I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. you you you you you you you you you you you you I'm going to go to the next one. I'm going to go to the next one. I don't remember. It might be a maximum. That should slide. It's a handicap. Yeah, you know, you're two percent. There's so many. Thank you very much. I'm going to use this on the you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.. To his right is Joe Goliamo from the Planning Examiner's Office. To his right is Fernando Arias and Carla Clapper. To my left is Bob Stenzial. To my right is David Fernandez. To his right is Abel Rodriguez. To his right is Kevin Keane, director of planning and sustainability. And to his right is Kelly Pantellis, who is the acting zoning secretary for this evening. We're going to go through the agenda, just a few notes for this evening. First of all, there's a lot of people here today. Everybody will have an opportunity. Everybody who wants to speak will have an opportunity to speak. You will be limited to three minutes, and we ask that anyone who's gonna speak come up to the microphone, state your name, and your address before you speak. So that we're not here all evening long, we ask that you don't repeat anything that anybody else has already said. We are paying attention, so we'll hear everything that said this evening. We're all up here with laptops, not because we're watching TV, but because we are trying to be paperless, so we have all the submissions in front of us before us. There are six members of the board tonight for a motion to pass. You need to have four affirmative votes. So with that, I think Kelly, can you call the roll? We have returning case 32, 20, 24, 343 Mayflower Avenue. Are the applicants present? Any opposition, so voices to be heard? We have case one, 2025, which has been adjourned for the April 1st meeting. Case four, 2025, 89 Devonshaw Road. The applicants here. Any oppositions or voices to be heard? Case 5, 2025, wildcliffe drive are the applicants present. Any oppositions or voices to be heard? Case 6, 2025, Cadillac drive are the applicants present. Any oppositions or voices to be heard? Case 7, 2025, 294 union avenue are the applicants present. Any oppositions or voices to be heard? And we have an administrative items case 1, 2024. First case, 32, 2024, 343 mayflower Avenue. Good evening members of the board. I am David Locker of the Law from of Locker Law in Newer Shell. We've all been together before and we're going to try to be very brief. And if you cut us off because you're ready to vote, we don't have to say anything. But I just want to, again, introduce the members of the development team, Robert and Zalotti, the developer, and Lucio Delio, the architect. As you remember the history, we came to you originally with a plan for 26 units in this structure. That met with community opposition. The development team went back, reduced it to 24 units, and then we were getting closer, but still not there. And so we're back today with what we think is the last modification that we are able to do and still maintain the quality of this project and that's 22 units. I will let Mr. Delio just give a brief summary again that he can explain it. I don't have to do it twice. Good evening. I'm Lou Delio, principal of Architects. So we're back tonight to talk about the project. As David had said, we reduced the building from 24 units to 22 units. By still keeping basically the same size building, we will be still be providing 44% of the lot as green space. We're still keeping all the parking spaces that we originally had, including 22 spaces, which will be located under the building, not visible. And we're still able to provide a sort of timeless look with the materials that we had intentionally started the project, which is brick and stone in a lot of residential detailing. We remain committed to creating a thoughtful development that respects community concerns while providing a high quality of living environment for its residents. So if anybody has any questions regarding that, everything is still the same. Again, the only thing we change is the number of units and that increased the square footage of per unit a number. I just have a quick question. The, with the reduction in the units, has that changed the apartment count or the number of bedrooms per unit in any way? Yeah. Should I go through that? Yes, please. So again, 24 units was before. We're 22 units. And let's see. We now have one extra three bedroom and one extra one bedroom. We've switched things around like that. Thank you. Does anybody else have any questions up here? No. It's time. Okay. Does anybody want to be heard on this issue? Come up. Thank you members of the board. My name is Matt Hayes and I'm nine John Alden Road. Good to see you all again. We're making this a habit here. It seems like but I mean you're just expressing some of the concerns on behalf of our neighbors. While we strongly appreciate the developers, Mr. Ansley coming back and reducing the number of units, obviously we still feel that's a big variance he's asking for. By our calculations, it's still over 34%. We know he's allowed to build the number of units 15, but he's still asking for 22. Again, if allowed, we think this opens up the possibility of other developers coming in and buying up similar parcels of land throughout Newer Shell, putting in extra units and causing a cascading effect on things like traffic, safety, strain on local infrastructure, etc. While the developer has reassured us that this will be the nicest building on the block and we have looked at the designs and we appreciate the materials and the thought he's put into it. We have seen other properties fall into disrepair on Mayflower, including on the developer's property, those houses he's owned for quite a number of years as well. One since the 1980s and we're afraid we're all going to be here as you see. We're a diverse group of neighbors and many have been here for decades and We plan on being here for decades to more, so we wanna make sure the integrity. Can you speak up, I can barely hear you. Sorry. We wanna make sure the integrity of the property. A diverse group of neighbors and many have been here for decades and we plan on me here for decades to more. So we want to make sure the integrity. Can you speak up, I can barely hear you. Sorry, we want to make sure the integrity of the property is maintained. You know, in the many years to come, while we'll still be living here. At the end of the day, as I mentioned, we want to be good neighbors. We understand that the developer has a right to build. We're willing to work with him. However collectively we do feel that the developer has not made enough of a justification of needing this large of the variance. as a right to build. We're willing to work with him. However collectively we do feel that the developer has not made enough of a justification of needing this large of the variance. So appreciate your time and thank you all very much. Thank you. Would anyone else like to be heard? Hi. Thank you. Mike Tacks on 17, John Alden Road. Sorry, I wrote this down because I cannot really speak in public. The proposed plans made show the property deed having, sorry, I hate speaking. The proposed plans, I'm afraid I'm not going to read off here. So the parking lot is right next to my property. And on the deed, it shows that it's, I'm sorry, on the plans it shows it's nine feet away my deed states that it is actually a lot closer according to mine it's a 2.7 foot overlap between his property mine so that once parking spot is really 6.3 feet away so I'm just asking for around that one parking spot being removed or adjusted so it does not have to get a variance and also more Shobbery or something in that area so that I don't have to hear or see the cars coming in and to reduce the noise and visual distraction from the cars. I kept that short. Thank you. I'd like to be heard. No. Does anybody on the board have any further questions for the applicant? Can you actually go over what he just mentioned about the parking location and? Side yard from the parking space to the property line is one of them is 11 feet that it tapers up to 10 feet. So I'm not sure exactly what he's referring to. So is that, I mean I see the numbers here in the parking spaces. Are we talking about number parking space number eight? Or I'm sorry, I mean on the, on your presentation is actually. I'll bring the 14. I'll bring the site plan up and we can see that way. Zoom it in. Yeah. Maybe I can look at this one. Yeah, look. Watch out. No, no, it's not that touch. Or a West team. So what are the upper lifestand corner, right? It's a little younger. So what are the upper left, Lucio, right Upper left, yeah. Yeah. Yeah. I have a mouse here. I have a mouse. The very tip parking space number 24 is 9 foot 6 inches from the curb. But the curb is 6 inches wide, so the parking space is 10 feet away. But we can move that, change that. We have eight extra spaces, I think, in the count. So if that were something important, but I can see the spaces too. We can literally move the whole parking space closer to the building, because we have seven feet away from the building. So we can definitely accommodate that, no matter if it's six inches. I think I have some screening. Excuse me? And at some screening as well. I'm sorry. He was. I'm just reading. Yeah, absolutely. We already had a whole row of screening around the whole perimeter of the of the property. We definitely can. Make sure the screening there. Hmm. I think the other, I think the other cyclan. And this also does show trees all the way between, all the way to the back. There's trees around the entire perimeter of this point, so all the way back to the back corners and in every direction. Yep. Any other questions? What'm sure you have. Lucio, so to lessen the number of apartments, I guess you basically made a couple of three bedrooms. Yeah, we eliminated two apartments and made a couple of larger. Yes. Okay. Since we're allowed to have the same footprint of the building. Right. but we we have, we made an extra drawing that you don't have there, but we brought it because it might be interesting if I can, let's see. Okay, this drawing here. So this is similar to you've seen before And this is just blow it up a little bit It's kind of an interesting study I apologize everybody that I cannot move cleanly to this But with this drawing shows can you see it? It actually shows what the distance is from building to building. So, a study with a street? That's a gentleman. What does it go? A gentleman. A gentleman street. The front of one house to the front of another house is 100 feet. In our building, from the front