Good evening.

Welcome to the April 28th, 2026 Planning Board for the City of Neurochell.

Planning Board meeting for the City of Neurochell.

For those of you who have not attended a planning board meeting in the past, there are going to be two portions for the meeting.

The first portion is a public hearing where applicants will come up and present their application.

Members of the board will ask questions, and members of the public will have an opportunity to speak.

After that, the applicant will come back up and address the comments from the public.

She served as Chief Diversity Officer for the New York State Power Authority.

She served as agency's equal employment officer and was the chief staff and executive vice president for corporate affairs at the New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation.

In these roles, she was a key advisor to the governors and saw oversaw the budgets, programs and policies and legislative initiatives for eleven state agencies, boards, and authorities.

Here.

Kate Mercado?

Here.

Christine O'Connell?

Here.

And staff members with us today.

Jeff Bream, Deputy Corporation Council, Paul Vaca, building official, Kevin Kane, Director of Planning and Sustainability, and myself, Benito Ceha, Senior Project Manager.

Okay.

And we'll move on to item 1.2.

We have minutes for November 2024, December 2024, January 2025, March 2025, January 2026, and February 2026.

Can I have a motion to approve these minutes?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Minutes are approved.

We will move on to item uh two, and we'll start with 2.1.

It's going to be adjourned.

We have a couple of adjournments this evening.

Item 2.1, application PB 26-2023 by Guild Capital LLC for site plan approval to construct a single family dwelling on Premium Point Road, block 50 lot 1, and an R1-10A zone district is adjourned till further notice.

Also, item 2.2, application PB 18-2025 by Ferdinand Marinetti for site plan approval to construct a two-family dwelling at Congress Place, Block 976, Lot 54, and an R2-7 zone district is adjourned to the May meeting.

So we will move on to item 2.3.

Application PB 3-2026 by Clayton Mattis for site plan approval to convert an existing non-conforming office building to a place of worship with a ground floor sanctuary for 1909 occupants at 3 the Boulevard, Block 815 Lot 9, and an R1 Historic Zone District.

Thank you.

I'm Shaheen Badali, the engineer for the applicant, located at 2 Wilson Place, Mount Vernon, New York, 10550.

So we have before you the application to convert an existing building.

It's a non-conforming office building located in the historic district.

And it's proposed to convert it to a place of worship.

I'm just going to flip down to some floor plans first.

So on the first floor is proposed to have a large sanctuary space with approximately a hundred seats, but the total occupant load that we're requesting is 191 based on floor area and other items in the building.

And then on the third floor, we have a small prayer room as well as an office as well.

And the parking load will be reflective both of this prayer room upstairs and the offices during one time, and then there will be another time where we are reflecting all of the uses at once.

So this is the site plan displaying the parking layout with uh 16 self-parking spaces, and that's for the main use of the of the building, which will happen generally six days a week, which would be that the offices would be used, the basement would be used, the second uh the third floor prayer room and office.

Um that amount of use equates to six uh uh excuse me uh 14 and change parking spaces and we're providing 16.

Um the day where uh a sanctuary event is held on the first floor.

Um we would then have a valet parking, which would propose to have 55 total spaces.

Um the 191 seats triggers the requirement for approximately a little more than 38 parkings.

Um 38 parkings coupled with the other uses, the offices, the other prayer room, et cetera, the total parking load would be 53.

Uh whereas we would be providing 55 with this layout.

Um we're displaying two areas that cars can uh temporarily park for offloading and for the valet to collect the vehicle and park it in the rear.

Um as a part of the application, there are other site improvements proposed.

Uh mainly uh to the side over here.

Just gonna maybe zoom in a little bit.

Oh, maybe not.

Uh um just to show that we do as well have a new concrete walkway proposed, which is directly adjacent to the driveway.

Um and that walkway leads to a lift, and that's to provide accessibility uh to to the sanctuary space.

Uh uh just other things to note is that the property is just a block away from North uh North Avenue, it's not far from here, it's pretty much walking distance, honestly.

Um it's also adjacent to a multifamily building on one side, but on the other side it is adjacent to some much smaller scale homes and a much more historic feel.

There's no real improvements proposed to the actual building structure and its look.

So it's it's proposed to maintain uh the building essentially the way it looks, except to provide that that new accessible entry and then some improvements to the driveway and the parking areas.

As it exists now, the parking itself is screened with a fence on three sides, and there are hedges that uh line the side uh against the houses.

So if we're looking at this plan on the left, um that there's a line of hedges as well.

Um currently the site also affords for small area for some oh excuse me uh for some exterior storage of riffuse, which typically happens on this side line over here and it's tucked in.

I also want to mention that we do have uh quite a bit of uh storage area in the basement here.

Now the area directly to the side here is proposed to be improved with the prep kitchen, uh, but we do have the remainder of the basement area to use for storage as well.

Um with that, if if the board has any questions, please.

And can you talk about the existing um surface in the rear?

It's as I understand it's already a paved surface in the rear of the the building.

Yeah, certainly.

And uh uh excuse me for not having loaded the pictures.

Uh but certainly the the area is it's paved out of asphalt right now.

Um it's just proposed to maintain that asphalt, maybe repair it as needed for the striping.

Um but it is fully paved as well as the driveway as well as asphalt currently.

Uh the new walkway that we're proposing though would be concrete.

The the plans show 46 spaces accommodated in the back, is that right?

Actually, uh I'm just gonna flip.

So this is the the plan for not the valet, the self-parking.

It displays 16 here, and then on the on the valet park, I I believe it does display.

55.

Yeah, I see I see it.

Thank you.

Is there so I understand that the site is one mixed-use building away from North Avenue with this type of use with the projected 55 cars?

Do you anticipate any kind of backup onto the main road?

Um no, and and to be quite frank, we don't expect 55 cars as was stated.

There's actually closer to about between 90 and 100 seats, and and five of those seats are also accessible seats, which don't actually have a physical chair.

Um so it's it's really not also the driveway itself, due to its length and the L-shaped turn, can accommodate about eight to nine cars to queue.

Um it so we really don't expect that.

And um we we would definitely be mindful in the way that our that the patrons uh uh use the space as well and and make sure that everybody is you know it's the same people generally who come every week.

So they they would be well versed with how the space works, how to interact with the valet.

Um and I think that the um the the church is also very keen in being a good neighbor and and would would definitely uh maintain a system to inform the patrons of how to how to to queue I know the valet plan is um subject to approval by the building department, so I just want to check Paul to see if you you know have any input about that uh yeah I just don't I mean it looks like he has adequate adequate queuing spaces.

I just don't see any maneuverability in that layout on if I was parked in the last aisle and I was trying to get my car out, uh how long would that actually take?

I mean if I got to move four cars in front of me and jockey them around.

Uh you have like no drive aisles to get people in and out of there.

Well once the cars are parked, we do have all of the aisle and the drive aisle to to maneuver cars and and we can easily place four or five cars to the side to move them out.

I mean it might take several minutes, but I I do think it it can definitely it does have the space to afford it I'm gonna really we don't need to see a really detailed valet plan.

Like how many valets are you going to employ?

What what the average time is gonna be to get a car?

