Okay.

Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the New Shell Zoning Board of Appeals.

My name is Erica Eisner, and I'm the chair of this board.

I'm going to spare you all from reading the name tags that you see before you, but before you is members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, as well as representatives from the City of New Rochelle, Corporation Council, Department of Buildings, Department of Planning.

Anyone who wants to be heard, either in support or against an application, will have an opportunity to be heard.

You will be limited to three minutes, and you will have at least one opportunity to speak.

I cannot guarantee that you will be given an opportunity a second time.

Depends on how much time we have for the evening.

I ask that you do not repeat anything that has been stated before by a prior speaker, other than to perhaps voice your agreement with something that's been said.

Otherwise, we will be here all evening.

If the comments go too far afield from things that are properly not that are not properly before us, or we hear comments being repeated over and over again, I will give you one warning, after which time I will ask you to sit down and we'll hear the next voices to be heard.

We recognize that many of you are here to speak about issues which are very important to you and members of your community as a whole.

Um but please remember that we have a limited role, and that is only to consider the specific variances before us.

There are other boards and and bodies in within City of New Rochelle who consider other aspects of these projects, but we are only here to consider the specific variances before us.

So with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Regina to call the roll.

Sorry.

Um there is an adjourned case, case 30, 2025, 25 Morris Lane South.

If anybody's here for that, that will be heard in February.

Uh first case case tonight is 36, 2025, 1313 Weaver Street.

Applicants here.

Opposition of voices to be heard on this.

Case 38, 2025.

121 Caligny Avenue, applicants here.

Opposition of voices to be heard on this case.

Yes.

Case new cases, case 28, 2025, 93 Glenwood Avenue, applicants here.

Yes.

Opposition of voices to be heard.

Yes.

Okay.

Case 1, 2026, 153 Franklin Avenue, applicant is here.

Opposition or voices to be heard.

Case 2, 2026, 380 Beachmont Drive, applicants here.

Opposition of voices to be heard.

Case 4, 2026, 302 Union Avenue, applicants here.

Opposition or voices to be heard on that.

So the first case tonight is case 36, 2025, 1313 Weaver Street.

We do have one board member who is recusing herself.

So and we're minus a board member.

Okay.

Let the record refract that Regina is recusing herself.

We're also Rachina Clapp, sorry.

Sorry, it's been a long one, but Tuesday.

I don't even know what's up again.

We're also down one board member at the moment.

He might come in on good evening.

Um with the firm of Del Bello, Danel and Wine Garden Wise and Whitaker.

I'm the attorney for the project.

Um we also have tonight uh from Stonefield Engineering, uh, Foster Ting, as well as from Gorland Architects Alexander Gorland.

And we also have with us um the president of the synagogue, Ari Weinberger.

Um so we last appeared before your board on November 25th.

Um and at that time you opened the public hearing and there were comments that we heard from the board and from the public.

Um we really took those comments to heart and we went back and took a look at the plan.

Uh we also developed a landscaping plan, which was requested by one of the uh board members.

Um we took a look at the retaining wall more carefully and um in particular we tiered uh the section of the wall uh that was the highest point.

Um and um Ari will take you through that in in a moment.

Um but um uh notably it went down from 12 feet at the highest point to six feet at the highest point.

So we think that this has been a great improvement to the plan.

Um, and um we'll take you through that in a minute.

Um also we did provide uh renderings and sections um that um will uh show your board generally what the uh what will be the view from the um uh you know of the of the of the synagogue and of the um and of the plantings um and of the wall for the neighbors.

Okay.

Um first off, thank you again for the constructive dialogue and our last meeting.

Um it really did help us refine uh our plan and I'm sorry, Eric.

Could you state your name for the record, please?

Uh uh my name is Ari Weinberger.

I live at 26 Malvern Lane, and I serve as the president of the synagogue.

Again, just uh thank you for the uh constructive dialogue in last week and last month's meeting.

Uh we uh we definitely took it to heart and we feel we've made great improvements to the plan.

Um and before I get into it, just want to reiterate that while we believe that our synagogue and any religious institution has great benefit to a neighborhood.

We recognize that it comes with certain negative externalities.

And in putting our design together, we took very seriously and worked hard to find ways to mitigate those as best as possible.

Um with your permission, I'd actually like to start on slide five, which is the color rendering.

Um it not only shows you the plan, but it puts it in the scape of of the rest of the uh surrounding area.

So you'll see on the top Weaver Street, uh the on, and then on the left hand side, you'll see Daisy Farms, which is where the entrance to the parking lot is, and then we'll show you on the the bottom part of the property the the line that that borders the homes that are on Harlan, specifically the backyards, then the houses.

Um the what the plan shows is that we continue to have uh on this plan 77 parking spaces, but we were able to modify the plan a bit to reduce the heights of the wall.

Uh excuse me.

Uh let me actually go back.

And what you'll see on these parking spots on the side bordering Harlan is you'll have a parking spot, then a curb, then a metal railing preventing cars from going past that.

Then you will have a six-foot fence, then you have a retaining wall, and then you'll have landscaping.

Um just to give you a sense, the uh from the slide six, you'll see what we're proposing for the six-foot solid fence, uh, what we what we hope it'll look like on the top photo, and then on the bottom photo, you'll see what the proposed retaining wall would look like as well.

Um, to walk you through the retaining wall, um, I ask you to look at slide seven, which shows in color the different heights of the wall.

So starting from Daisy Farms going to the back of the synagogue, you'll see that uh the walls are in blue, that's generally just under four feet, and then a small portion of the wall goes up to six feet, um, and that portion represents roughly 15% of the total retaining wall.

And then the rest of the wall goes back to four feet, and you'll see in the bottom right corner there that we we have a tiered and staggered retaining wall.

So we'll have two four-foot walls.

Um I'd like to then just go to slide 11, which shows you the landscaping plan where we're proposing to plant uh 11 trees, um, may all evergreens, many of them in the six to eight foot height to shield the retaining wall from our neighbor.

These are all on the neighbor side of the retaining wall, and we expect with uh with these trees that um there'll be minimal view in the beginning, and then as it grows, which uh you can see on slide 10 um how how it would grow in within five years and then uh 10 years.

Um actually starting at slide eight.

Um if there are at that point, I'm I I think and I don't want to take up more of your time, uh, but I think that those represent the significant changes that have been made to the plan uh from the previous submission.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And I did also just want to point out that um we did receive an updated denial letter, which now reflects the reduced uh height of the wall.

Anyone in the audience want to speak on this case?

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

This was four minutes.

Is there any way I could get through it?

State your name and adjust for the record.

My name is David Freeman.

I'm at 363 Daisy Farms Drive.

Thank you, members of the zoning board.

I am speaking to formally oppose the variances requested by the Temple for its proposed expansion.

The project as presented fails to comply with existing New Rochelle zoning requirements and would significantly worsen existing safety traffic environment and quality of life issues for neighboring residents.

The temple simply does not have adequate space to support the expansion being proposed.

Under the Newer Shell municipal code, places of worship are required to provide one parking space for every five seats in the sanctuary.

With approximately 550 seats, the temple is required to provide 110 parking spaces.

At present, the site contains only 52 parking spaces, placing it well below zoning requirements.

Granting variances for further expansion should not be considered while the temple remains in violation of current zoning law.

The proposal includes removing the existing 30-foot tree buffers between the temple and adjacent residence properties in order to expand the parking lot.

This buffer is critical for both visual and auditory privacy, as its removal would likely create new zoning violations.

In the R110A zones, parking lots adjacent to residential homes must meet setback and screening requirements, including a minimum 10-foot landscape buffer.

The proposed plan show vehicles parked approximately nine and a half feet from my property line, which does not meet this standard.

Additionally, zoning boards often require a 30-foot setback for concentrated outdoor activities, such as parking lots near residences to ensure adequate privacy.

The temple's plan to relocate its main entrance to Harlan Drive would create a highly concentrated activity area directly adjacent to homes, further violating the intent of these protections.

At the most recent zoning board meeting, the Temple stated that relocating the main entrance to Harlan Drive was being done for safety.

However, over the past 40 years, the Temple has never installed privacy fencing, evergreen screening, or other security measures along this boundary.

Moreover, the Temple's own website states, and I quote, by relocating the main entrance, we will enhance the overall flow and accessibility of our campus, reducing congestion and noise near the sanctuary.

There is no mention of safety.

Instead, the plan shift congestion and noise directly onto a residential street in direct contradiction of zoning board's responsibilities to ensure that houses of worship minimize impact on surrounding homes.

The zoning board should require the temple to maintain the existing 30-foot buffer to protect the neighboring residents' visual and auditory privacy.

The proposal also includes replacing the current parking area with a porous parking lot, which reportedly would not use the existing drain system due to the significant slope of the temple's property.

The current system consisting of a non-porous lot, a drainage system, and 34 30-foot tree buffers play a critical role in preventing flooding of the homes below.

Many years ago, neighboring homes were flooded as a direct result of conditions on the temple's property.

It was the City of New Rochelle that required the installation of the current draining system and the non-porous lot to connect to correct this problem.

Removing any of those components of this system will introduce a risk of renewed flooding and property debt.

Sorry, if you could wrap up, please.

Okay.

Well, for the reasons outlined above, noncompliance with parking requirements, removal of required buffers, increased safety hazards, uh, these are variances shouldn't be approved.

I mean, I'll submit this if you want.

Thank you.

Yes.

Uh I mean, uh a minute would have made a big difference, right?

We have to follow the rules.

Okay.

So I I heard four concerns from this gentleman.

I heard four concerns from this gentleman.

The entrance location, the parking, the distance of the parking from the property line, the number of parking spaces overall, and the drainage.

I know you spoke a lot about this at the last meeting.

I would appreciate if you would um again speak to those issues.

So currently the building has two entrances, one facing Daisy Farms, one facing Harlan.

We will continue to have two entrances, one facing Harlan, one facing Daisy Farms.

The new entrance which would facilitate a lobby is facing Harlan.

However, as a practical matter on any Saturday morning, particularly where the strollers are parked, you have a large crowd there, so I don't see a significant difference.

Is that location that's facing because I saw that entrance when I visited the site that's facing Daisy Farms?

Is that location changing?

That entrance is changing.

It is changing a bit, yes.

Okay, but that is not a variance that is being um sought by by you for the board.

So as far as drainage, um our current system is inadequate.

Um our stormwater management system relies a lot on hope and prayer, to be honest.

Um with our new store uh stormwater management system, and I will ask uh Foster to come up and just address a bit of it.

Um we now will have um stormwater basins, which will reduce the flow of the water into the sewer system.

Uh on heavy rains, uh, a certain part of Harlan does flood.

I can't tell you where all that water is coming from, but I would guess that we help contribute to that.

And so that would obviously dramatically reduce the amount of water going into the sewer system and the flow rate of that with those stormwater basins.

We are installing porous pavement at the lowest point of the property in order to comply and not ask you for an additional variance.

Um it's obviously an additional expense as it's more expensive, but we we wanted to put our best foot forward and show we are willing to work with the city to reduce the number of variances required.

As I understand, porous pavement and um is a very effective uh use in stormwater management.

And while we are taking down some trees, many of which are dead, many of which are weeds uh and vines.

As I mentioned, we are planting 115 trees on the side facing Harlan.

I would have to think that that's a significant amount of planting that would help soak up a lot of that water.

Um again, with the six-foot privacy fence, then the retaining wall, then the landscaping, I would think there would be significant buffering and privacy that would be provided to our neighbors.

Currently, if I stand on the property, I can look into the neighbors' homes.

Um what we have there is just not very private.

And with your permission, I'd just like to ask Foster to perhaps answer any questions you may have on stormwater.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Foster Tang, the engineer for the project from Stonefield Engineering and Design.

Uh, addresses 584 Broadway Suite 310 New York, New York.

Just pull up the site plan.

So you under um existing conditions, the uh the the system now, the stormwater system, um, there's not like a whole lot in terms of stormwater retention.

Uh so we are vastly upgrading the site with this new porous pavement system.

We are complying with uh city and state stormwater requirements.

Um the porous pavement itself will be lined with an impermeable liner with uh with an under drain, so no um infiltration will occur and like you know, nothing will spill out um downstream to uh the adjacent properties to the west.

There's also we're also including a uh an emergency spillover grade.

So in the event that the porous pavement uh system does clog, um you know the water will still be retained on site by uh entering through these grates, uh which then ultimately connects to the municipal system.

So we are retaining the um while stormwater on site and it will be a drastic improvement uh compared to what's there today.

Uh in terms of the buffer, um, you know, as previously mentioned, there's not much in the ways of a landscaping buffer under existing conditions, and it is a chain link fence, so you know, as you heard, you can stand on site and then see into the um adjacent properties.

So uh we're really enhancing that.

You know, we're installing these um you know these evergreen trees that will grow that are will be installed, you know, around six to eight feet in height and can grow up to around 15 feet in height.

Uh and in addition to the six-foot solid privacy fence, um, you know, we're really creating uh a more of a buffer uh under proposed conditions than what's currently there today.

So you're gonna see an improvement from both the stormwater perspective and uh the buffer to the to the west.

Thank you.

The other two items that I asked about were um the distance of parking spaces to the property line and then the number of overall spaces.

So um the uh the with the revised site plan, we are at 77 spots, which is in compliance with the 1993 variants at the moment.

Um these plans, while it includes uh an interior refresh of the sanctuary, because not everyone's digging the purple carpets.

Um the sanctuary is not being changed.

Uh it's not being expanded in any way, shape, or form, and so we are not adding any additional seats to the sanctuary.

Um this is a question for um, I guess Paul or Kevin.

The variance for parking is not in front of the board because the variance in 1993 was already approved.

And so it's not something we're voting on.

Thank you.