of our building to the back of any of the houses in the back, is also 100 feet. This is a distance from building to building, not from property line. So right now those three story houses exist on that street and they're 100 feet away from each other. We are proposing a building that will be 100 feet away from the other houses. The side yards, as you can see in those houses, they vary from 814, one of them has 44 feet. Most of them are 28, 28, 27, 16. We have setbacks, 50 feet on one side and 78 on the other side and 65 on the back. So we have large amounts of space that we are proposing for this building. Again, I want to just better understand that we have a lot of space around it. I thought that might be interesting to understand that this is from building to building. So I think there's no variance issue on that parking space that the gentleman was referring to. Certainly would be a cyclan approval item. Yeah. Thank you. You can't address from the audience. I'm sorry. If you'd like to be to speak you have to come up. Does anyone else have any other questions? Would anyone like to make a motion? I guess I'll make the motion. This is for case number 32-2024, RCA developers, for permission to construct on four lots to be merged of a new multi-family dwelling with 22 units. Re-story plus rooftop recreation area, 22 indoor parking spaces and 27 outdoor parking spaces where the proposed 2,308 square foot lot area per dwelling unit is less than the minimum required of 3,500 square foot in an RMF 0.5 and R2 7.0 zone district at the premises of 343 Mayflower Avenue, Block 1504, LOTS 32, 29, 25 and 26. I move that we approve the request for an area variance. When considering the factors to determine whether such a variance should be granted, the first being whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I think this applicant has made extensive and diligent efforts to reduce the amount of the variance as much as possible while keeping this an economically feasible and viable project. So I think that any smaller and the benefit simply couldn't be achieved by this applicant. Whether there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, I don't think that there will be an undesirable change. In fact, I think there will be a desirable change. This is a beautiful building that's been designed with excellent materials. There'll be a lot of green space, open area, added trees to the property. It's spaced well enough away from all of the adjacent properties. And I think it will be an improvement to what's there now and to what's surrounding it with some of the other multifamily properties. Whether the request is substantial, it is substantial, but the calculations for this property simply don't allow for a feasible project within the guidelines. And the fact that this building within its envelope is as of right being built. There's no requests for variances for FAR, for setback for anything along those lines. All we're talking about is the number of units within the building. I don't think that the substantiality of this request is one that should warrant a denial of the variance. Whether the request will have an adverse physical or environmental effect, that we've heard no indication that there will be any adverse physical or environmental effects. And I don't think there will be whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. It is self-created in that it's the design that the applicant has chosen to put forward. But as I've stated, I don't believe that it forms the basis to deny the variance. So with that, I move that we approve the request of RCA developers. Second. Fernando Arias? Yes. Able Rodriguez? Yes. Carla Clapper? Yes. David Fernandez? Yes. Bob St Nancy L. Yes. Eric Eisner. Yes. Motion approved. Thank you. Thank you very much everybody. Case 4, 2025, 89, Devonshaar Road. Good evening, good evening everyone. John Woodruff the architect with offices in New Rochelle, New York. And I'm here tonight with Veneta Sagaal. And we are seeking a variance for her deck in the rear yard at 89 Devonshire. And the deck right now is three foot six wide. She has a small deck and back. That's really just the platform and some steps and we plan to extend it to six feet. We're adding 30 inches to the existing deck location. The deck is the bulk of the deck is kind of around the corner here. That's where we're going to put the table and add some new stairs to the yard. The deck is 48 inches high. It's in pretty bad repair. And the house itself, the way it was built, is only 30 feet from the rear property line. So that's the problem we have. The way the house was built, it really didn't allow much room in the rear there for a deck. It's an 18% variance, we're 5.5 feet less than the 30 required. And like I said, the bulk of the deck is in the side yard. This is our denial that we got from the building department. We had a new survey done just showing all the existing conditions. And here's some photos of the deck how it is now. This is the deck that we'll be tearing down. We'll be coming out about 30 more inches and extending it around the house. The real variances for the distance from this platform. It's nice to see the leaves on the ground in the middle of winter. This is the side where the deck will go here, the main deck will go here. This is the area the deck we're tearing down and we'll be putting some stairs here just to give access to the yard. This is a good photo which shows the distance from our neighbor. So this is the deck that we're tearing down and you can see we've got 30 feet here and about 35 feet to the neighbor's house. And that's our application tonight. Does anybody want to be heard on this application? Is the board have any questions? The current deck that's there now is not, it doesn't conform, right? No, that was built with the house. That was built with the house? Yes. But it's less than 30. It's feeding as well, right? I know. I don't know how they did it back. Somehow, you know, there is something in the code that you can go up to three foot six or 48 inches as a to have a means of egress. Okay, thank you. How to project into a rear yard for a means of egress you can put a huge deck there, but that's I think that's how they did it. Okay, thank you. Make a motion. Does anybody would like to make a motion? I'll make a motion. Okay. Case number four, 2020-25, Vanita Segal for permission to construct a deck in the rear yard. Whereas the proposed 24.5 rear yard setback is less than the minimum required of 30 feet in an R110 zone district. At the premises 89 different char road block 2039 lot one and this is for an area variance. I'm going to make a motion to approve the requested variance based on the following. Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant? Doesn't appear that it can be. What is proposed is really similar to what exists in the back of the house now, basically a rear porch that is going to give access to a larger deck, which is tucked in to a recess portion, which will be a conforming portion of the deck in the back of the house. Whether it be an undesirable change in neighborhood character or nearby properties, I don't believe it would be. Again, it's pretty much the same deck that's there now and I think it gets Mr. Woodchiff pointed out and will look a lot better than what is there currently. And whether there request is substantial, I don't believe it is substantial, given the existing non-conforming rear yard that exists. And again, given the existing report that currently exists, what other request will have adverse physical environmental effects. I do not believe it will have adverse physical environmental effects on the neighborhood. And what are the alleged difficulties so created? It is so created, but not grounds for the Nile of a area variance. And for these reasons, I move to approve the application. Second. Fernando Arias? Yes. Able Rodriguez. Yes. Carla Clapper. Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Bob Stenciel. Yes. Erica Eisner. Yes. Motion approved. Thank you. Okay. Case 5 2025. Walcliffe Drive. Good evening once again, John Woodruff, the architect with offices in New Rochelle, New York. And this is a subde... The music coming from somewhere. Oh, okay. Getting serenaded. Please continue. This is a subdivision on Wildcliffe Road. And right now this is vacant land in the R2 zone. And two sisters purchased the lands to build a two-family house and live together. And they've decided that they cannot live together. So they've decided to subdivide the property and build two single family homes. And the problem is that the property is six inches short and lot with and that's this lot, lot be. So this becomes six inches short. That is why we need the variance tonight. We went in, we spoke to Mr. Vaca, and that is within his 5% discretion that he can offer, but he does not do that on subdivisions or any altering of land and lots. So that's why we're here tonight. We have a positive recommendation from the planning department. The Wildcliffe Road ends with a very beautiful view to the Long Island Sound. These are our two lots here. There are a number of homes here, which are beautiful homes. I have some pictures to show you. but the only small, subdivided lots are basically in this area kind of on Hudson Park Road. This is our denial, and like I said, we're six inches less than what's required for a lot with. All the other requirements will be met on the new homes. FAR, setbacks, a lot area per family, all those things will be met. This is where our lots are. They're kind of up the road a little bit. There's no real, you can't even see the properties right now, but this would be the entrance to one of the houses. back up to a four-story apartment building. That's the front of the lot. This is the property in this area. That's our site plan, our survey of the property. These are some of the adjacent homes, larger one-family homes that are on Wycliffe Road. And you can see the apartment buildings in the back there. This is the Wycliffe Museum which had the fire, so that's directly across the street. Also there's a green house which has a large parking lot that's across the street as well. And then these are those houses down on Hudson Park, this five houses in a row, which are on much smaller, lots than ours. So I just declare if I, you're one foot six inches, right? It's no, just six inches. Can I smoke a here? Hmm? Is there a dynamite? There should be a dynamite. The dial was noticed. It's one and a half feet short. Yeah, very good. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm just reading my denial here. Right, that's one stop on my denial. 