Good evening and welcome to the third one two thousand twenty-six meeting of your television board.

Um very quickly uh for this evening just to go over the format.

Um we will be calling the role to the attendance on the half of an application and anybody who might hear to speak in support or opposition to it for that.

Um so we'll hear from the applicant, then we will uh the board will uh ask any questions or make any comments that it may have for the applicant, after which time we'll open up uh for public comment for those who might want to speak for or against an application.

Those comments will be limited to three minutes.

Um we are strict with that three minute uh limitation, and we ask that the comments be limited to the specific variances in front of us, and I do reserve the right to cut uh any speaker off if we're getting too far afield from what is actually um before us in terms of the application.

Um other than that, um we also ask that nobody who's speaking uh with respect to an application restate anything that's been said by a prior speaker, although you're certainly welcome to agree with something that someone has said.

Um we have a full board tonight for a motion to pass.

We do not have a full board.

Um Mark will not be here tonight.

Oh, Mark is not here.

We do not have a full board tonight.

Uh there's only six members in attendance, that means so um you are required to have four votes uh in favor for a motion to pass.

Um so if if you want to wait for a full board, you do have the right to request an adjournment of your application and come back next month when we hope to have a full board.

Um I think with that, I will turn it back over to Regina.

Okay.

This is just a roll.

Case thirty, twenty twenty-five, twenty-five Morris Lane South, the applicant here yet.

Okay.

Opposition of voices to be heard.

Case thirty-eight twenty twenty-five, one twenty-one caligny for the audience and the members at home.

That has been adjourned until the March meeting.

Case 28, 2025, 93 Glenwood Avenue has also been adjourned until the March 3rd meeting.

New cases tonight.

Case 5, 2026.

120 Buford Place, the applicants here.

Yes, we are.

There are any opposition or voices to be heard on that.

Case 6, 2026, 4 Clover Place.

The applicants here.

Opposition or voices to be heard.

Case 7, 2026, 516 Pelham Road.

Applicant is here.

Yes.

Opposition or voices to be heard on that.

So the first case tonight is going to be case 5, 2026, 120 Buffard Place.

They asked to wait to the architect.

Hello, good evening, everyone.

My name is Ralph Launtine.

I'm the owner of 120 View for Place.

Here with me, I have Mr.

Seabird, he's the architect.

He's gonna take over the mic and give you a little bit um background and go through the um questions, if any, in regards to the project.

So thank you.

See what even just get my glasses here.

Shoot.

I leave my glasses in your car.

Okay.

Um I'm so sorry, I leave my glasses in my car.

I cannot see much, but I I think I understand what the issues are.

Okay, there are first sir, please state your name and address for the record.

My name is Seabert Dayer.

I'm the applicant of record for project for Mr.

Ferrentine.

Okay.

The objections are he has on the driveway entering the property, he has two pillars that are just outside of the um just outside of the property line.

And on the walkway into the main entrance of the building, he also has two pillars that are just outside of the property line.

The other objections were the um PVC fence around the pool were I think uh two feet above the the required height.

So instead of them being four feet, they were six feet, but they were partially shaded by um trees around the pool area.

And then the I think the last objection was that the impermeable surfaces exceeded what was permitted.

Well, I think that was revised to be brought down to a number that was within I think five percent of the requirements.

Or two percent.

Okay.

I think those those were all of the objections that we wanted to present tonight.

Okay.

Yes.

Okay, to go over.

Let me just go over the list again.

Okay, so the objections are um there are two pillars outside of the entrance of the driveway.

That are just outside of the property line.

Yes, and also there are two pillars that are on the walkway to the main entrance of the building that are also just outside of the property line.

And then around the pool, there are um PVC fence that were um six feet instead of uh two feet, and instead of four feet, and these PVC fence are partially hidden by um trees that are on the pool area.

And then the last objection was the impermeable surface was just I think two percent or a little bit over two percent outside of the um required limits.

Okay.

Okay.

Excuse me, is there um where the photos?

Where can we view the photos here?

Whatever you sent.

Just scroll down.

Okay, thank you.

Was the impermeable surface was just I think 2% or a little bit over 2% outside of the um required limit excuse me is there um where the photos where can we view the photos here just scroll down okay thank you and we have all of that submission in front of us as well okay thank you okay sorry he left his glasses so I must I'm trying to as much as possible I'm so sorry about that's Russian yeah this goes now the the thing that we would like you to note is that the talk into the microphone right the um even though the pillars are just outside of the property line we only know that because you know we have the survey but without the survey you really wouldn't know whether or not those locations are within or without of the property line because they are not on the sidewalk itself they are right on the grass area but it so happened that a small portion of the grass area is actually on DOT property instead of on Mr.

Rao's property so it's not very noticeable that those pillars are outside of the property line Mr.

Dyer, I think the um excuse me, I think the pillars though are outside the property line aren't part of the application because they're in on city property, right?

Um to the city for that it's it's my understanding that those pillars are being moved so that they're no longer on city property.

We don't have authority to allow you to keep those pillars on outside the property line.

We only have authority to grant variances on the uh four objections that you received as you referenced them.

Okay.

And and to that point um in order for us, we're charged with granting the least the most minimal variance possible.

Um in order to grant the variance we have to apply a five factor test.

Can you take us through each of these variances and explain why each variance um satisfies the five factor tests that so for granting them warranting them to be granted?

Okay what what are those fire factor tests?

Okay.

Um whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible whether an undesirable change in the neighborhood in character to nearby properties whether the request is substantial whether there will be an adverse physical or environmental effect and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created.

Okay I think that in this case with regards to the pillars um the only difficulty I would say in moving them inside the property line would be the exorbitant costs to the owner.

Sir we're not here to allow you to keep those pillars outside the property line.

It's our understanding so right aren't they moving them aren't they?

Yeah they will have unless a city alone that's yeah we understand that this is not what this is for.

Okay so we will be submitting the information over to the city to ensure that they give us an approval if if possible for that but as far as the I'm sorry yes we are um putting the request to the city so therefore they can give us the approval for to keep the um to keep the pillars where they are we understand that this is not what the hearing is for.

Okay.