Uh and I'm sorry, your second point, I apologize.

No, no problem.

Um, the distance uh the gentleman, yeah.

So we we are based on our property line 10 feet.

Um he did mention to me earlier that his fence is six feet over the line onto our property, but it it's 10 feet from the property line.

And I think it was his concern was specific to the distance of the parking spaces um from the property line, that it was less than 10 feet, but again, that's not a variance that we're voting on.

So, Kevin and Paul, that's not a variance we're voting on.

Okay, thank you.

Um just one last comment as it pertains to security.

Um obviously the landscape is constantly changing and often not improving.

Um based on you know, our security consultants, we put many things in place, but we don't advertise uh what we do and how we do it for obvious reasons.

I'm gonna jump in for a second, and I know typically we would open it up to comments across the board, but we did hear a lot of points raised by the opponent, and so I appreciate that you asked them to respond to each and every one because there's a lot of um issues to be considered here.

Um so along those lines, first I just want to thank you for this additional submission and for the reduction of the variance.

Um I think going from uh almost 12-foot wall down to a six-foot wall is a significant reduction.

And I also think it was incredibly helpful to see just how much of the wall you're actually seeking the variance for, which the diagram you submitted, which I don't know if people have seen, um, show that it's only a small portion, and so that definitely changes my understanding of of that particular variance.

Um my concern really uh goes to uh the safety and welfare of the community and and the impact on the community.

And while I understand that there is a variance from the 90s with respect to parking and parking specifically is not before us, um the variances do relate to the enlargement of the building as a whole, and while that may not dictate parking, that speaks directly to the health, safety and impact on the community.

So could you please um talk to me about your parking plan?

I know there was a valet plan that was included in all of this because whether you can control it or not, there's spillover into the neighborhood.

I've seen it myself.

Um and so I think that that's a major issue that concerns me.

Sure.

So as an Orthodox synagogue on a Saturday morning, the majority of our members do not drive.

Um and so parking is not generally an issue on a Saturday morning.

Uh during the week, we have weekday services where people drive.

Uh typically we get we have two morning services uh and the current parking lot is sufficient to house that parking.

Um where we find it to be a challenge with parking is when someone would have an event in our social hall.

When they want to have a larger event, they have a social hall and a tent.

Um that tent um, while helpful, it does uh limit access to six of the parking spots in the back.

With the uh proposed expansion of the social hall, uh we ensure all 77 spots are accessible.

And with any event where we where the number of people in attendance would or number of cars in attendance would exceed those 77 spots, we would require them to have valet parking uh to hire our valet parking uh uh company.

Um and they have proposed a plan that would stack the cars on our parking lot and simply the best where we have a relationship.

That we are proposing that not just in order to help move this process along, but in order to be a better neighbor.

And I've lived in this community as an adult for 22 years, and I've served as the president of this community for four years.

And so from day one, we talked about ways we could mitigate, as I mentioned, the negative externalities that come with having a religious institution in your backyard.

And so there was no debate or question that we would require valet.

It's just even if you told me I don't need it, I would require it because it's the right thing for our neighbors.

So a couple of things.

So the tent, I see by not having the 10, you've freed up six spaces.

Do you require valet now for your events?

No.

With the current site the way it is, and specifically if and if you look at this diagram, if you look in the back right corner, this turnaround area does not exist.

It's grass and retaining wall.

The addition of spots on the side, which is currently a grass and the grass and then a fence, do not give us the area to have a valet plan that would be workable.

Okay.

So the valet is just part of your proposal, but it's not required officially by the city, is that right?

No.

But it could be a condition of any.

Well, this will still have to go to the planning board.

Right.

And we still have to approve the valet plan.

Parking is based in a look for religious use, parking is based on the sanctuary.

And we're not increasing the size of the sanctuary, and they have a variance, and that's in effect.

I understand that, but I also know that this is congestion is one of the issues, and it does go to impact.

And by expanding the social hall, you can host larger events.

I also know forever for what it's worth that I I've been told out of firsthand from people who have attended events at at the at the temple that out of respect for the members, when they come on Shabbos, they park on the street so as not to park in the parking lot and be seen driving in and out of the lot.

So just so you know, that's apparently a thing.

Yeah, and totally understand that.

Um and candidly, from my perspective, as someone who sat around making promises to neighbors and representing what our plan is, I would welcome the condition for a valet parking.

Okay.

Thank you.

I just have a couple uh questions, and maybe one, maybe it's for foster.

Maybe you could answer yourself.

So in limiting the height or reducing the height in the retaining wall, was it by staggering the wall?

Is that basically what you did with the yes?

So there was uh a couple of changes in the right-hand corner where the spots are now going this way as opposed to going this way.

Right.

Um yes, and then at that point we tiered and staggered, because that wall originally was 12 foot seven inches.

And so by by doing that and by tiering and staggering, it's now uh four feet.

The one area where it's six feet high, I did ask why can't we do something there?

And the topography does not allow for it.

Right.

So the overall elevation from the top of the parking lot to the bottom of the grade didn't change, though, you didn't change that at all.

I don't believe so.

Right.

No.

Okay.

And just maybe a clarification since we're talking about parking on on your drawing, I think it's uh C4.

You have a chart for all-street parking requirements.

And you're quoting um uh one of the sections for the parking and the zoning code, it says no parking shall be permitted within a yard, and it says proposed does not comply and with a V asterisk and it says variance valley parking to be utilized when on-site parking is not sufficient.

How does that relate to parking within a yard?

So you're talking about in the um on the retaining wall uh sheet?

No, it's page two of the PDF of the revised plans.

Yeah, it's drawing C4, the site plan.

Oh, short on the right-hand side in the middle, which is all street parking requirements.

This one.

This one.

Yeah.

Is there a way to figure out?

Okay, right.

Just wondering how the two relate, that's all.

Since you're saying that there is no parking within required yards, within a yard.

Yard.

Unless it's existing non-conforming, I don't know.

No.

No, so my my understanding is that um that is not currently before the zoning board, and also that um the previous 1993 variants permitted the reduction uh in the yard in order to be able to um in order to be able to park.

So that's pre-existing already from the group's approval.

Okay.

All right.

I think we should probably open it back up to any other session.

Is there anyone else in the audience that would like to speak on this case?

Please come up.

Just state your name and address for the record, okay?

Um excuse me, my name is Eliana Bednarch, and I currently reside at 77 Heartland Drive.

Um in this new plan, which I am seeing now for the first time.

Um I was already aware that they were planning to move the new entrance to be directly behind my house.

Um they've now changed the wall, and there's gonna be a fence now, but it doesn't change the fact that the main entrance to this synagogue will now be in my backyard, and I'm I don't know exactly how far away, but it's close enough.

Um because I live in a valley, my bedroom windows are eye-level with the first floor of the synagogue, which means that the security guard standing at the front door is now just gonna be looking at my house all the time.

Um I'm very worried about drainage because of all the trees.

I currently do not get any water in my basement at all.

I'm very concerned that with the removal of all these trees, I suddenly will have water.

Um honestly I can't afford that.

Um I I just I don't feel that they've been good neighbors about any of this.

I don't feel and yeah, I know Ari said that there's already a door there on that side of on the west side of the building.

That's true, but it is a side door.

It's not the main entrance.

It's the door that is closest to the office, and people will occasionally go in and out of there in the mornings.

It's close enough to my house that I hear that door slamming from my kitchen.

So I can and my bedroom.

And I can only begin to imagine what it's gonna be like when the front entrance is essentially in my backyard.

I'm worried about all the parking.

I'm worried about them, you know, there be just being constant headlights going around in my house.

Um, and as opposed to now, where if there's like an event, it's not every weekend.

With this new building, it will be every weekend during the week and all day.

I'm also concerned about where are they gonna park when all this is construction is happening?

I mean, it's gonna be on essentially at my house because they now own the house next door to me, too, which they plan to use for various things during construction.

I I, you know, environmentally I feel like this will be not be great.

I know they have their experts that say otherwise, but um I really just feel that they have not been good neighbors or forthcoming about a lot of this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak on this case?

Come up, please.

My name is Howard Bricks.

I live at 83 Harlan Drive.

Um I've just seen the um the changes that have been proposed.

So um haven't had a chance to really uh check them out and see whether they address my concerns.

But I can tell you that my immediate concerns beforehand was the uh flooding and water runoff that we might get, the removal of the trees that separate my house from the synagogue, and the parking setup, which has all of the cars parked by my house facing my house as they park, which um you can imagine the noise and the light that would come from those cars uh throughout the night mostly and uh and then daytime as well.

Um I looked into I had a chance to look into the water uh situation, and I checked with an engineer and an architect, and they both assured me, having looked at the plans, that we should not be concerned about any incremental flooding from what exists today.

And actually there is no flooding now.

It was solved the synagogue solved the problem several years ago after major flooding hit all of our backyards and basements on Harlan Drive.

And um I'm pretty confident that the solutions they've come up with will work, and we won't have a problem.

But I still am concerned about the removal of the trees.

I count that I have 14 mature trees separating my house from the synagogue.

It's practically a forest.

And if you multiply that by all the homes along Harlan Drive, we're talking about removing, I'm guessing over a hundred very mature trees that provide shade, uh a nice view, if you will.

And uh I don't think that eight-foot fir trees are going to replace that.

Not in my lifetime anyway.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else like to speak?

Hi, my name is Melissa Schwechter.

I live at 102 South Morris Lane.

I am also the chair of the board of the young Israel Scarsdale, and I just wanted to express my support for the project.

Um as chair of the board, I've spoken to many community members, many uh synagogue members, and um they have all expressed their support for the plan.

They feel the changes that um we put forth today, um, address all of the concerns that they had.

Um I just wanted to express my support for the plan.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak?

Um if I just may address a couple of points.

Um the entrance facing Harlan is to be is used and only used on the on Saturdays and on Jewish holidays.

The entrance that we will have on facing Daisy Farms would be the weekday entrance.

So majority of the week, the entrance will still be on Daisy Farms.

Um yes, there are many trees we need to take down.

Many of them are deciduous trees, which means six months of the year, there are no leaves, there's no, then you have a direct view of the house.

With a six-foot fence blocking, um, there certainly would be no ability to stand at the entrance of the synagogue and see anything other than a fence.

And with the evergreen trees, uh you have year-round coverage as opposed to half of a year of coverage.

Would you be open to a condition to maintain an evergreen screen screening along your property line to the west?

Absolutely.

Thank you.

So uh given that there are no um oh I'm sorry, did you have another?

No, I just guess a question.

The could you just pull up that the uh would have my screen, the rendered site plan that you which is very helpful that you prepared aerial photograph with the uh landscaping on it.

I gotta unzoom it.

So uh given that there are no um oh I'm sorry did you have another No I just guess a question the could you just pull up that the uh this would have my screen the rendered site plan that you which is very helpful that you prepared yes sorry aerial photograph with the uh landscaping on it I gotta unzoom it's one of one on my no I gotta I gotta sorry when we zoomed in we lost control oh okay that's all right now we got it push the button up and down on a lower left of the yeah we go this one that's it yeah so I mean uh of the deciduous trees I see I know it's tough to tell because it's an aerial photograph so are or most of those trees being removed that are we see on the aerial photographs in the rear photograph of the rear property or yeah I'll I'll turn that over to Foster tree guy so we're sorry so we did have to remove uh some trees to account for the additional parking spaces and the um you know again the retaining walls uh so I believe a total of sixty eight trees are being removed and um we are planting a hundred and fifteen evergreen trees uh that's not counting the deciduous trees which I believe is an additional thirteen um I'm sorry can you say those numbers one more time so uh we on on site we'll be removing total of sixty eight trees but we will be planting a total of a hundred and fifteen uh evergreen trees along the westerly property line plus deciduous um so the deciduous trees a few of them are on the westerly property line they're also spaced throughout like the parking lot area but on site there's a total of there'd be a an additional thirteen deciduous trees but they're not all on the Westley property line so for so the ones that we see on this aerial photograph they're on the neighbors properties it seems to be correct those are remaining for we will not be touching any trees on the adjacent properties.

Okay so if there if there are no further questions I I just wanted to conclude to say that um first of all we'd ask that you consider closing the public hearing tonight now now that you've heard the comments um and that we've addressed them and also um just to point out again going back to that five point factor and that test um the balancing test you know here really the benefit to the community and and to the religious community it far outweighs uh we believe the the impact um especially now that we've mitigated um the concerns that have been raised um and so we would ask that this board consider granting the variances as proposed thank you does anybody on the board have any questions or other further comments would anyone like to make a motion no I just wanted to make a comment about the trees um when this goes for site plan approval there's a certain amount of DBH that's being removed from the property and there's a certain amount of impervious surfaces or possibly pervious surfaces.

So we do a dual analysis when we plant when we replant trees we analyze how many DBH are being removed and how many are being planted DBH is diameter of the tree at breast height okay um if what they're planting does not equal what they removed they can either buffer that with additional plantings or they have to pay into a tree fund and I believe it's three hundred dollars per two inches caliber tree.

So I just wanted to clarify that for the record I at the risk of um drawing this meeting out longer than we'd all like to um I would request that we go into executive session I'm gonna close the public meeting though at this time and we're gonna take a moment to go into executive session

Okay, thank you for your patience.

We had to go into an executive session to consult with counsel regarding some authority and scope issues, so I appreciate your patience.

Um with that, uh Charlotte, would you like to make a motion?

Yes, I would like to make a motion to approve case number 36-2025 Young Israel of Scarsdale for permission to demolish existing synagogue except for sanctuary to remain, and construction of a two-story addition with mezzanine and new layout for parking lot.