18 inches. Yeah. Yeah. Talks. Make sure we have the record. Yes. How the record. So we're making the correction from six inches to what a fit and a half. Is that what it is? Yep. The plan the plans and the denial are correct. Yes. as as notice that's one and a half. I'm sorry the proposed 68.5 lot with is less than the minimum required of 70 feet. have a new fee. Just want to make sure we had it. Yeah, correct. Thank you. And that 18 inches that is still within, could have been within Mr. Valka's discretionary approval. Correct. Yes, 5%. Does anybody want to be heard on this application? Please come forward. My name is Alice Megaro. I live at 21 Wildcliffe Road. I sold a lot to the two sisters. They were right on board. The zoning was perfect. The zoning is perfect. It always has been perfect. It's one and two family dwellings. A year and a half went by and they couldn't come to a decision. This is not family counseling. This is the zoning board. What they're asking for is totally unreasonable. You're taking a beautiful lot that a house should be on with a lovely yard. There are two of them. Next to this lot we're talking about. And they're going to squeeze two houses in there. I'm surprised I didn't talk more about what it was going to look like. But you can imagine if you put two houses in a one house a lot, you would, and it's not big enough for two driveways. So they're going to put one driveway in the middle and they're going to share it. That went out with the 50ies. I'm insensed because I've owned this lot for 70 years. And I sold it for one of the reasons I sold it. I wanted to see what was going to happen to this lot. There are only six lots on this little street. And this is the only lot not to be built on. And there's nothing to matter with this zoning. And just because they're having a squabble shouldn't mean that that ought to be, if you put two buildings there, it's asphalt and concrete. And there's no yard. Well, if you're not interested in a yard, we'll live in an apartment building. And they really bought it because of the beach. Of the beach, we want the beach. Yes, the end of the street there is a private beach and they can go right next door to where the apartment is house houses because they have a beach. So there's no reason to go against the zoning. This has been in place for years. Of course, this law has not been sold for years. Thanks to me. And I'm in sense, and I hope you stick to your guns. Somebody as well. Does anybody else want to be heard? OK. Does anybody else want to be heard? Okay. My name is Amy Tahill and I live at 47, Wildcliffe. And I've been there since 1969, not quite as long as Alice. And I'm not sure I can add a lot to what she said, except that it is street where the houses are already zoned for two family. And we have two sisters who could live. I would think quite well in one house. There could be a two family house. All of us have two family houses, not all of us are renting part of it. I am. I always have. And it works for that street and for that zoning. And it's a beautiful street, as everyone has said. And so I would also like to preserve the character of it, which would be changed if there were two houses put on a one house lot. Thank you. Would anyone else like to be heard? John, can you speak to the intentions for the property and the homes that would be built there? I'm particularly interested to know if you anticipate needing any variances or if the homes that would be built on them would be built as a right. They would be all be built as a right. They would have their own driveways and they'd have large yards, 70 foot wide lot is quite a good area to build on. You can see here that I put a blue line around this showing the setbacks on the property. So we'll have plenty of room and we put approximate sizes of houses here which would meet the FAR and all the requirements. There is also another building lot down the street in this area and into research on it, but there's another lot here, building lot, which is available and being sold with that house, but that's a building lot. But they are very nice buildable lots, whether they're one large house on one lot or two smaller houses on separate lots. It would probably the second lot is going to be 68.5, which makes it a foot and a half. So that's technically the only one that we can do is to get the first one out of the way. So, the number one is to meet the 70 feet required. Correct. And then the second lot is going to be 68.5, which makes it a foot and a half. So that's technically what the variance that you're seeking is technically a 1% about 1% variance. Does anyone have any other questions? Would anyone like to make a motion? Thank you. I move forward to approve case number 5-25 Susan Flynn for permission for the division of one vacant into two billable lots, whereas the proposed 68-5 with is less than the minimum required of 60 feet in an R2-70 zone in district. And the premises are wall cliff drive block 103, LAD-104. By looking at the criteria to approve what we call the balance in test, whether the benefit can be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant. I don't think so. The LAD is there. If it wasn't for a foot and a half of shorties, there would not be in front of this board. So I think that's not the case. Whether there's an ensemble change in the neighborhood corrected or determined to the nearby properties, it was word up that this is mostly a multifamily environment. However, looking at the maps and looking at some of the dimensions of the property, I don't think I will change the character of the environment of the neighborhood. Whether there are requests of substantial, I was mentioned before, it was very small. If there was any very small to consider what we have seen in some other cases, so there's no issue there. Whether there are requests we'll have an adverse physical or environmental effects, nothing was brought up based on the documentation was provided, it looks like everything will conform. So there's no issue there as well. Whether you're lunch difficult is self-created, which is irrelevant about not necessarily decide against whether the application gets approved or not. Obviously is self-created, but I don't think it's sufficient enough to justify it in the now. So therefore I move therefore approval. Second. Able, Rajee, yes? Yes. Carla Clapper. I'm going to vote yes, but I just wanted to speak to the two women who are generous with their time and with their emotional remarks to us to say that what you said did not fall on deaf ears up here. We heard you. I feel for you, but our charge is to follow certain criteria. And I vote yes. Bob Stenciel. Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Fernando Arias. Yes. Erica Eisner. Yes. Motion approved. Thank you. K6 2025 Cadillac Drive. I'm Chair, I have to recuse myself in this case. So, back in the next. I'll take out there for need me. Okay, thank you. So given the recuse, they will be five board members deciding the next two applications, which means we will take three votes to pass. We still need four? I apologize. I'm a spoke. We still need four votes to pass. Okay, so this is a conversion of a vacant building lot into a buildable lot. And I'm here with Pacrosso, who is the builder. And we are 12,061 square feet or 15,000 is required. We are 29, 39 square feet less than what's required on this lot, and that's a 19% variance. We meet all the other requirements of a building lot, except for the actual lot size. We did a map of the area within a 250 foot radius. This is Cadillac Drive, and this is the Colisec, and this is our lot that is vacant. And within our 250 foot radius, we show in the blue purple here 13 lots that are similar below the 15,000 required. And seven of those are even below our 12,061 square feet. So just as an overview of the area. This is the original January, 1968 subdivision map when these lots were divided. And at that time, which was 57 years ago, this was a buildable lot. It was shown on the subdivision as a buildable lot. And that subdivision plat, which was done in 68, was probably created with the 1955 zoning ordinance. and back in 1955, all the way up to 2001, minimum lot size was not required to be shown. What happens is with this road coming in on Cadillac Drive, it's kind of curvy and it's got the cul-a-sac here. And what that does is it makes a lot of these lots different sizes. And that's why our lot is a little more deficient in a few in some square foot as opposed to the lot next door. As you make the turn with the road, each of these lots is no longer rectangle. So they're odd shaped and that's what we need the variance for tonight. That's our denial from the zoning board where we need the variance for the lot area. It's a buildable lot. It's a separate tax lot. It just needs that extra square footage to be buildable. This is our survey. We had a topo survey done because there is some rock outcroppings at the front of the property. And that affects how we will eventually build a house. These are some of the houses in the neighborhood, some split-level homes, and some very lovely homes here. And we plan to build something eventually that would be very similar type construction. These are some photos of the site. The site is basically flat on the right corner. And then there's some vegetation here and some small trees that we plan to remove. And this is a shot looking at the site from Cadillac. And you can see where it slopes down here, and there's some rock outcroppings here. And then there's a house here, which is adjacent to our site, and you can see they have the large rock outcropping on their property and partial on our property as well. So that's our application before you tonight. it's a separate tax light, a buildable lot from a 68 subdivision. And we're just lacking some square footage here to make it a buildable lot. Thank you. Would anyone like to be heard on this application? Step forward, one at a time, please. Good evening, Boarding Board of Zoning Board Managers. Thank you for the opportunity. So I am Michael Calgee. I live at Tool 1 Bennett in Boulevard. And my backyard is directly across from where the property is. Can you speak a little louder? It could be caberly here. Okay. Can you hear me now? Sure, better. Great. So let me start from the beginning. Michael Calgee, my background is civil engineering. I live right across the street from where the developer wants to do this non-conforming, lot-tool buildable lot. And I am objecting to it because it doesn't conform to, you know, the R115. It's 3,000 square feet less than what the ordinance is. And that's, we shouldn't break the ordinance. The ordinance was done for a reason. The lot is, if you want to call it, an oversized lot, it's 0.63 acres. That