernando Arias.

No abel Rodriguez, yes, Carla Klappa, yes, Mark McLean.

Yes, Charlotte Abadier, yes, Erica Eisner, yes.

The motion has been approved.

Thank you.

Um the next case tonight is case 30, 2025, 25 Morris Lane South.

Should we still present the case?

Thank you.

Or are you withdrawing?

I need we'll talk tomorrow.

This is the first one.

I'm sorry.

Give me a second.

Is Lincoln an Avenue here and Risley?

So your architect is telling us the applicants right here.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

I'm sorry for the confusion.

This is what happens in big meetings.

That's not a switch.

Okay, sir.

Oh.

Oh, wait.

Thank you, Janet.

There we go.

That's good.

So perfect.

Good.

Good evening, Robert Sherwood.

I'm a landscape architect.

With me tonight is the future homeowner, Paris.

This project, 25 Morris Lane South, is a new residential house under construction.

My client Paris purchased the house after it was started to be built.

Please don't drop the pool.

We are here quite we are here tonight to get a variance to allow for a pool to be submitted into the rear yard.

As well, um unknown to the builder who did get a building permit who originally had a retaining wall along the rear property line.

Um the town, I think made an error on their point or overlooked it.

The retaining wall was always in that rear yard, going from Ford to five and a half feet tall, so above your um height restrictions on that.

So we're here tonight to hopefully get that resolved as well.

Um first, I'd like to submit something for the record that the homeowner went around to some of his neighbors and got five signatures on a basically a petition that's in favor of the applicant application.

Um do you have any more copies?

I have one copy.

I can to hand in for the record if you want.

Um as as the project goes, um, we are looking for a rear yard setback and a side yard setback.

Um directly to the left of the residence that's under construction.

This residence is actually higher than our proposed pool.

It's looking down.

The property is sloping from front to back, so there's a grade change coming down here, and this is where that previously building permit was issued for a retaining wall.

Um, and the height of that retaining wall gets above your restrict um your requirements in this zone if you follow the mouse there.

Um, and the pool being located in here.

Um there is a deck on the house in this area.

There's stairs coming down, small simple terrace around it, a little bit larger terrace on this side.

Perhaps you want to speak.

So uh just to explain the reason.

Wait, sir, just state your name for the record, please.

Yeah, uh Paris Jane.

Um, owner of this home.

So uh just to explain the reason for the ask and the variance.

Um so it in in our faith and our in Hindu faith, we follow a religious practice called Vastu, and it's a system that explains how natural elements, especially water and fire, should be arranged around a home.

And so for our family, this isn't a design or something we do out of preference, it's something I've grown up with, something we practice even in our current home, and essentially it's something we generally live by, but essentially elements like water and fire.

Um, if you have a major feet water feature that needs to be in the east or northeast part of our property, and the southeast is considered what's a fire element or fire area, so putting a pool there is not allowed for us from the way we practice.

So because of our house, the way it sits on this lot, any pool that you know fully complies with the setback rules ends up in that southeast zone.

So if we follow the code exactly, we simply can't put a pool anywhere on the property in a way that's consistent with that practice.

So that's really the reason we're asking versus and what we consider the hardship, something that's normally a permitted amenity for homeowners.

Uh isn't realistically available uh in this case, just given it's not consistent with that faith.

And we also obviously as as uh we do believe there's no negative impact on neighbors or the neighborhood character, and we have received the direct neighborhood support um from signed statements of no objection as well.

We've tried to create this 12 by 38 pool is a pretty narrow pool, consider it almost a lap pool.

Um, like we said, it is situated into a section of the property where we do need those um variances.

So open up to the board for any questions.

Okay.

Um we have some opposition to this case.

Uh okay, so let them come up.

So come up to the podium, sir, and state your name and address for the record, and you have three minutes.

Okay.

Yeah, um, my name is Manuel Val.

I um the South West neighbor at 990 Wilmot.

Um these you you didn't you didn't come to me for.

What's the address of the record?

I'm sorry.

990 Wilmot Road.

Okay.

Um I didn't uh I wasn't asked for any.

I wasn't asked for any signature.

He said they collected signatures.

I wasn't, but so I'm not um opposed to this.

I just have a few uh concerns and you know, kind of requests um that come from that.

Number one, that this this property is uphill to mine.

So of course, you know, I have a concern about water uh drainage and something you know, in the event of a some kind of breach or leak um on the pool, uh that could c could cause uh damage to to my property.

So I'd like to see like that uh there's proper drainage um installed and maybe an insurance uh in case of uh you know, like a bigger um leak to that pool.

The second one is uh, you know, um again because it's uphill and then these retaining wards are higher, and so the the patio around the swimming pool will be higher.

Uh is uh lighting um and privacy.

Uh so I would ask that any lights that are being installed there, you know, don't spill any light on my property either by you know being directed appropriately or by having some kind of um shielding, and then uh third is yeah, um, like evergreens, like thou yards um or something, if they can be planted at the southwest uh corner at least um of the property again because you know that pat here is uphill and and higher than uh usual.

Um yeah, so if these things, three things can be addressed, I I don't have any um I'm not opposed to this.

Thank you.

Any other opposition?

You can have a seat, sir.

Anyone else want to speak on this case?

Okay.

And certainly we understand that we are uphill.

Um, this obviously this project has gone through a grading and drainage and stormwater erosion control plan, which has um a drainage plan associated with it with the similar engineer of record.

So there should not be any adverse impact of stormwater drainage management, et cetera.

Um we are proposing no lights besides lights that might be inside the pool, and that would just be illuminating in the pool, so there's no proposed lighting plan for this, and as well, part of your code um, as you look around, there is a landscape plan, and there is a heavily screened um buffer of evergreens around the pool in that in that area.

And actually, the proposal is the wall um planted, and then actually the pool enclosure fence on our side of the landscaping, so the fence would not be associated with the wall to make that even look higher.

So from the neighbor's perspective, he will see a wall, then he will see landscaping, you won't even see the pool enclosure code fence.

I just have a quick question.

So the the one retaining wall that you referred to that you're seeking a variance for, that's already there.

That's so you're seeking to legalize an existing wall.

Currently, the house is under construction.

So I haven't been there in the last few months.

I do not believe they've built it, but it was on the approved plans, which went through the town approval process.

We can't have more than four foot high retainment.

So unless there were elevations, the top, bottom of that wall, every 10 feet on that wall.

It's kind of hard to get up there and say, oh, that's what was approved.

You're only allowed to have a four-foot-eye retainment wall.

Understood, this was before May.

I'm just reading what the builder has a approved site plan through the town, and it did have the same wall on it.

So whether it was an oversight on whose party, I don't know.

But we're here to try to get that to be resolved.

Whether or not if if that is not the case, we have to build a tiered wall.

We'll we'll go to that route.

We have to build a tiered wall.

Um one of the questions that I have is um when you guys submitted the um the plans for the construction of the property, uh, the pool was not part of the regional plans.

Oh, no, it wasn't.

No.

So if this is like so important as part of your religion, how come that was not incorporated in the original plans?

Well, I believe originally the house was a spec house, and he came in after the fact that it was already approved and it was starting to be built.

That's right.

So it was kind of coming in after the fact.

So why don't you let him answer that question?

Sorry, the plans were had already been created.

It was already built at a spec house, and then we bought it much later.

And now it's under construction.

So there was no pool in that original plan.

So you were not part of the original no, I was not.

So you came and you purchased the property at sort of like start of the construction.

Um so Robert, you know, we're we're here to grant uh this board looking to grant the minimal variances that are required.

That's what we're tasked with.

So the 13-foot side yard.

Um is there any way that can be that can be enlarged somewhat by either sliding the pool over, still keeping it in that quadrant uh that's required uh or by shortening that pool.

It's a I mean a 38-foot long pool to lap pool, but could that be made smaller to give us a bigger side yard on that side?

It's still seven feet uh short of the required setback correct.

I you know, I I can go over the the different options with the the homeowner uh and we can try to make that work um by reducing it a bit and seeing if we can slide it to the to the center of the property a little bit more, but I believe we're right on kind of the restriction line for his requirements, but if we could narrow that pool up a little bit more, uh the length, I think we can do something and still make a viable appointment.

I think that would help, at least my view of it anyway, if you could I I would also be curious to know what the options would be to create the retaining wall with without the variance.

I mean, if if a tiered wall can be created, um that's not overly difficult to achieve, then that would eliminate one of the three variances, which would also be much appreciated.

Yeah, I'm surprised.

Why haven't you been there in a few months, especially in anticipation of this meeting?

Well, a lot can happen in a month of construction.

I was for the last meeting.

Um I was there just before that, putting up the sign, so that was a month and a half ago.

Okay.

So that's why I was there.

Didn't want to speak out of the word.

I don't know if they're building the wall.

I don't think they have.

I hear you.

So do you want to um do you want to ask for an adjournment so you can go back and take another look at this?

Or sure.

Absolutely.

Come back and yeah.

Before you wrap it up.

So I just want to make sure I'm clear.

So you're asking for three different variants a side jar barriers, a reassargear barriers, and a barriers for your the height of the wall.

Yes, correct?

Yes.

And the numbers that are here.

What I'll ask for you is is you, you know, you you came to this late.

I want to see some exact measures and make sure that this numbers are accurate and validated that this is the accurate numbers that you're dealing with.

Because you you mentioned the floor plan was provided by someone previously, there were some misassumptions made.

So I want to make sure that when you come, at least for my perspective, when you come back in front of me next time, you have some solid number verified that is the plan is accurate and what you plan it to propose is accurate as well.

Understood.

Thank you.

So we formerly asked for an adjournment until the next meeting.

Great.

We'll see you in January.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next case this evening is case 19, 2025, Lincoln Avenue and Risley Place.

Madam Chair, I have to uh recuse myself to this case.

I can see us tripping and I can even uh for the record.

My name is Anthony A.

Carbone.

I'm with the law firm of Berlinguan Carbone, 320 Westchester Avenue in the village of Porchester.

And I represent the applicant.

To my far right is Salvatore Caltabalada, who is the principal of the applicant.

And to my near over next to me is Mrs.

Contreras, who is the architect who prepared the plans and diagrams, which we will refer to today.

I was chairman of the uh the Nurshell Plain Ward many years ago for 30 years, and I'm not used to the high tech, so I I need a place to put my notes in things.

So if you don't mind, I'm gonna carefully move this.

I'm sure I'll wreck it.

Technological skills are somewhere.

I'm all for the paper.

What?

I said here I'm all for the paper.

And I have a few things to hand out also that uh I can see from that wonderful screen there.

Uh probably weren't necessary to hand out, but I'll I'll do it anyway.

Okay.

I last you're giving us stuff to look at.

Uh uh as I go through.

It's it'll be easy.

I mean, for example, that is just this, the so you can look at it together.

Okay, I last appeared before this board on this application in 2021, and the board at that time did not agree with our presentation and denied the application.

Fortunately for us, our uh zoning ordinance allows us to come back over a period of time, three years, I think it is, uh, to revisit.

And many things could happen in three years.

And I think our zoning ordinance is flexible and understands that it's not static.

It understands that things change, and a few things have changed over the three years until we feel require a review of this particular application and a positive approval.

First of all, we all know Nurshell has changed over the last year.

Just go down Main Street.

You see, building after building, condominium after condominium, which appears to be the new way people in our shell may want to live.

Uh, we don't agree with that.

We agree single family homes are people in a shell need, and and allows Nurishell to be what is referred to referred to as the city of homes.

Uh in addition, the this board has changed.

I believe from my original application, only two members remain.

There's been a turnover of the board.

Sometimes a new set of eyes is helpful in understanding a project.

Third, the housing market has changed.

If you look at Neuroshell today, there are 15,000 single-family homes in Nourish.

Do you know how many are on the market right now as of 12 o'clock noon?

33.

There is a need for housing, there are a need for single-family housings in Urshell.

And this is what we are attempting to do here.

Third and fourth uh and foremost is as chairman of the uh the planning board many years ago.

We had seen many applications come before us for recommendations.

In this particular application, there are certain planning board characteristics, although I I very well very well aware of the different roles of the boards, but there's certain characteristics.

Character and neighborhood.

Planning board looks at that carefully.

So I uh the matter was referred to the planning board, and by resolution, which I have a copy of the resolution in my resolution file, yeah.

The planning board unanimously recommended positive approval to the to the zoning board.

And the resolution is dated October 1st, 2025.

I have a copy of it.

I just like to submit it to the record for the record, if that's acceptable.

May I approach?

Excuse me.

Just circulate.

Thank you.

So we think there is a significant change here in the original application, which was made back in 2021.

That's from the legal aspect.

From the technical aspect, and Mrs.

Contreras will explain it to you.

We reoriented the House.

The House no longer faces RISLI.

It faces Lincoln Avenue.

But from a planning perspective, we allow the driveway to remain on RISLI.

So there's no impact whatsoever on the uh on Lincoln Avenue, which is obviously a busier street.

You all know the area.

So that's a that's another aspect of change.

And it's funny, we understand this as a corner lot.

Corner lot is funny, it has two front yards, etc.

But if you consider just from viewing it, street view, streetscape, it looks like Lincoln Avenue is the front, which is the one of the fronts.

The width at the building line is substantial.

It's much more than the 75 required.

Because the width of the lot or the length of the lot on Lincoln is 100 feet.

And the variances, unfortunately, from last time, we can't make the lot bigger, didn't grow any.

We can't make it wider.

The same variances remain today as it did in uh 2021, but as I said, there were significant changes.

Now, if we go through the statute, which is this board is most interested with, which is the uh area variance requirements, as codified by the general business law, there's five points that we have to address.

Point one, where an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood.

The character of the neighborhood is all single family houses.

The character of the neighborhood are all houses, single family houses on lots the similar size.

This particular subdivision was created in 1919, and the lots were divided up.

The houses were built between 1920 and 1940.

They were all on lots in similar size.

This picture here indicates our lot in where is our lot, Mrs.

Pinch?

In the blue one.

All the pink are lots that require similar variances if they were built today.

You can see of all the lots here, only one, two would comply with the zoning ordinance as is built today.

That is, have 75 feet uh at the building line and 7500 square feet.

The rest, the rest require variances.

And I did an analysis of 25 lots in the area, all around this.

Of the 25 lots, 21 were non-conforming both as the size and at the building line.

Four were only non-conforming as to the building line.

So a hundred percent of the lots, the 25 lots I reviewed, 100% could not be built today.

If the house was destroyed for some reason, they would have to come to the zoning board to rebuild the house.

And the one the one lot that I looked at that really uh doesn't even apply was right across the street up there, that's the Con Ed substation.

So this proposal is very much in character with the neighborhood.

Number two, an undesirable change in the neighborhood will not be created.

They're building a house, a single family house about the same size as all the other houses that will go on the market as a brand new house, would probably increase the value of all the other houses in the area.

Not decrease it, would increase it.

And I went to the uh assessor's office, and I just got an idea that the houses in that area, the assessment range between 12 and 18,000 dollars.

That's assessment, that's not taxes.

Taxes in Nourishel are one, the mill rate is 1.344 per thousand.

So the houses in that area would generate between 12,000 and 24,000 in taxes.

This is new construction.

This would be on the higher end.

Right now, this lot pays less than three about $3,000, $3,000 in taxes.

It could generate as much as $24,000.

Just think what that does to the coffers of the city of Urshell.

I mean, we are always looking at taxes.

I mean, we're always, I mean, I'm a Nourish Hell resident and resident all my life.

I can think one thing in Constantin' the last 50 years.

I complain about the taxes.

You know, they're always there.

Whether the uh area variance is substantial.

It is unfortunately, it is what it is.

I can't make it wider, I can't make it bigger.

This is not uncommon.

Uh I know this board has seen variances like this in the past and have roofed and have ruled favorably on it.

So it's not that unusual.

It's 61 by and it's like 6,000 uh 104 square feet.

But remember, all of those are similar.

Whether the proposal will have an adverse impact or have any environmental conditions.

The impact we'll have will increase the value of every house in that area.

New construction.

That's what it would have.

It has no uh negative impacts here.

We increase the value of every house in that area.

And finally, whether this difficulty was self-created.

Self-created hardship is not a basis for turning down an area variance.

The only case law you see on that if bad faith was involved.

There's no bad faith here.

And in fact, the statute, the general uh city law specifically states that does not it preclude the granting of an area variance.

If it was a use variant, it would be different.

This is an area variance.

You know, also, you know, I've lived in Earthshow all my life.

I I know the area.

I know that as you enter Nourishell, and I I like history, so I uh took a few pictures here.

As you enter Neurochell, if you enter it from Petalham, it describes Nourishell.

Well, I don't have the minute.

Well, I I have a better one.

Just as you enter on Quaker Ridge Road, is describes Nourish as a city of homes.

These these Rockwellian paintings as you enter Nurchell, these signs, a city of homes.

This wasn't Rockwell, this was a uh an RSP in Lawrence Loeb.

Uh they none of them were Rockwell, but they were like uh Rockwell-esque for want of a better term.

We are a city of homes.

We are here to create another home, an area surrounded by similar homes, of similar size, of similar width.

It adds to our tax base.

It allows a homeowner to come in, not buy a condo on Main Street and live on the 50th floor, 35th floor, whatever floor you want to live on.

These are houses that are needed for our residents, our new residents, our young people.

I'll now turn it over to Miss to describe to you the architectural aspects of it and the uh the size and the zoning.

Hi, my name is Cynthia Silvia Canderos, I'm one of the architects.

Could you make a I'm sorry?

I'm trying not to drop the screen here.

Um I mean, pretty much she said the same thing I was gonna say.

The thing with this home is yes, we have we need a very two variants for the lot width and the square footage, but we will meet every other requirements, bulk, setbacks, FAR, and it's uh a pretty good design this time around in this that we actually blending with the naval uh the design now.

We didn't exchange the the footprint of the building.

We did the exterior, making it a colonial, this similar to a lot of the properties in the the neighborhood.

It's uh 2100 square feet, it's not a big home, it's a small three-bedroom, two-bath, uh, two stories, and I think it would be an added an added plus to the neighborhood because right now it's an empty lot with a lot of strawberries.

I mean, if you take a ride in the neighborhood, many of the houses have detached garages that are rather large that take up a good portion of a smaller lot.

Okay, we don't have a detached garage, we have a garage that's obviously in inside the house under underneath that you enter from Risley.

So there's actually more open space here than on most of the uh uh of the uh houses in that particular area.

The house is the same, the design will be the same, will be uh uh compatible to what you see on compatible to what you see on uh on Lincoln Avenue as you come up there.

If you come up Lincoln Area, the houses are oriented towards Lincoln, except for the one on the opposite corner, and it would look uh uh you know in compliance with the rest of the design and development in that neighborhood that was created in 1919 and built out probably by the 40s.

And no, I wasn't there in 1919, even though I am old uh when that first occurred.