Replacement of impervious pavement with fully porous pavement on the west side parking area, valet parking to be instituted for special event parking as per chapter 21 of the zoning code, whereas the proposed 31.5% slash twenty eight thousand thirty-five square foot building coverage is more than the minimum permitted of thirty percent slash twenty six thousand seven hundred and seventeen square feet, existing twenty one point seven percent slash nineteen thousand three hundred and fifty-eight square feet, whereas the proposed thirty-one point six feet rear yard setback at addition is less than the required minimum of sixty feet existing sixty-two feet, whereas the proposed fifty-one point fifty-five point one side yard foot side yard setback at addition is less than the required minimum of sixty feet, existing sixty-one, whereas the proposed thirty-two foot height of addition exceeds the maximum permitted of thirty feet, whereas the proposed terrace retaining walls height on the west varies up to six feet at their highest, which exceeds the maximum allowed of four feet within a required yard in an R1-10A zone district at the premises 1313 Weaver Street block 3055 lot two area variants.

No, the applicant cannot achieve the renovations necessary for their congregation and maintain necessary parking spaces in any feasible other way.

In my opinion, with the evergreen screening as a condition and revised retaining wall plan that has been submitted by the applicant, the proposed retaining wall variance does not adversely affect the neighborhood character.

Three, whether the request is substantial.

The building lot coverage is 1.5% over maximum allowed.

The height exceedance is two feet over the maximum.

These are not substantial.

The side yard setback variances appear substantial given 60 feet versus 30 some odd.

However, they are less the proposed is less than the existing.

Whether request will have adverse or f or physical environmental effects.

Again, given the properties location along Weaver Street and below Lever Street, with one neighbor being a commercial business, and then residential neighbors along the property line.

The building lock coverage height exceedance and setbacks do not create physical or adverse effects.

Specifically, the applicant has demonstrated that they can comply with city and state stormwater requirements for drainage, which was an environmental concern that was brought up.

The fence and planting conditions, the fence, the proposed fence and planting conditions will screen noise concerns for any neighbors.

And the applicant is proposing 115 trees, which will shield again the retaining wall from the neighbors visually.

Traffic was also can a concern, but that is not something we are voting on here today.

Five, whether alleged difficulty is self-created, the difficulty is self-created, but I do not believe that is a reason for denial.

Second.

Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Mark McLean.

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

Bob Stanziel?

Yes.

Eric Gaisner.

Yes.

The motion has been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next case tonight.

Next case tonight is case 38, 2025, 121 Caligny Avenue.

You're fine.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is John Woodruff, and I am the architect representing 121 Caligny.

And my offices are in New Rochelle, New York.

We were here last month with our application.

And I um just thought I'd take us quickly through it again as a little small refresher as to what we're proposing tonight.

And then I just handed out some information that uh I don't know if got to the board, but it was just some recent uh letters that we got in support of the project and a study we did.

Um 121 Caligny is between Clove and Clinton Avenue.

It's built in 1906.

It is 119 years old.

Um it it's in the R2 zone, and it's on a 40 by 122 lot, about 5,000 square feet.

And uh we are replacing that building.

With a new structure.

That's a rendering of the structure.

And uh in our design, we're proposing to keep the parking in the back of the residence and uh keeping a front porch on the house.

Um all the houses in the neighborhood have a front porch, and the majority of the houses have the parking in the rear of the property.

So that requires some of the variances that we're seeking tonight.

Our new house will be about 2,560 square feet.

The existing house we're taking down is uh 2,638 square feet.

So we're um removing about 50 square feet in terms of the new house.

Um we are proposing a three-bedroom, one-bath apartment about 1,250 square feet, and a four-bedroom, three bath about 1,700 square feet.

We removed a bedroom from our last application.

Um this new building will be fully sprinkled, fire alarm system, fire-rated non-combustible walls.

Um will have provisions for solar panels on the house and a car charger provision, um, new on-site drainage with dry wells.

Um we meet our impervious coverage surfaces for the property.

Um we went to the planning board and we got a uh unanimous recommendation from the planning board.

We are requiring five variances tonight.

The first variance is for the FAR.

It's 0.53 that we're proposing, and the existing house is 0.54.

Um, our second variance is for the side yards.

We're proposing five and fifteen feet instead of eight and twelve.

We meet the combined side yards.

The house the way it is now is 4.7 feet off the line and one foot off the other line.

So we will be making our side yard setbacks larger, but it is a variance we require.

Our third variance is for the lot area per family, which we'd need on this property no matter what we did, because um the lot is very small, 5,000 square feet.

So we'd need that variance for whoever renovates or rebuilds on this property.

Um the next variance would be for the front yard setback.

It'll be 12 instead of 15.

Uh right now the house is 10 feet from the front yard, so our variance is really for the steps for the front porch.

If I didn't have a front porch, I wouldn't need the variance, but I think the front porch is an important element for the house in this neighborhood.

Uh parking we've revised.

We we have four parking spaces now.

Um last month we had less, and we do require one parking variance for the setback from the rear yard, but we managed to get all the parking on the property, and you can see that back area where we're seeking that variance.

We'd plant some uh six-foot-high arborvides as a screen in that area.

Um I know we have a lot of neighbors who want to discuss the project.

So um we did do an analysis of the uh room count in the area, but I guess I can go into that once we hear back from our neighbors and um the public could speak.

Sure.

Hold on.

I think my colleague has a quick question before we open it up.

John, the fourth parking space in the back that you added, though, that's it's uh obviously a tandem space.

Yes.

How is the backup gonna happen for that space?

So if you look at let me go right to that area here.

So you'll see that we have the three spaces here, and we have this space here.

So we do have an area for for these two people.

This would be for these two spaces would belong to one apartment, and then we have these two, which could back up and come out this way.

So we do have a backup area where the cars can reverse and turn around and come out nose first.

We went through this with uh really with Sarai in the building apartment, the toughest.

She's a good driver.

She's yes, she's a good driver.

Okay, thank you.

Anyone else?

Should I let the public speak?

Is anybody else have anything that needs to be answered before we open it up to the public?

Okay.

Okay.

So anyone who would like to speak on this application, just come up, state your name and adjust to the record, and you have three minutes.

One at a time.

Somebody's coming behind you, though.

So evening.

Uh I appreciate you giving us the opportunity to express our opposition.

It is uh variance I'm about to discuss.

The variance specifically is the size.

What is proposed is 2,560 feet.

What is permitted is 1,955 feet.

That's a difference of 30 percent.

That is very substantial, substantial difference.

Now, when you talk about gross floor area, that's the planning when people plan for the city and they take gross floor area into account.

They're figuring infrastructure issues, water, sewage, power.

All those things were considered when this house was built in 1906 as a single family house.

So then it became a two-family house with no changes to the infrastructure or to the property.

It just became a two-family house, sort of administratively.

So now you have you want to put in a two-family house larger than what the zoning calls for, 30 percent larger than what the zoning calls for.

Seven bedrooms.

That's totally out of character with the neighborhood.

I have lived in the in the city of Nourishell and the neighborhood over 60 years.

I know what the character of the city and the neighborhood is, and I know what happens when you get out of character uh buildings when you get overpopulated or oversized buildings.

I see what happens.

I don't want to signal out single out I own a college, but basically that's what you'll have is a dorm.

And that's not within the character of our neighborhood.

Seven bedroom on a proper on a building that's too big for the property.

You talk about the FAR, which is the floor area ratio.

They they want that bigger than what the zoning allows.

The space per dwelling, they want 30 percent larger than what's zoned for.

The zoning for a reason.

So I mean, if you know you don't have the skill to fit the project into what the zoning requires, unfortunately, you have to go back to the drawing board because that's not what it is intended for.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next person.

Denzer Johnson and I live at 123 Kalydney Avenue.

Um I would like to thank the board for this opportunity to address you.

Um, as has been stated, the house, when it was originally built in 1906, it was built as a single family home.

That, from my understanding, was even before there was really um significant uh zoning uh codes in place.

But what was in place in 1906 was good old-fashioned common sense.

That is a small lot.

It is on the estate of Elihu Chauncey.

That area was parceled out, and even back in the early 1900s, some of the homes were built originally as two-family homes.

They were on bigger lots.

The smaller lots were built as single family homes.

And this house on a small lot should be rebuilt as a single family home.

We understand that in our neighborhood where there are multiple occupancies in the structures, it results in nuisances like noise, excessive trash.

We have had two incidences in the neighborhood recently where tenants, not homeowners, were involved in criminal activity.

We don't need this type of activity to increase in our neighborhood.

We don't need a parking lot to look out from our window and messing up the quality of our views.

It's a residential bedroom community.

That house needs to have a garage.

It needs to fit in with the existing structures and character of the neighborhood, and so we are vehemently opposed to this proposal, and we're requesting that all of these variances be denied.

Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Next person.

Good evening, Carol Johnson, 123 Caligny Avenue.

Excuse me.

I'm here to talk about the parking spaces in reference to four parking spaces on a paved area.

As stated, the house was built in 1906 as a single family.

The house was originally had a garage, or actually a driveway built underneath the house without the enclosure of the garage itself.

Later on and subsequently, I guess that door became possible.

So this is not aesthetically fitting into our neighborhood, where most homes either have a driveway with a garage or garage built in to the house underneath, as this house currently does.

By allowing a yard to be paved over and making parking spaces, this does not maintain the character of the neighborhood, and instead gives us an industrial or commercial aesthetic.

It gives the feeling of living next to an apartment-like setting, not a family neighborhood, and we are a family neighborhood.

The surrounding homes have no desire to look out their windows and see a parking lot.

And I can look out my window, and if I look into that backyard, I will see a parking lot.

This also helps prevent erosion and reduce pollution from runoff.

If a hardscape driveway, what other measures will be taken to mitigate the drainage?

Will there be drains?

Will there be dry wells?

And how well will that be regulated to understand if it's going to prevent flooding to the surrounding homes?

This has a potential to have a negative impact on our property values for the surrounding homes and sets a bad precedent for any future going forward, allowing a smaller setback of five feet in comparison to ten feet and five feet in comparison to eight feet, and fringes on the surrounding space of the other current homes by today's standards.

Those regulations have been put in place for a reason.

We are talking about a new build, so build within the parameters of the city ordinances, because they are there to protect the environment and our quality of life, so that neighbors are not sitting on top of each other and infringing on the space of others.

Space has rights too.

Ideally, build a home with a rear garage or the garage underneath the home, as originally it is now.

So again, I'm going to be looking out, and there's they haven't added any landscaping to the sides at all either.

And again, no one wants to see that.

And we want to keep our property values up, and this will bring our property values down.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Hi, good evening.

I am Alwyn Jones.

I reside at 128 Chauncey Avenue.

My home and property is the one directly behind this home.

My colleagues and my neighbors have spoken eloquently in their opposition.

It's not lost in us that this current home resides as a visible nuisance to the neighborhood, right?

And when we came here the last time, we spoke that it is the home to all the pests, et cetera.

So we we as a neighborhood, we are very welcoming of anyone that wants to help improve the quality of life in the neighborhood.

When I came, I entered the neighborhood as someone who took a home from a previous person.

And I, like all my colleagues, what we do is we paint, we improve incrementally.

What I am disturbed by in the last meeting was I initially thought that this building was being built where the homeowner would be residing there.

I was not expecting to have the possibility that I would be looking out in the evenings where to have people on a driveway.

What I'm seeing is I own a students on a driveway, because you're not going to be able to rent to different people in that small space without some of the aesthetics, or I am not seeing families gathering, right?

Communing when I see this image.

They will have to rent to younger people.

That's what will happen here.

I don't think that the budding parking lot, like I am on, we we're in a water on both sides.

There were former creeks there.

So water runoff is a problem for people downhill, right?

On Chauncey and all that entire area.

So why it might not be my home directly, it will be the other homes.

We are very careful in how we replace landscape there, just in the previous situation, because we do need trees that drink the water, etc.

There is a lot of runoff, and our drainage is problematic on Chauncey.

You have to have a sump, right?

And so I again we welcome neighbors, but we do not welcome absentee landlords that will rent, and because we've had this problem.

We've had the police running up on our blocks, and we do not, that is not why we move there, and we are professionals, and I will tell you, we will move elsewhere.

You want me and people like me living in New Rochelle owning these particular homes.

I speak on behalf of myself and the other Dr.

Jones in my family.

Thank you.

Next up, anyone else want to speak.

Good evening.

Greg Varian residing at 35 Sydney Street in Rochelle, New York.

Uh also an attorney with offices in No Rochelle and White Plains.

This is probably the first time I've ever spoken to you or any other board uh in favor of an application and yet sensitive to the neighborhood.

Um I either uh represent applicants or uh pro bono represent neighborhoods in terms of applications, and uh is directly across is is a budding North Avenue, as is Caligny and that neighborhood.

Uh we both share the same um at times difficult neighbor.

I own a university.

Uh I was involved uh and I think instrumental uh in getting the proposed dormitory on North Avenue on Mayflower moved to North Avenue, where it has been a benefit to not only protecting the neighborhoods, uh, but uh to improving North Avenue and a benefit to the college.

Um I here tonight also as an attorney, and uh I think what the applicant has presented uh in his revised proposal is a very strong case.

And I say that because uh in many ways it's identical to the application that was approved by this board for 34 Sydney Street less than two years ago, which is the house directly across from my house that I've been in for 40 years at 35 Sydney Street.

I can fully appreciate the concerns of the neighborhood.

I was president of Halcyon Park neighborhood at the time uh of the uh 2007 floods, the first time uh my house built in 1905 ever had any water, and we've had nothing but since.

So uh it's a very big concern.

It was a concern I raised with the application at 34 Sydney Street, and I I fully appreciate.

But as to a legal matter, uh the fact is this is almost identical or just significantly identical to what was uh before you two less than two years ago, uh taking down two dilapidated structures, which are an eyesore in the neighborhood and replacing them with a two-family house with seven bedrooms and and five variances, uh lot area, FAR, side yard, stairs, front porch, uh encroaching, uh, and parking in which the variance at 34 Sydney was the garage was too big.

