I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do a little bit of the same thing. I'm going to do it. Good evening, everyone. My name is Fisquaprocopio and I want to welcome everyone to the deceiving to the October meeting for zoning here in Nureshel. I do want to introduce the rest of our team from our buildings, I'm sorry, for our board secretary, our original hair, to my right, from our buildings department, our commission, our buildings, Paul Vaca, to my left, from Nureshel Corporation Council, Don Warn, also to my left, and from our Planning Department, Kevin Kane, to my right. On the board this evening, we have Abel Rodriguez, to my right, Erica Aesnerf, also to my right, and Robert Stanzial, and to my left, David Fernandez. We do have five board members this evening. I do want to remind everyone that you will need four votes for a resolution to pass. So please keep that in mind. Just a couple of notes before we begin. For those speaking on an application this evening, before we begin, please state your name and address for the public record. We also ask if you speak for against an application that you summarize your comments and try not to repeat any point that was already made. You still can come up and state your name and that you agree with the previous speaker and there will be a three minute time limit for a per speaker this evening. I also want applicants to be aware that you have the right-tier journey your case for up to two times. So if you're represented by an architect or an attorney, please consult with them for a clear understanding of your options before a vote is taken. Since we do have only five board members tonight, I will ask if we want to proceed with a vote before we do so this evening. So please keep that in mind. We have moved to a paperless environment, so you might see the board looking at our laptops or other devices, so we are paying attention. And lastly, please remember that the board is obligated to grant the minimum variance and present a resolution only if a meet certain requirements set by New York State law. With that, I'm gonna ask unit, call the roll, please. Okay, this is just to let you know it's on the agenda if the applicants are here or not. So tonight we do have one adjourned case. It's case 13, 2024, for 196 Wilmot Road Rear. If anybody see it for that, that will be at the November meeting. First case tonight, it's case 23, 2024, 31, Calton Road is the applicant here. And opposition of voices to be heard on that. Case 25, 2024. 15, Ellen, to the avenue, the applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. Case 26, 2024. 5, interlink and avenue, applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard. Case 26, 2024, five interlink and avenue, applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard. Case 27, 2024, Glenmore Drive, the applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. Case 28, 2024, 190 Lincoln Avenue, the applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard. And case 29, 2024, 473 North Avenue, the applicant is here. Opposition, a voice is to be heard. And case 29, 2024, 473, North Avenue, the applicant is here. And opposition, a voice is to be heard on that. Okay, so tonight, the first case tonight is case 23, 2024, to us in place, member of New York, 50550, representing the applicant. I was just hoping to flip to the site plan here. So we have before you the proposal to install a new in-ground swimming pool 18 feet wide by 34 feet long in the rear yard of an existing one-family house. It's our 110A zoning district and the yard setbacks are such that essentially a compliant pool would only be about 9 foot 3 inches wide. So the basis for our ask tonight is to hopefully install a pool that is more useful to the applicant and can provide a usable space. In terms of the criteria, I'm just going to go through them. So the pool that's proposed is in the rear yard, it's fully enclosed by offense as well as having ever green screening proposed throughout the property. So it's our belief that there really would be no change to the character or the uniformity of the neighborhood with the installation of this pool. The benefits sought by the applicant really can't be achieved in another method and that's due to the fact that again the pool can really only be about nine feet wide without a variance. And so that's the reason for the ask. The variances requested, we don't believe they're substantial. The proposed yard setbacks are 20 feet. We're proposing 14 foot one, 15 foot 10 on each side. And then the rear yard is 17 foot 10. The proposal also includes the installation of a storm water management system, as well as erosion control systems during the construction, the installation of significant plantings. So we really believe that there won't be any adverse or negative effect on the neighborhood environment as well. Lastly, I do want to mention that the variance request is self-created and that the applicant has requested a pool. But we believe it would be a benefit both to the applicant as well as the neighborhood and raising the property value and providing, you know, a landscape and well-appointed backyard. And with that, is there any questions from the board? Thank you. Just a quick note. We did receive some, I guess, letters from some support from various neighbors. So we did receive those. Thank you. Thank you for bringing that up. Yes, we did. And I'm sorry I didn't have them sooner, but we did get three letters from the adjacent neighbors, hopefully supporting the application. It was all support. Thank you. Okay. I'll open up to the board. Any questions, comments? Shaheen, the, um, it's chairman mentioned earlier as you know, where the board is tasked with granted a minimal variance in this and I understand the night foot envelope that you're left with and with and I do appreciate you designed you kept in line with the house and I think that's a very appropriate what you've done here and I do I really don't have any problem with the side yards being honest with you but is there any consideration of making this pool a little bit shorter in order to bring the re-arter to compliance to comply with the 20-yard, 24-year et cetera? We did explore that option. The reason for the ask was just to provide a distance that would be long enough essentially to provide lapse. So that was the nature behind it. It is the smallest variance of all three of them. I do understand the concern. It is something that we could possibly explore. I would appreciate it. Thank you. I have the kind of the same comment of, regarding the rear variants. I know it's an odd shape kind of the same comment of regarding the rear variants. I know it's an odd shape kind of property and part of the pool is in compliance. But the three feet, I think there's something that could be probably done to eliminate that variance or reduce it. Understood. Any other comments or questions? One more question, Shrehenadek, is existing? It is existing and it's significantly higher than the pool. Right. That was my other comment or concern in this, just like if we could breathe out a conformance that was my other comment or concern in this, just like if we could bring that in form and say it was my other concern. Does no other comments or questions? Any comments? Do you want to pursue an O, you want to take a look at this? I didn't know if we were going to open up to the public. I was going to speak with the applicant at that time. Yeah, you can speak with them. Just remember there's there's only five members on the board so you need four votes. Thank you. Okay. I don't think there was anybody here else to speak. Anybody in the audience want to speak on this case? No. Okay. If I may, if the board sees a fit, we would modify our application to reduce the length of the pool in order to provide a compliant rear yard. I'm not sure if the board needs to see that in drawings, but we would definitely make that proposal. I think the drawings need to be redone, sorry. Yeah. Okay. Understood. And I, I, we notice too. I think, uh, we don't. No, it doesn't, if it's the lesser of variance, you do not have to re-notice. Oh great. Thank you. It would just be, I put a, the sign would get fixed to the next case. Okay. Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Next case tonight. Case 25, 2024. 