But all joking aside now, uh it is totally in compliance with this.

And there is case law that says that you know a house which is similar to uh other houses in the area, even though it doesn't comply with zoning, is not a basis for rejection of an area variance.

Is there any questions I can answer?

Right.

So you guys can have a is there any opposition in the audience for this case?

There is support yes.

They can speak a for or against on this case.

Anyone wants to speak, come on up?

Sure, sure.

Good evening, everybody.

Um, as a local nourishal realtor with more 72 Lis Bernard Avenue.

Okay, okay.

As a local nourishable realtor with more than 23 years of experience selling homes in this community, I have a deep understanding of our city's housing inventory, land constraints, and neighborhood character.

My professional perspective provides first hand insight into how scarce developable land is within this area and how essential it is to utilize existing parcels responsibly and thoughtfully.

As someone who has worked daily in this market for over two decades, I could state with confidence that there is virtually no undeveloped land available for acquisition in this part of Neurochell.

This neighborhood is fully built out, and opportunities for lot consolidation or expansion simply do not exist.

Without relief, this parcel becomes permanently unbuildable and unusable, which undermines the goals of smart growth and responsible land use.

The requested variance is modest, reasonable, and does not infringe on neighborhood neighboring properties.

The lot already has mature bushes and natural vegetation, providing privacy and screening, further minimizing any impact.

The proposed home has been um designed to complement surrending surrounding homes in scale and style.

It maintains architectural compatibility and visual continuity.

The variance does not generate overcrowding, excessive massing, or any condition consistent with existing neighborhood patterns.

By approving this variance, you will allow an otherwise unusable lot to contribute positively to the city by increasing Nourish Hell's tax base through a newly assessed home, creating construction jobs and stimulating local economic activity, and enhancing the appearance and utility of what is currently an underutilized parcel.

Maintaining the denial keeps the land unproductive indefinitely and results in a loss of potential tax revenue and community value.

This development would likely improve the appearance and maintenance of that corner, benefiting the entire street.

The requested variance enables a reasonable intended residential use, fully aligned with the purpose of the zoning code.

I also did a little homework this morning, and Anthony was correct.

Out of all of Nourishell, corner to corner, north, south, east, west, there are only 33 homes on the market, single family homes.

That doesn't include co-ops, condos, rentals.

So the inventory is low, we need more housing.

And thank you very much.

And actually, oh I have to Miriam Morrow.

And I live at 111 Clove Road.

And actually, since noon, or when they did that, um, we only have 31 houses on the market.

Because two intending.

Yeah.

Uh we have 45 in contract.

Um I also am a realtor in New Rochelle, and I've been working for two decades locally and also throughout all of Westchester.

And I don't want to read my letter since it's very repetitive to what Beth said and what these three have already said.

Uh I do live in the area.

I do know the neighborhood very well, and I know the lots that have been developed recently, and I think this is a very good use of this land.

I think that driving in from Palham, of course, we would want to see a beautiful new home, and that will only raise the landscape and the impression as people enter into our city.

And the neighborhoods naturally start to improve.

Every homeowner takes a little bit better care of their property.

They work on their outside maintenance, they take care better care of their lawn.

So I see positive impact every time we put in a new property.

And all of those units downtown are rentals.

We need a place for people to go.

And so we need more single family homes or two-family homes, places that where people can put down roots.

So that's what I have to say.

I recommend and highly support this project.

Thank you.

You have a seat.

Can I state your name and address for the record?

Okay.

This mic?

Yep.

Hi, Mary Seamlive in Mountjoy Place.

So I'm just listening to this proposal.

And a couple of things caught my attention that I think we should take into consideration.

For a lot of the need for single-family homes.

And what we missed out was the need for affordable single family homes.

So I'm curious to hear about how much would this home cost?

Because what we have seen in addition to all of this is a lot of building, but the building is happening with a higher price in pricing folks out.

So why aren't we building more affordable homes?

So this lot, so since they're so interested in single family and people pulling roots, why not make it into something that's much more affordable?

They might be.

Thank you.

Please state your name.

My name is Salvatore Keltablot.

I am the owner of located at Corner of Risley and Lincoln Avenue.

And you're absolutely correct.

I am third generation Neurochellian.

My grandparents lived here, my parents live here, I live here.

My children live here.

One of my children is a homeowner here in Neurochell.

My son, who recently had a baby, is a renter here in Neurochell.

My objective is that if this thing were to be approved, um, that I would give him the first opportunity because he can't afford to buy in the city of Neurochell.

My daughter-in-law is a school teacher on a salary of 65,007,000 somewhere around there.

My son makes the equivalent salary in Neurochell.

You can't live on 150, 200,000 in salary.

So you need somebody like a parent to step in and to make some sort of concessions to allow them to afford this.

And so if this were to um be approved, that would be my prime primary objective.

It's not my absolute because I haven't even approached him on that, but I would like him to be able to sit sit here and live in the city of Neurochell with my wife and myself, with my mother and my sister and my brother that currently live in the city of Neurochell for the last sixty-four years that I've been on this planet.

I am a lifetime resident here, and I would like to keep my children here for the next 40 or 50 years.

But at this rate today, in our current market, they can't afford to live here unless they made three, four hundred thousand dollars.

So you're absolutely right.

You know what?

We need affordable housing.

Thank you for your time.

Can I just jump in here one second?

I think we've got a little far afield with the reason that we're all sitting here in Schwitzing.

Um I think that um we are really trying to focus on the uh variance, and um I think it's we're all emotional about New Rochelle and affordable housing, but I think that's for a different forum.

So with all due respect, if we could just circle the wagons and get back to um the the zoning, I'd appreciate that.

I think we'd all appreciate that.

I conclude my comments.

I know it's long-winded, you have a very long agenda.

Please talk into the Yeah, I'm sorry.

To conclude my one picture is worth a thousand words, so I'm stopping.

That is the picture.

The pink are all properties that would require similar type of.

I understand, Council, you are repeating yourself, and the the truth is, but you're here only representing one house.

So we'll let all the people in the pink houses when they want to come before us to make their cases.

Can I ask you the character of neighborhood and is an issue, and the character of neighborhood is if they were all compliant, then we would be out of character.

I understand.

You would very made my point five times.

You did indeed.

So my question is back, thank you.

My question is of the pink houses up there, um, how many of them have variances, have sought variances for undersized lots, and how many of them are grandfathered in?

They're all grandfathered in.

They're all old housing.

They were built, as I said, between 20s and 40s.

They were built between the 20s and 40s, I'm sorry.

Does anyone have any questions?

I do the applicant.

I do so um uh we actually went through this um twice before, and it was actually denied.

And we actually had to, unfortunately, we had to bring some of our history back.

So we could present the case and go right into it.

So my understanding was that um the owner purchased the lot and the house next door together.

That's correct.

Okay.

And when you purchase the home and the lot, you decided to sell the house and keep the law.

That's correct.

And then in the history, you said that you were not aware that that lot was not buildable.

It didn't meet the requirement to build a house.

That's correct.

And I didn't say that.

I said the the applicant.

Um when do you buy the house?

I believe in 2000 and please talk into the microphone.

I'm not sure.

March of 2020 or 19, I don't recall.

Okay.

And when was the house sold?

In I believe December of 2020.

So that's more like seven, eight months later.

Ten months later, yeah.

Okay.

So in that time, you didn't have enough time to find out whether that that lot that you were planning on building a property was not a buildable law.

No, based on visual observation of other homes on that block, I believe that if you look at the map, approximately five out of the ten homes that are on that street on Risley Place itself, are lot sizes that are 60 by 10.

Yeah.

So if I look at your map, I believe, I'm sorry, I don't have the mouse, so I'm just gonna point this is 60 by 100, 60 by 100, 60 by 100, 60 by 100, 60 by 100, 60 by 100, 60 by 100.

Okay, I understand that.

But so based on visual observation, maybe I should have done a little bit more homework.

Is that what you're saying, Mr.

Rodriguez?

You can you can just possibly possibly as a business owner, you can just go based on visual.

You gotta go based on facts.

Yeah, what again?

I found no harm.

So then the other the other point that I want to prove is new Ro has a lot on the size lots, okay.

And many of those have been here and have been denied, right?

So you're asking us to grant you those variances to build a house there, okay.

That when we actually, if we were to do something like that, that makes it very difficult for us to deny anybody else that comes after.

And there's a reason why those lots are not buildable.

Like way back, the city council decided that the lot requirements in that area was going to be 7500 square feet.

Okay, and the reason why they decided that was because they felt that this area was overpopulated, it was too crowded.

Okay.

So by us allowing to put the house in place, we're totally defusing the purpose of why the city council changed the the zoning um guide guidance.

So that's my position.

The other problem that I have is the person that purchased the house from you, by you building this house technically right on top of that person, you completely taking their privacy away from them completely.

I mean, you're talking about a house 11, 12 feet away from each other, and their dining room is very low.

That means that when they're in the dining room, you're gonna be watching everything they do, and when you are in the laundry room or in either one of the bedrooms upstairs.

So, you know, there's another property, there's another lot right behind you, okay, that is also doesn't meet the requirements.

Now, if we grant to that variance, now how can we say no to those people right behind you?

So what I'm trying to prove is you know, there's a reason why the the city council changed the size of the lot, right?

And and even though this at this area has many lots that don't meet the new requirement, those houses were built prior to that time.

And that's uh my position.

May I address two points?

Point one is the house next door.

The house next door is a there's a setback, and this proposal is no variance required.

So whether they build this house or another house, and on a 75 by 100 lot, they can build to that property line.

The only right, so it's the same distance away.

That that that's number one.

Number two, you seem to suggest or intimate that oh, this is a self-created hardship.

As I pointed out, in an area variance, a self-created hardship does not mean that this is a denial of an application, unless the hardship is somehow made in bad faith.

Like you built the addition already, or uh you did something like that.

This is not the case, and that is codified in the general business law.

If this was a use variance, it would be different, but not in an area variance.

So there's no indication of anywhere bad faith here.

I mean, I I I know this was the same position that you have when we had the other case, and um to me, this case has not changed.

Okay, the variance do the same size, the lots do the same size.

You are you are requesting a 20% variance both on the size and on the width of the lot, which are huge.

A question.

Um can you talk a little bit more about the history of this lot?

Were there curb cuts?

What it was it ever approved for a house before the zoning code changed.

To my knowledge, it was not.

It was a there were two lots, the house uh to the west, I believe it's the west location, and and this uh this house.

They were owned by Rhoda Quash at that time, who is a former council person.

This is a nurse shell.

She unfortunately passed away at a very young age.

And uh the client bought it from her state.

So I don't know if anything was ever proposed here.

And the curb cut, just so you know, it's not on Lincoln Avenue, which is a planning issue.

It's on Risley, which is a lot less traffic than Lincoln Avenue.

But that curb cut doesn't currently exist.

That would be a proposed.

It's an existing curb that's there from what I understand or see.

So the driveway that's there has always been there.

And that driveway serves that particular lot.

Yes, it does.

Yes, it does.

Thank you.

Was there a house on this lot?

I believe not.

So there was a driveway put on the lot, but no house?

For whatever reason there was there was a driveway there, there the curb cut is there, and um, so I don't know, and that's what led me to believe that to answer Mr.

Rodriguez's question that you know I had a viable lot.

So you ask that drive.

Yes, of course.

Okay.

All right.

This is my first meeting.

And you know, my colleague to the right of me said they've been through this uh through this case.

I have not.

This is my first time.

Um hearing this case, I took the time to go out and look at the uh lot.

And for me, I I think the question it um in terms of whether or not we have this variance is does this if we grant this variance, does it hurt the community or does it benefit the community?

And when I look at that lot, it looks like a lot that would be beneficial to have a house there.

Hearing your presentation talking about um the increased tax revenue, the increased uh house values.

To me, I come down on the side.

Um despite the the the going back and forth in terms of the last whatever times it was before this floor from this presentation here, I would come down to say that allowing you to build a house benefits uh this community.

I'm very familiar with the community.

I like you, I was I'm born and raised here in New Rochelle, and um I would I would um say that um a house at that lot rather than an empty lot benefits the community rather than takes away from the community.

Thank you.

Does anybody have any questions for the applicant?

No, I think we we have you everybody has a percentage.

Would anyone like to make a motion?

I can make a motion for that.

Okay.

LSC consortant LLC for permission to construct a new one-family two-story dwelling on a vacant lot where the proposed 6,104 square feet area is less than the minimum required of 7500 square feet.

With the proposed 61 feet width lot, is less than the minimum required of 75 feet.

In a R1-7.5 zone district at the premises of Lincoln Avenue and Risley Place.

Block number one two 1320 lot 19.

When applying the balancing test that we're required required to implement and where the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, in my opinion, it is not on the cyber changes in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties.

Yes.

Um granting this variant would have a negative impact on nearby properties.

If this house was built, it would make what is already a crowded area even more crowded.

Um building a property technically right next to on top of themselves.

Um previously, these two lots were um merged together, or not merged together, they were built a house together and remained together until the the Southworth sell um separate.

Uh so when you look at this lot and the house, it looked like it was all part of one.

Um when the um applicant decided to um separate or to sell the house and keep the lot to build another house.

Now this is what created this issue.

Um whether the request is substantial, uh when looking at the request, both variances are about 20 percent.

In the history of this board, my understanding was that of anything over 50% was substantial.

As a matter of fact, in the time that I've been here, I had never heard a case of a variance that has been approved with this magnitude of variance.

We have so many lots that are not sized properly to build a property and build a property, and this is gonna open up the door for all those lots who come out here.

Everybody that has an undersized lot, they're gonna decide they want to build a house next to them.

Whether the request would have adverse physical or environmental effect.

Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, this was clearly self-created.

That was always together for the system of this house.

I mean, there are two separate Tatla, so you're paying tax on the house and put tax on the law.

When the owner decided to separate that lot from the house and try to make a buildable lot, uh, in my opinion, uh this is uh something that the owner uh created.

Um all those considerations at this quest is very important to be denied.

Second okay, this vote is for denial.

Excuse me.

Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Carla Clappa?

Yes.

Mark McLean.

No.

Charlotte Abadier.

No.

Fernando Arias?

Yes.

Erica Eisner.

Yes.

The motion has been denied.

Thank you very much for your time.

Next case.

Regina, the motion's been approved.

I mean, the motion has been approved for denial.

I'm sorry.

I know.

It's never part of the discussion.

Next case.

Don't you say it?

I think so.

Case 32, 2025.

Okay, can we keep it down?

We're gonna call the next case.

Case 32, 2025, 91 Courtland Avenue.

Good evening, members of the board.

Thank you for taking the time to review our project.

Just uh state your name and address for the record.

Uh my name is Fernando Chavez.

I am the architect of record.

Uh my office is located at 403 west 154th Street, apartment 4A in New York, New York.

Um, I am here representing the owner who is my client of the property located at 91 Courtland Avenue in New Rochelle.

Um the property itself is a single family uh residence that has a footprint of approximately 3,000 square feet uh built on a half acre lot that is zoned on the R1 Historic District and a contributing historic structure in the Rochelle Heights Historic District.

Uh I am here to formally request a positive referral to the zoning board to the uh from the zoning board to the land historic landmarks uh review board to legalize and rebuild the dimensionally non-conforming uh sunroom that is located at the southern facade of the uh residence.

Uh earlier this year, the as construction was going on on the interior of the home, uh it was discovered that the sunroom, which is one story tall, sitting on a uh concrete uh masonry uh uh uh foundation was essentially structurally unstable.

It had was discovered during the course of construction that it had a lot of rot.

Um and as a matter of safety, the contractor unfortunately requested uh or rather moved forward to demolish the structure without a permit.

So we are here to legalize and rebuild that uh sunroom in kind essentially.

Uh the sunroom, as I mentioned, uh previously was existing non-conforming and was built along with the house back in 1917.

It was a contributing component of the overall house's design, which was a tutor style, uh Tudor revival style.

Um and we are looking it was uh the dimensions were approximately 13 feet deep by 20 feet wide by 12 feet tall, and it encroached upon the um western side lot by approximately five, six feet, which matches alongside the existing non-conforming dimensions of the rest of the house.

Um yes, we are here formally to request a uh uh a referral to proceed to the next step for the historic landmarks review board in order to reconstruct the sunroom in kind.

The uh existing foundation for a special permit.

Yes, not a referral.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, that should have been specific.

Yes, it's a special permit.

Uh I just heard referral so many times in the email.

I apologize.

Yes, so we're requesting a special permit uh to be able to proceed with uh the historic landmarks review board to get a certificate of appropriateness.

And um, yes, I'm open to any questions.

Anyone in the audience want to talk on behalf of this application?

Okay.

Nope.

Okay.

I just have a question.

So the the reconstruction, you're basically putting back what was all previously there.

Correct, yeah.

No increase to massing or in like addition to the already encroached space.

It's just gonna be the exact uh style and aesthetic of the previous um room.

Okay.

Um and when was it demolished?

It was earlier this year.

Uh this predates when I came on the project, but it was sometime around January or February.

And then we got a stop work order and a violation as part of it.

Uh which correct.

Okay.

And oh, and one other question, and because it's part of the requirements.

What is the estimated cost of construction to rebuild it?

From what I remember, I believe it was around 35,000.

Which is certainly less than 50% of the replacement of the structure, right?

Thank you.

Does anybody else have any questions?

Uh just a quick question, but it was a materials on it to be is it gonna be stuck over to match?

Is that what it is?

Yes, correct.

So it's gonna be it's gonna match the existing stucco of the rest of the house that was there previously.

We have fortunately a significant amount of documentation showing what the materials were.

There's a wood cornice with a metal growth uh gutter, all of that is going to be replaced in kind.

Uh obviously we're going to replace the wood structure to be more stable than what it was before.

Um yes, the exterior look will match the historic precedent.

Great.

I'm sorry, I'm trying to look at the what picture is it that describes the actual size of the structure that you're gonna rebuild.

Uh it should be this.

So this is the uh overall dimensions here, and then we have the uh Yeah, one single, I'm trying to look over here in my documentation.

I just want to see what the actual size is.

Um I unfortunately don't have uh measured dimensions outside of what I took in the field.

I had don't I didn't bring anything here to the review board, unfortunately, uh aside from what's shown in my drawings.

But from what I measured in the field, the depth of the sunroom itself is 13 feet and the width is 20.

And then the height from top of the foundation.

The width is what?

Uh the width is uh on which is basically the southern facade, the longer facade is 20 feet.

13 by 20 foot four.

13 by 20 foot four.

Correct, specifically, yes.

Thank you.

Sun sheet Z 100 for Nando, if you want to see that.

Yes, it's uh plan zero one, the first floor plan.

You could see it.

And by O's granting this variance, we're actually special permit.

The special permit, right?

Uh the historic society still has control of still goes for that board.

Okay.

Correct.