Um, whereas here it's a side yard matter.

Uh I think at the end of the day, the neighbors are gonna be very happy with this investment property.

We'd all like to have homeowners.

But this developer did what he said, and I think it's an improvement to the neighborhood.

It's an improvement to what was across the street from the please finish your sentence.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak.

Just want to remind everyone to please don't restate what's already been stated by prior speakers.

My name is Marion Johnson.

I live at 123 Calligany Avenue New Shop.

I have lived there for 65 years.

When we came into Noodleshell the day after I got married, my husband and I.

We wasn't long before we bought the house at 123 Calligany Avenue.

We bought it for our families.

We bought it because it was a quiet neighborhood.

Most of the time, at that time, there were uh older couples living there.

Now it has changed.

We have become a we uh my children grew up in Noodleshell.

Three children, school went to school at Mayflower, went to Iona, I mean, went to, I'm sorry, went to Neurchal High School and Mayflower School.

Best school systems in the in the country.

I were I worked for the Board of Education.

I'm a little prejudiced that way, but I saw my children go to college at MIT at Cornell.

My middle son now is uh working at the State Department where he's been for 40 years.

So our children grew up in a neighborhood that was a neighborhood.

We want to keep it a neighborhood.

We want our children to be proud of the neighborhood that they grew in and to keep it that way.

We don't need we had a problem at one time, and the problem was caused by Iona College students.

And if you remember, North Avenue being the bar center of the world at that time.

That was in the uh maybe 70s or 80s.

Well, we don't have that anymore.

I don't know how it happened, but we got um they did they did change a little bit.

So we don't have those college students, and I love college students.

I sent my kids to college.

I love college students, but when they start sleeping on my lawn, going to the bathroom in my backyard and whatnot, I don't want that.

And I don't want that now.

At my age, I'm 86 years old, I'm starting to worry about my my health and whatnot.

I don't need those kind of situations.

And I'm asking you, please, please, please, please do deny this these variants.

Please, for all of our sakes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak?

Who wants to follow that?

You want to speak?

My name is Charlene Johnson, and I live at 123 Caligny Avenue, right next door to the house that's being proposed, and that is my mother.

And I just want to say I agree with everything that she said.

We don't need this type of house next door to our home.

It is our home, a family home.

What should be there is a one family home, not a business, not a rental property, but a home.

So I'm just gonna say that that's how I feel.

Um the the parking already is too much on our street.

We have too many people on our street.

We have people who they park a car, we gotta put our car in the driveway.

As soon as a car is moved, we can put our car on the street.

What's going on that would go on with this new house with eight bedrooms, maybe 16 people, maybe every one of them has a car, four parking spaces is not going to handle that.

They're gonna move on to the street where we already don't have room.

So I'm just asking you to deny these variances.

Don't put this in our home, don't put it in our backyard.

It's our backyard where we sit, we enjoy, we have fun, we have family, we want to keep it a family neighborhood, a bedroom neighborhood, not a business situation.

You let one in, there will be others.

They'll think they can come in and just take over any property they want.

We're here to say no.

This property was meant to be a one-family house.

It was switched through a pen s pen signature or whatever to a two-family house without anything else being changed.

We keep it the one family home it's supposed to be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, good evening.

My name is Barbara Ramirez.

I live at 124 Chauncey Avenue.

I just wanted to basically reiterate what my neighbors are saying.

I support what my neighbors are saying, yes.

It was originally a one-family house.

How it became a two-family house, that's up to you guys to decide.

The other part is that yes, it is definitely quality of life issues.

We have a lot of problems with people who just basically use our block as a cut through.

There's a tremendous amount of trash that gets thrown about, get all the wind blows it onto our properties.

We're constantly cleaning up after everybody beer bottles all over the place.

The issue that I personally have is the fact that the landlord is not going to occupy the residence.

If that were the case, then it would be a different story because again, when you live in your home and you renting to people, what happens is that you're not gonna want to have, you know, uh the noise over you, and it will affect your quality of life.

So that's just basically what my point I just wanted to get across.

The parking on Caligny is a nightmare because they can only park on one side of the street.

On my street, it spills over into our street, and then it's a nightmare for parking for us as well.

Though we have driveways, we put our cars in the driveway, of course, but then there's times where you know you you have company or something along those lines and you can't.

So anyway, I'm gonna keep it very brief, very short.

That's basically what I wanted to say, and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else want to speak on this application?

And please remember what the board chair said.

Please don't repeat what everyone's been speaking about.

Hi, I'm Raymond Goodlett.

I reside at 111 Caligny Avenue, two houses down from the property that's going to be made over.

Uh I just want to say that everyone who stood up today, all live in the neighborhood, and I concur with what they say.

Parking and everything else, neighborhood would be a mess if you built a seven-bed looks nice on the picture there.

It looks great, but if you're not gonna live there and we've all lived there all our lives, you know.

Sir, I I I need to keep you to comments, please.

And I I just won't subtract from your time, but I just want to remind everybody that who whether the owner lives in the house or not is not a factor that we can consider with respect to the variances.

So that has been stated over and over again, and I just want to point that out to everyone.

All right.

Um please continue, sir.

That's it.

Thank you, sir.

Anyone else like to speak?

Good evening, boy.

My name is Vito Di Mateo, I'm the applicant.

Um, I just wanted to say is one, I'm sensitive to what the neighbors are saying.

And I think their impression of me, my and the character that they have of who I am is incorrect.

I invest in my properties and I maintain my property as well.

And because I don't live in my property, shouldn't it be held against me?

I visit all my properties on a weekly basis.

There are my investments.

I hold a strict um um application when it comes to uh renters and qualification, all within the fair housing codes.

I make sure there's no violations.

So if someone qualifies for the application for the for the apartment and they qualify, that's who I'm gonna rent to.

I have strict guidelines for my tenants in terms of how I want them to keep the property, how I want them to um socialize and and be neighborly with the surrounding neighbors.

I'm sensitive that that is your neighborhood.

And just like where I live in a neighborhood too.

If someone were coming to move in next door, I expect certain um behavior from my tenants, and if I don't see that, then I will take action.

All the neighbors will have my phone number.

And this is something I do at all all my properties.

All the neighbors have my phone number.

You can call me at any time, any day at any time if there's an issue, and I guarantee you within a few hours to be handled, the 24 hours or less.

That's just how I operate.

I care about all my properties.

They're an investment, and I make sure that everyone there is happy with what's going on.

And when I move into uh uh um a pro uh neighborhood, I try to make the neighborhood better.

Whether it is helping a neighbor or whatever may be, I always make sure that I leave with a good impression on the people around me.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, members.

Um I guess I lost my drawing here.

Thank you.

I did hear a lot of concerns from the neighbors, and I I wrote a few of the uh the items down, which are really important.

Um there's only one car parking on this site right now, so we would have three cars.

I still firmly believe that getting the extra parking off the street will help the neighborhood.

Um I could build a garage in the back, like we did on the previous application on Sydney Street, but it becomes the same variance.

So on Sydney Street we had an existing garage, which we reused.

Here we didn't.

So the idea was to get the four spaces off, which will improve the neighborhood and allow the owners to park their cars off the street, much like it's done um in the rest of the neighborhood.

Um we will be doing drainage uh in the back.

The property slopes down from the front of the house to the back about three feet.

We have a gravel area and back, and we're gonna put our drywalls back there.

There is no drainage on this house right now.

So we're proposing all new drainage.

Um we're also happy.

One of the uh the neighbors mentioned that um she won't have screening on the sides of her property.

We're happy to plant screening along her side of the property as well, some arborvities or some evergreen screening.

So that's something we'll definitely consider or take up in the in the planning board.

And this house is a two-family, it was converted in 1958, I believe, with a building permit.

The other thing that I wanted to mention was that we're trying to scroll here, and I don't think I can.

We did a study of the neighborhood in terms of room count.

And I don't think I want to be able to get to it.

Just scroll down to the next drawing on my working.

Just do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So um when I was here last month, we talked about the density of the neighborhood, and I said that I would figure out exactly how many bedrooms were uh for each adjacent house.

And I went to the tax assessor's office and I spoke to Rich Nicolosi, who is the assistant assessor, and he said um, you know, we don't have room bedroom counts for houses.

He said, What we do have is a room count, which is on each tax card.

It's the orange card.

So each room uh will be counted on the tax card.

So we took the street.

You can see this is our map here where we analyze the houses, and we took um 19 adjacent properties and we looked at them and we found out a few things that um there were a few houses that uh that well the first thing I did was I had Rich look at my clients plans and he said I figure you would have nine rooms and the room count doesn't include bathrooms or basements, it includes living rooms, dining rooms, bedrooms, recreation rooms, habitable space.

So we're in nine-room house, and when I averaged the adjacent 19 properties, the average came out to 9.2 rooms.

There's three properties that have 14 rooms, there's some have less, but in general, 52 percent of the properties have more rooms than the subject property that we're proposing tonight.

John, do you know which of those houses are two family or single family?

Uh all the houses in the neighborhood are two family, except the house to the right of us, directly to the right of us, which has 14 rooms, which is a non-conforming three family.

They're all they're all two family, all two family homes.

Thank you.

That's part of the assessor's records.

Please don't speak out loud, please.

Please.

Because it would be in tape, please don't do that.

Um also this is our uh certificate of extermination.

We went and we uh had that done right after the last meeting.

Um this is a house that I always like to show.

Um it's on Hill Street in Nourishall, and it's exactly the house that I wouldn't want to build here, which has two garages in front and two separate driveways and a lot of concrete and no front porch.

And uh sometimes I can build these houses uh to um get away from having a a parking variance or a front porch variance, but I I think that it's it doesn't look like it matches the other houses in the neighborhood.

Um I don't know if the board has any questions for us.

Um if not, I just would explain how we meet the balancing test.

I'd like to make I'd like to make a comment or two.

I don't even think I need that.

Um, it pause will be even louder.

Here you can that's enough.

Um I feel very torn as I often do in situations like this.

Okay, yeah.

I can't argue with MIT and the State Department.

I can't uh I can't uh come up with an explanation for how we can um make any concessions for such a family.

Um I do understand about drainage and rodents and screening, and that we can handle.

Um but the hard part is addressing what your real concern is, and that is who's going to be there and what is the quality of are the of those tenants.

And our hands are tied.

Madam Chairperson said it very well.

That is not what comes before us.

If that came before us, if that's what we were here to vote on, you can be sure we would be unanimous in wanting to keep your keep the quality of your life the way you would want it.

So we have no choice but to deal with what's in front of us.

I think the first gentleman who spoke talked about the 30 percent variance.

I think that's one thing that you can push back on.

That's one thing that we don't that we don't have to approve.

But I think that there's a certain amount of faith that has to be given to Mr.

DiMateo, and that we have to rely on his judgment and his professionalism and his humanity to take care of people who are living in homes.

That the homes are not only 60 years old, the people have been living there for 60 years.

Perhaps you could come up with um like a neighborhood watch, I or a rep for the neighborhood who you could appoint and who would besides you're all having his phone number, you know, that who could be the direct person that you appoint to speak directly if things go belly up, if something doesn't feel right, if someone's peeing on your front lawn.

Um maybe perhaps that's something that you can do that would give you a protection or some some defense over your over your concerns.

Um that that's that's the best I can that's the best I can offer besides your pushing back on uh the 30 percent um variance for the uh required 3500 square feet.

Thank you.

John, um I know I expressed my concern last meeting about the number of bedrooms and I see you eliminated one and made it a recreation room without a closet.

So anyway, I I still have a concern about that.

And it's just the volume of the house itself.

And I know that um you know we're bringing up Sydney, which did come out very nice.

Uh, but you know, every every situation is unique in this property is different from Sydney, and it's different slightly similar neighborhood, but different neighborhood.

Uh but I'm just still concerned about the volume of the house itself.

And and it's really a four-story house.

I mean, even though you're not counting the basement and the FAR, it's still a livable floor.

Um I guess my question is well, let me go back to your your analysis here also of the um the rooms.

I mean, you also noted on here that I mean the rooms that are also counted are bedrooms, living rooms, dining rooms, dens, family rooms.

But you only show other than bathrooms on your floor plan, two room types, a kitchen, I mean a living room with a kitchen and a bedroom.

There are no dining rooms, there are no dens or no other types in here.

They're really just bedrooms and living rooms, basically, with a kitchen.

Um again, which leads to occupancy, which is concerned not just the neighbors, but of mine.

Uh and again, I I just ask if there's any way that you can cut down the volume of this house in any way, be it the third floor, be somehow uh I just I still think it's just too big for this for this property.

And I know there was a house there before, and we're going by the FAR, the what was there before, but it doesn't mean you can just rebuild the same thing again again.

I know, you know, people look at the beautiful renderings and they don't realize that this house is 20 foot wide by 43 foot long.

It's about the size of some three-car garages.

Um there's a show with tiny houses.

I could be on it.

This is a tiny, tiny house.

Um in order to get a reasonable amount of return on the house, you need a certain amount of space.

And um we've done an amazing job to create a a very livable, beautiful duplex.

And like you said, Sydney Street, which I have up on the screen now, is the exact same lot on the same is on the exact five thousand square foot lot with the exact same five variances.

And um John it's just perfect.

You know, with all due respect, the same way that I told these people that we can't consider who owns the house and whether the owner lives there.

We also can't consider the owner's rate of return.

That's not our charge, and that's not anything that I think that this board should be considering.

I just want to say that.

Thank you.

Um I don't know the answer to that.

I guess that would be my client's uh, you know, input if he wanted to decrease it somehow.