15, Ellen, 10 Avenue. Thank you so much. You have no problem. Okay. Let's go. Okay. Good evening Chairman and Board. My name is Danielle Davido. I am the principal at pencil projects architecture studio. We are located at 981 Main Street in Nuresh out. I'm also here tonight with my client Liz Beth Barara. And I'm just gonna walk you through a little backtrack on the property. My client purchased the property in 2022. And the existing lot is in our R175 zone and we are significantly undersized for the lot requirements. So where a 75 foot wide lot is required, we have 33 feet and where a 7,500 square foot lot is required, we have 3300 square feet. So just as I was mentioning, my client purchased the property in 2022 and when we filed to perform some interior modifications to the kitchen, some upgrades, it was flagged that the existing enclosed front porch had not been legalized. We were able to track back through the GIS mappings that it has been an enclosed porch since at least 2000. The GIS doesn't let us go back further than that. So there are four of the variances are directly related to the enclosed porch and I can run through them if you want me to do that. And then also one is in regards to the parking situation as well. So the lot, as I have mentioned, is significantly narrow. So there's no way to kind of have a accessory garage in the rear where you can drive by. There's actually nowhere on the lot at all to have an accessory garage. So there is two parking spaces in the front lawn where the code requires a six foot setback from the property line to the parking. We have zero because that parking is right up against the property line to the parking, we have zero because that parking is right up against the property line. The other four are directly related to the enclosed porch. One is a required five foot separation between the parking and the house where we have a three and a half. A side yard setback where six feet is required. We are provided we have five. Also for the lot coverage, so the lot coverage maximum is 50% were at 53%, but that's again kind of due to the size of our lot and the floor area ratio by enclosing that porch. Our floor area ratio goes up to 53%, where 33% is allowed, but again, kind of due to the fact that our lot is 3300 square feet versus 7500 square feet versus 7,500 square feet. As far as the five principal points go, we don't believe that this would create an undesirable change to the neighborhood. Like I said, it's been there since at least 2000, and many of the houses on the street. I think we did include some photos, have all also enclosed there from porches. So it's very consistent with the aesthetic and the neighborhood. We really can't achieve the variance or the proposal in any other way since the house was purchased this way. The variance being substantial, I think that that kind of again, directly relates to the undersized lot. So we are asking for the FAR at, you know, a significant percentage, but again, due because of the undersize of the lot. We don't believe that this will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Again, it's been there for decades. And this difficulty was not self-created as my client purchased the property this way in 2022. So if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them for you. Thank you. I'll open it up to the board members. Any questions or comments? So the the front parking spaces that you show and I'm just going to switch the other plan for a second. Sorry, two seconds. How deep are the spaces? Because you show an NX for the parking space on your plan. And I guess that's drawing number, which drawing number is that? I guess it's on sheet 17 of your set. Yeah. The space is from the property line to where we show the front that's set back from the house. 18 feet. It is 18 feet. OK. So it's a stand. It's a meets the required parking space. It does. Yes. We tried to pull it back as much as we could from the house to even if we were to try to shave off a little, but then it really doesn't give us a substantial spot and we don't want to be overhanging in the sidewalk either. Right. So it's a little deceiving because on the drawing the box, the rectangles with the X through them looks like it goes over the front property line. Yes, you're right. It does look that way, but that is not the case property line. Yes, you're right, it does look that way, but that is not the case. Okay, that's just the paved area, you show. Yeah. Thank you. So with respect to the close porch, I know that a lot of the Valentin Avenue is a lot of houses that are having closed porches and a lot of people picked up extra space on that block for that so Like quite I don't see it when I have a problem with that I do have a problem with the two parking spaces that a lot of the houses have single parking spaces But the two the two spaces in front of the house just looks a little Looks like a little too much asphalt from the house to me, so that's my only comment. The only problem with that is because of the narrowness of our lot, we're not able to get a driveway or a garage behind the house which would be ideal to be able to pull through, so that really only gives us... No, understand that, but they were built without spaces originally so right Any other comments And one of the audience want to speak on this case So I agree with My board member here in terms of the enclosed porch kind of fits in with the neighborhood just I think you gave plenty examples with other homes on the street having closed porches it is an undersized lot so whatever you do there it's gonna go over the FAR in terms of the two parking spaces though kind of greenery was removed like there was you know long there and That kind of does impact the neighborhood somewhat in terms of what it looks like it looks like a park on a foreign house there So that that that is also my concern I know other board members feel about the I would like to know that the lot coverage were only 3% over the required or the allowable lot coverage. So even though we're severely undersized, we're still very close to meeting that maximum coverage. If we could pull around the back and put them back there, we'd be. We could shift the household. But it's very close. Yeah, I actually have a similar concern. around the back and put them back there. We should shift the house over there. Yeah, I actually have a similar concern. I mean, you actually are 3% over the impervious area, which is by putting that block top where there was grass at one point. I think those spaces there, just like overpowering. It's like you go in there, it's just like just two parking spaces. And you know I know the lot is not a large lot but I I feel that the two parking spaces they just overpower everything there where you can actually in my opinion you can just do one parking space and then just add some green space and make the house more the the size as well. Would you consider a pervious behavior so that when there isn't a car there, it would look a little bit more green space and then when they are home and need some more to put their vehicles, they would have two spaces? No, for me I think it's the effect that it would be too coarse park there, whether it's impervious or pervious from IP. So. And it will have any comments about this application. I also share the same concerns. Is that something that you would like to kind of speak to your client and see if there's to be any adjustments? I have a choice. So if that's the only way that will be approved, I don't think that there's a way around that. Well, we're suggesting that you take a moment look at it. To see maybe we can reconsider something else. That's what we're saying. No guarantees if you come back with something else, that's what I'm trying to say. I'm out of my mind. There are so I don't know what else we would be able to do. There's nowhere else that we can park on the site. So if it's only one spot then that's what. Okay. So you're looking to adjourn this evening? Yeah. We move forward but wait I'm sorry. So you want the board to vote to vote tonight on this application without coming back and trying to regroup it. We're willing to go down to one parking spot. You did not how it works out. That doesn't mean it's going to be approved either. You'd have to adjourn, give us a new drawing with a new spot or whatever it is you want to do. And then you would have to come before the board again and talk to them. And that's not hold on. You're not always going to get approved. Hold on. Hello If you reduce this to one parking space I want you to look at 331 126 E5 A through E 331 126 E5 A3 if you can check off all five of those boxes Which you can't do now You don't have to return to this board. What? No, he's so important. You're one by the porch. Oh, I'm sorry, for the enclosed porch for the FAR you do. But not for the parking. Okay. Okay, but I'm okay. So are you asking to adjourn till November? Sure. I need you to actually state that. Yes, will adjourn. Thank you. Okay. Next case. Case 26, 2024, 5 interleak and avenue. The next one is the sun. I hit the wrong one. There's clear. 