Good evening everyone. My name is Willis Claw for Co-Field and welcome everyone to the zone board meeting for July 2024 in ERA, MERSHA. I want to introduce the rest of our team here this evening for a building department over to my right. We have Regina or her hair. We also have our commissioner of buildings over to my left, Paul Baca. From our climbing department, we have the director of planning the sustainability Kevin King tonight, right? And on a board this evening, we have Fernando Areas to my right, Able Rodriguez to my left, and all the way to my left is Robert Stendjall. As you can see, we have four board members this evening. You will need four votes for resolution to pass this evening. So I can just keep that up. And all the way to my left is Robert Stendjall. As you can see, we have four board members this evening. You will need four votes for resolution to pass passes. So please keep that in mind. Before we begin, I just want to go over a few things. For those speaking on an application this evening, before you begin, please state your name and address for a public record. We also ask you to be speak for against an application that you summarize your comments and not to repeat any point that was already made previously to speaking. You still can come up and still state that you read with a previous speaker and there will be a three minute time limit to see when you're a speaker. I also want to make the applicant's been aware that you do have them right to adjourn your case to up to two times. So if you're represented by an architect or attorney, please consult with them for a clear understanding of your options before a vote is taken. Because we only have more members receiving, I'll ask you if you want to receive the vote if you decide to do that. And if I do forget, please remind me. Just to know we have moved to a couple of environments, you might see us laptop for other devices that we're looking down at. And lastly, please remember that the board is obligated to grant the minimum variance and present that resolution only if the needs are in requirements set by New York State law. So with that, we're going to ask Regina to follow the road. Okay, it's just roll call. Case 9, 2024, 18, 11, here. The applicant applicants here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that case. Case 13, 2024, 196 WOMO Road. Applicants here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that case. Case 19, 2024, Nicholas Dorary, 130, Mt. Doroy Place, applicants here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. Case 20, 2024, 470, 3 nots Avenue. The applicants here opposition or voices to be heard on that case. Case 21, 2024, 18, Sheldon Avenue applicants here opposition of voices to be heard. We have two administrative items for extensions. the meeting. The meeting is held in the meeting. The meeting is held in the meeting. The meeting is held in the meeting. The meeting is held in the meeting. The meeting is held in the meeting. The meeting is held in the meeting. The meeting is held in the meeting. The meeting is held in the meeting. The meeting is held in the meeting. The meeting is held in the meeting. The meeting Please, though, everyone speaks at one time. We won't hear anything. So I appreciate that. Case 9, 2024. 18 rolls delivered here. Good evening, board members. My name is Mary of Materials. I'm the architect for this project. The address is 18 rolls delivered here. It's also delivered here, yes. In New York, Shell. The owner is Mr. Park. This.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S.S. is at the site. We are proposing to repair and correct the existing stairs. The top landing including the 7 steps will be repaired. The next step will be a new 6 foot wide by 3 feet intermediate landing, we steps, we'll bring you down to great. New aluminum car rails will be installed on both sides of these steps, what it do is in height. The owner will file for inapplication, except for application for the work to, for the work on the right way. We are requesting one there is for the front yard. So setback required is 15V. We are proposing a 2.7 foot setback. We are requesting a top on top on one, top three inches varies to correct the work. In closing, the owner is so far, apologizes for not rotating on permits to start the work. Thank you very much. So, without any questions from the board? Mara, Mara, the variance is 2.7. You know, that's to the front, the first front step. Which one? 2.7 feet is the manager requesting us the first step. We are proposing a 2.7 foot setback to the first step. But aren't you allowed to go on to the variance taken from 18 inches? Yes, we did that, but this was by the donor department. This is what we ended up using. So I just don't understand what the 12.4 very small part is with the other two. Well, the 12.4 value, I don't know what that came from because we went through this before and what I have here is exactly what we are going land pool from the point the bottom. So we're requesting a 12.3, where is the van? 12.3, 12.6, 12.7, still, if he said that. I think it's a previous seminoles to submit an existing or a fire service. So these stairs previously turned into the driveway. Yes, the original stairs would stop midway down and then turn into the driveway and that's something that's not safe at all There really is no option We went to those scenarios and the option that we're proposing is the safest option. Being people on the floor. And I think this is similar to the other homes in the neighborhood. You're still around. If you go down the street, you can see that being similar being pushed back. Yeah. I think it's similar to being a platform to a platform that I have. So, Mary, on the new opening statement, you mentioned that there were seven steps and then there is a landing. And is the landing level to the surface? Yes. and is the landing level to the surface? Yes, you're talking about the seven step. Yes, it is, it is, it's like a landing. So we say we're not putting anybody to have such a high, so it's standard height for rising. Any other questions? I'm going to proceed with the vote. I say I want to make any motion. I can make a motion. Thank you. Okay. This is case number 9, 2024. Your report for permission to legalization of the state or reconstruction. Whereas for those plus or minus 2.7 front yard setback of the state, it's less than a minimum required 15 feet in a 2.7 to R2 to 7.5. And that's the reason why we're going to be able to goes plus or minus 2.7 from your setback of the stairs is less than a minimum required 15 feet in a 2.7 to R2 to 7.0 some districts that the premises 18 was the 11 you walked 15 of 7, locked 19 this is an area of variance. I'm going to make an emotion to grant the requested variance based on a following. Whether it benefit can be achieved by other means based on the applicants. There's an appeal that way. Again, as we discussed turning the stairs in the driveway, it's an unsafe place situation. It's probably why these were created initially. Whether it be undesirable change in character to the nearby neighborhood of properties, I believe there will be similar stairs, along Rosedale Avenue, that look like this and extend out from one per aisle elevation. As far as the other slopes can talk about, of course, the street along these staircases to appear, and in essence, most of these staircases to appear. And in essence most of the stair sort of built into the front lawn, and the sole of the front lawn indicates, so it's not really that the elevation is shown from the driveway side, which is a little more saturated, but from the one side you can't see it too much. What it requests is substantial, the disinstantial for a front yard per se for structure, but not in my, I believe in this case for a permanent scavenger to single-term presence. And what it requests will not have adverse physical or environmental effects, and I believe they will create any adverse ever effects in neighborhood. I would want to self whether the alleged to become self-prepared and self-prepared. It's not a reason for it to be denial of every race. Some of these reasons are making motion. I'd like to thank you very much. Second. Can I do ares? Yes. Avalon Griegas? Yes. Bob Tenziel? Yes. Has Bill Park also? Yes. The motion is perfect. We're taking more members to the floor. Yes. I mean, I don't know. Next case tonight is case 1324, one night the six-ville monitor. Thank you. Good evening. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the board. Good evening to the city staff. My name is Mark Blanchard. I'm an attorney representing the applicant with the firm Blanchard Wilson. 