Good evening, everyone, and welcome to the June session of the New Rochelle Zoning Board of Appeals.

My name is Erica Eisner, and I am the chair.

Um tonight we have a somewhat lengthy calendar, and I know we have a lot of people that want to be heard.

Um the way we're going to proceed this evening is uh Kelly is going to Pantalis is going to call the roll to just take attendance to see who's here for and against uh uh each application.

Then the applicant will be called up to present their case.

After they conclude their initial presentation, the board will ask questions and ask for clarifications if any are needed.

And after that, we will invite voices in support or opposition to each application to come up.

You must come up to the microphone, state your name and address.

Um you'll be limited to three minutes, and we do hold firm to that.

Um if you're coming up after others have spoken, uh we ask that you don't repeat anything that anyone else has said.

You can certainly state your uh support or objection to something that was previously said, but we we listen carefully, we hear everything that's said, we don't need to hear it restated multiple times.

Also, for those of you that have submitted um letters in opposition to some of the applications on today, please know that we do review everything.

We visit every site, uh, we review the submissions in detail.

So um you can assume that we are aware of what's been submitted to us when you come up to speak.

Uh with that, I'm gonna turn it back over to Kelly to call the roll.

We are going to start with the returning cases.

We have case five, 2026 for 120 Buford Place.

Are the applicants present?

Any oppositions or voices to be heard?

Case 13, 2026, 21 Circuit Road.

Are the applicants present?

Uh any oppositions or voices to be heard?

Case 18, 2026, 132 Sickles Avenue.

Are the applicants present?

Any oppositions or voices to be heard?

New cases tonight.

Case 2026, 40 Beach Road.

Are the applicants present?

Any oppositions or voices to be heard?

Present.

Case 2021, 2026, 103 Gale Drive.

Are the applicants present?

Any uh oppositions or voices to be heard.

Case 2026, 236 Clinton Avenue.

Are the applicants present?

Any oppositions or voices to be heard?

And we have two administrative items.

Case 10, 2025 for 7 Shuler Street, and case 4, 2025 for 89 Devonshire.

First case, case 5, 2026, 120 Buford Place.

And you should be up already.

I don't think that's it.

Yeah, that's that's not mine.

Thank you.

Yes.

Sure.

Boston Ciel.

Present.

Fernando Arias is absent today.

Abel Rodriguez.

Here.

Carla Clapper.

Mark McLean.

Yeah.

Charlotte Abdier.

Here.

Erica Eisner.

Here.

Go ahead.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Ralph Florentine.

I'm from 120 Buford Place.

Last time I was here was back in February about four months ago.

We were discussing in regards to the four pillars that's in front of my home, which happened to be two feet against outside of the border, the line itself, the um property line.

And as of now, we made some correction and we moved those four pillars back to into the property line so we didn't have to seek approval from the city.

And so I believe what's left on the agenda now, it's the gate that's with the that's surrounding our pool area, which is six feet versus the four feet that's approved for the city.

But as you know, it is right across the street from the property line.

I mean uh across the street from the parking lot itself.

It makes it quite difficult for I mean it's very low.

So as of the moment, we do have bush that's covering uh uh the whole gate area, so it's barely visible.

At the time it was brought to our attention, it was the gate itself was actually very visible during the time.

Um I can show you here, see if there's any pictures that's available here that I can uh can present.

Um I don't believe that was any picture that was uploaded from the previous uh meeting.

But um this is as you can see in this portion here, this is the parking lot that's right across the street from here, and it's wide open.

And the bush is surrounding the whole area of that surrounding area, and of course you can't really see the the gate itself, although it's six feet um tall.

All right.

Um I believe that's in of let me see what else that's I believe that's pretty much what we're seeking approval for.

You have Sir, you have two other variances on the application this evening.

Uh the impervious surface coverage to be legalized, uh exceeding the maximum.

Yes.

And uh the masonry wall that's six point six feet high instead of four feet.

Yes.

Can you address those two, please?

Yes, my apologies.

Thank you.

The the impervious area itself, I believe exceeded by two percent or less than two percent.

If I'm not correct on that, please make correct me on that, but I believe that's what it is according to my last calculation.

I'm sorry, my um architect has retired, so I'm here uh presenting this matter.

So please uh forgive me if I'm a little bit off with the numbers.

So yes, I'm I believe I'm um two percent above the um the allowable amount.

And of course, we have in replace for the we have a barbecue um not a barbecue, uh wall, the wall which we um is not um any fire components or anything in that nature, or it's just pretty much just uh a barbecue pit where you can just basically it's not a pit, but it just basically hold like food beverages and things of that nature, right in front of that wall.

Um it's there, we place that wall there.

It was there before it, of course, it was um destroyed during uh heavy wind.

A big branch from the tree fell fell on it and it lost its balance, and of course it crashed.

It then we had to rebuild it completely.

And that's when we got the sighting from the board, the department of building uh regarding that.

So we built it back up but with a different facet.

The facet now matches the actual um pillars that's in our um for the the four pillars.

It does it has the same design as the four pillars versus having a um blank bland wall there.

And I believe those will cover those two.

If you have any questions, please I'm more than happy to answer any questions that you may have.

So I'm seeking the board approval for those three four three matters now.

Ralph, the um the wall you're referring to that you're seeking the variance for.

Is that the one that's in the on the plane, the lower right hand corner lower left hand corner?

Right here.

I'm not sure if this is Yeah.

That's it there.

Okay.

Yeah.

It's the wall, right?

Now we have trees just go all around this area as well as this area.

It's just right.

You have seen that, yeah.

Does anyone have any questions?

No.

Would anyone like to be heard with respect to this application for or against the okay?

Would have anyone on the board like to make a motion?

Uh I'll make a motion.

Thank you.

Uh this is in uh case number five, 2026, Ralph Florentin, for permission to legalize site work for an existing one-family dwelling.

Reconstructed pool terrace, new concrete walk, new six-foot-high pool fence, new masonry wall, and barbecue station, and new fire pit, new HVAC condensers, stone pier and cities right, stone pier and cities right of way to be removed, and four foot-high piers to be constructed within property legalized existing.

Whereas 47.2 percent, 6560 square feet of impervious surface coverage to be legalized exceeds the maximum permitted of 45 percent, and whereas the six-foot high pool fence to be legalized exceeds the maximum four-foot-high uh permitted within the front yard, previously existing four feet.

Whereas the six-foot-high masonry, six foot six high masonry wall to be legalized exceeds the maximum permitted in the front yard of four feet in an R1 historic zone district at the premises 120 Bauford Place.

Block 839 lot 23, and this is for an area variance.

I am going to make a motion that the variances be granted on this application based on the following.

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

With respect to the fence, I understand the reason for the six-foot high fence, the higher fence, because of the privacy, one side is directly across from City Hall, and the other side is on Hamilton Avenue, which is a very busy street.

The fence is not on the property line.

It is set back within the property.

And as the owner mentioned, it is very well screened as well as the uh stone wall as uh that's made which is part of this enclosure as well.

Um the impervious area, uh there has been an effort made to reduce it somewhat from the original application, and I think the two 2.2 percent that is over now is not considered um a tremendous amount.

And um I don't think there's anything else that can be done on the site to drastically change the site plan to accomplish that.

Um whether there be an undesirable change in neighborhood character to nearby properties.

Uh again, these features are existing on the site and have been for uh a long time.

And I don't think uh obviously there won't be any changes to what is there currently.

Uh the only change that is being made is that the peers that are now on the city property are going to be lowered and put back onto the owner's property in the front yard.

Uh whether the requests are substantial, I don't believe the uh requests are substantial in the variances that are being requested.

And whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, uh I don't believe they will.

Again, uh I think that the um pool fence is well screened.

And um the relocation of the piers in the front yard uh keeps the front yard and the line of the property in front um all uniform.

And whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, uh it is a self-created difficulty that has been created here, but it's not a reason for the uh denial of an area variance, and for these reasons I make the motion again to uh grant the variances requested.

Second yes.

Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you.

Carla Clapper.

Yes.

Mark McLean.

Yes.

Charlotte Abader.

Yes.

Boston SEL?

Yes.

Erica Eisner.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Sorry.

We weren't done.

We had to vote.

I thought everything was over.

That's okay.

We're done now.

The motion has been approved.

Yes, you can go.

I don't know.

Case 13, 2026, 21 Circuit Road.

Good evening, Aldo Vitaliano, for the uh applicant.

Uh since our last meeting here with you, there were some minor revisions to the plan we submitted.

Can you just state your app your address, please?

Sure.

It's uh 211 uh South Ridge Street in Rybrook, New York.

Thank you very much.

Okay.

Uh since we were here last time, we've submitted a slightly revised plan.

We also provided enlargements uh for the drawings to make it a little bit easier for everybody to understand, have a little less clutter on the drawing.

We have submitted also a uh traffic study uh for it.