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. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. The application before you seeks an area of variance to legalize an existing enclosed porch in a single family home in an R1-10A district. The house was built in 1930, achieving a COO in 1931. It is similar in design to its five adjacent neighbors on Interlock and Avenue, a two-story dwelling with a protruding garage on the cellar level which protrudes towards the street with open porch structures above the garage. The current owner purchased the home as is in 2023. It appears the previous owner enclosed the porch prior to 2004, likely after 1990, based on the grainy satellite images. Our neighbor, immediately adjacent to us, was granted a variance for a similar porch enclosure, a larger porch enclosure, and that variance from 1992 had a condition of keeping the enclosed porch structure a minimum of 12 feet from the property line. Today we are requesting an accessory front yard variance of 4 foot 7. The required accessory front yard variance is 20 foot 0 inches. Being existing in closed porch structure is 15 foot 5 inches from the front property line. Much greater than 12 feet of our adjacent neighbor. We do not believe that legalizing this existing porch will cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood. The porch has existed since 2004 and is similar in bulk to the adjacent neighbors on interlock and avenue. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible. It's existing. The house was built under the original 1925 zoning regulation Can not be achieved by some other method feasible. It's existing The house was built under the original 1925 zoning regulation. It's an underside lot to today's standard and Any extension on this house or any enclosure on this house would require a valiance in any direction, front, side, or rear. The good news is that the porch enclosure was built above the existing building footprint, therefore not increasing the additional lot coverage. Is the variance substantial, only a portion and on the drawings, you can see the hatched area of 39 square feet. Only a portion of the encloach porch is non-compliant. It's about 28% of the porch floor area that is non-compliant and only about 3% of the first story square footage. We don't believe this will have an adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions as there are similar bulk conditions on the front facades of our adjacent navelers. It does not increase the lot coverage and does not impact storm order management as it was in existing ports there before. And this was not a self-created difficulty while the owner bought this in 2023, the construction the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the process of the Thank you. Was there any opposition to it or somebody want to come up? I don't think so. There was no opposition. I'll open it up to the board. I do actually want to have one question. Prior to enclosing the porch, the existing garage was in the same location. It didn't extend the garage into the front yard or anything. No, we didn't have. Thank you. That was my question. Anyone else? Prior under Didi, they could they go as it stood there. Okay Any questions or comments So that was just an open porch before Doug or something is previously must be in the property car shows as an open open Terrors of some sort now it's a it's a finish room though from the interior finish. Yes I'm the questions Anyone else Does anyone want to make a motion on this? Thank you. Oh, we're gonna pursue it about sorry. Thank you. Good I make a motion to approve. Case number 26, 20, 24. More, Kuzorak, for permission to legalize and insisting non-conforming in close porch above and a system, walls and floor. Legalized assisting, whereas the proposed 15.5 from your setback for the enclosed porch is less than the 20 feet required. in R1-10A zone district at the premises of 5 interlach avenue, Black number 1619, Latin number 27. And applying the balancing test that we are required, and whether the benefit can be achieved by other main physical to the applicant. The owner purchases property with dense closed porch. Actually, there is not all the way to change this configuration or to enter down the porch. On the side of the changes, enable a character or the true maintenance nearby properties. There is actually a property next door, which has a similar situation, which it was approved with certain condition. From looking at the application, it looked like only 39% I mean, 39 square feet are actually above the size requirement. With the request we have a very physical environmental effect. In my opinion I don't think so. With a large difficulty was self-created. No, it was not. The owner actually purchased the house with that violation. In my opinion, it was the owner responsibility to look into whether that was legal or not, but at this point, I don't think that's the reason for denying this application. With all of those considerations, I'd request this variant to be granted. Second. Bob Stenziel. Yes. Abel Rodriguez. Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Eric DeAzner. Yes. Haskell Porcopio. Yes. Motion. Good. Good. Hasqa Polkopio. Yes, motion. Good luck. Next case case 27, Glenwood Drive. Good evening, everyone. John Woodruff, the architect with offices in New Rochelle, New York. Good evening, everyone. We're here with a proposed new home construction on a vacant lot on Glenmore Drive. We need an area variance for a lot frontage of 75 feet wide where 100 is required. That's the only variance that we need and we meet all the other zoning criteria. This lot on Glenmore is directly across the street from the Daniel Webster School entrance. It's a great neighborhood with a lot of brick tutors and some incredible architecture. Here's our building lot in the center and we are to the left of 41 Glenmore Drive which is a tutor This is our building lot you can see 41 Glenmore on the left We were reviewed by the planning board last week on Tuesday and we received a positive recommendation for the application. This is our denial, which shows that we only need variance for a lot with. We are proposing a four bedroom, three and a half bath house, about 3,000 square feet. And we're sort of mirroring the other houses on the street by having a two car garage in the back. And this is our floor plans for the house. Like I said, four bedroom, three and a half bath, about 3,000 square feet. The house would be a tutor style to match the neighborhood with half timbering and wood accents and a brick facade. I'll go back to the side plan here. Basically the driveway would be on the right side of the house and we'd have a small little hammerhead turnaround so that people could back into the garage and we'd have a small little hammerhead turn around so that people could back into the garage and come out nose first out on the Glenmore Drive. The driveway would be 12 foot wide, three feet on the right from the property line. So it would be about 21 feet from the main house here and about 18 feet at the closest point. This is a perspective drawing of the house. You can see this is the front on Glenmore and then we'd have this driveway going back with our hammerhead and our two car garage in the back similar to most of the other houses on the street. That's a rear elevation. So we'd come in and pull into the hammerhead here and we'd have a patio in the back and Basement stair and then this would be the entrance to the mudroom That you could enter from behind house and then right across the street is the Daniel Webster School This is a street scape of what it would look like So this is the original 1923 subdivision map showing our property. And at that time in 1923 when all the houses were built, the lot was only 50 feet wide, which was 101 years ago. So this subdivision was done 101 years ago. So this subdivision was done 101 years ago. Then in 1977, the owner at the time came in and reapportioned that 50-foot wide lot