235 of my Maranac Avenue, Suite 401, Wakelands, New York,206.05. Here tonight on a single family home at 196 Loma Road, we're in the R120 district. We are coming to you for an identical side yard variant of either side of the house, we're required to have 25 feet and we're presenting 16.25 feet. required to have 25 B and we're presenting 16.25 B. I'll go through to each point. Obviously this is an area variance, not a new sparing, a solar. We're talking about the balancing test to the neighborhood. The first question we started out is whether or not the proposed construction will result an adverse impact on the neighborhood. Of course, our position is that it most certainly will not result in an adverse impact. This neighborhood, off of Wilmaugh Road, it's a very unique one to New Rochelle. You almost kind of forget your indoor shell when you're back here. It's a collection of beautiful homes in this neighborhood, but irregularly shaped lots of hour-lot in particular. We are compliant with our lot size and all other respects of our application the proposal is in compliant. What I mean by that is our lot coverage is in compliant, FAR is in compliant, our height is in compliant, but our, actually compliance, I'm sorry, but our lot itself is a rectangular line. So even though we have a very beautiful design for the house, we are deficient on both sides. The reason why I included this graphic in my application materials are these are the houses around us. Whereas you can see the character of the neighborhood is one where the houses getting the highest and best use of the lot. The houses are not uniformly located, footprinted right in the middle of the lot. We're seeing in the character of the neighborhood, we do see houses close to the property line that are all around us. And that's really our issue that we're too close on the side property lines. A bit of context here where the application itself had actually gone through an extended review in preparation of planning. So even though the question of civil engineering and storm water management isn't something that this board would typically dive into, this application actually had spent a lot of time developing the storm water plan. We were greenlighted for the planning board and then discovered that the side yard issue had almost fallen through the cracks we were diverted back to this board before we go to planning. But the reason why I raised the storm blower issue with you is that there has been some submissions from neighbors relating to what they're pointing out to be an existing condition. When we talk about whether or not this project will result in an ad-verse condition, I'm going to stand here and tell you that actually what you're seeing is the evidence of existing condition, whereas this house will come in and address something that needs to be addressed. There's a mitigation measure that needs to be addressed. There's a mitigation measure that needs to be implemented. And we're going to be able to show the planning department, assuming we have a favorable ruling here, and we go to planning, planning will dive into that issue of stormwater. And of course, your excellent building department always retains jurisdiction. So even when we come out of planning, assuming we had a favorable resolution there as well. When we come out of planning, we are then our next iteration, our construction drawings, and we'll be subject to your city engineer, your city building inspector, all the rest of the department, don't you review. So on one respect, I'm recognizing that we have an existing condition. The other respect we're showing there remains in this process discretionary approval that is going to be looking at the stormwater issue and also your engineering department and your building department, they're not discretionary approval before they sign off on a building permit. The civil engineering question has to be put to rest. So we look at the tot location of the house is similar to the character of the neighborhood. Of course, we are our 120, so we are compliant with everything else. We're not changing, we're not looking, this isn't a question of a home run business or something, some kind of commercial aspect. This is a purely residential project. So we are in character of the neighborhood. We are sort of dimensionally sighting-wise. We are in character with what's happening there. You go on to the next question or is this, excuse me? The next question is whether or not there is another means that we could employ to avoid coming to you and we just can't. The way that the site is located with this rectangular site, we have kept the building as low as we can. We have a compliant and a rear on the front wall. We've kept within that footprint, but this side yard is a construction. That we're invoking exactly why this court was created. We're invoking the jurisdiction because we can't squeeze the house any year we have. We're not directly on top of the property lines by any means. We do have over 16 feet that we're offering as a buffer. But design wise, we are limited to the, we have, we are presenting to you what we think is the minimal variance requested. As you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, in the beginning, that is part of your charges to be granting the minimal variance. So, we, unfortunately, we do, we cannot rotate the house that really exacerbates the variances. We are coming to you with what we think is a design that presents the most minimal requested variance, and there are no other means by which we can achieve our end. Oh, again, whether or not the other person that we want to examine is of course the question of how substantial is the loop D that we're asking for. One of the examples that I started with, but I also included in my statement of principal points, is that we can check off every box except sidebar, but we can check off every box in terms of the substantial impact the structure is having into the neighborhood. So like I just mentioned, rear front, height, FBR, lock, coverage, all those things were in compliance with. All those things we checked off, but it is, the one box you can't check off is an evil deficiency of all signs. So with everything else in compliance, I would argue respectfully that one deficiency does not make a for-a-substantial application. Especially when, as a reminder, we are offering not 25 but over 16 feet on each side. Finally, we're going into number four. This sort of, I've always found this test to be redundant to the first test, are we going to result in an adverse environmental impact? Our position of course is that we are not resulting in an impact. Some of what we're seeing in terms of the stormwater issue on our site is actually having to do with the road, the internal road network of this neighborhood. So that's something we can work on perhaps with the city. There's a larger picture here that we would like to explore in terms of mitigation, but we are able to show on the on-site mitigation. We're retaining all the storm water, right? We're not diverting anything into the neighbors and we're going to be able to deal with our internal lot storm water issue effectively. And again, there remains discretionary approval in the form of the planning board approval and then of course your own billy department. So sometimes I think it's only for make feel that you are this is it that the plan is sort of left to its own devices. That's not the case at all here where there's a lot of review that's left for us. Also, the other issues we have planning work of course will be getting into the aesthetics of the design, the height within the code requirements. So there's not really a question, there isn't evidence out there to support that we're creating an adverse position here, an adverse environmental condition. If anything, we're coming forward to mitigate an existing condition and also everything else part of the project will be fully co-compliant, fully building co-compliant, subject to your inspections, all those issues, all those control measures. So in that respect as well, we respectfully submit your not creating an adverse environment of position. And finally, the test here is whether or not this variance is self-created. Again, respectfully submitted because of this isn't some cookie cutter subdivision. These are lots that over time have been probably merged or some have been apportioned either way. We're left with a lot that comply, squared, fridge-wise, but just on the sides, the width-wise, which we had a little bit more. So it's not a subcreated variance, especially when we can show that we have worked hard. I'm sorry, I've taken wheat. The