Uh so I'm not pretty much going to go over any of that information.

I know that uh uh there were a couple of letters that came in in uh opposition uh from the adjoining building, and um just late this afternoon I received uh a rejoinder to that from our traffic engineer that I could submit up, but basically he points out some of the inaccuracies in the letters that were submitted by the uh by the neighbors and clarifies certain points.

So we're here to kind of address any questions that you have.

Um one of the major questions was should the driveway be on as you face the building on the left-hand side.

We think we have provided sufficient information as to why that doesn't work.

Uh we also um pointed out how we could have the handicap space uh in the rear of the property um rather than closer to the front entrance.

While there is a rear uh entrance to the building, it's in through the basement, and this is a walk-up building.

So a handicapped person could enter uh from the back, but would have an extra set of stairs to navigate.

So we think where we've we were proposing the uh handicap space is a proper place uh for it to be.

Uh there was a question in terms of the size of the variance, the percentage that was raised, and uh we point out if you measure from the parking space as compared to the uh circulation area, it's not as extensive as was pointed out.

Uh but we think it's under the circumstances um trying to provide parking in this neighborhood.

We we we believe outweighs any uh detriment that might be by granting the variance.

We don't see much of a uh uh effect in the future where people rely on this.

Uh your grant of the variance.

I do have the architect here if there are any questions uh forward have you uh uh the owner here as well.

Thank you very much.

I do have a couple questions.

Um last time a a concern, a large concern that was raised was regarding safety, specifically pedestrian safety.

Could you or your architect please address um the improvements that were made to the plan or elaborate on pedestrian safety, please?

Sure.

Sure, we have uh Ralph Tedesco uh here.

Um what is your question?

Safety improvements for pedestrian traffic.

Mr.

Address.

Yes, my name is Raf Tedesco.

Uh I live in Mount Vernon, 24 East Devonia Avenue, Mount Verna, New York, 10552.

And the question was again regarding pedestrian safety, a lot of the opposition that we heard at the last meeting um was regarding pedestrian safety, specifically with cars pulling in and out of the lot, cars backing into the aisle.

Um, and folks uh did mention that that aisle is used sometimes for folks to walk in and out of the property.

So just a general understanding of the path of travel of a pedestrian and how your plan addresses any potential safety hazards to pedestrians walking in this general area.

Well, first of all, the layout of this parking lot is the most efficient layout that we have.

Um the recommendation that uh that uh we have is 25 feet as a backup uh and we do have that up to the property line.

Any additional space you go into 35 feet.

So as far as uh uh movement in the back and so on, so that I don't think it's an issue at all.

Uh as far as the transparency, that uh there were some questions uh when you come in and so on, turning radius and all that.

We provide that to the turning radius of more than sufficient.

This is a 90-degree parking space spaces, and uh it's more than sufficient.

Usually when we design, sometimes we use 24 feet, which is perfectly legal.

We we are beyond that.

We are 25 feet and beyond that.

Uh as far as the the visual uh entry into the into the site.

What we did was uh the original design had 18 feet.

We took on our side of the property two feet, almost two feet less than two feet.

Uh, and we made it equal to the curb cut, which is 20 feet.

So once you come in, you have sufficient room to maneuver into the site.

So there is no interference whatsoever.

The the mission, it is widen the curb cut?

No, we didn't touch the curb cut whatsoever.

The curb cut has not been touched.

It's there, okay.

The original design, it had the 20-feet curb cut.

It had an 18-feet entry into the parking.

I understand.

Okay.

What we did was we on our on our property, we widen to could be in compliance with the 20-feet curb cut that's existing.

So we didn't do no changes whatsoever.

Okay.

Yes, I see the 20-foot dimension very clearly on your plans now.

Thank you.

Yes, now it's clarified.

We made a larger plan to that.

Plus, you requested uh survey.

We provide the new survey, we provide the layout based uh the under the survey, so all the parking that's in the in the rear that uh our attorney indicated where it could be uh a parking space.

We didn't have to.

But it seems to be to flow pretty easily.

As far as the lighting is concerned, we identify the lighting on the plan.

We provide an additional lighting on the plan.

Uh so I think we addressed all of the questions as far as movement of of traffic, traffic, and people, it's pretty safe, pretty safe type of uh layout.

And I feel very confident that uh what we propose uh it's not gonna interfere with any anything.

Another question that was raised um was regarding uh snow and where snow could be stored, especially with the winter we just had.

Um could you tell me where on this plan uh the property management company or the operator of the building would store snow in the event of a snowstorm or a snow event?

Well, as far as the the layout that we have, yes, you can have uh some of the the snow put in on the on the side on the left-hand side as you enter the building.

So it can be moved.

Uh we have enough space in the rear.

We have enough space in the rear to do put some of the snow there, but the the the snow can be removed also if there is uh we have a high snow like we did before.

Thank you.

Does anyone else have any questions?

No.

Okay.

Would anyone like to be heard on this application?

Okay, we'll start over here down front.

Please come up, state your name and address.

Okay.

It's okay.

It's fine.

It's fine.

Uh I'm my name is Joseph Scalesi.

I'm the owner of the building, and I just wanted to dress to the last two questions that were presented.

Uh, my uh I live at 19 East Devonia Avenue, Mount Vernon, New York 10552.

Um, so the the question as far as pedestrian traffic, uh I have numerous uh video cameras on the property, and I went the uh yesterday to check how much pedestrian traffic is um used on on that driveway, and there were total of 14 people from from Sunday to Saturday that use the driveway, walk from the back to the front or from the front to the back.

That's over seven days, 14 people, which to me I I don't consider that a lot.

That average that out to two two per day.

Uh and then uh as far as the snow removal and the storage of the snow.

Uh most of the snow is stored in the back of the property in the back corner, so it's all pushed into that back corner when the guy comes down the driveway with with the plow and it just pushes it all down into the back corner.

So there's plenty of place to store the snow.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Next, please.

Down in front.

Can I bring this down?

Is that okay?

Yes, that's fine.

Thanks.

Sorry.

All right.

So good evening, honorable chairperson Feynman Aisner and members of the zoning board.

My name again is Samantha Florentino.

I am a board member residing at 485 Pelham Road, Apartment 3C.

Um, thank you for the opportunity to hear me again today.

Um, I'm responding to Mr.

Mafia's engineering letter regarding the proposed parking improvements at 21 Circuit Road.

While the letter suggests that the layout can accommodate vehicle movement, the analysis still does not fully address the real conditions of the site, especially for larger vehicles and emergency access.

First, the statement that an accessible inside turning radius for a large USUV is 19 to 20 feet, does not by itself establish that the site is functionally adequate.

The plan excerpt shows a 34-foot seven-inch area between the area spaces and the wall along the property line, but the measurement does not appear to account for the full turning path, conflicting vehicle movements or the space needed when vehicles are entering and exiting at the same time.

A turning radius on paper is not as safe the same as safe workable circulation in a constrained shared easement.

Second, the fact that the proposed parking layout may allow some large vehicles to maneuver does not resolve the broader concern that the site is being intensified within a limited circulation area.

The proposed compact parking spaces, shared access, and proximity to structures and property lines all create a more congested environment.

That congestion may affect not only SUVs, but also pickup trucks, vans, and other vehicles regularly used by residents and service providers within our building.

Third, while the letter states that the larger police and AMS vehicles were able to access a site, that conclusion should be supported by a clearer analysis of actual emergency response conditions.

The ability of emergency vehicles to reach a site is not the same as the ability to maneuver efficiently, turn safely and operate without obstruction.

For large fire apparatus, in particular, the city fire department should be consulted directly to determine whether the proposed configuration meets the operational requirements for multi-story buildings and shared access access conditions.

The board should also consider that the plan introduces new parking areas, an accessible space, a new driveway system, and related improvements within the already constrained rear lot environment.

Fire lanes must remain unobstructed.

Emergency access must be practical, and the accessible route must remain fully usable and compliant.

These concerns are especially important where shared circulation affects 21 circuit, five circuit, and 485 Pelham Road.

For these reasons, I respectfully ask the board not to solely rely on the state attorney radius figures or generalized access assumptions.

I've a fuller review should include sweat path analysis, larger design vehicle considerations and confirmation from the fire department regarding emergency apparatus access.

If the board is inclined to allow parking in this area, I also ask that it consider whether placing the spaces on the other side of the building would be better to reduce conflicts within the shared easement and improve safety for all users.

I thank you again for your time and consideration.

Can I just ask you?

So by what exactly does this take away from the current usage that your building or or anyone else is enjoying?

I I don't imagine that right now any of those vehicles that you're speaking about are using the grass.

No, I'm sorry.

That was that's why I tried to address it here.

I'm not speaking so much on behalf of those vehicles, I'm speaking on the vehicles that are already parked in the back, and how creating these the slopes that then these cars would turn into are then gonna create problems for our vehicles that are actually SUVs pickups, vans because that easement is already so tight.