equates to about, you know, 12,000 plus or minus. That they're going to build a house on. And I know what's going to happen. They're going to go to planning. They're going to get another side yard variance. They're going to do all kinds of things. They're already cutting down 13 trees in the backyard. And the back, you gotta know that this area is all rock. It's rock that's been there for, I don't know, got only a nose, but I've been there 14 years living on Vanette, but again, my backyard is, the whole backyard is across from there. And I have to tell you that it's not going to be fun with the rock being excavated, being blasted or chipped. I'm concerned about radon. I'm concerned about you know disturbing the ecosystem. And I'm concerned about you know the look, the character of the cul-de-sac. I don't live on the cul-de-sac but again my back yard is the cul-de-sac on the cul-de-sac. So I'm out there with my neighbors. We're all here tonight representing the fact that we don't want this to go through. We have jacked to it. There's traffic issues. There's going to be parking issues. The road narrows just as the architect was mentioning that it makes the turn. You know, there's all kinds of reasons to say, no, it shouldn the turn. There's all kinds of reasons to say no, that it shouldn't be. It's because this lot doesn't conform to the existing ordinance. And I just hope the Board of Managers for zoning to say that this shouldn't take place. Now if the property owner wants to expand, I mean that's the whole reason why it's a lot that was that size. That's good. He's got .63 acres. So in retrospect, I really think that it should not be approved and we should let what's there that's been there for 57 years to stay as it is. I really feel that it's you're doing an injustice to the character of a coldness act. And just so you know, there was a driveway that was depressed in the area where they were thinking about putting a house. But the developer who lives in that house that's on the screen, that was a developer's house. And he decided at the time, I guess with the city, whoever, I used to work for the city in Irish shelter. Sir, I'm sorry, your three minutes are up. Okay, but I just want to tell you that they didn't put the house on that piece of property because of the rock. The whole thing is a rock ledge. And one other thing that's important to note is the backyard drops down about 20 feet just a, you know, sheer, okay, down to Robert Drive and the house, the roof of the house below behind this house, the roof line is not even close to being at the level of the ground, of great. So I object to it and I really really am asking the board not to approve it. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Ronnie Transinovskine. This is my house. It's OK. It's OK. Yes. I really invite you to come to see it with your own eyes, to see that my house is absolutely built on the rock and the rock is going all the way to the property. My fear is that once construction will be there, that it's going to affect and shake and the foundation of my house not to mention the the water flow There is the gas line the the electricity everything that is under the water pipes that I'm afraid that the damage will be directly to my house and I'm going going to ask if it's not going to happen to not to jeopardize the foundation of my house. Good evening. First time here. My name is Guy Jenkins. I live with my wife on this cul-de-sac. We're at the foot of the cul-de-sac. Can you stay you address? I'm sorry. 16 cat leg drive. Guy and Michelle Jenkins. We live on the cul-de-sac at the foot of the cul-de-sac, so we're not directly, you know, close to this, but we're on the cul-de-sac, which is not that large. I mean, just for a novice looking at this, I just couldn't understand how the rock could be addressed. So I think that's the key for a lot of us here is this rock that seems to be covered by bush. by Bush so that would be a big thing to understand. That's what key for a lot of us here. It's this rock that's used to be covered by bush. So that would be a big thing to understand. Let's want to mention that. Thank you. Good evening, Adam Bren, 12-Cat Electric Drive. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen, of the Zoning Board for hearing me this evening. I'm not against development whatsoever. I have a background in real estate and an undergraduate degree in geology. My biggest concern is just recently I had to replace existing infrastructure, which is the line from my house to the existing sewer. I'm aware that there's other issues in the cul de sac. There are other neighbors that have other similar issues as to me. The rock that is under there, Mr. Woodruff referred to it as vegetation when he showed you guys a picture of the property. That's all Manhattan formation, which is shist. It holds up Hundred plus story buildings in Manhattan some of the hardest rock in the United States My concern is and I don't think you guys can blast but it's going to be endless and endless amounts of chipping Which will disrupt the existing infrastructure? Thank you. I do not think that you guys should go forward with this vote. Hello, my name is Andrew Vittolo. I reside at 8 Cadillac Drive and I'm also speaking on behalf of my parents who live at 8 Cadillac Drive. I also object of this. The rock in question but up right up against Roni's home, literally right up against Roni's home. This is not superficial rock, it is not a glacial erratic bowler that's just sitting on the surface. This is a geological structure that goes deep down within the earth. I don't know if a geological survey has been done of the property to see what it actually consists of and how deep it goes, but any sort of blasting, jackhammering, I think would definitely disrupt the area and disrupt the land. We also know that the topography of the land that this area is, there's a lot of water ways that have been directed and moved and the sewer systems that are underneath where we are. I know they go pretty deep down to direct water into the proper ways to a collection area which is right up the road. So I think that we need to take all of that into consideration. Thank you, we are against this, thank you. Good evening everybody, thank you for your time and attention to this matter, Mort Friedman 18 187 Vanette and Boulevard. Be very quick on this one since most of the points have been covered by my neighbors. It's been vacant lot for 55 years and you're all your predecessors, I guess, determined way back when that should be a vacant lot and not a buildable block for various reasons as identified. As far as the variance goes, 20% to me is a large number. I mean, 5%, 10%, okay, 20% whoa. Then you might as well not even have standards at some time. You know, there's the issue of the rock and there will also issue the water and I mean, nurse shell. I mean, people, neighbors talk about two things now. Water and con Edison bills. Con Edison, we can't control very much water, hopefully we can. And this is not good to remove rocks if you can remove them and then have the flow which will all go downhill on my property and other property on Vanette and Boulevard. And also I think you need to take into consideration there are seven homes on Cadillac Drive. One of which is the applicants, so you have six. I have not heard one person speak up for this and I've heard four people with Cadillac drive residents speak against. So that needs to be taken into serious consideration in making it your decision. And again, thank you very much and I kept it short. Good evening. Thank you. Would anyone else like to be heard? Sir, you've already spoken. I just want you to know that we we do have a submission that we want to give you and everybody has signed it so we have this can we get the mission? Okay all right you can give it to the you have to hand it up to the clerk Secretary Yeah, there's a lot of things on the side. What? I think, does the board have any questions for the applicant? We're going to move forward with the question. John, can you clarify, you know, I'm a little confused, what is the size of the actual work and how much is going to remove and what was the impact for the whole overall plan? Not sure. For you to build the houses. A number of issues. So first of all, blasting rock is not allowed, right? We don't blast rock, we chip rock. This is the lot that we would be building on. Directly to the right of us is 11 Cadillac Drive, which is a separate house on a separate lot built in 1967. It was one of the first houses built after the subdivision was done. They're the ones who are taking a few trees down in the back of the house, not us. We don't touch any trees. This is not an approved application so so we don't touch trees. On this lot, you can see this blue line, which represents the set back line of where I can build a house. Now I can fit a very beautiful 3,500 square foot five bedroom house on this lot with no variances whatsoever. It will have a beautiful yard and a beautiful driveway. And it's a very easy lot to build on. If you look at this big brown blob in the front of my lot here, that is the rock. The majority of that rock is in the front of our property and on Cadillac Drive. And I've got some elevations here which kind of give us an idea of how high that rock is. It's about seven feet high on this corner. This is the low corner of Cadillac Drive. Now we haven't designed a house yet but we're in the planning stage. The elevation here is 194 which is the low spot. This would be where our driveway, as much like they said, the previous person next door had designed a house there. We would pitch our driveway up between three and four feet and come in at an elevation of 200 with our garage, go up about four and a half feet of steps inside the garage and come out with an elevation of 205 for our first floor elevation of the house. The back of the house slopes somewhat, but I'd put a patio in there two feet lower, 203. And then this area in front right now is 206. So I'd only be a foot higher than this foot lower than this rock. So I would have to take some rock out, but it's just a small portion here of the house. This elevation is at 208. We plan to leave it. This elevation is at, I gotta look close, is it 200? We plan to leave it. So it's really a small portion of this rock that we have to chip out. And the whole house can be built here. It's a very plateau's very nicely up top. And most of the trees, incredibly, are six inch trees, eight inch trees. This is a tree survey as well. And I submit in a copy of the survey, six and eight inch trees. I think there's a few 12 inch trees. But the majority of the trees we're taking out are very small in the