You know, there's some criteria we're gonna have to review on that.

Thank you.

Do you have any information about um how many vehicles will be queued?

Uh any calculations or anything that we could use uh at this meeting here?

I I do not, but that's certainly something that we can we can seek some consultation on and then produce that information.

Thank you.

You have um two loading zones identified here.

Um if I'm coming from North Avenue, can you just sort of walk me through my journey uh into the space?

Certainly, yeah.

Um so coming from North Avenue you would make a left onto the boulevard.

In the sanctuary uh scenario.

Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize I flipped that.

That's okay.

Yep.

So we would come down uh I'm gonna not touch the screen.

So we would come down the boulevard, uh come down north North Avenue, make a left onto the boulevard from North Avenue, and then we would come down the boulevard here.

We'd already be on the correct side of the street and just turn right into the driveway, would not have to cross traffic.

Um then pulling in, the intent is to use the rear loading area first.

That's the area that directly accesses the sanctuary space.

Um so the the layout affords uh a vestibule there and an entryway into the sanctuary from the rear.

Um an accessible patron would likely pull, I I would assume up to the first loading area that the intent is to have that area that is nearest to the uh the the lift.

So the first loading area is really intended for accessible patrons or patrons who need a little more assistance through that side door, uh whereas the the bulk of the patrons would need to pull or we desire them to pull into the rear.

So I I came in, uh ten of my friends are probably behind me.

Uh we're all arriving probably within 15 minutes of the service.

I just think that's the way warship services work.

Um I'm pulling up to the front, and then my friends pulling behind me, and then you said there's enough space uh on kind of a radius from loading area one to loading area two.

Do you have an estimate of how many linear feet that is about?

Uh the the the length of the driveway?

Yeah, if you kind of took a uh uh an arc from loading zone one to loading zone two.

Um if I had to guess, I would say about fifty feet of the case.

But I I would have I can certainly plot that and give you an exact dimension.

I I don't want to give you the wrong number.

Okay.

Um so there's 50 feet of the ability to queue up cars, which is probably three or four cars.

It's probably about 25 feet per car.

Between those two areas, correct.

But if we cue the totality of the length, including the loading areas, then we get about eight.

Yeah, okay.

Uh and then there's there is no queuing from the lower zone onto the boulevard, right?

That is that is located right at the property line there.

Correct.

And the only intent for that is for an accessible patron or somebody using the concrete walkway for the side entrance, which would not be the typical case.

Um generally speaking, all patrons would use the rear loading area and queue along the whole length.

Uh there may be a person who needs to use the accessible entrance or more, and in that case, that that front loading area would be used.

Uh we we can provide uh a more clear narrative as well as more clear uh signage and directions in addition to the consultation on the um the the valet plan.

Yeah, I think you might want to think through that a little bit, because if you imagine what an accessible unloading zone looks like on a van with a lift, right?

There's gonna be the van, there's gonna be the apparatus that's sticking out of the van as well as the loading zone.

I I almost think you could end up blocking traffic from getting past that van in the event you're unloading somebody.

Um so maybe some clarity on how that actually would work and still preserve the lane of travel safely for someone loading and unloading in there.

Thank you.

Um trying to see where our residential screening is occurring, uh perhaps on the first slide.

Uh it's not well depicted, and I can certainly provide a a more detailed plan.

We just really have a note here that says line of hedges, and then this symbol here is depicting a stockade fence.

I can I'll certainly provide something a little more detailed and robust in terms of of showing how we're we're we're providing that.

So if you flip back for one second, um uh there's probably a dimension to the other complicated for you.

To this one?

Yeah.

So between the asphalt, which I presume is the left line running from the handicap stall to the back, right?

Yeah, that line right there.

So is that the end of the asphalt?

That line?

Uh you know, I I I do not know that offhand if it's exactly the same line.

So I think what I was going to get at is it seems like the white space perhaps is the buffer, and I believe it's like a 10-foot buffer that's required there.

Um then if you flip to your next page, it looks like if that's vegetation, your valet plan is parking into the vegetation.

Uh that's definitely not the intent, but I will certainly clear that up.

Yeah.

Okay.

Are there other questions or comments from members of the board?

Okay.

Um we can done.

Okay.

Go ahead.

Yeah, before we open up to the public.

Okay.

Um have you explored any other less dense parking solutions than valet here?

Have you explored any other shared parking solutions in the area or solutions for the municipal um parking lot right out here?

I do believe so.

I believe we went through exhaustive solutions, actually.

Um and I'm also not the first applicant uh to bring this project before the city.

And and so I do believe so, but I will certainly make sure that we have exhausted every alternative, certainly.

So can I can I just ask a couple of questions?

Um I think you might be uh Doug, I think you might be right.

I think on that first plan, you know, that shows the striping.

I think that could be the edge of pavement there.

When I look at an aerial photograph, it's not exactly clear.

Yeah.

Um but when you evaluated this, did you evaluate it?

You said you evaluated for the sanctuary and all the other spaces?

Correct.

But will they actually be operational all at the same time?

No, but my understanding is the code does not give me the purview to do it.

Yeah, but the code talks about for a house of worship to to do it based on the sanctuary.

So as it relates to the sanctuary, it's 38 and change parkings.

38.2.

And and bear in mind also that that's uh not really it's a building code, it's based off the floor area of the space, what the building code occupant load gives us versus the actual number of seats that we're showing in the space.

So even though we're saying 191 occupants, we're really proposing approximately a hundred.

And in addition to that, the parking load that we're providing is for the entire building.

So that's why in reality, no, we we don't expect 55 spaces to be taken.

But we we are required by law to provide it, or my understanding is we would be subject to the zoning board.

Our desire is to have an application that does meet all the zoning requirements, um and and to be fully compliant.

Uh uh, we would have to provide these 55 or 53 minimum spaces.

That that was that was my understanding of it.

But certainly if we're permitted to provide less parking, I mean um and and that can provide more greenery, we would we would definitely look at that.

I mean, okay.

Yeah, I think um just a little bit more information about the existing screening.

I don't see any existing trees, tree sizes on that plan, uh, or if you you know the hedges that you're talking about, what's what's the nature and condition of them, um, and then whatever that code requires, it's just not clear in that drawing um that it's provided.

Correct.

Yeah, we we didn't really provide any landscaping as it relates to the application.

So I can certainly document what's existing and then and then provide that for the record.

So thank you for for answering my questions.

Um I think for the record, uh the historic and landmarks review board provided a neutral referral and specifically asked us to carefully review the proposed valet parking plans to ensure adequate and safe vehicle circulation uh can be maintained within the property and confirmed that the plan will prevent overflow parking uh onto the adjacent streets.

Uh I think right now what has in front of us doesn't provide enough information uh for me to feel comfortable that you've solved that problem.

Um I think um I'm gonna recommend an adjournment.

That's my opinion.

Um but I do want to give you some benefits of um my perspective of what you're proposing here.

Um in the spirit of an adjournment.

First, I think the parking arrangement is atypical and for and highly intensive for this historic setting.

That dense arrangement of 55 valet spaces in the rear in this historic district is immediately adjacent to residential property.