to be 75-foot wide. So he made it a buildable lot at the time and the lot line was moved to create a building lot. And this was the actual document that was in the Taxicessor building lot. And this was the actual document that was in the Tax Accessors office. And this was the actual survey that they submitted at the time. Here's the old lot line of the 50 foot wide and then they made it larger to be 75 foot wide creating a building lot. Now interestingly enough, here is Glenmore Drive, and this is CalHoon here, and this is our subject property, which is 75 pi 135. And then we have adjacent lots, three in a row here, that are all 75 foot wide, and then you have an 80 foot wide, and then you have another 75 foot wide and then you have an 80 foot wide and then you have another 75 foot wide. So there's four adjacent lots that are 75 feet wide which is exactly the width that we're proposing for the new house. These are some of the great magnificent homes on this block. This is 23 Glenmore which is 75 foot, which is right next to us. 75 foot wide is 17 Glenmore, a beautiful colonial, stuckle colonial. Here's a brick colonial. This one has 13 Glenmore, and this is 80 foot wide. And this is our proposed home that we're hoping that you consider tonight. In terms of the balancing act, how we meet the criteria of the balancing points, I think that this house would fit in perfectly with the character of the neighborhood. A tutor just fits over there. We have 75 wide lots, which I think would be very similar. I think it's not a substantial variance. There are many similar lots on the same side of the street that are 75 wide. We won't create any adverse environmental effects. Apparently this lot has been suffering from some ponding and flooding, and we'd be remedying that by doing some soil erosion dry wells that we'd be adding to the property and construction of the new house. Is there any other benefit in order for us to achieve the variance? I don't think so, that there's any other benefit in order for us to achieve the variance? I don't think so that there's any other pathway that we could take. It is, you know, we only need the one variance for the lot with. And we would be handling some of the drainage on the property and is also as itself created. And it may be self-created and it may be self-created but at some point the owner went in in 1977 and filed a proper paperwork to make it a buildable lot so he did create a buildable lot back in 1977 and that's our application. I managed to meet with the neighbors at the site yesterday. We discussed drainage. I met with the president of the Glenwood Lake Association, and we talked about a 100-year-old tree there, which is an important specimen tree. Those were two items that we really spoke about closely at the site, and we've definitely agreed on some things. But I think maybe the neighbors would want to speak now, at some point. Yes, I think there were some people here who wanted to speak. I'm the case. Thank you. Okay, Stephanie Krieger. You want to speak? So, where are the neighbors at? Okay. Oh, I see. Just state your name and address for the record. 29 Glenmore Drive, where the neighbors at, we spoke with Mr. Woodruff yesterday. We have a number of concerns of when I'm going to speak to is the 100 year old tree, which kind of looks like it's in the rendering, but would likely be killed by the plan. As of aerial views from at least 1947, this Elm tree has been there. It borders the property line, but has been cared for by our property for at least 15 years, protecting it from Dutch-owned disease. In talking to Arborist, the current proposal would likely kill the tree. Trees old growth, trees like this are obviously good for climate change. They help protect against flooding, add to the character of our block, shade our house, etc. Prior to us sending the note, no one addressed this tree that would likely be damaged or have to be clear-cut as a neighbors. This concerns us because this is a problem that if it's damaged we won't know about it for three to five years based on the arborist and then it would be our and the new homeowners problem to deal with as the developer would be would be gone. We would really ask that if the variance is granted one of the concessions be that they work with an arborist and us to determine what is the best plan of action for this tree, ideally trying to protect it if possible, and if not working with us to come to some agreement as to how we would manage the tree during the construction. That's it. Thank you. Thank you. Next person, Jesse Loffer. Good evening. Nice to have you name and address for the record. Jesse Laufer, also at 29 Glenmore Drive, right next door. So I want me to talk about the flooding that we've noticed since we moved into the property two some years ago, most rain events aside from the lightest ongoing rain, like we had the last couple of days, otherwise any moderate or more rain will produce significant ponding over a large portion of the property. And so our concern is any development that happens there is gonna end up pushing that water onto neighboring properties. Right now, our basements, you know, knock on wood or dry a lot of the basements in gun more lake in the area are not. And so we would like to maintain that and not have a development go up and then have water problems down the road if we don't get a good rain. Then it's just again, it's a problem between us and the next homeowner. There is some just anecdotal discussions that people in Glenwood have had, people in new constructions in the area that met the drainage requirements. They moved into the house and they're still having water problems. And so we're worried that meeting that minimum, where the incentive to build a house and sell it is to meet whatever minimum requirement is, we're worried that the minimum requirement just isn't enough and certainly might not be enough in five years or ten years. And it's going to be someone else's problem, our problem, and the new homeowner's problem. So we would just like that to be taken into consideration. We're not the reality of where home building is now. I mean, likely a house is going gonna go up there at some point. We would just like it to be done properly and with consideration for the neighbors and the neighborhood and the character of the neighborhood. You know, I'll second the tree that makes, you know, these renderings very welcoming and beautiful and it's gonna be, you know, dead and hopefully not falling on a house or we have to just cut our losses and try to chop it down, not even try to save this 100-year-old tree. You know, it's an unfortunate situation that we seem to be in and hopefully there's some remedy to that. Also, I just want to mention that there's, I mean, the current owner, as I understand it, through the records online, is the same owner of 41 Glenmore at the corner that currently has a stop work order. And so, I mean, I understand that there's a different potential owner that's petitioning for this, but right now, the owner of both of these lots, the one that has a building on it has a stop work order. So, it just seemed unusual to me that someone else was asking for permit to build when the same owner has a stopper quarter. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next person, Alison Rivers. Hi. Stop by stating your name and address please. Allison Rivers, 147 store avenue. I'm also a resident of the beautiful Glenwood Lake neighborhood. I echo the concerns that my neighbors, Stephanie and Jesse shared. I personally believe that there should not be a house built on this lot. I understand that most of the homes on Glenmore are already 75 foot lots, but the building code was changed for a reason. Most of our homes have significant flooding problems in the neighborhood. I don't know many neighbors who do not have chronic flooding problems in garages, basements, in yards. I think that we need more green space. Mr. Woodruff is talking about how beautiful the neighborhood is. Well, no longer be beautiful when we start cramming in houses. And there are lots of lots in the neighborhood that someone could argue a house could fit on, but it would require, again, wiping out green space and killing many mature trees. We have so much flooding problem already and the character of the neighborhood is declining by current existing residents already ripping down mature trees and putting in like tiny arbor vites that have no ecological benefit and cannot nearly absorb the rainwater that these 100 year old specimens can. So I personally believe that the variance is there for a reason, right? We don't have to have a new house there. To me this is very different than something that's been existing for years and years and we're just looking to legalize it or slightly modify a home that's already there to add a new structure into the lot. Very likely could cause more flooding to the surrounding neighbors and people down the hill and we won't know that until after the construction is long gone and the architect and developer and everyone are out of the picture. So I personally believe that the code has been changed to require a larger lot for a reason. When we add into the impact of climate change and the are, you know, very strong awareness of flooding in the neighborhood that we really should be mindful of that and maintain the necessary variances. We see that there's already flooding there, we know there's flooding on most of our neighbors properties, my property included, I'm not impacted directly by that one, but again the entire area. And I do really think that the character of the neighborhood will suffer by adding another home in where technically it is too small. And that's for a reason. And I believe there are other mature trees on the lot that would also have to be removed in addition to the album potentially being damaged or removed. My one other concern is that this is directly across the street from the entrance of the school that Mr. Woodruff is showing as a benefit, right? But my concern is it's a very congested compact area right now. It's already overloaded with cars. We have a lot of safety and traffic concerns at drop off and pick up time and to have construction vehicles coming in and out and a house being built directly across the street, there's really not space for that to be safely done. Thank you. Thank you. Would anybody else like to speak? Please come up. Oh, okay. Say your name and address for the record? Jerome Yizer at 40 Hally Drive, New Rochelle, 10801. I agree with everything that was said. My house is directly behind this proposed house that is being built. The flooding in the yard has already been affecting our garage. We've lost a ton of things in the garage because our garage has flooded Quite a bit you see the water comes it even Comes through my fence that separates that land in mine So we my concern. I do have to I should have same concern is how this work is going to be done and how it's going to affect us With that wreckly behind it any and how it's going to affect us with directly behind it. Any digging, anything that's going on will affect my property. And that's just that's a major concern for my wife and I and our children at the air and they play and I got children come. So it is a big concern for that. That's it. Thank you. Good evening all. My name is Ike Moukike. I own the property at 44 Holy Drive and my property just like Mr. Yes is right at the back of this proposed building. I have similar concerns as those of my neighbors. Most importantly for me is the fact that my garage is right at the back of this particular property and I absolutely am sure there will be lots of privacy because of the way the garage will build because I just don't see how it two-carat will fit in that small lot. And also my neighbors also mentioned the flooding and the fact that this particular small space is right in front of Daniel Webster. Now my kids went to Daniel Webster and I see the traffic in and out of that small space. So I'm just wondering how it is will be able to fit another house, another property right in front of the school. A question about variances, for the life of me, I just don't understand how it is. I mean, the rules are there for a reason. I just don't understand how it is. I mean, the rules are there for a reason. I mean, if 100 feet is required, why are we considering 75 feet as appropriate? Especially given the fact that there's question of flooding, question of this being right in front of Daniel Webster's tool. And also, you know, what it might mean in terms of property value for the future. And other environmental concerns that go beyond climate changes. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And just to know, every property owner and taxpayer has the right to come up in front of the board and appeal a variance. So everyone has the right to do that. So that's why they're here tonight. Thank you. Any other speakers tonight? OK, so let's just go through a couple of things. Number one, we're a totally new owner. Nothing to do with 41 Glenmore. It's a contract Vendee purchase. It would be a different builder. VJ Prasad is a builder, lives in Newer Shalon, overlook. I built his house and I know his work and he does great work. Maybe I'll just talk about the tree first and you can see that from my site plan. And this is the specimen tree. I put it in red here and we have not gotten a tree survey yet. We're in the process of getting that. It appears as if the tree is on the line of the property. It's right on the property line. So we're worried about the extension of the roots, and the way of design the house is that I would have a 21 foot width at that tree line. So we are in touch with the arborist, Stephanie and Jesse Krieger, on the right side, let us know about the tree. We're talking to James Johnson, the arborist at Bartlett Tree, and hopefully we can get back and get a reading on this tree. It's an awesome tree, It's a hundred years old. It looks like a Wizard of Oz tree with these big giant roots sticking out at the bottom. I was planning to bring my driveway up alongside of this tree. If I could without destroying the root system, American Elm tree, it's about a hundred years old. Elms are invasive trees for foundations because they do break foundation walls. So it is an interesting tree. It's split in the middle. We really want to get the arborists to look at this and as a condition we definitely do that. I also mentioned to them that I will be doing a landscape plan for the planning board. I could plant similar trees if they wanted. We could talk to them about screening in the rear or the side. We're happy to do that. We have to plan additional trees on this site based on our impervious surfaces. For every 200 square foot of house, we have to add a tree. So we'd be happy to discuss with the neighborhood what type of trees should go in and whether or not we can save this tree. Like I said, I called the arborist this morning, I left a message, so we're talking to them right now. Let's go back to the flooding issue. That was something that we discussed at the site and talked to the owners about. And one of the things that we thought would help right off the bat is to do a gravel driveway. And that would also help with the root system at this tree location to do this all in gravel so that we drain properly. We also talked to the builder and would do pervious flagstone pavers. So that would also help drainage on the site. I believe based on the site, it's having some ponding right in the middle. I spent a lot of time as a home inspector and one of the first things I would do was before even went into the house, I would stand in front of the lot and say, let's look at the lot and see how well it's pitched. And if you do that on the Glenmore lot, you'll see that it slopes right down in the middle about a foot. And that's where the ponding is staying. I think a lot of it has to do with the rating on the lot. I went to the Westchester County website and I printed out the topographical map of what the neighborhood looks like and here's our site. I know it's hard to read a little bit of these numbers but you'll see this area right in the middle where this kind of like a little bit of a hook. That hook is where the water ponds, and that's a low area. The house directly to the right of us is at 150 elevation. Daniel Webster School across the street is at 150 elevation. We're at 148. And the site does slow back somewhat to the gentleman who is here who's on Holly Drive directly behind us, and here's his garage at the back. It's a very deep lot, 135 feet. We would be doing some grading on this lot, reconfiguring things, putting in new dry wells. I talked with the neighbors and they said, but we want dry wells above what the city wants. We want to really make sure that there's no flooding here. And I agree. But once we hire our soil engineer, we use Hudson engineering in Elmford, they come