So I'm I just want to make sure I understand what your concern is.

So you're concerned that when someone is backing out of a space, it's going to inhibit another car that's trying to either enter or exit the space.

But this is a two-way driveway at the current, right?

And it is tight as it is.

So when they back up, presumably they're backing into one lane of the of the driveway to begin with.

So is it block?

It's not blocking both lanes.

For my understanding, it is when we already have also parked cars from that building there.

It it's already kind of chaotic as it is.

We have days.

I I remember I came here the last time and there was a parked car there, and automatically it was blocking myself and Nevis from getting in.

She was coming in, I was coming out.

It just that little slight change of a vehicle being stopped there.

It you got two cars that now have one has to back out into oncoming traffic for the other one to come out.

That's just currently the situation we face.

With any construction truck, anything that stops by to do uh unit operation, that's already a situation we're running into.

And by the way, there these things are happening on a on a fire lane.

Um and where exactly on the other side of the property do you propose that these spaces should be placed?

They have a second entrance that I believe is um flat.

And I pass, I'm not the owner of the building, I'm not gonna you know speak on behalf, but I did pass by and see that there's a second part where there is some grass that they could open up possible spots there.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm Neves Saninovich, and I live at Five Circuit Road on a sixth floor.

I overlook the driveway and that grassy area.

So, dear chairs the chairperson Eisner and members of the board, couple of questions stood out while we were reviewing the proposed parking plan.

At least six of the proposed parking spaces, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, and 20 appeared to be on the slope.

I'm not certain what the uh allowable slope percentages, however, I have read that minimum slope of one to two percent, approximately one each drop for every eight feet is recommended to ensure water flows towards the drain without exceeding the public tolerance.

Is this the case here?

There was nothing in the plans allowable for that.

What will be the train drains and the basin gates load class ratings?

Is there a guidance for the capacity of standard inlet in your Rochelle?

And what is the recommendation?

All this is important to prevent overwhelming the drainage system during the heavy rain.

I do not think that was included in the new plan or fully accounted for.

So now I have a question about the snow.

And I know during this snowstorm, there was no space for snow to be stored.

Just so you know.

I live there.

I I'm there for 15 years.

Uh I'm gonna be uh directly in like affected with this plan, and um I don't see where you can snowstorm there.

Stor snow in the back of the boat buildings.

There is just no space.

The driver used to access the rear parking area of the building is also on a slope.

Now they corrected me, they didn't said the estimated grade.

I estimated it here for 15 percent, but the ascension towards the street is like five percent.

It's still ascension and it still uh impedes uh people seeing you when you coming off the off the driveway.

So once the you are there at the street level, visibility is poor or non-existent, especially if the vehicle such as a van is sparked at the corner.

But it doesn't have to be a van.

It's enough to be a huge vehicle that's parked right there at the corner.

Drivers coming down the road cannot see you, and you cannot see them until you are already entering the roadway.

It happened to me coming here, same thing.

I couldn't see the driveway, they were driving so fast I have to slam the drive brakes to uh avoid collision, by the way.

It happens almost every day.

Something it's a huge problem there coming to the road.

Um pedestrians are also unable to see vehicles uh exiting the driveway.

This this brings me to the letter from the consulting engineer.

Is it okay if I finish?

I'm sorry.

You have to be you have to stop at three minutes.

Are you almost done?

Um I have maybe five more minutes.

No, I'm sorry.

Though your whole presentation has to be three minutes.

I'm sorry.

Would anyone else like to be heard?

Yes.

Please come down.

Please step down.

Yes.

Um I'm sorry.

Oh, okay.

You'll come you'll go next.

She wants to submit.

Oh, yeah.

If if your points are in a form that you can submit, we'll be happy to take it.

Jeff, we can't really review it now, though.

No, the record.

Okay.

Please continue.

Okay, good evening.

Uh Evelyn Patron, 399 Nollwood Road, White Plains.

Um the attorney for uh Shore Road Apartment Owners.

Um I think that the problem that the um that the residents are trying to get across is that they have an already uh congested area, and this is adding eight cars to this or seven cars is going to exacerbate the situation.

And although they continue to say it's a 90-degree turn, if all those cars are all there, I mean the picture shows no cars, but if on a day when all the cars are parked there and someone is now trying to back out, they can't use that extra space that's being created.

The driveway is only 20 feet wide.

Unless they're gonna widen the driveway, which I don't really understand that from the plan that it's actually gonna be the width is actually gonna be increased, but unless they're gonna widen the driveway, the driveway is 20 feet wide all the way back.

And so when you have the cars all parked there, the a car backing out can't use any of that extra space had there been no car there to turn to turn into the driveway to back in.

So I think that that's part of what they're trying to address here is that the congestion that already exists there is going to be exacerbated.

Um I'm sorry, I just want to make sure that the record is clear.

The plans that I'm looking at, while they show a 20-foot entrance to the driveway, show 25 feet beyond the entrance.

But it's not because what you're looking at is where they've already drawn the new driveway.

The driveway that exists is straight back.

It's not wider over here.

Right.

I I understand that, but on these plans, if this is if this goes forward, that area where the cars will be parked will be 25 feet behind them.

Um maybe the architect should answer that because he knows the plan.

Please stay at the at the mic.

Uh, maybe the architect should answer that because uh the only way I see that being 25 feet is if they are going to widen the driveway.

Well, that's what it looks like on the plans.

But do you want to speak to that, sir?

Can you try to get the plans back up?

Yeah, let's pull them back up on the screen.

You have to open the computer.

I I I just want to make sure that we're speaking in accurate measurements in terms of so that the record is clear.

Let me just get in here.

Sorry.

Okay.

And then you just no, let me just put up with the okay.

Go to the next next drawing.

Next drawing.

No, two.

This is one point one?

That that's the that's what yes, that's correct.

So from what I see, and I'm certainly not a design professional, it's 20 feet at the beginning, but where the cars are parked, it's over 25 feet.

And I see 35 in total with the parking space.

So you have to stand in front of the microphone when you speak.

So the drive aisle for a perpendicular parking is 24 feet wide in the code.

Right.

So where there's perpendicular parking adjacent to a drive aisle.

24 feet behind them for and we have 25.

Well, that's one foot more than what's required.

25 and I'd like to go over some dimensions so that uh we could thank you, Mr.

Dedesco.

But can you go back to the to the dais, please?

Yes.

There's a pointer.

You can use the pointer that should be on the dais.

Okay.

So we're not just trying to give you a hard time.

There it is.

Okay, go ahead.

How can I see this?

Thank you, Kelly.

Okay.

All right.

Let me uh if you look at the dimension of the the parking, the depth of the of the car, it's uh 18 feet.

Then there's another dimension which is says 34 feet, two inches.

That means from the rear of the car to the property line of the neighbor's property line to the end of the east month is 34 feet.

Our backup area that we have is 25 feet one and a half inches.

That is the backup, and that is within the property line that we have.

If you look at the property line, the line in the center, that is the end of the property line.

Okay.

So we have enough space, okay.

The distance from the rear of the car which is parked at 90 degrees, is 34 feet, seven inches.

I mean, it's an unusual situation.

But because of the easement that we have that we share an easement, that they are able to benefit by also that we are taking away additional parking spaces from the street and put them in here.

That's really what this is all about.

Now I don't understand what they're saying about the distance to the 20 feet that's not straight and so on and so forth.

What we have done is we have widened the entry point into the parking by two additional almost two feet, 11 feet, one foot, 11 and a half inches, that we cut on our side on our property.

That meant that we gave enough visual area that we were able to go in.

It's creating a much more visible entry welcoming.

We also on the under plan, the vegetation plan that we have, we had a tree there.

We removed the tree, we moved it a different direction here at the entrance.

If you look at the two dots there, those are the trees that we had would remove them.

If you look at the wall there, you see those three dots there.

Those that's where the lighting is, additional lighting that we provide.

If you looked at the next to the tree on the left there on the front, there is an existing light light there that we identified.

So as far as the visibility, safety, and so on, we have addressed that.

As far as the safety worrying about the first of all, no cars should be parked in the eastment.

There's no park, there's no parking there.

Are you heard that uh well when they're back up, there's car, my car, and so on.

No, you don't park there.

The other the other issue that it was brought up before, you have to do why don't you do it on the other side?

Well, on the other side, yes, we looked at the situation to enter through the other side.

But there is a great difference of uh almost six feet from the rear of the parking to the front.

But there is also another issue to that is that uh there there are um uh fire escapes that come down from the side, go into the ground, and then if you let's say you put parking there, it infringes in that.

So we looked at the solution to to to have it turn around.

That would have been ideal.

You enter one area, you come another.

But we have solved a very very efficient plan.

I I think anyway.

Thank you in terms of uh in terms of car moving, in terms of people moving.