They would have to need to perfect the variance first.

And then go to the HLRB for the aesthetics.

Okay.

But Paul, on the size.

There's no issue with the size of this of this infrastructure here.

It was existing.

Um I don't think the entire thing was demolished.

Parts of it were demolished and reconstructed.

Correct, yeah.

So the existing foundation is still there.

They replaced some of the call roof rafters and some of the framing members.

Because they were rotted and they reached the life expectancy.

Correct.

Yeah, unfortunately, this is all because we didn't approach the city with a proper permit process at the time.

So we're here just to correct that and legalize the whole structure.

Oh, okay.

Um does anybody have any other questions?

No.

All right.

I'm gonna try and make a motion.

Jeff, you'll stop me as I miss the I'm gonna make a motion in case number 32-2025.

Robert Lepree Jr.

for permission to legalize a reconstruction of an existing closed sunroom in the rear of an existing dimensionally non-conforming one family dwelling to legalize existing, whereas the cost of the reconstruction of the existing sunroom is less than 50% of the cost of the reconstruction of the existing building for an existing dimensional non-conforming side yard setback and FAR in an R1 historical zone district at the premises of 91 Courtland Avenue, block 850, lot 28, seeking a special permit.

I am I move that we approve the application for a special permit.

Um it is clear from the presentation that the cost to restore uh the demolished portion of the structure is less than um 50 percent of the replacement costs of the entire building or structure.

Um the work is being uh sought to be done, a special permit is being sought within one year of the demolition of the uh structure.

Um the reconstruction is in accordance with um all other provisions of the zoning code, other than the existing non-conforming um features.

Um I think that does it.

Okay.

For these reasons I move that we approve the special permit.

Section second Bob Sedziel, yes, Fernando Arias.

Um yes, able Rodriguez, yes, Carla Clappa, yes, Mark McLean, yes, Charlotte Abadier, yes, and Erica Eisner.

Yes.

The motion's been approved.

Thank you so much.

Uh here's keep moving.

Next case, case number 33, 2025, 16 Rock Ridge Circle.

Tell us what it's uh gross floor area.

F AR is um F AR floor area ratio ratio.

Look, we can just Pokemon card on the back.

Okay.

Oh no, good evening, everyone.

My name is Kay Andy Howard.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Those in the hallway, we can hear you.

You can go down the hall.

Thank you.

My name is Kay Andy Howard.

I reside at 16 Rock Ridge Circle.

I'm here today with Mr.

Howard.

Uh and our architect.

And um, I think in the order we should have the architect speak first, but whenever you want.

I think that you should go with what we like.

What?

Thank you.

Uh my name is Stephen Barlow.

Um the architect, and uh my office is located 10 uh St.

Charles Street in Thornwood.

And we're here today uh for uh variances related to the Howard's residence at 16 Rockridge Circle.

Uh we have uh five uh requesting five variances.

Uh the first being an increase in FARC from uh point three to point uh three four, which is a 12% over um over allowable, and that was a 656 square foot.

Well accudding can you speak up a little bit, please?

Uh-huh.

Uh the the next was uh impervious surface coverages for a three percent increase and uh the third was a side yard setback at an existing pool terrace uh to legalize, and that is approximately uh 38 square feet, and then there was also um some pool equipment in the rear yard, which um is at the rear yard and the side yard setbacks, um rear yard being two foot eight inches and side yard being uh two foot four inches, which is uh both are non-conforming.

Uh basically the project uh is to renovate an existing uh house um that the Howard family had purchased, and um that uh let me see here we do this.

Well, there you go.

Uh so this is the uh this is the house in its existing um.

The Howard's purchased the home just like this.

So they haven't made any changes to the house yet, and um uh basically uh our intent is to um increase uh the size of the house very slightly um and create uh kitchen area at the back of the house here.

So and this is the area right here, which would be where we're planning to the expansion.

So the expansion resides within the footprint of the house, it's not on either side, um, and not uh not visually um obtrusive.

Um there's also uh porch on the side and then a porch on the front, and this is what the house we plan the house to look like.

Um basically if you compare it to the existing structure, uh we're trying to give it a more tr uh traditional contextural look to the house and to break down the massing, uh front porch uh to be more inviting.

Uh so that's basically the project is to kind of give this house, which is um which could use a renovation, um, a nicer element into the into the uh the town.

Micah again.

So uh hi again.

Mr.

Hart and I purchased the home uh for our family of three and um time passes, and we have older parents.

I fortunately have four, and uh so some of the plans I don't know if you guys have everything in front of you, but it's to include uh making it liveable for uh my four seniors.

It'd be great if all of them live forever, but um essentially the changes are for our family to be able to live in it.

The house was purchased, and I had a little baby at the time, and I didn't want to do anything at all with it.

The house is an old house that looks great.

We had the city come out, probably one of your team members, uh, who pointed out many things that I didn't even realize were flaws in the house.

I knew it was an old house, like wrapped in a nice bow.

Um, but so most of these things are done not as a wish to make it different, but there's structural things that need to be improved.

There's some plumbing issues that need to be improved.

Um, but on my take, I have a need for my entire family to live there, and my husband being gracious enough to take them all in.

Um along with uh, you know, the kids, which we all have kids, some of us.

Um I just want to make sure I have all my points here.

Yes, these are all sensible changes.

That's my long story short.

Thank you.

I'm just gonna add some context.

The house was built in the early 60s um when the the Bonnie Crest area was being developed.

Um over the years in the 90s and the 2000s, it was it was renovated for a bump out and some other things.

Uh the second level, which um is is being called a third level because of the basement, um, was added on when a tree fell in the house uh at some point uh in the early or 2000s.

Uh at some point uh in the early or 2000s.

Um a lot of this is to try to balance the house out, make it make sense, make it fit into the neighborhood relative to what what else is there?

Uh a lot of it, the bulk of it is to make it livable for at this point, four seniors to Asian place.

Lord help us all.

Um we're really not trying to change the the look and feel of the house uh structurally.

Uh we're just really trying to you know spend money in in the right ways to make it make sense.

Uh the house has changed hands multiple times.

We inherited uh multiple renovations done by different people at different times, um not all uh in really good ways, and so part of this is to correct a lot of that okay, and uh it that's I guess that's about it if uh if I can answer any questions.

Do we have any opposition in the audience for this case?

Uh yes, I believe someone, okay.

Okay, good evening, uh evening.

Yeah, my name is Peter Sung.

I live in 236 Robert Drive.

We're the southern border uh neighbor of the family.

I'm not categorically opposed to this at all.

Um I just I don't know how the procedure works, but it would be nice to have a little more time to cons consider the uh the request because we I received the um notice just before Thanksgiving week, so it was probably like a Friday, the weekend.

They legally only have to notify.

I understand the sign was posted on the property for 15 days.

Okay, so it was 15 days, but there's a lot of there's a lot of different things.

There's a lot of different things.

We're in and out during Thanksgiving, and we have been in communication all day, so we've tried to understand, but it is a big it could affect potentially my property value, and I just want to be able to have ample time to review um everything.

That's all.

So I'm not chemically opposite or anything.

That's all they still need to go to site plan approval, right?

Paul, they still need to go to the site plan.

That's a planning room.

No, I think increase the house by percentage.

Yeah, and it's there's multiple right things in in the pipeline, so just to review it all.

Regina.

We have one one more neighbor.

Come on, I'm sorry.

Hi.

Uh Gerald Hyman, 242 Robert Drive.

Um, right next to Peter.

Um, and my corner of my property that abuts uh Hasland's property is the lowest point on my property, and I just wanted to make sure, and I'm not necessarily opposed to any construction.

I just want to make sure that that impervious surface coverage is addressed if dry wells are needed or just so there's not runoff.

So uh we've been in the house for about seven years.

Wait a minute, sir.

I need to see if there's any other opposition before you speak, okay?

Yeah.

Anyone else want to speak on this case?

Okay.

Yeah.

So we've been in the house since um I bought the house in October of 2018.

We moved in in about June or January, uh June or July of 2019.

So we've been in a house about six years.

In that time, I haven't touched the house itself, but I've renovated outside.

Um because of the edict of the wife in part, we weren't gonna do any work.

So as we did work, um, as and and as our neighbors can tell you, spent a ton of money on landscaping, um and hardscaping, uh, renovated uh an existing pool, uh, have been very respectful in all of that, very respectful of my neighbors and understand your property rights.

I wouldn't want to infringe upon those.

The ask here, I don't think um infringes on any of that.

Um with respect to impervious surface.

When I bought the house, the entire pool was surrounded by concrete.

So we have a 20 by 40 pool, and you can imagine a six-foot block all the way around the pool of concrete.

I removed 80% of that, and in addition to doing that, I added a double dry well and routed gutters into the dry well, created our other drainage without the ask uh or without having being obligated to do so.

So uh any construction done uh on this project would be in keeping with that spirit.

Okay.

You guys need to explain why you need these particular variances though.

We understand the property, but the architect needs to bang this down so the board understands why you need what you need.

Yeah, and I have a maybe we can ask questions and it'll flesh that out.

Sure.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Yeah.

Uh yeah.

I just have a couple questions on context of this whole thing.

So so the pool is there.

Was that uh maybe that was there be when you purchased the house?

Okay, you guys need to be by the way.

Yeah years ago.

Okay.

So the question I have was have the pool equipment is now you're seeking a variance for the pool equipment that's there now.

So is that the the pool equipment?

If you can imagine there, there's a gas line that fed a heater.

Right.

Um, and that's stationary.

That gas line has ever been moved.

That pool equipment was simply moved from the right side of the of the gas line to the left side of the gas line.

Okay.

So we're talking about a matter of a few feet.

A few feet.

Right.

It wasn't a meaningful change.

In addition, there's a six-foot-tall fencing around that entire uh the all the equipment, and then there's bushes around that as well.

So there's there's no sound coming from it.

I can't hear it when I'm on the patio and I'm 15 feet away, neighbors can't hear it.

It was simply a matter of of shifting it around to more to make sense of the space.

But generally that was built, that was initially in a general location.

Yes, with your with the original plan.

And it was not true.

Yeah, it was not non-conforming at the time.

That's correct.

It was non-conforming before you moved it.

Yes.

So you just moved it from one non-conforming space to the other?

Yes.

That was cute.

Thank you.

Um is that your question?

That was the question.

So my question was, and maybe you just answered it.

The one of the variances says previously non-conforming four feet.

Is that the non-conforming condition for the pool equipment?

Yes.

Okay.

Because I'm looking at two foot eight inch rear yards at back less than the minimum of 30 previously non-conforming four.

So I'm just trying to understand what the four feet is.

So it was just as they said.

Yep.

It was four feet, and now it's two point eight feet.

So I just moved it over.

But there was a variance for that.

Okay.

But whenever they built this board.

Yeah.

Oh, I had the same questions you have.

Okay.

When I reviewed this, the pool was built in and around 1963, 64, 65, or something like that.

You reviewed this in 65?

No, no, no.

When I removed it, he's been here a long time.

Just checking.

Keeping it light.

Okay.

Okay.

Just about.

Okay.

That's all my questions.

I just had another question about impervious area.

So the impervious area that we're exceeding now, I guess it's like 650 square.

Oh, no, I'm sorry.

500 square feet, roughly, yeah.

Yeah.

Please choke into the microphone.

I know it's a pain.

We have to be re-read ordered the pointer.

Use the pointer on the computer.

You gotta leave the microphone wrong.

On the computer has a point.

I'm gonna try to cover it here.

Oops, get the arrows.

Yeah.

There it is.

Okay.

So I can't find the pointer.

There.

Oh, I gotta get, I gotta get right side here.

Okay.

So if you look around the pool right now, when we bought the house, this entire spot from here to about here, all the way around the pool, was all concrete.

That was the concrete.

All of it concrete.

I removed, like I said, 80% of it planted grass, mulch, trees, the entire back here is lined with trees.

There's a retaining wall, which the application was put in, a permit was granted to put in a retaining wall, which sits three feet higher than my neighbor's rear property, and then another six-foot wall uh six-foot um fence that's uh wooden with you know uh you can't see through, so privacy for him.

So I again I've been very respectful in in all of the changes that have been made so far, and I tend to and I think this project also reflects that same spirit.

Okay.

So when you removed that concrete and you decided to put that uh papers, I guess, in place?

So there was already concrete, yes.

There was already concrete all here.

We just put pavers here and here.

Okay.

Um was there Paul when they put the pool in place, right?

made so far and I tend to and I think this project also reflects that same spirit okay so when when you removed that concrete and you decided to put that uh papers I guess in place the so there was already concrete yes there was already concrete all here we just put pavers here and here okay uh was there Paul when they put the pool in place right they had to if they had to exceed the impervious area they had to that had to come up in the 60s in the 1960s 1960s it was not okay so but when you decided to remove the concrete and then put on the the papers let's say that you put in place you didn't look into like trying to stay within the pervious area you didn't look into that at that time the new impervious area I think that we're asking for isn't for that it's for the addition and then over here correct with the it all and it all it all the impervious area I had removed so much right I had removed I mean well over a thousand square feet of of concrete that was simply slanting to the back of the property and running off without a retaining wall so with respect to to drainage everything that hit my property went to somebody else's now with the retaining wall and it's all flat and level much of it sits in on my property and now a bunch of it goes into drywall.

And when you put in the drywall do you actually went through like permit and all of that making sure that was properly done it was we just we dug a drywall it it wasn't permitted.

I mean if there's a right a wrong way to do a drywall I mean this is all behind us but you know just trying to say like as a homeowner right when you're doing something just make sure that what you're doing you actually are doing things the correct way because it can actually backfire you know saying I know you did an improvement compared to what was there before but as a homeowner you don't want those things to come back to you later on and affect you.

So when you remove that concrete and you change it with this papers that I see in this picture are those pervious pair uh purviews or impervious papers they're they're uh they're blue stone open joint so they're no open joint open joints so they're they're just put in there with uh with uh stone dust right there I'm sorry Paul what was that I said he said yes one can joints open joints with stone dust so not blue stone was that filled with sand or stone dust stun dust is stone dust he said it's slightly pervious is what Paul said well not really it's it's it's not it's not gonna be um a hundred percent purpose you know blue joints in between each piece of no I'm just trying to see what the ramifications of doing so we'll have I know he put a drywall there's no permits for drywall we don't know how that drywall was actually installed was properly done or what you know we're just taking his ward that is doing it from what he's explaining it appears that he's got good intentions but good instantiations and meeting requirements that meet some of his barriers are two different things.

So that's what I'm trying to get before you know I even consider voting on this that we're not creating a bigger problem than we already have do you have any I have pictures of the drywall do you have any documentation there?

Yeah I have pictures of the drywall that's the the stone that the uh gravels inside the blue lining setup right there's two and if it's a double it's not a single over so thank you I mean we're charged with um granting the most minimum the least the the most minimal variance possible I know that there are five variances in front of us but I see them as on the whole being pretty minimal in terms of percentage and so as to the substantiality aspect I think I find them to be rather minimal um it would probably would be helpful if we had some uh stats or some information about those dry wells so that at least with respect to the the FAR and the I mean I'm sorry with respect to the impervious surface we could feel comfortable on that front happy the supplies pictures when we go I'm sorry when we go to submit for permits we're gonna be required to have dry well and water retention for any new coverage that that's shown on the property and over new roofing and things like that.

So my documents will include that and I can do my best to include what is there because we don't we don't want to put more use install more drywalls than necessary.

So I only make reference to the existing drywalls as a measure of the type of neighbor I am relative to what it could have been done.

No I think that the the concern was just to make sure that the impervious surface issue is but Paul if if they have to submit in the plans evidence that there's sufficient drainage there then the building department is the last check on that right we don't need to be concerned with that.

If they prevent the variances, welcome to us for a full set of construction.

Okay.

We don't have that right now.

Okay.

Correct.

And we'll do a review on that.

Okay.

Okay.

That's fair.

But I would prefer to have, you know, for my perspective, I've dropped to see that beforehand, so I could have you know all the information to actually vote on the barriers, which is our question here.

So you guys might proceed as how you would like.

Just for a question, you want to see the the drywall?

No, just the information about impervious area, the drywall house, you know, to make sure that you know.

So what kind of information?

Just so we can get it.

I want to make sure you have what you need.

You want to know the brand?

The boards are just telling you what they're concerned about, and then you have to kind of just you know extrapolate.

Okay.

Whatever documentation you could provide.

Yep.

That would be wonderful.

Okay.

Well, um, you can send it to our office, and I can stop it to the board.

So it might be beneficial to adjourn.

And then you can just provide that with the construction document.

Yeah, I I think I mean I'm prepared to move us to a vote.

Okay, the chair doesn't decide.

I mean, I'm I'm okay with the fact that they are providing time.

I mean, I'm I'm comfortable that the information will be submitted to the experts of the building department to confirm that drainage is in place.

So Mr.

Vaca's office is um we can rely on yes, exactly.

You want to make a motion?

I'm ready to make a motion on this application.

Uh respect to uh case number 33 2025, Haslan Howard.

Um I'm proceeding to make a motion uh for approval of the requested variances, and this is for permission to construct two-story addition in the rear of the existing one-family dwelling, three stories high, legalization of a new pool patio, an outdoor barbecue counter, and relocation of pool equipment legalized existing, whereas the proposed 0.34 FAR, 5392 square feet GFA exceeds the maximum permitted of three four thousand seven hundred-six square feet, whereas the impervious surface coverage of 48 percent, 7,591 square feet to be legalized exceeds the maximum permitted of 45 percent, 7105 square feet, and whereas the plus or minus four foot side yard setback of the new pool terrace to be legalized is less than the minimum required of six feet, whereas the two feet eight inch rear yard setback of the relocated pool equipment to be legalized is less than the minimum required of 30 feet previously, but previously non-conforming four feet uh previously approved, whereas the plus or minus two foot, four-foot side yard setback of the relocated pool equipment to be legalized is less than the minimum required of 12 feet in an R115 zone district at the premises 16 Rock Ridge Circle, block 2697, lot 24, and this is for an area variance.

I uh make a motion for approval on the following grounds, uh whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.

Um give me this particular case.

There are a number of things that have to be legalized here, and uh but they uh number of things also have been uh previously approved.

Um so there are no other ways to uh move the pool equipment.

I think the owners expressed that he has uh decreased the uh impervious surface that was there on the site considerably, and I think that uh the impervious surface that is remaining, the majority of it is the pool, uh the pool patio, which seems to be some has somewhat of a pervious characteristic to it.

The additions to the dwelling I think are realistic, they're just open porches, and there's part of an enclosed area that just encloses a uh gap between uh the building and uh connects basically the house together.

Uh so I don't think um the benefit can be sought in any other means.

Whether there's an undesirable change in neighborhood character or nearby properties, I don't believe there is uh again uh the property is well screened and fenced, uh screening the pool, the patio as well as the pool equipment that uh currently exists and has existed there uh evidently since 1960.

