Good evening, everyone, and welcome to this evening's uh zoning board of appeals meeting.

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

Um, just a couple of quick uh notes before we begin.

Um, for anyone that's new to our meetings, the zoning board of appeals is a quasi-judicial body that's responsible for hearing and deciding applications for variances and appeals of administrative determinations that have made that have been issued by the city in accordance with the city's zoning ordinance.

Our role and responsibility is to apply the specific facts presented by each applicant, which includes both the submissions which were submitted to the Department of Buildings, as well as the presentation made before us at this hearing, and that would include any voices in support or opposition to an application.

Um you should all know that we uh have all received submissions and have reviewed them.

Um in making our determination, we're responsible for plot applying a five-factor test to each application before us, and we are charged with granting the minimum variance that we deem necessary and adequate um in order to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community.

Tonight's meeting will um the format for tonight's meeting will proceed as follows.

Uh our clerk will call the role to confirm who is present this evening with respect to each application, both in support and in opposition.

Then we'll hear each application.

The applicant will go first and make their presentation, and then the board will have an initial opportunity to ask questions of the applicant.

I urge anyone who is speaking in opposition to any application to listen to the questions that we ask, and the answer is given because it may in fact answer some of your current concerns or questions.

We ask that anyone speaking in opposition of any application not repeat what has been said before them.

Um anybody who's getting up to speak in support or opposition of an application will be limited to three minutes.

And we do we are pretty strict with that.

Um we ask that your comments be limited to the specific variants before us.

There are many issues that are involved in a project going on in the city.

Not all of them are within our jurisdiction.

So please limit your comments to the specific application for the variants before us.

Um at the conclusion of each presentation, the board will vote on whether to approve or reject the application.

In order for the motion to pass, we must we must have four votes in favor.

You may notice that we are a little light this evening.

We are typically a board of seven.

We only have five members present today.

Um that is your right, you just need to ask us when you come up to the podium and and we would uh be happy to uh oblige.

Um I think that's it.

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

Okay, good evening.

The first case tonight, this is for roll only.

Case 28, 2025, 93 Glenwood Avenue.

The applicant's here.

Is the applicant here?

And the opposition of voices to be heard on that.

Case 7, 2026, 516 Pelham Road, the applicant is here.

Opposition or voices to be heard on that.

For the record, I do have a couple of letters that came into the mail as opposition for that.

Case 38, 2025, 121 Caligny.

If anyone's here for that, that has been withdrawn, so it won't be heard any longer.

And case 5, 2026, 120 Buffard has been adjourned until the April 7th meeting.

New cases this evening.

Case 8, 2026 for Island View Place, the applicants here.

Opposition or voices to be heard on that.

Case 9, 2026, to Larchwood Road, the applicants here.

Oppositional voices to be heard on that.

Case 10, 2026, 179 Brookdale Avenue, the applicants here.

Opposition of voices to be heard.

Case 11, 2026, 26 Disbrow, the applicants here.

Oppositional voices to be heard.

And then we have an administrative item at 99 Wilmot for after the meeting.

First case tonight, case 28, 2025, 93 Glenwood Avenue.

Good evening, Madam Chair and members of the board.

My name is Willie Zambrano.

As you know, uh two months ago we were here and we heard the recommendations from everybody, including the neighbors uh for this project.

And uh we came back with uh just to highlight some of the improvements that we wanted to do along the driveway, which is seems to be um the case in concern.

Um so we um provided these renderings uh couple with superimposed uh on um actual picture that we took of the driveway and we created this planter edging that um we were trying to explain by what we're not on the drawings uh back then.

Um the planters actually work as a um some sort of uh bioretention as well because we're also trying to treat it as a way to divert the water as mentioned two months ago.

Um as you can imagine, and I I have some other illustrations that would show you that we're at the bottom of this hill uh with a contour levels of two feet intervals.

Um you can imagine five houses above this area.

Um it's almost 14 feet up.

But I'll I'll show you as as I go through the presentation.

What you see here is actually uh the planter area that acts as a uh retention and um uh it's almost like um retention well uh in in case uh you have a lot of flood.

Uh we have the wall on the back, uh which we would like to build uh just to actually just contain some of the water if we were to actually have some storm like we've been having in the several years now.

And to be able to divert not only along the wall, but also catch it and then divert it into uh there's a catch basin that you don't see here, but it's at the end of the at the foot of the driveway along um the street there.

And couple with just a nice fence on the on the back of the property, just to make sure that we can actually have host uh certain certain uh uh outdoor recreation and stuff that uh my client wants to actually use that area for.

Um we also provided a um a shed for the um for the for the trash.

Um actually you can see it here on the side plan, which is also rendered.

Uh you see the planter along the side yard.

Um and just to back up one of the recommendations was to make sure that the cars were set back uh from the four front yard line uh line, so we don't have to actually ask for a variance on that.

We're only asking for a variance for the area um area of existing that we have on in this house.

Um along the back, you see some um paved areas that my client would like to utilize summertime um when it's nice out.

But uh obviously she also wants some privacy along the way.

Coupled with uh with the wall that we're trying to actually just protect the house from being uh flooded at any kind of storm.

Um this is just a side plan.

And just to show you and highlight where we are on on the map uh from this hill terrained uh street.

Um every line that you see there is a two-foot contour.

So you can imagine that it's the lowest part of that street, and both houses.

As a matter of fact, uh I don't know if the neighbor is here, but um she can probably attest to the fact that she has she also gets that kind of heavy rain all the way at the bottom, and it really affects uh both properties.

This is an illustration of what we want to do in terms of the retention just to catch the rain and divert it from the back.

This is a section going through that planter uh from the back creating that wall and also catching that rainfall and diverting the water to a certain extent.

I know we won't be able to actually get all of that water out, but in some way it protects her, it diverts the water sideways and it also allows it to flow directly into the catch basin uh from the street.

And the other drawings I think you have shown uh you have seen them.

We adjusted uh the application to show the um the compliance of uh the front yard.

We're not encroaching with our cars anymore, and we kind of set them back.

Um all the other drawings are the same, showing some sort of uh floor area calculations for the existing conditions of the rest of the house.

And I think that's it.

Um be happy to answer any comments you have.

There is opposition on this.

First, does anyone on the board have any questions?

So uh Willie, so the bioretention basin, which is also the buffer, now that's set that gives you that 10-foot setback that you're required to have from the parking spaces also and another.

Correct.

Right.

Correct.

And we kind of hedge it with uh planter, which also allows us to contain all of that storm water that will be coming.

All right, if in case.

Thank you.

The planter was not part of the prior submission, is that correct?

No, it wasn't.

Okay.

Okay.

Well it's Willie, right?

Yes.

Willie, we had called a few weeks ago, and we advised that you cannot stop the natural flow of water.

And you have a wall proposed along the back property line.

Right.

Didn't Saraya speak to you about that?

Um I wasn't at the um at my office at the time, but uh she did speak to somebody uh from my office and we explained what we wanted to do.

Um my client is adamant because um she wants to be able to actually protect her her property.

Um we can further um adhere to any comments that we can have and the wall, even though it acts as a retaining wall um for hydrostatic pressure.

We would like to at least um uh divert the water along the sides and also be able to actually let it naturally flow through that uh drain that I just showed and onto the uh catch basin that's at the end of the driveway.

Show me where the drain is on the plane.

This is a cross section through the planter.

So uh if you see here, this is that wall.

And the drain would actually act as uh as a conduit.

I wasn't talking along the side of the driveway.

I'm talking about that small, very small rear yard.

Okay.

Sure.

You're talking about here?

Yes.

Right.

So along here you have um the terrain actually slopes down to the street on Vaughn Avenue.

Right.

And then it also slows down to the other street on the opposite end.

So we're just trying to divert the water from one side and also divert it by channeling it into the onto the street.

And further to that, uh along the the back side of that wall, we can also add an uh you know gravel and uh treat it almost almost like um French drain?

A cat train, yes.

Like a French drain?

Like a um I I will yes uh uh a trench uh a French drain but also with gravel.

So you can actually get get all of that water into that channel and then divert it.

And where is the catch basin that you speak of?

Is it on that side street or is it?

It will be over here.

I don't I I don't know if you can see it, but it's it's actually down here somewhere.

It's at the end of the driveway.

Yes.

So the the drain that I'm talking about will actually run through that step-down planter and let the water just naturally flow into the the catch basin there.

And and this French drain is gonna catch the the water running along the top of that property?

We can we can create a uh like a a gravel that you can actually trenched and put that pipe underneath so we can catch it from the other side.

Right.

So the water will filter through the gravel.

Exactly.

Into the pipe.

Yes.

The pipe's gonna go to the basin.

Is that on the drawings?

Yes, uh show the section that I just showed before.

But do you have a f is there a site plan showing that?

Um we can provide one.

It's you know, we when we get to actually file this, we we're gonna have to show um some type of civil drawings in order to do that.