The safety aspect of it, we did we do do do that.

Can you also speak to the issues of drainage that have been drained?

Drainage, yes.

The drainage is going to be cut that's going to be captured in the parking area.

We have another draining plan, which I'm sure that it's going to be asked of us when we go to the to the planning board, I think, that we will provide that.

Yes.

We uh it will be self-contained.

Any drainage that comes, it's gonna be on the ground there.

We're gonna retain it in the uh in on site.

We're not sending water any clear sauce, it's gonna be there.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, yes.

The attorney is still entitled.

Yes, I know.

I was just gonna say we did cut you off, but I wanted to make sure that we were.

I wanted him to talk because now he answered the question.

If they're going to widen the driveway onto their property, then yes, I see that it's we're not widened the driveway.

Well, okay.

Well, hold on, hold on, hold on.

Let's let her proceed.

That's okay.

It it because it's not 20 the the easement is not 25 feet.

If the easement is 20 feet, and if they're adding space on their side over here on the left, then yes, they will have more room.

That's true.

But uh the easement remains 25 feet.

That doesn't change.

Okay, just that doesn't change.

All right.

Hold on, hold on, Bob.

The easement is not 25 feet.

20 feet.

Okay, it's really important that we are we are specific about these numbers.

We need to be accurate.

Excuse me.

I'm sorry.

We have not changed the east minute.

The easement is as it was drafted many years ago.

Okay.

We haven't touched that.

I wait, we're just making sure that we're using accurate numbers.

All right, please please conclude your your comments.

I agree with that.

Haven't changed the okay, great.

Okay.

Um, but as I said, I think that the main concern, as they've said, is congestion, increased congestion in that area.

If there's some way that this could be configured to reduce the number of cars, that might be an acceptable alternative here.

But another problem that they are concerned about is this compact car spot.

Who's gonna police the fact that this is going to be a compact car?

If you put a big car in that spot, it's gonna really cause a problem when you go up the back of the driveway to make a left or a right, because the car is going to stick out.

It's gonna be right there on the corner, and it's going to be it is going to be impaired, uh, impairing the vision of people coming in and out.

So I think that that that addresses their concerns uh for the most part.

We went over everything else already.

We gave you our five factors, we don't need to do that again.

Um, and I think that that's the that's the issue here is that uh the concerns you're well aware of, and if there's a way to reduce the number of parking spaces that they want to create here, I think that would um you know be helpful, but um and obviously I don't think they're gonna go put them on the other side.

I understand about the fire escapes.

So um that's our that's our presentation.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Um hold on.

Let me just see if anybody else.

I think there's one more person who wants to speak on the application.

Yes, please come down.

Maybe helpful for remind them also.

Hi, Anna Maria Zindy 23 Circuit Road.

Okay, so I just want to speak about safety, right?

Our parking lot is not huge, so we know that we have to go slow.

There, you can pass on both sides.

I'm sorry, I'm a little nervous.

So you can pass going in opposite directions, but I think if we add additional parking, it would alleviate the people from parking on the side of the building where it causes more congestion.

So people park right now where the parking spots would be.

And there's somebody from their building who does it, and I am guilty of doing it.

Because when we have to park five seven minutes away for us to bring our groceries up and down, it's a lot.

So we park on the side of the building, and that way you wouldn't be able to do that anymore.

Uh in terms of the compact spot, I'll speak for my uh landlord.

He would rent it to somebody who has a compact car, right?

So that's how that would be alleviated.

Uh is there anything else I want to say?

I have three minutes, so let me think.

In terms of pedestrians and car accidents, I've lived there for 26 years going on 27 in September.

There's not been one car accident, and there has not been one pedestrian hit.

Uh the yes, luckily.

Is there anything else?

I think that's it.

Thank you very much.

I just want to add, uh, I know they are not here, but after the meeting, I had lots of neighbors from my building and from their building speak to me and ask me what was the outcome because honestly and truly a lot of us park on the street, and a lot of us would really love to open up more spots on the street and even have the option to park um to rent a spot at our building.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Would you like to respond?

Sure.

I just uh for the purpose of creating the record.

I do have the uh uh response of our traffic engineer.

I'd like to hand up some copies uh for it.

I think is that that's part of the submission.

It's not part of the submission.

This this is this came in today.

Okay.

This is a late submission.

What is the di well, since we won't have an opportunity to review that now, what is the difference between that and the traffic study that's part of your materials?

This answers uh the letters that came in response to his traffic study, and he clarifies some points.

Thank you.

The board feels they need to put it over, that's fine uh to to read it or digest it.

I do want to hand it up.

I do think a lot of the considerations that we're talking about are planning board issues uh for it.

You grant a variance, it's still subject to planning board approval, site plan approval.

They have to make sure everything works.

So, you know, fire access, et cetera, uh for it, but that's just my humble opinion.

You just did my job for me.

Yes, so I was gone.

I was just gonna remind everybody that's here that this is not the end of this proposal.

Should this board approve the application?

This still has to go to the planning board where a lot of the issues that you all are raising about traffic, about lighting, about safety, about drainage, those are really issues that are within the jurisdiction of the planning board, not our jurisdiction.

Although we can consider some of them in connection with the five factors that we're charged to consider.

They are primarily addressed at the planning board in terms of design.

So please understand that.

Can I have no you can't, you have to you you you can come up and ask one quick question.

Sorry.

Um, state your name and address again for the record.

399 Nollwood Road, White Plains.

Um, if you grant this application as it's presented, when it goes to the planning board, can the planning board then reduce the number of spaces?

Or are they or is that it?

The law I'm gonna refer that to counsel to whether the planning board has the jurisdiction to uh permit or not permit the number of spaces.

They need to develop a workable site plan if they can't develop a workable site plan with those number of spaces, the planning board could put any conditions on the site plan that they wish.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, okay.

Uh I think that the board has some questions now, so we're gonna turn to my colleagues.

Um a few a few points.

I I think just to reiterate that um to use Mr.

Vaca's uh words, when it goes to the planning board, everybody gets a bite of the apple, and that includes the fire department, who I know you are concerned about, and I think that's uh that's important.

Um snow can be stored um anywhere on your on the property if the space in the rear that's allocated for snow is not enough, they can store snow on the lawn on that on that grassy surface and be and be compliant.

Um I can't tell you enough how many times, probably monthly, that applicants throw themselves on our mercy for a park and extra parking spot.

It's like golden new Rochelle.

So it's startling to me the resistance that has come before this board with for the opportunity to have seven additional parking spaces.

I I cannot fathom the um balancing of those uh of that issue.

Um I just would hope that perhaps um what this young lady spoke of last Mr.

Scalesi is that um it would only rent the compact car parking spot to someone who is a who drove a compact car, and I would even suggest perhaps that this board make that a condition of the approval if indeed.

Well, I don't think you could if we approve it as a compact car space, it must be rented.

I understood so I don't know that this day additional.

I understand.

But I'm assuming you are an honorable landlord and would uh and would comply with that.

Mr.

Stanziale.

Thank you, Ms.

Clever.

Uh Ralph, a couple questions.

Again, uh just to clarify, this is this is a two-way driveway, correct?

Yes.

Okay.

Because you have an arrow in and but it does say in and out.

So it is a two-way driveway, though.

So go go back to where you have the compact spaces.

You show the driveway is 15 feet eight and a half inches wide there.

So no, a little love letters.

Are you counting on utilizing the easement next door as part of the drive?

Because you need 24 feet for a two-way drive.

Next to the compact spaces of uh 20 and one of 22.

15 feet is uh is to our property line.

Right.

Okay.

And to the compact car.

Right.

Okay.

I know, but don't you need 24 feet for two-way traffic?

But this is it's two-way, uh, it's one actually it's a one-way going in to the rear, but two way to the front.

See, two what I so you are counting on that ease and other driveway as part of a traffic lane.

Yes.

You are, okay.

Because uh you the neighbor will have to make a right turn, and we will make a left turn going into our parking space.

It's one way.

Okay.

So actually, after our parking layout, it's one way, but it's two-way up to the parking.

Right.

Okay.

So you have the you have the width you need there.

So as far as the front yard setback, again, you know, I I I mentioned this uh once before when we had our technical meeting.

You know, I see, you know, that that first space that you show is really the accessible aisle for the handicapped space.

It's really not a parking space.

So in essence, you have rather than the the parking 15 is a the parking, the handicap space, the vomitary next to it, the space where you enter, I'm using that as a dual for the handicap space and for circulation.

Right.

But it's not a parking space.

No.

No.

Right.

No, but what I'm saying is you're being cited as the setback to the parking as being 12 feet, but it's not really 12 feet.

It's really 12.

It's five feet difference of the setback.

For for the for the front yard.

Right.

What I'm saying, Ralph, is your the variance is 12 feet front yard to the parking.

But it's not really 12 feet to the parking, it's really 20 feet to the parking.

