Good evening everyone. My name is Pascua Procopio and I want to welcome everyone to tonight's meeting for zoning for September of 2024. I do want to introduce the rest of our team here this evening. We have our board secretary, Regina, here to my left. We have our commissioner buildings, Paul Vaca. I'm sorry, to my right. I made to my left. The Regina is to my right. I'm sorry, it's been a long time off here. We do have a new addition to our team this evening, Dr. Prem, who's the Associate Corporation Council and from our Planning Department we have Kevin Kane, who's the Director of Planning and Sustainability. the director of planning and sustainability. On our board this evening, we have six board members. We have Fernando Arias to my left. We had Abel Rodriguez to my near left. And we have David Fernandez to my right. Robert Stanzial and Erica Aster. Just a reminder, you will need four votes for an application or resolution to pass this evening. So we'll keep that as a reminder as the applications come up. Just a couple of notes before the meeting begins for those speaking on an application this evening. Before you 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 not to repeat any point that was already made. You can still come up, state that you agree with previous speaker if you still want to come up. There will be a three minute time limit per speaker this evening. I also want the applicants to be aware that you do have the right to adjourn your case or up to two times. 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. Just know we moved to a paperless environment. You'll see different devices, laptops, phones. So just we're looking down at certain documents and lastly, please remember that the board is obligated to grant the minimum variance and present a resolution only if and meet certain requirements set by New York State law. So with that I'm going to ask Regina to call the roll please. Sorry is case 13 2024196 Wilmot Road? Is the applicant here? Yes. Opposition of voices to be heard on that case? No, I'm just doing the roll call, Mark. Oh, sorry. It's OK. New cases tonight, case 22, 2024, 1042, Webster Avenue, the applicants here. Opposition of voices to be heard. Case 23, 2024, 31 Calton Road, applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that. And anyone that's here for Case 24, 2024, 14 to circle, that has been adjourned and will not be on the calendar next month either. Okay, so if anyone's here that case you can leave. First case tonight, 13, 2024, 196 Wilmot Road Rear. Before you present your case, I just want to go over a couple items just to clarify a couple things from the last meeting. Just a reminder there was a recommendation of neutral from the planning board. There was also some letters that we did receive from the neighbors who cannot attend this evening and I just want to make a note of some of the issues or questions they brought up in their letters. One was from 182 Wollmont, and one was 194 Wollmont. But there was a question that came up last meeting regarding if the applicant had the right to build in on that line, if it was in a floodplain or flood zone. So I will ask, and I did kind of mention to the commissioner of AACA to see if he can just clarify just to make sure everybody understands the right of the applicant to build on the property. So Paul, do you mind going over that? Sure. We, I went back onto the FEMA website, which is the map service center for flood zones and flood plains. I looked at it, I printed out a Firmette for this parcel, which I gave to Regina. I believe she's handed the mantle all aboard members. Yes, yes. To the best of my knowledge and belief, you are not allowed to construct anything in a floodplain. Nothing. You are allowed to build in a flood zone, including an A flood zone. But you have to comply with section R, 322 of the residential code of the state of New York and we're using the 2020 version at this time. So FEMA doesn't say you can't build in a flood zone. They flip it back to the state of New York and the state will allow you to build in a flood zone but you have to take certain precautionary measures. You have to comply with Section R 322 and all the applicable subsections. So I just wanted to point that out for clarification to the board members and to the public for the folks that came here. Thank you. Could I just say something to you? Sure, absolutely. I think the point, Paul, also, that you're making is that the term flood plain and flood zone were tossed around it to changeably, but there are two different things. They are, too, if it's the lake is a floodway. And the delineation of the lake, it has a different delineation on the map than the, I'm going to call it the abutting property to the right, which is zone AE. And then there's a smaller zone adjacent to the AE, which is closer to the, I'm going to say it meanders onto the property. It's not a straight line. It kind of meanders on to the property. It's not a straight line. It kind of kind of meanders in and out and it's on the proposed site plan. Both of those deliberations are on the proposed site plan. And again, just to be clear, the applicant has shown that on their plans, both those lines and boundaries. So the board is aware, so is the building department. And again, if this application does get approved, this still has to go for site approval with the planning board and again reviewed by the building department. So with that, I'm gonna ask the applicant to go over the changes they've made from the last presentation they made two months ago. Go back into line. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Go back into line. Excellent. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that introduction. Thank you, Mr. Vaca, for that clarification. On behalf of the applicant, my name is Mark Blanchard. I'm with the law firm Blanchard and Wilson. 235 of Maranac Avenue, suite 401 White Plains, 40605. Since we were last in front of you, we heard the boards and the neighbors, we heard the boards concerns relating to the size of the property. I'm sorry, the size of the house. We have submitted a revised floor plan. We also heard the board talking about having concern with the landscaping with the new site plan showing that the revised floor plan, the new site plan does show the landscaping. We also have a heard your concern about the engineering issues relating to the property and our engineering team is here this evening and they will speak to that matter as soon as I conclude. I only have a four-deck slide to show you this evening which is kind of a summary of the new material that was submitted for tonight's meeting. To go back to the top, we were talking about the footprint of the house. Last time we were here, we did hear concerns that maybe the house was too large for the lot. I would say that the architect went back, our architect is here as well, in case you have any direct questions, but the architect went back to the drawing board and was able to reduce, further reduce the side yard request, meaning we are now shrunk by two feet on either side. So the requested variance at first was over 16 feet. Now the requested variance is just over, we are providing just over 18 feet, 25 remains as a requirement, where we were at 16, we are now providing over 18. So from our perspective, that is a significant reduction, a significant change, as per the Board's request. Why do I use the word significant? Well, it affected the internal layout, the use of an elevator that was for there is an elderly, the mother of one of the owners, is going to be lives with the family now. She's going to continue to live with the family. With this reduction, the elevator had to just occupying the first floor, right? That elevator sort of takes out the second floor for the use. So look, that's it from our perspective, that's a significant change in the use and occupancy and the enjoyment of the house. But we are, we try our best to comply with the board's requests. When we were here last, we did show aerial photographs of the neighborhood. One of the contentions that I'm making is that with this kind of, it's a beautiful neighborhood, but one of those older neighborhoods in a city such as Newer Shell, you see the same thing I'm running in Yonkers, these older neighborhoods don't exactly, they weren't split up on a cookie cutter kind of away. So the lots are irregularly shaped throughout this neighborhood. We did show the photographic evidence of many houses near us being situated close to property lines. In this instance, we've submitted some evidence for further clarification that the 198 Wilmont Road these are pictures taken from the building department files were showing on the where would be the left side of the portion of the picture. There's a deficiency there right that's they're providing 19 feet we're providing 18 feet feet. When you go to the analysis, this board will do for the character of the neighborhood and the impact of the requested variance, when you compare one property to the neighbor, you're talking about a foot difference. They're providing 19, we're providing just over 18. So in terms of the overall impact, the analysis from this board is really a foot We're showing at 200 Wilmot on there's a rear there. I'm sorry There's a side yard that's only providing 12 if we call the top to the right of that picture the front yard There that's down to 4.5 under current zoning the front yard's 35 feet. We all know the sides 25 So when you're looking at the two immediately adjacent parcels, the board is looking at one house at 200 with a greater impact into the side in front yard deviation and only one foot between us and neighbor at 196. When the question of the size of the house is raised, it is important to pause here and remember that on the revised site plan, just like on our initial submission, the architect included the required zoning compliance table. And we are compliant on this lot in every other zoning requirement. The front and rear of course that's you know the side yard is driving this discussion but when you're talking about lock coverage in FAR and height we are fully compliant so it's a fully compliant house other than the side yard deviation so I think that's very important to keep that in mind with this board's analysis. And as the Chairman correctly pointed out, there