I think it would be helpful to see the civil drawings um for the board, at least for me personally.

Sure.

Sure.

Because if the drain is not shown on the plans, then I I don't know what it is and I can't determine if it is gonna make an environmental impact.

Um if the drain wasn't there, and you're saying it will be, but if it wasn't there, presumably the water would affect properties surrounding it, correct?

We're trying to actually channel it so it doesn't affect any other areas.

Thank you.

It's actually affecting uh my clients uh house.

Understood.

Thank you.

So uh a couple of questions.

Uh I noticed that this is a drain that uh that is pretty much uh where the garage used to be.

And that drain is just full of dirt that has never been kept up.

Uh is that drain gonna be like corrected or because I don't see how you're gonna be able to bring the water from the back when the property is so much lower in the back and it's coming up in the front.

You're gonna be able to pitch that to the drain outside.

And then my other concern is, you know, original you guys were at um on your application, it was about parking two cars on the driveway.

When I see that driveway, that driveway looks all the way from the back of the property, all the way forward.

Okay, all blocked top, which tells me that you could put a whole bunch of cars there.

And you know, uh based on what you guys really apply, which it was to get two parking spaces in there.

I mean, I think you should have had put something there where you could park two cars there and then do some grass area or something to that effect to make it more attractive.

It would be better as far as you will having um water going through the grass rather having that block top there.

Um, to me that just I mean you could put 10 cars there, the way I look at it right now.

We actually reduce the amount of dry weight that we have currently just by the mere fact that we have these planters now.

So that eight-foot uh side yard that we're creating or we're required to have, that's not there at the moment.

So we're actually reducing the width of that driveway.

Um we're only having two cars in there.

But with the width that you have right now, can you part two cars side to side?

Yes, and that's what we show in our plan.

No, I I saw that.

But you could park two cars all the way from the back, technically all the way to the front.

I think I don't I don't I I don't think it's anything dissimilar, Abel, from any other house, though.

He really has a garage.

I mean, you can't uh most houses have a double wide driveway.

I mean, it's not anything unusual.

You don't have because there's no turnaround, you have to be able to back the car all the way out straight.

So no, that I understand, but the way it's set up now originally when they put in on the proposal, it was to park two cars, right?

Right.

So if you um leave the back wider and then make as you go forward, make it narrower, then you cannot part multiple cars there, and in a way it would be more attractive.

You know, you could put grass there, so you're gonna have more permeable area, which is one of the issues that you're trying to correct.

I I don't know.

I mean, he's already taken out ten like six hundred feet of imperial surface by putting the planting strip in.

So I mean it's uh again to me it's like a regular driveway.

If I may say we are actually improving the way it it was it is at the moment, that's something you can do.

Everybody's the question.

Do you want to hear the opposition?

Yeah, I was just reaching for my buttons.

We're gonna let the opposition would anybody like to be heard on this application.

Somebody raise their hand earlier.

Why don't we start with this gentleman over here?

Just please don't repeat what each other says.

You can state your support of what they said, but make sure you state your name and address before you speak, sir.

Uh my name is Eric Cruz addresses 42 Vaughn Avenue, and I was notified that this project was for a single family um variance improvements.

And so my question is whether or not anyone actually believes that this is a single family usage, because whether or not you approve the project, is there any recourse for anybody who thinks that it's not being used for single family purpose?

And if it's okay to do that, can I just renovate my basement and rent it out?

Because I'd like to know if anybody pays rent or if it's really a single family and two cars?

Are you kidding me?

There's at least five cars.

That's what and they come out into the street.

So if whether or not you improve them to do their single family variants, then does anyone have recourse to question whether it's used as a single family unit.

Well, just just to be clear, the only variance before us has to do with the FAR not being in compliance with the code with respect to the driveway.

But I will defer to actually the denial from we first heard this case.

Right.

Yeah, includes the parking, and then the the memo also includes the parking.

So we are looking at two variants according to the Well, so this is a zoning board.

So I'm curious about zoning.

Am I allowed to rent out my basement?

I'll then rent it out because we can't answer that question, sir.

Not in single family zone, you're not okay.

So if this is a single family zone, then it would be awesome.

You let them do the work, and then we come back later and say, oh, this is not used as a single family unit.

And then they wasted their money and they're not allowed to do that.

Okay.

Okay.

I I'm gonna wrap up the phone.

I just hold on a second.

We didn't allow them to do anything.

I'm just saying, this applicant wait let me see what's going on.

Let me finish.

This applicant gave testimony last month or two months ago, whenever they were here, that they did 400,000 worth of work to this home with no permits.

So we didn't grant permission for them to do anything.

They went ahead and did it on their own.

They're gonna pay a fee, a penalty fee.

It's it's two thousand dollars or triple the construction cost, whichever is greater to obtain the building permit.

That's that's the monetary fee that they're gonna pay.

If this house is being occupied as a two-family home, if there's a separate kitchen and a bathroom in the basement, that's no good.

It's not acceptable in any way at all.

Okay, great.

So then whether or not this is approved, then there's gonna be uh chance challenge whether or not the place is being used as a multifamily home or not.

That's what I needed to clarify.

I would I would I would pose the question to the architect.

Have you been in the home?

Is there a separate dwelling unit in the basement of this home?

I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

No, it's not.

He has to go back up to the board.

Yeah.

Excuse me.

No, it's not, sir.

Okay.

Well, then are we allowed to find out if anybody pays rents?

Because it really seems like there's a lot of people living there and they're not in the single family.

So, sir, if you have a question about occupancy, you call the building department, you put a complaint in, and we send an inspector out to check the complaint.

I think they've been there right now, I'm not sure.

But that's how the process is done, not here at the Zone.

We could certainly go look and see what the occupancy of this basement is.

That's that's not beyond the realm of possibility.

I have no problem doing that.

We do it all the time.

Okay, well then that's great because like I don't know whether or not.

Thank you, sir.

The three minutes is up.

Would anybody else like to be heard?

Yes.

Can I ask you a quick question?

Sure.

So I just want to collab because I'm sure I'll mention before we only have one variance we're looking at.

That's correct.

The the only variance that's before us, I think what Charlotte was referring to is that while there's only one variance before us, which has to do with the FAR being at point five four instead of the permitted point three five, the public notice write up.

Um still included a mention in the description of the proposed alteration of existing driveway to create two outdoor parking spaces, but I think that relates to the FAR because that's the driveway, correct?

No.

No, that's not a design change from last time.

And the and the public notice just didn't get modified.

Okay.

Yes, I see that, but the description still includes it.

Okay.

So that's just an oversight.

Okay.

I'm sorry, please continue.

No, no problem.

Uh Amy Jackson, 84 Glenwood, uh, have lived in the neighborhood 24 years.

Um and I just, you know, want to start to say I'm here just to learn about what the plan is.

Uh this house is across the street.

Um and generally I'm supportive of homeowners making changes to meet their families' needs, but I also have to state my concerns.

Um generally I just want to acknowledge that we are all temporary owners of our homes, and so even though we move on in life, the changes we make are permanent and affect our neighbors and our neighborhood.

And I just want to restate that we are in a single family zone.

And so when I see a garage, a two-car garage being boarded up.

Uh, and then it's you know, pitched as flood control, I just I don't know, that doesn't resonate with me really.

Um I guess generally when you close over a garage, the question for the neighborhood is will that utility be pushed out into the neighborhood onto the neighbors in the form of extra cars.

I'm assuming that if you're converting the garage to a dwelling, there's more people in the house, more people, more cars.

The drawing that you're seeing over here is even though the planter on the left side of the driveway may be increased, what's shown here is the lawn being pulled back all the way to the edge of the house.

Any Google search will show you that the yard to your point, sir, swings way out away from the edge of the house, narrowing to what should have been probably a single approach to a two-car turnaround there.

But over the years it's been driven over, whatever.

So that's a concern for me.

I want people to enjoy the inside of their houses.

I don't want that utility pushed out into the neighborhood.

Garbage cans, as we discussed last time, all the way out to the street, 10, 11, 12 of them, no place to put them.

The other major concern um beyond the driveway and the garage convergent um conversion is also the water.

Um everyone has water, everyone has water problems.

You know, pushing water onto your neighbor's property directly or indirectly to solve your problem is not neighborly.

I don't know what the solution is, but I'm hoping that with your guidance, we can come up with some reasonable solution of utility for the family, but then preserving our single family neighborhood for long term.

And I think that's fair to ask.

And I think for those of us that have moved to NeurShell understand that, you know, you buy into a certain neighborhood and you would like uh assurances of things, you know, remaining as they are until they're not, and until they change legally.

So having gone through this process myself several times, having to accept limits and pushback several times.

I just appreciate that we all are um going through this together.

That's it.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Anyone else like to speak?

That's different.

Good evening, Eileen Remerschmid, 45 Vaughn Avenue.