Because that first handicapped space of eight feet that aisle is not parking, really, right?

It's uh No, it's not.

But it's 12.

It's uh 18 feet to the parking, yes.

12.

20 feet.

12 plus 8.

20.

20, I'm sorry.

20, 10.

Right.

So I'm saying it's really more of a setback than what.

You have more of a setback than what the variance is stating, is what I'm saying.

So trying to help.

I think it would be clear.

It's still part of the space, though it will be present as much.

I understand that, but I'm saying in reality, a car is not going to park there.

Correct.

Right.

So it's not a parking space.

Yeah.

Okay.

That's all.

Thank you.

Does anyone else have any other questions for the applicant?

Thank you, Abraham.

I do.

So getting back to that compact um parking space.

Um, I'm I don't drive there, so I'm not sure about this, but based on some of the what I am listening to.

Uh so this is actually creating like a safety issue there, right?

Having a car parked there, right?

Uh is the landlord willing to remove that parking space as a condition.

Because obviously, if this is creating uh a safety issue, um, I think safety is more important than making whatever amount of money you're going to be making a year with an additional parking space.

And I know you are trying to create parking, but I will always put safety in front of whether you're trying to accommodate the shed the tenants or you are trying to gain additional income.

So that's one of my questions that I had.

Abel, I just want to make sure I'm clear.

You're asking if the two compact spaces, 21 and 22, could be removed for safety purposes.

No, I'm saying from what I heard, the issue is with 21, sort of like turning into the it's a parallel space, though, isn't it?

It's a parallel.

There's no turning for that one.

No, people coming in and coming out.

So when those cars are there, you are presenting a safety issues, right?

When there's a car park there.

So obviously.

But there's there is enough space.

It's a parallel parking.

You have over 15 No, I'm not talking about the parallel parking.

I'm talking about more as a submission.

Let's say somebody coming into that area.

So if there's a car park there, right, is presenting a safety issue.

And that's that's my question.

But it's outside of the turning radius if you look.

Okay.

It's outside the turning radius.

25 feet there.

Okay.

Could the applicant or his representatives just address um the concern about enforcing the compact spaces?

So how are how is it going to be enforced for those spaces to remain only reserved for compact vehicles?

Hi, this is Joe Scalese again, the owner, 19 East Devonia Avenue Mount Vernon.

Uh I have several tenants that have compact cars, and I'm sure they'd be more than happy to take move their car to that spot.

That's that's definitely not an issue.

So what I'm hearing is you're committing to leasing those spaces only to residents that have a compact vehicle and only to their vehicle.

Thank you very much.

I have a question for you.

If what kind of a uh protocol or procedure do you have in place when people park cars in places that they are not permitted to park in?

What what happens in those cases?

No nobody ever parks in a space that doesn't belong to them, but sometimes people do park if they are unloading their car, they do park in the easement because there's, you know, there may not be a parking space on the street.

So it's either double park or the or park in the easement if if they're unloading groceries, shopping or whatever.

So it does happen.

And and I usually and I tell them I have a sign in the building and and I say, please do not leave your car there for more than five minutes.

Sometimes people most people obey that rule, sometimes people don't.

Um and I'll have to make a phone call and just to remind them of it.

But the people are not allowed to park there unless they are uh unloading their car.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Okay.

So just um just in case uh about the renting to the compact car.

So let's say you are renting to a compact car.

So let's say you are renting technically to somebody, right?

So let's say that person sells a car, now they buy SUV.

Now can you take that parking space away from them?

Are you gonna have language specifically saying I'm renting you this spa with a condition that you gotta have a compact car?

Yes, absolutely.

I I could it happens sometimes when when a spot opens up, people will ask me, Oh, can I take that spot instead of my spot?

So I'm frequently moving cars around and it happens.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

Does anyone else have any other questions?

Is there anyone in the audience who hasn't yet spoken who would like to speak for or against this application?

Okay, given that, would anyone on the board like to make a motion?

Okay, I'll make a motion.

This is case number 13-2026, Joseph Scalesi.

For permission to extend the existing parking lot to create seven additional parking spaces, one of which is for a compact car and including one handicapped space with code-compliant handicap aisle.

The extension will be paved with 90 percent porous pavers.

The existing driveway shared with the adjacent property is proposed to be enlarged.

The 25-foot maneuvering space in and out of the proposed spaces is fully within the property line.

Whereas the proposed 12-foot front yard setback of parking lot extension is less than the required minimum required of 25 feet.

Whereas compact spaces are not permitted in parking lots with less than 50 spaces, the 16-foot length of parking space number 22 is less than the minimum required of 18 feet in an RMF 1.0 zone district at the premises of 21 circuit road, block 467, lot twelve.

In seeking a variance and considering the five factors which we are charged to consider.

To the contrary, I think that a desirable change will be produced because additional parking off the street will be available, which from what we heard at both the last hearing and this one is a real problem in this neighborhood.

So removing cars from the street is always a benefit.

With respect to whether they'll be a detriment to nearby properties, I understand that there are concerns about safety and congestion, but I believe that the concerns have been properly and adequately addressed by the applicant.

I think that we have heard that there is uh going to be additional lighting added and that there is ample space for the cars that are being added because the driveway itself is being enlarged and taking over space that is currently unused except for a grassy area.

Whether the requested area variance is substantial, it is substantial.

It is that that's undeniable, but I don't believe that that in and of itself is a basis to deny the application.

Whether the proposed variants will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.

This is porous pavers that are being added in.

Um so I don't believe that this will be an issue.

Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, um, it is self-created in that the applicant is asking to uh to reduce the setback, but I believe that the difficulty here, um, the benefits of adding spaces off the street far outweighs um any difficulty that's presented, and and I don't believe that it's a basis to deny the application.

And so for these reasons, I move that we approve this application.

Second, Abel Rodriguez.

Yes.

Carla Clapper?

Yes.

Mark McLean?

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier?

Yes.

Bob Stan Seao?

Yes.

Erica Eisner.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Case 18, 2026, 132, Sickles Avenue.

Was this submitted already?

No.

This is just um they asked me to do an analysis of any of the properties.

There's just three houses.

Okay.

Uh I'm gonna ask that you review that in your application because we can't review something that you hand up at the meeting.

So if you could just whatever it is that you're looking to hand up, please just include it in your presentation to us.

That's what I was going to.

Okay, thank you.

No.

Good evening, Michael Master Giacomo, Engineer for the project.

Uh 10 Midland Avenue Port Chester, New York, 10573.

What I'm asking to hand out as requested at the last meeting, you look asked me to look at any neighboring properties that are also deficient uh as far as FAR and lot area and lot area dwelling unit.

Oh, is there a wire that's nearly one of those wires?

Stephanie, you want to shut the door?

Thank you.

Okay.

I won't touch it.

Okay.

Or city hall.

Okay.

Okay.

Well, I'll hand it out.

So you asked me to look at any neighboring properties that are also deficient with the zoning code.

I found three properties.

And they are extended if you're looking at the front of our house, there's two to the left and one just over on the right side.

And I did a little chart just to make it a little easier to follow.

And what it shows is that those other three properties are similar to ours as far as would require variances.

I'm sorry.

You know, did you hand it up?

Kelly?

Well, uh, as long as it's not it looked thick, so I just wanted to make sure we weren't.

But it is is the basically the first three pages.

The first page is just the calculations, and then I did a a chart, and then I gave a copy of the tax map.

Everything else is just back up from assessor's office.

Got it.

It it looks a lot, but it's really just basically the second page of the chart is the summary of everything to make it easier.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

So, you know, the we are pretty consistent with neighboring properties directly next to us as far as other family other houses that are two families, so we're trying to convert our house to a two-family.

Other houses that are two families, and like I said, there's one directly to the left of us.

That's a three-family, so their you know, FAR and lot area per dwelling are are would be more, even though their lot areas might be a little bit larger than ours.

But we are consistent within the neighborhood of what we're looking to do.

Uh I believe we also revised the drawings to include the variance for the parking space as discussed last time that was requested by the planning board.

Um you know, we talked we we review these applications uh informally during the um technical meeting.

Is there any way to incorporate some kind of hammerhead, Michael, to spin these cars around so they're not backing out of that long driveway?

I I can add a hammerhead at the back over there too, so then they can I mean it's gonna be very tight if I try to put it at the back because there's really no room to maneuver between the garage and there, but I can add something there where maybe they could maneuver in there.

Maybe pull out, turn in, back up and like a three or four-point turn.

I can do that.

Thank you.

Sure.

Uh I would not interrupt people.

I was actually thinking of making one of the spaces perpendicular rather than to the side rather than the hammerhead.

This way the space is always there to back out and the other one can we can do that as well.

We can make it a nine by by eighteen spot where the car could pull in one car could be there, the other one will be in front of the garage and somehow maneuver around.