out and they do test pits on the property. And they'll go to four locations, five locations, they dig a hole, and then they put water in it, and they time how well the water drains in those holes. Then they get a drainage coefficient, it's called a percolation test. Once they get that percolation test, they multiply that by the size of the lot and they design their dry wells accordingly. If I have bad soil, like clay soil, which doesn't drain very well, you get more dry wells. If I have good soil, which drains really well, then you get the minimum criteria or what the city will accept. So I leave it up to the soil engineer who will be coming in designing the dry wells for the site. He will take care of all the water on this site. It will still be there, but it will be under the ground. So you won't see a big pond there. It won't be going to neighbor's properties that will all be contained on our property. But if you look at this map, it really will tell us who is low and who is high. Here's Webster Avenue. Back here, it's very low. It's about four feet lower than our site. Here's Calhoun Avenue here. It's about four foot lower than our site. We are high ground. We're not at 150 like our neighbor to the right But we're very close to that. So I don't think it's a bad site, but it just hasn't been touched in years. It needs regrading. It needs dry wells on the site Let's see what else I can tell you about the drainage. Offering the pervious pavers and also the gravel driveway will help because the gravel driveway in itself will hold any water below grade. I think it will also help the brute system of the variance, I believe that this lot was really set up to be built on in 1977. And once they put that apportionment application and it became a building lot and just was never realized as a building lot. And as I said before, in my balancing points, I think it's great for the neighborhood. We're going to help the flooding. I saw pictures that they submitted to the board with the flooding. And I said, we can relieve this by making it be subsurface water. And we won't have duck swimming there eventually. And we're willing to work as a condition with the arborist and with the landscape plans and all the planning board issues that would be involved with building a new house. The other thing too, I told the neighbors is I don't really have to show a new house. I designed this house because I think it fits very well there and the only way I'd want to build in this area is if we did a really striking tutor that matches the neighborhood. And I think that's part of what makes this a nice proposed house for this neighborhood is that it would fit in very well and we get to fix the drainage and hopefully save a very nice tree. Thank you. Thank you. There was one other item in terms of, and I don't know who manages this in terms of site construction. Like, you know, what hours could be worked, could be avoid the mornings or maybe the afternoon is kind of things. So is that managed by the building department poll or? It is. It's a construction in terms of working on the property deliveries and, you know, doing school hours. There was some concern about safety and traffic. We could request a traffic management plan. There is severe traffic on this block during drop-off and pickup. I've been there many times personally during those times, so I understand the concerns. So that would be part of a condition in terms of... If submitting a traffic management plan? Absolutely. The city does have construction hours though. We do have construction hours. We do have construction hours. There are 8 a.m. I think 7 a.m. to 5 or 8 a.m. to 8 something. But as an extra level of protection, we can certainly make that a condition. Okay. If you choose to grant this. Absolutely. We have a contact. Thank you. John. I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. I can't get you. I don't want to go ahead. John, one thing for us. When was the zone changed in this art 10? It was an R7-5 or something like that before. It was an order. Yes. In early 2000s or something or? Yeah, two. OK. So again, as you mentioned, was conforming a lot at one point. I'm going to suggest a couple things. And again, this is up to you. I'm going to suggest that I will wait for the arborist report to take a look at it to see what comes out of that and what suggestions. Also, I know this is something that the planning board does look at in more detail with respect to the building department reviews and public works as well on private property, the building department. But I think you should give the concerns of the neighbors, mostly drainage, that you should have a drainage plan now at this point to present to the zoning water at least so we can look at the building department can review it in satisfaction to at least let the zoning board know that he's happy with the drainage plan on the site so we can go forward since as a major concern of the neighbors here in my mind. Speaking of the process. No, I agree. It's all something we need to do. We're a contract mandate also, so we're hoping to add some kind of, you know, we have a time limit in terms of purchasing the property. No, understood. And it has more money into the engineering things like that. So we're just worried about engineering times to get those things together and to serve and a tree survey. The owner was interesting because we talked about it. And they said, well, if that tree is going to possibly be affected by the construction, then let's just cut it down. Because I don't want you to leave as a builder and have us left with a tree that we have to cut down or fight with a new neighbor. So I think they were very realistic about that. And also our drainage, I've come with many applications before the board. And there's no way to do a house without the proper drainage. We told them that these engineers calculate these dry wells for these sites and their professionals. They have state licenses, right? They have to really do the right thing or they're liable. So. No, I just said, but it's more the calculating the dry wells and the, I mean, like a site plan showing Creating drainage, how the drain, how the water's not going to drain on the other properties That was also a concern with respect to that so anyway, understand just I'm sorry, you can't speak out loud, sorry, have come up to the microphone Come back up to the microphone. Yeah, you can step up Please remember we hear for variants we're not the planning board just to remind everybody Jesse Luffer again, 20 on Glimore Drive next door. We did discuss the tree, we didn't say let's just cut it down and cut our losses. We're struggling with the idea of is it going to be our problem and our future neighbor's problem cutting it down and they do want to cut it down now. Is that something that we have to do? We're forced into. It seems like the option to try to save the tree just doesn't really exist unless we put ourselves at significant financial risk or personal injury risk of this thing eventually dying and falling down who knows? Do we have to cut it down now or, you know, we're on the hook. A developer is coming in, wants to build it and they kind of can light a three to five year fuse that they don't have to worry about because like day after closing, they can leave. And so we are, and we do appreciate, we know that they don't have, nobody has to say, like we have to, we don't have to concern ourselves with you at all. We appreciate that he came and talked to us at the, at the lot, but certainly we didn't want to just be portrayed as like oh they're practical. Let's just chop that tree down, it's not really a big deal. We'd like to do a weekend to save that and if that's an option that's something we're trying to wrestle with now, can it be saved or not? And the timeframe of that, which everyone here except for us that live on the block, we have to deal with the timeframe on which 100 year old trees die and fall into houses. The builder doesn't. In addition, I also think since the flooding was discussed additionally, thinking about the area of the lot and the perk test and the area of the lot, I think the lot is not just dealing with the rain water on its area. It's dealing with rain water that's coming off of other lots as well. And I don't know if that gets taken into consideration. I do know that lots nowadays have to manage their own water, but our lot didn't, when it was built, and that's just kind of how things work. And