Um last month I was here, and I just spoke very briefly, requesting a privacy fence along that driveway with or the that part of the yard, which is now going to get some kind of a solid wall.

Um I'm not sure what that wall is even gonna be made of.

Is it concrete?

Is it stone?

Um my concerns were that this would cause the water then to stop at my property.

All the water coming down will then stop in my yard.

And my neighbor confirmed that for me after the last meeting, saying you don't need a privacy fence.

We're putting up a stone wall, and the water will stop in your yard, so you better close up your garage.

That's for me unacceptable, and I don't see how this can become my problem.

Um secondly, I live very close to them.

That basement is been used by multiple people.

They're not relatives.

I've met them.

Young women with children.

Um that it's crazy what's going on over there, that's what I'm gonna say.

But um this proposal is farcical to me.

So that's all I have to say to that.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I can't get the street view.

Let me give me a street view.

Um hi, my name is Henriette Moreau.

I live 105 Glenwood Avenue, so the house that we see just next to it.

We the driver is just against our property.

Um I'm a bit nervous because a lot of my dear neighbors are here, and I disagree uh with some of their points.

So I'm in support of uh what uh Sandra is doing.

Uh I can attest we flood, and we flood a lot.

So between 21 and 22, uh we got three feet of water, one foot of water in 10 minutes.

So we flooded a lot.

Uh sometimes after we managed to, we did a lot of construction, uh, we managed the water, and once we were done, we were still going to Sandra's basement with our pump, helping her to pump out water.

It's a nightmare.

It's you don't have a life.

You cannot go grocery shopping because it's going to rain, and you know you may flood.

So the water issue is very, very real.

So this just there's no, there's no this there's no way.

So uh that's that's my that's my main point.

Yes, we do flood, and uh the water comes from different places, but a big part comes from the houses from above.

Um we have to manage that water somehow.

So I I agree, I agree with you that we shouldn't push the problem into others, but we can neither you know get our foundation destroyed because the water is not managed above us.

So I'm in strong support.

It's um it's very unfair that a house flood that badly.

Uh frankly, and I don't hear to discuss, but we started flooding suddenly in summer 2021 after the school, finished some work for managing the water, and then suddenly, you know, sometimes we got an inch of water, so they got three feet.

And even with you know, hurricanes, I didn't have a name, you know.

So for anyways, so it's terrible.

And uh I want Sandra to find a way to protect the house and not live in that nightmare.

It was a nightmare.

2 a.m.

You have to go out because you know it's going to rain and you're gonna flood, and you need to have be outside with your pumps to avoid being flooded again.

This is this is not a life.

This this was a nightmare.

So uh I think we need to find the best possible solution.

I'm not a civil engineer, so I let that to the civil engineers and to experts.

Uh, but I think what she's doing, trying to manage the water to planters and slowing uh you know the water coming and bringing it to the street.

That's another I think that makes sense.

Maybe there could be better solutions.

But in the meantime, she floods.

And it took us a year to get a permit.

And we flooded during this whole year, and it was a nightmare.

So that was my point.

Sorry if I got emotional.

Uh, but uh I wanted to show experience.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else in the audience want to speak?

Is anybody on the board have any further questions for the applicant?

I have actually one question for Paul regarding what the code says about water from neighboring properties and how that's handled.

Is it that each lot is responsible for their drainage?

You're you're well, yeah, if we were building everything new today, yeah, you'd be responsible for your own drainage.

But you're not just supposed to arbitrarily stop the natural flow of water and push it onto someone else's property.

So that's why I made the phone call about the wall.

If it was a fence, the water would still pass through it.

If it's a solid wall, uh that picture is not really accurate because right behind there is a driveway.

So Mike, my question then is in order to get a permit, those questions are gonna have to be answered to you to your sat to your office's satisfaction, correct?

Yes.

Okay, so but I guess what I'm what I'm getting at is that the variance before us with respect to the FAR issue, um, regardless of how if if we were to approve it, they still have to establish that they're not diverting water onto somebody else's property inappropriately in order to get their permit approved.

That is correct.

Okay.

Listen, here look.

I've been I I've been places that flood.

It's not okay.

All right.

This person went through some traumatic things here with this house flooding.

I understand that.

I get it.

And then they took try to take reasonable and prudent measures to protect their property.

I understand that.

Um we were here last month.

I asked if we could do something about the garbage cans.

I I don't know if that was resolved.

I don't think it was.

This the applicant said that they're putting a shed in, it's on the right.

That's great.

Okay.

That that should quell that issue.

Um and before we move the we we moved the spaces out of the required yard, they had asked for a variance for the two spaces.

If you have four cars and you want to park four cars in the driveway, then that's what you should ask for.

You shouldn't play this game where you're asking for two cars, and then five minutes after you get the variance, you're gonna park four cars there.

If that's the intent, ask for what you want.

And if that were the case, what would the remedy be for the neighbors?

If they get a variance for two cars and there ends up being five in there.

Then it's not according to the plan, and then we can write a violation for that.

Okay.

And then we start a whole action.

But what why go through that process if we could get it fixed at this point.

Okay.

Does anybody else have any other comments or questions?

Uh are you uh proceeding at this point?

I mean, in light of Paul's comments, which I think are extremely valid.

Um, do you want to proceed with an application for an approval of two parking spaces?

Or do you want to give it some thought before you proceed?

Once we take it to a vote, then it's final.

You can't come back to us and say, well, thanks for the two spaces, but we really need four because we're getting violations because we really need the parking.

It's I'm just want to make sure that we're all clear on that.

You want to so I wonder your name to the record for Sandra Peterson going.

So I work in health care, and recently, my schedule conflicted with my son.

I live, by the way, with three kids in my house.

I don't rent any space.

I don't need to, I make enough money.

I don't need to rent the spaces.

Okay.

So I don't rent the please just address the board, please.

Sorry.

Thank you.

I live in the entire house.

I like my space.

That's one of the reasons why I bought the house.

We when we moved there, there were 12 people living in the house, including my in-laws that we took care for.

And that's the reason why I bought the house because they have plenty of space.

So I bought recently another two cars.

I have four cars.

They all belong to me.

My sister comes to visit, she parks in my driveway, as she should.

Okay, because I don't want her to park on the street.

If my son comes from Florida, he parks his car in my driveway.

I have four kids.

I have five grandkids, and they all come to visit.

Two of my grandkids, they have a car, and they will park in the driveway as they should.

As anybody that lives in the neighborhood, when they get somebody that visits, they park in their driveway.

And I take exception that people are saying that I have all this cars.

I bought it because it's convenient to me.

I when I get up in the morning at three o'clock in the morning, I have to put the key in my car, and it needs to start because I am do a work.

And with my other kids, they have a new schedule, so they have the also in health care, except with the exception of one.

So they need to go to work.

That is the occupancy of the house.

And I have four cars.

Yes, it's true.

So given those statements, I'm not sure how the application is appropriate because you don't have a garage.

So you're asking for you're asking for a variance to allow you to park two cars in the driveway.

Where are you putting the other two cars?

They because they fit in the driveway, is big enough.

And even when we do the variance, it's big enough.

I have plenty of people in the neighborhood that they park on the street.

I don't want to park on the street.

I fit my cars in the driveway.

And if that's what we have to do, that we have to do a variance, then that's what you know, because I'm not going to get rid of the other two cars.

I need to be able to get to work.

I I work in Brooklyn.

I live in Westchester.

Okay.

Thank you.

I I would like to uh ask the board if we can go into an executive session.

I have some uh questions for council.

I move that we uh adjourn to executive session to consult with uh council.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

All opposed?

Aye.

Great.

We'll be back.

Okay, thank you, and uh appreciate your patience.

So I wanted to go into executive session because I was confused by some of the comments from the board.

Um, and I want to make sure that the record is clear before we go forward.

We've had a lot of conversation about drainage and water and parking, and while these are all valid concerns and real issues that affect everyone.

I want to be clear that what is before us is a request for a variance on the FAR, which is at 0.54, which is more than the maximum permitted of 0.35, and that variance that's being requested has to do with the legalization of the attic, nothing else.

And that variance that's being requested has to do with the legalization of the attic, nothing else.

So that is what is before this board.

I understand, and I we've heard I've heard all of your concerns, and I am not minimizing them whatsoever.

But as you also heard from Mr.

Vaca and Regina, there are avenues that community members can pursue for all of the concerns that you are discussing.

We have to act within our jurisdiction, and that has to do with the FAR and the attic legalization only.

And so given that, I would like the applicant to speak to uh this board with respect to that issue.

And I do appreciate the revision in the in the application.

I appreciate you reducing the request of variants from variances from two to one.

I appreciate that you took the comments from the last hearing about the garbage, adding the shed, um the trees, the privacy.

I appreciate all of that.

Um so I just want to make that known.

But if you could speak to us about the basis for the can attic conversion and the need for um the variance with respect to the FAR, especially in light of the five factors we have to consider, I would very much appreciate it.