Uh whether the requests are substantial.

I think all the variances that we're looking at here are not substantial, they're quite minimal.

Whether requests will have adverse physical or environmental effects, uh, I do believe they're not.

Uh I think the most uh one we would consider that would have an environmental effect would be the impervious area, but again, I think we have that covered uh with the size of the lot and the drywalls that were installed again, that will be verified by the building department uh with the construction documents that'll be submitted.

That'll be submitted.

And whether the alleged difficulty self-created.

Some of these items are, some aren't.

But that is not a reason for this board to deny an area bearance.

Again, for these reasons, I vote to approve this application.

Second.

Fernando Arias?

No.

Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Carla Clappa?

Yes.

Mark McLean.

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

Bob Sanziel?

Yes.

Erica Aisner.

Yes.

Motion has been approved.

Thank you.

Next case this evening.

Case 34, 2025.

46 Hillary Circle.

Good evening.

My name is Lizette Garcia Elias.

And I just give me one second.

Anyone in the hall come down?

We have some extra seats now.

If you want to come in and sit.

I'm sorry.

Go ahead.

My name is Lizette Garcia Elias, and I'm here from CGA Studio Architects representing our clients, uh Carolyn Dudek and Mark Novak.

Mark is to my right.

Um an addition to an existing one-story house.

Um the home is the addition we're proposing actually meets the required side yard setback of 15 feet.

There is currently an existing covered patio with an 11 foot eight yard setback.

So we're removing that uh covered patio to add this addition and improving the side yard setback.

Unfortunately, the lot is undersized, so the house itself is encroaching on this on the right side yard setback, which is existing at 9 foot 8, and we need a 12-foot side yard setback.

We're not making any changes to the right side of the house.

The changes are to the left.

Um, so we were asked to come to the board because unfortunately, um, though this is existing non-conforming, we do not need the side yard setback.

Um, just so you have an understanding of the size of this home.

Um, the work required, you know, uh lot size is 10,000 square feet, the lot of the this home is 8,202 square feet, um, the width is 80, the required is a hundred.

Um, so there's nothing we could do about that.

Um, and again, we are only adding to the left side of the house.

The existing lot coverage is 1,769, and we're in uh increasing that but about 272 square feet.

We meet everything else other than whatever is existing non-conforming.

Um as you can see, the front yard setback is non-conforming, but we're not making any changes there.

Um, the right hand side of the house, as I stated, and then the minimum two side yard, um, and again is because of what is currently existing.

The house is small, it's a family of three.

Our goal is to be able to have a larger kitchen, a dining area, and a covered porch.

The porch is currently on the side of the house, which is not as private as right, you know, at the next door neighbor.

So we thought putting in the backyard was going to be more private and convenient.

Uh, there are no windows at the addition, so it keeps it very private.

The neighbor's not going to be able to look into this side of the house, whereas currently the patio is there and is not as private.

Um, the rest of the house remains the same.

It's a two-bedroom with a study, a living room, and then on the lower level, we are um finishing a small area for a mud room and adding a bathroom.

Open to any questions.

Anyone in the audience want to speak on this application?

For or against anybody have any questions for the applicant?

Okay.

Anyone like to make a motion?

I can make a motion.

I would like to make a motion to approve case number 34 2025, Carolyn Dundack for permission to construct an addition and interior renovation of an existing one family dwelling, one story above basement, whereas the proposed combined side yard of 24.8 at addition is less than the minimum required of 27 feet in an R1-10 zone district at the premises 46 Hillary Circle block block 2881 lot 9.

And applying the balancing test that we are required to implement, which balances the benefit to the applicant with the detriment to health safety and welfare of the community, and whether the benefit can be achieved by meet by means feasible to applicant.

No, as the applicant mentioned, the lot is small and they have already moved the um or they're proposing to remove the existing patio side yard and replace with a small smaller side yard, smaller patio away from the neighbor and a larger portion of the patio in the back.

Whether an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties, no, I do not believe that's the case.

The patio is uh in the back of the property and um remains in the same character of the house, um which is similar to nearby properties.

Whether the request is substantial, um no, I do not believe the request is substantial given that it's approximately a 2.4 foot uh variance that is being requested.

Whether the request will have adverse physical and environmental effects, no, I believe it will not considering the porch is uh there's an existing porch that is being replaced, and whether alleged difficulty is self-created.

Um yes, the alleged difficulty is self-created created.

However, I don't believe this one element alone warrants the denial of the application.

Second Bob Sanziel?

Yes, Fernando Arias?

Yes, Abel Rodriguez, yes, Carla Clappa, yes, Malk McLean, yes, Charlotte Avider, yes, Erica Eisner, yes.

The motion's been approved.

Thank you.

Have a good evening.

Have a good night.

Next case, case 35, 2025, 765 Pelham Road.

Good evening.

My name is Jonathan Milani with the Nunziada Milani Design Consultants representing a Miorano Holdings LLC, the owners of 765 Pelham Road.

We are seeking an approval uh from the zoning board for a conversion of an existing non-conforming bar to a equally uh non-conforming bar restaurant.

Um it's uh it was this uh motion was uh the proposed project is really just interior alterations to existing bar um to a more uh we feel more uh family-oriented bar tavern, a less intense use in the bar um seating, uh more of uh a family-oriented restaurant.

Uh this motion was approved back in uh March of 2024 uh for the same uh conversion from a bar to a bar restaurant, but a lapse in um the proposed project created us uh this uh need for us to come back and and seek approval again uh happily to do so.

Um the owners are uh have received positive feedback from the neighborhood.

Uh it's uh seems to be um desired to have this uh restaurant in this location.

Pretty much that's nutshell anyone in the audience want to talk on this application?

Yeah, I will.

Okay, sorry.

Good evening, everybody.

Uh my name is Lauren DJemo.

I live with my husband at six Lee Court, which is around the corner from this uh property.

Um everything he described, um, what they're planning is exactly what we're looking for.

Um, we would love to have a restaurant we can easily walk to in our neighborhood.

At the moment, there are few options um for this predominantly residential area.

There's Leno's Clamber, also known as Crazy Nick's, which is kind of a fast food place and is seasonal.

Um the marina restaurant, which is down the street, it's very nice, but it's mostly seafood, which we can't eat, and um it's a little bit on the pricier side.

And just given um, you know, the charm of this location and the strong residential community feel.

to have a restaurant we can easily walk to in our neighborhood at the moment there are few options um for this predominantly residential area there's Leno's clamber also known as crazy nix which is kind of a fast food place and is seasonal um the marina restaurant which is down the street it's very nice but it's mostly seafood which we can't eat and um it's a little bit on the pricier side and just given um you know the charm of this location and the strong residential community feel um we believe a casual sit down restaurant or a cozy spot for a drink would be a wonderful addition to the neighborhood um this spot has a lot of potential um and a place like that would be greatly I think greatly appreciated by all the local residents thank you thanks is she getting a discount so this came through the board before so wait I think there might be other you're welcome to come up we the only thing we ask just because it's getting late is not repeat anything that's been said already okay I'll just say this my name is Catherine Hamill I am a resident of 763 Pelham Road I have been there for over 30 years which is directly behind this establishment and my mother is a former city of Nurchell employee specifically in the buildings department and she knows that there were a lot of records lost over the years that um probably could prove that this non conforming use had been in place previously so this is something that the two of us as residents specifically behind the bar encourage you to approve.

Thank you.

Thanks the plans that I'm seeing this are pretty much the same plans you submitted back for approval nothing has changed from that approval date no okay just make sure there's nobody else who wants this did you want to come up and speak anyone else want to speak okay can I just ask how why didn't you just seek an extension as opposed to coming back from scratch new new tenant um new architect and engineer uh my firm and and we it's a it's a different use that they were looking for that was prohibitions of bar I believe it was prohibitions right the bar that was looking for the extension um they want a bar restaurant so it's a different total uh they just they were looking to get a different news you do want to speak sorry uh my name is Maureen Santa I work for the property owner Mr.

Maiorano so prohibitions end was the one where we came with the original application in 2024 um unfortunately working with architects and in the meantime prohibitions end uh met their end um well uh in in that interim we had to find a new tenant uh some little hiccup happened we did apply to come to the zoning board to ask for an extension we were on the uh scheduled for the May agenda but because of some hiccups that arose we had to be put off the agenda and now we're here today thank you thank you okay anyone else anybody have questions uh johnaton so the second floor is gonna have the the the kitchen and that the balance of that area is storage storage for the word Jerry so it's gonna be tables up there just gonna be dining areas floor only storage and for the kitchen that's it no dining thank you new anyone anyone like to make a motion special permit Fernando sitting a roll is it wait I think it says approval is that a case uh what is it 352 that's wrong that is supposed to be corrupted it's not a use variance no it's an approval right it has been correct says approval on it well it changed from non conforming has one that has a use variance nonconform and board to restaurant that's what I have here it's approval on the bottom it says use variance no in the new job says approval the recycle is that that must be okay I'm not sure when it happened can I have the um no it just says approval so the question is what is the special it's moving to a less can I get the statute for put them away one moment please sure thank you yeah so interesting we're gonna crazy that's when they change it because here is here it says approval okay I'm gonna make a motion okay so case number 35 2025 Alfredo Mayorano for permission for alterations and legalization of the conversion of an existing non conforming bar to a restaurant legalization of conversion of a portion

Thank you.

Crazy.

That's when they change it because here is approval.

Okay.

I'm gonna make a motion.

Okay.

Case number 35-2025, Alfredo Mayorano, for permission for alterations and legalization of the conversion of an existing non-conforming bar to a restaurant, legalization of conversion of a portion of the dwelling above to the kitchen and storage for the restaurant use.

Whereas the change from the non-conforming use as a bar to a non-conforming use as a restaurant may be approved by the board board of appeals on zoning, based upon the findings that the proposed use is more consistent with the character of the neighborhood and has less adverse impact.

I guess it's there anyway, in an RMF point five zone district at the premises of 765 Pelham Road, Lock 606, lot 85.

Um I make a motion that we approve the application for a special permit.

Um based upon the presentation to the board.

Um I think we've heard adequate um support for the fact that the proposed use is more consistent with the character of the neighborhood and will certainly have a less adverse impact than the prior non-conforming use.

Um I believe that grounds exist to approve the special permit.

Second Bob Stanziel.

Yes.

Fernando Arias.

Yes.

Abel Rodriguez.

Yes.

Carla Klappa.

Yes.

Mark McLean.

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

Erica Aisler.

Yes.

The motion's been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next case.

Madam Sheriff Mercury, let you know I asked approved myself.

Oh, okay.

Again, I'm gonna ask everybody to not scream or anything out loud.

Because it's happened.

Next case, case 36, 2025, 1313 Weaver Street.

Before the applicant begins, before the applicant begins, I just want to disclose for the record that um I was a previously a partner of the law firm that's representing this applicant.

I don't believe this to be a conflict in any way, as I have no financial interest whatsoever in the firm, but for the record, I just want to make sure that that's disclosed.

If anybody has any objections, please state so now.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

All right, good evening, Chair, members of the board.

My name is Diana Kolev, and I'm with the firm of Del Bello, Danellin, Weingarten Wise, and Whitaker.

Um our offices are in White Plains at 360 Hamilton Avenue, and we're here on behalf of Young Israel of Scarsdale for the property at 1313 Weaver Street.

Also here tonight we have our um project engineers from Stonefield Engineering, Foster Ting.

Um, oh, there he is.

And um, we also have our project architectural firm, um, Gorland Architects, Daniel Schutz and Alexander Gorland.

Um, also we have um numerous representatives from the synagogue congregation here tonight, as well as the president Ari Weinberger.

So um, let me just move this.

So Young Israel is requesting several variances to accommodate the renovation, demolition, and reconstruction of its synagogue building to better serve their congregation.

You should have all of the materials that we were sub that were submitted in support of the application, including the site and architectural plans, the elevations, and the statement of principle points that addresses the five uh balancing test factors.

We have also recently received numerous letters of support from surrounding property owners as well as from the Stratton Hills Neighborhood Association.

Um I do have copies in case they were not provided to you, but I believe that they were provided to the secretary.

Okay, we did we also received one additional one today that we will um that we can forward over as well.

Um just walk you through the site.

Sorry.

Okay, yeah, that should be a good one.

Okay.

Um so the property is approximately two acres in size.

Uh it's located in the R1108 district.

The existing synagogue building was originally constructed um sometime around 1978.

And this board actually granted several variances in connection with that application, including for the expansion of the parking areas, as well as some setback variances to accommodate the additional parking space.

As you can see over there, I can sorry, let me just use this.

On the west side of Weaver Street Weaver Street at the intersection of Daisy Farm Drive, and it's bounded to the south over here, which is actually for the purposes of this property is treated as the rear yard because there's two front yards, so front yard here and front yard here.

So this rear yard abuts the there's a market and a nursery that's right over here.

Also there is the this is the west side yard over here, and this abuts single family homes that are located along Harlan Drive.

So this property also, if you've driven by it or if you've seen it before, it slopes, it slopes downward.

It's sort of a little bit located like in a bowl.

And so it also continues to slope downward here as well as these properties continue here.

So the proposal is to demolish portions of the existing structure, except for the sanctuary, which will remain and the same size and it will remain in place.

The parking lot will maintain the 77 parking spaces that are currently approved as per the 1993 variants that was granted.

And there will be valet parking incorporated for any events.

And that is permitted under the code.

So as you will, as you can see here, so this is the existing sanctuary and the buildings essentially wraps around it.

So the purpose of the renovation was in part to move the entrance to the west side of the property instead of the front, and that was for security purposes.

Unfortunately, this is the reality that many synagogues face today.

So locating the entrance here will provide for that.

There will also be on the first floor a new lobby, a new hall for study and prayer, a new social hall with a kitchen that can accommodate life cycle and other events, and it will improve the existing conditions on the site, including stormwater improvements.

So instead, many of the members live nearby and walk to services.

So this synagogue has been servicing this community in this area for close to 50 years.

This is simply to service the youth that are children of members.

And I know that I just want to I don't want to skip around too much, but this is this is the rooftop space that we were talking about.

And again, this rooftop space is not just the playground space, it's also for outdoor religious uses, and it will have it will create the kind of security that the congregation is looking for so that these uses are not uh on other parts of the property or in the existing parking lot areas or inside yard setbacks.

Um the height of the building, um, I don't know if you can see it from here, is designed uh to uh be below the highest point of the sanctuary.

So because the sanctuary will remain, um the rest of the building uh will be lower in height.

So even though there is a minor height variance, um it will still be below the existing um highest point.

So moving on.

Um just let me go back to the site plan for a second.

So the the site is challenging in part because of the grade changes and because of the existing improvements.

Um there's also in addition to that, there is a city drainage easement.

I don't know if you can see that that runs through the property here, which limits uh the location of the um of the building.

We cannot put the building on top of the of the easement because it requires access.

And so to accomplish this project and provide also sufficient parking, we are also proposing a retaining wall along this westerly side yard.

And I don't know if you can see, it runs along here.

So here right along here, it starts perhaps at like two feet or so, and then it does excuse me, does go up.

And I believe at this point it also goes back down in height, and then it continues along here, and this approximately over here is I would say the highest point of that retaining wall.

And again, that's because here there is a significant change in grade, and that's an existing change in grade.

And so this, but this allows for the parking to be accommodated and for a turnaround.

So again, this we've been, you know, the congregation has been working on this project for quite a while to try to decrease the size of the variance to try to accommodate the concerns of the neighbors.

It's been it's been a long time in the works.

Um unfortunately, we just because of the site and the site constraints, we cannot meet the code exactly.

So we are asking for a building coverage variance, um 31.5% where the maximum is 30%, a rear yard setback variance, um, which is here that you can see the 31.6 or 60 is required, but again, this there's a significant drop here.

So and so this particular this property owner would not be impacted by by this change at all.

The uh side yard setback variance here is 55.1 feet where 60 feet is required.

Um, however, there's already existing parking here in part because of 1993 variants.

Um, so it in part it's an existing condition.

Um and again, the building height, um, there was some back and forth about the calculation of the height, um, but we uh we believe that it is, you know, we we thought that we were compliant at 30 feet.

Um it looks like it's it's going to be at 32 feet the way it's being calculated, so that's part of the reason why we're asking for um for that um variance, and again for the retaining wall because it is in the in the uh required yard and it is higher than what's permitted.

Um again in the context of the site and the existing conditions, um, we believe that these variances are reasonable and relatively um in the context minor, and so if and we also believe that these variances, if granted, would outweigh you know any detriment to the community.

It would be a great benefit to the congregation, um, which you know to serve their needs.

Um so I can go through each of the specific five factors if you'd like.

Um I think I covered a lot of it already, but um, but in general, um, with the five variance factors, no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, no detrimental effects to the neighboring properties.

We are going to, as part of the, and I forgot to mention this as part of the retaining wall, we're proposing landscaping along the wall.

Um, I don't unfortunately was not able to provide that as part of this submission, but we we do have um we do have a a sheet that shows the the landscaping.

That is something that we will address with the planning board if if this is um if we get the variances here, um, then we would move on to the planning board and landscaping is one of those one of those items.

Um so um again, um I think I mentioned the height being lower uh than the highest part.

There's no other feasible meth method to achieve the benefits sought.

Um as I mentioned, we've gone through numerous numerous iterations of this site plan to try to address what needed to be addressed, which is to maintain the parking and to provide the the space that is needed for the congregation.

Um this is the best version that we've been able we've been able to come up with.

The um again the requested variances are not substantial.

I went through the reasons for that.

Um there's no adverse effects or impacts.

I mean, this is an already disturbed site, and there's no um, you know, the rooftop area is not something that's visible to the neighbors.

Um we are we're gonna be as I said increasing the amount of landscaping.

Currently, there are trees that uh are like deciduous trees that are along the property line, but they are not uh they do not provide significant um you know uh mitigation of uh in terms of like the visibility.

So the we we're we're proposing evergreen trees that um will be able to accomplish that.

Um again this and then the final factor, which as you know is not determinative, but whether it's self-created, again, we you know this is an existing use that's been around for almost 50 years.

Um we're trying to make improvements, renovations that are necessary, um, and the constraints of the property is what we're working with.

Um, and so we so it you know we do not feel that it is a self-created um hardship.

So um, you know, we're here to answer any questions that you might have.

Um and uh did you want to did you want to add anything?

No, no.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna break our usual protocol.

I have a question before we listen to um the voices.

Um can you just take us through?

I know there are a number of existing variances for the existing property.

Yes.

Can you take us through how those line up with the variances that you're seeking?

In other words, you're seeking a 30-foot variance for the rear yard setback, but how much of a variance do you already have so we can measure that against what exists versus what you're asking for?

Good question.

Thank you.

I had a feeling this might come up, so um there's think of that.