All right so I apologize for that but the pillars itself I believe there was two inches if I'm not mistake over the actual um height itself that's one of the approval that we're seeking and the um as far as the imp impervious uh yeah the impervious um um it was over two percent as well and I believe those are the areas that we're seeking approval for now the fence itself I don't see the photos that I submitted where the um the pictures itself uh surround the gate but right now itself it's it has complete um trees around that so you can't even see the gate from the outside the fence itself the fence is um six feet instead of four feet but the reason why we went with a six feet gate is because the pool is literally right across the street from the parking lot and is easy accessible where someone can actually see and so therefore we thought it was okay at the time and not to mention our next door neighbor had a PV sent um PVC um fence um on their on their lot as well but it would not be um suitable to have a four feet gate especially you know having someone in the pool especially where there's uh right across the street from a parking lot where that's a lot of traffic foot traffic and so on all right um just so the applicant knows the board members have all been to the house they all go to oh they have thank you one of the walls um the masonry wall is actually to almost two two point six feet higher supposed point is six point six feet that's correct four yeah so it looks like um that's what we was requesting a in the approval for is two feet I'm sorry not two inches two feet two feet more than what it what was um what the board would actually approve for yes was this what

They all go to the city.

Oh, they have, thank you.

One of the walls, um, the masonry wall is actually two almost two point six feet higher.

That's correct.

Yes.

So it looks like uh that's what we were requesting a the approval for is two feet.

I'm sorry, not two inches, two feet.

Two feet more than what it what was um what the board would actually approve for, yes.

Was this work done recently?

No, this work was done well twenty I believe six years ago.

Yeah, approximately six years ago.

I'm assuming you need a permit for this, what did the permit um it's been a lot of confusion regarding the pairs?

I've started with the gentleman um the um well, of course, Mr.

Rai took over this individual, but every you know, we put in paperwork, we thought everything was was approved.

This was my first time working alongside of um the historic Landmark district.

So I wasn't fully aware of exactly what the process was, but I went through everything that he asked me to go through.

I thought everything was fine until, of course, I re I I received a call from um the Department of Building from a Soraya stating that um this was an issue.

So we had to reapply for everything else to get the approval.

But as you know, as you can see, the property sits on the court um on the corner lot itself.

It really um without those pillars there, it was just the one big open space.

And it really um, in my view, as well as everyone else uh from the neighborhood, they really enjoyed the um it did not, you know, clash with what's going on.

The stone is very similar to the current stones that's on a property, so it doesn't, you know, it's not where it's uh it differs as far as aesthetic wise from the current stones that's already been there.

Um it I have issues with the the pillars because purely aesthetic.

There's no there's no and and so for us for you to ask us for a variance, I don't see how something that's purely aesthetic um satisfies any of the the five factors.

Practically speaking, if you're going to be required to move those two pillars in the front, if the city doesn't allow you to leave those pillars on city property, um and you're moving them anyway, then it certainly wouldn't seem to be too much trouble to to lower them as well.

Um but without knowing whether you're gonna have to move those pillars or not, um maybe this is the that the request for that variance is premature.

I can understand that.

I'm not requesting a variance for the pillars, though.

It yeah, they're too high.

The appears.

Four and a half piers to be equalized exceeds the maximum permitted of four feet.

But as Mr.

Um Architect has mentioned, as you can see, the pillars are well inside what it appears was far back from the grass.

So you really can't tell unless there's an actual measurement, tape measuring to see if the pillars are well outside the property line.

So we feel that it was um okay for us to go ahead and ask the city to see if they would approve this.

So that's what we'll be doing in our next step.

But as far as the you know, the impervious um area, so that was over by two percent, and we can understand that.

So that we're requesting uh uh approval for that, as well as the um the PVC fence um being six feet versus four feet.

But as you can see, it's way behind the bush.

And the reason why it ended up being seen from the beginning, because it was it was changed for years.

But um there was um a lot of ivy, poison ivy there.

And as we had someone clean it, and I had myself, we I end up with poison ivy.

So we had to clear out the bushes.

And as we cleared out the bush, then of course it it showcased the PVC uh fence then at the moment.

But besides that, everything else was behind the um the fence.

Forgive my ignorance on here.

Which which pillars are the subject of the variants.

Well, both off off to both sets.

Both sets, but both sets are outside the property line, right?

Well, yes, by two.

So they're not part of the they can't be part of this variance if they're on city property.

We don't the board is not dealing with those.

Well, that's correct.

So yes, she mentioned it will be premature to even have this until we get the approval of the city.

We shouldn't be dealing with those pillars at all, is what I'm what I'm saying.

Um not right until we get approval from the city.

Yes.

If they don't relocate them.

Yes.

They're not on private property currently.

Correct?

They're on the city property.

Uh partially.

Partially.

He's asking for prospective variants for the pillars if they have to be moved, right?

In other words.

Well, it doesn't show it on the plan, though.

I agree with you.

I don't think we should even be dealing with that because we don't know if you're going to get an approval from public works or not.

Suppose they say they're okay and you don't have to move them when we're not giving you a variance for we'd be giving you a variance of something you don't need.

Certainly.

So the only thing here that I see from a variance perspective is the actual height.

Because it says here that there are four, you know, at least.

Four-six.

So there are not those.

I believe the heights on those are fine, right?

It's just uh those right here.

Yes.

Yeah.

One of them is very short, which is four six compared to four four, they're almost six, six compared to four.

So four and four.

So that's correct.

Can you tell me about um the third variance you're requesting, the masonry wall?

Can you show us where on the plan that's located?

I don't see a little bubble.

Sure.

Are you referring to the impervious?

No.

No, six foot six I masonry wall.

The pools.

Yeah, the pool fence.

Um we had go on.

So the one.

There's so there's a PVC fence and then there's a masonry fence listed on the list of variances that you're requesting.

I'm I understand the PVC fence.

I don't understand the masonry wall.

Okay.

Uh right.

This would be Okay.

If you look at the pool, you're looking from the front of the um property.

Uh the pool is on the left hand side of the property.

So that the fence is along the front.

The front points of the arrow.

Yes.

We are.

Right.

So we are here.

The PVC is here and here.

The board's talking about the high masonry fence, not the fence around the pool.

Oh, you're talking about the it's the same height as the fence.

Thank you.

Yeah, sorry.

It's the same height as the fence.

Right.

Yeah, that's uh that's around the uh Bob Q here.