front here in this area. And we also submit a landscape plan, and we'd be also planning a number of trees if any of the neighbors wanted us to put screening trees between our new house there. The City of New Rochelle is very specific about rock removal. This is what they put on the permits. As per rock removal regulations, directive 2014, activity relating to the removal of rock may commence no earlier than 8 a.m. and shall cease no later than 5 p.m. on weekdays only, Monday through Friday. Nothing can happen on weekends or Sundays. If Rock is needs to be removed from the site, it will be done properly. John, I just want to ask about the Rock removal. You said you only need to take out a small portion in the corner, but I'm not an architect, but I have to assume that you need to take out, the rock's not going to touch the house. So how far of a distance beyond the house do you need to remove? I would probably have to remove about two or three feet in front of the house in order to get footing drains and things like that. So there would be some issue of rock removal, but we're not removing five feet or eight feet of rock there. We're only removing 18 inches to two feet of rock. Beyond the house itself. And how far down do you have to go? That's my guess. Rock is nature's foundation. We can put the house right on the rock. We drill holes in the rock and we pin the footings right to the rock itself. So you don't need to excavate the rock below the ground? Correct. Correct. And how long would you, nobody's holding you to this, but you're not a rock remover about how long would you estimate something like that would take a professional to do? The rock itself, the removal itself. I mean, Mr. Rousseau can testify a couple weeks of rock removal. Two weeks of rock removal. So that you're talking about 10 days of eight to five chipping. Right? Okay. We build a lot of houses in Nurechelle and sensitive areas. And when something like this starts, we make sure that all the neighbors are aware of what's going on. We give them the phone number of the site superintendent of the builder, of the, will be assigned a building inspector. We have their cell phone numbers. All right, you know, our thing is noise and, you know, debris at the site and we do a pre-construction meeting with the neighbors can attend these meetings before we start so everyone's on the same page in terms of how the construction would proceed. We still have to come back to the planning board with this house once it's designed and we still have much more input. We will be providing drainage on the site. These low areas here will be for dry wells and in this corner we have area for dry wells. We provide documentation from soil engineers with a soil percolation test and dry wells that show that the drainage will be properly handled. What else can I tell you? It's a site that can fit a house very nicely. And if there is rock removal, it's slight in the front and this entire rock over here will remain and it'll be one of the features of the house, much like this house has lovely rock in front. So we're going to keep the rock in front and they have a similar situation. They just kind of chipped into their rock here just to make the house fit in. So we're going to do the same, hopefully we'll do the same similar construction and then they have their driveway here on the left side. So ours will kind of be a flip of this house and hopefully not just minimal rock removal. and the idea is to pull the house, this is the 12 foot side yard, which is my minimum side yard. We'll pull this house closer to this line and we also pull it much further back. This is 11 Cadillac Drive. So you can see the front of the house here is close to the street within 30 and we'll be back further with the location of this house in order to avoid the rock and to also give a little bit of a you know a interest in the houses whether or not side by side they're just pushed back a little bit. All right so the the minimum requires 15,000 square. You have 12,000 square feet. So it's 2000. Is that 2000 square feet after you remove that rack? Oh, yeah, the rock has nothing to do with it. Yeah, we still get the same same square footage. John, I noticed that there's an existing curb cut. Are you planning on reutilizing that or moving it at all? Just curious. The curb cut down here? Yeah, at the street. Ironically, it's right where I need it. OK. And when you cite this house, it makes sense to put the garage to the right, and then the rest of the house up to the left and pull it as far as possible to the right side. We won't need any other variances besides what we're here before you tonight. Thanks. How much would the size of the intended house be reduced if you weren't digging into the rock as much as you're thinking you need to? Not at all. I mean, we could, I mean, we're just doing preliminary numbers. We could even raise the house up a little more. We don't want to make it too high, because then we exceed, you know, there's a height regulation. But like I said, it's just a small portion of this area which will have no basement for the house and We'll pin right to it So can you go over some of the details how big this side is you know how many bedroom orders and I just want to figure out how we could compensate those 3000 square feet that you're missing there It's interesting because I I didn't purposely didn to bring a house along because we're still in the planning stage. But based on the square footage of this lot, I can have a 3,500 square foot house and that 3,500 square foot house would be five bedrooms, four and a half bath, two car garage, and would meet all the required setbacks. And then we'd have a patio on grade here in the back. John, I just want to address my remarks to you and to Mr. Grasso, who I know is in the room. You know, we had a developer in here for the third month in a row that we finally approved a significant variance. I know you're well aware of that. And one of the reasons we, I believe this board agonized about making that decision of approving the variance is because we really heard the concerns of the neighbors and the impact that approving that variance was going to have on their, not only their lifestyles, but their infrastructures. And so as much as we are numbers people up here, we're not without heart. And so I think we're, you know, you got to read the room a little bit. I think we're all squirming a little bit about this rock. I mean I'm living in New Richelle for 39 years. I have a house that's on rock with a lot of ledges and I would be concerned if somebody wanted to give that rock a big shake. So I really understand that. And whatever you and Mr. Grasso can do to further a lay the fears or maybe those fears can't be laid. Maybe it is a smaller house. I just think that something has to be adjusted to just make the board feel comfortable. And you know, it is a 20% variance and making these people feel comfortable. Thank you. If you want to be heard, you need to come up to. I could. But I don't know if Mr. Woodruff has done just yet. Sorry, apologize. I shouldn't have been. I understand the board's concerns. And perhaps even though we don't do this at this stage, but maybe just looking at what a house well, more well planned on the site would encounter with the rock and things like that, and more elevation heights. Also, I noticed that, you know, neighbors did come to the building department today and over the weekend, a lot of staff was at code schools. They couldn't really look at the drawings. So there are no drawings to really look at, because it's just a vacant lot. We're not showing anything besides the topo and what we'd be removing. So perhaps if we had some kind of drawings that they could review before the meeting of what the house looks like itself, that that might help a little bit, maybe also with their two houses or the house to the left. I think you're right. I think you're right. And I don't think I'm telling tales at a school when I say that when we met and reviewed tonight's agenda, What I had concerns about what that house is going to look like. And are you coming back for another variance for that building? Right. And I think both those processes do need to run parallel to each other. Right, right. And I think it always too, if someone can see a picture of what the house looks like on the site Then it makes a lot of difference in realizing that it's real and I can fit and that the minimal amount of rock would be removed. Yes Therefore that's in a German request. Okay, so I think granted. Do you want to be heard sir? We are going to adjourn this but but we'll hear your comments as well. Thank you. My name is Mark Brumman, 280 Victory Boulevard, about five houses from the scene that we're talking about. I didn't plan on speaking today. I've been living in New Rochelle for over 30 years. But just to give you an idea this morning, I say I'm retired. I live in the house. I have two dogs in a bird. And all day long from seven in the morning to 3.30 in the afternoon, I hear like gigantic wood chippers and heavy duty machinery. And I said to myself, let me go take a ride to Cadillac and sure enough mammoth machines and mammoth cranes are taken down trees. And we both do respect to the gentleman that was talking. These are nine-eight-inch trees. These are mature, freaky, and living trees. The girth of which you had to see. It was quite depressing to see them taking them down. Sorry, I just want to make sure that you're clear. They said that the trees that are coming down are not on this lot. Are you aware of that? They're on the adjacent lot. That's what we've been told. Okay. It's right next. You keep talking about this being a rock. This is a mammoth boulder. You're not gonna chip at this. And if you do chip at it, you're putting everybody in, everybody's gonna have a headache, every freaking day for two or three weeks with the noise and the congestion and the, it's just going to be terrible. The reason I'm up here is, with all the respect to the entourage here, I think you should visibly go over to this area and take a look. We have, we're all responsible to visit each site. Oh, well that's good. I didn't know this. Like I said, I've been living in New Rochelle for over 30 years. I've never been in this room. And I could tell you, I've been seeing things even in my neighborhood that I wish I knew that this room existed and that you had a chance to really talk to you people. I think we're doing, I think it would be a mistake. I think it would really depress a lot of people that have been living here for 30 years or more. And like I said, it's good to see everybody on a day, it's like this, but this blueprint or whatever you