And it's materially different from a conventional parking lot with standard stalls, drive aisles, landscape buffers, and clear circulation, as is found across the street at the dollar store and down the street at 19 the boulevard, which is the other um house of worship in the neighborhood.

So I think this is the first and only densely parked valet condition of this magnitude within the historic district.

If you look around the historic uh perimeter, there is no commercial uh properties that uh provide that much cars in that little space.

Uh so I I just the historic board asked to uh comment on it.

I think it's intense for this piece of property and for this this district.

Um we've talked about valet information.

Um I think there's a bunch of stuff that I'm sure Kevin can provide for you after this meeting uh about what would be good to know, timing, number of cars queuing up.

Um I think that would be helpful uh after this adjournment.

Um information about landscaping, screening and buffering uh I think would also be important to have.

Um if we do move forward with 55 cars in the rear yard, it would be good to know that we are adequately screened from the immediate adjacent neighbor.

Um we also talked a little bit about accessible patrons uh and how they would get in and out.

Uh so a little bit more information on on that.

Uh all of these things affect space.

Um so it would be just good to understand how that impacts what you currently have, like that buff landscape buffer.

If you lose that whole row of spaces, are you still getting up to 55?

Or now are we adding a lot more pressure on the circulation that we said seems to be tight?

Um I I think we have to kind of get a little more information to be able to adequately analyze how this site is being utilized and if it's feasible that it can all of the operations you need can be feasibly done on your property and not spill out into the boulevard or not um start parking in the uh historic neighborhood.

Would it would it be possible?

You know, the code it goes a little deeper because it says and for additional accessory areas and or uses.

You know, you could take that to say, hey, let's add up everything on this site and require that amount of parking.

Or you could take that to mean, okay, while church is in session, while we're in the sanctuary having mass, how much of the rest of this building is actually gonna be in use?

Now, some of the offices upstairs may be used for Sunday school.

The children are not driving to Sunday school.

So the teachers may drive to get there.

But in reality, I I just don't see that that stacking plan actually working.

So can we take a hard look at that, Mr.

Badali?

Yeah, I I would very much appreciate that.

Thank you very much.

And Paul, you're suggesting that maybe there's less than 55 needed.

You well, let's say we had five Sunday school classrooms, right?

And those teachers are gonna drive, plus the amount that's in the sanctuary.

So it's the sanctuary plus the accessory uses that are gonna be used at that time.

Right.

We're not gonna have a banquet going on while we're having Sunday school and and and mass.

Um I I just I I want him to take another look at that and maybe re-evaluate it because that I just don't see how you're gonna get in and out of there.

Yeah, it's tight.

And and that's why I brought up the shared parking or any other municipal parking.

Like, you know, if you could get a decent amount of parking on your site with traditional aisle without having the need for valet.

Well, bear in mind that's 16.

So we've displayed.

Well, still with the sanctuary number.

So it's probably not 55.

Right.

It maybe it's in the 30s, and and I I don't know.

Maybe you could get 30 somehow.

Uh or maybe you get 16 and you got to find 14 somewhere else in a you know validation.

So I may clarify the comment that you're making.

Is it the position that valet period is not uh something that you would support within the historic district?

Because that's what it's No, I I think valet is resulting in the density of cars.

Well, inherently that's what valet is, but during a short amount of time on a single day.

And so that's where I'm um my confusion is that the code does allow it.

It is permitted in this district, and and I understand the concern.

And I understand that it's in a historic district.

Um but it is it is limited in its intensity during in in the timing of it.

Um so that's why I'm trying to just narrow down what you're saying.

Is is it the opposition to when you say density of cars?

I mean, it's you know, cars themselves, is it is it the appearance of a car?

Because the pavement is the pavement.

So that's where I I don't understand the thought process.

Um excuse me if I I just want to try to uh get to to try to resolve it, honestly.

Because I I I hear the concern and I'm I want to uh address it properly.

Yeah, absolutely.

So um there's a lot of code requirements that I'm sure you're complying with, um, all of which come in front of us for site plan approval to evaluate the impact it has on the site as well as the surrounding site.

And so um the valet operation itself is not a uh not in opposition right now.

Um it's the fact that the valet operation creates a density of vehicles on the site, which impacts the adjacent neighbor.

In the visual aspect and the sea of cars that are there.

Right.

And again, if you if you look right across the street at the dollar store, right, it's an aisle, a drive aisle and some parking stalls, and it's not an imposing amount of vehicles.

It's it's an acceptable amount of vehicles.

It's just the way these zoning requirements.

No, and and I'm sorry if I typically like I was being smart, would I really meant like maybe there's a way that I can mitigate now that I understand you know that that it's more the aesthetic concern of the view of the cars, perhaps I can mitigate that better with even more screening or something uh to that effect.

And that that's really why I was was trying to ask.

So thank you so much.

I I I was more looking at it from a life safety point of view.

Okay.

Because if one of those back cars, if we have a malfunction with one of those back cars and it catches on fire, you're gonna lose 54 cars there.

Sure.

Okay.

Yeah.

There's no way even if you put an aisle up the middle to try to move people in and out.

Um let's do that evaluation and and and see if that reduces the parking impact.

I I and I if I can jump in.

I think it's it's it's a number of these items coming together, Sheen, that that I think need to be evaluated uh.

Assuming that the chair house were in adjournment.

Uh part of one of the things that I that I would also like looked at a little bit further is is that landscape area on the left side of the plan.

Right.

Right.

Um I think I I'm just curious about the coverage.

I'd like to understand the impervious versus pervious coverage.

Um what actually just make sure that that's what being depicted what's being depicted in the zoning table is correct for the coverage.

And then I want to understand how the valet would impact that.

So let's just look at that a little closer and understand what what impacts may come from that and and how that could be mitigated.

Of course.

Thank you.

Yeah, and to be clear, I think there's a path forward here.

It sounds like it's massaging uh to mitigate the impact.

Thank you.

No, I and you you you did not uh have the different appearance, and and thank you.

I I I appreciate the thoughtfulness.

Yeah.

It says here that the uh uh nonconforming office building to a place of worship on the ground floor.

You have existing tenants in there, commercial tenants?

It's a it's been vacant for quite some time, actually.

So the offices will, if there's still existing offices in the building, they will be all connected with the church.

They won't be anything other than church business going on there.

That is very correct, yes.

Well, then I I hate to dwell on the parking, but whatever you do, I mean the house is beautiful, it's gonna be restored, it's probably gonna look very good, and it's gonna be a great place for a church, and it's also off the more the residential area and closer to the commercial North Avenue, so I can see that.

But that massive parking area dwarfs the chur the sanctuary, the church.

It it becomes more of a parking lot than a than a house of worship because you're not even gonna notice it as anything except an old uh building that was residential.

And I think you can do a lot better job on making that a beautiful place with a fish in parking.

And going along with what Paul said, I don't see how the fire department would approve of that parking lot as you present it to us.

Has it been presented to the fire department as to access?

It has, and it I believe I did resolve their objections.

Um so it it it does meet the fire code.

I've just flipped to the picture just to to refresh the board's memory that from the street face, the parking lot really is not visible.

Um it's just the driveway width that's visible and adequate.