Um we'd still have the same amount of parking, and um at some point we can you know remove another bedroom.

We still have space in you know that we can use as habitable space, whether it's a bedroom or it's a recreation room.

Well again, I know we're gonna build a house space.

I'm not supposed to suggest things, right?

Right.

That's right, so I won't.

But I think you know where I'm going.

Yes, I do.

Um I know for myself it it would be helpful.

You know, there are five variances.

I understand you took us through them last time.

If you don't mind very briefly taking us through them again.

Sure.

This is our denial and our five variances.

Number one is the FAR.

So we're a point five three.

And and uh the house right now is a point five four, so we are within the existing FAR for the house, so that's something that we're maintaining.

We're actually making the house size smaller.

And is that similar to neighboring properties in the area?

I didn't do a study of the FARs.

I mean no problem.

The only one we could get was the room count.

Um the side yards, which I feel very uh comfortable with.

Um right now they're four feet and one foot.

So the one foot side is a fire hazard, so is anything less than five feet is a fire hazard.

So we're proposing five feet and fifteen feet.

We need eight and twelve.

So you have to have a combined of twenty.

So our five and fifteen would meet the combined of twenty, but we have five feet on the left side and fifteen feet on the right side.

The lot area per family is based on the lot size, and it's a two-family dwelling, so we have the same lot area per family.

It doesn't change.

It's that same number.

The front yard setback will be 12 feet instead of 15 feet.

Now my front porch is 15 feet away, but I have a set of stairs that leads down into the front.

That triggers the variance because in New Rochelle, they take the setback from the stairs and not the uh porch itself.

Um the house right now is 10 feet off the front property line.

Um if I didn't have the porch and I just had a step, uh stoop and a set of stairs, I wouldn't need that variance, but I feel that the porch is very important um architecturally for the house itself.

And the parking, I don't need any parking variants for cars themselves.

We can fit the four cars back there, but we just need the setback of ten feet from any parking in a rear yard, and we would be five feet.

And the reason that we need that variance is because the lot is small, and in order to get the parking there, we needed to push the parking back a little bit.

We we can do the landscaping there, but those are the five variances that we need to to build on this property.

Thank you.

So in the previous meeting, I pretty much mentioned my concern was you know the the number of bathrooms and the size of the house.

Um and I'm still having the same issue with the FAR.

You know, I just find that this house is way too big for this, you know, for this lot.

And I understand that the you know the person building the house, you know, he has to you know build a house where he's gonna be able to make money.

I just feel that this house is just too big for this small lot.

You know, it's just you know, the FAR there is is I I I think you need to do something about that, John.

And I know you are very creative.

And I know I mean I see a lot of stuff that you have done and proposed.

Uh I I think you need to get back to, you know, do some work and hopefully come up with something that is more attractive to, you know.

The FAR really is the biggest problem that I personally have.

Okay.

Understood.

Just talk to my client for a minute.

Okay, Madam Chair, we were hoping for two things that um you would allow us to go back and readjust the size of the house and consider what we could do to make it more um reduced and perhaps close the public hearing because we've seen everybody's uh information tonight, and we've taken a lot of notes about what they have in mind.

So we're hoping for those two items if possible.

I think we can accommodate that.

Thank you.

So Erica, yes, or before wait, hold on.

I think that you have to state that the public hearing is going to be.

So the public hearing is going to be closed.

Um the public can, of course, come back and and next month when they re um present when they present the application again, but we will not be hearing further comment from the public.

We have heard all of your comments.

Um believe me, we have heard them all last meeting and this one, but just so you understand that the public comment period has now closed.

They could be present.

Of course.

But please do this is a public meeting, please.

Do you have something new that has not been stated that is relevant to the five variances before us?

Then uh yes.

I will agree.

Yes.

And I'm only allowing this because we're closing the public comments.

Thank you.

I don't want to accuse anybody of being misleading, but when you're talking about the five variances, you're comparing the proposal to what's there now, not to what the zoning calls for.

When he was talking about the FAR, he compared it to what's currently there, not the zoning.

No, they're both both pieces of information are part of the variance.

It tells us what is being asked for, what the zoning code requires, and what is currently there, so that we have all those pieces of information in front of us to make the decision.

Okay.

But I'm also I'm just going from the information that they provided in the in the variance uh request, and the information that they provided was what was permitted and what was proposed.

But now he's presenting what's permitted and what's there.

No, there was a different thing.

We have all that information.

All three of those pieces of information are in front of us.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Just for the record, anyone can always come to the building department if you want to look at the plans.

You can look at them.

We know you're all welcome.

Okay.

So before we break into um, I mean, before we uh adjourn, I mean not adjourn, um move forward on with this um case.

I would like to um suggest that when you look into um the changes that you're gonna do to the house, don't do what you just did now.

So where in the past there was a five-bedroom apartment, you technically uh took one bedroom out of there, but the space was still there, so technically there was really nothing done.

So I hope that when you guys come back, there's some substantial you know, changes to the FAR.

And I know the basement is not supposed to be kinda as part of the FAR, but it's is a livable space.

Thank you.

So are you asking for an adjournment?

Yes.

Okay.

So we'll see you next month.

And a motion to close the public hearing.

Uh I've already granted that, yes.

Thank you.

I I I would make one caveat with that, which is that if your drawings come back that are vastly different than what we've been looking at, then I would consider hearing comments from the public.

But I'm talking about a dramatically different putting up a skyscraper.

I mean something very different than what we're considering.

It will be a decrease, not an increase.

I certainly hope so.

Thank you.

Well, for the record, that's my concern.

If if you're closing the uh public hearing and we're going to entertain different you know, I I would think that um, like you said, if they're vastly different, then we we need to um would consider the opening it.

We need a pivot for that.

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes, of course.

We're we're happy to receive written comments, although I will say if you actually want them read and considered, we need to have them more than just the day of the meeting.

Thank you.

Thank you.

If I could ask everyone to just leave quietly and not talk in the hall there because we're still recording.

I appreciate it.

Have a good night.

The next case tonight.

Will be case 28.

2025, 93 Glenwood.

Oh, so he's the one who wanted to add the pictures.

Sorry.

You can ask him about the pictures.

I don't know.

Just press down.

Should be up to, yeah.

Yeah.

Um I start with the Yes, please.

Uh good evening.

My name is Willie Zambrano.

I'm the applicant of records for this application at 93 Glenwood Avenue.

Um if there's any consolation, we're only asking for two variances.

Um we are asking for an increase in FAR and a front yard parking variance at 93 Glenwood Avenue on the northeast corner of Glenwood Avenue and Vaughan Avenue, as you can see on the screen there.

I'm here with my client Sandra Peterson, who purchased the house about 20 years ago with her husband, who recently passed away about three years ago.

She has been working to complete the renovations on the house and plans to live there with her four sons and her five grandchildren.

Um a very growing family.

The house was built in 1931, and it's a classic brick center hall colonial with numerous open porches, as you can see on the side plan.

Uh both uh flanking the front part of the house.

Uh we are requesting, as I mentioned, a parking variance for the property.

Our current parking variance is due to chronic water problems with the garage since the house was built.

And because the the house is actually on the lower part of that uh area, it's it's actually on a hilly terrain, but they're in the lower part of that area.

The driveway slopes down from Glenwood towards the garage door, which floods during uh major uh rainstorms.

And as a matter of fact, in 2009, FEMA granted a loan to renovate the basement after her Hurricane Ada.

Obviously, there was uh some permit confusion uh during the renovation, she went ahead and did the work without proper uh inspections.

Um the driveway is large enough to accommodate uh two off-street parking spaces.

Um, but we do need a uh four-foot encroachment on the front yard setback as a variance.

Our FAR variance is due to the finishing of the attic.

Um as you can see on the on the floor area map, um middle of the page towards the right, uh, the floor area is being shown for the attic space, and all the calculations for the uh FAR that we're seeking as a as a variance.

Um my client actually purchased the house with the attic being finished.

We just want to make sure that it's it's a known fact.

And we're actually here to legalize the attic space, and that is the uh the increase in FAR that we are actually seeking as a variance.

The house will will have a sprinkled uh I'm sorry.

Um the attic has uh very high ceilings, yeah.

As you know, uh a lot of the houses built in this area, they have um uh a gable roof, cable roofs that are steep enough, and there's three large dormant windows at the rear of the house, um which um allow for certain certain uh habitable spaces uh at the time.

We actually have a tax record um uh that I wanted to actually show as a as a flash drive that I brought, but I was only able to actually print one.

And on the uh on the tax records, it actually shows that there was a a uh stair that was accessed to a regular stair that it was access to the attic floor.

Um a finished staircase uh to the attic floor, which was uh part of the house when it was constructed.

Um obviously the entire structure uh will remain the same.

We are not changing anything on the exterior of the house or the attic or any anywhere around the entire house.

There will be a sprinkler system installed with a monitored uh fire alarm system.

Um therefore we feel that the board should grant this variance based on the following balancing points.

Um I just want to show the um the exterior of the house.

Um as you can see, all the all the exterior faces, uh facades of the house would not be changed at all with this application.

It will all remain the same.

And one thing that I want to point out is in the attic, um we have kept it as an open attic.

We have no interior rooms or different rooms within the attic, it's all open space.

It's actually being occupied by one of the sons from my client.

Um thus we feel that the board should grant this variance based on the following balancing points.

Um whereas an undesirable change in the neighborhood would not occur.

The variances we're seeking tonight will not affect the general appearance of the house.

The garage door will be closed off from the left side of the house, which will not be visible from the street.

The new parking variance would still allow cars in the driveway, which slopes down and minimizes the visual impact of anyone who parks in the driveway, whereas pursuing a variance is the only feasible option.

The driveway slopes down, creating a water problem to the garage.

And as I mentioned before, a FEMA grant was given to renovate the flood basement in 2009 after Hurricane Ada.

Blocking the existing door opening was our only option, but it does create a parking variance that we seek.

Whereas the variance is not substantial, which is while it is substantially given today's zoning requirements, the FAR variance is due to the large finished attic space, which always had a full finish access staircase as per the tax records that I just described, and three large attic dormants at the rear of the house.

The appearance of the house from the exterior would not change, as I mentioned before.

And the house now will have a sprinkler system and a monitor fire alarm.

And whereas the variance will not have any adverse impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood, the footprint of the residents is not increasing anyway.

We're not doing anything to the exteriors.

New drivewalls and driveway pump system will be installed to mitigate water conditions in the driveway.

And whereas the difficulty is not self-created.

The building was constructed in 1931, a time where when the FAR was not considered, the building predates the 1954 New Rochelle zoning ordinance, which introduced outdoor parking requirements in FAR.

We feel that this application is asking for very minimal variances.

And while we are asking for two variances, the application preserves the character of the neighborhood, its health, safety, and welfare of the community.

And for this reasons, we respectfully request for this application to be approved.

I also have a letter, and I think it was submitted to the board previously from a neighbor right next door.

If you don't have a copy, I have a thing.

Thank you.

Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this case?

Okay.

Go ahead.

We have one at a time, come up, please.

Okay.

State your name and address.

Robin Moyer, 71 Vaughan Avenue, and despite my accent, I've lived in this neighborhood for 33 years.

It's a single family neighborhood, and Glenwood Avenue, this part of Glenman Avenue, eight of the homes face the street.

And it's a community full of people committed to green space.

Glenwood Lake Association, great front yards, all green.

This house?

Can you speak into the mic?

There's a couple of things about this plan that's perhaps a little misleading.

You've got a side yard annotated to the plan that is paved.

So when you drive past this house as it exists, there are three cars all lined up in a row, parked in that backyard, with more often than not a fourth car behind one of them.

And so taking away some of this green space at the front will allow, by my calculations, six cars to be parked there, and one in the driveway on the street.

This is very much not what the community looks like, not what the community is.

Green space in the front of your house, a single lane that is paved.

Now, as was stated, this appears to be self-inflicted because a two-car garage was taken away.

So it's up to you.

Changing our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Hi there.

Bruce Jackson.

I live at 84 Glenwood, which is diagonal across the intersection from the house that we're talking about.

Thank you to the board for giving us the opportunity to speak.

So to me, this is this is about a principle.

And the principle is it's a classic case of like do what you want, and then know that it's difficult to have it undone later.

You know, just to be clear, as the plans were discussed, it talks about the things that will be done and could be done.

Like most of this is done.

The garage, there is no garage.

The garage was turned into living space, I don't know, seven years ago, maybe longer.

I I don't keep track, but it's it's been done.

And as we just heard, that had an effect directly on the parking.

So just look, if if there had been hearings on all the things that had been done, maybe we would have been here, maybe it would have spoken against it, maybe I wouldn't have cared.

Uh but it's not my place, I don't feel to decide what the owners do inside the house.

But what does affect me and what does affect the neighborhood is the parking situation and the message that converting a driveway to a parking lot sense about our neighborhood, which is otherwise all single family homes.

The plans show a representation of two cars drawn, and those cars in that plan, those are really big cars.

In reality, there are often six cars in that driveway right now and have been for 10, 15 years.

There are often other cars in addition to the five or six in the driveway parked out front, even though we have regulations that say there's no overnight parking on our street.

And yeah, I guess just my last point is just as uh the previous speaker said that if this had all been discussed properly, you would be discussing the plan to close the garage and convert it to a living space in conjunction with the plan to expand the parking spaces.

And because one of those is already done, now we hear somebody where it's like we have no choice.

And I guess I would just argue that there is a choice.

The the parking is a concern.

Um, and it would be very much out of character with everything anywhere on our street or any of the uh neighboring streets to have this much parking in front of one house, and it clearly would look different and send a message that um you know is against the character of the neighborhood, and it's a very strong neighborhood.

I think most of you people are aware of the you know the the history of Glenwood Lake.