I didn't see the picture that we sent with that, so I could not show that.

No, yeah, not the C V C Yeah.

Does anyone else have any other questions?

I just think we should clean up the paperwork in here because again, we're not asking for a variance for the for the Masonry peers.

I mean, just in my opinion.

So if you there's no it shouldn't be an if.

And and I'm not asking for uh necessarily a new plan, um, although uh my colleagues might have requested that in their previous comments, but it would be helpful.

There's a lot of like legalized stairs and bubbles.

I think it would be really helpful if you're able to even just in a different color or in a different type of bubble actually bubble the areas of the the four variances you're requesting so we can make a better evaluation.

Okay.

I think it would also be helpful if you familiarized yourself with the criteria, the five points that we are um charged with addressing ourselves to um prior to the um coming back so that you can understand the criteria by which we make with which we make our decisions.

Sure.

Otherwise, it's a car without tires.

I understand.

So the criteria that is speaking about are the principal points that you gave me with your application.

That's what the board is looking for.

Got it.

Um that I sent to them that you gave me.

Yes, I did.

But I don't have the information here.

I thought it would be uploaded as part of this.

Regina, did they send you something that we don't already have?

Because um, as Erica just mentioned, there's a statement of what the actual variances are with a little bit more of a description, but there isn't an argument to the five points.

I just want to confirm that we didn't.

Um I'll take a look.

Yeah, I don't think there's anything in here.

Um there's the I don't think there's a submission as to the five factors.

For example, why can the benefit not be achieved by any other means with respect to the masonry wall being at that height?

Um, you know why should this be granted if all of these difficulties are self-created?

So I do.

These are the factors that we have to consider that you have to present to us for us to make our decision.

And that's not part of your presentation.

So I think you know, based upon that, and based upon the fact that you're asking for a variance on a pillar that isn't even on your property, and you don't know if you're going to be moving it or not.

No, we're looking to it's it's a little bit pre premature.

If you're gonna move that pillar to somewhere else on your property, then it would seem you would be needing a variance to maintain it at that height.

But if it's staying on the city property, that's not up to us what the city wants to allow on its property.

So I think you need to take another look at all this, clarify some issues for us and perhaps come back.

Now we just a suggestion.

Well, yeah, absolutely, and well taken.

Um we are looking forward to seek approval from the city.

Um and that's the goal.

I thought it could be done after this, but as you said, it should be done before, probably it is, and I certainly understand.

Um as far as the barbecue, um, the wall itself, that's near the vents fence itself, it's um instead of four feet is actually six feet because it matches the gate height, it would defeat the purpose if we had some, you know, the barbecue fence at four feet where the gate is much higher.

And of course, it would allow everyone to be able to see everything that's going on back there as well.

So um I think the the building department can work with you to show you maybe some examples for some other applications for the principal points so you can get an idea of what the board would be looking for next month.

I appreciate it.

So are you are you requesting an adjournment?

Um Yes, please.

For a later date.

Granted.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Please remember the next board meeting is very quick because February is a short month.

So I'm gonna need everything by next week, whatever you have.

All right, okay.

Thank you.

And you'll provide me with the um example so we can thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So 25 Morris Lane available.

Next case.

Case 30, 2025, 25 Morris Lane South.

Good evening.

Um the owner of 25 uh Morse Lane South, Paris Jane.

Uh following our prior meeting, uh, we considered all your feedback and made some adjustments to the proposal to address the board's comments.

Um have been thoughtful about it.

I'm sorry, sir.

I know you're the owner, but I need you to state your name for the record.

Paris Jane.

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

So I just wanted to give context for the core approval again.

Um after um I'll introduce our pool architect, Rob Sherwood, who will go through the plans in in in detail.

But uh so just in terms of background, uh our family follows a uh Hindu religious practice called Vasusastra, which guides how natural elements, particularly water and fire, are arranged around a home.

And under this practice, uh water features such as a pool must be located in either the east or northeast portions of a property, and it should not be placed in the southeast, which is reserved for fire element.

And because of our how how our home is oriented on the lot, um any strictly code compliant pool location would place the pool into that southeast area.

And we follow the code without relief.

You would not be able to locate the pool anywhere on the property in a way that is consistent with the religious practice.

So I can talk about more detail around hardship and how it's not self-created.

And we did include um a petitions from last time that was signed to show the neighborhood support of our immediate neighborhood neighbors with no objections to the proposal.

Um I'll turn it over to uh to Rob to talk through the adjustments we made.

Thank you good evening, Robert Sherwood Landscape Architect.

Um as you recall the last meeting, um we were here with a larger swimming pool than what we have now.

Um the pool for the property is a specific um pool that's created.

It is a fiberglass pool.

It's proposed to be a fiberglass pool.

It is a 13 by 35 foot pool.

Um I'll try to use a pointer, perhaps.

It's not showing up.

Um but obviously it's it's in here at the 13 by 35 foot pool.

And what that did, it um reduced the side yard setback.

Um the rear yard setback did increase slightly because it was a 12-foot wide pool, so it therefore about a foot more of a uh variance there.

Um and it kind of stayed the same up at this corner here.

Um the impact here, which um was significant, it reduced it by over three feet, um, precisely three feet.

So we felt that that was a a nice um uh uh you know, a big improvement on the variances.

Um and the final variance that was being requested was for the height of the retaining wall, which kind of um is in the area following the the mouse, it comes along the back of the property line, it then proceeds cutting across their property, and then the retaining wall runs up along this property.

Um and this retaining wall um was at five feet and a half to six feet high on the last proposal.

We do have it down to a five-foot mark, and that five foot area, which we feel is important.

Yes, we're still asking for a variance on this, but the portion that's five feet tall is this portion that runs through this portion of their yard.

So it's kind of not paralleling that back property line, but it's cutting through his property.

Yes, it's still in the rear yard.

We still need to ask for a variance on that, but we feel like that is a nice um compromise as well.

And the reason for that is just to grade this property and try to create a little bit of a flat yard here.

Um and as this wall comes from five, it steps, and the grade is actually coming uphill as well, so it steps down.

The average, I would say the average height of this wall, because it starts almost at zero here, it does come to five feet high, it wraps, and again it kind of comes up to grade to zero.

The average height of this wall is probably around three feet tall.