Sure.

Um two months ago, I I provided um a series of drawings that actually depicted not only the existing conditions of the attic, uh, the fact that we have a stair that goes up to the attic.

Um my client bought the house, the attic was finished.

And it's what we call an existing noncompliant uh space.

Um therefore we are actually just legalizing it for those purposes to make sure that it is livable.

Um she's been using it actually uh for one of his her sons.

Um There is no partitions on the in the attic.

Um no uh separate rooms.

It's all a big open space, and there is one uh particular bathrooms that is up there.

So I'm sorry, just to make sure I I understand what you just said.

So you're legalizing the existing, but it's an existing nonconforming use, isn't that uh contradiction in terms?

The FAR was there when she bought the house.

So um, and how many bedrooms is the house currently?

Oh it's four, and plus the attic, right?

Plus the attic.

Okay, thank you.

And what what do you have a basement floor plan there?

We do have a basement.

Can you just put that up on the screen?

Sure.

Please.

Yeah.

Can you just run down what's actually in the basement, Willie?

We have an open area, which is a recreational area.

We have um a pantry, and then we have um two rooms.

Bedrooms.

Well, we wanted to use it as bedrooms.

Yes.

Okay.

And they have the right egress coming out of them.

I know there's a door that goes down the room.

There is.

There is two means of ego, yeah.

Okay.

No kitchen.

No kitchen, it's just a pantry.

And that's part of this application that's going to be legalized the work that was done in the basement?

Correct.

Okay.

So it means we will go in there to do an inspection.

Oh, for sure.

Thank you.

Does anybody else have any other questions or comments?

Would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make a motion, Mr.

Thank you.

Um I make a motion uh with regards to case number seven.

Sorry.

Sorry about that.

Wrong case.

Case number 28, 2025, Sandra Pitterson Cohen.

Uh I make a motion to uh grant the requested variance.

Uh permission to legalize conversion of garage to habitable space to interior alteration of basement to create finished spaces and a new bathroom and bar area.

Legalization of converting attic to finished habitable space and bathroom.

Whereas the 0.54 FAR 4,164 square feet GFA to be legalized is more than the maximum permitted of.35, 2700 square feet, existing non-conforming .44 3,0417 square feet in a R17.5 zone district at the premises 93 Glenwood Avenue, block 1479, lot 30, and this is for an area variance.

I um make a motion to approve the requested variants uh for the FAR based on the following.

Whether the benefit can be achieved uh by any of the means feasible to the applicant.

Uh I don't see how it can be.

Again, this is an existing condition.

Um wasn't until recently that the attic spaces were counted as FAR in the House.

Uh and because this is a recent filing, it had to be counted in the FAR and thus increase the FAR and push it over to the edge to uh request this variance.

The uh finished space in the basement is not counted as FAR, it is uh further below grade and doesn't qualify as uh floor area under the zoning code.

Uh whether there'll be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character to nearby properties, uh I don't believe it will be.

There's no physical change to the exterior of the house.

Again, it's all uh interior to the existing attic space.

And whether the request is substantial, it is somewhat substantial.

Um because uh but because it's the entire footprint of the second floor of the house, it is a large area.

Uh but again, given the fact that it was in existing condition and an existing attic and a space, and whether the attic is finished or not, it still has to be counted uh in the FAR.

Uh I don't believe it's substantial.

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

Again, it's an existing condition and will not uh alter the exterior of the house in any way.

And whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, um, it is not a reason to deny an area variance.

In this case, I don't believe uh it was self-created, other than the fact that it was finished uh by a previous owner, uh, but again, not a reason to uh deny an area variance.

So for these reasons, I um say that we I make a motion to approve the variance requested.

Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Mark McLean?

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier?

Yes.

Bob Sanziel?

Yes.

Erica Heisner.

No.

The motion has been approved.

Thank you.

Next case this evening is case 7, 2026, 516 Pellham Road.

Ready?

We're ready, Mark.

All right, thank you.

Good evening to the board.

Good evening to the city's professional staff.

My name is Mark Blanchard from the Blanchard Law Group.

Here again from returning from last month on behalf of the owner on behalf of the application.

I think to start off, uh kind of picking up where we left off.

The applicant, we'd like to say we have a resubmission into the board.

I think the resubmission shows that we heard the board's concerns last time.

We took the concerns to heart and tried to uh do our very best to modify what had been submitted.

I am joined by the owner.

I'm joined by the architect Tom Albalama, Mr.

Abalama will get up and speak to a minute to the specifics of the design.

But just if I could just touch on, we'll go through everything again in the interest of time.

I know you have a packed agenda, but if I could kind of pick up where we left off and touch on some of the more salient points, we certainly heard the board's concern last month that a 100 percent variance, two units to four was too many.

Uh so you do see a revised plan in front of you from four reduced to three.

Um, I stood here and made the argument that four was necessary for economic purposes to make the project viable.

I believe it was Mr.

Rodriguez or another board member had a very good suggestion.

Well, if you're going down to three, perhaps you can adjust the size of the unit.

Uh we looked at that, of course, to make the unit slightly larger, if we're going from four to three.

We looked at that concept to close that economic gap, that deficiency from losing a unit.

We found that it works.

So you have we are still asking for an additional unit, but we have reduced that.

We were able to eliminate two of the requested seven variances.

We're down to five.

You see the the largest variants, the four down to three.

The remaining other variants I I laid out in my second supplemental principal points.

I showed a comparison of what was asked for initially and then how we've reduced it.

Uh how each variance has comes in front of you reduced.

So to go back to the five-part test, we are extinguishing an abandoned commercial automobile repair use.

We are adding a multifamily use.

The multifamily is allowed in that zone.

We are surrounded by similar multiple family uses of condominium, sort of multi-family in that in that kind of a nature, not like multifamily in a single family home, but multi-family of a condominium nature.

So we certainly are blending in seamlessly into the existing character of the neighborhood.

We um a large part of our application is that we are not stressing that on street parking demand in that particular neighborhood.

We are providing all of our parking on site, or I should say off street.

We heard Mr.

Senzielo last month made a comment about the condition trying to avoid the condition of backing out onto that very busy Pelham Road.

So we now are showing the hammerhead for each unit to avoid that backing out condition.

So in front of you are revised plans.

I believe that the five-part test has been buttressed in favor and and supplemented in favor of support of the application.

I would say that because we are extinguishing and an abandoned and even in a vacant parcel, the the aesthetic impact, the environmental impact to the neighborhood, the use impact into the neighborhood, are all beneficial to the neighborhood.

I think the focus here is on making the project work.

We believe that it does.

We are within the significant portions of the zoning code relating to height, massing.

We are aligned with height.

As I mentioned last time, we're not creating uh a behemoth, a huge mass building where we're creating a shade condition or blocking viewsheds of something of that nature.

Uh we do want to go for that third story, because as I had mentioned, we were seeking that rooftop amenity to look out and see the water.

So we think we have a beautiful design, of which I take no credit for, of course, but we do think we have a beautiful design.

We think that the project, we do think the project works, and um I just want to point out that we heard you.

We think we've come back with a much reduced project.

Uh we're happy with it.

We hope the board is, of course.

And I'd like to turn it over before, unless you have a specific question for me, you'll probably turn it over to Mr.

Abu Lam, and then we could answer um the board's questions as a whole once uh the design changes have been highlighted.

Good evening.

My name is Tom Abilama, architect for the owner.

Uh so this project right now is turned into three attached uh houses.

Uh we enlarged each one larger.

Uh we also we provided a basement uh in this project right now.

Uh plus we added an elevator to allow from the basement all the way to through the roof.

Uh then the other thing that the situation that we have in the middle house, uh, we provided a turning radius to allow from the garage parking to come around turning and then be able to get out be like we we be before we be able to uh uh go outside and uh in the rear.

So now so it looks like we provided almost all these items that we have.

Um on the first floor, we added the garage and uh rec room.

We added on uh on the uh on the on the larger master bedroom on the second floor.

And uh and uh on the roof is still the same that we we provided.

The only thing is that also uh we uh we we added uh uh you know the the same items that we have before for the for the elevation for the outside the elevations and uh uh and then um if you have any questions, you know you can tell me if you have any questions, please.

Anyone have any questions?

Tom, just uh a quick question.

You have one of the variances for uh is for parking in the front yard, I guess, four-foot setback.

Is that for a third parking space?

Um can you say that again?

Sorry, question.

Because you have a two-car garage and you show a car.

Yes, two, yeah.

We we have two-car garage, and you have a you showing a third third car in the driveway, is that what it is?

No.

No.

Oh.

So what is that four foot what is that variance for minimum four-foot yard setback for outdoor parking space is less than minimum required of 20 no.

That's the way we're we're following the lead, you know, from this the city.

I think as you show it, provides us guidance with that.

So we are we we felt that I thought that variance was still in place.