so this property that's been undeveloped for 100 plus years as the neighborhood has developed has kind of been a retention pond for other properties in the area. And so I don't know if this water study, the soil study will take that into account where the water is coming from aside from just the direct rainfall onto that rectangle. So I just wanted to mention that as well. Thank you. Thank you. And just to be clear, number one, the planning board has made a positive recommendation to this application. And if it is approved this application, it does go back to the planning board for site plan approval and review. So there are still multiple steps here before the Dean can start construction. So just to let you everybody know. Any other comments or questions? Let's see everybody know any other comments or questions Sorry, I hit a pita dead horse, but I do want to Reiterate my property is behind it and it is not above grave my property is below Great my driveway slopes down away from his property. He did mention that so you, yeah, I hope you like it. He did mention that. He made that clear yesterday. Well, it was down that way. He said, yeah. Thank you. OK, the simply we don't allow people to come back up. But if you have one more question, we'll allow. The question is, because I did discuss the fact that the garage, I think it's going to be right by my fence, right? If I understand the building plan correctly. I mean, I have a question regards to privacy, and I have a question regards to safety concerns and so on. I mean, is this something you consider or is this the building department? And again, the point about variance hasn't pretty be answered. I see. I mean, I can't keep you to a hundred feet minimum. And you guys are about to prove 75 feet. Why? I mean, this is the precedent you're about to set here, right? It's a consideration that we, that's where we evaluate. It'd be some sort of criteria that we were able to judge. It's that we're going to allow or not. Okay. were able to judge if we're going to allow it or not. OK. The dimension for the garage that they're proposing is complying with the zoning code. They're not requesting a variance for that garage. So where would I be located? Because like I said, my garage is right by defense. And if you know, it's 10 feet from the rear of the tent, it's on the plans. It's 10 feet from the property and which does need a variance. And that's not in front of us tonight. So who deals with that? So the building department? So the building department. The setbacks for accessory structures, the garage, it's an accessory structure, is six feet from a side property line and ten feet from a rear property line. And it cannot exceed 25% of the square footage of the primary structure. So the garage is zoning compliant in its current location. They're asking for a variance based on lot-with and frontage of the property. And they proposed that they gave a site plan here, but the site if this board grants this variance, which I don't think that's going to happen tonight, but if it does happen, this application will then go to the planning board for a site plan evaluation. But the garage as it's presented is compliant with the setbacks that the city has in place. Understood. So will we as neighbors have the opportunity to go to the next hearing of the building department to then ask for that questions as it relates to the specifics? Well, yes. I don't think this matter is going to get settled tonight. I think it will be back at another meeting here in front of this board. But if this variance gets perfected by this applicant, if it gets approved, then this application has to go to the planning board for site plan approval where they evaluate drainage the site, how many trees you're taking down, what you're replacing. All the issues of site plan, those usually handled at the planning board. But they would, I hope that was, I hope I answered your question. Thank you. But the location of the garage would likely not be something that they would determine would be inappropriate in its proposed location. They may, it may come up that there may be enhanced buffering in terms of landscaping or fencing to provide more privacy. That may be something that would come up, but the garage itself would likely be something that would remain as is if the zoning, if they were to proceed. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the other board members? only if they were to proceed. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments or questions from the other board members? No other comments? So there was some issues that were brought up. I think some of the board members like that does address before we proceed. So if the application may be going to turn to next. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Thank you. So this application is adjourned and will come back maybe hopefully next month if not the following month. But it will come back. We notice though, there'll be a sign of the property and it'll be on the agenda, but you do not have to be re-noticed just so you know. Thank you, Regina. Next case, case 28, 2024, 190 Lincoln Avenue. Orient inside. Do you want this rotator? Is that okay? I don't know. We need some good help. We'll go. Yeah, if you can go. Rotate. Rotate, yeah, that'd be great. I just want to go to that picture. Yeah, that's perfect. Thank you. Yep. I'll rotate it and everything. No, it's it. Yep. I wrote to you everything. Good evening members of the board. My name is Michael Anderson. On behalf of applicant Lee Chen, I'm located at 527 Florence Street, in the Mariner, New York, 10543. Today, the applicant is requesting an area variance, which is a proposed rear yard setback of 19 feet, 12 inches, which is less than a 30 foot minimum required. This is for a new 12 foot by 17-foot deck with steps to grade. And the community just to give a little background on the community itself. It's a condo association. They appear to be townhomes. My client has attached with another townhome. And that's how they are. They're kind of duplexes throughout the area. And there's three adjacent and or nearby homes that have these decks built outside and they are 18 foot setbacks. So we're requesting 19 foot 10 inches, including the house that's attached to my clients, which is presented in the picture in the upper right corner. That's the current deck. It'd basically be a symmetrical deck to that with less of a setback actually 19, I'm sorry, more of with less of a setback, actually. I'm sorry, more of a less of a setback, I think. 19 feet and inches. And so, you know, this change won't be an undesirable change at all in the neighborhood. In fact, you know, we probably add character to the neighborhood as decks are sometimes are appealing to people and especially when your next door neighbor has one. It's, it'll actually make it symmetrical and not look like the house itself is kind of hiding behind the deck. There won't be a detriment to the neighboring properties. As I said, multiple houses in the area town homes have them And they were approved by this board back in 2014 with an area variance We believe this is not substantial in nature and the variance will not have an impact physically or Environmental to the neighborhood. Any questions? Sorry. Do you want to just relocate the shed? Yes, I do. Yes, please. I forgot about that one. So, I don't have a picture here. So, their plan is to, they're just going to put the shed under, pretty much under the deck, just to free up some yard space. Okay. Yeah. It's a seven by seven foot shed. And they're willing to relocate it wherever the case may be, but I spoke with the architect today because I had that question myself and what if they asked where is the shed going? He said, we're probably going to put it under the deck. So, if that's okay with it going there. Yeah, I'm not sure. I know it has to be six feet from the side, 10 feet from the rear. Yeah, good. It's not going to, it's not going to need a variance. The drawing show the deck just shifted slightly. Looking, it looks like it's moving a couple of feet in each direction to meet the setbacks. So I guess if you're going to put it under the new deck, then the drawing would have to be updated. Can you say who I'm speaking for? Yeah, it's a 100. He might have been thinking of a different Also he was bringing it within the lines, those set back lines. That's what it looks like, but I'm not sure. He couldn't tell from the picture where it was, oh, I