So thank you for listening to us and um yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Uh my name's Ian Willis, I live at 71 Vaughn Avenue.

Um most of the points have already been uh noted by other speakers, so I'll not belabor that, but just mentioned that um you know that we're here because of uh this issue of the the variance on top of a variance essentially, dealing with an existing dimensionally non-conforming one-family dwelling and asking for a variance that exacerbates that variance.

So the overall consequence here is a degradation of the density control, which uh I think we all appreciate is important for uh environmental and uh and quality of life issues.

Um perhaps point that hasn't been raised so far is that the street on which this uh variance is being sewed, Glenwood Avenue is the the gateway to to Glenwood Lake itself.

It's a beautiful wide street uh that presents the lake at its end, and uh this particular variance uh presents uh essentially a parking lot feature to uh to the neighborhood, which is uh undesirable uh by most of the residents that I've spoken with.

I'll leave it there.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

Come up.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Amy Jackson, 84 Glenwood, and I came tonight just because I wanted to actually hear from the architect what the actual plan was, and I wanted to make sure that there was no official designation change to a multifamily house.

So that's good news.

I wanted to begin by saying that generally I'm supportive of homeowners making interior improvements that allow their homes to better meet the needs of their family.

And I think legalizing an existing attic or a basin space is is a great idea as long as it's done with the current safety standards, and I think that's a positive step for anyone that um might live there.

And I'm particularly noting what the architect brought out is that now the garage that is below grade um is an area that floods.

So getting the city in there to legalize everything is actually a positive uh thing.

My concerns are primarily focused on the proposed um garage conversion as its exterior impacts the neighborhood.

Um the garage plays an important role in managing parking and storage on the property.

Its removal raises questions about how those needs will be addressed in a way that remains compatible with the surrounding homes.

So historically the driveway at 93 Glenwood has accommodated six vehicles.

Maximum allowed for our zoning is four.

Under the current proposal, the driveway will increase in size rather than decrease.

So from a neighborhood perspective, I would just it would be appreciated if the driveway footprint could be reduced.

Um it presently reads more like a parking area than a single-family home driveway.

Maybe uh the additional um any kind of like screening of plants could could maybe help with that in addition to reduction of the size.

Um there are also practical considerations related to ref use and storage.

At present, there appears to be approximately 10 like garbage and recycling containers that extend beyond the property line to almost the street.

There's a shed located directly against the rear property boundary.

So just without a garage, it's unclear how refuse will be stored and contained in a matter that's orderly and respectful of all of our neighbors' properties.

So my hope is that with the guidance of um the architect and perhaps input from the zoning board that um the homeowner can arrive at a modified exterior plan that supports your family's needs inside the home, but also minimizes the broader negative impacts of removing a two-fan uh two-car garage.

So what I'm hoping for here is that a thoughtful compromise can be reached to preserve the character safety and livability of our neighborhood, um, and also get the homeowner what they need on the inside.

And I'll just say that living here for 24 years, we've gone through this process um and we've had to face you know limits and pushbacks from the city, and and we did it.

And you know, everyone lives within limits of their city, so that's it.

Thank you.

Hi, good evening, thank you.

Um my name is Eileen Riemerschmidt.

I'm at 45 Vaughn Avenue.

I live directly next door to the property in question.

Um I don't know if this will be approved or not, or how it's gonna play out.

For me, the issue is only that where the basement is and the entrance to the basement and my property are very close, like a step away.

And I'm just thinking if this is going to be more people in inhabiting these spaces and more cars, um, I would be very appreciative if perhaps you could speak to the board, not to the applicant.

Um perhaps some kind of a fence or something to give a direct clean kind of privacy from from me and my family on that one stretch.

Does that make sense?

That's it.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak?

I I I I have a couple of questions.

Um I received a complaint a couple of weeks ago relative to this property about all the garbage containers.

I asked that they be moved because they're not supposed to be visible from the street.

So I don't understand why they weren't moved when I quoted the section of the code and sent it.

So that that's that's one issue.

And the second issue is you should probably accurately depict what you're asking for.

If you have four or six cars there, you should show them on the plan.

If I go back and look at aerial photography, what am I going to see on those in that driveway?

Am I gonna see one car, two cars, six cars, four cars?

What do you think I'll I'll see?

Well, uh I'll let the client uh answer them.

I don't live there, but I'll have you been to the house.

I have.

Have you seen all the garbage receptacles in the front yard?

They they were actually, as a matter of fact, I have a flash drive that shows pictures of the latest conditions that we have.

And we have actually receded all of that, all of those um there were actually the pavers that they they wanted to install, but they haven't been able to do it because I I saw the pavers in the in the yard.

Yeah in the driveway.

They have been reseeded.

So it's a very simple section of the code to comply with.

Yes.

Pull the garbage cans back in so they're not visible.

Pull them in after the pickup day.

There's two pickup days a week, and there's one recyclable day a week.

Very simple to comply with.

Thank you.

If I can just add um when we actually apply for these variants, there were a couple of things that we noticed and the examiner Soraya actually uh uh make note of.

And one of them was that we had the driveway as one of the uh neighbors actually mentioned that the driveway is actually closer to the property lot line.

Well, in our application, we are actually setting it back 10 feet over.

And because of that condition, that's the reason why we're actually asking for this variance.

And because of that condition, that's the reason why we are actually asking for this variance, because now we have two parking spaces, one of them has to be in tandem, and that last car is actually encroaching four feet over to the front yard requirement.

And we also took out the shed that is there.

We we're not showing it on the plans, it's not there anymore.

Um where we put the garbage, we can actually address it with some certain bushes that we were intending to actually plant along the driveway.

Um you could buy a rubber-made enclosure.

Correct.

And that is that's easy to do.

And and because we have that area right next to the parking spots, we can actually do that.

So thank you for that.

Does anybody else want to speak on this?

Really, just a uh a couple questions.

Sure.

The um so the the garage enclosure didn't add to the FAR, though.

That was because it's in the basement area, correct?

Correct.

It's under um the legal uh grade.

Right.

The um so the FAR is really the attic, is really the square footage of the attic, which is correct.

So which really is there anyway.

I mean, the FAR until recently wasn't counted at the attic space, and the FAR wasn't counted until fairly recently in the zoning code.

Correct.

So that was there in the house no matter what.

1930.

Whether it's finished or not, it's counted in your FAR.

So you you happen to be stuck with it, it's just that you made an application, and now you have to calculate it, so it becomes now a variance you have to deal with.

So with respect to uh you just mentioned it, it's just not clear in your on your plan, though.

Um next to the parking issue, the 10-foot rear yard.

So is that a that's a paved area now that's going to be made grass?

Is that what it is?

Yes.

So it's it's it's actually a side yard, 10-foot side yard requirement.

It says rear yard on a plan, so I guess it's a side yard, right?

Uh maybe it's a corner lot, maybe it's not a problem.

Because it's a corner lot we have two rear yards.

Right.

So that's going to be that's going to be a grassed area now, not paved.

Is that what it is?

Yes.

We we actually can buffer that with some planting and whatnot.

Okay.

Definitely.

So that will eliminate that as a parking area, basically.

Correct.

But we're not allowed to actually park on a required side yard rear yard.

All right.

Thank you.

Perhaps it's not I'm not reading the plans correctly, but you are seeking a variance with respect to parking, because you have converted a garage that can no longer be used for parking.

And because it floods, and so the only way to eliminate the flooding is to turn the garage from a garage to livable space.

Am I not understanding this correctly, or is that the position that you are taking?

Well, if if you have a garage door, a lot of the water that will actually drain into the house will come from that garage door.

If you have a wall made out of brick, you are protecting the interior part of the house.

And there's no other way around that, like putting some I'm not the construction professional up here, but there's no way to put some sort of drainage system to steer the water away, or I mean there's a lot of houses in New Rochelle that have driveways and garages that go under.

I I would imagine this is a common problem.

If everybody came before us and just said, well, we have a drainage problem, so we're just going to get rid of our garage, we would have a lot more parking problems.

The point of having a garage is so that you can put your garbage away and you don't have to have cars on the street and you don't or in driveways and you don't have to ask for variances for more parking spaces.

So I mean, if you're telling me that there's nothing that can be done to stop the flooding in the garage, other than eliminating the garage, then I'll take you at your word, but I just find that hard to believe.

That is not possible.

That's but I want to hear.

I just want to uh add that you know um the house is situated at the lowest point from uh a hilly terrain.

Yes, the the the adjacent house north of that um the house, it's on a steep slope.

So a lot of the drain the when it it rains on terrential downpours, there's a lot of water that's coming in from there, and there's also a lot of water that's coming in because of the driveway being on a down slope as well.

So you're getting hit from two sides.

And my clients saw it no other reason than just to uh actually block that from being a chronic problem.

I I understand that it's a solution and but we can't consider the fact that it's already been done um in our decision making.

Um we can't penalize you for it, and I'm not, but I uh from my perspective, I have to take the same approach that I would if you hadn't done the work and you were coming to us.

And so I'm asking you the same question I would ask any design professional that stood before us, which is that I find it hard to believe that there's no other solution other than to eliminate the garage altogether.

And so I don't uh if if that is in fact the case, I don't see why this variance is necessary when there's a garage that could be utilized that's just the homeowner has made a choice not to utilize it.

And what was the FEMA money used for?

Certainly not for applying for permits.

Um the wait, just state your name for the record.

Sandra Peterson Cohen.

93 Glenwood Avenue.

So our next door neighbor and I share the same issue.

Our garages were rivers when the water from the school, and this is not new to the Glenwood area, everybody here knows the issues that we have with water.

Please address the board, Madam Public.

I'm just, you know, it's it's it's an issue that has been going on.

I've been there for 20 years, and and the suffering that I've been going through the whole family when you see your garage that is basically a river.

And you know, anybody that has gone through that, it can relate to what I'm saying right now.

The next door neighbor that gave us the letter uh of support, she had to do the same thing.

She had to close her garage, and she created a garage on the other side, and it was approved by this board.

And she was able to build on top of the garage an additional room, and this board approved those plans.

I did exactly what she did, but they did.

I closed the garage.

But you're not proposing to put another garage on the other side of the house.

Yes, but she closed the garage because her basement flooded the same way.

And what it is is that the other thing that happened is that how I found out is because I was getting still a lot of water inside the garage because, like the neighbor said, you know, she can see my basement, this stairs that goes down, and the water was just coming in.

What I didn't know is that the water was coming through several cracks in the foundation, and the only way to resolve that issue, according to the architect, I believe, is to actually dig down, right?

The three feet down, and basically do concrete all around, so that you can prevent all the water from coming down.

It's a matter of fact, we were talking about and says, you know, the whole neighborhood should be doing that because I am not the only one that has that issue.

The problem that it's happening with my house is that my house is all the way down.

So the water cascades all the way from the school to all the way down to us, and it comes in buckets.

I mean, in in a matter of a couple of minutes, the water can go up to this way, this height.

And it it was I was losing my house.

Simple as that.

I was losing my house.

And I worked very hard to get that house.

I put all my savings in it.

I already spent over 400,000 in this house because it needed a lot of work.

And I am not the only one that has that issue.

And I do disagree.

You know, the only solution that we had was to close that garage because the water was up to here.

And I couldn't get it out.

I I I called the construction guy to get the water out, even when he came in with the professional, you know, those big hoses to take the water out.

It took him a while to take the water out.

We had to wait till it goes down.

And in the meantime, you know, this water, there's water in my in the uh boiler.

So my now I have no heat.

And only if you go through something like that, you can relate to it.

You know.

And I just for the record, I don't own six cars.

I may have relatives that they come to visit and they park in my driveway.

And I just want to address the issue of the garbage, sir.

And you know, so what happened, sanitation department?

I'm a healthcare worker.

I don't know if you see my scrubs.

Okay.

So I work 15 hours a day sometimes.

Sometimes, you know, the the other weekend I I pulled a 40-hour weekend.

So I I work for my patients, you know, I want them to be well.

But he was very animate that I put the garbage can by the drainage.

So all the, you know, the garbage is Tuesdays and Fridays.

So I put it there.

I spoke to my next door neighbor and said, no, this guy was very nasty to me.

Very, very nasty.

And that was the only reason why I had it there.

So when I got a message from Mr.

Vaca that I needed to take all this garbage, I said, you know, not a big deal.

I have a lot of stuff in my driveway because I didn't get to do the construction.

So I said, not a problem, you know.

I when I come from work, I'm just gonna pull all the garbage down.

It's not a problem, sir.

You know, I don't have any problems putting my garbage all the way down the driveway.

But this guy was very nasty to me, very animate that I put the garbage there.

I spoke to Henriette and I said, you know, this this guy, I was gonna report him.

Because not only that, but I have a witness.

I have a healthcare worker that she rides with me to work.

And she looked at him and says, you know, this guy's very nasty.

You should really report him.

Yeah.

So it was not because I just wanted to leave it there.

Ma'am.

After the pickup day, just move them back into the driveway so you can't see them.

I have no problems with that.

That's all I'm asking you to do.

I but I just wanted to.

Just don't leave them at the curb 24-7, 365.

That's all.

Move them in and out.

Um please.

Madam Chair, I I would like to address the question that you had before.

Um I I do believe that there are ways to actually mitigate water, uh storm water through management.

Just like the uh previous applications have done.

But not when you have constant water coming from other properties, especially in the case of this property.

Especially when you have all of the properties above her, all of that water coming onto her property.

Yes, you can manage whatever is required by code.

You can manage an overflow, but it would take uh at least I don't know, maybe 10 drywalls to actually mitigate all of that.

You know, the space that's not there.

Thank you.

So um I mean I I have a couple of issues.

I I mean I have an issue with the FAR, and I know the addict was not considered part of the FAR, but I'm looking at um that from a 2700, which is the legal requirement, you're seeking a 3417.