call it, you're not going to understand what's going on with this. No matter how good you are with the reading of maps and the reading of core, you know, whatever, you got to go over there and just look. And thank you very much. And like I said, I wasn't planning on doing this, but thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you. You want to be heard on this? Yes. Okay, just if you could make it brief, because the matter's already been adjourned. This is just really a courtesy at this point. I'll be brief. Good evening. My name is Anthony Buflmante, 68 Marion Drive. I am not here for this case tonight, but I'd like to bring the board up to speed impossible possibly the neighbors. I did the development on the house directly on the dead end of this house where I removed over two feet of rock. The same exact rock that is on this lot. It's definitely not Manhattan Shist. And as it being sort of rock removal expert in Manhattan, where I've removed tens of thousands of yards of Manhattan Shist. Can I just go up to the point? So the corner impact that's going to be impacted. Oh, okay. So this area right here that's going to be actually excavated and broken up. The most difficult portion of this project is finding a relief. As you could see, let's call it the basement of the proposed house has a relief. So this rock doesn't necessarily have to be jack hammered out. It could be hydraulically drilled and hydraulically split where none of the neighbors and nobody's lifestyle, nothing is going to get affected at all. That's a guarantee and this is not an hatchest. An hatchest is in Manhattan. It's a very hard rock. It could be drilled. A jackhammer doesn't have to sit there for two to three weeks. Knocking it out. It could be drilled and hydraulically split. Successively without any hydrostatic pressure going towards anybody's home or foundation. And that's a guarantee. Thank you. Thank you, sir. That's for some funds. Okay. Okay. Okay. Can I submit the. Sure. You can hand it up. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay. Can I submit the. Sure. You can hand make a motion to adjourn this matter on the No matter on the Gallauder. Fernando Arias. This is a motion towards your motion to adjourn. Yeah, second. Yes. Case has been adjourned. Thank you. Thank you. I think we're done. Yeah. I think we did. It's okay. Where it Thank you. I think we're done. Thank you. It's okay. Where is he? It's a point of order. Are you adjourned to the next session or is it a next meeting? To the next meeting. It'll be adjourned to the next meeting on the April calendar. April 1. April 1. Is it April 1? Yeah. What is the next meeting it'll be adjourned to the next meeting on the April calendar Is it April one? Yeah, it'll be April one. Yes First Tuesday of every month Case seven twenty twenty five to 94, Union Avenue. Can you hear me? I'm sorry. My name is Max Campagno, I represent Anthony Buflmonte. Because of the microphone, sir, didn't hear a word just now. With me is my colleague, who's that? Can you start over, you weren't at the microphone yet? It was Max Fabio, I represent Anthony Buflmonte, equities and 294 Union Avenue and my colleague William Juris to my right is the applicant for purposes of this application. And we'll try to keep a brief and at the same time, a suede and he concerns the neighbors may have. With respect to this property, we're not seeking to expand its use. In fact, what we're seeking to do with the purposes of requesting for the use change will be used in a less intrusive manner. Currently, the not conforming use is set for a ornamental ironworks and manufacturing. We're not using that any longer. In fact, the last two years, Opatul June of 2024, the New Rochelle City School District rented the location where they stored heavy equipment and there was a lot of back and forth going on all the time in the neighborhood. Now, what we're requesting to do here is at least a property to the Kingdom of Morocco, whereby they would be storing their vehicles in the location, not everyday vehicles, to more pricey vehicles, along with some personal belongings belonging to the people at the embassy. So the footprint is being shrunk dramatically. The insurgents in the neighborhood likewise is being shrunk dramatically. There is no change whatsoever to the building's footprint or the building, there's no work being done on the building. So I'm happy to speak to whoever is concerned the neighbors. I wish we would have known that they were, we would have spoke to them sooner. But that's pretty much what we have. It's looking to minimize the use, rather than expand the use. Thank you. Thank you. Does anybody want to be heard? Thank you. Hi. Barbara, six street. Neuroshell. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to speak once again about an issue that significantly affects our neighborhood. Some of us stood before this board, including myself, about four years ago. We appreciate your past efforts in approving the quality of life for many families in the West End. Unfortunately, over the past years, conditions have deteriorated due to increased absentee landlords and lacks enforcement of zoning regulations. We hope you remember the board's previous determination. This site was not permitted to be used as a garage for commercial trucks. The owner was well aware of this restriction, but continued to push the boundaries, and here we are again this evening. The sign posted outside the building is misleading. There hasn't been an ironworks building business there for over 30 years. More than 40 years ago was Chala ironworks, later sold to a Mr. Armando who rented the space to a nail polish company, and then a glass company. More recently in 2022, 2023, and even into early 2024, the Nureșel Board of Education parks Snow Plough trucks in the garage. This led to constant issues with trucks frequently blocking no parking zones, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking, parking Nurechelle allowing the city school district to use this facility to park trucks when this was prohibited? Four years ago, the current owner attempted to rent or sell the property to a landscaper. The board firmly rejected the proposal. Yet here we are again facing the same issue. Why is this happening? Why are we debating an issue that should no longer be up for discussion? Perhaps the timing of the inspections is also problematic when board members visit during the day and in the middle of the winter, the neighborhood is quiet. But the corner of 6th Street in Union Avenue, every weekday morning and afternoon, is highly congested between the hours of 8 a.m. and 8.30. And again in the late morning when the pre-kindergarten children's session is over. And again after school, have a line up of maybe 15 to 20 cars as all the streets have become one way. Everything converges right on this corner. Our community includes many children and senior citizens. That's time, so I'm just going to ask you to wrap it up, okay? Yes, thank you. With disabilities who rely on safe sidewalks and streets. In conclusion, we respectfully ask the board to uphold its previous decision and deny any request to store vehicles on this premises. This use is nonconforming, unsafe, and detrimental to the quality of life in our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you. Would anyone else like to be heard? Hi, good evening. My name is Sandra Artyaga. I'm on 56th Street. And I'm here to support Barbara's comments and also to add on that I, mom of two kids, one with intellectual disabilities. We're right, half the street, we're down the block from where this building is and this implements on my son usually takes the bus to his school and we usually use this corner to get him on the bus. I'm highly concerned for his safety since he temps to loop all the time. I also see a lot of kids walking on their own to school. It's only a block away. So you should consider not having those trucks. There's not a lot of visibility as you can see. There's could be a truck backing up. It's a building. It's not a garage. So I don't agree with this. That's it. Thank you. Good evening and thank you. My name is Denise Monahan, 558th Street. I've been a resident of this neighborhood for 60 years. I can also attest to it not being a iron works for many, many years. I don't know how many years, but many, many years. The usage we recall last, as stated, was the nail polish factory and the window thing. We did come before the board, all different members. They did understand our concerns. The concerns that we have are the same, but I can say that the situation has changed with the street changes. There are, I don't know if you're aware, Fifth Street is a one way going the other way now and Columbus School. So everyone's going around, it's coming through here. I think I could speak for most. I looked at your faces. I'm surprised to hear that they want to use it for what was the country? Morocco. That was a surprise, right? My question is, when I read these signs, can we give a better understanding of what automobiles might be, would that be any kind of construction vehicle or landscape vehicles? I think the applicant had mentioned, although he can certainly speak to it, that it was there, like, it was for storage for high-end vehicles and personal belongings. Okay. But when he comes back up, I'm sure he can give us some more detail about that. We would have that in writing that it would not be used for any kind of heavy commercial vehicles coming in and out. And then the other thing was the, with the board of ed, they kind of just slipped those, they were snow plows. It was like overnight they were there. So we didn't have a chance to, you know, say anything about that. And they were, they were snowplows. So I think we need to look at this and maybe if they can give us a better idea, we have a building. Someone has to, they own it, they have to be able to maintain it and they need to rent it. So we're very particular in the neighborhood, especially about what happens from the whole neighborhood. And we're very particular about our children there. We are worried about any commercial development past 4th street. If you go up there, there really is none. And there is none because we are very careful that for the kids to walk around and not have everything going on. So I think we need to know exactly what's going to be there. Maybe a little more information about that. I think we can certainly get that. I would tell you that this application and what this This board has to decide today is very different from the situation with the school district. That didn't come before us or any board here. So we can't really speak to that, but this sounds like a very different use for the building. So we've heard so far. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen from the Zoning Board. My name is Anna Sackler, 14-6th Street. And I would like to emphasize a few points which my friends and colleagues and my wife have said before. One is regard to congestion and safety risks. The area is already overwhelmed with school-related traffic and commercial vehicles, including maybe other vehicles. Additional vehicles will only worsen the problem, posing a serious risk to children, seniors, and disabled residents. We urge you to visit Union Avenue during these peak times to witness firsthand how congested and unsafe the area becomes. I have here a number of photos which I would like to submit to you along me afterwards. Landscaping trucks, old trucks and many other commercial trucks frequently exit 7th Street and Union Avenue. Granting permission to other vehicles will inevitably lead to other more complicated issues. Any motor vehicle first exacerbates congestion already strained environment, including high-level vehicles. Second point, which is, of course, related to it, is preventing future tragedies. A preventive, to-pentral accident occurred in Maramoneck, Maramoneck, yeah. Last year, whereby a child and a mother were killed, they lived before in our area. The safety of our children must remain the top priority. This location is not only a busy cross street but also a school bus route, as was mentioned. The site of the tragedy I mentioned earlier was not nearly as congested or hazardous as sixth- and union avenue, allowing this type of activity in such a crowded area, risk setting the stage for a similar and preventable accident, incident, an accident. In conclusion, we, me, my friends and my wife, respectively asked the board to uphold its previous decision and deny any request to store vehicles in the premises. This use is non-conforming, unsafe, and detrimental to the quality of life in our neighborhood. This is a two-grade neighborhood. This serves better. Thank you very much. May I submit the photos? Yes. Thank you. I'm going to put this in. Yeah, I like this. I'm sorry that I don't have a better poker face, but yes, it does kind of boggle the mind that of all the places, the Kingdom of Morocco has found Union Avenue to be the place to store their mazerottis. So it makes me, it does make me scratch my head. But that being the case, it is in our code that this board does have the jurisdiction to impose such conditions and safeguards as we deem necessary for the neighborhood. And I think that it behooves both us and the applicant to make that very clear to the people that are concerned and to our concerns. Sure. May I? Of course. No trucks. Trucks are over. They're gone. The trucks came from the New Rochelle City School District. When I say ornamental ironworks, that's what the zoning is permitted there. So if it were, that's- Sir, please just address us, not them. I know it's- I appreciate- I'm trying to be all inclusive. I appreciate that you're responding to their comments. And I'm sure they do too, just please address them. You can't speak from the- From the audience. Thank you. Please continue. So we're permitted non-conforming use of an ornamental iron works. asking for a change of that use to go to what we're asking for now. No heavy equipment. use of an ornamental iron works. We're asking for a change of that use to go to what we're asking for now. No, have you equipment, no transit back into the location. It's used for storage. If and when they need something, they'll get it. Safety risk is slight. If any, there isn't any change, but respect to the safety. If anything, this is a minimal use. We can't stress that enough. As far as the Kingdom of Morocco, you've lived in Urshel, you're a young woman, but you've stayed in early, how long you've lived here. You know Embassy Row on Beachmont. That's where all the embassies go. So they found my client, they liked the location. It's neat, it's tidy, it's functional, and it's out of the way. It's not a business, it's not a business, we're not renting space to anyone else. There's no professional storage going on like a Westies. It's a limited, limited use, and with respect to the neighbors, they should rejoice that this building is being used for that purpose and not anything else. Because the footprint is so much smaller than it's not conforming use dictates. So with respect to everyone, I'm sure it was me I didn't articulate what the purpose of this use is. Again, no trucks, no heavy equipment, they're going to store a couple of cars and their personal belongings. I suspect, well I can't guarantee this, is that once they have a change in staff at the embassies they come and retrieve their personal property and replace it with the new ambassador or the new consulate. So I asked this board respectfully to approve this use as it's an best interest for my client in the best interest of the neighbors and in the best interest of the city of New Rochelle. Thank you. Please go. Can we, how many cars are we talking about? This is my client. You heard from her earlier. I wish you had it, but he's here. I'm Antebel Fomonte. They have made it clear. They said they want to park vehicles. I give the board a pole-walking team a copy of the lease. Its vehicles, it might be four to five vehicles, they might use on occasion. This is no commercial activity. They want to store some vehicles in there and some personal belongings. It's 5,400 square feet. It's not going to be jam packed, it's not going to be a parking garage by any means. Did you say Paul has a copy of the list? Absolutely does. I have one up if you'd like. Yeah, I'd like to see a copy. Can you just- Does the lease stipulate that it's personal vehicles, not commercial vehicles? Absolutely, yes. And personal belongings. Yes. And does the lease prohibit any sort of subletting or storage of any belongings unrelated to the embassy or it's... It's for their belongings. There was nothing excluded or included. It's for their personal belongings. Are they permitted to sublet any of the space within the building under their- I will not allow that. Would you- It's rented to them. It's rented to the embassy. Is that something you'd be willing to- is the least signed already? Yes. Yes. But it's subject obviously to our own. I don't know what they would sublet it. Yeah, so it means sublet to a contractor? I'm not sure. I don't know. I'm just saying if, if this board we're willing to approve, I have no idea if we are, would you be willing to put a stipulation into the lease? Or we, I suppose, could just put it into our ruling that there's no subletting to any third parties beyond your less A. And that, and you're going to show us where in the lease it's limited to personal vehicles, no commercial vehicles and personal belongings. Absolutely, yes. Okay, I'd like to see the lease. Thank you. Yes, thank you. Mm-hmm. Yes, you're welcome. Where is? Just wait a moment, sir. So they're still responding. We're going to find you the appropriate section of that lease, hopefully quoted to you. While you do that, I do have a couple of questions. Sure. I'll go ahead couple of questions. Sure. Okay. So to be honest with you, I find it very hard to believe that this particular, you know, they could tell you whatever it is, but when you tell me that county moroc was going to use a utility facility in New Rochelle to store personal stuff, you know, to me, that sounds you little, you know, I'm not saying that is not the truth, but to me, it sounds like a far-fetched. Number one, I live in the area for the last 40 years, literally across two blocks. That area is saturated with traffic. Even if it's one vehicle that gets stored and there needs to be pulled out,, is going to change the dynamics of that area. So the fact that you're saying vehicles, there's no details, we don't know how many they are, the type of it, how big are they, how often they're going to use. To me, there's a lot of missing information of here. So, like I said, that is an area that I lived on. For many years, I'm quite familiar with. I see the dynamics of the schools the Columbus have closed one way all the traffic is routed to that particular corner there You know anything that requires anything to do with a motor vehicle being started Driven out of that gate or moved around is asking for travel being given the dynamics that happened and are here on a day-to-day Basis so to me I don't have enough information and I just like to see where exactly is it. Personal items could be anything. I need to find out what it is. And then for me to actually vote on this, I need to find out when you have vehicles, we need to have a better definition of what that means because I just buried generic and that's in providing enough information for me to make it happen. You want the impression that the vehicles are going to be stored there and every day someone's going to pick one up and drive it? Is that your impression? Because... And that's in providing enough information for me to make a decision. Are you under the impression that the vehicles are going to be stored there and everyday someone's going to pick one up and drive it? Is that your impression? Because I don't know what my impression is because I don't have information. Do you have any provided that information? We have what we've submitted the lease to Mr. Maca. We've I'll quote you the appropriate passage back to the chairperson's question. And that is. Okay. The demise premises shall be used solely for the storage of personal property and the parking of vehicles and for no other purpose unless approved than writing by the lessor. So if you're asking my client not to give greater approval we're happy to to do that. But again, I can't stress this enough. These are long-term parking of vehicles. Not a chauffeur or not, something where someone's going to visit the site each day and drive a vehicle out of there. So if you're under that impression, that's not it. These are governments we're dealing with. They come with certain property. They like to store it in a safe, secure location. It's my client tried to tell you that the building is amply large enough to accommodate many more vehicles, but we're not looking for that. They're two to four vehicles at most. Not in transit. Not higher not used on a daily basis So the the building itself will be largely dormant and I'll hand you up our copy of the lease if you don't mind Any other questions on this I Mean based on what you just read there that doesn't say anything to us It really doesn't so I think you guys need to be more specific as though what are they going to be parking there? How many cars are they going to