see. Yes. OK. If they're approved as drawn, then he's going to do. Well, you hear to get it approved. So that's why the board's asking. I said, if the drawings are approved as is, then that's where the shuttle will be going. I'm not sure why he said he was going to put it under the deck. That was the architect, not the applicant. Who submitted these updated drawings today, I believe? Unfortunately, I do remember the previous application I gave in front of us. So the neighbor did come in front of us, I think. I think he said 2014. Oh, you're next to anybody else. Unfortunately, I do remember that. So yeah, I was going to say I'm not sure. Been here too long. What's your viewer here? Yeah. I was. Anybody have any questions? Concerns? I'm sorry, just missed that. I was. Anybody have any questions? Concerns? I'm sorry, I just missed that. So the proposed site plan that shows the metal shed three feet from the rear, six feet from the side that's where it's proposed to be? No, it's going to be moved to... Okay. It's going to be moved to comply with the setback room. Okay. Because the existing site plan says relocate shed, that's why I just wanted to. Okay. It's going to be moved to comply with the setback room. Okay. Because the existing site plan says relocate shit. That's why I just want to. Okay. Yeah, on this, on this in the middle drawing, it has it being moved off the property line a little bit. I guess I'm sure. All the removal site plan. Okay, but it's not on the proposed guttion. All right. Okay. Okay, just the second one of my drafting errors. Thank you. Anyone else? Nope. Does anyone want to make a motion on this work? I'll do it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay, case number 28, 2024 lead-gen for permission to construct a new 12 by 17.5 decade rear yard with steps to grade relocate a 7 foot by 7 foot shed in rear yard. Whereas the proposed rear yard setback of 19 feet 10 inches is less than a 30 foot minimum required in an R2 7.0 zone district that the premises premises. 1.0 Lincoln Avenue, the lock 1262, lot, 1,001, and this is for an area variance. I make a motion that the variance be granted with the follow considerations. Whether the benefit can be achieved, I other means feasible to the applicant. It doesn't appear that it can, noted and informed to the 30-foot setback. You have a very small deck probably more than like a four or five foot platform, so it wouldn't be feasible at all to create a deck in the rear yard without the granting of a variance. Whether be undesirable change in a neighborhood character or nearby properties, I don't believe there would be their comparable decks within the attached wellings on the same property. And in the neighborhood that have greater variances already. What other request is substantial? It is substantial, but again, there are comparable variances that are similar within the same structure, on the same property that are greater than this, and whether they're a questful avatars physical environmental effects, I don't believe there will be any environmental detrimental effects, and whether the alleged difficulty self-created, it is self-created, but not a reason to deny an area of variance for these reasons. I make a motion that we approve this variance requested. Second. Erica. Erica Eisner. Yes. Able Rodriguez. Yes. Bob San Ziel. Yes. Able Rodriguez. Yes. Bob San Ziel. Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Hasglo Procopy. Yes. Motion is better approved. Thank you. Thank you, everyone. Have a good one. Thank you. Last case tonight. Case 29, 2024, 473 North Avenue. Very nice. Thank you. Good evening. Jonathan Belani with the Nunziata and Belani Design Consultants representing Rufugio de Svaraanza Church on 473 North Avenue. We attended a meeting a couple of months ago regarding a parking variance that was necessary to increase the size of the church, roughly 2500 square feet. And appreciating it, thankfully enough for you guys to grant the variance. At that point, we took good, the project to another step, started to engage in subcontractors looking at the site, talking about sizes, spray painting, footprint, and my clients were inquiring about increasing it 10 more feet towards the front yard. We had a large debate because there's drainage in the front yard that needs to stay there and it's 10 feet off of proper line, 10 feet off the building. So the happy medium was 10 feet off further from where we were granted the previous approval. So that increased in 10 feet across the front of the building, increased square footages which created a higher parking demand of two spots which were making it go from 5 to 7. Thankfully enough though, the building will never ever get larger because of the, because nowhere else to put drainage on the property and the drainage has to go in the front yard. It's presently there now. So the building can be increased any more than it is to this extent that we're trying to, that they're inquiring about doing the 10 feet further. Because it won't fit. And then it needs to be drainage on the property for the roof. So we're asking for an increase in two parking spaces, and it'll be the last time. And again, just to remind the board, I think last time, you just tell us what the space is going to be used for. So there's, I don't know if you've been in the church, there's a full go to the, see site plan. So just so you can look now, that's the increase of the footprint of the addition in the hatched area. If you go to the first floor plan, at the rear of the building to the left side of the page, there's spaces there but they're unusable, they're in the back, they're down low in the cellar, so they take them all, they're off administration space and bring it to the front of the building. More accessible. And also these spaces are near the stage and this particular church is performative music. It's very active. So nobody really, those office spaces aren't used because it's too loud. So they want to move all their administrative faces to the front besides having a grander for you. So that's what all their using for. Okay, thank you. Any other other questions are concerned on this one Does it have a quick question? Yeah, sure you said something about two parking spaces that you were What was that with the original approval that they gave us two speedings go was five we're asking for seven So an increase of two as opposed to the previous approval. Oh got it. I was absent that time so I apologize. Yeah thank you. No problem. Thank you. Any other comments? Does anyone want to make a motion in this one? I can do it. Thank you. I make a motion to approve case number 29-2024 of Rufugeo, the Esperanza for permission to construct a one story addition to an existing church to enlarge entry hall of sanctuary and create offices, whereas the proposed zero additional parking space is less than the minimum required of seven spaces for the addition in an NA zone district. At the premises of 473 North Avenue block 822-119. This is an area variance. On the balance criteria, whether the benefit can be achieved by any means. Other means feasible to the applicant, obviously cannot make the property larger for additional parking spaces on site. Under desirable change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. I think the lack of parking is not going to affect the overall appearance of the neighborhood. It's a fairly commercial area so I think that extending the church is not going to affect that. Whether they request the substantial, I do believe it is somewhat substantial. I don't think that it's good enough reason to deny it. Again, it's a fairly busy area where there's, I believe there's unspriced parking as well. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects. Again, I don't think it will. The applicant is committed to addressing any drainage or water retention on site. And whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, I believe it is self-created, but again, I don't feel like it's a good enough reason to deny granting the approval. Second. Able Rodriguez. Yes. Erica Aesner. Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Bob Sanziel. Yes. Erica Aesner. Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Bob Sanziel. Yes. Preschool Procopioc. Yes. The motion is approved. Thank you. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Good luck. Motion to adjourn. I'll make that motion. I'll second it. The meeting is adjourned. Have a good night. Thank you. You too.