And it might have had to do with uh also the addition of the hammer had to come out and use that um that area to make that turnaround.

So unless if if we're confused, or I'm sorry, if we're incorrect on our side, we're just following the city's guidance that the variance that third parking spot was required outside, but off street but outside.

Because it's a three-bedroom unit, I believe.

So that third spot.

Paul, am I mistaken here?

Is that third spot not required per unit?

Is it good idea to get them off the street?

Everything is off-street for sure.

Um and even if that third spot up it could even serve as a visitor spot because obviously in that neighborhood, the visiting, you know, the all the on-street parking for visitors is still just as tight.

So, you know, we want to use that outside area for either a visitor spot or of course for the way that parking that driveway is designed uh to be egressing the property safely.

I thought Paul there were considered single family units with two parking spaces for I don't I don't know.

We are considering single family units because they're thousand houses.

Right.

But they have a don't they have a garage too?

Yeah, two-car garage.

Okay.

So we shouldn't be able to do that.

I was just trying to limit that variance for you.

Yeah, Bob, is that I I think we've we've done two things at once here, thanks to you.

I think we can eliminate that variance regarding the parking outside, but we are also able to use that to show that that really benefits the application because we can now that parking would be available for a temporary visitor.

Oh wait, we just had another application before this.

I don't know if you were here.

No, I uh I heard it.

I take note of that, but I think that you know, the single family home versus the multifamily apartment, things of that nature.

I think here, if we're able to, we are providing two spots in the in the enclosed garage.

Right.

I understand that.

Right.

Okay, I'm just asking because uh if you're not proposing that as a parking space, then maybe Tom, you're just illustrating that a space can fit there, like you are saying, Mark.

Correct.

Yeah.

But um again, if it wasn't meant to be a parking space, then you don't need a variance for that.

No.

So anyway.

The the car was there just to show dimensionally that it would work, how how that would look if something was part someone was parking.

Right, but uh this board's jurisdiction is to vote on variances, not on site plan.

So I think that's the same.

That would have to be corrected.

Yeah, I think that's a good idea.

So it sounds like that that variance could be eliminated.

Okay.

I mean, is that something we could do?

I I'm just a a little unclear.

It sounds like we are in agreement that the variance is not necessary.

Would we we are we can we amend in real time here or do you want to do that?

No, we have to resubmit.

Okay.

We can't again if that's your choice not to have a space there, so which again you don't need.

You only need two parking spaces per unit.

So I don't believe it will result in a design change, right?

So I mean the width, the driveway, everything, it doesn't eliminate what's going to be built there in terms of the driveway into the garage.

Gotcha.

Right.

Right.

But we're not commenting on what's built there.

We're commenting on variances.

That would be the jurisdiction of the planning board that would give that feedback, right?

Correct.

Okay.

So is that um I'm sorry, Madam Chair.

Can I?

No, please?

So I know you um again, a very nice units, by the way.

Oh, thank you.

Um and I know that less the um gross floor area last time was uh 7142 and now it's 6402.

So it's 700 square foot difference, but you eliminated entire units.

So it's not really that much.

Thank you.

As far as FAR is concerned here.

Um I mean, is that is that the least you can do to uh make it profitable for you?

I know.

Uh it's still so it's still a significant FAR variance, is what I'm saying.

I do appreciate you cutting out the unit.

Um I mean there are other substantial variances still here.

I mean, there are other substantial variances still here.

Right.

Because the you know, the owner would like to keep as much as uh uh uh the uh let's say on the first floor, we have the rec room we added uh we uh we need that uh right now that we don't have the four uh uh units right now.

Um I mean we we we tried as much as we can to keep it this much as well, and it still works right now in general.

For the record, Madam Chair, there were several letters sent regarding this.

Thank you.

An opposition?

Is anybody here um in support or opposition of the application?

Unfortunately, it's an older neighborhood, so they just kind of made phone calls and said, Well, I we have received those letters and and they have been uh reviewed by the board.

Anyone else have any questions for the applicant?

Do you want to uh go back and take another look at uh the possible elimination of that uh one variance that my colleague was talking about?

Of course.

Yeah, of course.

Yeah, look, I mean uh if we can we were happy to eliminate fully two variances, and we were happy to reduce the remaining requested variances.

If we can go ahead and add another eliminated variance to the application, then it's worthwhile on our behalf to do so.

I agree.

So we right.

So we would um we would request to adjourn this evening to then get back on your April 7th agenda.

Regina, what's the submission deadline?

Is it as tight as it was this last month?

It it is tight.

It is tight, I thought so, right.

Okay.

So we'll we will resubmit um for reissuance of a building department denial letter to remove that that now a third variance.

Excellent.

Thank you.

Did we just did we go through all the questions and comments that the board has?

Was there anything?

Well, I think that there was that the questions and comments there was the comments about that variance.

I think also the FAR is still a concern.

Um I heard what um my colleague said, and I I do agree.

I mean, I appreciate you reducing the number of units, but with that should come a significant reduction, and all we got was 700 square feet reduction.

So um feels like we traded one for the other, but um maybe you'll take a look at that too when you go back to the drawing board.

Okay, thank you.

Okay.

All right.

Do you have a request for us?

I request that this matter be adjourned to your April 7th meeting.

Well, I can't speak to which meeting it's getting adjourned to, but I can grant you the adjournment.

The next available meeting.

Hello.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next case tonight is case eight, twenty twenty-six for Island View Place.

Thanks.

Okay.

Good evening.

Uh my name is Mike McCann.

I'm the architect for this project.

Uh a little background on this.

The the owner of this project, uh, the owner of the house bought this uh bought the house.

Uh I'm aware that she had a uh illegal basement and an illegal deck.

And somehow it came up through the building department that she had uh needed to legalize it.

So we legalized the basement.

Um and I separated the deck from that basement, knowing that we had to go through the variance process.

When you look at the uh the five points, uh there's really uh no alternative if you want to have a deck to the location that we were given.

Um that it exists in.

The deck uh uh and the back porch, the deck porch has been there for I don't know how long, but it obviously was there when the owner bought the house.

What we'd like to do is get permission to leave it there.

I don't think there's been ever any complaints about it or uh problems with it.

I think it needs to be upgraded, and that's what we would like to do.

That's what the owner would like to do.

Um I think if you saw the property, you'd know that there's really no other place to put it.

The house is positioned on that site so close to the next site, and it's uh it's an odd site.

Uh, you know, with uh being on the curve.

So we have requests for five variances and all of them fall back on the pretty much on uh how the house was originally sited on the property.

You have all these strange, you know, uh nonconforming backyard or front yard or it's a very nonconforming situation.

I think I think uh we don't have much alternative except to uh you know to locate a deck in any other place, even if uh if it wasn't already there.

So we're I'm here tonight to ask your uh request uh relief.

Thank you.

Uh I have a question.

Uh in reference to the impervious surface.

Uh was that pre-assisting?

The excess was there was some excess.

It was always non-conforming.

We did add, of course, I mean that we added I we didn't add, but the existing deck uh half of it is concrete, so it's it's impervious.

Underneath the wood deck is uh concrete, so it's impervious.

But it it amounts to 200 square feet, I think, or a little more.

Um and it's it really hasn't had any effect bad effect on anything.

Uh so and it it's just not uh something that should really hold it back, I don't think at this point.

That and the you know building coverage and it you know it's it's a strange side yards and rear yards and things.

And having a gas station right next to you there, I figured I guess a uh, you know, I I think obviously whoever built it didn't obvious know exactly where the the lines were.

And that we have that small tiny side yard, but you know, it's not a neighbor there, and the neighbors never complained or so I I think the only complaint is that we should upgrade it.

I don't know how many of you have seen it, but it you know it they they enjoy it, but uh there's some things that I'd like to fix on it, and we will.

And in reference to the dryway, that was that was pre-assisting condition the way it is.

Excuse me?

In reference to the dryway, is that like persistence of when he purchased the home?

Yes.

Okay.

Any opposition uh voices to be heard in this case?

No.

No other questions or comments?

Not much of a view from the deck there, Mike.

Excuse me?

Not much of a view from that deck there.

No, and there's not uh but uh you know they actually do enjoy it.

Yeah, I'm sure they do a few people who are secluded.

They just uh, you know, they it's adjacent to their kitchen, so they can come out, they can sit, they can eat, they can get some fresh air without anywhere else they're ex totally exposed to the street.

So um I guess you're copied on the uh email from Regina, I guess that there's it's gonna have to I guess it doesn't conform uh with respect to building code in certain spots.

The construction.

Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

No, we're gonna obviously we have to uh do a building uh permanent application and and uh make it conform.

The things that are not conforming.

Would anyone like to make a motion from the board?

Oh I'm sorry, Bob, did I cut the.

No, no, I'm just saying, so you have a bigger setback, that's what I'm saying.

Excuse me?

I said so you have a bigger setback, because I think you've got to be two feet minimum from the property line under under the building code or two feet, right?