be parking there? And also personal belonging could be a whole lot of things. I think they also need to be more specific. You know, there's, listen, I, based on what you said to me, I think this is much better than what they had there before. But at the end of the day, you're not being as specific. Based on what you just read there, they're going to store vehicles there. That's technically what you say. It doesn't say what type of vehicles, how often those cars are going to be moved, what kind of cars, how many cars, none of that is on what you just read. So we're actually looking for specifics. Well, respectfully, that's a little too restrictive to put on the tenant. And I'll tell you why. First, we can guarantee you there are automobile's, no trucks, automobiles that are used in a common course of things like yours or mine. Well, what you just read doesn't say that, which is why I'm trying to tell you. But we can't write every single possible. So I have to tell you if it's 72 Volkswagen. No, no, no, no. If he comes a little too restrictive, we're just mad. I understand. The, the, what do you want to do with this? How are we going to know? Well, maybe, maybe there could be- We would have to update the board. Can you maybe- Yeah, no. Maybe we could just have a maximum. I mean, I don't do this math. Maybe Mr. Balfamon, he does. But you said it's 5,400 square feet. What is the maximum number of vehicles that could even be stored in there safely? Hi. That's a lot of cars. I'm not asking you to guess or guess today. I'm not asking you to guess or guess today. I'm just. 54 and square feet. I own numerous garages in the city of New Rochelle. Easily 10 to 12 cars could fit in there. There's not going to be 10 to 12 cars here. They all live in Manhattan and New York City. I guess during the UN summit there there's a lot of activity. They're probably gonna have some of their personal, I guess private cars that they use for transportation, stored in the garage. They want something in Westchester County because they cannot have it in Manhattan. So, just, I don't know about Embassy Roe, so I apologize for my, but so this is not for tenants that's living somewhere in New Michelle that's going to be accessing a car down the street. These are, this is a Manhattan based tenant. Yes. And this is long term storage from what I'm hearing for personal vehicles and personal effects and personal belong. So what's for myself and I'm not speaking on behalf of the board, that's the kind of language that I would like to see. Because to me, that sounds a whole lot better than commercial vehicles, landscaping vehicles, school buses, snow plows. That is disruptive, that's dangerous, that's a lot of traffic in and out. But if the lease said personal via, and I'm not saying that this would do it, but- We're happy to do that, and we'll put them into the lease, but they're not personal vehicles. They belong to the government of Morocco, who is not commercial. Okay, so- Maybe it could be passenger. You could just say non-commercial. Well, passenger vehicles. Yes, they're all private passenger, non-commercial. These are the terms. And the term is personal property, personal belonging. So that's very clear in the lease. Again, we've given this lease to Mr. Bakko. We've gone over this prior to drafting it. We drafted with the city in mind. And I appreciate that unfortunately nobody gave us the lease, which probably would have been helpful for today. How long is the lease for I think it's two years I think it's two with an option to two with an option. It's two with an option So maybe we could do with draw is so would you be willing to to come back to us with the rider along these lines? And then we could pick this up. If someone wants a forward to us, we're exactly what we're up to looking for. Well, I think you have, we can't draft it for you. Wait a month, though. Just to be clear, there's no guarantees that if you do that, you're gonna get approved. What we asking is from additional information for some of the members to have a better comfort while they're gonna vote on, okay? I already made my point as to what I'm looking for from my perspective. Every one of these members to have a better comfort what they're gonna vote on. I already made my point as to what I'm looking for from my perspective. Every one of these members is independent and they have their own recent two analysis case and vote on it. So this is General Guidance. There's no guarantees that you come back with that information, you're gonna get that approved. We can't wait a month though, we're gonna lose the tenant. and we've been working on this with the city since inception. And we've given all of this information over to the city. I understand Mr. Valka's not here. We have turned this over to you. I can't stress enough, it's a government, they're not a commercial entity. They're not. They're in Manhattan. They're not transiting. The vehicles are there for storage because it's far cheaper to store the vehicles here in Westchester County than leasing space in Manhattan to store those vehicles. With respect to personal property, its personal property belonging to a government. It's not commercial. I'll hand you up the lease now, but waiting to April 1st, we're going to lose a tenant. Can I, um, I'd like to ask one more note, please. Just, just be aware that the Sony board needs to have that information. Not just the Mr. Bakker. Mr. Bakker, right? The building apartment, where members independent on the Sony board, that information needs to be provided to us. If it was provided to somebody else, the fact that the matter is that we don't have it here, for analysis to read it and find out what is in there. So. Okay, if I could speak for a second. I spoke to the attorney, I forgot your name, where I'm sorry, we met. Mr. Bruey. You did not ask us for any of that. I would have been prepared tonight. We did meet. Okay, I have a suggestion. Yes. And the gentleman, I believe, has something to say, but I would like to take a look at that least. So I would like to just take a recess with the board and go into executive session for just a few minutes. So we can look at the lease together. We didn't have a chance to confer over it. But before we do, is it brief? Okay. No, please come up to the microphone. If you want to speak with them, you can do it off the record, privately or not. A question actually, which I would like to ask in the ward and everybody, you know, even the king day of Morocco and others, unless I work in this area, it It's diplomatic status, I suppose. It's diplomatic status, it complicates any legal questions regarding to, I don't know, the accident, et cetera. Sir, I can let the attorney respond to that, but my sense is that where the Morocco is not before us. It's the landlord that's making a request and if there's some sort of a violation of anything of the zoning or the permitted uses, it's the landlord that's responsible. So it's- If there's an accident which would go beyond, then it would also affect the community. We're going to take a recess. Thank you. you I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. I'm going to go to the next room. Thank you very much for your patience. The board has looked at the lease and thought about the concerns of the community that were raised and conferred with council and are representative from the building department. And with that, I'm sorry, I'm having computer issue, just one moment. Can't log on. I'm just trying to pull up the language of the, okay. So with that, I would like to make a motion. For case number seven dash, 2025, Anthony Balfamante, equities LLC. For permission to change the nonconforming use from ornamental ironworks storage, of ironworks to storage of personal items and automobiles. Whereas the change from one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use in an RMF 0.5 zone district at the premises of 294 Union Avenue, block 1287, lot 13. In considering whether to change to non-conforming uses, from one non-conforming use to another, the board is asked to consider whether the proposed use is more consistent with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and having less adverse impacts. I do note that the board in permitting any such change, the board may impose conditions and safeguards as it may seem necessary or appropriate to further the proposed, the purposes of the zoning code. And so with that, I move that we approve the application with certain provisos. I make this motion for a number of reasons, but one of which is that I believe that the proposed use will be less intrusive and less disruptive to the neighborhood based upon the representations that have been made today both of the applicant and its principal. So I move to approve the application with the following provisos that the new permitted use, nonconforming permitted use will be for long term storage, storage of private passenger vehicles and personal property. and that no commercial equipment, commercial vehicles, or hazardous materials be stored on the property. And so with that, I make a motion that we approve the application subject to those applications. I did long-term storage. Yes, long-term storage with those four provisions and those would be in any approvals that are granted. Second. Thank you. Fernando Arias? No. Able Rodriguez? Yes. Carla Clapper? Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Erica Heissner. Yes. Motion has been approved. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I'm under the control. I'm under the control. I'm under the control. Stop lying. I'm just going to ask you, oh, yes. Where can you please? Oh, you can take it back, because Paul has a copy apparently. But I'm going to ask you oh yes. You can take it back because Paul has a copy apparently but I'm going to ask you all just to step out because we have one last item on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. be listed on the resolution. All right. We have to come in and sign it. Okay. Thank you. Kelly, you want to call the list? Yes. The last. Sorry. The last case is an administrative item for an extension, case one 2024. An extension to legalize the construction of a second story of an existing building. Do I have an emotion to extend for an extension? I make the motion. Yes. Second. Second. Extension has been approved. Thank you. Do we need to vote though? I think we need to vote though. Oh, sorry. Fernando Arias. Hi. Able Rodriguez. Yes. Carla Clapper. Yes. David Fernandez. clapper.as. Aye. Able Rodriguez. Yes. Carla Clapper. Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Bob Stenzial. Yes. Erica Eisner. Yes. We extend. And with that, we're adjourned. We adjourned. We do. No?