So now I don't know if I can exactly line it up, but I can but I can what I can tell you is that in 1993 the resolution that was granted um provided that the uh so it it permitted a 15-foot um front yard setback.

I think that's over here.

Is that the 50?

Yeah, I think that's the 15 foot um front yard.

Uh right.

That's a weaver, right?

Yeah.

So right along the way, that was 15 feet where 25 feet was required.

So that's one of the, but we're not we're not changing anything here.

Okay.

Um there was also um parking that was gonna encroach um into a yard.

So on the southern side um of 50 feet to the parking area, so meaning on this side there was already parking that was 50 feet permitted.

Um, and what we're asking for is not for the parking, what we're asking for is for the for the building itself, but there was already a um a variance for 50 feet um where 60 feet is required.

Um on the westerly side, again, over here, there was already a um a variance for again parking area of to permit 48.25 feet um where 60 feet is required.

What we're currently asking for is 55.1 feet to the um to the building.

Um and that's and also there was the as I mentioned the 77 parking spaces, which was a reduction um in what was determined to be required at that time.

Thank you.

Go ahead.

Yep.

Ari Weinberger.

Um I reside at 26 Malvern Lane.

I'm currently the president of the synagogue.

I grew up in Nurishau 22 years ago.

I moved back and raised my family here in Herschel and in the youngest role of Scarsdale.

Um day one when we sat down before we had an architect before we knew what we could afford uh or what we could do, we laid out our needs and wants, and one of the priorities was to try to be a better neighbor.

Um, and we feel with these variances we're able to address issues of what I'll call noise pollution from having tents and uh trucks running uh Friday night, uh as well as um having our kids play in the in the in the um parking lot by our neighbors.

Um so we uh we really did that.

Was a driving and guiding principle in our design was to attempt to address those things as well.

Just one question about um Diana.

I think you said before that the playground and the roof would not be visible to neighbors.

What why is that?

So I thought so, but I just wanted to make sure.

This one?

Yeah, so as you can see, so this uh this is just to orient you, this is Weaver Street.

This is Weaver Street, these is the back where these would be the property owners here.

And so as you can see, it's built into sunken.

I think it's a sunken, it's a sun and make sure.

And I don't know, you know, I mean, we have the architects here, they can get into more of the details of that, but that's to be here.

Oh, yeah.

Sorry, I'm done for now.

Okay.

Who in the audience wants to speak on this application?

Okay, so one at a time, state your name for the record.

You have three minutes to speak.

My name is Bill Shrag.

I live at 39 Harlan Drive.

I've been a resident of Newark Shell for over 37 years.

I was at this planning board commission back in 1993 in connection with the last expansion.

I really have not been heavily involved in this particular project, but I can tell you how impressed I am by the synagogue's leadership's sensitivity to the neighbors' needs.

I live on Harlan Drive, which is adjacent to this site.

I have been a trustee of the Stratton Hills Neighborhood Association for the last 25 plus years, and I count many of my closest friends to be officers, directors, members of that homeowner association.

It's very rare that you have a property homeowners association that is as enthusiastically supportive of this project as the Stratton Hills Neighborhood Association.

In fact, the president of the association, Carol Kelly, probably would have been here tonight if she didn't have some medical issues.

I believe she submitted a statement in support, which is part of the record.

Um, what I'd like for each of you to know is that at last September's annual meeting of the Stratton Hills Neighborhood Association.

Um the president, Carol Kelly invited Ari Weinberger to make a presentation to all of the neighbors and to address whatever concerns there may there might be.

Not everybody is going to be a hundred percent supportive, but I would say that the overwhelming majority of the neighborhood is supportive of this project.

When I moved into my home in 1988, there were less than 200 members of the Young Israel of Scarsdale.

There are now four 470 families, and the place is busting at it seems.

And if it doesn't do a project like this, all that's gonna happen is they're gonna be there'll be noise at the outside from children running around or other sort of makeshift um provisions.

We have here an extremely well thought out plan that um I for one um as both a resident of Harlan Drive, a member of the Young Israel of Scarsdale, and an officer of the Stratton Hills Neighborhood Association could not be more proud of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next person who would like to speak.

Anyone else?

Okay.

Hi, good evening.

My name is Jeffrey Mandel, and my wife Lana and I live at 59 Harlan Drive, directly abutting the rear property of 1313 Weaver Street.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak regarding this case.

I want to begin by stating that clearly that we support the synagogue's effort to modernize and improve its facilities.

We respect the institution and its long-standing role in the community.

Our goal is not to oppose the project, but to ensure that any approval includes reasonable conditions that protect the surrounding residential homes, including ours.

As outlined in the city's notice, this application includes five variances, rear yard setback, side yard setback, building height, building coverage, and a retaining wall more than three times the permitted height.

Well, each variance matters, the combined impact brings additional massing activity and grading significantly closer to the residential boundaries.

Our concerns involve privacy, noise, site lines, runoff, erosion, the scale of the retaining wall, and the potential for traffic and lighting impacts during events.

I want to note that after constructive discussions with the synagogue's president, sorry, Weinberg, they have already agreed to several important mitigation measures, including evergreen screening along the shared boundary, vegetative treatment, or veneers to soften retaining wall, subsurface drainage systems to manage runoff, clear valet and traffic plan, keeping all queuing on site, residential and down your downward shielding lighting to prevent glare.

These conditions are reasonable, practical, consistent with zoning code, and they allow the project to move forward while still protecting neighboring homes.

I'm respectful asking that the board hold the applicants accountable for these agreed upon conditions as part of any approval.

Thank you for your consideration and for your work on behalf of our community.

Thank you.

Next anyone else?

Come on.

Um my name is Eliana Bednarch, and I live at 77 Harlan Drive, which is directly, this is my house.

But I I really um drainage and trees and um, but this is very um this is I I I understand Ari has told me that like right now I have no privacy, but I will really have no privacy, even with this wall.

Because they've moved the entrance of the synagogue over here, and now my bedroom looks right at it because of the way the land is graded.

I am like my second story is like ground level for them.

Wait, hold on, I'm sorry.

The entrance is on the opposite side.

No, this is no the entrance is here now.

Now it is they're moving.

No, no, the entrance right now is here and they're moving it to the side.

I thought it was being moved to Weaver.

It is not.

Okay.

It is being it is being essentially moved to be res facing my residence.

Really is my residence.

Um I really I have issues with um all of the trees they plan to remove.

And I know they're gonna plant more, but I I just there's um I just really want to like be heard that I am unhappy about a lot of this.

And I'd like to also mention I'm a member of the synagogue.

And I agree, yes, I have no issues with managing most of the building.

Yes, we need all these things.

It'll be great to not.

I mean, I'm still gonna hear them, but not as much like the kids running around and things like that.

I'm still gonna hear them, but not as much as before.

Um, but I I I don't like the fact that they want to build such a giant wall in my backyard, um, where right now I have trees.

Um, and just I, you know, in addition, I'd like to note at least for the next few years, they've bought the house next door to me.

And for at least during construction, plan to use it for various different types of things.

Um, which is fine, but again, like that's more of my privacy gone.

Um, and also in the evenings, no one will be there, which means that now in front, now to my right and behind me is no one during the evenings and at night.

Um I really just um I'm just really I I'm less worried about the size of the building and how tall it is and things like that, because there's nothing I can do.

These second floor windows are gonna look right into my house and my backyard.

Um, and now the front entrance is literally in my backyard, essentially.

Um, and my side of my side of the property will have a wall, but on the other side, where all the people are gonna go in and out and congregate and whatever, is apparently not gonna have a tall anything.

So, I mean, I literally now will have even less privacy than I have now.

Okay, I'm so thank you.

Those are my thank you for listening.

We have a chance to respond.

Yes, someone else.

Yes, you you'll have a chance to respond to everybody.

Can we just I don't want to get how many people are planning on speaking?

Just curious.

Maybe she should respond and then we should hear more.

Yeah, okay, okay.

You don't know.

My name is David Freeman.

Um, Daisy Farms in Harlan.

Um, this is a very beautiful picture.

Unfortunately, that's looks like it's at a country club, but that's not really what this is.

My house is right here.

So these trees are our houses.

They're trees now, but they're actually houses there.

But anyway, um, that being said, um, uh there's not supposed to be a lot of driving in this neighborhood because that's what this temple is about, but that's not what's been going on.

I've been there since they built the temple.

I've been living in the same house all this time.

Um, there were 200 members.

There is now almost 500 members, and they're right, it is a mess up there.

So they plan on growing this, making this bigger, and then eventually making a bigger mess again.

So what we have now in our neighborhood is on Harlan Drive, Daisy Farms Drive.

We have the temple, which isn't supposed to be driving, parking on both sides of the street, turning two-lane roads into one-lane roads.

So only one one, you can only get up the street one way.

And because the parking is complete on both sides, cars cannot get past each other.

Now, while all that is going on, the temple members are walking.

And there's no sidewalk, so they're walking in the center of the street.

So you're trying to get down a street that has cars on both sides.

It's a one-lane road when it should be a two-lane road while residents are walking with their children.

It's dangerous.

Now, aside from that, they have parked at the stop signs.

They have parked on the corner house, they park at the stop sign, blocking the stop sign so people can't see it.

They park at the fire hydrants if they need be.

They block the fire hydrants.

They have on occasion parked in my driveway.

Literally in my driveway.

I have come out, my wife's like, there is strange car in our driveway.

It's the temple residents parked in my driveway.

They also block half my driveway.

So when backing out, you have to be really careful getting out of the driveway.

If you can get out, I have had problems where I've called the temple, given them the license plate, and someone's had to come move their car.

So they are blocking up the entire neighborhood.

They are not just walking.

Okay, that's first thing.

So that that's it's not safe.

You want to make the temple bigger to bring in more congregation.

So where are these cars gonna park?

Now they park on Daisy Farms where there's no parking, they park there anyway.

So you have that.

So that's a problem with the temple.

As far as the noise and the kids playing in the parking lot, there is some of that.

But now they want to expand the parking lot so that my house is right here.

This parking lot is not here right now.

This is woods.

The woods is actually here.

They want to take that out and put the parking lot right up against my property.

Like I will have a parking lot a foot from my backyard.

Can I add some other things?

Well, you gotta let it finish.

Okay.

So aside from the parking lot, um and and the noise and the congestions and the traffic flow.

Somehow it says in there that this parking lot, which is there now, which is non-porous and has draining, is going to become a porous parking lot.

All right, sorry, thank you.

Your three minutes is up.

I'm sure we are both in.

Hi, I'm Melissa Freeman.

Oh, okay.

I'm David's wife, I live on the corner.

So I also have a problem with while everyone has stated that it's been well received in the community.

No one has knocked on our door, no one has rang our doorbell, no one has asked us a question.

We are that corner home.

We are constantly blocked.

And like David has said, the valley parking is just gonna make it worse.

Well, I mean, well, we didn't even get there because we got three minutes for some reason.

But it is it's just not it's dead, it's beneficial to some of the congregation members, only the congregation members.

It is not beneficial to the community, and we support growth, we support the Jewish community, but it's not beneficial to build the way you're building.

And you're avoiding Weaver Street for the safety of your members, but you're creating unsafety situations for the residential members.

Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak?

Someone's coming up already.

No, yeah, some is already coming up.

Hi, uh, my name is uh Alicia Blachner.

I live at 19 I've close.

I'm uh over 20 uh year uh member of the synagogue as well as uh resident on your shell, um, a former president, and uh just uh don't want to repeat everything that was said, but uh security is an important feature that unfortunately we need we need to deal with.

I do volunteer on our synagogue.

Um security services, and really the the driving factor of moving the entrance there is just given that the entrance here, given that Weaver Street is a uh state road, given that there's no real ability to monitor that traffic and the openness of that area.

You know, the fact that we're pouring residents out of the synagogue services to this open area creates a significant security concern.

So part of that was really to just provide a little bit of protection as it relates to cover from the Weaver Street side here as well.

Um, in addition, we've done a lot of work to try to mitigate the variances as well as uh address the concerns of the residents, and um I'll let the professionals respond to the to the uh the corner uh homeowners here.

But obviously we want to be good neighbors, can't control all of our uh congregants, but uh from my perspective, we do the best we can and try to address concerns um as they come up.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Someone in the back.

Yeah, I think this is um you could be next.

Just want to remind everybody that there's a three-minute time limit, and please don't restate anything that's already been said.

Thank you.

Good evening.

My name is David Knowle.

I'm the resident of 79 Barad, and we'll come up near three minutes.

Um I just want to address two points um specifically on the security.

I think it's important to deviate from the most likely avenue of approach.

The United States Marine Corps has spent a lot of time and money to train me in some of the facets of defensive and offensive security.

So I think the security plan is well thought out.

Secondly, we talked about the growth of the community.

I think I fairly represent that.

Uh my wife and I moved to the community about seven years ago.

I did grew up in New Rochelle and have been attending the synagogue for the majority of my life.

However, our children are seven, five, three, and one, and currently, as perhaps the best problem a community like this could have is we're almost out of room.

There's just nowhere to sort of take these kids and instruct them and and bring them in collectively, whether that's teachings or classes.

Um this new building is the solve for that.

And of course, I'm not an engineer, I'm not an architect.

I'm just a parent who wants the best for his children and his community overall, and of course, we have to address the needs.

I I stood up here on my own accord, not just two months ago for a pool, of course.

Uh I trust that those will be addressed, but the discussion of the growth of the community, I would just bring forward that that has happened.

And uh I just want to speak to the fact that there are a lot of children here.

There's 30 to 40 years of of timeline added to this community, probably in the last 10 years, and those numbers reflect itself.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I live up the block.

My allowed a talk if I'm a Scarsdale resident.

It's okay.

I'm at 11 Westview Lane.

I lived in several houses in New Rochelle though, uh, 207 Waverly and uh on Wilmot Circle and on Weaver Street as well.

I've been in the congregation for about 26 years.

And I just want to say we appreciate uh you giving us this time.

We appreciate you, Aaron, your grievances.

We we are I'm please address the board, sir.

Sorry, I could say, you know, as the rabbi of the community, um we can't fully uh speak to everyone and what they do and how they do, but our intentions are always there uh to be the best neighbors we possibly can.

And we just celebrated Thanksgiving.

Thanksgiving is the time where we appreciate the fact that we're living in this land.

Uh people of all creeds, of all races, of all faiths, of all ethnicities.

In 1790, George Washington visited a synagogue, the Turo Synagogue, well, earlier, and then he wrote them a letter.

And he said, May the children of the stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the goodwill of the other inhabitants, while everyone shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.

This is our vine.

This is our fig tree.

We've grown in this community for almost 50 years, and thankfully, uh, we've been able to live our lives with freedom with religious freedom, with liberty, and really with a sense of of communal understanding uh for all.

And unfortunately, in these times, we're coming under attack.

We know that.

I don't think there's any attack, you know, that's happening.

We stay on track, sir.

But my my point is my point is that we are we just seek to worship, we seek for our children to have a place uh to learn, to study, and we really believe that in this plan we'll be able to do all of these things.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak on this?

Okay.

Um thank you for those comments.

Um, so I I did want to talk about just briefly before I hand it over um to Mr.

Weinbroker because he um he has intimate knowledge of a lot of these details.

But um regarding some of the concerns that were raised that we are addressing, which is again the the evergreen screening.

Um I know there was some discussion of lighting, um traffic noise, these are things that we can address as part of the uh review process with the planning board, and and we can also um provide additional information regarding that if that's something that the board wants to see.

Um but I think a lot of what's been said here has to do with uh management of the congregation and just management of the site um and management of the parking, which is something that again I'll hand it over to talk about that, but that's what we're talking about here.

It's not the um a lot of it is not the um the actual variances that we're seeking tonight, it's it has to do it has to do with the management of um uh of the synagogue, which is something that uh we'll address in a minute.

Um, but also I do I do want to point out, and I don't know if I have this here, uh, but with respect to the uh the the layout of the site, I don't know which it is, but there is a six-foot fence that's proposed.

Uh is it on this one?

Um sheet sheet's actually right here.

So that's my house.

So there is okay.

So my my point is that there is a um a privacy fence that we are proposing as part of the plan.

Um what uh I'm having a hard time seeing that.

What page is that on my document, so I can have it.

So this is site plan C4.

C4, thank you.

And so um is that where the retain the wall is?

Um can you so do you want to speak to that?

I think I would I would appreciate some because we've we have definitely gotten a bit off the office.

Um and and looking at the actual variances that are being sought, I'm a little bit confused about where the wall is, where the wall is not, where there's a fence, where it's not, and I'm I'll just be blunt.

I'm particularly concerned about um 12 points.

Wait, hold on, a 12.7 foot wall where four is permitted.

So I'd like to hear something about that, please.

So for the record, uh my name is Foster Tang of Stonefield Engineering and Design.

Uh is located at 584 Broadway, uh, New York, New York.

Um, excuse me, suite 310.

Uh so I guess to answer your first question, um, not sure if I can zoom in on this, but the retaining wall is this um then like gray solid line that follows the uh extents of the westerly property line.

No, all that's the 12 foot.

So I'll I'll get into that in a moment, sorry.

Um excuse me.

So on top of the retaining wall, because we're on the high side, um, there is a that's the six-foot uh privacy fence as a solid fence, uh you can't see through it.

Um and that's gonna sit on like it's essentially on top of the wall.

Uh and then in front of that, there is uh a safety guardrail uh just to prevent vehicles from crashing into the room.

Is it no you said on top?

It's so if you're standing in the parking lot.

It's on the synagogue site.

I think it's on the synagogue site.

Clarifies if that is correct.

I'm sorry.

Yeah, so if you're yeah, it's on the the it's from the property, it's property line, retaining wall, security fence, guardrail, and then yeah, and then you have your uh your curb, your parking lot, and then the synagogue.

Understood, thank you.

I'm just gonna say this right now.

I would like to see pictures of that.

So we don't um actually currently have uh like the yeah, we don't have um like a uh something spec'd out for the for the privacy fence right now.

Uh we're open to suggestions.

Um obviously something that would look nice and again uh provide that privacy that um you know the neighbors are so concerned about.

Um so yeah, again, if therefore it has any suggestions, um you know we'd happy to and I'm sorry, I I was trying to badly trying to conversation.

Yeah, no, no, but you know, I understand that there's a balance between trying to provide privacy and also security.

So I I get that to me a retaining wall serves a function, so it's neither and so I I guess I want to understand the the utility of the of the wall, which is three times the allowable height, and then I would like to have some sort of idea of what this is gonna look like since all these people live right behind it.

So I'll try this is so this is the grading plan right now.

So the retaining wall, and this is just a retaining wall, not including the six-foot privacy fence.

Um starts out you know at this corner of the property at the northwest corner of the property, and then extends um you know further south.

Right right around this point is where it exceeds four feet.

So from this stretch to here, um is you know around one to two to three, four feet.