Not that that matters to you, you're not going by average height, but again, we are asking for that variance, but we feel that it was a nice compromise.

I regraded this area, um, made this grading a little steeper, but um kept this section here um on you know at that five foot mark.

That the only section that's five feet is the hypotenuse of the triangle, so to speak.

Yeah, there it needs to wrap a tiny bit, maybe about three feet onto this coming up this property line, but it's mostly right in through here.

From there's a set of stairs proposed down here so that the client can access their rear.

Um it so it runs along there.

It does need to return a little bit, so that grade, but then it steps as the grade is coming uphill, the wall is getting smaller.

So I'm sorry to interrupt.

Um I have the affidavit of owner as Peter.

Who's Peter?

That's me.

Okay, so who's the owner?

Because you stated that you were the owner.

I'm the owner.

Peter Sabignano.

He's my he's purchasing the house from me.

So he's the contract vendee.

He doesn't own the property yet.

That's correct.

See, we should have been aware of that.

Okay.

Um, as a board.

Yes.

Yeah.

All right, I apologize.

Uh, but I think when we did So I need so you're the owner, Peter?

Yes, I'm not sure.

So you signed the affidavit?

Yeah.

Yeah, I think when we did the application, though it does say that.

Is that correct?

Well, no, I I'm not sure.

I don't do the denials, but it should be told to the plan examiner that it's a contract venue for the application.

Because that makes a huge difference.

I'm just, you know, it for the to be open about everything.

Okay.

Apologize for that.

Apologies.

So the board now knows.

Uh Robert, so uh the difference between the two plans and and in changing the shape of the pool is you've given us a um you've given a greater side yard, but you've actually decreased the rear yard by two feet.

Yes, and the the nature of it was it um prior to that we were having a 12 by um 38-foot pool.

Correct.

Um we did go to a 13 by 35, which is a it's a um fiberglass pool, and that's the exact size of the pool.

So it's not a custom shape or size.

That is one that they sell and we can install.

Don't we have it as covering?

So it did slightly get larger.

Limited sizes, right?

Right.

There's limited sizes what they create in fiberglass pools.

Just a question.

Um the second barrier as you says um just says in ground.

Uh the proposed height is goes from four up to five, five.

Is it up to or is it five, five feet?

You know, measure and we have some concrete measures.

This is up to.

The maximum high goes as it goes above it for the second batteries.

Sure.

Five feet.

I believe I believe on my grading plan it's five feet, not five feet five.

So I'm looking at the variance that we requested, five foot height, northern portion of the retaining wall.

The previous um so does the actual floor plan that you have there matches the where you request another barriers?

Five feet, yes.

The previous one was up to five feet, five and a half feet.

Can you point on the specific map there what that part of the wall is on this map?

The five-foot section of the wall starts in this corner and runs.

Perpendicular through this part of the property.

So as this comes, this grade is sloping uphill as well.

So at the very top would the two meet is is that what would what is our height of that?

This wall right here is five feet.

Okay.

Where the cursor is.

You can see that.

Rod, we're just going back to the size of the pool again.

I'm sorry.

So I I'm just comparing your two different plans.

Um originally you had you actually moved the pool further away from the house as well.

Is that how you lost the foot there's additionally?

Yes.

We slightly moved the pool away from the house.

There is a set of stairs that come off the back of the house.

There is an elevated deck here.

Um for safety factor, I did push the pool slightly farther away from those stairs.

So I wanted a little bit of a four-foot walkway in between there.

Um it did increase that rear yard setback besides a little bit of the 13-foot wide.

And a 13 feet as opposed to 12 again.

You said that's because it's a modular size.

Yes.

Yes.

And prior to that, we were thinking we were going to do a gunite pool, so we could really do any size we wanted, then clank a very specific.

Is there any opposition in the audience?

Does anybody have any other comments or questions?

Would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion.

Thank you.

Um I make a motion on uh case number 30, 2025.

Uh Peter Savnano, uh I'll make a motion to um approve the variances requested for permission to construct an in-ground gunite now to be a modular pool, swimming pool, accessory to a one-family dwelling under construction, whereas the proposed rear yard setback of the pool varies uh from 12.6 feet to 17.1 feet.

It's less than the minimum required of 20 feet, whereas the proposed 16.1 to 17.1 side yard setback of the pool, it's less than the minimum of 20 feet.

Whereas the proposed five-foot high northern portion of the retaining walls in the rear yard property to exceed the maximum permitted of four feet within the required yards of an R110 uh zone district at the premises 25 Morris Lane South, block 3423, lot 42, and these are for area variances.

Uh again, I make a motion to approve the requested variances uh based on the following.

Uh whether the benefit can be achieved uh by any other means feasible means to the applicant.

Uh it does not appear that this uh pool can be located uh at another spot uh for religious reasons or otherwise uh that would not uh need variances for setbacks on the site.

Um the retaining wall, I think is just a function of the topography of the property itself.

Uh and I don't see that as being an issue.

Uh uh will there be an undesirable change uh in the neighborhood character to the nearby properties.

Uh I don't believe it will.

I think the grading is such that the pool will be tucked in behind the grade, below the grade, and that there's uh significant screening around the pool itself.

Um there was a made uh uh sorry, but a revision made to the side yard uh to pull a pool closer in closer in from the neighbor itself, away from the neighbor itself, which is uh a substantial change on the application.

Uh whether the requests are substantial, uh I think they are somewhat substantial, uh, but uh not uh not unreasonable uh as a request as the property does vary in the back, the property slope, so we do have a uh a 17-foot point in the rear yard at one point anyway, so that's not not out of totally out of character, and we have a 17-foot side yard as well, where 20 feet is required, so that's not substantial.

Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, I don't believe it will.

Again, I think it will be aesthetically pleasing as an in the ground pool, and again, working with the topography and the landscaping that is proposed.

I don't think it will have any environmental effects, detrimental effects.

And whether the alleged difficulty is uh self-created, I believe it is self-created, but not a reason for the denial of an area variance.

So for again, for these reasons, I make a motion to prove the cost of variances.

Second.

Second Fernando Arias.

Yes.

Abel Rodriguez.

Yes.

Bob Stanziel.

Yes.

Carla Klappa.

Yes.

Sharon Abadier?