architect is here and I'm giving myself a promotion. I didn't come up with this great design, the architected. But honestly, to only have one deficiency on this regular site, I think is a magnificent feat. And it's not a self-creative hardship because we're just trying to adapt in the best way possible to the shape of the law. So we go through the five tests in the interest of brevity. I'd love to come back, answer any questions after I know members of the public are here to speak. But I would respectfully submit when you look at the totality of the neighborhood, you weigh the five factors. When you consider the layout of the neighborhood, you weigh the five factors. When you consider the layout of the neighborhood, and by the way, this isn't a criticism of how this neighborhood is laid out. This is how the neighborhoods in a city like in Rochelle, Mount Vernon, or Yonkers have these neighborhoods that over time just sort of get built up in this manner. And it's kind of a cozy, I've been back there, it's sort of a very nice neighborhood, I think. But in terms of the balancing test of the totality of being able to develop a vacant lot surrounded by a rich and robust single family home environment, I would respectfully submit that the balancing test does weigh in favor of allowing for two side-door deficiencies. Happy to answer any questions. As I mentioned, the architectural team is here. We are here to answer any questions from the board, here are address any issues raised by the public. But essentially, I would include Mike, opening remarks with that. And just open up for questions. Thank you. I'm actually going to open it up to the public first. Sure. Thank you. We'll call you back up here Of our comments and you can trust any questions Thank you Okay So please just stay your name and address for the record clearly Hi, good evening chairman members of the zoning Board. My name is Drew Gamble. I'm here on behalf of Joy Shaiyue, owner of property of 194 Wilmont. On June 3rd, I submitted a letter. I just want to make sure we receive that letter so I won't go through all those points. I don't think I could read it in three minutes anyway. I'm really disappointed in Mr. Blanchard's presentation. I think it was extremely disingenuous, the way he ran through the five factors and skipped over a lot of points that you know has been raised. First and foremost, an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood and will be a detriment to nearby properties. Mr. Blanchard describes an existing condition about the water, but fails to mention that the majority of this home is going to be built in the 100 and 500 year flood plant. That's why there's a water problem. It is in the flood plant. Every time it rains, it floods. And the flooding has been substantially worsened when they remove the trees that were previously on the lot. So imagine what it's going to look like when you construct a home. The advocate is proposing substantial side yard setback variances. These side yard setback variances don't exist on other lots. And variances have not been presented that shows that it has been unprecedented in this neighborhood to grant such side yard setback variances. The lot shown are irregularly shaped lots. That doesn't matter what matters is whether or not variances were also provided or these other properties just as close to their neighbors. And they're not. I mean this is a neighborhood that has space between the logs. The residents value that space. The residents value a natural feel in their environment. There's lots of trees. There's no trees. I'm sorry. There is literally one tree proposed on this lot. And these side yard setback variance is the no-room for any additional trees. That's only going to worsen the water problems on this line. In addition, the benefit the applicant achieve can be achieved by some method feasible. The applicant described that they are seeking to design a design to the maximum extent possible. They're not entitled to a design to the maximum extent possible. It is a balancing task. You know, I understand it's a beautiful design and they can't squeeze it. Well, they might have to remove one of the bathrooms or reduce the size of the hallway or reduce the staircase because this lot cannot handle a home of this size. It has a lot of nice to have, but this is a small lot, and that needs to be recognized. The variance is mathematically substantial and substantial in its impact. I mean, we're talking 17.5 feet of relief. It's only 92.5 foot wide lot. That's 20% of the width of the leaf that's going to be granted potentially. And I guess that these are extremely large variances and the requested variances are also going to have a substantial impact on the community with respect to flooding. And I think that's very obvious in the pictures that I attached to my letter. And then whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on physical environmental conditions. Again, yes, I think we need to focus on the issue of water. We've already seen an increase in flooding when they remove the trees. We have not received any report from any engineering study that showed that the infrotein's not going to increase or worsen the flooding on neighboring lot. And- That's time that you get to the- Oh, thank you very much. So infuclusion, I just think we need to keep in mind that these variances result in 800 additional square feet of impervious surface in the flood plain and leave no room for additional tree plantings. And this is a major concern, and this variant should be reduced. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Anyone else? Hi, this is Mark Gaffa,'m a daughter of Warren, Mark and his wife Susan, my mother, live on 182 Wilmot Road. And we agree with everything that was just said, and my parents have lived in this property property which has a direct line of study to this 196th Walmart and strongly believe that this house of this size which can only be constructed due to this variance that's approved. We'll have a diluteria effect on the character of the neighborhood. These are, I mean as everybody has said, this focus neighborhoods afar, you know, this is an area of beautiful houses, but they're modern. They're all well taken care of, but they're not as homes. And this is gonna be way better outside of the character of the community. And we're also a bit concerned with some of the features of this, because it appears that, you know, it's a weak question if this is truly going to be used as a single family residents or if there's some others or quasi public use. Thank you Mark Alcott. I want to deny the owners of 182's directly behind this subject property and you have before you our letter which sets forth our reasons. I want to make a few very quick points. One is that even if compliant, this structure will be quite large. They are seeking something that would be massive. And no reason has been shown. I listen to the presentation of council and no hardship has been shown. I listen to the presentation of counsel and no hardship was argued. No particular reason as to why they need a structure of this size. In the absence of some compelling reason, the request should be denied. Following up on what my daughter Laura said, there are many aspects of the design which raise questions. And our mind is to whether this is intended to be solely a private residence or whether it has public features. There are what appears to be there is a chefs room. There's a peer to be there is a chef's room. There's a, here to be public restaurants. There's an office, there's an elevator, there's a prayer room. There are a whole host of features that are quite unusual for a private residence. And so we question if it's going to be strictly a private residence and perhaps the very great size is because they intended to have some kind of public use for all those reasons. We urge you to deny the variance. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else want to come up? Good evening. My name is Julia Ooyakano. I live at 198 Beaumont Road right next door. My lab is basically the same size shape as 196 and I totally against having another home that much closer than Code elapses. I mean you have a code We built the house 40 years ago We didn't want to go on top of our neighbor to the left. And I certainly don't want anyone that close to me on the right. It's basically all I have to say. Thank you. Thank you. I am to Marta, I live in Toulin, Peru, and La Roa, traffic, a buddy of the property. I agree with everything all the previous speakers said to reiterate any of their points. And I just want to add, I'm not losing this variance because I'm against development on this lot. I've been next to this lot for 28 years. It's a very difficult lot to develop. I mean, obviously they bought this property knowing the challenges. And one would think that planning a house on it would take those challenges into consideration rather than trying to expand on the neighbors to do so. I had development on both sites, me now, on empty lots and on the other side of me. I'm not opposing. They're going to put four houses next to me on what was previously empty. And I don't oppose that because it's actually respectful of the nature of the neighborhood. No one seeking variances to be right up against my property. I just feel that you have to be in alignment with the other homes in the neighborhood and the proposal and 196 is not. Finally, I have serious drainage concerns. I won't reiterate what everyone else has already said. I just would like to respectfully request that the board refer to my letter of June 20th, which speak to those concerns in detail and to see the picture that I attached with my board, literally been mandated to 1996. We'll not road now that there's no trees at all on that property. Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? I'd like to come up and address the concerns that you heard in the portal. I'll have some questions in the comments. Yes, sir. Thank you. Going in order, I would just have to say that the first presenter I missed gammels, I'm sorry, I just forgot natural name. Look, we're going to, she and I will agree to disagree on course on the points that were made. I think when you're talking about the flood planning issue, when natural engineering review is for, that's what we're planning for. That's why you have an engineering department, and that's why you're planning for it. That's why we attach engineering plants to site-plan materials. We're doing a deep dive on that part. We don't get approvals unless we have solid that rhythm. Right? We're talking about, and then this is sort of a recurring theme with all the commenters. But we're the character of the neighborhood as it relates to other homes not eating a variance. There was a comment that if other homes didn't need a variance that I can't claim is my words, but I can't claim that it's not going to ruin the character. I would say that's an incorrect position. So many boards are never asked to look back at what other variances are there. Of course, if there were variances there, it's helpful to my case, but I would point down the bottom left hand slide. One ninety eight, 1 month, it is deficient in inside or. And it's not necessarily when you're asked to review the character of the neighborhood. Like I said, you're not going through the list of variances previously granted. You're going through what's the aesthetic? What where are the houses located? Here you have a housing, I don't want to say development, because it was not developed uniformly, but you have a housing collective where homes were situated probably for sunset or air or something. They're not located in the middle of each life. So in terms of a character of the neighborhood, we are seeing sort of irregularly placed, or maybe I should say there's no pattern. There's no uniform pattern to where every foundation is laid. Their homes are taking advantage of the lots to the best extent possible, which is exactly what we want to do. I think when you're talking about, you have an issue that was raised relating to the use of the premises. There's a hint that maybe it's not being used for what we're saying it is. That's a certificate of occupancy issue, right? That's with all the respect I am standing here telling you it's a single-femin residence. But if that was a true concern, that's something for Mr. Vodka, his inspectors, right? That's your certificate of occupancy. We are here presenting a residential home that separate two sidebar issues is fully compliant with the R120 zone, the character of the zone. Why was there? We are a residential home, right? So having a design feature, I just did a project in Hacings with a condominium design with elevators inside. So I mean, these things are committed. This is a zoning combined house interior and exterior, but for why I'm here. So if you have an issue, there's an allegation or an insinuation that the property is going to be used for some other purpose, your as I mentioned earlier, jurisdiction remains in place to make sure that the House is used as the code for partners. We're not here seeking any kind of use or any kind of variance of that nature. It's simply a divinity. We're here for a math question. It's a dimensional divinity. Now you use the divinity. So in terms of that, I respectfully submit that the use issue is not within the purview of tonight's meeting. That the engineering issue is circular, well-remained within the purview of some detailed city review, that the adverse impact of the flooding goes along, that's hand in hand with the engineering question. And the adverse impact we heard tonight about the aesthetics and the placement, I'd say, look, the evidence speaks for itself, right? It's not based upon variances, although I am showing inefficiency. What it is is the evidence is showing how this neighborhood developed, we are developing in line with that. I think I covered everything. I kind of combined a couple of things. But listen, I know the board probably has some questions, so I'd be happy to address something I overlooked for, address your questions. Thank you. Just before I go to the comments on board, just to note that the planning board gave a neutral recommendation for the both varieties. So just thank you. Thank you so much. And just to be clear, so if, like you said, the resolution is passed, from your application, it would go to the point where for site removal and obligation payments. Yes. Okay, so plan board will gather basically check the training design. Then we're going to focus on that. Can you move into a full construction map? Can you move into a full construction map? Can you move into a full construction map? Can you move into a full construction map? Can you move into a full construction map? I move into a full construction map? Can you move into a full construction map? I move into a full construction map? I move into a full construction map? Can you move into a full construction map? Can you move into a full construction map? Can you move into a full construction map? It is not. I'm sorry, I think animal. They are so nice. The Laura was saying, it ate 13 to 9 street. It ate 13 to 9 street. Okay. Did you look at the funeral match? Yes. It is not in the flood of the plane. Are you allowed to build anything in the flood plain? No. That is correct. Are you allowed to build anything in zone A, D, or zone X? Yes. And you have to be a certain height above the paste flood elevation to do that. Right. Our base flood elevation is 1806 and we are going to build to a bit higher than that. That's what the residential coal and the state of the U.S. Thank you. Thank you. May I give you a round of applause to the President for any comments or actions? Okay, there's the blank in that. Thank you for a great presentation. Thank you for the aimers for coming out. I just want to look at some of these points out initially. We're going to go with this chairman mentioned. And we should highlight this as well in presentation. Desider here to grant the chairman in charge for the grant to be a minimum of grants. And I'm looking at this design and I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not, I'm not going to be as redesigned as per my own course. But I see, I'm at the sign and I just see what this house can be made smaller with design I just Think you need this with whether it's a different shape that you can cut back on other spaces Rearrange spaces in my mind. I think it's a way that you can narrow this house down to believe that she the closer side yards to the To the ones that we need to get closer to the close to the side yards. To the ones that we need, we need to get closer to the 25-bit side yards, not to get to the 25-bit side yards. So, I think we need to do a little bit to the architect, and we'll look at that. It's for a nice house. So, if you clear the comment is coming into the gigab event as well. So I actually had two concerns. One is pretty much only in line with what Bob just spoke about. I think this house is huge for the law. I think this house could be made a lot smaller. And also I have a concern with the flooding issue. I mean this property is higher than the properties on both sides and therefore the water is going into those properties. And I mean, I know this, you guys are planning to do