I I believe that we can propose methods that can screen fence, gate, uh and and mimic this site as a much more residential feel um so that that impact can be mitigated.

I think if I'm uh hopefully afforded the chance to come back before this board with something a little more uh uh reasonable, then then I I can show you how that can be achieved.

I mean, you're your idea for it is is a wonderful idea to to have a church there, but squeezing it into all the restrictions, the historic, you know, this designation and the neighborhood itself that you want to be a good neighbor to, you don't want to so you it is a big undertaking, and and maybe it isn't as some have said here only a one-night decision on this.

I'm sure you've worked on it a long time, and maybe the planning board has to see some proposals and uh and find a better way for you to get the result that you'd like.

I understand.

Thank you.

Yeah.

I I believe the letter from the fire department uh to me it appears it's about fire fighting uh in the structure.

Um I'm not sure from this letter if they evaluated the cars as a fire fighting operation.

Uh uh, maybe you know this, but uh I don't know.

But I'm gonna probably say no.

Okay.

Well, maybe they should we can ask.

Yeah.

Uh if I may, may the applicant uh Clayton Mattis speak as well?

His application, of course.

I'd appreciate it.

Thank you to the chair and sure.

If you just wouldn't mind stating your um name and address for the record, thank you.

My name is Clayton Mattis, and I live at 401 Webster Avenue near Ashell.

Um something was said that intrigued me because I've been wrestling with this somewhat from we brought this project to the board.

Um that this what is presented as office spaces on the second floor and even and and the need for parking for the second and third floor.

I I've been concerned and a tad bit confused about that because I'm like, we're using those for Sunday school.

I'm on Sundays, and if I drive my two kids come with me, they are not driving, they're using that space.

So uh for all intent and purposes, only parking that is required uh for those for us who would be doing mass on the first floor or the sandwich floor.

So I guess my question is uh is there any way that this can that the the parking can be limited to just those who those just occupants on the sanctuary floor?

So what I think your architect should do is put together a package of what uses are gonna be accessory to the sanctuary while you're having mass.

Right.

And then we can evaluate that based on what we have in front of us.

And that may lower your quantity of spaces that you require on the site.

You know, it it's it says one per five seats to the sanctuary, and for additional accessory areas and or uses.

You could read that a couple of different ways.

If you were having Sunday school upstairs, those like you said, those kids aren't gonna drive.

I said that earlier.

Exactly.

They're gonna get dropped off by their parents who are attending mass.

Maybe the teachers may drive there.

Right?

We have a we have a quantity in the code for teachers.

Right.

So maybe if we got an accounting of what's gonna happen there, on what days we can we can do a good evaluation and and and see what number we really come up with.

Is Sunday school after Mass or during Mass?

We have them simultaneously, yeah.

Okay.

Yeah.

So is is the parents who are in mass, the kids are in San Jesus?

Yes, okay.

And then do some people stick around for Bible study after mass?

Or do they disperse and go their separate ways for the other thing?

They dispressing the disciples could be.

Okay.

Right.

So it's Sunday and Wednesday.

And what percentage disperse immediately, would you say?

That's that we just gather for from 10 to uh to 12, and then that's it.

And then most all people leave right after 12.

Everybody leaves.

Everybody leaves and so I think there's a there's an intensity of exiting that the valet is gonna have to accommodate.

Uh and and I think you had made a comment that you'll probably only have a hundred.

Uh I I think the way this works is that we have to design for the capacity of the sanctuary.

So even if you don't have a hundred and ninety-one patrons worshiping, the facility has to be able to accommodate up to 191, uh, unless you make a decision to cut your capacity at a lower number, and then we could design towards a lower number.

I think that's possible, right?

Yes.

Yeah.

If this was an event location, say you had three ballrooms on each one on each floor, and you had certain events that were going to be well attended, so you needed more than the one floor.

You wouldn't book the second floor.

You'd book two floors together with one and not have three events because one would be overflowing and crowded.

So if you treated the office space in the Sunday school as as is Paul is describing, if you could make sure that when you have the most people attending, that's the only thing going on.

So the parking will be easily available to the point where there might even be empty spaces.

But if you overlap or have at the same moment other things going on, then you're stressing the point the parking, even if we make allowances for the parking, you're stressing it.

And I think you could have you'll eventually have if you're coming if your congregation grows, you're gonna have everybody complaining they can't get a parking space.

And I think every congregation wants to grow.

And every leader wants to have this congregation go.

So why not think for the future so that it could be smooth and and it won't be a shock to people say, oh, this is when the services are going on on Sunday, so there's not going to be this, there's not going to be that.

And people can adjust to that.

You you will you'll have the whole place as your own.

You can make the scheduling work for the limited parking that's available, and therefore enjoy everything rather than be worried about it.

Yeah, thank you.

Mr.

Shannon.

Okay, um, I'd like to open it up uh for a public comment.

Is there anybody from the public who'd like to make a comment on this application?

Hello, uh, my name is William Vetter, 36 Orchard Place.

Thanks for the opportunity.

The clock start.

Uh it's uh it's great to see you all again.

I know that we've done this multiple times on this property.

I mean, I think it's been a year and a half since the last time I was up here complaining about it.

But the reality is is that this is a property that was never designed to actually be anything other than a house, but somehow somebody made it a non-conforming office building, and then therefore somebody wanted to make it a church.

That was a year and a half ago, two years ago, or something like that.

And I think that y'all need to take a look at the original uh video tapes and everything from those hearings because just about everything that they've described here has somehow already been adapted from their original design.

The original design was 72 spaces that was then then conformed down to 60 or something along those lines, and whatever fanciful measures that they wanted to happen to have.

But we're here again today with a problem that is put into a space that shouldn't be there.

Now, I'm not gonna argue whether or not a church should be in our neighborhood, because I already know that they kind of shouldn't be, because the other church that's in our neighborhood that was gifted to us is not really a good neighbor.

That when they do hold congregations and services, they actually annoy their neighbors because they're you know, they basically have the heavy metal aspect to it, and we've had a lot of noise complaints, plus the fact that they sublet their lot out to people illegally, and don't forget that their caretaker is a class C uh child molester or child rapist.

So, you know, that was the fun parts about having neighbors like this.

And then the other neighbor that we were gifted, which is Dollar Tree next to us, which doesn't even have a trash can and all of their trash is in our neighborhood.

So why am I complaining about this?

Because essentially what they're doing is not going to change the outside too terribly much.

They're gonna screw with this parking lot, which is absolutely fanciful when you think about how it's cars are gonna get in and out of there, especially considering the turn that you come into is blind and over arise, and really it only fits about three minivans that are offloading people that are going to have a higher propensity to be necessarily infirmed and need to have access care.

It's not a lesser propensity when you go to church.

Grandma's going to church, children go to church.

Able-bodied people tend to fall in the middle of that.

So they need to look at the factors associated to that.

And they will be stacking all these activities at the same time.

Much the same is that a valet-based organization that was already given some type of variance, I think it was a year ago, they haven't instituted yet because they haven't even used the property yet.

They haven't instituted yet, because they haven't even used the property yet.