And that's there now.

Uh this is will be a new retaining wall.

Okay.

So from there, um, you know, as previously mentioned, there is a significant grade change on site.

Um, you know, from Weaver Street all the way down to the residences, there's a grade change of around 28 feet.

Um so it's pretty significant.

Uh so as you're moving further south, that's plan right, um, the grade starts to uh slope down a little bit.

So from here where you're at uh retaining wall height of four feet, uh you're sloping down, you're at around seven feet, um, and then all the way wanna say to uh like eight feet um in this corner, like right but right by the uh right by the parking uh parking lot um parking space, excuse me.

Do we have any actual size and width uh with how big those chunks are?

So when you go from four to six to eight, how big of what is the length of those particular segments where we start hiking up from four to eight to twelve all the way up there?

So that like is very small.

Um like each specific section, but I can tell you that uh of the two retaining walls, so there's uh again for clarification, there's this retaining wall here, which then kind of mellows out um and then uh like a new one starts.

I I can't tell you that uh 50% of the wall is between zero to four feet, so um like underneath that allowable threshold.

Uh that's roughly 237 linear feet.

Um I I don't have section to section, I can just tell you the totality of it.

Um and then so the remainder 50% would be over that um over the allowable four feet.

Uh it's actually 37% of the wall is between four feet and ten feet.

I know that's a kind of a big chunk.

Um, but then uh 13% of the wall, so like is over the 10 feet.

So that's kind of where the highest was the 12.7.

Uh it's only like a small section of the wall is uh is as high as there.

Um just can I just step in for a second?

Um okay, and so I tried to, and I apologize because this was created after the submission deadline.

Um if I can hand this up for you to look at.

This was created by our architectural firm.

So um you want to just hold this up?

So this this shows you some of what you're looking at here?

Yeah.

Yeah, we'll pass it around and let the board look at it.

So um do you want to just speak to just I'm Alexander Garland, the architect.

Um I reside, my office is at 1133 Broadway.

There were two drawings here.

One shows the extent of the wall from four feet, uh, as he said, 37% is uh between four and seven, and then there's a section on the extreme south side that's goes up to 11, 12 feet.

So the the drawing shows it unadorned without vegetation, and the second drawing shows the evergreens as a means of uh shielding the wall completely from the neighbors.

And where is the fence on the fence is on top of the retaining wall, and that would shield any headlights.

Excuse me.

Um the six-foot uh solid wall that needs to be designed going forward, would shield any headlights that uh from the parking.

And also I should mention that the whole reason for the portion of the wall that is 10, 11, 12 feet, uh, is because of the five parking spaces that are orthogonal at a right angle to the retaining wall.

So this is really the result of five parking spaces.

So if you were to remove those far parking spaces, how tall will the wall be?

Um, what would you think?

Yeah, it's around uh so right now as high as sits over 12 feet, we get on around um probably around 10 feet, a little bit lower if that's it depends on goes back 20 feet.

It well, it's I guess it depends on um actually it's where the road is now speak to me in terms of is an existing road parallel to the southern uh boundary, and that road is existing and there's no retaining there's a driveway.

It's a driveway.

So now uh to fulfill the parking requirement of 77 spaces, uh these spaces have been added 20 feet out into space that's a hill.

And that hill, because of the slope requires a retaining well to hold up the parking, so you we can have those five spaces.

One of the things that we've heard is that parking is spilling out into the neighborhood.

How much parking are you adding with this renovation that would theoretically be removing cars from the neighborhood?

So we are we you know we've gone to great lengths to maintain the same amount of parking that was approved previously in 1993.

Um the sanctuary is not going to change in size.

Um it's the same number of seats, and so it would be the same calculation that was previously done.

So we're not increasing the size of the actual sanctuary, but you can speak to that.

Um of the things that this new site plan allows us to do is to have a proper valet parking plan for events that are not on the Sabbath or a Jewish holiday that prohibits driving.

And it is our full intent to require any event.

So if you want to have a Saturday night bar mitzah, you're gonna have to hire our valet company.

And with this site plan, and you have the parking management plan, I believe, provided.

With this site plan, we are able to accomplish the necessary parking stacking using our synagogue parking lot as well as simply the best parking lot, which they have agreed to prevent people from parking on Harlan and other streets and clogging up the neighborhood.

Under the existing site plan, we couldn't necessarily accomplish that to the same degree or at all.

Um just to address and I appreciate the concerns.

Um I just recently sent an email to the congregation about showing better respect to our neighbors on certain events, advising them to carpool if they live close to walk.

Um we have an event coming where we've secured parking spots from simply the best as well, and we've advised them at certain parts of the street not to park at all.

Um again to do the best to show our respect to our neighbors.

Um fortunately, sometimes events come that involve people not from our synagogue, and sometimes uh they do stupid things.

Um, and if I had their names, I'd be happy to, you know.

Why is it that you don't have the valet now to address this issue?

When I spoke to the valet company about the parking management plan with the new site plan, I had asked what can we accomplish now, and he kind of shrugged his shoulders and said, not a heck of a lot.

Um so what was the answer?

Um the existing site, the existing site plan, we could not uh accomplish much with a valet parking plan that would provide any real meaningful help.

Okay, I mean I think you know, and I think it was mentioned before that part of the parking or area or part of the the area is currently being used by refrigeration trucks and um some tenting, which we're trying to get rid of and to incorporate that into an actual building, um which would then allow for additional parking and for that area to be used for what it's intended for, which is the parking.

Well, it's realistically uh access to parking, yeah.

So it's the same, yeah.

It's the same amount you have so we currently we're we're currently able to park less than 77 on the site, even though it's I understand that that's the requirement.

That's what we're trying to fifth, yeah.

Can I I'm sorry, can I get the architect back on and on can we go into page three on the presentation?

Oh, there's actually the the parkings are showing, and I want you to explain to me the five parking spaces that you say that are these five, one, two, three, four, five.

But that's not page three.

So much more clear.

Sorry.

Page three does not show the new parking.

Yes.

Can you tell us what's C three?

Uh I'm on page 3065.

No, you're not.

Let me see.

Hold on.

This is page three.

Oh, okay.

Sorry.

Uh so is this the slot where you actually have the parking spaces number, and you could actually see our area.

Um this is the existing drive here.

Okay.

All right.

Then uh the parking, the five spaces that stick out so that people park in uh goes out 20 feet towards the neighbor.

And that's where the slope is the most steep, and that's the reason that the retaining wall here is highest.

Maybe just to clarify one point, the current site when you drive in to the parking lot on the right hand side right now is grass, and then uh uh chain link fence.

Well we're and then there's sure the synagogue property continues beyond that fence.

What we're proposing is in that area where there's grass and some bushes to make that into parking spots.

We currently have about 56 spots on the site.

We're going up to 77 to do that.

Are they allowed to put parking spots?

Sorry, you can't speak out loud on the side.

I'm sorry, do we have the opportunity to ask a question?

Yeah.

Come up and go up to you.

Wait a minute, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.

Oh, no.

No, they don't want to speak.

No questions.

I mean, it's up to Eric, but we have other questions first before we're sorry.

Okay.

Well, the board has questions.

Okay.

Those five spaces you have there this since uh Abel brought these up.

Now, can you widen the driveway?

I guess um, well, I'm gonna call it plant south a little bit to run those parallel so you don't have to build a retaining.

Okay, so no, starting from the other spaces, started from the other spaces from here?

No.

The last space the last perpendicular space to your left, to your left, all the way over.

All the way over here.

No.

Those six spaces, the six spaces you have there to the left, right?

Those six spaces there.

The last space from that space, run them parallel to the driveway.

Those five spaces and extend extended spaces here.

So wide the drive would run the RS after that, yeah.

So why is it jutting out?

So I'll go to the grading plan so you can see um this space group where you suggested the spots.

Um we'd certainly like to make use of that.

Umfortunately, due to the uh significant grade change on site, you can see um, you know, just a change of one seven, eight feet.

Um there's this is also the same location as the uh previously mentioned uh storm easement.

So we're avoiding um constructing a retaining wall on top of that easement.

Uh and you can't feasibly um park out these areas unfortunately without the use of the retaining wall.

I think you're allowed to build a retainable easement as long as you're you agree that that could be removed, right?

So you know, and we're we appreciate all these comments and and and we can take them back and and take a look again at the site.

I mean, I understand you know, there's a law on the agenda, and we're we're here for a while.

So anything that you know we're listening to your comments, and we can go back to our engineers and um address that.

I just have one other request.

Can we have a better site plan or a rendering preferably slap and that shows the neighboring houses?

Proper location, the neighboring houses.

Yeah, well, we have a street direction.

One way, what's one way, the streets around?

Sure.

Um we had we had I think I submitted uh with our submission also an aerial.

So what you're looking for is an aerial map, right?

It shows there's an aerial, but it doesn't really it shows one and a half.

Yeah, the area it's not really looking for the satellite.

Something an expanded view that shows the the street in front of it, the houses.

Uh this is like on a plan, on a plan.

It shows your proposed developments.

Okay, okay.

So you want to widen it out?

Okay.

Another another comment for when you come back.

Um there was a uh nice image or rendering of Evergreens that were screening um the retaining wall.

I would like to understand um as it relates to the retaining wall variance you're requesting, what that screening actually is, what how what size gallon the plants are that you're proposing, how tall they're going to be, um, and the species, so we can at least address um your neighbors' comments.

Okay, wonderful.

Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay.

All right, we're gonna talk about that.

Okay.

Um thank you.

Okay, so are you asking for an adjournment?

Well, I mean, we want to hear everything that the board members have to do.

I'm not actually.

I'm not I'm not I I I guess I I understand your concerns here, and I just I'm just aware that we're not gonna be able to resolve all of this tonight.

Um, but I you know, if I I'd like to be able to hear everything so that when we do come back that we're able to address all of those issues.

Look from from my perspective, the thing that is the most problematic to me is the wall.

Um but I you know if I I'd like to be able to hear everything so that when we do come back that we're able to to address all of those issues look from from my perspective the thing that is the most problematic to me is the wall and what I'm concerned about is I understand you're not making this the synagogue the sanctuary any larger which means you don't need any more parking but the building's getting bigger and you've talked we've heard a lot about the growing the size growing size of the community which is wonderful and I also support the Jewish community but I'm concerned about you you lost spaces so you're adding them back in with Valet and that's great but we're we're we're already hearing about the spillover of a lot of cars it sounds like more than just a few that would be in the place of a refrigerator truck or a tent so I I just need to have some information about that.

I mean we can definitely I mean we did provide information about a management plan if you need more information about that that's something that we could address directly the visuals also with the wall and information about the screening and all of that would be very helpful as well.

That's what they're doing similarly just a comment I'm aware that the jurisdiction of this board is zoning um and similar to our chair Erica I also have a the most concern about the retaining wall yeah do you want to I mean I again just to address the parking the spillage comes when there are events not on the Sabbath.

That's not true not on the Sabbath.

Okay sir please don't do that and you're addressing the board so and so with valet that would address that uh on the Sabbath majority of our members do not drive um aside from maybe parking on the eve of Yom Kippur for four services uh there are not other times that you would see that happen all right from um just one more uh point of data feedback I know it was requested for some additional clear you know maybe maps or something but if you could just when you do have those drawings or whatever you decide to do from my perspective I'd like to better understand how we go from you know 31 rear shred yards three 30 30 3132 your uh rear yard setback to almost a 16 which is almost 50 percent so I really understand the dynamics of that what's currently there how you know what is currently existing that is non conforming and how we get into that and to address that massive growth you know massive number from almost 50 percent so I mean right now our social hall faces the rear uh where simply the best is then above grade um currently our social hall is about 4,000 square feet and on many events people are elect to put up tents um in fact someone in Paul's office knows my name better than my kids because I'm constantly signing um uh uh affidavits for uh permits um that obviously creates a lot of noise pollution for our neighbors um and so what we were asking to do is to expand this social hall to 6800 square feet um which then pushes back but eliminates the need and candidly the ability to ever have a tent um and by doing that um for you you know even on uh after services on saturday reception that we have every week the room is just not big enough so with this we would be able to do that uh in addition that would um allow us to build uh a proper kitchen with cold storage which would eliminate refrigerated trucks that are running um and so that's that's the that's the impetus behind the need for that variance and again where we go is from there there's a retaining wall and then simply the best which is above us and looking down on us yes and they actually I mean they do currently store um they currently store materials over here um for the for the nursery um along that property line so you know they there wouldn't be anyone standing here like sort of looking down onto onto the building and it's a commercial use so since you won't be using those tents anymore does that mean that you are actually are gonna have additional areas where you can actually park rather than having tents in those areas the building will now be covering that space but we're having a parking on the side which is why we have that need for that retaining wall understanding.

Hold on, hold on.

Hold on, guys.

I I think that seems to have concluded our comments and questions.

So if you want to request unless you have anything else you want to add.

Yeah, so um no, this this thank you very much for that.

Um we're gonna go back and and take a look at at the plan again and see if there's um if there if there's anything that um that we can do to clarify for you also what the visual is.

It sounds like you'd like to have a better understanding of the visual impacts.

Okay.

So are you requesting an adjournment?

Oh, yes, I'm formally requesting an adjournment.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

See you next month.

Thank you.

Um can I just ask what's the submission deadline for the next meeting?

Uh could you can be in buzz tomorrow?

Sure.

And I'll I'll let you know what's going on.

Okay.

And just a note for the public this board typically meets upstairs in council chambers, and the next meeting will likely be there.

Up in council.

Make note of that, but the meeting will likely not be in this room.

And also for the audience that you would not be renoticed.

You do not have to be renoticed about this meeting.

There will be a sign on the property, and it will be in the paper, just so you know.

You could always call my office.

I believe it's January 6th.

I'm not that sure, but it's around there.

All right, just so that people know.

One one more thing that I did mean to request this, and uh, and I understand what you're saying about it.

Um if there's any opportunity to close the public hearing, or are you keeping that open until the next meeting?

I think we're gonna keep it open.

Yeah, the next meeting.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

It is January 6th for the audience.

That's the next meeting date.

Next case.

Case 37, 2025.

Yeah.

No.

If I could ask everybody to leave quietly, and if you're gonna chat, go all the way down the hall.

Okay.

I did.

Oh, it's sorry.

I don't know what we want to mean.

Until we get sued, and then we need a verbum.

Just saying, Erica.

I'll be better.

It's okay.

All right, let's let's go.

Yeah, we're moving on.

I mean, we a couple of people took a little bit of a minute.

So just a few minutes, yeah.

Up in the screen, yes.

All right, we are on the record, so please keep it down.

Next case, case 37, 2025, 255 Wilmot Road.

Good evening, Chair Aisner, members of the board for the record.

My name is Tony Joffrey.

I'm a member of the law firm Cuddy and Fader, 445 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, New York.

I'm here on behalf of the Avenue Preparatory School located at 255 Wilmot.

Um before I get started, I'd just like to introduce our team members.

Um I have my colleague Hilly Petacano, uh Sunny Suda from uh Populous, uh Brother Leto and Mark Hogan uh from Iona Prep.

Uh I just like to ask uh Brother Lee to come up just make a few comments and then we'll get into the presentation.

Thank you, Tony, and thank you very much for um staying through all of this.

Um we were here a number of years ago to ask for the same variance, and I think uh in the in the convening time, a lot of changes have taken place on our campus, not necessarily in our in our neighborhood, but I think we've done an awful lot to um preserve the uh privacy of our our neighbors.

Uh we've done an awful lot to uh mitigate the uh the noise.

Uh there's not much, I'm sorry, there's not much that we can do about noise at football games.

You know, those things happened.

Uh and uh I think we've tried to be very, very good neighbors over the the ensuing years.

So we're hoping that our presentation to the board uh will be received positively, and we hope that we can answer any questions that our our neighbors uh might have so uh the Islander Prep campus, as you all all know, is located at 255 will not uh Iona Prep has been in existence for over 100 years and has been at this campus for well over 50 years, I think since 1967.

The premises is uh classified in an R120 residential district, and it consists of a 26-acre parcel, which is improved with the school, athletic fields related parking and other amenities.

While we have an overall project where we're seeking to provide improvements to the athletic field, include some bleachers as well as some additional amenities, relocate concessions, which are presently uh in the parking lot right now, uh, provide concessions in in a in a building with bathrooms and replacement of uh the turf and the track surface.

Um the reason we're here for you this evening, and I agree with you, Chair.

Isaac, I was gonna ask for a seven-inning stretch as well, but I thought my leg fell asleep now, but I'm feeling your pain.

Um what we're here before this board is a single variance, and that's for the light poles that uh we're proposing at the premises.

Uh currently, right now we are we utilize uh temporary lighting, if you will.

Uh it's wheeled in, it utilizes diesel generators.

There's 20 of them.

They're approximately 25 feet tall.

I think what's uh particularly probative is if you take a look at exhibit D in our submission.

Um this is what's currently utilized right now, and you can see the glare from these uh 25-foot light poles that are utilized on the property right now.

Uh on the lower picture, you can see the diesel generators that are utilized to operate them.

Uh and effectively, if you do the math, uh the 25 foot-tall light poles that we utilize right now, 20 of them comprise of approximately 500 feet uh of elevation across them.

We're proposing to replace the uh these light poles that uh have light spillage that have a significant glare, which you saw from the pictures.

They're LED lights, they're not professional uh design.

Uh they utilize very noisy diesel 20 noisy diesel generators and replace them with only four light poles.

And they're consistent with light poles that are used at most fields.

Uh if you take a look at exhibit E in our submission, um this is NeuroShell High School.

Um you can see the residences in the in the background.

You can see uh you so you can see the height of the light poles that uh exist at uh uh at Nourish Hell High School.

When you flip the page, you can see again uh the size of them compared to you know some folks that are walking around the periphery of the of the field there.

And we're proposing, and that's effectively the industry standard.

Uh I'm gonna have Mr.

Suda walk you through that in a moment, but effectively we're proposing to replace 20 poles right now that have a significant glare that are pointed directly, you know, at the periphery, and we're proposing to replace them with uh four light poles that are going to be professionally designed to limit the light spillage, they'll comply with the foot candles that are required by code, which is I think 0.05 feet at the perimeter, and they're gonna be between 0.00 and 0.02 foot candles at the property line.

Uh it's gonna help us to directionally focus the light onto the field.

It's gonna limit the light spillage, it's gonna limit the glare, and it's gonna provide an overall better experience uh at the field.

Uh with that, I'm just gonna turn uh the mic over to Mr.

Suda.

Good evening.

My name is Sunet Suda.

I'm with Populous Um Architects.

Uh we're located in New York.

Uh, I believe it's 26th Street.

Um I'll walk you through the plans really quickly and some of the photographs that we have of the site.

Um this is the campus itself.

Uh to the left, you have Wilmot Road.

Uh this is orientated so that north is generally up.