are, if there are design issues or landscape issues that remain, we have a long way to go. We'll be in front of your planning board and they certainly have more of that aesthetic and that design and that bulk massing is all within their jurisdiction. I want us to try to focus tonight on what's in front of this board, I think most germane to this board's jurisdiction. Although I can see that you are concerned with the engineering and the other issues, but the side yard question, when you look at the totality of the existing conditions throughout the neighborhood, we're not much different than what's out there. And what I mean is we're certainly not going to change the side yard issue. Certainly not going to change the character of the neighborhood. Now, when you look at the other question I wanted to raise, I'm sorry, that we wanted to answer was with our civil engineering plan. As I had mentioned last time, sorry, getting ahead of my notes here. As I had mentioned last time, our plan started off with the thought process that we were heading straight to planning board. We had missed the initial review and totality had missed the side yard issue. So when the building department vetted the original plan, including the civil engineering plan, what am I talking about? Including the civil engineering plan. It was approved as acceptable to go forth to the planning board, right? So what you have here this evening, is we supplemented our submission with a civil engineering plan that had already been reviewed by the Billing Department. So the point I'm making is that at our last meeting, you didn't have corrections to the civil plan, you just didn't have it. So now you have it, our civil engineer, David Coisman, he'll join me momentarily, he's going to come up and speak to the plants and lay the boards concerns relating to what we think is this would be the plan we'd bring. Should we be approved by this board, this is the civil engineering plan we're bringing to planning. So look, without any more comment from me, obviously we're here to answer questions as well. But why don't I ask Mr. Koizeman to come up and speak to his civil engineering and then we can move forward. David. Thank you Mark for the introduction. My name is David Koizeman from Koizeman Engineering. Our office is located in 6834th Street, B431 in Brooklyn, New York. Could you spell your last name please? Coizman K-O-Y-S-M-A-N. Thank you. In front of you, you will see the site plan for the proposed development at 196 Wilmont. As part of the SOAR process and the approach for the project, we looked at different ways of mitigating stormwater and conformance with the town of New Yorkshire regulations. So in green, we've just identified them on a plan, just rain gardens that would hold water temporarily, get absorbed into the soil once it gets percolated into the soil. Blue you see a structure that also holds the stormwater temporarily will be able to use for irrigation purposes for the property. In general, that's the approach for the stormwater management process for the site. In general, I just came up to describe it. Thank you. Mark, if you want to finish off. Thank you. Mark, if you want to finish off, or? Thank you. Oh, yes. As part of the town in your show, we had to mitigate stormwater. And this project complies with the regulation of mitigating stormwater and the rain volume required to be maintained per the regulations. So we are not adding any additional storm water onto the leg behind us. That's the most relevant information that we brought forth this evening to show the board that we were being as responsive to show the board that we were being as responsive as possible to the initial comments. What you saw this evening was just a summary. For example, David's full engineering set at seven pages were just showing you the first page tonight. The architectural set is 14 pages, obviously you just saw one set. We're doing that out of the interest of brevity. You have all the information, it's part of our record of course. But without any direct questions right now, I would suggest we turn over to the public and we're here to answer any follow-up questions. Thank you, Mr. Blenter. Excuse me, sir. I'm going to a quick question for Paul. Mark had said the building department had reviewed this for a planning poll. Did you look at the drainage plans? Just was reviewed by one of the examiners, we wrote a referral to the planning board. So the typical process is once they make the application, they recirculate the plans, and then we do a second evaluation on the drawings, as with any other site plan, Bob. Right. Yeah. All right. And then if this gets approved, it will get reviewed again for final review, right? Yes, it will. Okay. Well, I would even probably go a step further, Mr. Chairman. If we are approved at this board, we then turn around. And or maybe I'm incorrect, Paul, I was about to say that we're submitting a full application to site plan, but we're here on referral. So, but it's still subject to the planning board comments and still subject to their review of the engineering material. No, I was only asking Mark, is your application was that Paul has already approved these plans? Oh, no, no, not approved. What I meant, what I hope I said was he approved for them to move forward to planning, meaning they were at an acceptable level to move forward to planning. Meaning they were at an acceptable level to move forward. I didn't mean to imply that there was a final approval. He just allowed us to invoke the planning board jurisdiction. That's correct. Thank you. Thank you for that clarification, Bob. Mr. Glentree. I'm going to open up to the public. I think there were some folks who wanted to come up. Anybody like to speak? When you come up, please state your name and address for the record. And you have three minutes. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen of the board. My name is Javier Tate. I reside at 200 Wilmot Road. My wife, Tamara, is here with me tonight. First of all, the comment about my home at 200 Wilmot Road, my wife, tomorrow is here with me tonight. First of all, the comment about my home at 200 Wilmot Road and the small easements, I think what you need to understand this board never approved the lot that my home is built on. My home was built in 1943, so I don't think anyone was checking to see if there was a 25-foot easement. With regard to the current planning, the one thing I don't understand, I don't think it was described very well as the drainage. I see green as if there's going to be grass plant to hear, but my property runs along the top portion that you see on the diagram. Our concern is twofold. The flooding and the easements. I don't, you know, we've never commented on the size of the home being built. Our only concern was that the home be built according to the easements that are permitted. Just to clarify, they're not easements or variances. So just two different things. I just want to make sure for the record that's what you're referring to. Thank you. You're talking about the setbacks? I'm sorry about the required 25 so the setbacks or the as of right 25 foot side back. So you know moving from 16 and a quarter feet to 18 and a quarter feet I don't know it seems pretty minimal given that they were initially asking for a nine foot easement and they've only backed off by two foot on each side. I know that and we've sent in photographs in the past, that when Iran's this part of our yard floods quite a bit, there's never going to be a home there, but what you need to understand is that this, the subject property is 2 to 3 foot higher than the surrounding properties. I'm also kind of curious about the placement of the trees. The property slopes from the right to the left. And what you see is the trees planted on the upper left side. So those trees are not really doing anything with regard to drainage. And I would appreciate if we or the board can question an engineer about the drainage mitigation. I don't really understand what they've said here, other than the color green on the diagram. And that's it. Thank you. Anyone else? Good evening. My name is Drew Gamiles. I am here speaking on behalf of Joy Chiu, owner of 194, Wilmot. My biggest concern tonight is whether this is really the minimum variance necessary. You know, we have the zoning board has to balance the benefit to the applicant versus the detriment to the community. And I think there's some serious detriments here for a benefit that we don't know because the applicant hasn't shown the floor plans to this board or to the public at this meeting or last meeting. We were told verbally that the elevator was removed so they were able to reduce the variance by four feet. Why can't they reduce the variance anymore? And so it's frustrating to not get more information about that to truly understand if this is really the minimum variance. You know, I also think the reference that this is an irregular shape lot is misleading. The fact that there are, this is irregular shaped and there are other irregular shapes in the community. That's irrelevant. What matters is whether there were similar variances granted to other properties in this community. And there's been no evidence that other homes in this subdivision have received similar variances. And that really does go to the character of the neighborhood. The reference to the property, you know, 19 verse 18, again, that doesn't go to whether or not that was a variance. So at what time that property was constructed. So again, I think it's just a very misleading statement. And then I understand that at the very beginning there was clarification provided that construction can occur in a zone AE area, which this is. My biggest concern is whether or not this property complies with the requirements not only of the residential code but also of chapter 111 of the city's code which has very specific requirements for this lot. In fact the FEMA flood map number is specifically referenced in the zoning code, I mean sorry in the chapter 111 the building construction section to ensure that those requirements are applied. And the reason that this board really needs to consider it and not just pass it on to the planning board is that this board has the ability to grant variances from chapter 111 requirements. And so those variances are necessary. It really should