Yes.

Eric Aisner.

Yes.

The motion's been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you all.

Have a good night.

Thank you very much.

Next case tonight is case six, 2026 for Clover Place.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is John Woodruff, the architect, and with offices at 12 Moran Place in New Rochelle.

And I'm here tonight for four clover place.

And we're requesting a setback variance for residential parking in a second front yard, and we are on a corner lot.

Here's our denial.

And you can see we're we are uh have a one-foot front yard set back to the two-car parking spaces to be legalized, and it's less than the minimum required of 25 feet.

This application is a old um building permit from 2013, which was um a renovation done by an architect who's retired.

Theresa Bay retired, and um the permit was still open, so we're doing our best to clean up the application.

And um when we were in the building department, Soraya and I discovered that the parking was in the wrong location.

This is our survey of the house.

Um it's on the corner of Gale Drive and Clover Place, and we are here for the legalization of the parking in this location.

And you can see this at the rear of our property.

Umriginally proposed was parking here on the plans that um Teresa Bayer submitted.

Here's a um overhead map.

This is Gale Drive, this is Clover Place, and we're parking here instead of the location originally proposed.

The house was renovated in 2013, and for the last 12, 13 years it's been under construction, and now we are um closing it out, and uh the house is being sold.

Um this is the parking area here.

Here's a photo of the Clover Drive view, which would uh really not show any parking at all.

I think originally when the house was renovated, um the garage was in this location, and now our location will be on the side.

This is the view from Gale Drive, and here's the parking was showing the two cars there.

And the reason that we're hoping that the board will um be uh uh favorable of our variants is that the door to enter the house to the patio is right here.

So we're really hoping to keep this parking here and use the existing pathway into the kitchen, which would really be good for the uh property itself.

There's another shot of the um of the the side of the house with the parking and this is the entrance to the kitchen back here.

Here's an overhead view from a satellite view, and this is Gale Drive, Clover Place, and here's our parking area.

Here's the yard and the end of our property here, and then this is the patio.

So if I parked here, I would come in, walk in the patio and go into the house, or I could walk around to the front door.

But this is the most advantageous area for the parking on the property.

And our pro and if we did park in here, which was originally proposed, we'd have to come through the yard and a longer distance.

And what would happen is in order for it to be legal parking, it would have to be pretty much in the yard to not need any variance.

And I know this is hard to read, but this was the original site plan that Theresa Bayer uh submitted in 2013, and it was approved because it didn't need any variances.

Here is, and it's a little hard to see, like I said, is was supposed to be where the old parking location would be, so there'd be a driveway here, and then the parking would be behind the patio into the rear yard, and that's where the cars would stay.

So we're hoping for this uh consideration for this parking location, which um would be more advantageous, like I said, for the owner of the home.

And I also think that um, you know, looking at the neighborhood, that it's quite common this situation of having parking in the front yard.

Um this this is the house directly across the street from us, which is 38 gale, and they have a very wide driveway here, and um at the time there's no one parking there, but it is wide enough where someone might guess might park there at some point.

This is the house um to the right of them, which is 44 Gale Drive, and they do have someone parking, but they have a very wide driveway, and this is also directly across the street.

And then this is the one um closer to um Clover, which is 50 Gale Drive, um, which is pretty much across the street.

And I also spoke to this neighbor, he uh reached out to me and said that he would had no uh problems with our application.

Um in fact, most of the neighbors asked me where the new driveway was going, and I said it's gonna be the same driveway that's been there for 13 years.

It's not really changing anything.

Um for our balancing point in terms of the um if it'll be an undesirable change in the neighborhood, I believe this won't uh uh uh occur.

The driveway parking in the front yard is a similar situation on three houses across the street, 38, 44, and 50 Gale Drive.

Um the condition is is prevalent throughout the neighborhood.

Um is there any other means feasible other than pursuing a variance?

The only feasible parking area, unfortunately, is near the entry door to the main house, and it's out of the way of the backyard green space, which we're trying to preserve.

Is our variance substantial?

Our lot is a little bit larger than some adjacent lots in the neighborhood, and it has two fronts since it's a corner lot, therefore it has more potential areas for parking access.

So that's a plus for this lot.

Um will it have any ad variant uh will the variance have any adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood?

I don't think it would.

The the driveway complies with all the impervious surface area calculations, which were uh originally calculated in the in the uh renovation of the home.

And um was it self-created?

Yes, it was self-created.

It was built in the wrong place, um, unfortunately, and I think it was poorly planned.

Not that Teresa doesn't build nice houses, but it was I think that was not really seen as a as kind of an afterthought for the parking in that location, and I believe that this is a better location um overall for the owner.

Anyone have any questions?

Uh John, so so you saw us uh three or four of the houses.

Are those other houses conforming or are they also about environments?

That's a good question.

I don't know if they got variances for their parking.

Um you're allowed to have up to a 24-foot wide driveway.

That's no, I'm just talking for the fact that maybe they're also built on the wrong side and then I was some well, like I said, you you're allowed to park in like Zaria said, you're allowed to park in front of the garage, but parking here is really you could park the two cars here in front.

Because to me, you're going from one to twenty-five, that's a significant variance.

So I don't know how that happened.

You know, you said uh whether the original plan called for you Yeah, if you look at this, it's it's very interesting.

You can see that this was the original proposed site plan, and they had the driveway all the way up at this corner here, and the driveway would lead you to the parking.

But now, if you really looked at it, this parking is in the yard.

These these small um rectangles are the dry wells, which are the the um retention for the stormwater.

So the parking was to be in this corner in the back of the house.

But once you look at the way the house is constructed, this is the only green space um on the property.

There is some green space here.

Whoops, there's some green space here, but it's it's um the yard is more private, and I think would be really used by the by the family that would live there as um as a yard as a recreation space, and that the parking and they would also be walking a great distance to the house.

So this parking, I think is germane to the house in terms of functionality for the residents.

I think you have a deep uh pretty deep right-away there, John.

So at least you have the impression that it's the spaces are set further back.

So this right away here.

Yeah.

It's about 12 feet or so.

I see what you're saying.

Uh right away beyond your property line.

You have a little bit more here.

I don't think it's shown properly on this plan.

Actually, it's a survey shows.

Let me go to my survey.