Yeah.

I don't know what you're referring to.

Um I guess Paul at Saroya had looked up that you need a two-foot minimum from the property line with a wood frame structure.

Mike, well, even though you're asking for a uh variance from this board, you're gonna need state code variants or this is gonna have to be built out of non-combustible or heavy timber because it's supposed to be fire rated within a certain distance from the property line.

Right.

So it it has to be two feet from the property line.

Yeah.

Is that what is that what we're saying?

I five feet from the property line requires the fire rating.

This was masonary construction and then they extended it with wood, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

So if if that uh they'd have to they'd have to take that wood off and make it non-com um combustible.

I think he's just trying to explain that even if you were to get a zoning variant, you still have obligations to comply with the building code and there's nothing that this is.

Absolutely allow you to then.

I would I honestly I I overlooked the uh idea that it had to be non-combustible.

Um within the I but understood.

Understood.

But that's not before this board right now.

Right.

Okay.

Would anyone uh uh like to make a motion?

Thank you.

Um I make a motion I make a motion to approve case number eight twenty twenty-six uh DA GAF, sorry for this um pronunciation for permission to legalize existing non-conforming concrete and wood deck, which I guess the deck has to be torn down the wood and make it um concrete.

Um for an assistant one family dwelling, uh this is on legal light assisting, whereas the building coverage to be legalized of 37 percent, a thousand two hundred and seventy-three square feet exceed the maximum permitted of thirty percent, which is a thousand one hundred and sixty-five square feet.

Whereas the impervious surface coverage to be legalized of seventy-three percent, two thousand five hundred and fifty-three square feet exceed the maximum permitted of sixty percent, two thousand three hundred and thirty-one square feet.

Whereas the point five side yard setback to be legalized is less than the minimum required of seven point two.

Eight feet less ten percent for the regular law, where the eight point one combined side yard setback to be legalized is less than the minimum required of eighteen feet.

Twenty point less ten percent for a regular lot, whereas the 3.5 rear yard setback to be legalized is less than the minimum required of 27 feet.

In a R2-7 zone district at the premises of four island view place, block number six seven one lat number thirty-three.

When we are um uh when we are applying the balancing test that we are required to implement and whether this benefit can be achieved by all the means physical to the uh feasible to the applicant.

Um this is a very regular lot, and a lot of this non-conforming um um issues that they're having has a lot to do with the shape of the lot.

Uh also um the applicant stated that some of this um um violations were um pre-assistent to the purchase of the home.

Um that doesn't make it not being responsible for it, but um in my opinion, I look at it in a different way.

Uh whether this is gonna uh make um underside with changes uh in neighborhood character or detrimental nearby properties, um the property that is actually behind this is actually a repair shop, uh which I don't think is gonna be really affected, and the property next to it, um this is just the way this properties were built.

They're very close to each other.

Uh whether the request is substantial, um it is substantial.

There are actually five variances.

Um but in my opinion, um I don't think this is a reason to deny um um the approval of this variance.

Uh whether request we have adverse physical environmental effect, um I don't think it will.

Uh whether the ledge is um whether the ledge difficulties self-created, um I don't think it was, as the applicant mentioned before, they purchased the home with this on violations, and they're just trying to correct the violation now and make things um uh legal.

Uh with all those considerations, I request the variance to be granted.

Second Bob Sanziel?

Yes.

Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Mark McLean?

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier?

Yes.

Eric Aisner.

Yes.

The motion's been approved.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next case tonight, case nine, twenty twenty-six to Larchwood Road.

Is this somebody's computer?

Do I use this computer?

Or is this do I use this computer?

Yeah, it's all your application is up on the screen.

Oh, this is wonderful.

Please state your name and address for the record.

Sure.

My name is Gregory Lewis from a Lewis and Lewis architects.

And this is Ted Ugetta, the homeowner.

And we have a very historic legalization that we'd like your uh help with.

Maybe Ted could give a quick overview of as the homeowner.

Thanks, Greg.

Uh Ted, you get a too large wood road.

I purchased the house approximately 19 years ago next month in the spring of 07.

And the gravel driveway in question was there pre-existing.

It uh was featured in the inspection report, I think in other drawings that I um reviewed before purchase.

And then through various work over the years, including with Greg and others, uh it came to our my attention that it was not legal because of setback reasons.

Um been working with Commissioner Vaca's team over the last few years, seeking various permits for related on other projects, and through this process, uh realized that we needed to seek a variance here tonight, so I'll let Greg take it from there.

Sure.

So initially uh when Ted bought the property, I'm just gonna use the cursor here.

It was an L-shaped driveway that went across the entire back of the property.

It came out on the forest and then continued through onto Larchwood, and that's the way Ted purchased the property.

Uh over the years, Ted uh renovated the kitchen and then uh converted some of the driveway to a rear patio, which is where the cursor is here, and then basically abandoned the uh access off of Forest Avenue.

So it's actually much safer situation now because of the curve here.

Um so he'd like to continue utilizing the gravel driveway, uh, so we don't have any pervious issues as far as water just goes through there.

And again, he had purchased the property, it was pre-existing, the gravel goes right to the property.

I believe we have nine feet.

I can't see nine feet there, so we can't really cut it back to the required three foot from the property line.

So the variance is for to leave the existing grow uh pre-existing non-conforming driveway uh as it is uh at basically on the property line versus being three foot from the side here.

And um, if you have any questions, we'd certainly like to answer them.

Can I just uh quickly add one other point to layer on Greg's topic of pervious versus impervious surfaces for the driveway?

It is a gravel driveway, uh the way I found it.

And I spoke with my neighbor Andy Sims, who is the property adjoining, you know, to the right of as you see on the diagram, and Andy's comment to me was as long as you don't try to pave that driveway, I'm fine with it.

And I undertook to him that I would not ever seek to pave the driveway.

In addition, uh Ted has agreed to remove the uh asphalt pad that you see on the left side on Forest Avenue will be removed as within the next few weeks as part of the um closing out the permits.

Pursuant to a separate permit.

Right separate word permit.

Yeah.

Does anyone have any questions?

Uh Gregor is there a curb along that gravel that uh driver that keeps the gravel intact or something that holds it in from the adding onto the street.

There's a um stone apron that holds the gravel in.

Yeah, along the left side on the left side's retaining wall on the right, is there a metal edge on this edge here?

Not on the right.

He's asking if there's a curb or anything to keep the gravel on the right side now.

There's there's just the neighbor's grass there, but has it ever bled into their stays?

Oh, sir.

Sure.

It um they're asking if the gravel stays in the current location, or does it bleed into the neighbor's property?

No, it hasn't bled.

Um on the right hand side, there's grass next to the gravel, but it's stayed in in per you know place.

Okay.

Are there any more questions or comments?

Are there any voices of up to the question?

Okay.

Then I would like to make a motion.

Oh, please do.

Well, uh, no, I think Abel has questions.

I mean, I was gonna say technically what Bob was trying to say is um I don't know if I'm correct, Bob.

But uh in as far as trying to retain that gravel within the dryway.

Um, it was like technically the only way to do that would be sort of like creating a curve in that area there.

Is that correct, Bob?

I was gonna mention it, but we hadn't made a motion to approve it yet.

So yeah, it can be um retained in multiple different ways.

You could do a metal edging uh where you drive the metal edging in to keep it there, uh a stone curb, concrete curbs.

You know, I I assume we wouldn't want the expense nor the uh aesthetic of having that.

Uh he hasn't had a problem with it bleeding into the grass.

Uh I'm guessing when they did it, they must have dug it out so the grass is at the same level or higher.

Uh but sir, if certainly if you want to put something in the condition that uh to maintain the gravel on the property line, I'm sure my client would be acceptable.

It's stayed in the same place for 20 years.

I think a metal edge would be good would be enough just to secure that edge there.

Just in case.

Um sorry.

Okay, Charlotte, would you like to make a motion?

I would like to make a motion to approve case number nine dash 2026.

Edward Ted Ugetta for permission to legalize gravel drivel gravel driveway and stone apron along large wood road, legalize existing, whereas the proposed gravel driveway with a zero foot plus or minus setback is less than the three-foot minimum required in an R1-10 zone district at the premises of two large wood road block two zero three nine lot twenty seven point Area variance.

I'd like to add a condition that um the gravel that a mechanism to retain the gravel is added to um secure the gravel on the site as it has been historically.

So could we maybe simplify that just a little bit?

So we add edging an edging element.

That if it's not uh maintained at the property line, then the neighbor could complain and we we would do something at that point.

I don't think we have to do anything now.

It hasn't moved or bled over the property line in 19 years, so it seems uh excessive to ask for him to spend money to something that's not a problem, in my opinion.

It's your motion.

The um can I just I'm sorry, I just a motion on the floor.

I'm sorry.

There was a motion on the floor, it's only Charlotte should be speaking.

Sorry, I just set forth a condition.