be discussed at this time, rather than at a future date. So those are just some of our main concerns, again, whether this is the minimum variance and whether there's compliance with chapter 111 and whether other variances have been approved for other properties in this subdivision. Thank you very much. Thank you. I do want to clarify, the board does have in its hands, even at the last meeting, the drawings as well as the floor plans. So I don't know if they should have been shared with the public. They should have been available. They could come to the office and look at the plans any time. That's how it's usually done. Yep. You may. Yes. Yes. I do just want to say yes we can come and look at them anytime. This has been the month of August where people have been on vacation. Everything is electronically submitted to the board. They are not electronically provided to the public. And in fact for the first round of drawings we had to pay $60 to obtain a copy of the plans because I wasn't even allowed to come in and take pictures so that I could take pictures of the plans, making time to come in so that I could review them at home. So I paid the $60 and moved forward, and we didn't do that this time around. You know, again, it was vacation time and I couldn't even get in, so thank you. I appreciate that. And we'll look into that issue going forward. Thank you. I appreciate that and we'll look into that issue going forward. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you Also just to again clarify there's only two variances in front of the board to setbacks No other variants are in front of us not that I'm aware of If the building department has other variances that we have to look at they're not in front of us this evening So just to to make sure that's clear also Anyone else? Okay. With that, I ask the applicant if they want to come and address the somebody issues that were raised? Yes. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the, here overlaps slightly. I think it's important to just your corporation council here can correct me if I mispeak, but when you're talking about prior variance approvals in the world of the zoning boards, with my municipal experience, I don't mean to be telling you, this is my experience, I'm not giving you your legal opinion, but in the world of prior variance granted approvals, that has little controlling value over this board, right? The zoning boards in New York State are empowered to look at everything on a case-by-case basis, but that doesn't mean you're looking at it in a vacuum or with blinders. That's why the test is not what has been approved before you. The test is what is the conditions and the totality of the neighborhood. The first gentleman who got up and spoke at 200 Wilman Avenue, but actually, maybe unintentionally provided the best example of that. His house was built in 1943, prior to the adoption of the code, a lack of a variance approval. It doesn't mean that the board shouldn't consider this one favorably. You look at the totality of the neighborhood, the character of the neighborhood. I haven't cited to any prior variance approvals. Number one, I couldn't find any for this neighborhood But number two it carries very little presidential value to you what you're looking at It's exactly with the five part test asks you to look at which is the full Which is I'm sorry the existing conditions and whether or not this application is going to change the character of the neighborhood I think one of the things that we're suffering from here as an applicant is a long vacant site next to a lake. And I could see whether neighbors might not want that condition to change. But the fact of the matter is that we're fully zoning compliant in all but two side yards. And in any further respect with the FER and things as I mentioned earlier and at the last meeting we are a zoning compliant project. And the only other thing that I would mention would be in terms of the floor plan and just to echo what Mr. Chairman thank you for clarifying that we have been as transparent as possible and submitted as much information as possible. So that's all that I would have to say with the comment. And then we're here of course to take any direct questions. I think there was a question about maybe clarifying the drainage if the engineer can come up and just kind of walk the audience through the drainage plans. Do you want us to get to the civil submission, the seven-page civil submission or is this sufficient where you're looking at? I think he could probably use us to, as a submission. I know you have mentioned it. You want to clarification the bioswills, what that actually, how they actually work next to this property. Sure. So the way that the rain gardens in the bioswale works is the depressed area that will allow for stone war to be stationed in that order, to be holding in that area while it is percolating back into the soil. So that will, we sized our systems to allow for three-inch rain event as an accordance with the town and New Yorkshire regulations that all the garter systems from the house are either directed into these rain gardens and bioswales or on the other side on the bottom