Yeah, yeah, yeah.

I'm sorry.

Um, what was that coming?

I'm saying the uh the right-of-way, the actual where the curb is actually pronando is is a lot is further out, you should see on the survey.

It's probably out about another 10 or 12 feet.

So it gives you the impression that the spaces are further back is the street line is is that far out.

Right.

So and that's something I should have brought up.

You have about a 12 to 15 foot additional buffer between the curb.

It's not shown on the survey, but this is where the street line is.

So it looks a little tight when you look at the the survey, but here's the property line, which is invisible, and then you have this curb here, which is not shown on this plan, but that's adding another 10 to 12 feet of of buffer from the curb.

Anyone else?

Would anyone like to make a motion?

No.

I'll make a motion.

Uh I want to make a motion in case 6-2026.

I lean quigley for permission to legalize changes made during construction to the work, which was approved under building permit 2014-374 and building permit 2013 747, legalize existing.

Whereas the proposed one-foot front yard setback of the two parking spaces to be legalized is less than the minimum required of 25 feet in an R1-10 zone district at the premises of four Clover Place, block 160, lot 300, seeking an area variance.

I move that we uh approve this request.

Um considering the five factors, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.

I don't think that it really can.

Um this is the most appropriate location for the parking in order to have use of of the lot uh the way it's intended.

Um whether an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties will result, I don't think it will.

Um as my colleague pointed out, there is a substantial right-of-way beyond the property line to the street, so it's not as if the cars are literally sitting on the street.

They are set back.

Um and it certainly uh looks similar, although shorter, to many of the driveways in the neighborhood.

Um whether the request is substantial, it certainly is substantial.

Um, but I don't think that factor alone is uh reason to deny the application.

Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, we've heard no indication that it will, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, it is, but uh the proposed solution I feel is reasonable and appropriate under the circumstances.

So I move we approve this application.

Second.

I'm sorry, my phone is being really weird tonight.

I apologize.

It's the boss, sorry.

Bob Sanziel.

Yes.

Fernando Arias, yes.

Abel Rodriguez.

Yes.

Carla Klapper.

Yes.

Yes.

And Erica Eisner.

Yes.

The motion has been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Last case for this evening is case seven, twenty twenty-six, five sixteen Pelham Road.

Oh my god.

I gotta turn my phone off.

Regina, can we just check and see if there are voices to be heard on this?

They I don't think anybody responded when we first called the roll, but no one did.

I'm sorry, yeah.

Was there any last case for Clover place?

Okay.

Yeah, no.

Just observers, that's fine.

Oh no, I'm sorry, I didn't mean four clover, I mean this one.

Oh, no.

Uh yeah.

So is there any opposition to the case 7, 2026, 516 Pelham Road.

So as I was explaining to the board earlier, I had several phone calls about this case, but the people have not had a chance to write a letter yet.

Um of them are are elderly.

So there is some opposition, but we don't have it in front of us for this evening's meeting.

Okay.

I just noticed there were several people still in the room.

I was wanted to make sure.

Thank you.

Take it away.

Well, good evening, everyone.

Good evening to the board members, to the city staff.

My name is Mark Blanchard.

I'm an attorney recently retained on the project with the firm Ben Russo Kurt O Schwartz and Achinelli of counsel to that firm.

Our firm address is 35 East Grassy Spring Road in Yonkers, New York.

I'm joined here tonight with the owner and the project architect.

So we're here to answer any questions, get the applic, get the discussion started on the application.

After the submission deadline had come and passed, in fact, it was even recently right before this meeting.

Really was meant more for next meeting.

I didn't mean to shortchange the board on the time for your review, but I would walk through it anyway this evening.

I'll reference some of those points.

But we have the plants here in front of you.

We're prepared to discuss the application and of course field any questions that you might have.

So as we get going, one of the issues I wanted to address right up front is we require seven area variances for this use.

The first one is probably the most substantial.

Under the zoning with our lot size and other factors, two units are allowed.

So it's two to four.

So that's a 100% variance.

When you look at, and of course, as I say in my brief, which you would see, that of course is a substantial request when you look at the percentage alone.

But when we look at the balancing test and you look at the neighborhood, and also when you look at the existing abandoned commercial use, I believe that the project itself, that substantiality is mitigated by what is being proposed.

That's a really interesting section of your city, that Pelham Road.

I've been down there a couple of times on the site, driving around.

It's very busy down there.

It's that old school.

Um I grew up in Yonkers, it reminds me a little bit of Yonkers down by the river, where it's that old school kind of a busy residential neighborhood, densely populated with some commercial uses there.

Uh there is a uh a scarcity of on-street parking.

We come forward to this board, we're compliant with all of our parking.

We're not looking to put, even with the increase in units, we comply with parking.

So we're not going to be adding to uh any kind of searching for spaces down there.

All of our spots are on site.

Uh we are compliant with height.

When you look at the unit count, it kind of a little misleading because we are compliant with height.

We're just over maximum building coverage.

So the site itself, the project itself is not creating sort of a suffocating presence to the rest of the neighborhood.

There is a fairly new residential condominium developed across Pelham Road from us.

There's a we we show pictures of it in our submission.

There is a fairly dense condominium developed diagonally across Drake Avenue, I believe, Drake Place from us.

So in what we're proposing here will extinguish what has become somewhat does something of an out-of-character use, right?

This commercial automobile repair station.

As I note in the brief, it is a little unfortunate.

I think times have kind of changed with vehicle leasing and dealer-centric repair modules.

That neighborhood service station model, unfortunately, I think is it's a beautiful thing.

I go to one in Hastings actually owned by two brothers, but there that model has somewhat become obsolete.

So we're looking to extinguish that abandoned commercial use and install a residential use that we believe will fit seamlessly into the existing conditions.

So when you look at when you look at whether or not the project will have an adverse impact into the character of the neighborhood, I think when you look around that neighborhood, we are our presentation, our project is going to fit pretty seamlessly right into what is existing.

When you look at whether or not we're going to have an adverse environmental impact to the neighborhood, we want to consider a big part of secret review and other projects, and a big part of environmental review has to do with the visual impact and aesthetic concerns.

And in terms of the environmental impact from an aesthetic standpoint, we are going to be extinguishing what has somewhat become a little bit of an eyesore, right, in the neighborhood due to the abandoned use, and we're going to be reinstalling a newly constructed, very nicely designed residential use.