Yet they've had hold of it, and they could have been worshipping, but they have not.

So why is this?

Don't know, don't care.

But the point being is that I'm tired of bad neighbors.

I'm tired of having to walk past a house that doesn't look the way it was supposed to when it was originally designed at the crown of a neighborhood at the same time the city is actually taking away other crowns in the neighborhood, such as the Mavis, which wants to be part of an overlay, and the old uh, I guess it's to the boulevard or Hamilton that now wants to be part of a new overlay, which are going to be towers, and I guarantee it.

Cool.

But why are we taking yet another thing out here that is only serving a finite amount of people?

The people that worship there that actually are not from this community, because if you look at the pools, they're actually from outside of the community.

Just me.

I'm a neighbor, pass by it every day, but what does it matter?

I ask for you guys to really think about this because the property does matter.

This is one of the only crowns that you have left in the entire newer shell community, and you're trying to build this corridor.

And by pigeon toing it as a church, which is going to have bad management with parking, is not a way to do it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Is there anyone else from the public who would like to comment on this application?

Okay.

Um Kevin, should we leave the public comment open for if we're adjourning?

I would recommend you leave it open.

Okay.

So we'll leave the public comment portion open.

Um and on the changes that you're going to be requesting.

Right.

It'll be substantially enough different that you want to get the public an opportunity to do it.

Great.

Thank you.

Okay.

So with that, I'll uh make a motion to adjourn.

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

Is there anything else you have for us?

No, no, thank you.

Okay.

Okay, I'm sorry.

And we have conditions of approval, but they may change, so we'll wait to the next uh meeting to go over those.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

I recommend asking the applicant if he'd like to adjourn.

Okay.

Are you would you like to adjourn to the next meeting rather than us voting on this application tonight?

I would may ask for a point of clarification.

Am I limited in the number of adjournments that I may request?

And if so, how many?

Three.

Thank you.

Um then yes, I would certainly like to request an adjunct.

Adjourn.

Okay.

Someone have a motion to adjourn.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Thank you.

Okay.

We'll see you back.

Thank you.

We'll move on to application 2.4, PB4-2026 by Mark Moostakat Mustacato, AIARMG associates for site plan approval to construct a new one-family residence at 236 Wilmot Road, Block 3147, Lot 202 in an R1-20 zone district.

Hi, Mark Musticato, the architect for the property.

And with me also is Greg McCurio, who is the landscape architect and arborist, and George Motorello is the civil engineer.

I'm just going to put this down.

So on this first slide, just some pictures of the neighborhood, the property itself.

So the pictures that you see that are sort of in the middle of vacant property, that is basically the property, and then you see some of the houses that are in the neighborhood around it.

This is the site plan, the proposed site plan.

So again, this is a proposed one family residence.

So then take coming along here.

This is the proposed front elevation.

So we have uh a three-car garage which is accessed from the side at the right side of the property.

Uh so there's no garage facing the front.

Um again, front elevation.

So the the materials are a mixture of a hardy plank vertical uh horizontal siding and vertical siding, some uh black asphalt shingle roof for the main part of the roof, uh standing seam roofs over the front entrance, and at that little dormer um up in the roof, which will be like a slate gray color siding would be white.

Um, and then these are the two side elevations.

So again, on the on the lower part of the slide there, you see the right side elevation with the three garage doors, the opposite side where we have a little stair tower there that is kind of a nice access uh feature.

And then the rear elevation is a very nice view in the back, and it's overlooking uh the body of water back there.

So we have a little second floor balcony off the primary bedroom there.

And then a one-story section off to the on the garage side and woodroom section.

I can take you through floor plans.

I'm not sure how much in detail you want me to go into that or not.

Um you can run through the plans.

I think the landscaping plan is also important to take a look at.

So basement plan, we do we do plan to have a bedroom in the basement, exercise room, rec room, um, utility room, and just open space basically.

Uh first floor, you know, it's a very open layout, so you have an open kitchen family room across the back of the house, an open patio and a roofed patio section, living room, dining room towards the front, um, three-car garage with a mud room, and then a uh a bedroom suite on the first floor.

And then up on the second floor, you have uh five additional bedrooms, um, and bathrooms basically.

This is the um the site engineering plan.

So again, George Motarella is here can address technical questions there, but there have been go back, you know, back and forth comments with DPW and engineering.

The um the water service is already brought onto the property off of Wilmot Road, so we can take it just from there into the property, so it doesn't need to excavate the road.

And the sanitary sewer line, there's a county easement county sewer line in the back, and uh, this is already sort of incommodated as part of the subdivision that created this lot that the sewer will go out through the back to that county sewer line.

Um, and some details of the different you know, different engineering issues.

And then again, Greg is here so he can take you through the uh site, the tree tree summary and uh landscape plan.

So I'll let your uh let uh Greg address that, and if you need George to adjust the engineering, he can do that as well.

Okay.

So good evening.

Uh my name is Greg Mercurio.

Um I live at 171 Hustis Road in Cold Spring, New York.

I'm here representing the homeowner.

Um and what we're looking at right now is currently the uh tree assessment for the entire property, the existing conditions of the trees that are on the property, um, also an arborist.

So uh during the site inventory and analysis, I went through and um took a look at all the trees of a certain size that are indicated on the property by the surveyor.

So we went through there, we identified um all the trees on the property, the species, the size, the health of those, and any other particular uh conditions of the tree in terms of its health, disease, or decay uh that was observed on site.

Um as you know, there was a house or a structure on this property uh many years ago, which has been removed, so it's currently just an open lot.

Um there's been minimal maintenance uh on the property.

Um so there's not a lot of like tree care going on around there, particularly.

Uh there's a mixture of um mostly invasive species on the property, and um a significant portion of the existing trees there are in fair to poor condition.

Um so we went through the existing trees on the property, and then we spoke about what trees were going to be impacted by grading, um, the location of the new infrastructure, as well as any trees that were dead, uh disease decayed, or had significant um structural damage that would be of concern.

So we proposed our removals and came up with a mitigation number that we would be replacing for the removals, and that is incorporated into the planting plan.

Um we see.

Was that reviewed by our arborist?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

If you would like it, if it's still Paul Rebholt's, you know, I can definitely forward this to him.

I've worked with him in the past, and you know, generally been in agreement with our assessments.

Thank you.

So what we have here is a proposed planting plan.

Um we are proposing, as far as the trees go for the mitigation, a hundred and two caliper inches of new trees.

Uh it's a mixture of ornamental trees and flowering trees as well as native trees.

Um, and then there is also some traditional landscape proposed for around the house, like azaleas and boxwoods, as well as some native species for the shrubs as well.

So the landscape was just a traditional landscape based on Mark's elevations for the property while also meeting the mitigation requirements.

If there's anything else I could add, I would just say, you know, there is some screening around the property as well as a mixture of you know flowering trees.

The one, you know, kind of significant component is there are some large arborvitae currently at the property that run along Wilmot Road, and those are proposed to stay, and those are I would say almost 70, 80 feet long, linear feet by 25, 30 feet tall or greater, and those.

Oh, if you can use the um the mouse, yes, thank you.

Of course.