That's without counting the basement area.

Um and then the other area, the other issue, the other problem that I have the other issue that I got a problem with is with the parking.

Um I honestly I pass through that area probably twice a day, sometimes even more than that, and I always see more than two cars there most of the time.

So if there's you're requ you're requiring this variance because you want parking for two cars, you've been parking there more than two cars, so why get a variance?

And then in reference to the property next door that she claimed, I just want to clarify this.

Uh that we granted a variance for the neighbor next door, the neighbor next door was not granted a variance.

He wanted to increase the height with a parking garage was, and because we didn't grant that, he decided to go the other way around.

But we didn't give him no variance.

Everything he did was legal.

He went through the process, he hired professional, and those professional did what they needed to do.

The other issue that I noticed when I was there is the cash basin drain that is there is full of dirt.

How is that gonna work?

So that comes to maintenance.

If you don't maintain those drain, that's what's gonna happen.

And if you're saying that you have water coming from the you know covering the garage doesn't covering that area doesn't fix that problem.

So the problem was addressed because I seen when you guys address that issue.

I'm just looking at you're here to get a variance for parking for two cars when you right now the way it is.

You can park more than two cars.

That's the way I see it.

Well, just a question.

Can you and you probably looked at this?

Can you put those cars side by side in the driveway?

Almost looks like we could.

You know, you have very limited way of actually opening out the doors next to each other.

And then we don't have the ability to actually have any trash cans as you have mentioned.

So I'm sorry that I'm jumping into this again.

But the way that I see in the cars parked there, one other car backs in, and then the other car, uh I believe is uh um forgot my friend.

Uh a Tesla goes into almost going into the garage.

So there's plenty of space for opening doors.

Right now there is.

Um after we do this um application, I have to set back that driveway 10 feet over.

So I won't have the space that you have currently.

Okay.

I think by code, Paul, I think you're allowed residential eight eight foot six spaces, correct or no?

Yeah.

Four private passenger vehicles.

Yeah.

I'm just saying if you could put them in that way, that would eliminate that variance.

Okay.

We can put them side by side.

Because I think the FAR, for me is a non-issue.

I mean, it's exist it's existing.

There's nothing you can do about it.

It's it's it's the house.

Uh we can stuck with that.

Uh put them side by side.

Yeah.

I think I heard um a whisper from my colleague over there, and I have the same question, which is the 10-foot setback.

How is how is that shown?

Is that remaining asphalt or is that asphalt to be demolished to comply with the setback?

We will put grass in there or ambushes, just as they had mentioned to make sure that we buffer the next door neighbor.

I I I would really think it would be very helpful if we could get some drawings to see what this what's there and what you're proposing to do.

Um it's just not, I don't think it's all that clear from the drawings to to us, and it would be helpful to see that, especially if you're agreeing to put a fence or or screening, show us what you're proposing, it might be easier for us to consider.

If you allow me to come back for sure, I will be able to do that.

Yes, we will permit that.

Would you like an adjournment?

Please.

That's fine.

Okay, we'll see you next month.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Next case tonight, case one, 2026, 153 Franklin Avenue.

Um I don't know.

Just jump down for a second.

I'm sorry if the neighbors if you could just Gail Asher, and um I am the architect uh for the proposed project at 153 Franklin Av.

Um I'm here on behalf of the homeowner, uh Edward Malianta, who um has lived at the house since 2012.

Um the house was built in 1890.

It's in an R2 7.0 zone.

It's a two-family zone, a legal two-family house.

Um it has no driveway, no garage, no parking.

Um as you're all aware, um parking is a real issue in downtown nourishing.

Um, I don't need to dwell on that.

Um it's a particular problem on this road.

Um people have people drive around for 30 minutes to an hour after 6 p.m.

to park.

Um it's a real, real problem.

It's a hardship.

Um the other issue is um people resort to um elite well they um people resort to illegal or double parking, but um deliveries, Amazon deliveries and delivery trucks will double park or park illegally, which is a real safety hazard.

Um so I think these are two things that we're trying to address here that are that are ongoing problems for um the street and the particular um tenants and residents, an owner.

Um I'd like to read the principal points.

Um but prior to doing that, I really honestly did not know that um a photo board wasn't allowed.

So I just want to show uh Gail, you have to talk into the microphone.

Okay, I want to show really quickly just the photos.

Maybe um Ed can just hold them up and just to do a little description of what's there.

Go a little closer.

Yeah, the board can't see that.

I'm gonna ask you to come closer.

Okay.

Because I mean he can pass it down if that's do you want to just pass it?

I yeah, I guess.

Sorry, I'm old school and I didn't realize we couldn't do this, but just the basic.

I so you know for for for future reference.

Part of the issue is that it can't be picked up by the television, so it's not being viewed.

Oh, got it.

Okay.

Um essentially it's just the next door neighbors and the house and a couple aerial views.

Um where is the camera?

You have to talk into the microphone.

There's no camera, they can't see that, Gail.

Please.

Okay.

So anyway.

The idea here is only you have to speak into the microphone.

And no one can see the the pictures, I'm sorry.

The idea with the photos talk about your plan.

With the photos was that um was that neighbors have done this before.

Clearly.

Um multiple neighbors have uh cut in, put at grade parking, uh, and they have dri or they have driveways, they have garages, they have parking spaces.

There are uh isolated a few properties that don't, either because of the grade on the opposite side of the street, the even numbers, or his side of the street, which is the odd numbers.

Um so that's um essentially.

Sorry.

I just think it's really loud.

Um so I'd like to read the principal points that we're addressing and uh and in our request for uh the two zoning variances that we're seeking.

Um I basically I gave you the history.

He's seeking two area variances at the front yard, one to permit construction of a parking space at grade, um, the other to permit a new exterior stair to the existing grade level.

Uh the proposed parking requires a variance because it does not maintain the five foot distance from the existing house as required by zoning code.

Likewise, the proposed stair to connect to the existing requires a variance because it does not maintain the 20-foot front setback as required by zoning code.

To accommodate the parking space and grade change, some porch foundation work and additional stairs will be required.

The extension of the existing stairs to grade in order to access the front door is required, but it must be located within the front yard setback, which is approximately nine feet from the property line.

Um so uh point one, granting of the requested area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor will it be a detriment to nearby properties.

Several of the homes and apartment buildings in the general area of some form of parking for their residences, including paved areas, driveways, and garages.

The property two doors down has a paved, has a paved two-car parking area at his front yard.

The next door neighbor has a long driveway with a large paved parking area at the rear.

Other neighbors have both driveways and detached garages.

Thus the proposed parking space will be in keeping with the character of the street.

It would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, nor will it be a detriment to nearby properties.

Likewise, the proposed flight of stairs is only an extension of the existing concrete stair, and it will blend in with the existing.

Number two, the benefit cannot be achieved without the area of arrances.

Given the site constraints, the applicant could not create an accessible parking space in any other efficient, affordable way on the property.

A proposed design must be in the front yard.

Um to switch it down.

There we go.

The plan is at the right.

Um the front property line is only 18 feet from the porch foundation.

Hence the homeowners could not build without using the entire space available and obtaining a variance.

I'm sorry.

I don't mean to cut you off.

But if you're just reading us the letter that you submitted, we've all read it.

Okay.

I mean, I I I I don't want to you have all the time that you need to make your presentation, but I mean you're just reading us the letter and I have read it.

I'm sure my colleagues have as well.

Okay.

So it I mean, maybe you want to, it's almost nine o'clock.

Maybe you want to tell us anything that's not in here, or we can open it up for conversation, you know, for questions, but I don't want to make you read something that you've already given us that we've all read.

Okay.

Um that's not a negative.

I just I don't want to make you read something like that.

That's fine.

If everybody is well aware of the five Anyone, unless anybody wants to hear it, and then by all means she can't.

Does anybody have any questions on the five points and how we address them?

I mean, maybe that's that's I think that's better.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm sorry.

No, don't everybody had read fully the No apologies, but we do prepare for these, so you should.

Is there anyone?

Anyone in the audience want to speak on this?

Okay.

No.

Does anyone have any questions up here?

I well, I sort of like do.

Um one of the question that that I have had to do with, you know, like the five feet set back from the parking to the property.

Um and I mean you mentioned on the application that you're going to be using the same material that is used.

Um in the house.

We just wanted to make sure that the material is going to be used there.

Is that a fire proved material?

It well, so it's concrete block.

It's going to be concrete.

Okay.

We're going to underpin.

Gail, you have to speak into the microphone.

You can't move around.

I'm sorry.

We're going to be underpinning.

It's this is significant work.

I mean, this is not, you know, simple snaps.

The owner is making a big commitment to doing this and improving the quality of of the residents who who live in the house.

Um I'm speaking in.

Just wanted to show you.

This is what we are proposing.

I have to talk into here, so if you can just show them.

That's what we are proposing to put um three trellises, wrought iron trellises that will um sort of um in keeping with the wrought iron railing at the top of the stone wall.

And that's that's the idea that it'll be stucco, be a nice tinted stucco with these three um brought iron trellises.

And we thought that would sort of, you know, be a nice thing to look at since you're gonna have a you know a longer wall.

Um did that answer your question?

It did.

Does anybody else have any other questions?

Would anyone like to make a motion?

You will?

Oh, by all means, thank you.

Okay, case number one, 2026, Edward Milianta for permission for new parking space in front yard.

Relocate stairs to rear yard and removal of rear patios, whereas zero feet distance from front parking space to dwelling is less than minimum required of five feet.

Whereas the proposed plus or minus nine feet front yard setback of a new exterior stair to side yard is less than the minimum required 20 feet in an R2 0.7, um sorry, 7.0 is zone district and the premises 153 Franklin Avenue, block 216, lot 46, and this is for an area variance.

I uh make a motion that the uh requested variances be approved based on the following points.

Uh whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.

Uh there is certainly not another way that the applicant uh can achieve uh securing a a property, a parking space on his property, uh as pointed out by the applicant, and I just think we're all familiar that parking is at a premium in this area, and uh parking space would certainly be helpful uh to his household and the neighborhood as well.

An undesirable change to the neighborhood character of nearby properties will not be created.

Um certainly will be uh of character.

I think the um road iron treatment over the stoker wall will be very attractive, and the new papers that are to be added on the street will be an attractive approach to the house.

Uh so the removal of the existing stone stairs that are there now will not be a great loss for the parking space.

Whether the request is substantial, uh the numbers do see substantial, but I think they're not significant enough uh to uh deny the application and to create a valuable parking space.

And whether the uh request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, I do not believe they will.

Uh there's certainly enough, it's a wide enough driveway for the applicant to the mover in and out to make turns and to angle's car to turn in and out of the space as well uh in a safe manner.

Whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, it is, but uh not a reason to deny an area variance for these reasons.

I approve or make a motion that we grant the area variance as requested.

Second.

Carla Klappa?

Yes.

Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Mark McLean?

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

Bob Stanziel?

Yes.

Erica Aisner.

Yes.

The motion has been approved.

Great.

Thank you.

Have a good night.

Next case, case number two, 2026, 380 Beachmont Drive.

Good evening, everyone.

John Woodruff, the architect.

And I'm here with Michael Klein tonight.

And uh he's at 380 Beachmont, and we're proposing a deck and a screen porch on the back of his house.

We need a variance.

We have a 30-foot setback, and we will be 26 feet from the rear.

And need a four foot variance in the rear of the property.

You can see here is the property, and I if you can see that, that's the blue line, which is the setback of the property.

And you see that when this property was built, uh the house was built in 1968.

Uh it only gave us 35 feet in the rear yard.

So that's why we need this variance.

Oops.

There's a view from the back.

This is our proposed screen porch.

There's a sliding glass door, and then there's a deck here that we're proposing.

Not doing good tonight.

I had pictures here showing the screening, but um Kevin, I think uh I need to show my pictures.

I'm sorry.

You use them use them on the other application.

I might have had them on the other app.

Our architect having issues with pictures today.

Yeah.

Let me just put this in.

This has got the pictures of the property.

Abel has pictures if you uh want him to project them.

Maybe he can cast them on the room.

It was on the bullet more.

Um hang on.

Yes, I think Homer's That's our survey of the property, which we had done new.

That's our denial.

Um it's interesting.

This is our property on Beachmont, and uh, you could see at some point it might have been subdivided from this property.

I tried to find out from the records.

That house is three seven.

I'm sorry, that house is three seventy-six Beachmont built in 1924.

I think this might have been a carriage house lot or subdivided off of it.

But that's our subject property.

This is the back of the house.

There is a deck there now, which will be taking down, and there is a set of stairs here, so the new deck would come across here, and the screen room would be in this location.

This is a shot from the side, the deck and screen room would be here, and you can see there's nice evergreen screening around the whole back of the property, which would hide the view from the um rear property owner.

And um all the work that we're doing would be behind the house, so um anyone in the front would not see um the work that we're proposing.

Um and that's our application tonight for uh 380 Beachmont Drive deck and screen room.

Anyone want to be heard on this application?

Does anybody up here have any questions?

I think my only question, um, which maybe I already know the answer to, but is the so there's a 35-foot setback in the back of the site.

What's the width of the garage and what's the or the garage?

The deck, and what's the minimum width of the deck to make it usable?

Like, have you uh John, have you or Mr.

Woodruff, have you considered minimizing this?

And what is that?

Yeah, the room right now is um it's only 10 feet.

I believe that's that's our depth there.

I can't even read.

It's eight, it's eight feet depth.

Understood.

So I think it is at the minimum.

I can't see it here on the computer.

Minimum to be useful.

You know, the deck is not large at all.

Okay, thank you.

Yes, the garage depth is about 20 feet.

The garage here.

So here's the garage, and then here's the proposed deck back here.