Um my understanding is that if this is denied, then you aren't able to come back for three years.

That's right.

Okay.

Okay.

Um so I'm going to stick with the motion that I'm in the middle of making in the way that I made it.

Um so I I make a motion to approve the case that I just read out with the condition that I just um imposed.

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

No, I believe that cannot, the um L-shaped driveway uh cannot be located anywhere else on the property um given the proximity of the structure to the property line.

Um it's just not possible to make that three three-foot minimum required setback and make the driveway usable.

Two, undesirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties, as the applicant has stated, um, this has been in existence for the 19 years he's owned the property and historically um likely for many many more.

Three, whether the request is substantial.

I do not believe um it is substantial as three feet close to the property line um uh with the way that the homes are spaced out in this particular area.

Um does does not make this a substantial request for whether um the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects.

Um no, I believe it will not, as the applicant has stated, the gravel has not um bled off of the uh the driveway, and there is a condition to this motion that will ensure that that is uh not the case going forward.

And five, whether alleged difficulty is self-created.

Um, as the uh as the applicant stated, uh this has been existing, and if it were self-created, I do not believe that this is a reason for denial.

Second Bob Sanziel.

Um yes, but I just want to uh clarify that that recommendation of the uh edging on the driveway was made uh in our technical meeting by the building department staff, so that's where that came from.

So my client has agreed to install the middle, I think.

Abel Rodriguez, yes.

Mark McLean?

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier, yes.

Erica Aisner, yes.

The motion has been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next case this evening is case 10, 2026, 179 Brookdale Avenue.

Oh, very nice.

Good evening, Gregory Lewis, uh Lewis and Lewis architects here with Jason Labate, the homeowner.

Uh we have uh several variances, and they're they're kind of uh mixed uh for a couple different reasons.

Uh I'd like to walk through some of the architectural ones, and then Jason would have liked to address some of the uh patio uh and uh unfortunately this is a lot of this is driven by uh flooding in the neighborhood as well.

Um at one point Jason had uh eight feet of water in his basement and about three foot surrounding his yard.

Uh so he's uh the initial uh intent was to uh raise the laundry room to the first floor, uh get it out of the basement, uh, and then get all the mechanicals out of the uh ground floor as well.

That's the heating and air conditioning in the hot water boiler.

So um his wife tech done the kitchen renovation is part of the stay married.

Exactly.

You guys are very serious.

I feel very intimidated.

It's a serious board.

I saw a smile up there.

Uh, I was just in the field all day.

Anyways, um this graphic uh shows on the left is the existing garage.

Uh it's a one-car garage at grade, and the intent was to change it to a um laundry room, bathroom, and a motorcycle storage area for in the uh garage, and that additional square footage has increased our uh FAR on the house.

And the second request has a variance has to do with the parking.

We're taking the two parking spaces and putting them here in the uh driveway, uh which they fit in the they meet the size requirements.

But the challenge is the I don't know if you can see my cursor or not.

The car is uh 3.8 feet away from the house where five foot is required.

So that's the one of the other variances we're requesting as part of the uh moving the equipment up in the flood.

I could show you the floor plan if you're interested, or if you want to keep it more in the uh site plan zoning, we could stay here.

It's up to your uh interest.

It's your application, sir.

So whatever you think is best for the to the board.

I think this is uh very direct.

Thank you.

Um and then the third challenge was the existing patio uh which was first purchased by Jason and is and his wife, and it didn't come up on the title or the uh the seller had a lot of variance or excuse me, legalizations that they did uh prior to closing, uh which delayed their closing.

Um but uh his understanding was that all the uh violations were closed out uh at the building department.

So the some of the variances relate to where the patio is um uh in in comparison to where it should be on the side setbacks and rear backs.

In addition, we are proposing uh I'll jump to the floor plan after all.

So the proposed um laundry room, potter room, and mud room is here, and then the the garages, uh motorcycle garage is here.

This is where the new equipment is going into here, and as part of the um flood mitigation, there we've building a new curb here to protect a basement door so water doesn't come in.

We're also uh getting rid of the windows and putting glass block in in the basement.

And to get to this patio, uh we've added this walkway to here and the steps, the landing and the steps here.

So this is actually in the rear yard setback.

Uh just for reference, this is a corner lot, so it it makes our side and rear setbacks uh a little more interesting than a typical lot um in mid block.

So uh Jason, do you want to talk a little bit about the um challenges with the floods?

Uh good evening, thank you for your time and your service, Jason Labate, 179 Brookdale Avenue.

Uh we've resided at the property for 12 years.

Uh myself, my wife, uh, our three children.

We've lived through two horrific floods.

Um, Ida in 2021, uh, and then the storm following.

Um and we have worked hard uh to decide whether to stay or to move, and everything before you that's requested is necessary to stay uh to address the flooding uh to bring the mechanicals out of the basement uh and into and the washer dryer into the uh upstairs to the upstairs.

Uh so all the variances are necessary for uh to facilitate that.

Um we didn't ask for anything that wasn't uh related to uh bringing the mechanicals and the washer dryer up.

Uh and then the pre, I don't know if we call it pre-existing condition of the patio.

Uh we purchased our house 12 years ago.

Uh and there were several permits that had to be closed out as uh Greg said, in order for us to close.

Um in fact, when we saw the house, there was a stockade fence that went all the way to the sidewalk.

Uh apparently that's not legal, and when we bought the house, uh it was four and a half feet because it's what's required by code.

And that was necessary to close out the permit.

Uh, but for whatever reason, the patio wasn't identified as non-conforming.

Uh we haven't done anything with the patio the entire time we've been there, uh, but it was identified uh when we when uh Lewis and Lewis submitted the plans.

Um so that's uh pre-existing condition that we bought into that we couldn't have known.

Um everything else is in service of trying to stay in our home in New Rochelle because of the flooding.

Do you want to share the amount of water that was in the street?

So just for color.

Um there were four and a half uh, I don't know if you've seen the pictures, it's Halcyon Terrace area.

The flooding right comes up from the storm drains.

It's not flooding that comes through somebody's backyard.

Uh and uh in Ida, we lost two cars, one that we uh purchased uh or leased five days before.

Um it went all the way through our basement up to uh about six inches in our first floor.

Um and so it's pretty traumatizing.

Um but we love our neighborhood and we want to stay.

And so we ask you to provide us the variances that we think are minimally necessary in order to allow us to stay.

Uh and it doesn't change uh any of the outside uh of the building except for changing where uh our side entrance is uh you know I can attest to the fact that this neighborhood did was inundated with water.

And Mr.

Labate actually gave us access to this home after the house was flooded because we went door to door trying to assess damage, and a lot of folks said no, you're not coming in the home.

But this was not one of those folks.

So thank you for your help.

Thank you.

Anyone have any questions?

You do, Abel?

No.

Oh I agree.

So um the only issue I I don't have any problem with repurposing the garage, quite honestly, and I I fully understand the uh flooding issues over in Helsingon Terrace for sure and Brookside and Brookdale, et cetera.

Um issue is the the two parking spaces because it's really sort of out of place on Lorentz Lorenz.

What I like to see is really just a single space, and you leave the garage drawer the way it is to give access to your motorcycle so it looks the way it is now and just have one legal space in front of your garage, but you know, rather than two spaces there.

Um but anyway, that's just my opinion on this.

But again, I don't have any problem with the uh with the FAR increase of the patios, but uh anyway.

But I respond.

I think we could just let's hear all five comments, of course.

Um when I visited the property, I I noticed that that area parking is actually an issue.

And by you creating that second curve there, you are actually taking a spot away from the street.

Um that's really the only issue that I have when I visited the site.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I can I can't.

I'm not I just want to ask when you talk about the second curb, where where do you where are you looking?

Well they they in order for them to create a in order for them to create that um that second parking space, they actually had to do a curve cut.

Um right next to the on the left side of the of the current cur cut uh to have access to the second parking space.

Where do I see that?

As part of the application to widen driveway with new curb cut.

Okay.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm looking at the picture, that's why.

Okay.

Just wait for the other two.

Is I I have a question.

I I mean I would assume you're talking about motorcycle storage as part of this.

I would assume you currently keep your motorcycle in there.

If you're closing up the garage, um are you keeping the door to go in and out of the you are, which is what I think Bob was um mentioning earlier.

So is there any way you can move the mechanicals into the garage without entirely losing a space?

I don't know what how the sizing works, but just if we could get all the questions or if you want to I can ask answer them individually, which is sometimes they lead to the next, but that's yeah, I'm just curious.

Thank you.

Sure.

The other two have uh any other questions?

No, you can answer her individually and then if someone else has a question.

It's just a negotiation technique that I've learned that if I get everything then I know how to answer the best way.

Yeah, but we're trying to move this along, sir.

So let's answer the parking.

Um the the baits would like two cars uh on their property.

Uh we actually went out with a tape measure and checked uh the two and a half cars is what fits there currently.