So there's this whole row here that goes from the proposed curb cut and driveway, and it runs all the way here along Wilmot Road.

So that's significant amount of evergreen screening that's that's currently existing.

I'm not sure if we have if those photos show, I think they did show it in Mark's.

If you want me to scroll back to his first it's this big block of arboritis, I mean it's a significant picture six and seven.

Yes, these photos right here.

So those those are significant existing evergreen screenings that are right there.

Uh so that's gonna um block a fair amount of what's going on on that property for sure.

Um there are some trees that we proposed to remove that were a little bit bigger, um, but there was gonna be some utility work, and they're currently um it's up in this corner.

Uh there's some telephone poles and utility lines up there, so even though they were native trees um and we didn't want to necessarily remove them, we felt it was in the best interest because they're what we consider volunteer trees.

No one planted them for a particular landscape reasons, just they naturally grew up there, like and these trees are called tulip trees, which tend to grow very fast.

Um so we did again, we did put them on the removal, but we mitigated their removal with our new tree plantings that we proposed.

And that's that's the landscape plan.

And can um you talk about the grading of the site from Wilmot Road to the rear of the site and any drainage plan for storm water because I know we've gotten comments about this.

So yes, but no, so not me.

Right, yeah.

Thank you.

So you got the George's plan there.

So can we zoom in on this?

Yes, right.

So I can zoom in again.

Too much.

There you go.

The pointer.

Huh?

The pointer.

The pointer, you can use the mouse to find everything.

Right.

Good evening, everyone.

George Montarella, civil engineer and land surveyor.

I developed this site plan for storm water management to address some of the minor grading that's got to be done at the upper end of the driveway, the sewer access to the property, and the water access, domestic water to the property.

We performed a uh deep hole to the rear of the property.

Okay.

Caltec units at the rear of the property.

We've got uh the front.

Is that the front of the property?

Off Wilmot.

Excuse me.

That's the front of the property.

And it's we have these units in the front, and the ones in the rear, right?

Yeah.

The rear of the property has 14 recharger units set in the ground.

This is based on the percolation that we had in the soil back there.

Um this lot is high compared to the reservoir uh property in the back of this.

So the property was well drained.

Percolation hole.

Um came up to about five minutes per inch, which is pretty fast.

So we needed 14 units in the rear to address the impervious area of the new house and sidewalks.

And we have uh four.

We have another additional eight units up in the front just to address the impervious area from the new driveway.

The driveway is such that uh homeowner can pull in from Wilmont Road, come to the back, park in the garage, come out, turn the car around, and come out onto Walmart Road straight forward.

No backing up is required.

The uh the water, domestic water for the property is going to be taken from the existing water tap that's there now, and the existing driveway that accesses the property.

The new driveway is going to use that same area between the two columns that you see now on the roadway.

The sewer, I think Mark addressed it, is going to come off an additional sewer pipe that's going to be built off the county trunk sewer, which is in the back of this property.

And then there'll be a four-inch line that comes up and services this lot.

So water, sewers taken care of.

Stormwater is worked out well.

It will address all the impervious area onto this lot that you won't have any additional runoff based on a 25-year storm.

And 25-year storms in this day and age aren't what they used to be, two and a half inches of rain.

The 6.4 inches of rain.

So as far as I see, this worked out very well.

I'll address any questions board has.

Yeah, I asked because I know it even in the subdivisions of all these parcels, people talked about it being, you know, quite squishy with some of the or that I would say down by the lake, so just seeing if the runoff from this lot would not have a negative impact.

Um just kind of want to run it by uh city staff and Paul if you feel like this is a sufficient number of uh drainage plan for the lot.

Okay.

Well, that's a you get Mr.

Monterbell, you said 14 in the back.

How many in the front?

Four?

Eight.

Eight?

Yeah.

Well we'll we'll review it again, but I I I think he's okay.

Okay.

Um can you just confirm you guys are fully replacing the required DBH that are being removed?

There's no buy-in to anything.

Okay, great.

Oh, if you uh you want to come up and answer.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

It turns out the removal number turned out to be uh 100 inches of TBH in the proposed planting plan includes uh 102 inches replacement.

Great.

Please do not touch any of those trees until our st reviews what you did.

And we issue a permit.

Yes, 100%.

Um I don't see any information on the exterior lighting on the house plans.

Can you just talk about what you will be putting on there?

Sure.

So uh how do we get out of this now?

Hang on.

So uh as far as exterior lighting, who okay?

Let's see if we can get to the elevations here.

I don't know.

Why am I not moving here?

Uh what am I doing here?

I'm still scrolling.

So we're there we go.

Okay.

Except I can't get out of this.

Okay.

Yes.

Well, okay.

So we'll, you know, as far as exterior lighting, there will be uh, you know, sconces uh along the at the front entrance and at the rear deck, rear patio.

Um for some reason this is not allowing me to navigate.

I don't know why.

So maybe you could take a look at that and see.

Okay, seems kind of frozen here.

Okay.

So I want to go down the other way.

So again, I guess uh look at elevations.

So you know, we'll have lighting at the front entrance, uh down lighting in the in the roof of the front entrance platform, some landscape lighting on the walkway leading to it at the garage.

We'll have lighting in the soffit again over the garage doors and at the sconce by the uh mudroom entrance at the rear of the house, again lighting uh in the ceiling of the one story porch, and then some wall-mounted sconces there.

I mean, that's pretty much this planned site lighting.

Okay.

And cut off shielded lights that were not going across the property lines of any of the.

Yeah, no, not at all.

And we're not really planning, you know, to be lighting up the property.

Okay.

And the mechanical equipment, I presume it is HVAC somewhere.

Yeah.

Where is that proposed?

Well the condensers uh will be located probably uh we haven't really specifically planned it yet, but probably uh along the uh looking at the house from the street along the this side of the house here.

Okay.

Behind the chimney.

And then it'll be screened with landscaping.

Great, thank you.

Okay.

Um we'll open this application up to comment from the public.

Is there anyone from the public who would like to comment on this application?

Okay.

Uh we'll close the public hearing.

Um I do see we have a additional uh condition of approval for the arborist, the city arborist to review the landscaping plan prior to any tree removal um and to issue a permit for that.

Okay.

All right.

Any other comments from the board?

Okay.

And we do also have some other conditions of approval.

Uh Benito, if you wouldn't mind going through them.

Sure.

Number one, the applicant shall reconstruct the driveway curb cut to meet city standards and shall require DPW permits.

The applicant shall install smoke, carbon monoxide uh detectors prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy.

Number three, the applicant shall comply with the egress requirement R 319.1 prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Just ask uh Paul on that last one there, the egress requirement R3119.1 that came from our fire department.

Is that that's a reference to the fire code?

Do you know?

No.

No, that's the residential code.

Residential code.

All right.

Probably for the basement, it's probably for the egress escape window.

Yes.

Yep.

Okay.

Just want to make that clear.

Thank you.

They switched some numbers around, so I'm not exactly positive on that, but oh I like and check.

And number four, the applicant shall meet with the city arborists to review the landscape and plan before any trees are removed prior to the issuance of a building permit.

Are those conditions acceptable to the applicant?

Yes.

Okay.