This way they have a little more room to maneuver behind a garage if they had to flip behind the other one and rather than strictly behind there, you had that other space.

So whether it's a hammerhead or a parking space, they have the option to move into that area.

So anyone else have any other questions.

Would you like to consider a revision uh to that extent?

Right here.

I could put the parking spot like you know, the turnaround apartment.

I think that's what the question was asking, yeah.

Right.

I don't know if it's if it's the effects of variances, if it's a perfectly appropriate request.

But if we think it's more just a layout issue where that's something planning can address when they're approving the site plan.

If we if this board should approve the application, can we make a recommendation to the planning board?

Yeah.

Okay.

Again, I'm not it's up to you.

I'm just saying, I'm just wondering if that's a permissible option.

Okay.

I was gonna ask if you could make it a condition of approval, and you know, we'd make sure we put that on the drawing.

I think council is saying it's not necessarily within our jurisdiction.

We can't, but it's it's a planning board issue, but we were just I think there's been concerns since we this application came before us about the proposed parking, so it might make things a little bit less congested.

Oh sorry, Paul.

I I also just for my colleagues, I wouldn't want to I personally wouldn't want to impose a condition that has not been studied architecturally and then impose something that um isn't feasible.

Okay, the only thing I was gonna say where it might affect the variance is if then the right-hand space were able to be pulled over, then you wouldn't might not need the variance on the side of that 2.8.

Well, then it would be one less variance not asking for another one.

Right.

Yeah, in that case, that's perfectly appropriate when the board wants to ask to see if they can produce the variance.

That's entirely up to you.

Okay, then I'm going to put it back to the applicant.

Um I mean, I I I would rather keep it with the variance, I guess, at this point, just because that parking spot would be if somebody did park there, it would be within the setback.

Uh but I'm open to either option.

Well, someone's got to make a decision.

All right.

I need you to so you want to stick with the application as it's currently presented.

Yes.

Okay.

Thank you.

Does anyone on the board have any other questions?

Would anyone like to be heard on this application?

For or against.

Would anyone on the board like to make a motion?

Thank you.

Yep.

Certainly.

This application uh case number uh 18 2027, Eric Romero Solar for permission to convert an existing uh three-story one family dwelling into a two-family dwelling and create two additional outdoor parking spaces in the existing driveway.

Legalized front porch and closure, legalized existing, whereas 0.46 FAR GFA to be legalized exceeds the maximum permitted of 0.4, whereas the proposed 332.5 square foot lot area per dwelling unit is less than the minimum required 3500 square feet per dwelling unit.

Whereas the proposed 2.8 side yard setback one additional parking space is less than a minimum of six feet in an R2-7.0 zone district at the premises 132 Sickles Avenue, block 1237, lot 48.

This is for an area variance.

Uh based on the following whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.

Uh the conversion of the two family is uh appropriate uh in this neighborhood, and the requested variances are minimal with respect to um the lot area per dwelling unit and the uh FAR, uh then they're comparable as presented this evening to um the surrounding dwellings uh in this neighborhood, which is very dense neighborhood as it is.

Uh it isn't a two-family zone, so it is appropriate for the zone itself.

Excuse me.

Um with respect to the parking spaces, um the 2.8 uh side yard setback uh pretty much already exists with the garage, which is not conforming, which is even less than that.

Um whether this will be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or to nearby properties, uh, I don't believe it will be.

Uh there's not much uh that'll be physically happening to the neighborhood, whatever modifications that have been made to the structure have been minimally made already.

Uh it's just the addition of the two cars uh in the driveway in back of the existing garage.

However, um I'm gonna recommend in my motion uh that one car be turned 90 degrees to the back of the house, uh subject to the plaintiff would approval, of course.

So there's only one car behind the driveway, and as one car turned to the left behind the house.

Um whether the request is substantial.

I don't believe the variances that are requested are substantial.

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

I I don't believe it uh will be.

Again, this is a two-family zone.

This is gonna be a two-family house, uh, and there are no uh real physical changes to the to the dwelling or appearance to the dwelling itself.

And uh whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, it is self-created.

It's the owner's uh desire to make it a two-family dwelling, and that's creating the request for these variances.

Uh, but uh the quest for area variance is not necessarily a reason for for denial.

So for these reasons, I make the recommendation for approval again with the modification of turning that one parking space perpendicular to the back of the house.

Second Abel Rodriguez?

No.

Carla Clapper?

Yes.

Mark McLean?

Yes.

Charlotte Abidier.

Yes.

Bob Stansiao?

Yes.

Erica Eisner.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Have a nice night.

You too.

Thanks.

Case 20, 2026, 40 Beach Road.

Oh, they're up here on the top.

Okay.

Okay.

And then just gone down.

Okay.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Jim Fleming.

I'm an architect in Newer Shell.

I live at 11 Pratt Street in New Rochelle.

With me tonight is the owner, Jason Hammond, back here, who's available also for participation.

Basically, I was approached to uh make a modification to this 1910 house.

It's one of the old cottages up in the woods there.

And uh basically they have an old garage, which um they looked at it and said, you know what, we'd like to incorporate it into the structure of the house, and have a family member be able to access the upper floor, grandmother type thing, uh above that, and then we'll attach it back into the car uh into the house.

Um now the the interesting piece of it.

Do I have a yeah?

Sorry.

You should be able to see it on your own screen there.

Yeah, I just was looking where it was on the okay.

Um right right here's the garage.

You can see it in both side plan and this piece here.

It's being removed.

Uh so basically there's a high wall here, the neighbor's house is here.

Uh there's a high wall and some ledge back here, which we would have to deal with.

We don't propose any blasting or anything like that.

And this is the structure, two-story structure proposed, and the connector over here.

Not requiring a variance on just for the whole picture, is a uh long porch along Springdale and a small addition in the front, which mimics what's there now, the the three-windowed cable front above up an existing porch on that side on beach.

Uh see if I can I'm sorry, did you say that there'd be no blasting?

Yes.

I'm looking at the site plan that says ledge and boulder removal, no boulder removal proposed.

Is that different than blasting?

Thing finger excavations got it.

Uh and actually, when you look at it, there's a couple other nice landscape things around the neighborhood where it looks like uh basically um uh pancakes.

Got it.

But just around to make sure I understood, thank you.

Um as as decoration for the yards, uh and then um basically we're just moving the garage the uh driveway down uh the photographs uh if you've seen them.

You can see that the existing garage and driveway come right up to the hedge on the uh western neighbor.

And uh in terms of um I'm sorry, can you speak up a little bit?

I'm having trouble hearing you.

Sorry.

Um we're looking, we're looking at the um the garage.

I was thinking that the um uh hedge comes down.

We're gonna move the driveway in further.

It's less of a walking hazard, it's not an immediate uh hazard, but the kids do walk up there to school.

That's what that's which way they go.

Um, and also traffic pulls the the the driveway out just a little bit so you can see up to the west, uphill to uh Springdale.

Um the next piece here.

Just a basement plan.

The first floor plan, as you can see, over here.

That's the uh garage area.

There's a lift being put in the mud area that connects it, and then the long open porch.

Uh that's the basic idea of the addition.

Go down one more.

Sorry, it's not catching up.

There's the second floor, as you can see.

The house is long and thin.

Uh there's a central hallway existing, primary bathroom uh and bedroom on the front toward beach, and then we'd like to send the corridor into the mud room and then into the the grandma suite.

That's where the uh variance is necessary.

Thank you.

And then very important to the that's the front.

Looks very much like it does now uh from beach.

We're just bringing those three windows forward to beach about seven feet.

Not too much of a difference there.

It doesn't need a variance.

Here's the uh Springdale elevation, probably the most important elevation, uh showing the open porch, the addition on beach, which is that dashed line, and then of course the garage and second floor above it with the connector uh to the corridor.

That's um this piece here, and then the side of this garage and and uh suite room upstairs is just below it at detail number two, I believe it is, and then uh the back of it is the the uh French doors and double windows on the second floor.

That's the connector piece and the back of the garage structure with the second floor.

Uh that's what they're proposing.

Uh on this lot, it's a long corner lot.

Uh and the it's um uh we're taking advantage of the uh the porch rule of open uh open covered porches uh being allowed to extend into uh a different uh uh zoning code number, which we're not requiring a variance with.

Uh but uh selecting which yard is your rear yard is key to this.

We looked at previous additions uh to this property.

Uh I I don't think there was any variances prior.

Uh but no matter what we do in that back square yard, the inner side, we'd need a variance no matter what we did.

So we figured okay, let's do what works for the owner in this.

Uh and also, as I say in my in my uh test, is um, yes, I believe it does help uh breathe next to the buildings.

There's a high retaining wall next to it.

Uh the house to the west is uh higher and back further by original layout of this area.

So uh even though we're forward, we're still on the four the corner lot where the house already exists, and if you add to it, you're gonna be forward of the other houses.

Uh but we're still okay with the front yard there.