Um this is a detailed survey of the field in its existing condition.

Um and these are some photographs that we have of the existing field.

Uh, but more importantly, on the second page, uh I went out and took photographs along Wilmot Road as well as Stratton Road to show you some of the mature trees that were asked in the last submission a number of years ago when uh there were some uh requests to add field lighting to the uh to the athletic field.

Um a lot of these trees are matured and have created now uh a visual screen, as you can see, is very hard to look into the campus.

Um this is a quick rendering.

Um you can see the four light poles um along the field.

And this is the site plan.

I guess there's those.

So there are red dots on the site plan.

Oh, we can zoom.

Um you've got the the four poles on either side of the of the field.

And then what I really want to get to is at the end of the at the end of this is the lighting calculations that we've had Moscow prepare for us.

Muscow is the manufacturer of the lights and the light poles.

They are the same manufacturer that provided the light poles at Universal High School as well as the athletic fields at City Field at City Park.

What is key to this?

I think if I zoom into this, is they've given us the light levels in foot candles of what we expect along the property line.

And as you see in this drawing, the highest we get to is at 0.03.

There is a 0.04 here.

But along the south property line, it's mainly zeros.

And as you get further away, that's also zeros.

But 0.04 is the largest number that you see here.

And then we do have.

Let me see if I can get out of this again.

There we go.

And then these are photographs of the actual light poles.

These are the fixtures of the light poles.

And then are the lights.

And then these are the poles themselves that actually show the lights.

And then they will be light primarily illuminating the athletic field.

Because we're not expecting any track athletic activities in the evenings.

They do have practice in the evenings.

So they have been able to direct the lights much better.

And they have a much better controlling.

So some of these, I believe all of them have a dimming capacity too, so that in practices they're able to lower the lights for what they need there versus an actual match where they're filming and they're and they need the lights.

I'm sorry to interrupt.

So there is plans.

Foot candles.

Okay.

Yeah, because our values was thermal.

Yeah, that's inflation.

I'm sorry.

Yes.

So it really comes from the ordinance.

But foot candles is a measure of how bright light is on a surface.

It's a measured thing.

To give an example, in an emergency egress situation, if you have to get out of the building, your emergency all your exit lighting has to meet at least one foot candle.

So they have enough sufficient light to be able to see at least where you're going in some way to get through an exit door.

At the property line, is the is the measurable allowance.

It's still over your top card.

Correct.

Correct.

And are you still over there?

Yes.

Yes.

And you're meeting that.

We're meeting that.

The worst, the worst case is at one point at down here at 0.04.

Along the property line on the south is zeros.

There are some point ones.

Point zero one.

Sorry, point zero ones.

Apologize for that.

But along the stadium, uh you have.

And then by the time you're this location, it goes out the zeros.

Suddy, can you just go to the next sheet?

Yeah, uh, yeah, one more.

And I'm just asking if we can just go to the next sheet because when you see this uh this one, this diagram here, you can see again what the focused and directional lighting can do, so that the light is primarily focused at the field, which limits the light spillage.

Uh, it's certainly hard to um understand how bright that light could be or is looking at this plan, which is which is lovely, but you know, showing us the little eight by ten color picture, it would be swell if we could see, you know, um oh I don't know, um the giant stadium or you know, Wrigley Field or something just by way of comparison, you know, ours is not that bright, ours is as bright as this, you know, something that we can really um uh understand.

So we don't have that right now, and again, these lights don't exist right now.

Um we can certainly take a look to see uh what models are utilized at uh either uh the city park or Nourishal High School to see if they're comparable.

Um and we can certainly provide that.

Uh again, the the code only permits light stanchions of 10 feet in a residential district.

Obviously, it's impossible for us to comply on that right now.

We're utilizing 25 foot lights that are temporary, they're not you know regulated because they are temporary, they're wheeled in.

Um, and we need 20 in order to illuminate the field.

Um to comply with 10 feet, I I don't even think that 10 feet, you know, more at 10 feet double would be reach the middle of the field that would create safety hazard conditions.

Um button probably so much.

Is Paul there?

Paul?

Yes, so along the lines of like what we were asking before with the drainage, at what point in their process do they have to submit the specs on the lights themselves to make sure that they can fly.

They're in here.

I know they're I know they're in there, but but as I as I understand from my as I understand from my colleagues, she's concerned about whether that's really what they're gonna end up being.

And I'm just wondering if that is part of the submission for the permit that you approve the actual lights that are going in.

I'm just guessing that that's what all these people are sitting here for.

So we do, but preemptively, they actually provided us with a photo.

We would answer that for a that's what we just had that up.

And that was the numbers that we just saw.

And assuming we're we're we got through the zoning board, the board of board of appeals on zoning, and everyone's different.

Uh we have to go back to the planning board.

We were at the planning board last week.

Uh they did provide a unanimous uh recommendation of approval to your board.

Um obviously there's more to the application that the planning board is going to be looking at than just the lights.

Uh but they did comment on the lighting, they wanted to make sure that it was shielded and directional.

So we walked them through that, but again, we will go through that with them again.

And you said these are the same lights that are at the high school right now?

Correct.

The high school and city and city parks.

In every respect, or um, I can find out from Moscow if it's the exact model.

Uh they don't change their models that often, but it's the same thing.

In terms of foot candles, it's the same thing.

In terms of output, yes.

Okay.

The location of their light post relative to the field is different.

But I as I understand it, the high school or any of the public schools don't have to come before us because they're schools.

You have to stand here because you're a private school and private property.

So theoretically, because they're bound by our code, this may actually be better in terms of the colour.

And the technology could have got it.

They don't have to follow the same regulation because we don't issue any extra.

Right.

So Carla would permits are issued by the department of state.

Well, I was saying because of that, because we're because they are bound by the code and have to comply with the foot candle levels.

This this project may then theoretically have less of an impact than those other facilities in the community.

It just feels like it's hard.

I mean, planning board is the lead agency on this.

No, we are.

I mean, it's it's very hard to um vote on a height of a lot.

I mean, it's different.

You can vote on the height of let's say a wall, just as an example, um, but to vote on the height of a light that you don't know how bright or should excuse me, possibly offensive that is.

Correct.

You know, that's the one.

Again, that's why we have the numbers are.

No, I understand I can't.

Okay, so we so Mr.

Bach, do you understand what I'm doing?

I do.

If I don't know if any of the folks that are sitting here have to be.

So you can't speak in the seats.

Sir, excuse me.

Please.

I don't know if any of the folks that are sitting here that have these concerns have ever been to City Park at night.

On near Richel.

Or you've been to the high school for a night game.

Because if you're standing out there on the street, beyond where those light poles are, there's very little light out there on the street.

Not to say there's no light, but it's not it's it's there's very bad struggle.

There are directional.

They have shields built into them.

Um such high tech, they can operate that entire system from their phone.

And groundscape would operate it from the phone.

And the technology gets better, uh, obviously with newer models and the lighting and the shielding.

And if you haven't seen Mark, they're probably a decade old.

So the newer ones, they're only gonna be more efficient, better shielding.

And and Mr.

Suda looked at the lower heights, so I'd just like him to speak to that.

Yeah, so for the heights, the client had asked us, knowing that this was going to be an issue on this and the zoning and such.

So we looked at 70 foot, we looked at 60 foot, and we had uh Musco run calculations for us.

What we actually found out was because if you lower it, they have to spread it out further outwards, and so the light levels went up on the property at the property line.

So their their response back to us was 90% of the installations they do is at 80 feet.

It's it's the right spot, it's the sweet spot for where it works, and so that's what they do.

That's right.

And simple questions push how do you how do you have to use uh 10 foot against 80, which is so many feet, which is substantial analysis of the five criteria that we have.

How do we how do you mount my question?

I I really don't know how to answer that question.

We had this application come once before, and now we've had it again, and no one has come for this type of variance.

We don't file permits at City Park.

Well the light hole.

That's a not a residential issue.

So Mr.

I think it's recreational open space.

Yeah, this is so it doesn't have the same criteria, but the high school is surrounded by all residential properties.

And I don't I respectfully submit a lot of complaints about a lot of things.

No one has called me about the money and understood, but we gotta have some measure or guidance to go by to make sure that we, you know, with the yes, I went I look, I don't think we're about to get some.

We can turn the lights on, turn them off.

They're not gonna be the same exact make it model that these folks are buying because they're buying a newer car if I and they're gonna be less intrusive than what's there now, which is old temporary.

You were gonna answer.

Yes, thank you.

So Mr.

It's an excellent question.

Yeah, I'd answer first that I don't believe that this zoning ordinance, uh 331 15A, which talks about this height limitation in residential districts was geared towards this type of an application.

I think and and if you notice and you take a look at the language of that section of the code, it is it accepts out street lights.

So if you have lights and light stanchions on a street, it's accepted from the application of that code.

Obviously, you need higher lights on a street to eliminate the street to make it safe.

I anticipate that when that code was enforced, it didn't say, oh, we're gonna have multiple football fields in in residential neighborhoods across the city.

So I don't think it was really intended for that purpose.

That being said, when you take a look at that specific criteria, that five that one of the five factors, which is an overall balancing analysis, and you look at the case law.

The case law talks about the totality of the circumstances.

So in this particular instance, if we went lower, it's gonna create more of an impact, which impacts one of the other criteria you looked at, which is impacts on the environment, which impacts another criteria, impacts on the surrounding community.

So this is the industry standard.

This is what's exists at the park, which is exists at the high school, and which is the minimum that we can do in order to cover the field, eliminate this the light spillage, comply with the foot candles at the property line, illuminate the field properly so that we can have an appropriate football game with the risk of little risk of injury, you know, from lack of lighting, eliminate the diesel generators which produce noise and impacts to the surrounding community neighborhood, 20 diesel generators when they're being utilized.

So overall, we respectfully submit that this is the appropriate application that's before you.

And when you take a look at that overall balancing analysis, the benefit to the applicant when it's weighed against the detriment of the health safety and welfare of the surrounding community, that's the appropriate analysis, and the five factors help guide you in that regard when you look at the totality of the circumstances.

I think that's very helpful.

Well, can I say a question?

Um back to the foot candles in the spillage that we see on our diagram here.

Should this ultimately get uh should it get installed ultimately?

Yeah, um you require a an as-built photometric plan.

Absolutely, as part of the in order to see you up so you would verify these those numbers, yes, these foot candle numbers and if they to comply.

If they had to get up on that stanchion and tweak those lights and adjust them and turn them and and downward angle them even more, or dim them as necessary on yes, right.

Okay, can we have some audience people talk for?

Stay in this room for hours and hours.

Yes.

All right, who would like to speak on this application?

I need you to go.

Yeah.

Good evening.

My name is Hank Nurris, and I live at two Northwood Circle in close proximity to Iona and its football field.

I want to begin by saying that my family truly values having Iowa as part of our community.

We appreciate the energy and vibrancy it brings, and we want to continue being good neighbors.

We understand that the school's athletic programs are important to students, families, and alumni.

That said, I'm here tonight because I have concerns related to potential variants for the proposed construction of bleachers and other structures, the 80-foot lighting poles, and the creation of additional parking spaces, all of which were mentioned in the in the agenda today.

These changes represent a significant intensification of use, and they raise legitimate questions about the impact on the surrounding residential area.

Our primary concerns are the potential for increased noise, glare from the tall stadium lights, and the general disruption that can accompany accompany large events.

As a family with young children, we are especially mindful of how these factors could affect our daily routines and the overall enjoyment of our home.

We ask that if the variance is granted, the board put in place reasonable and enforceable conditions to protect neighboring residents.

Specifically, limits on the number of night games or evening events held under the new lighting each season, clear ending times for events to ensure noise and lighting are reduced at a consistent hour, lighting controls such as shielding, dimming, and shutoff requirements to minimize glare beyond the Cadium grounds, traffic and parking management plans to reduce congestion and protect residential streets from overflow parking, and minimizing visual impact on the residential quality of the neighborhood by maintaining setback requirements and height restrictions.

These types of conditions are commonly adopted in similar situations, and they provide an important balance between allowing the school to grow and maintain the quality of life for nearby residents.

We want to support the school, and we're confident there is a path forward that respects both the needs of the students and the rights of the neighborhood.

I appreciate your attention and concerns of your work and ensuring that any approval includes thoughtful, reasonable safeguards.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that's the real question.

783 bleacher seats.

Where is the parking going to come from?

That's 300 to 400 cars.

They haven't even discussed any of these things.

What about the shed?

What about the cooking?

What about the press box?

These are all part of their application, which they just have seemed to ignore.

They like the lighting, because that's probably an easy thing to deal with.

There is really no street parking around.

The only street parking is uh adjacent is on Van Eck and Regal.

And that maybe would hold 50 cars.

There was a game over the Thanksgiving weekend, cars parked on both sides.

You couldn't get through.

People were walking in the middle of the street, very dangerous.

Um this has to be addressed.

If they want to expand with bleachers of 783 seats, they have to do it on their own property.

They must find parking and facilities to do it on their own property.

They have next to it, Iona prep the grade school.

Uh there's lots of properties, lots of acreage, and they have seemed to just ignore this.

They they couldn't have more than probably a hundred parking spaces currently on the campus.

And there is no place to park the cars.

It's going to be a disaster.

Thank you.

Sir, I just want to make sure that you're you're and everybody here is aware.

The only variance that is before us, and the only decision we're being asked to make is with respect to the variance on the height of the light posts.

That's not what that's not what the application said that Sir Sir L let me finish, please.

We have one variance request before us.

All of your concerns are valid, and I'm sure they'll be addressed, but there are other points in the process where all of those issues will have to be addressed, but we're only being asked to grant a variance with respect to the height of light poles.

Why was the the why was it on the application that they said they were asking for approval of 783?

The application and what you see on the agenda has a summary of the project, which is where that's referenced, and below it, then it states the actual application that's the variance that's being sought.

So I we've heard everything you said, and more importantly, they've heard what you've said, and the bill and the city officials are here, but I just want to make sure everyone's clear that that's the only thing that we're being asked about this evening that we have any jurisdiction over.

Yes, they they're gonna and and they can explain it to you better than I can, but they have to return to the planning board, which is where all of those concerns can be voiced, and they'll have to address them.

So thank you.

It says that the lights are gonna be 80 feet.

He told us what the lights are gonna be.

But Mrs.

Clapper says he's not in show us, and I have a feeling that the lights are gonna go into the street and to go into the stratton and there's Walmart.

If they're 80 feet, there's a big difference between a 30-foot height and the and the machines that they have now, which they give a lot of light.

So I'm afraid of that 80-foot light that's in here that's in the what they're suggesting.

So uh I'm very nervous about that because I think that's gonna create, and I don't like the idea of this the food and all this, because we have found over time food on our houses on our lawns, and the other day the cars were parked this way, but it was a two-way street, and a police car had to come by to check because the people who are living on the block are getting very upset because like you said, they're parking on our street vanick and they're parking on Regal.

The school should have enough parking for all of its students so they don't have to come here.

Thank you.

Okay, I want to give everybody an opportunity to speak, and you will again.

I'm just gonna ask you to please keep your comments to the issues that are before this board, otherwise we're never getting out of here.

Please.

And and also please don't repeat anything that anybody else has said.

And I'm no, I I do appreciate your time, and I understand it's late, but this is something that this community.

I'm sorry, Antoinette Nista, 10 Van Eck Drive.

I'm not trying to minimize any of this.

I just want to keep us focused on the task.

I understand.

I understand, and I kind of I have to I'm like my neighbors, I feel duped because it has all of this here listed.

And we have this real quick.

We have to explain the whole application when we're putting it in the newspaper and sending it to the neighbor.

So they know the whole project, but they're only here for the variance for the light.

But if we were just to put you wouldn't know about the but does that mean that all the other things are a go?

No, no.

Okay.

All of those things have to go.

Well, right, but the the project itself will go before the planning board.

And you it's a public meeting, and you all will have the opportunity to attend that.

Okay.

Um, so I I just wanted to say, and I with all due respect, I do not think that Iona Prep has been a good neighbor.

Okay, they have not ever addressed anything that we have brought to their attention.

So I just want to state that to Iona Prep.

All right, get your story straight.

You are not being a good neighbor.

Okay, you are not being a good neighbor to our community.

You would have spoken to us before December 2nd, 2025.

Speaking from past experience, this is not going to be a good thing.

This is not adding to our community.

It will have an adverse effect on our neighborhood.

We've already seen the negative impact, like my neighbor said on Saturday, it was ridiculous.

It was very difficult to pull out of our driveway.

I'm right on the corner of right being across the street from my own prep.

And I I this I know you have no control over it, they have no control over it.

But I have people smoking pot on my on my property.

And this is what's going on.

And I don't want to have this.

I don't pay all of these taxes to have this nonsense going on.

And it is only going to get worse.

And they need to hear this.

And I guess you're hearing it now because you never came to address us.

Twenty-five parking spaces will not be sufficient for 738 things.

And I understand that that's not up on the table right now, but I I had it in my notes and I have my three minutes.

The lights are gonna be eight times higher than code, unless you're planting sequoias or or um uh what are the other ones?

Thank you, Redwoods.

That's not gonna cover the lights.

Thank you.

This is a self-created hardship.

They are bringing this on themselves.

Visitors to these events are using our neighborhood as the parking lot, and we cannot have this going on.

So I beg of you to please listen to the taxpayers and don't let this go through.

Thank you.

Thank you.

No comments about the parking.

Just the lights.

Please, we've heard.

My name is Joseph Nist.

I live at 10 Van Neck Drive.

My property is located within 150 feet of the property line of Iona Prep, and I am currently opposed to installation of any lights at Iona Prep.

Um, I understand that we've already heard about parking, but I would like to approach it from a particular point of view.

The light pollution, I understand could potentially be minimized.

What I'm concerned about, and I'd like the board to consider, is the lack of lighting in the surrounding area, because the lights will permit night events at Iona Prep.

Recently, a performing arts center was installed at Iona Prep, and a curb cut was put on Stratton Road, which gives entrance and exit to both vehicles and pedestrians by crossing Stratton Road.

Students have been using this our Van Neck Drive as parking area.

I have noticed an increase in the number of parking.

And I know we're not supposed to address parking, so I'll try to try to keep this brief.

If Iona Prep installs these lights, visitors to Iona Prep are put at safe at safety risk.

They're crossing Stratton Road at night where there's no crosswalk because they're coming out of that curb cut entrance to Iona Prep, which was allowed because of the performing arts center.

If we do not have a plan in place to address how people access Iona Prep from off-campus parking, why are the lights even being considered?

Because there's no easy access point to the prep.

People parked on Lakeshore across from Wilmont Road.

They're crossing Wilmot Road.

There's no crosswalk there either.

Again, at night, the issue is compounded to the safety to the people visiting the prep.

I contacted Iona Prep directly.

I spoke to the headmaster and the principal when we had students parking there.