So with the six feet is actually not going to reduce parking on the street because it's still remaining two cars are gonna stay there.

No, my question was whether or not um is there a way to do it?

Uh they don't have a powder room on the first floor.

So it's part of the design, we really wanted to introduce that.

And uh the all the shoes and coats end up by the front door currently.

There's no uh mud room, so as part of the scope of work, we designed it for those uh needs.

So I mean go ahead.

I I respect that.

I hate shoes and and coats on the floor too, but you're presenting this to us as though you know this is the impetus for this is the to deal with the water, which I completely understand and respect.

But um if the reason that you need quite so many variances is because of the powder room and the need for mud room, then that's not exactly flood, you know, motivated.

Uh so if I may.

The uh I don't know if the dimensions of this garage are on the um, yeah.

Um it is not possible to park um my SUV in the garage when it's clear.

Um it's a very, very small garage.

Um there are two things that we need to achieve.

We need putting aside what is keeping my marriage intact.

The uh three things.

The mechanicals need to fit in there, the washer and dryer need to fit in there and be accessible.

Um, and we need to change the egress from that side of the house.

The egress is actually currently out of the kitchen and is next to where the the Billco doors are.

So we're elevating the Bilco doors so it's not a big bath drain uh that floods.

We're elevating them, I think a foot and a half.

So that means that we need to not only move the mechanicals and the washer dryer into the garage space, but we also need to move the means of egress out of the garage space.

Thank you.

That's very helpful.

So just so we're clear, you you actually can't utilize your garage for a car currently.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

Seems like it's about 17 feet deep or something like that.

It's uh kind of small.

Yes, very tight.

Are they any are there any other questions from the board?

And we have no opposition for this, right, Regina?

No opposition.

Okay.

Would anyone like to make a motion?

I can make a motion.

Okay.

This is with respect to case number 10-2026.

Uh Jason Labate for permission to widen a driveway with new curb in front for two parking spaces.

One car, garage conversion to laundry room, powder room, mud room, and storage.

Interior renovations, including a new kitchen with island and primary bathroom, and new entry stoop with steps to mud room, legalized rear yard patio on grade, and this is legalized existing.

Whereas the proposed increase in FAR from 0.47 existing non-conforming to 0.5 is more than the allowed 0.4.

Whereas the proposed rear yard setback for the stairs and landing of 15.5 feet is less than the required of 30 feet rear of three 30-foot rear yard setback, whereas the proposed 2.7 rear yard setback of the patio is on grade is less than the 10-foot minimum required, whereas the proposed nine-foot side yard setback of the patio on grade is less than the six-foot minimum required.

And whereas the proposed front yard driveway parking separation from structures of 3.8 feet is less than the five feet required.

In an R2-7.0 zone district at the premises of 179 Brookdale Avenue, block 991, lot 26, and seeking an area variance.

This addresses in large part uh persistent flooding problem, um, making the house hard to have it to inhabit.

Um frankly, the garage as it stands right now is not even useful uh to the to the occupants.

Um, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variants.

I would say no.

Um the exterior of the house isn't really going to change in any way.

So uh aesthetically it will remain the same, so the character of the neighborhood will be the same.

And um currently the cars are going to continue to be parked as they always have been.

So again, that won't change or create any sort of detriment.

Um whether the requested area variance is substantial, I think certainly in number of variants, it's it is substantial.

And I would say that many of the variances are in fact substantial, but I don't think that is a reason to deny the application, whether the proposed variants will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood of the district.

Uh I think the answer to that is no.

Um, and we've heard no information to indicate otherwise.

And whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration is relevant to the dis to our decision.

Um I would say that I don't think that the difficulty is self-created.

Um you're dealing with a persistent flooding issue, which makes it near impossible to um remain in your home, and you have a feature of your home that you can't even use for its intended purpose.

So I don't believe it's self-created, and for these reasons, I move that we approve the application before us.

Second Abel Rodriguez.

Yes.

Mark McLean.

Yes.

Shalin Abadir.

Yes.

Bob Sanziel.

Yes.

Erica Eisner.

Yes.

Motion has been approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your volunteering your time.

Thank you.

Next case tonight, last case for the evening, case 11, 2026.

26 Disborough Circle.

Good evening, everyone.

John Woodruff, the architect with offices at Moran Place in New Rochelle.

And I'm here with Mr.

Ben Schueb.

And we have a deck proposed in the rear of his house, which is 24 foot six, not the 30-foot required.

And as you can see, we have a driveway that comes in and and is access, the garage is access from the back of the house.

So obviously we're a little limited in placing our deck on the house between the existing screen porch edition and we're proposing our deck here.

And our variance is primarily for the steps.

The deck itself would be 28 foot six inches, and the steps project into that rear yard that necessitate the variance that we're here for tonight.

The deck, this is a side view, is only three foot high, so it is a very small deck close to the ground.

This is a shot of the rear of the house.

This is a existing screen room, which we're going to be legalizing as part of the permit application.

It does need a six-inch variance, so that's why it's on our denial tonight.

And then our garage, like I said, is next to it.

We'll be putting the deck between the existing addition and the garage.

And these are some photos of the back of the house.

Take down this one-story porch and build the deck right up at the height of the back door.

This is you can see here.

We'll take this small porch off and build the deck in this area at the same height and uh about 14 by 16, get them a nice area for barbecuing and uh for the sukkah.

And um it's a shot of the side of the of the existing room where the where the deck will be going.

And um, we do have very nice arborvides around the property which provide screening between the neighbors and uh from and as well as the sides.

Um questions, when was the um porch enclosed?

Do you have any idea?

I believe it was that way when you purchased, correct?

Yeah, yeah.

They had purchased um from um how many years ago did you buy it?

13.

13 years ago.

I had worked on the house for the previous owner 13 years ago, and the porch was enclosed at that time too.

So I'm not sure if they had done it.

But that um I a few times I've tried to legalize this porch, so I think I'm gonna get it this time.

Thank you.

Anyone have any other questions?

Would anyone like to make a motion?

You have a question?

Okay, I I do.

I just noticed that the deck is very close to the parking, so I don't know if there's anything you could do to mitigate that or if you thought about that.

We did, and um it was um kind of part of the reason that the stair is in the back because initially we were trying to put the stair close to where the the parking is, but yeah, that's that's uh about as good as we can do with the location of the deck.

Okay, I hope the owners and their visitors drive carefully if this is approved.

Anyone else?

Nope.

Would anyone like to make a motion?

I'll make it clear.

Thank you.

Go for it.

Uh the case number 11 uh 2026, uh Benjamin Benjamin Shub.

I uh make a motion uh that the requested variance is be approved.

This is for permission to legalize a screen porch to enclose family room.

They proposed 14 foot five, 14.5 feet by 16 foot deck with stairs to rear yard, whereas the proposed 29.7 rear yard setback for the new family room and the new 24.5 rear yard setback for the new 14.5 by 16 foot deck do not meet the 30-foot rear yard setback requirement in an R1A 10A zone district at the premises 26 Disborough Circle block 1770, block 55.

This is an area variance.

Um I make a motion that the variances be granted based on following whether the benefit can be achieved by any of the means feasible.

Uh the existing enclosed porch is existing and closed as stated, uh, not by this current owner.

And uh it's a hardship that he has uh sort of uh bought into and uh he has no choice without modifying it significantly to come before the board and request the variance for that.

Um the uh the deck is is only three feet off the ground and uh it's not it's a minor variance that he's requesting there for that.

So I don't think that's there's any other any other way that we can achieve uh the deck other than making it smaller, which doesn't seem to be feasible at all for this for this family.

Uh whether there's an undesirable change in the neighborhood uh to the character nearby properties on a belief so the property is is well screened and again the deck is only three feet off the property and the existing uh screen porch again is now an existing enclosed porch and has been for many years, so it should not affect the neighboring properties.

Whether the request is substantial, uh the requests are minimal in this particular case, and whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, uh I do not believe so.

I think actually it'll be an improvement to the rear of the house.

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

For these reasons, I make a motion to grant the requested variances.

Second Mark McLean.

Yes.

Yes.

Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Bob Sanziel?

Yes.

Erica Eisner.

Yes.

The motion has been approved.

Thank you.

Thanks, everybody.

So we have one administrative item that we just need a motion on.

Uh yes.

So I move on case number 31-2022, Elisa Coplo for permission to convert an existing vacant lot, which has an existing access easement to a the public street to a buildable lot for future construction of a one-family dwelling at 99 Wilmot Road, block 2963, lot twelve.

The owner is requesting a reinstatement of resolution number 36-22 for 12 months.

And I move that we approve this request.

Second Bob Stanziel?

Yes.

Abel Rodriguez.

Yes.

Mark McLean.

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

Erica Isner.

Yes.

Motion's been approved.

Ma'am, motion to uh close.

I move to close this meeting.

Second.

The motion is adjourned.

Have a good night.

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.