some future, I guess, flooding, investigation and proposing, but that's one of my big concerns that I have. How does that would be under as? Well, I would say that to your second comment, the future, With all the respect, it's not just flooding investigation, right? I mean, these are black and white engineering solutions that have to be presented and improved by your engineering department. So it is not an open-ended question that we're gonna do our best to resolve. It's an open-ended question that gets resolved. You know, I mean, that's how it has to work. You know, we're a higher in elevation, but we are already presenting a plan to the city that we're going to capture all of our assurances, right? So this isn't, I guess what I'm trying to say is, we're not getting our building permit at the conclusion of all the review, pulling a building permit with our finger strokes. We're pulling a building permit knowing that we're that our system is going to work. And if it doesn't, the building department will be back at our site and we'll have to re-figure something. But we don't get to where we want to go unless we have control solution. But in my opinion, you know, it is a concern of us and also the residents in the neighborhood. So in my opinion, you should have done that probably to come here and you should already have somebody speaking about that. Because that's one of the things that we have to look into it is this gonna create a detriment to the neighbor properties. In my opinion, water, this house building in that area is going to create that issue. So you have to come out and give us some explanation, some professional explanation, as to why you have done, where I have not had that concern. Hi. It is an important question. Sorry. The, all our site has been developed with civil crimes and that being presented to the European is being viewed. So I think what Mark is speaking to is the, the neighbor who had the water that is ponding on the roadway, not to our side. So our side has been developed fully by Cible and it's showing everything and is reviewed by DOB already and that's when we got granted our permission to build a planning board. Once the Cible drive has been completely better through the deal we already. So it's there. A plan is there. I think what Mark is referencing is the recent picture that it's shown that surrounding funding on the road. So when they did those those studies, did they actually look into the water run off coming from that property? Yes look into the water runoff coming from that property? Yes, so the water... So the water... I mean we can get the report to you. I mean that's what I was talking about. So if you're not coming here... We have done the homework for the site and then the water that is coming through the road to our site, that's being also addressed on that so I mean you can I mean my opinion if you're coming over here I see you for those variances and you know those are part of the issue you should have brought that to us. Well it is included in the packet. We don't have an engineer here with us this evening but we can bring him or her back at the next meeting but we have done the homework and that has been reviewed by your department and we didn't include the document. So I think you also have to make that connection of the issue to the variance that's being requested, right? Right? And I'm not saying that they're not committed, but generally when you're talking, we know, you know, flooding, things like that, you're talking about building coverage, and curving, and stuff things like that is you're not a question variance is for you. So I'm not saying that the setback doesn't necessarily have been done because we've been through a talk about reduction in the house and maybe you can achieve some reduced and curving and curving that way but you just need to keep that mind that you have to make that connection before you know anything you have and that's a reason to do. Exactly and everything that's been pointed out for us coming into this board again remains to be an existing addition. We are coming into this board with plans showing mitigation strategy for them. Chair says no margin. I don't think we have those drawings. They're part of the DOV submission, not of the... We want to do it. Yeah, I'm not going to say it. Yeah, I'm going to do it. Just... Do you think they can provide them to the board? Oh, for sure. Yeah, sometimes they... Yes, definitely, yes. A work conference that we can show that we had solved this problem. I thought I had submitted the engineering sheet with the original submission, but either way I can turn around and have it submitted as a supplemental submission for Nancy. Thank you. I just, and this is just a question. For any trees taken down in conjunction with this application, or is this a lot, is as it was found and drawn? Or do we even move trees on this? Before we got involved there, we went out on the water cover and they may have to move some trees along the wall. Is that on the other side of the water? No, but when we got the survey, the survey didn't have any trees on the cover. So they don't move prior to the surveillance? serving and having trees on the property. So there was a prior receve. Correct. Like the survey that we used to develop the drawings did not have any true. Thank you. Okay, now the problem is, yeah. I think, you know, we're always, you know, on a team of the sucks. And I went to the property, I looked at lots of me and I was small enough, okay, I'm going to the side. And I said, maybe maybe I'm not looking because of, so I did go to group of maps, I took an arrow of the other stuff. I don't know how I should be supposed to be a massive amount of scoping at two with an artist. So it's hard for me to kind of wave off and improve the virus is this size. When I'm looking at some of the bombs here, and then you have rooms that are, you know, these perforations, four thousand square feet, you know, and then above, four thousand, so really for me, take a service this size away. I take, you know, everyone is entitled to properties. You know, don't it? Follow it in region, and I take, you know, my question to you you is if you look at the size of this property, is it for those right now? How does it fare, you know, regardless of the shape of the ladder, how does it fare with square footage of a lot of properties between them, within the area? Because you say there's no way you can't push that, but we will be fully taken against this. Yeah, we haven't done, if you're looking at the bottom left slide, we're talking about, I mean the first way I would answer that question is to go, you see on the architectural plans you have to only take what's required was for footage, lot coverage, if a house next to us, we don't pull zoning cables from other houses. I mean, we look to make sure we're in compliance with the table and it's for us it's just a side door to retain your life. So whereas narrow as we think possible, but in terms of square footage, you know, we're zoning compliant So it's a difficult question to ask. It's kind of subjective I think because being zoning compliant other than a side of efficiency That wasn't a great flight if they may think that this house, if you're going to do my government approval these to the New York Times. So, you might have, it's kind of all the same thing. Even though it means that the house is not a structure, yet it's on their forehanders under the zone, we still have the way against how it fits into the data. And having a large structure on that property, and I think you're under the rest of the board, I don't think it fits into the data. So, and with the cellular verices, I think the power could be reduced and that was well structured. And it would fit into the data rights. The flood mitigation aspect of the automotive experts, I'm going to kind of submit other documents and career documents so we'll look at those. Yeah, but I feel confident that our building department and our planning department will look at those and make sure that they need any plans or approve many plans for flood mitigation. Yeah, we're fully committed to what is to do or not be a sort of order management as you can go. So having heard of some of the comments on board, do you like to kind of adjourn or take the time? Oh, no, I think it's obvious. We'll definitely adjourn for the next meeting. We'll, or as soon as we can get a submission and get on of next agenda. We heard your comments and we'll we'll refine our presentation for back moving to your appreciate back. And one of the other aspects of the two like her was maybe the landscape and plan. I know maybe you'll