Um so we have one vote uh for site plan approval.

Can I have a motion to approve this site plan?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Okay.

So we'll close the public um hearing portion of this meeting and move on to um item 3.1, administrative amendment regarding PB 1-2026 by Iona Preparatory School for previously approved site plan to construct bleachers with a press box, bathrooms, concession, and ticketing stand at an existing athletic field at 255 Wilmot Road.

This is adjourned to the May meeting.

Uh Block 3001, lot one in an R1-20 zone district.

So that's adjourned to the May meeting, and we'll hear that then.

Um we'll go to 3.2 board on zoning referral regarding case number 12-2026 by David Abish for area variance for an extension and addition on the first and second floors, as well as the construction of a pool terrace, new driveway and garage at 12 Elm Ridge Drive, block 3407, lot 42, and an R1-10 zone district.

So I I pulled this by default.

Um asked me to come up and just do the referrals.

Um this is a a referral, either positive, negative, or no recommendation on the variances.

It's a pretty substantial addition to the home.

Looks like it's tastefully done.

Um we're just looking for your recommendation.

The pool is compliant.

They're adding a patio around the pool, any patio within 18 inches of the finished grade can be uh six feet to the sidelines and ten feet to the rear property line.

So the variances that we have that you're gonna be looking at here, there's only one, and it's for gross floor area.

The proposed point three three five floor area ratio of 4731 gross floor area exceeds the maximum permitted of point three, which is forty two hundred and thirty-eight square feet.

So it's uh about five hundred square feet over what the zoning allows.

Thank you.

And it still meets all the setbacks.

Even with the increased okay.

The only thing that they're asking for the variance on is the FAR.

F A R.

Okay.

I'll lead with that on the next one.

What they're asking for.

Is that FAR?

There's no deductions, reductions.

This is just the natural FAR for this property.

Yeah.

It's all based on on the lot area.

I'm not sure there's the whole there's a whole lot for the board to really open the room.

I mean, I'm I'm okay with the neutral or positive neutral referral.

Okay.

Uh so I'll make a motion for a neutral referral.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

All right.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Uh we'll move on to 3.3 board on zoning referral regarding case 13-2026 by Joseph Scalisi for area variance to extend the parking lot to create seven additional parking spaces, including one compact car at 21 Circuit Road, lot 469, lot 12, and an RF RMF 1 zone district.

Yeah.

Okay.

So here uh 21 Circuit Road, they're looking for two area variances.

The first area's area variance is the proposed 12 foot plus or minus front yard setback of parking lot extension is less than 25 feet required.

And the second area variance is um compact spaces are not permitted in parking lots with less than 50 spaces.

So our zoning code allows compact spaces, but you have to have a minimum of 50 to utilize a compact space.

Um the 16-foot length of parking space number 22 is less than the minimum required of 18.

Um so that's one of those parking spaces.

Um those are the two area variances that are required for this, and then if it if you give a positive, negative or no recommendation, um if they don't obtain the variances, then they will not be back to you for site plan approval.

Um if they do obtain the variance, then they will come before this board for site plan approval.

That's one of the reasons why you're given the recommendation or not.

Do you want to explain the easement um uh discussion?

Right.

Uh what i it confirm that either property can remove easement access for the shared asphalt road.

I wouldn't even know where to begin with that.

I if there is an easement on the property, you easements are usually recorded and they're usually remain on the deed in perpetuity.

Uh we could certainly get more information on that.

Yeah, wasn't it?

I think it is on that deed, right?

Isn't there something here where half of the driveway belongs to one, half drive below the other, and either can remove that easement?

Uh well I'm not it's an access easement.

So I don't think either party can rem remove that.

I think because it says access easement, the you are allowed to access the property.

You can't park in there, but you're allowed to access the property.

I thought I read something that it was gonna be res could be rescinded with 30 days notice.

Anybody else?

I didn't see that.

Huh?

There was something in the uh letter about Doug, it does say license license agreement easement.

3360 library and page on file with the county clerk.

So it was filed with the county.

Yeah.

I I think what it is is that there's a 20-some foot driveway.

And right down the middle of the driveway is the property line.

And they have an agreement that they're going to let each other use one way for one lane and one way for the lane out.

And it looks like the adjacent property to the right on your plan here is not in favor of the parking stalls being here.

And I I think if I guess my question is if they were to rescind their access easement, does that make what is being proposed not possible from a ingress and egress standpoint?

I mean if they rescind it, they're gonna they're gonna have a circulation problem regardless.

I there's a massive parking lot behind this building.

I I don't think either party can rescind either easement and still operate.

They may be like kind of deadlocked in letting this continue, but sorry.

Yeah.

There's a there's a parking lot for 14 cars in the rear here on this property.

Yeah.

I would assume I don't want to really assume, but I would assume that there's some probably mirror image of a parking lot on the other side.

There is, yes.

Yeah.

Um I mean the question I ask is because if that happens, what we do have cases where there's a common driveway and somebody sells the home, and then somebody else buys the home, and then they put a fence down the middle of the driveway.

And they get into this massive legal dispute.

I I would think that they have more protection because there is an access easement and it is filed with the county.

Um they have some level of protection there?

It is revocable upon 30 days notice, written notice to the address.

So even it's unusual for that to be reported, but here they chose to record.

Yeah.

Um I think there is a solution that this parcel can take by utilizing the left side yard to make a one-way circulation and circumvent any easement problems there.

So I don't know if the easement is a problem.

You mean if this was pulled.

If it was pulled.

They could well I yeah, I can't.

Right now they're parking on the left side of the building.

There's about an aisle wide.

So yeah, you could probably get one lane going in and and still maintain the landscape buffer and then come out the other side on your own property.

And not affect these proposed parking spaces.

I think so.

I think you're correct.

I think there also is some landscape buffer requirements that they're not currently showing.

Uh that would I think it's a five-foot buffer, and that that planning bed in front of the head of the parking spaces is only three.

I presume you would need a buffer between the building and that last space.

I'm curious if there's any magic number to seven spaces, or they're just trying to maximize it as much as possible.

They're probably doing it based on need.

I mean, this is a really densely populated area.

And if if if you drive down the Pelham Road corridor or on circuit road, um it's very difficult to find a parking space there.

They're probably doing this to attempt to keep their tenants somewhat happy.

On the as you enter circuit road on the left-hand side, there is a parking lot where the cars do come up to the street.

So there is precedent catacorner to this of front yard parking.

Um I don't think at least today that's an issue for me.

It looks, but it looks like on this plan they're showing a 12-foot buffer in the front.

Well, that's gonna be their variance, right?

Because it's 25 feet and they need that.

No, to the parking space.

To the parking space.

But the landscape buffer is only I believe it's 10 feet out of right away.

I think they're okay with the buffer.

Yeah.

It's parking in the required front yard.

That's that's part of it.

Well, and I I mean, um just throwing in my two cents.

This configuration to me, it's it's like putting a parking lot in the front yard, which to me is detrimental.

I think if you had the driveway with parking along the side of it as if it were a street, you wouldn't be able to get as many parking spaces.

I understand that, but I think the aesthetic impact would be less detrimental to the neighborhood here.