So from an environmental impact perspective, we're going to be having, we believe, a positive impact, or I should say, beneficial impact to the neighborhood from a visual perspective.

Whether or not we're having uh whether or not the variances that we're requesting are substantial, it from two to four is certainly a substantial variance.

But when you step back, and really the rest of the variance is we have a uh front yard, a rear yard deficiency, we have a s uh FAR and GFA deficiency.

Um we we exceed the maximum allowable curb cut on our site.

So a lot of the variances that we're seeing stem from and grow out of the unit count.

But as we're talking about the impact, right, the character of the neighborhood, the environmental impact, our stormwater is fully complied with.

Like I said earlier, we're not exceeding height, right?

We're in line with the height of the neighborhood, we're in line with the massing of similar developments near us.

So we're not going to be creating an adverse character impact, right?

We're sort of in line with what's there in that community.

We're not going to be creating an on-street parking issue.

We're not going to be creating any other visual impact issues.

So from the character of the neighborhood and an environmental concern, we believe we're in line with what's existing.

The substantiality, it is what it is.

Was itself created.

One of the arguments I make in the brief is that the economic constraints of entering into this market in New Rochelle.

The cost of land acquisition, plus within this current climate, the cost of construction, the feasibility, uh really, we are prepared to show you.

It's not in this submission, but we would be prepared to show at the next meeting.

The reason for the number of requested units has to do with the economics of the project.

So in terms of a feasibility analysis, we're really driven by uh an economic analysis, which is asking, which is sort of driving the bus here why we're going from why we're going to four units.

Um of the issues also, because of our proximity to the Long Island Sound, we're showing a rooftop amenity.

We think that we can get with the zoning compliant height.

We think we might have the opportunity for a water view on a roof deck type of a thing, great amenity for the project.

And also the project is an ownership of four-owner condominium project, which I think is always more desirable for a municipality rather than a rental project.

So we believe that's a that's an addition, that's a positive benefit into the neighborhood.

So with the five factors, when you look at the five factors, other than the substantiality, and you know, thankfully this is a balancing test.

When you look at the five factors, we do believe that our proposal for newly constructed residential unit uh will fit and benefit the city uh much more than what what's there right now in the existing conditions.

Do you want to go through the design?

So I'll ask Tom Abilama, the project architect, excuse me, to come up and then walk you through some of the design features, some of the design questions on the project.

Excuse me.

So evening.

My name is Tom Abilama, architect for the project.

Uh with the owner here, Mr.

Lucky Okodwa with us.

Uh this project here right now, uh, as as you know, we're providing four apartments uh uh uh uh and and uh with three-story building.

And we providing uh on the first floor, we're providing uh uh a two-car parking, as well as we have uh we have uh some mechanical uh and then we have some storage on on the first floor going up with the uh with the stair to go up on the first floor.

So now let me see here.

Uh just like to show first of all, we can show you the the uh the buildings uh across the street from the building.

We have most of the lots in here there are have uh the same situation with the RF 50 and and different also.

Uh and then uh these are the uh stopped now.

Uh anyway, uh on the on the first floor we have uh living room, dining room, kitchen, and a bathroom, and we have uh uh going up on the third floor, we have three bedrooms uh and including a master bedroom and uh and two baths.

So we can be able at to reach on the fourth on the on the roof of the third floor, we can provide uh the nice area to look down onto the peers from that point.

Uh as you know, we have four four driveways as we showing.

Uh the each driveway will have uh including the two indoor parking plus an ad an additional one on top.

Uh and then we have uh uh we providing uh the on the sides uh uh of of the of the side yard, we have eight foot uh as per the code, as well as the the front on the Pelham Road.

We have 20 feet, which is permitted.

Uh uh we have the front as uh uh uh about 11 foot uh uh uh 17 foot eleven and uh from the driveway, uh which is uh uh almost equal to the to the driveway that permitted uh for the for the 20-foot long driveway as well on the rear, we have uh also 20 foot 10 inches in the rear, which requires by the zoning by uh 30 feet.

Uh in general uh the coverage uh the coverage of the building, including the height, is within what we are asking for from the zoning within less than 10 percent that's required.

The FAR is the one that we have included in the situation.

Um please tell us if you have any questions behind that.

That really concludes our presentation, so with the board.

Sorry about that.

So we're here to hear the to answer your questions here, the board comments.

Great.

I I have two to to kick us off.

Um who is the lead agency for the environmental review here?

Is that going to be so I assume for the environmental?

My mic is on, yeah.

Well, we would have we would require site plan after this.

So this the I'm assuming I'm assuming the lead agency would have to be the neural shell planning board.

That's that's what I would assume as well, but I I just was wondering if um, you know, in EAF or your submission for that would be available because this is increasing the number of dwelling units here, and so I just want to understand better the impact to schools and other things that might come up during that.

I I don't know whether that's required.

I I'm just asking the question.

Well, look, I mean I think it's relevant to the substantiality question.

It is and whether or not it is.

I agree with you.

Okay.

So whether or not it is required under a secret analysis, which is not in front of you right now, I think it's a relevant question that we'd be happy to answer for the March meeting.

Okay, fantastic.

And I if I could just, I'm sorry.

Yeah, if I could just be clear, you are you you're looking for for us to apply and a comment on the school child on the impact of the school children, schools?

Um it's in order to confirm um the substantiality and the environmental component of the balancing test.

I want to better understand these are a lot of variances, and especially with the first variance of adding additional dwelling units.

Yes.

Since I've been on the board and relatively new, we have not I've not voted on something with additional dwelling units being requested.

And so I think I would just want more understanding around the impacts of that.

Um before I determine my votes of whether this is substantial and it doesn't create adverse environmental impacts.

Okay, I understand.

Um again, it's sort of a broad question, and I apologize.

I can't get you more detailed than that, but that's where my question is coming.

I'm following.

Okay, fantastic.

And then um my next question is did you seek a recommendation from the planning board for these plans?

They got a negative referral.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so I think my colleagues answered that that there was just there was a negative referral um from the planning board.

So I I just wanted to confirm that.

Those are my two questions for now.

I'll hand it over to my colleagues.