have a final plan, but just to give the neighbors an idea of some of the landscape that's going to be kind of installed there to see how it's going to look. Okay, we'll be back. Yeah, we'll provide the neighbors that also is a major component of sightland, but whatever we have to develop. Just an idea, it doesn't have to be done on a flat-dose floor. We're required to plant one, two, each caliper tree for a re-two hundred square feet of a perv service, you have a whole of the first two months of square feet of a perv service. So if you have a thousand square feet of perv services, you can quite expect four two inch caliber trees. So you're against the A-hub? Correct. Because I first, two hundred percent count, and everything above that is one two inch perv, three inch caliber, four inch, one two inch, one two inch, one two inch, We follow the same submissions scheduled. We're submitting as if we're going to we're going to have more time to present our sub-mental submission. We should be submitting by, like, as per your decision. Yeah, I mean, I'll let you know, Mark, I have to look down on you. Okay. Because it'll be in August, because I'm going to know this is the paperwork I made. Right. Okay. I'm not sure if the architect wanted to ask something, I know she wanted to say something earlier. No, you would just, I know I think Mark already covered the question about why their offices linked the layout, our elevators being one of the concern. I think after the pandemic, a lot of the people start having home office and that's not unusual for home to have your office there. I mean, I know them my time for very long time. This is solely her home and she's been dreaming to build a house there. She's been waiting for the property to be available to buy for a long time. So it is definitely something that we call very, very, very, very, so it's done in many ways. I'm not concerned about the content. Yeah, well, it's not a surprise. Is there a rendering on it? Is there a rendering on it? Oh, no. Yeah, you can bring that. It would be helpful as well. Yeah, that's great. We're looking at that. We've add that. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, I'm going to ask the babies. If you want to speak, please go down the hall. We can still hear everybody here right here. Thank you. Next case tonight is the case 19, 2024. 135th Ward Place. I can make sure I need your notice. So. That's right. You just speak in the microphone. Sorry. Yeah. Mary's got 33 Fairways Drive. Look, it's good to go. We're here to present a subdivision request for more month or a year. I'll join please. And as you can see on the left, that's the house. It's a 1916 house. It's on a large piece of property with a detached garage in the corner. So what we're proposing to do is take down the garage and create two buildable lots, one of which would be the existing house which we're going to rent and the other would be a new one. Because the size of the property is 15,778 square feet and we're in the far 70.5 sounds of 75 hundred square feet is the required size and lot. We can have two lots which meet as we're put in. The issue is we need a variance because of the front, the front head. So 75 foot, it's only 500, it's perfect. They want 75 on the front, 100 fat. We have 125. So even though we have over the 1500, once we break it up, one is going to be 63 feet and one is going to be 62 feet. But I'm not going to show you. Okay, so here's the survey on the upper left. These are the two months and they are the breakdown of the zoning for each one. So both lots meet everything except that frontage with the exception of the existing house. We're gonna be over on FAR and I'll go through that. I'm gonna show you something. So this is the neighborhood. And one of the things I wanted to point out is even though our frontage is 62.26, and 63, if you look at all the other neighbors, they're 50, 55, one of them's 30. So, our lots are totally in keeping with the neighborhood and the size of the neighborhood. In terms of the FAR, which is the one, the other barriers that we need from the existing house, right now the house has a 700 square foot attic, which is kind of unusable. It's narrow, doesn't have any point. So that is 710. With that, the FAR is 0.48, but with we take away that, it's 0.39. Excuse me, over. We're 0.35 is the requirement. So it's not out of line and you know the other houses that come through FAR and the size of the lot. So we're really conforming with the neighborhood with this new house and the new house is going to be built within the zoning in whole mass space. We did do five points, if you want me to make that over. We have no predictions. Yeah, open up. I think there was any information from the audience who also speak. So I do want to say that the planning board did make a positive recommendation for both variants. So just make it over to board. And I'll open up for comments. I'll just start because visiting the neighborhood, it kind of adds odd that there isn't a deal out and that's straight. And it almost like needs a house back. So that's my point. Anyone else on the board? I think this probably was a separate tax lot at one point anyway. It was probably so divided with the balance of the neighborhood. You'll see a lot in my mirror that I guess was sort of front seat just thing out, I guess was sort of front seat existing house I guess but probably when the house was built originally this was built on another lot which had this occasion I'm not sure what it was I mean there is a happening in between so it's definitely like it's too much right and you say you're at the attic because it's seven hundred square feet so that they add it to the FAR obviously. That keeps you older. In the furniture, it's a nice. So this two real lights that you have, I'm going to afraid when the media houses, I'm going to add a few things like that. I'm here at the same time. So, can you see our lots are 63 by 125 and 62 by 125. The other lots, if you look, I put in the square footage of the launch, and we have 7500 for both of us. They look at the starting on the left, or right, 6250, 3750, 6400. The only conforming 7500 square foot block is on the left of the house, on the back of the house, and that's a two-familion. Everything else is similarly on the back. These are both the people of the Shiloh family house? Yes. What could be your personal family house? Yes. I mean, hearts and the set of them. Right now there's a two-pin living room, a two-pin living room, there's a new room. And they both need part in apartments, right? Correct. So it's going to be ten and a half years outside of the existing house, and then we're going to work out for our actions on the other side of the line. Any other comments or questions? Mayor, I'd suggest something, and only because I held your case about the sport. The FARs are difficult for us sometimes here, but I don't know the addicts, but throws it over sometimes. And it's pretty recent to the code that was added in there. And including the FAR, which consider eliminating the stair to the addict, putting a pull down stair into... We really... Aluminate. We have to step that. We would eliminate that square footage. Yeah, because it would need that. It's really heavy. It's like that square. You make that a condition. I know that there are a lot of ways. Correct. Do we have a request? To get you to do any counts? You know about whatever it is. Just counts. Do you know what it looks like? Did you do any calculations to do it or would that drop to the FAR2? Yeah, it's only. So it's, it's quite boring with it. It's quite a 3-line without it. It's 710 feet, and it's in the square foot. It's just not on the denial. Yeah, it's on. Sorry. So we'll take that and bury it on the table. No, it's still buried. Oh, it didn't exist in that as big. So was it a city that you are based on? No. I don't think so. It's because we do. No, it's because of the issues. Yeah. So, it's 0.39 instead of 0.48. If we do a, if we do a, if we do a, if we do a, if we do a, if we do a, if we do a, if we do a, if we do a, if we do a, if we do a, if we do a Any other questions or comments? I think the board is ready to vote, so if you guys may let us know in the comments. Okay. I look forward to approval of Katie's number case 1920 because she already permissioned to a supervision or partial into two single family go to the last one, at eight, the proposed lab with a frontage of 1633, 0 inches less than the minimum 75 feet, required were the lab beat, the proposed lab with a the total age of 62 feet per feet to reaches this list and the minimum 75 feet. We've filed a lap 8 that proposed a 0.4 F, as it exceeds