Understood.

And then that's the screen room with which is 10 feet deep.

Anyone else?

I mean, I'm just gonna say this shows this actually is probably how the applicant.

But so when I visited the property, I noticed that they had those evergreens in the back.

Uh and those are green giants that are gonna grow like super tall.

Um but some of the other trees they were not evergreen, and I know that those don't grow up as much.

So my only concern was you know, I thought there would be like a view looking down to the other side of the of the house.

But when I went down, as it was now, there was you can't see nothing up there.

So in reality, I mean you got pretty good screening back there.

Yeah, this is the front of the house behind is a big mansion.

Yeah, and it's still very far away from the back of his house.

Yep.

Would anyone like to make a motion on us?

Okay, thank you very much.

Um I would like to make a motion in case number two-2026, Michael Klein for permission to build a new rear yard, 10 by 19 screen porch, and an A by twelve and a half deck with the proposed twenty-six rear yard screen porch and twenty-eight feet adjacent deck set back are less than the minimum required of 30 feet.

In a R1-15 zone district, at the premises of 380 beach bond drive, lot 144, lot 35, and this is an area variance.

And applying the valentine test that we are required to implement whether the benefit can be achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant.

Um I mean, currently uh there is a deck on the premises, uh and they are proposing knocking down the deck to putting a screen porch.

Um I don't think that's gonna make much changes than what is already there.

Um I don't think that would be an issue.

The only issue that I thought that that will be was um looking down to the property on the other side, but the screening they have plenty of screening there.

Um the side will changes in neighborhood character of detriment to nearby property.

Uh the location of the porch is in is gonna be in the back of the property.

Uh and this there will be no other um no other person impact by this um project.

Uh the heavy screening as I mentioned before, we'll give plenty of privacy to the property in the rear.

Uh whether the request is substantial, in my opinion, it is not.

Whether the request will have adverse physical environmental effect, um, I don't think it will.

There's plenty um green area um in the back of the yard.

Uh I don't think this is gonna create any issues with water.

Um and all those considerations, I request this variant to be granted.

Second.

Bob Stenziel?

Yes.

Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Carla Clappa.

Yes.

Mark McLean?

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

Eric Eisner.

Yes.

The motion's been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next case, case four, twenty twenty-six, three oh two Union Avenue.

Good evening.

Jonathan Melani with uh Jonathan Valani and Associates, representing the owner of 302 Union Avenue, Anthony Marciano, as well as the new tenant, uh Suze Prep Group Family Daycare.

We're here not asking for a variance, but for an approval um to go from an existing non-conforming use to a new non-conforming use from an office to a daycare.

Um my client who is the tenant uh has a location in the area.

Um and due to high demand and overflow, they need another location.

Um predominantly their clients are single parents that live in the area.

Um majority, if not all, do not drive.

Um just a very local business.

Uh as you know, this is RMF dash five, believe zone that's butted up against NB, less than 300 feet away.

Um, so we're very close to a neighborhood business district.

Uh is looking to provide daycare, obviously from three to five years old.

Um, like I said before, there's no increase.

Uh I believe there's no increase in demand.

The uh volume is very low, but due to every September him having a waiting list for the current location he has, he needs to provide additional uh space.

Yeah.

So obviously he's providing a service to the community and uh very um optimum location right on the corner, very walkable, public transportation, everything's usable for the neighborhood.

Predominantly majority is every everybody's from the neighborhood, correct?

For the most part, we get a lot of clients from a lot of this neighborhood.

So you have to speak into the speaking of the member.

Yeah.

So my name is Ryan Gill.

I reside at 287 Union Avenue.

Um for the most part, uh in the coming seasons, whenever school starts, we do get a majority wait list.

Um we provide care to subsidized families, and unfortunately, sometimes we don't have the space to provide the care for them.

Um so that's why we're looking to move across the street and get the property there to be able to provide more for the neighborhood.

Um a lot of our staff, none of our staff drives.

One takes locally from the Bronx, another one walks from another part of New Rochelle.

And um my wife who is the owner of the business, she also provides uh services there as well, and she lives across the street, so um, it shouldn't be a problem when it comes to vehicles approaching in and out.

Um and there is a lot of traffic as well with the school moving and they have school guards as well who help children cross the street and whatnot.

And so we're not too far from that as well.

How many um children are you anticipating having in the location?

So as per, and we're not looking to follow these guidelines, but as per the Westchester Council, we're allowed 35 square feet or per child.

Um we're looking to do maybe 12 in a 900 square feet.

So we're well below that minimum.

Um and and within ratio, you have to have six to one.

Um we're not looking to take on infants because it'll increase the ratio.

We'll probably only have two staff members there as well.

If not.

And the hours and and the reason I'm asking this is just because we're supposed to consider for an application such as this, the impact on the neighborhood.

So what kind of hours would they have?

So we operate from 7 30 to 5, mostly to facilitate professionals who work a nine to five hours.

Um from 7 30 a.m.

to 5 p.m.

Okay, thank you.

No problem.

And those are weekdays or or uh So those are only weekdays Monday through Friday.

Um and if you know the union neighborhood, it's mostly middle income housing, low income housing, and so everybody gets up to go to work early in the morning.

People don't come home until after 5 p.m.

I notice that myself because I work in health care and I can never find parking where I'm at because I get home around eight o'clock.

So um but for the most part, if you look in the neighborhood, there's plenty of parking between eight and five p.m.

Anybody else have any questions?

Your plan on page PDF page 13 and 14 of at least the plan that we received shows um a proposed pickup and drop-off area on 6th Street.

Metered parking area should be more I think it's supposed to say then adequate for proposed pickup and drop off.

Can you just take me through the logistics of that space and what parking is there now and what that pickup area is replacing?

Um so it's a requirement to designate a parking area, to be quite honest.

So after having discussions with my client, parking is not even an issue due to the clientele that they have, but designated parking area is a lot more convenient and less occupied on six street than it is on on Union Avenue.

So uh every time that I've frequented a location in a lot, it's there's always spots open along sixth street during these hours.

Like you said, everybody's gone around eight o'clock, so eight to five, those parking spaces are very available.

And what are those parking spaces now?

Are they their public spots on the streets that that would then be converted with this approval to a pickup drop-off zone, or that's just where you're proposing?

That's where we're proposing it.

Not proposing any conversion.

Okay.

I don't deem that necessary.

Um I think if it was deemed necessary, I'm sure the building department would have required me to designate an area, which which I've done in a previous application on on North Avenue due to the volume of North Avenue.

But on Sixth Street, the volume is not even close to understood.

Yeah, sure.

I don't think they're meter spaces, John though, right?

No, they're not going to be able to do that.

I didn't see meters.

Um so with the proposed plan as you to answer your question, um, we weren't looking to propose any con changes to the public parking space at the moment.

Um if that was something that you guys required of us, it has been approved, I believe, for a pizza shop, so Coney's Beecher Shop, that was right up the block on 6th Street.

It's a 15-minute drop off time.

Um and that's currently in place at the moment.

But that's not something that we really anticipated.

But if we need to I don't know if that's under our jurisdiction at all.

Um I mean it'd be nice to have it, but that's not something that we're looking to request.

No.

Uh if we need to convert public parking space into a pickup and drop off area for the day proposed daycare.

That that would that would be an act of city council.

Okay, this board has no authority to grant that.

Um as we did before, we had discussions about whether it would be deemed necessary by traffic, right?

Then uh leave.

You could contact a traffic engineer and see if he thinks that there's a need for that.

And um if he does, he'll or he can bring a resolution forward.

But that's entirely up to him, Jonathan.

Okay, no problem.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My questions, um, just a brief comment.

I am a mother of a 20-year-old, 20-month-olds, and um I just really commend the applicant on um trying to expand an already existing business um and serve more uh families in the New Rochelle area.

Again, that will not weigh my decision, but just a comment um to uh bring forth.

Thank you.

So I actually know that area very well, and that is a very high traffic area.

As a matter of fact, those sparking spaces that you're saying that could be used.

I have since we got this application.

I've been passing by there just about every day.

I have never seen one of those spaces open.

Um, and that area there, that's the block of Columbus Avenue.

I mean Columbus Elementary School.

That is so much traffic there.

Believe me, I uh you know, sometime we had to go through there, and I'm gonna tell you you want to stay away from that block.

Okay, when it's come to pick up and drop off from school, parking in that area, it is a big problem.

That's I mean, there's just too many houses there, and this and and a lot of those people have a lot of cars and they don't have parking.

So that's uh that's a big issue there.

And I think the safety of the pickup and drop-off, I think that would be a big issue there.

But like I stated earlier, the pickup and drop the designated area was a priority uh requirement uh and would be enforced by traffic engineer.

But the as we and we did this because I've done it on front on North Avenue, we've surveyed his clients, and every pretty much 100% of them don't drive, so it'll be pickup from walking.

So they come there physically pick up their child from the location.

Mr.

Vaca has taught me that the state of New York wants people to be able to work, and that includes single parents, uh that value public graphics are what service we provide more provided in the children there.

Thank you.

If there are no further questions from the board, I'd like to make a motion.

I'm sorry.

Oh, I apologize.

I thought we were with that.

You want to speak on behalf?

Then please go by my apologies.

I thought you were sitting with us.

No, she's at home with my son.

Hi, my Gabriela Alvarez.

I live on 236th Street, right across the street from this.

So and I think um, I'm a teacher, so I'm all for um this, so thank you.

I think it's a great idea.

Um when they wanted to convert that area to retail and uh cell phone, I think, uh selling.

I was here like no, we want to keep it um safe.

So I think it's a great idea.

I'm actually supporting this.

My only concern is for that you can bring this back to the landlord, because I'm an educator and children will be there.

The area needs to be clean.

Currently, the landlord does not keep the grass, there's no fencing, the driveway.

So I guess I don't maybe this is not where this would go, but I do want to voice that opinion because I think that that's important.

As for the traffic, the traffic is horrendous.

Don't go on 6th Street on Union when uh Columbus dismisses.

And they do have access to a driveway and parking and a garage that is attached to that building that can be used for a drop-off zone, other than taking parking from the street, which would then hurt the community.

So I think that that's something that might be made aware of.

But anyway, thank you.

And for the record, you can always call the building department and complain about property maintenance.

Paul Vaca will hear me, trust me.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh yeah, so to speak to the possible parking that's uh adjacent to my the apartment that I'm going to be renting for the daycare.

Is he the landlord actually did offer it to us?

It's just there's been a tenant there for maybe 15 plus years that has that space, so that's something that would have to be logistically negotiated with the landlord, but it is a viable option.

He has written a letter for me to state that to support it, and I appreciate her support through this as well.

Um I'm sorry, what was I forgot her second point?

Oh, the landlord cleaning the property as the tenant and I signed the lease, I will be maintaining the property.

So I can assure you that the sorry for that property for at least for my area, it will be maintained, it will be cleaned.

Um and hopefully in the near future for that grass area, if it's viable, Paul and you guys allow us, hopefully we can put higher fencing and maybe a playground space on rubber pallets and everything that would be in accordance with code.

Um as it stands now.

I have no responsibility for that proper property on the grass area on the side, just maintaining the front, the side, and obviously the garbage receptacles are my responsibility as it stands as right now.

Thank you.

Um just a question, I think for maybe Paul and Kevin, but if they wanted to make further improvements to this property day care, is does our approval encompass that?

Like if they're in the future trying to put a playground in the yard.

You know, uh probably well, we'd have to do an evaluation to see if it complies with zoning or not coverage and does so would our approval uh if the board approves, would our approval tonight prohibit them from coming back for a second from the second.

Okay, that's what I wanted to confirm.

Thank you.

But at the same time, it may not require them to come back.

So 15 seconds.

That's what you're voting on just so you're clear.

Anyone else make a motion?

I'd like to just Paul, just correct me if I'm wrong.

If we do apply for something like that, we we wanted to make sure the approved use would be permissible.

But if we did increase the use, we'd have to it would be an increase of non-conforming use, right?

What do you mean increase the use?

So say for example, he comes back with an application for an outside door area.

That would come through uh building apartment and be a referred because be an increase of non conforming.

It might be uh it if he's just gonna put up a fence and the kids are gonna run around inside the yard.

It's a little bit different than building a play structure in the front yard.

You know, that's anyway.

It would be a discussion we'd have when we put the application in anyway.

Okay.

Please.

Yeah, exactly.

Please now, right?

I understand the reason.

We have a zoning requirement for a front yard fence of four feet, but I understand the security of the children.

Um, a gate screening there.

I I get all that.

So when you get a little bit further into the design, come back and we'll have a conversation about it.

Thank you.

Okay, go where we're good.

I'd like to make a motion on case four-2026.

Anthony Marciano for permission to convert permission for a conversion of an existing office to a new daycare center, whereas the change from the existing nonconforming use as an office to another non-conforming use as a daycare center requires approval from the zoning board if found to have a less adverse impact on the neighborhood than the existing non-conforming use in an RMF.5 zone district at the premises of 302 Union Avenue, block 1288, lot 13.

And this is for an approval to change to another non-conforming use.

Um I move that we approve this application um because I find that the proposed use is more consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will actually have a less adverse impact um than the current use.

Um this provides a well a very needed service to the community.

Um given the the clientele that it will service as well as um the staff that they anticipate employing.

I don't think that they'll be um any negative impact on the neighborhood.

Um and in fact, judging from what we've heard from this applicant so far.

I think that um some improvements to the uh property are probably expected in terms of uh maintenance and aesthetics, and I think that this is an excellent addition to the neighborhood, and uh I propose that we approve the application.

Second Abel Rodriguez, no Carla Clappa, Mark McLean, Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

Bob Stanzio.

Yes.

Erica Eisner.

Yes.

The motion's been approved.

Thank you.