Uh basically uh that's the extent of the additions.

Can you can you speak?

I mean, this to me seems like a pretty substantial variance going from 30 feet to 10 feet.

Right.

But your principal points say that the variances are not offered as substantial because of the removal of the existing detached garage.

Can you explain that to me?

I'm saying that I knew that we're gonna I I'm saying that because we are take we're taking a structure out of that space between the wall and the house.

So uh I'm hoping that it's looked upon as mitigating some of the variance we're asking for.

Yeah, so it's a large part of the 30 feet for well, does the garage currently encroach on the setback?

No, it's a separate, it's a it's a detached garage.

It goes up to uh uh I think it's five feet uh for a garage or an attached accessory building.

It is in a setback, yeah.

It's in the setback.

Okay.

Yeah, got it.

Okay.

Uh but it's still there next to the property down uh and and we're moving back from that, creating a little bit of space between the properties, which is uh okay on one story, the small garage, but we're coming over with two stories.

So uh we if we are going to add to the house, we'd like to add two stories to this piece for the Sereason State and family members, uh, and and the new garage there.

So uh basically uh we're looking for that to be looked upon as a mitigating circumstance.

Can you show me where in the plans it shows where the house currently sits on the lot and where it will sit on the lot?

Or is that not here?

Uh where is it?

Well, my site plans are all on the first page.

Is that it?

Yeah, sorry, I'm trying to get this back.

Yeah, layered.

Existing second story extension.

You go to uh SP1, you have two site plans there.

SP1, okay.

I'm there.

Okay.

The um there's an FAR chart above it with the floor plans on it.

It's turned because of some information I got.

It's turned from the actual site plan below it where I wanted north.

Um, but uh you can see the shaded area is the new structure.

You see us you see the FAR chart above this area above uh upper right, upper rather uh everything you see that's not shaded is the original house.

Then the shaded area, especially on the second row down uh to the right of the second drawing down, that's the new area, and then the uh second floor is the last line of houses there.

And then the uh second floor is the last line of houses there.

This line.

So we're charged with uh approving the minimum variance possible.

So I'm just wondering if there's any way to accomplish this without going so as far back to the to the property line as you are.

I mean it's uh it it's a pretty big variance in my mind.

Uh well, we looked at uh setting the yards the other way, and we we really weren't that different.

We'd still have uh ten or felt twelve feet.

Uh uh, I've marked it there actually on the side plan.

Um where we'd still need a substantial variance, at least half of the uh required distance.

So it's still in that category.

But no matter if you wherever you uh want to add in this rear yard, you're gonna need a variance of some measure.

So uh the other places are just kind of untenable.

Uh I I think uh comparing the uh the porch to an addition on Springdale would not really be very good, nor on the but we are adding to the front, and we're doing exactly what's there, only pushing it out.

Uh I guess the chair is asking that, Jim, excuse me, is uh you know we know there's gonna be a variance, but is there a way to less lessen the variance maybe about bringing that garage forward by shortening the whole edition itself or or um If I may uh uh there are our neighbors here as well as Jason.

Sure.

Um we we've been speaking about it of looking at it again to see where we can uh cut down a um a visual disturbance from their house since they're back, they're gonna see the side of the garage and the second floor.

So um I think if I may it's at this point um end my presentation and let them speak, see what their concerns are, and then I'll come back and we'll see what unless anybody has any questions for the applicant before he steps aside.

Okay, that's fine.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Would you like to be heard?

Yes, too high.

Is that right?

Yeah, okay.

Uh my name is Hillary J.

I live at 27 Springdale Road with my husband.

Oh, with my husband Jake.

Good evening, members of the board.

Thank you for your consideration of the 40 beach variance request and the adverse impact it will have on our adjoining property at 27 Springdale Road.

My husband and I are here today to express our objection to this variance.

Our concerns are based on the following two points.

My neighbors seek to demolish a pre-existing noncompliant single-story garage and replace it with a vastly larger non-compliant two-story living space.

My estimates show that the existing garage is roughly 300 square feet, where the proposed is over 1,500 square feet, a five-fold increase in nonconformity.

And two, the code requires a 30-foot rear yard setback, but this high volume structure is only 10 feet back from the property line.

This is an overwhelming 66% variance and cannot be described as minimal.

Before my husband and I purchased our home in May of last year, we noticed the pre-existing garage and its proximity to the property line.

We were relieved to find that due to our home's elevation and the location of the garage, the view from inside was not obstructed.

We also took comfort in the code, which dictates that a pre-existing noncompliant structure can only be demolished and rebuilt in the exact same footprint and dimensions as the original.

These were key factors in our decision to purchase 27 Springdale, and the granting of this variance is directly in conflict.

I will now frame my concerns as they relate to the five points the board considers in granting variances.

In regards to the first point, approval of this will absolutely result out a little bit.

Oh, I'm sorry.

Sorry.

Yes.

Do you want me to repeat anything?

In regards to the first point, approval of this variance will absolutely result in a detriment to our property.

Sight lines, light and air, experience from our dining room and kitchen will all be obstructed by the large two-story structure proposed just ten feet from the property line.

Our front patio will be completely overshadowed and rendered unusable.

Our sense of privacy will be impaired throughout.

Our realtor has advised that the proposed structure would be s would significantly reduce the value of our property.

In regards to the third point, the variant is not just substantial, it is overwhelming.

As previously stated, providing a 10-foot setback for a high volume structure where a 30-foot setback is warranted constitutes a 66% variance.

In regards to the fourth point, the proposed construction involves removing portions of the rock atop which our homes foundation sits.

Our house does not have a basement and along with several sizable stone walls is built into this rock.

We have concerns about the effect of removing the rock and the resultant vibrations on the structural integrity of our home.

In regards to the fifth point, yes, we believe this difficulty has been self-created.

The size of 40 beach is already larger than many of the surrounding homes on comparably sized plots of land.

While I understand my neighbors may wish to expand their home, doing so at such a detriment to our property is unreasonable.

The variance process allows for exceptions to be made in scenarios where the code may not meet the nuance of the situation, but this scenario seems to be a textbook example of why the code does exist and why it must be upheld.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you.

Would you the applicant like to respond?

Yes, thank you.

Um we did have a quick conference out in the in the vestibule about about the uh aspects of this uh application.

Um the uh just in general, uh this is a board of zoning appeals, uh, which is contrary to saying that when you uphold the zoning, why would you have a you know why would you have a board that says no?

We know how to uh comply with the zoning.

But if we have some argument to make about uh why we like to vary from that law, we come here.

That's in general.

Um but no matter what happens on this property, anything built west of this house needs a variance, whether you flip the yards or not.

So we'd be here no matter what we're doing in that spot.

Uh so the only thing I could uh hopeful uh hopefully work out with the owner and the next door neighbors is to work out a compromise, which would obviously need a variance because we know it does, uh, but less bulk offered to their windows.

I think that's reasonable.

Would you like to adjourn your matter to to speak further with the neighbors and see if you can come up with something that everyone can live with?

Uh let me just confirm with the owner, Jason.

Is that okay?

Yes.

We'll we'll adjourn to the next meeting.

Thank you.

I think that's a good idea.

I think that um I'm curious.

I'm eager to see what you come back with.

And Jim, uh, could you in your presentation can you you give a uh sort of a section between the two properties where the additions go, any other property showing an elevation difference in the distance between, yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep.

Okay, good.

Thank you very much, everyone.

Thanks, Jim.

Case 21, 2026, 103 Gallett Drive.

Uh let's see, Kim.

Got it.

No, you can get it from me.

Thank you.

There we go.

Thank you.

Good evening, everyone.

I'm John Woodruff, the architect with offices in New Rochelle, New York, on Moran Place.

And I'm here tonight with Elliot Krakow for the property.

He's the property owner at 103 Gale Drive.

And we're requesting an area variance to construct a new wood frame residential deck in the rear yard.

Um the proposed deck is designed to replace a pre-existing structurally deficient deck and establish a safe, functional uh outdoor living space directly accessible from the primary living area of the kitchen.

Um this is our property here.

Here's the deck in the rear.

Um, it's kind of a crescent-shaped lot.

We've done a lot of renovation on the house, put a uh circular drive in, driveway in, and now we're just uh finishing up with a deck that needs a variance.

Um with the placement of this deck, there'll be no uh undesirable change in the neighborhood.

The proposed wood frame deck will replace an existing deck in the exact same location.

Um situated entirely behind the primary structure.

The deck will be completely shielded from view and have virtually no visual impact from the front of the house and um decks are obviously very common and conforming and expected uh accessory structures for residential homes in the R110 district.

Um there is no feasible alternate means other than a variance.

The variance is because of the unique pre-existing uh physical geometry of the lot.

And um the property uh features um a very shallow rear yard.