the maximum commitment ratio of 0.5 R175 or 17.5 cent of the district at the promise of a 138-mile jail placed without 155-156-61 for every average. So if I look at the balance and test, we'll look at whether the salary change would be reduced the character of the laborable debt limit to the nearby properties like creating a variety of things. I've heard that some of the areas, pretty much, seem to look like houses are pretty much the same size as the parts of the cross-store. Whether the benefits show by the object they can be achieved by some method feasible for the object to be sure that they are there in as stated they take care of to be able to self-apply these two last years to be carried out as required and whether it's somewhat large is not significant. In the three, whether the request there are various is substantial, it can see the substantial, but other shocking senses and the neighborhood character, I think is the key to my opinion. We're in the Polar Barriers, we'll have an offensive factor, we'll unpack and we'll visit the law, we'll run the environmental condition in the neighborhood of Israel. That doesn't appear to be the case. In the last one, we're in the, that's difficult to be self-graded, which consideration is wrong, but that's not prepared to bring to the marriage. I guess you could say to yourself self-graded, because you know, the version of the lab, but in this case, it doesn't affect any of your balancing tests. So I move forward. It requires to be approved. Just to note that the board puts additional application to eliminate the attic from the west of the house, where they pulled down the stalemate and that will reduce the FAR right now to appoint the Second Yes, Fernando Areas Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, Next case is seen. Case 20, 2024, 473, do I have a hint? Good evening. My name is John DeVolani, and with the Nuziada Delani Design Consultants representing Clower and Rivera, pastor of the Virginia Salonsa Church located in 1973, north at the project before you as a proposed roughly 25-hundred square foot addition to existing church. That's located in Washington, New York Avenue. We presently, we renovated the church in 2013 with hopes to have some administrative or office spaces at the rear of the building. But as you can see, they're under the existing stage and they're also present in two exits at the rear of the building. Not practical use of the role of space so they're proposing a two-story addition. I would know a story and a half addition at the front of the building, the Black Belt Volsley proposed addition. We use all the spaces and for administrative use. They're not increasing the parishioners. The British are all going to stay the same, actually the people who are using the office spaces are parishioners. So they're employed by the church. They do a lot of outside work, a lot of charitable work outside the church. They use it for communications, administrative stuff, or charity events. We are upholding a five, we're required to put five spaces for the pressing variance for those five spaces. As you know, the church is a news on Wednesday nights, Friday nights in Saturdays. They've been in harmony with the municipal lot since 2013. I'm never in confliction with the parking. There's always well-fours. And a lot of the parishioners,ers are frankly from the neighborhood. They walk through the church. So the man is really like on part. So we're requesting a five-par variance, five-par semesters. Thank you. Any comments or questions in the morning? Thank you. Any comments or questions in the morning? So do you just want to stop the spaces? Well, one for Cloudart. She had originally individual design, a place they office, and won't fully sell in the basement underneath the stage of the church. She's never used to it. So her and three other administrative people were in the back of the building coming to the front of the building to use who are in the back of the building, coming to the front of the building to use office spaces in the front of the building. So, you're not hiring more people to do this? No. No increase in position as it's been the same, I mean they have increased but since ten years ago. What would you say to the number of vulnerable personers that have been able to do that one time? That's a good question. I take up 100, add a deal regularly. And why are there people parking now? Either on the street or, like I said, it's an office. It rains with the mist of the lot. It's in the rear of the church. Are they using some of those spaces? So this church is directly adjacent to the church. Yeah, I know where the exhibition is. The figures are set up. So this church is directly adjacent to the Garden of New Orleans nation, the Fagures of the South of the Park. That's like the majority of the Dismigiarity that don't be draught all. Is that like a permanent agreement with the city of New Hampshire? Do you have that point? Is it available? Paper. I recall more of an informal meeting. So we don't really know how many issues. We don't have any issues with those anyone. And it's never become an issue where the church couldn't walk down that other world. Any other comments, questions? In a. Sorry, I know the questions. I was being earlier and I couldn't tell it in 2013 or 2018 when there were some parking and granted. Some other missions. I believe in 2013 there was a request for two spots. One for Clara and one for another for one other employee of the church that are granted So I believe in 2013 there was a request for two spots. One for Clara, and one for other for another employee of the church that are granted at the rear of the structure. I believe it's just two spots. Better designated to them, but that's informal as well. I think because during all the hours of the people of Arkansas, it's not like it's signed or it's not there's no sort of designation there. There's more of an informal thing as well. Anyone else? Anyone make a motion on this one? I make a motion to approve case number 20-2024. Refugee of the Esperanza Inc. for permission to construct a one-story addition to an assisting church for the proposed zero-vision parking space is less than the memory of fire or flood spaces for the addition in a any zone district at the premises of 473 of that and lock number 822, lock number 19. In applying the balance and test that we're required to implement and where the benefit can be achieved by any other meaningful principle to the app. And this is actually an area that has been developed. And in this area, I think every business has that problem with parking. They have been operating for one in the space and they have some sort of a reading board. They part of the car behind the church and that has that information. It is actually hard to find parking in the area. On the side of the chain, you can see the neighborhood character of the instruments are made by properties. I think it's applied to this application, whether they request a substantial, they request this substantial. But like I said before, I was reading earlier, you know, getting a property for parking, that area is becoming harder and harder. And the applicant mentioned that a lot of their members to the church actually do not drive. Like I mentioned before, this is actually an issue in this area. Whether the list leds look at the set of created, in my opinion it is set created, but this is not a reason to deny that application and with all those considerations, everybody might have to be granted. Second. Clath 10s yeah? Yes, so just going to say that it's a beautiful job of a very unusual innovation in which we're proposing. Now remember this church is originally in Wartland and Presbyteria in Wartland, no part in it was. So this is where I actually think you want to save all the materials that I just read more from. We're using this stone, we're using everything so you also look exactly. Right. Yes. Pornado areas. Yes. Able Rodriguez. Yes. Has Boko come to you? Yes. Moshe's broke. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next tray for seasoning is a key shell banana and halas can. Let's begin. Next, take the seat. The seat is being held in an angle as can be seen. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. architect with offices in New Rochelle, New York. And I'm here with Mr. Wheel of Water. And we are here at the 18th Sheldon Avenue. 18th Sheldon, built in 1936, 88 years ago, where we are 110 A's of them. And we are basically proposing an addition of 219 square feet over the garage. 