And they told me my responsibility was to contact the city.

We had to have parking, no parking line, uh no parking signs installed.

They would not hear my issue about potentially putting a monitor there to monitor students entering.

That was for the safety of the students as well.

So I thank the board for their time and proper consideration of our residents' concerns.

Thank you.

And though I don't have anything to address about the lighting, I do want to address how responsive when I've had issues with Iona Prep that the president has been a number of years ago.

Foul balls were coming into my driveway.

Shattered the window of my car.

So on a Sunday, I emailed the president, Brother Leto, on a Sunday, thinking this will get into his queue, and sometime during the week he'll get back to me.

Within two hours, on a Sunday, he got back to me via email.

And within a week, proper netting was over uh hung uh preventing the problem that was occurring.

So I have found the school, and I've been living there for 20 years now.

I have found it to be very responsive and very attentive to even the the uh uh the cleanliness of Stratton Road at least two to three times a week.

At least two to three times a week.

There is an Iona employee walking up and down Stratton Road with a handpick cleaning up garbage that people do throw from it's a heavy traveled road.

It's very heavy traveled, and I think there should be some police there to to monitor uh the racing that goes on there.

But Iona prep has an employee dedicated cleaning up that road two to three times a week, and I've even witnessed the president of the school when he has takes his daily walk up to the lower school uh every morning.

I've even witnessed him inspecting, and on occasion I had watched him pick up uh some garbage.

Not on Iona property, but um what about the tall lights, sir?

Uh well, I'm just gonna well the whole point was I want to get to how talking about the response from this, and I'm sure that if there's going to be a planning board meeting, that the school will be as resumpted.

So this was to address my experience as a 20-year neighbor and how they respond when contacted.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Alonzo Rapasada.

I live at 117 Seat and Drive.

Um, I would just like to talk about the lights.

Thank you.

So I think the plan to only install four lights that are of superior technology that shine down on the field with I don't know anything about candle footing, but if they're gonna be able to dim them and make them brighter or lower, depending on the game and the time of the game, I think that's a good thing.

I think what they have now uh is not ideal, but even those lights now to me don't really illuminate the neighborhood.

So anything that's superior to those lights, I think will be beneficial.

And I don't really feel the debate about the lighting so much because as I don't know your name, sir, but as Paul said, If the high school does have the lighting similar and City Park does have the lighting similar, why shouldn't Iona have the same opportunity to provide for those students and the kids in the community that City Park and the high school does?

So if they're gonna make if they're gonna put only four four poles up and there are two industry standards and they're better, code-wise, they're better than what the high school and city park have now.

I don't really see a problem with it.

I I would support the project because just in regards to the lights, I think they've done the due diligence, and I support the project.

Thank you.

So we're talking about lights, huh?

What's your name star?

Stephen Lapel, uh 222 seat and drive.

Um I almost want to uh echo the point of uh I was here last time when they submitted lights a couple years ago.

Um I think you guys did a much better job this time than that than you.

So please address the board not the I think they did a very better job this time than last time.

Um I wish this would go back on a little bit.

Uh I do know that they did make improvements uh on the uh foliage and uh the landscaping for that.

Um I think that was not here is a continued maintain on the rock wall and the fence on the seating drive side uh of things to continue the success of the blockage of the current lights uh and and uh curious to see how that would look in a quantitative state of what a loom or one foot candle is.

Now I would guess that it is equal to in a uh a uh uh a movie theater exit or during uh uh when they turn the lights on, it would be the floor lighting underneath, you know, very there or in a plane during a dark time.

Not that I know this for a fact, but it'd be close to that.

Um I do think that a concern of mine with kids is sound like the music man here, what the lights is going to bring to the community.

Uh uh, and there are some issues that is not the school's complete fault.

It's not no, it's not the school's fault at all, it is the patrons that seem to have the disrespect for the neighborhood, not the school.

Um but if they want the responsibility to have these variances, then I think a plan needs to be put forth to the community as far as limits on when the lights go on and off.

Um, because right now there are gates that are clearly red layered gates that don't go on and off that we can definitely see from our uh our bedrooms and our windows.

Uh and that might increase that might increase them to bring more litter, we'll say um, and parking is not the problem.

Uh that's about it.

Just gonna remind everyone again.

Please don't restate what's already been said.

New information, new comments, please.

Sure, just slice.

Um just light.

Yeah.

My name is Jean-Claude Harbagabo.

I live in 14 Northwood Circle, uh, which is uh on the south side of the chart they had.

Uh my backyard faces the entrance of Iona Prep, uh, and also the lights of the football field when the football games are on.

Um the lights that they currently have.

I don't have an issue with those lights today.

Sorry, my apologies.

Um the current lights at their height and the foliage that they have on the fence.

Um, there's still some light pollution in our backyard and our house, our kids' bedroom sort of windows are to the back of that backyard and face the lights.

Um, at the current height of the foliage and the the light that they're currently use, uh, if they're temporary, uh, I did not know that.

Uh I've never heard the generators uh that they spoke of.

Um, so there's no uh at least in my experience, no issue with the nose, and obviously it's a football game.

Um there's gonna be noise, that's not an issue.

Um the current lights that they have to me, you know, are tolerable.

Uh, 80-foot sort of, you know, four light beams, you know, that are there permanently.

I don't know what that looks like.

I can't tell from the charts that they have on the on the on the screen with the with the green sort of uh colors on them.

I don't know what that looks like, but 80 foot you can't miss when you go in your backyard.

Um and I don't know what that light pollution would look like based on what's presented here.

Um I just want to just highlight that the current lights that they have, however temporary they are, um, they work.

Uh I've not heard a complaint about the current light situation uh that from the community of the people who spoke today.

Uh so that currently works and is fine.

80 foot light beams, uh I just there's no way that that's gonna be, at least in my view, something that you miss in your backyard or uh across, you know, you know, uh the the the backyard when the games are on.

The other point I want to just ask, I uh you know, we we've we didn't really hear more about when those lights are gonna be on, how often they're gonna be on.

I know there's mention of football games and practice.

It's not clear if they're on five days a week, you know, what time they're gonna be off, uh, how often they're used.

Um, maybe there are different variances of of the lights that they're using in terms of how you know strong they are or whatnot, but that's not clear to me that they're just gonna be there for game night.

Um my concern is really just what we have currently, I I don't have an issue with, uh, and I'm okay because of the defense and the foliage that's covering most of that light pollution.

At 80 feet, it's hard to really understand what that's gonna look like.

Um that's one of your concern I want to just raise.

Thank you.

I just want to say something.

Maybe the same 11 Mount Joy Place.

So uh, state your name and address for the record.

I just did.

I didn't hear you, I'm sorry.

Miriam, the same 11 Mount Joy Place.

Um I noticed how we talked about the high school lights is like it's it's uh standard and um it's okay, but what I want to remind us is that the high school has the option of using city park, and City Park is less residential because of some of these issues, the light bothering the neighborhood, the the um activity at night.

So Neuroshall High School lots of times when they can will go to City City Park instead of using their field.

We've got to keep that in mind in their practice.

So he brought up a good point.

The practices are on the practice field, which faces the lake, less so the home.

So we talk about oh, this is industry standard, and and and this is what the high school is doing, and you've gotten comfort from that.

But at Nurashaw High School, we have options and they use it.

Um the other thing is I thought about is why not, you know, because you're going from 10 feet or 25 feet.

I don't know if they can pilot it to show what it would actually be if that's something that they're able to do.

Um, because that would probably give you a better sense.

You go to 50 feet or 60 feet, do you have to go to 80 feet, even though it's industry standard, is it the right for that particular area?

So that's what I wanted to share.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

State your name and address for the record.

My name is Raymond Goodletters at 11 Caligany Avenue near a shell.

I didn't go to Iana College, I went to bless the segment.

Hate a parochial school, just let you know.

But my point is this they're gonna put up lights.

I want everybody in the stand.

When you put up lights, any type of lighting, like Paul Vacus said, it's going to point into the field.

His point is he's going to see 80 foot lights in his backyard.

They can create lights, because I've seen them that can fold down after the game.

So you don't have to see that in your backyard.

Any other concerns is when the lights, like he said, are pointing at the field, you're not gonna get the glare in your yard anymore at all.

Because I've seen that also.

I work construction.

When you do construction around neighborhoods, putting up buildings, picking up things at night with the trucks, whatever it is, of course they don't want lights.

We can't do construction.

Sorry, we can't do construction in Neuroshell at nighttime, everything has to be done at the daytime.

But as far as having a game at a high school, yes, there's going to be noise, there's going to be things going on, but at night you do need those lights.

Not just because it lights up the field and make it look pretty.

Because if you played football, you can get hurt if you cannot see.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think maybe it's time to hit any applicants again.

So I'm gonna try to keep it to the lights.

Um, but but I would like just to address from a procedural standpoint uh for the benefit of the neighbors.

Umce we're done with the zoning board, we do have to go to the planning board.

There, the balance of the application, the majority of the comments and the majority of the project that you see in the public notice letter that you've all received.

That is all the jurisdiction of the planning board.

So when we go to the planning board, that'll be opportunity to be heard on that.

It will be publicly noticed.

You'll get another, there'll be another signposting that'll be published in the paper again, and you will get another public notice in your mail advising you when we go back to the planning board.

And that's when all of those comments will be addressed.

I know there were comments about parking and comments about other things.

That is the time for that.

So it has jurisdiction, not us.

Yeah.

Um a lot of the comments uh we're talking about uh well one of one of the first comments that was made was with regard to the intensification of the use.

I would like to say that there is no intensification of the use.

What's happening right now uh that the prep is gonna happen tomorrow.

It's the same number of games, the same number of people.

This is not intended to attract more people to the games.

The parking is going to be the same.

We'll address those issues before the planning board, but we are not adding new games, we're not adding new practices, it's gonna be the same practices and the same games for all the sports that you currently exist right now.

Um the last gentleman that spoke, I think hit the nail on the hood.

Something that I talked about a few times.

The lights are designed to focus down onto the field, so it's gonna limit the spillage.

I talked about that a few times.

I'm not gonna go through it again in great detail.

Um can you address how often the lights will be on?

So it's gonna be on the way it's usually right now.

So when there's soccer games, uh when there's practices at this time of year, um, I always tell my wife that when I come to zoning board meal uh zoning boards or planning boards uh at this time of year it's really depressing because everybody's going home at the end of the day, and my day's just getting started because this the the light.

So uh unfortunately, you know, there will be the light being utilized more at this time of the year as opposed to in in September or later in the spring.

So it will be used for practice the way it's utilized right now.

It's going to be utilized for the games, but there is going to be no change.

Handful of football games, and I think about 12 or so soccer games.

The big boss is gonna see my apologies, Tony.

Currently, um the temporary lights when it gets started are off at 8 o'clock Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday.

Uh, if we have a game, the game starts at 7.

Hopefully, it's over by 9:30.

Lights are off at at 10.

So that's that's what we're envisioning.

Um Saturday, maybe eight o'clock at night, uh, because of a soccer game.

Uh Sunday, they won't be on for the most part.

So those are the times that uh the lights would be used.

And and we purposely will not schedule um major major games, uh big rivals on a Friday night.

That doesn't help the neighborhood, it doesn't help us.

So we would schedule those teams that are that are not going to bring a lot of people, and the numbers would be less on campus.

Thank you.

Um I don't know whether I'm you know driven to approve this.

Please stop talking about it.

I don't know whether I'm driven to approve this based on exhaustion and to and and just to you know end the pain.

Um but at the same time, I have to be here.

All of these people didn't have to sit here till 10 o'clock at night.

And there's part of me that thinks that they're entitled to some kind of resolution to this, having nothing to do with bleachers and food and pot, having to do with you know what kind of ambient light um do these fixtures give off, and if there would be any way, I mean, I feel I have come full circled to my initial comment to give them as much information, vi visual information, you know, some example of I don't know whether we you know take them all out on a field trip, or we go to you know send them and say, look, we're gonna come back January 6th, and in the meanwhile, go to the high school, go to City Park, and at least educate yourselves as to what Mr.

Vaca is referring to.

Um, I just think that is the considerate thing for this board to perhaps be able to do or with all with all due respect to everyone here.

I think that at least from I am not a design or construction professional, but I have heard from the expert and have seen what's been posted about what will be illuminated and where.

I'm not sure what more.

I don't I don't want to go on a field trip.

But I I don't I don't know.

I don't know what more they can possibly do other than bringing in an expert to give us information about the breadth of a light and how much is going to be projected and where, and I've seen that on the screen.

So I I'm inclined to move us to a vote unless there are specific things that you would like to address further.

I think we I think between our written materials, between the testimony that we've given you this evening, I I think it speaks for itself.

My narrative did go through the the five factors and the overall balancing analysis.

We have your submission.

And I'm purposely not going through that unless you need me to.

It does have standards with regard to the deference that you must give to educational institutions, religious institutions, and that we must be on equal footing with Nourish Hell High School, for example.

This case law to that effect as well.

Yes, thank you.

Uh and and I'm not I'm not rushing you if you have something new to point out, it's just that I do feel that we're going a bit in circles, and and and I I yeah, so I would I would ask for vote.

My own my only closing comment would be um effectively we've provided the materials, we've provided the materials you your code requires, the photometric plan.

Mr.

Vaca's office, who I've been working with for decades, you know, is you know uh very exhaustive in his review, and when we go through the building permit process and the post-approval, it we're gonna need to demonstrate that we are providing all of the materials that we provided today, and can continue and follow through on the representations we're making.

So I would ask that to close the public hearing and take favorable action on the application.

Would anyone like to make a motion here?

I would like to make a motion, but I do have one more question.

Sorry.

I just I know um I just wanted to know where I can find your statement of principal points.

I don't see it in the package.

Um so we provided uh November 6th submission is it the first way of the beginning.

Okay, it's right there.

Fantastic.

That's it.

I would like to make a motion to approve case number 37-2025 Iona preparatory school for permission for construction of the bleachers for seven hundred thirty-eight seats with press box atop bathrooms covered outdoor concession stand with cooking enclosed.

This is I'm sorry, I'm gonna pause for a moment.

Is it necessary to Jeff read that?

No, just read the entire okay.

I would like to waiver is your approval.

I would like to strike that and start over for the record.

Okay, okay.

Um I would like to make a motion to approve case number 37-2025.

Iona preparatories preparatory school for permission for various whereas the proposed height of 80-foot light posts exceeds the maximum permitted height of 10 feet in an R1-2-0 zone district at the premises of 255 Wilmot Road block 3001 lot one area variance.

As discussed the and presented by the applicant, the lighting of the field cannot be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant except what they have already per already have in place, um, which is far uh inferior to the technology that is being proposed um with a higher light pole.

Two, undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties as discussed.

This is an improvement upon what is um the temporary measures that are existing uh and with the shielding of the lights downward uh should not affect nearby properties beyond um what code requires.

Three, whether the request is substantial, although there is a big difference between a 10 foot light pole and a 80-foot light pole as discussed um and presented by the applicant, the 80-foot light pole actually has a a less substantial impact on the neighborhood given that the lights will be shielded and point downward and more focused on the field.

Four whether request will have adverse physical and environmental impacts.

Um, there has been no uh discussion of adverse physical or environmental impacts um beyond the lighting as it's been proved by the applicant that the foot candles um will be within the minimum code uh required.

And five, whether alleged difficulty is self-created.

Yes, the alleged alleged difficulty is self-created as Iona does exist in the community.

However, I do not believe that that is a reason for denial of the motion.

Second you can have it.

Thanks, sir.

Abel Rodriguez, yes, Fernando Arias.

Yes, Bob Stanziel.

Yes.

Carla Clapper.

Mark McLean.

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

Erica Eisner.

Yes.

The motion has been approved.

Thank you very much.

Can I ask everyone to quietly leave?

We still have another case on the agenda.

Um I think so.

I have what I got here.

Nobody got a pizza, nobody got any coxtails, nobody got a lot of bigger.

Can I ask everyone to quietly leave and just go down the hole if you're gonna chat?

Thank you.

Have a good night.

What would a zoning one be without showing wardrobe?

Wouldn't be a zoning door.

Yeah, I don't want to go.

Talk fast, John.

Yeah.

This is killed.

I think this is a record.

Many years ago, Jeff, we would be here until 11 o'clock at night.

You know what?

My first go round, I remember that also.

We've started seven back then.

I remember it all so much.

My first go round.

No, new show.

Years ago.

Yeah, well, it depends, but I I cut it off in 1112 cases because it's too much.

We all work full time.

Absolutely.

Yeah.

No, starting at six.

I don't understand it.

Okay.

Next case, case 38, 2025.

121 Caligny Avenue.

But I didn't know that I said it.

That's the problem.

That makes no sense.

In case we have to say problems.

Right, so we have to watch everyone.

Thank you.

No Fly.

I don't know what's going on with this.

Why these aren't showing up?

So we don't have to.

You see how they're all grayed out.

Which one?

One they just had.

It's all right.

You know what I mean?

She updated it today.

Okay.

Oh, you know, we have more.

This is an application.

Yeah.

Pretty big variance to it.

Do you think you're trying to keep going?

Okay, we're gonna go back to the meeting.

Okay, good evening, everyone.

John Woodriff.

Okay, board members please keep it down now.

Uh with with offices in New Rochelle.

And I'm here tonight with the Vito Di Mateo, and he's purchased uh 121 Caligny.

That's a street between Clinton Avenue and Clove.

And uh this is the subject property, which is in uh built in 1906.

It's 119 years old.

Uh it's in the R2 two family zone, and we plan to uh take this building down.

It's severely rotted and in bad, uh really bad shape.

Um aerial view.

We have a 40 by 122 lot, and this is our our building that will be taking down.

As you can see, there's adjacent homes, all two family residents on similar type lots.

Um we're proposing a design where we um keep the parking in the back of the house.

All of the houses on Caligny on this side, all have front porches, and everybody's parking in the rear.

We're the only house that's not doing that.

Um so the new new house we're proposing would would have that.

Um60 square feet.

The existing house that's coming down is about 268 square feet.

We're about 2% smaller, and uh we'll be removing about 50 square feet of the the existing what the existing house was.

Here's a front elevation of the house.

Um I think probably better.

This here's a uh 3D rendering of what the house would look like.

We put it between the other two houses in Photoshop, and you can see the other houses are actually a little larger in size.

We're trying to comply with the zoning as best we can.

Um we are asking for five variances.

I know that's a lot, but we are uh I'll explain those variances um and how they they are um justified.

As you can see, we're gonna have a new driveway here going to the rear yard.

We're gonna have a small front porch, which is similar to all the front porches on the property.

Um here's a uh 3D rendering.

You can see this would be the the side view, and we have our three parking spaces back here.

And um, we also have a little room for guests who could come and park in the driveway.

Very difficult to park on Caligny.

I couldn't even manage to hang the sign in front of the house.