I think we can see that on the survey here, uh, where I've only got 32 foot six inches, and because of that dimensional constraint, any functional deck attached to the rear of the house will uh encroach into the rear yard and needs a variance.

And um our variance is not substantial.

The proposed deck's only 42 inches high and very close to the ground.

Um the perimeter of the yard is um screened.

This is where the deck will be going right here.

It's uh screened with a fence and planting.

Um it has a solid prime primary fence, ensuring that there will be privacy for all adjacent neighbors.

We won't have any environmental uh issues on the site because uh Mr.

Krakow has put in about a hundred dry wells on this property when he renovated it, and um it's got plenty of uh uh drainage, which has been um nicely sloped.

This is a picture of the old house, what it used to look like.

And um, here's the old deck here, which was a little bit over to the side, and we're proposing our new deck right here.

This one was very old, and nobody could walk on it and it didn't match the house.

And um, what else can I tell you about our lovely deck?

I think that's it.

This is the area where it's going.

And um we hope you look favorably on this deck.

We we actually have the uh the neighbor um in this house directly behind uh Elliot, and he is his son-in-law, so I think he has to agree with our application uh tonight.

And we've notified all the neighbors, and um no one's uh contacted us or anything regarding the deck.

Okay, does anyone have any questions?

Uh John, has that been in front of us before?

This property?

No, no, it hasn't.

No.

No, I'm making the same thing.

Yeah, I'm like would anyone like to make a motion on this?

I would like to make a motion.

Thank you.

I would like to make a motion to approve case number 21-2026 Elliott uh Krakow for permission to construct a new 14 by 20 foot wood frame deck in rear yard, whereas the proposed 18 plus or minus foot rear yard setback is less than the 27 rear yard setback required for regular shaped lots in an R1-10 zone district at the premises 103 Gale Drive, block 160, lot 257 area variance.

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

No, as shown by the um the diagram uh shared with the board and shown on the screen the plans, uh there is not a feasible another feasible place to locate the deck um that would provide usefulness and utility to the home.

Two, whether an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, um, there is no uh undesirable change to the character um or to nearby properties.

The deck will simply be um you know an accessory use or a use to the existing building that's there.

There is fencing um along the back of the property as the applicant has pointed out, uh, and it is overall within the character of of the home and the neighborhood.

Three, whether the request is substantial.

No, I do not believe the request is substantial.

Um it does appear to be an approximately nine foot um uh uh difference between what is allowed and the setback that's proposed.

However, um given the screening that's existing there and the shape of the lot, um, I do not believe it is substantial.

Four, whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects.

No, um, it is a wood deck um in the back of the home, uh similar to others in the neighborhood, and five, whether alleged difficulty is self-created.

Yes, the difficulty is self-created, but I do not believe that that is a reason to deny the application.

Second, oh beat you to it.

Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Carla Clapper.

Yes.

Mark McLean.

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier, yes.

Bob Stansiel?

Yes.

Eric Eisner, yes.

Motion approved.

Thank you.

Case 22, 2026, 236 Clinton Avenue.

Thanks, guys.

Kelly, can you do it for me again?

I'm sorry.

It's your last one.

Okay, great.

Thanks.

Once again, John Woodruff offices of New Rochelle, New York.

And I'm here with James Mum tonight, 236 Clinton.

And this is an application for an FAR variance to partially enclose the front porch.

And we're we will be enclosing this portion.

It's an open porch and making that part of the dining room.

That's what the house looks like now.

There's nothing here on the side, so we're hoping to keep this as an entryway and close the porch here.

And then we get a chance to even up the house with some nice windows that match on both sides.

This is the side view.

This would be enclosed here.

And uh these are some houses that have similar enclosed porches on Clinton Avenue.

This is uh 232 Clinton, and it has a very similar enclosed porch in the front.

And this is um 222 Clinton, which is on the same side.

Uh I'm sorry, so 232 is directly next door to us.

So this is our house here, and then 222 has very similar, whoops, has very similar uh setup as us.

Sorry, uh survey showing the property and um basically um this neighborhood has a a lot of numerous large homes with similar enclosed front porches.

Um the modification is very uh similar with the streetscape.

Um the existing roof line and overall footprint will remain intact.

The alterations to the front facade are minor, but it gives us a chance to fix those windows.

And um feasible alternative uh alternative to a variance uh is uh is is practical.

The best way to enlarge the dining room is to capture the underutilized semi-enclosed porch of the existing uh in the existing front porch.

Uh utilizing this existing space prevents an expansion into the side or the rear yards, making it the least intrusive uh layout option available.

Um there will be no environmental hazards to the to the neighborhood since all the roof gutters and leaders will stay the same, all drainage will stay the same.

Um it is a minimal FAR variance.

The proposed enclosure only adds 130 square feet, representing a minor 5% increase in the floor area ratio, and um like I said, there'll be a zero footprint expansion, the works entirely contained within the existing porch.

And um we actually did a little uh we did a study of the neighborhood, which I didn't manage to get um on this presentation, but I do have it on an 8 and a half eleven where we examine the neighborhood and we maybe Kelly could maybe Kelly could pass these out for me.

Um it's a study of 17 of the houses in the neighborhood.

I'm gonna keep one for myself of the FAR.

And we're at point four five FAR, where point three five is required, and there are three other houses that are higher FAR than us.

And um, those are both on the corner of Clinton and Rotunno.

There's two at point five seven and one at.60, and then there's one on Clinton Avenue about three houses away, more toward East Chester Road, and that's a point five one.

Um so it's it is common to have the larger FAR with larger houses, and um, I think the two on Retano are actually walkout basements, which uh make the basement um part of the FAR.

RFAR is higher because we have a finished attic in the house.

But as you can see from that from the chart that I've done, there are similar houses with higher FARs than us, and you can also see based on these 17 houses that a majority of the houses on Clinton are over the point 35.

And that has to do, I think, with the smaller uh lot size and um you know the houses are older and they they typically had a little more square footage than uh than a new house would have um so that's our that's our application tonight before you were hoping that since this is fully enclosed within the footprint of the house that it's uh favorable for a variance does anyone have any questions would anyone like to make a motion?

Thank you.

Uh make a motion to approve case number 22-2026.

Um James Num for permission to construct a partial enclosed of a system port open porch to extend the assistant dining room and entry foyer for an assisting three-story one family dwelling, whereas the proposed point four five FAR two thousand five hundred and forty-seven square feet, GFA it sees the maximum permitted of.35, 1,982 square feet.

Assisting nonconforming.

43 FAR, 2412 square feet in a R1-10A zone district at the premises of 235 Clinton Avenue, block number 1534, lot number 93.

And this is for an area variance.

In applying the violence test that we are uh required to implement and whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant.

Uh in my opinion, this is really the only practical and cost-effective way to accomplish this this um this project.

Um whether under cyber changes in neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties.

Um by granting this variant, it will not impact uh any of the nearby properties since they are other similar properties um within the same block.

Uh whether the request is substantial, in my opinion, the request is not substantial.

This is about a 5%, as John mentioned, uh in the floor to area ratio, which is minimal.

Uh whether the request will have at first physical or environmental effect, the fruit the fruit the footprint of the house will remain the same, and granted this variant will increase the water runoff or any drainage issues.

Whether the ledge difficult is self-created, uh this is self-created, but in my opinion, this is not a reason for denial.

With all of those considerations, I request this variant to be granted.

Second Carla Clapper?

Yes.

Yes.

Bob Stancial?

Yes.

Mark McLean?

Yes.

Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Erica Eisner.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Thank you.

We have uh two administrative uh items.

Case 10, 2025, and it's for an extension, uh 7 Schuler Street.

Yes.

Um I move on case 10-2025.

Su Yen Taylor to construct a new two-story kitchen addition with deck and full bathroom, legalize the construction of a three-car detached garage accessory to the existing one-family dwelling, legalized existing at seven Skylar Street, block 859, lot twenty.

The owner is requesting a 12-month extension on resolution 10-25, and I move that we approve it.

Second.

Case 4, 2025, uh 89.

We have to.

Oh, I'm sorry.

So sorry.

Uh Abel Rodriguez?

Yes.

Carla Clapper.

Yes.

Mark McLean.

Yes.

Charlotte Abadier.

Yes.

Bob Stancial?

Yes.

Erica Eisner?

Yes.

Motion approved.

Uh case number four-2025, Venita Segal to construct a new deck in the rear yard at 89 Devonshire Road, block 2309, lot one.

The owner is requesting a 12-month extension on resolution 4-25.

I move that we approve.

Second.

Abel Roger?

Yes.

Carla Clapper?

Yes.

Mark McLean?

Yes.

Charlotte Abader?

Yes.

Bob Stanciel?

Yes.

Erica Eiser.

Yes.

Motion approved.

Meeting has been adjourned.

I move that we adjourn the meeting.

Second.

Second.

I think the meeting is adjourned.

Meeting is adjourned.

Thank you, everyone.