It's uh listen, I understand the need for the parking.

Um but this is you you have this relatively attractive um property here, and it's and you're plopping a parking lot in its front yard.

Yeah, the grade does go down.

So um I think by the time you get to that last stall adjacent to the building, your vehicle is kind of below grade because of the um uh the landscaping.

So again, that's maybe helps uh the idea of cars being in the front yard that it starts to slope down.

Um I would imagine that this is gonna take parking spaces off the street.

It it's gonna take cars, but it would probably cars off the street.

Yeah, it's which definitely would benefit other neighbors potentially um at the expense of parking in front of a building.

Um I think there's also um on the next block over another similar situation.

So it's not foreign in this neighborhood.

But um doesn't mean it's a good thing, but it and it yeah, it it's not prevalent.

Um bad or indifferent?

Positive.

I mean on neutral or or negative or neutral and let them yeah.

I think there is a need for the parking, but then you've got these nice lawns that would be halfway demolished to make it.

So we'll do a neutral uh have a motion for a neutral referral.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Um item 3.4, board on zoning referral regarding case 17-2026 by Reverend Ricardo Serrano for area variants to legalize the conversion from a social club, 299 occupants to a place of worship with a 350 person sanctuary on the first floor, a hundred a 132-person community room in the basement, and two classroom offices on the second floor, including interior alterations and legalization of a basement kitchen at 109 4th Street, block 1340, lot 52 in an NB zone district.

Okay.

So there are two sections of the code.

This is the proposed zero additional space is required for the proposed conversion, an increase occupants is less than the minimum required of 16 spaces.

This use has zero parking.

All right, like some other older commercial buildings that we have.

Um the code says you base it based on the increased demand for parking, and because they're increasing the occupancy, they have an increased demand of 16 spaces that they don't have.

So again, um if this gets approved by the zoning board, it'll be back to you for site plan approval.

Um again, we're they're looking for a positive, negative, or no recommendation.

If this comes back to us, it would be for site plan approval.

Yes.

On a building that occupies nearly all of the site plan.

That is correct.

And that there's no changes to the site.

That is correct.

But it's coming back because we have uh a stip in the code that talks about public assembly, and when you're adding occupants to that, you have a different number and so forth.

But the the zoning board is gonna make a determination if the additional 16 can be dismissed.

That's correct.

That would not be our decision anyway.

And so I don't want to try to have a crystal ball, but if they said no, then they'd have to reduce the occupant load.

Yeah.

And you know, that's always an option.

But I guess you're gonna ask for what you really want, but you maybe you have a fallback position.

I don't know.

I've never spoken to these folks.

There's street parking in front of this building has anyone ever reserved street parking spaces for a limited time for like handicapped patrons or anything like that.

No, we from time to time the city council will create a new handicapped space and they'll put it in a you know, in a I'm not gonna say a residential neighborhood, but uh a mixed-use neighborhood.

That's a good thing.

Um until you have two handicapped people on the block.

Because the one handicapped person thinks that's that their parking space, and uh I've actually seen TV shows about this where people have an argument on whose space that really is.

It's a public space.

Anybody can use it.

Any strong feelings about this?

Neutral again.

Neutral.

I think neutral.

I think.

Was that neutral again?

Yeah, neutral again.

Yeah, it's an increase zone, but you know, the zoning board can yeah.

Um so can I have a motion for a neutral referral?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Um so we'll do a neutral referral.

And we have 3.5 board on zoning referral regarding case 18-2026 by Michael Mastro Mastro Giacomo for area variance for the conversion of an existing three-story one family home into a two-family dwelling with two additional driveway parking spaces and legalization of the enclosed front porch at 132 Sickles Avenue, block 1237, lot 48, and an R2-7 zone district.

Okay, so there are two area variances here.

Uh one is for FAR, .46 FAR, 3,081 square feet gross floor area to be legalized to be legalized, exceeds the maximum permitted point four of 2600.

So again, we're at about 500 square feet over what is actually allowable.

The second area variance is the proposed 332 square feet per lot area is less than the 3500 square feet that's required.

So in an R270 zone, you're supposed to have 3500 square feet of lot area per dwelling unit on the 7,000 square foot lot.

Their lot, it just doesn't, it's not big enough.

Uh it's close.

3332 uh 3500 square feet is required is a uh de minimis percentage, but uh again, it violates that section of the ordinance.

So this will go to the zoning board and then come back to you folks for site plan approval if they want to continue with this conversion to legalize this.

Um so again, a positive and negative or no recommendation.

I guess my my question is the two parking spaces in the driveway, um the way it looks, you'd only be able to get one car out of the garage at a time.

It it's and like is this realistic?

I I no, I don't think that it is, and I think it could have been done a little bit better.

Yeah.

And it's not clear.

Yeah, if they you know, maybe it would result in a different variance if they put one car in front of each car that was in the garage and split it up so that upstairs gets one side and uh downstairs gets the other side so that you could jockey cars in and out as you feel necessary.

But that's not what he drew.

So um, yeah, and just maneuverability uh around that bay window that sticks out.

I mean it's uh everything is really, really tight there.

Yeah.

Um has there ever been a recommendation to obtain uh a portion of the adjacent parcel to make room for that?

Not that I'm aware of.

Yeah.

Um the property is keeping within the character of the neighborhood, and it's you know, there are quite a bit of two families there.

I think it's just these spots look a bit challenging.

Um I imagine that all of the properties here are likely or there's probably a majority undersized.

They're likely to be close to the same size.

Yeah.

And the houses look large, so I'm sure this is not the only house that is probably above the FAR.

So it contextually fits in.

Maybe we can get him to adjust those parking spaces.

I I think I agree.

Um I think there's a solution.

So I don't know if necessarily uh a negative refer as appropriate and similarly positive.

So it's uh a neutral again.

Um and the and you know, we can convey to the board that you know you you see with a couple tweaks how this is uh this could be.

I think I'm I'm inclined towards positive other than the the way that the parking layout has been configured.

So I'll I'll kind of go for a neutral.

Mm-hmm.

Okay.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

All right.

Any opposed?

Okay.

Um item 3.6 was voted on a technical meeting.

So we'll go to 3.7 administrative amendment regarding application PB5-2025 by Temple Israel of Neurochel for a previously approved site plan to remove the existing basketball court and replace it with a new pool, waiting pool, and a pump house for the pools at 1000 Pinebrook Boulevard, Block 2900 Lot 1, and in R1-15 zone district.

Okay.

So we we so just real quick, we uh we voted on the extension and to evidence that they have been working on the plans.

They um submitted just a minor tweak.

They they have been working on it, um, but they just brought in this very, very minor revision then Paul, since your honor.

We're we're very close to issuing a building permit here.

Okay.

Um they have decided at this point in time to eliminate the kitty pool and just to put in the uh larger pool.

There were two pools on the left that they were adding in addition to what was there already.

Um they're gonna eliminate the kiddie pool for now and um just do the one pool.

And if even getting that in for the summer would be um tenuous.

Okay.

Um can I have a motion to approve this administrative amendment?

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

And can I have a motion to adjourn?

Thank you.

So moved.

Is there a second?

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.