Yeah, I'd like to follow up with what um Charlotte is is talking about.

Um Mr.

Blanchard, you talked about all of the things that um this plan extinguishes except for all of the uh deficiencies, the FAR, the GFA, and going from two units to four.

Um I'm not new on this board, and um I am losing my tolerance for developers who have come before us saying that we should grant variances, and never have we granted seven um because creating residential um units of of fewer residential units would not be economically feasible.

And I have a real I have a real problem with that, and I'm just following up with Charlotte.

It doesn't feel right to me as a um an agent of the city and a member of this board, that that then becomes our burden and our issue because the numbers don't work out for the developer to um then be compliant um and uh and living in the within the parameters have that have that everyone else has had to, you know, uh remain consistent with.

And so I just um I want you to read the room.

I understand.

I understand I'm not here trying to just maximize it's not a profiteering exercise.

I understand what you're saying from a policy standpoint from a philosophical standpoint.

I I think you make a reasonable uh uh argument.

I I've heard on many board members around where I practice with Westchester Dutchess Rockland, you know, all around.

That is uh a for a foremost concern.

Um but I I would I'm not pushing back on you, I'm just asking, I'm just clarifying slightly that it is we we we on this side sometimes get pushed out of the philosophical and into the economic aspect of it.

That's why I did offer to to show a more detailed financial analysis.

So you st I want to take away the uh uh veneer that we're profiteering and show from a practical standpoint why we're asking for this.

So I appreciate the question.

You were very you're very clear about that, but um the substantialities um speak for themselves, actually.

Oh that's fine.

Yeah, I I mean I I can say for myself, I'm not really interested in in the financial aspect of it.

I don't think that we um there's any authority that I'm aware of that we should take that into consideration.

Um it's not our responsibility to make sure that developers make money on their projects.

Um I think that the number of variances that you're seeking is incredibly high, and it's driven by the fact that you're trying to put four lot four units when there's it's only zoned for two.

So I have a lot of problems with the application.

It's a beautiful building.

It there's no doubt it's designed beautifully, um, in my opinion.

But um, and it's certainly better than an abandoned uh old garage.

I agree with you on all of that, but I just think you're trying to put too much on this property and you're asking for too much from this board.

So um so our job is to grant the least amount of variance um as possible.

And when I look at this application um is obvious that some of those variances can be diminished, some of them can actually be avoid.

Um so my suggestion is that you guys need to consider what you guys are proposing.

I understand that you know you guys are in business to make money, but at the same time, you know, the city of New Rochelle, the um the city council, they they put rules and regulations in place to stop things like this from happening.

I think this this project is way too big.

Um I think, you know, and I'm not telling you what to do, but maybe consider making less units a little bigger size, and therefore you get a higher price, sell price.

So I I just feel that there are way too many variances.

Uh, have an issue with the FAR, I have an issue with the four units.

Uh I think you guys really need to, you know, look around and reconsider what you guys are proposing.

Okay, I appreciate that.

I just wanted to to know uh just going back to Seeker for a second that um for area variances for one, two, and three family dwelling units are type two actions under Seeker, which don't require any review above that for a four unit above you would.

So I just wanted to to make that clear.

That's why you typically don't have to deal with secret this board because you're generally dealing with area variances for single family homes.

Um so I just wanted to note that.

So I wanted to revise my request then because you wouldn't be required to provide what I was asking for.

Um I think it would just be helpful to get additional information about what you think the environmental impacts would be and how your plans um mitigate that and or don't affect those environmental impacts.

I agree with you.

And that's what I think I was sort of reframing your question.

I was I'm sorry, Kevin.

Didn't wasn't your comment that because it's four units they do need it?

Yes.

Correct.

Yeah, correct.

They do need it.

Yes.

I thought you said it was if it was less than less less than increasing by four.

So they're going from two to four, and they will need to.

It's not about the increase, it's just the the statute is that uh uh a one, two, or three family dwelling um is does not require review under seeker.

But four does four and above would.

Okay.

Thank you.

But either way, I I would we we're we can provide that analysis.

Uh just want to chime in here too.

Mark, thank you uh for your presentation, and you know, they're all excellent excellent points.

And uh Tom is a nice looking building.

Thank you.

But um again, uh as you admitted in your presentation, there are a number of hurdles here, and I think some of them may be just uh too many to uh to overcome here.

So just uh again, I just think you've heard from a couple other members maybe um just take that into consideration.

I appreciate the comment.

I mean we we were not asking for a I guess the the our purpose tonight um introduction on it on but we're really kind of get this feedback.

Uh perhaps request an adjournment for the March meeting.

Uh I heard you, Regina earlier about the the submission for next week with supplemental material.

Yes.

Uh so really uh you know this this input from the board members is of course valuable.

Uh I mean you drive the bus, not me.

So uh we're we appreciate the input and I'm not trying to truncate this discussion right here, but we certainly recognize that we would come back uh in March uh with supplemental materials.

Appreciate it.

One last comment.

Um can't speak for my colleagues, but um I can speak for myself and I I do appreciate um the that you're not asking for a uh variance on parking.

Yeah, I just don't think the neighborhood would sustain it.

You know, I it's especially with the snow.

Well, they are pretty hard down there, you know, coming home from work and find an on-street parking spot.

Lived in many neighborhoods like that.

It's uh stress uh stressor.

Yes, so if you were to revise your plans, I would appreciate um myself.

I would feel more inclined to vote yes on something that showed compliance with parking.

Continues to we're we're compliant now, but we would remain compliant.

Right, correct.

Yes.

Tom, I see you have a uh you have a hammerhead on a couple of the two end units, but the two middle ones don't have a hammerhead to for because backing out onto Pelham Road is uh gotta be miserable, right?

Over there, but I don't know if you have the space for it, but anyway, that's to be looked at, but anyway.

No, that's a good comment.

Thank you.

Yeah, thank you.

That has to do with the driveway.

Yeah.

Oh, we can incorporate that into our next submission.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Adjust that.

Requesting an adjournment.

Are you requesting an adjournment?

Yes, I am, madam chairwoman.

Granted.

Great.

See you next month.

See you in March.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

I move that we close the meeting.

I second that motion.

Anyone seconding?

Second.

Thank you.

Meeting is over.

Have a good night.

Good night, everybody.