18 Sheldon is a 44 foot wide lot by 88 feet. It is very small and it's also very regular. If you look at this blue line here, this tramp is only shaped is where I can build this house. And this red rectangle here is where I propose the addition of the garage. We need four variances tonight, one for the FAR, which would be about 9% over the allowed. The other are yard variances for the rear, the side, and the combined yards. The yard variances may be considered pre-existing since my issue is just over the existing footprint. We are not increasing the existing house footprint It was our application. The house is about 1,400 square feet right now. We're proposing, like I said, a 218-king square feet. Right now, it's a three-bedroom, one-and-a-half-bed house. We hope to make it a four-bedroom, two-and-a-half-bed. As I said, this would be a 15% increase in the house size, where 147s were a feet over the FAR, which makes it a 9% FAR increase. This photo was important because it shows the adjacent house of 22 sheldon, and you could see that this house is staggered from the other houses and the way that Sheldon was subdivided. Here's an area of view and here's our house and you could see the way that interlaking behind us and Sheldon here were subdivided. You sort of followed the curve in the road. So a lot of the houses don't face each other in terms of the side yards. They're staggered so there's a lot of open air between the homes. And these are just unique to Sheldon and Interleking, which is our application for tonight. This is a close-up show on 18th Sheldon. And our addition is on the other side here with the garages. And we still have a lot of open space between the properties. This is a 3D or proposing tonight. This is the edition here with the approve and we pulled the edition back a little bit just to have a little bit of a overhang in the front and pull it back from the face to make it less pronounced from the street. We also created an overhang in the right side and added some scroll brackets to give it some balance and harmony with that existing house. This is from the rear. Coincidentally, the wires have always had a problem with the roof over that garage, especially in the snout it's been leaking. So the idea was to get them the extra space they need and get rid of that black roof. Views are rendering from the front. I think that if we look right on the house, we added some scroll brackets where we did the op-hang. So we have some scroll brackets here. And this would have your pet room addition. This is another front view from the house. Similar materials, similar side. No Bentley comes with this project. That's just something added to, it's a great good. Thank you. Thank you. This is the architect. That's the architect's vehicle. We also looked at some of the houses in the neighborhood, and this is a 25-sheldon. And they have a very similar type of additional with a garage full of fat from the front. Also, 30-sheldon has a hidden by the desk of all the court. But this was originally the garage on 30 children, and they did the same addition. If you left the shelf and turned around the web, this one has a recessed garage, but they also have that room above. So it does exist a few times in the neighborhood. I don't think that there's a better option for an addition on this house. Our lot slopes from front to back about 15 feet. So the only place for us really to have a good addition is on the right side of the garage. It's the most logical spawn for a first small addition to get them that extra better than what they need. Basically, it's if I may have skipped through this, but it's a better one. And there would be a bathroom and bag adjacent to the existing bathroom. And that's our edition for Tony. Thank you, John. Anyone from the audience for this piece? Yes, I have an open up to more questions. So John, again, just to reiterate all the yards, we're adjusting yards. I'm not creating any of them. Any now, we follow the existing yards. The only thing I did was I did go a foot over into this side yard because I felt it needed a break with a wrap around roof there, just with the overhand. Yeah, the overhand, I so not make this little too tall. Right. So that was the only area that we went into the yard. So this addition makes the house not much purpose. So the tolls where footage, the house right now is 1,4131. And I'm adding 218. so that would be very good. Okay, and it only brings you over by some of you who wanted to work here. Yeah, so I'm on 147. I actually have some FAR left on the house to work with. But I ended up short 147 feet which is 9% I know the building department ran 5% so we're within a 10% ratio, but it's a good increase on the house houses. It's more than 1,500 square foot house on 4,000 square foot long. I'm glad that I'm in the I think the board is ready to shoot the vote. 224 Neal Modfire for permission to build a second starting bedroom and bad vision of the existing garage for existing two-story one-family building whereas the proposed zero three-poche and 1,000, 6,000, 4,000, and a trophy. It's more than an actual committed of 0.251578 where is the proposed plus 23, 23 of your ship back is less than the minimum required of 27, approximately 10% of the regular shaped lot where is the proposed 4.6 billion ship back and the minimum of money. Existing non-conforming equals 4.6. Whereas, of course, 12.6 combined, so the year I said that, the minimum of money is between existing number 4 and 3.6 and the R1, 10A zone district. And the promises of the painting shall be having in block 1619, that we will have performing the final test. That is required for approval for various related approach point whether on the side of the change we've been produced and the character of an inter-hope for detriment to me of my properties will be created by grant to the neighborhood. There was some in the documentation provided. It looks like this is more efficient for the neighborhood and the answers to that. Well, the benefits of the idea of the condition, by some method, is feasible for the opportunity to be sure that the area varies. In this case, it looks like since there's a small addition on top of the garage, the area is a very important for this remote condition to continue, whether the requested area analysis is something that sometimes she'll somebody. Well, there's a couple of, but what I think is not. Number four, whether it's for the proposed parents, we'll have a very effective impact on the physical from the armenic condition of the neighborhood of the strip. That's an appeal to me. There's a 222, with a 2P existing property shows now, and the last one, where the new system is self-rearing, which is much more consideration as well as the best map to prove that I can live there. My idea was when you want something new that it was in the floor, just to sound like something to spray again, self-rearing, I understand substantial with the new system that I've been and extended the screen. So, for this, not substantial, it was not an effective, effective for the area. Based on that, I'll move forward to the next. Same. Bob sends ya? Yes. For an annual areas? Yes. A mobile region? Yes. Has club club deal? Yes. Motion? Yes. Fernando Areas. Yes. A move on, Regent. Yes. Pads, welcome. Yes. Motion. Good luck. We just have two administrative items left for the board. So for case number 25, that's 23. And we, Laura is asking, I was requesting a 12-month extension of the application. So I'll make a motion that, for case number 25, that's 2023, Harry Lawrend. This is for a permission to inform amendment to legalize the location of a sport court, constructed closer to the property line, that approved an installation of a six-foot high chain link fence at the premises of 3.74 triad and road, locked 31 and 11, and bought 60. This is to grant the orders request to extend the application for another 12 months. Second. Bob, Danielle? Yes. Fernando Areas? Yes. Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes And then we have one remaining case number nine 22 carol Lewis again the original question at 12 month extension for this application I make a Emotion and resolution be drafted case number nine 2022 carol Lewis This was for permission for our conversion of an existing three-story office building, not performing any use in the mental requirements to replace a worship, alteration of a rear-parking lot and creation of 40-valid parking spaces at the premises of Dree, the Boulevard, the walk A15, the walk 9. Again, this is to grant the order's request to of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the law of the I'll make a motion. Second. Second. Do we need some of our happy nights? We need to get a good song for our final show. Okay. Thanks everyone. Thank you.