side of the picture and to the blue, which is a structure that will hold the water and this water will be, this storm water will be able to use for irrigation purposes. We laid out our rain gardens and biosquales throughout the entire site, so we don't just have it in one area, we have it in multiple areas to allow for the storm water, whether it is from the driveway, to be stored at the bottom, larger green area, from the backyard to, we have multiple levels of storm water mitigation as well. I know the gentleman was asking about the difference in property and the adjacent property 200 Wilmont. We have a reason we are proposing a retaining wall near the property line to allow to not allow any storm water from our site or from the development to go on to the adjacent property. We are having a structure there that will prevent the water from going on to the adjacent property. We are having a structure there that will prevent the water from going on to the adjacent property. David, if I might, are you drawing, maybe you wanna go to your drawing C201, we have, where you have your section through the biosol, might be a better, do you have the, should be in the deck there, I think you. Thank you. Might be a better description for the neighbor to see what that is. See one, one, one, two, one, three. There it is. Oh, one. There you go. Let's see if you can zoom in on that. And this, I hope you see if I could zoom in. Give me one second. Yeah. This is a good picture to look at right here. So this is a picture illustrating the way that the bioswale works is on the left side of the section you could see the house. The house has stormwater piping coming from the building, going to a splash box, and that will allow not to provide any erosion of the soil. And that will store water there temporarily on the left, on the right side of the section you could literally see a retaining wall and that will prevent any storm water to go into the Jason property. The soil or the retaining wall. I don't have it in front of me, I'm sorry. I'm sorry, so you have to address the board questions. Yeah, I need to know this question. Yeah, and you have to come up here. It's just the way it is for the record. You can come back up. If I allow you to come back up, if you have additional questions. So is there any, I would be more than happy to go into any details, but as Mark said, we will be submitting a full design drawing package for further reviewed to the building's apartment. I will allow a question. Come back up if you have a question for the engineer. I have a question. Sure. Mr. Valkin. The property runs off onto the adjacent neighbor now because it's higher. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay. So along that property line, Sir, come back up. Let's hide it at retaining wall that you're going to put in. The height of the routine, I think we're looking at about four feet or three feet, but that is including the foundation itself. Okay, so exposed, what is the neighbor actually going to look at? It varies because the grades are not uniform. They kind of slope down towards the water, but yeah, so we're looking for 12 inches. Okay, that's a bullpark number. That's okay. And how did you calculate your area of retention at three inches a rainfall? Did you calculate it from the top of the wall, from the middle of the wall? How did you do that? If I'm not mistaken, we had, we were talking about three inches from the top. It's six inches. We come from those six inches from the top of the retaining wall to the book. So it's like a channel. Yes, it's a channel of soil with different kinds of material in there to allow the waters slowly perk back to the ground. Correct. And the way you're going to keep that from migrating onto the neighbor's property is the use of a retaining wall. Okay, thank you for clarifying that from me. Sorry, come on, you can go. Once again, Joe Tate from 200 will my road. We're talking about Perk here and I think something we're ignoring is the fact that this land is right next to the lake. So, when this slopes down, I can tell you from experience, I install my own wooden post fences when they're damaged on a hot August day, three weeks away from rain if I dig down two and a half feet. There's water. It's lake level. So I don't fully understand this idea of having the you know this perk it you know, where's going to perk to? There's already you're already at the water level when this slips down so I don't fully understand how this is supposed to function other than perhaps filling up with water and always being full with water. Thank you. I guess the question is the water table, how you dealing with the water table? Quart water table. So that is actually something we thought of. I thank you for pointing that out. We have done groundwater testing. We're good doing further groundwater testing as the process of moving along We'll be submitting all that to the To the buildings apartment Regarding the elevations we have looked at all the elevations and Sorry, you have to address the board. Oh, sorry regarding the elevations. We've looked at the elevations of the groundwater and then we've determined the bottom of the soil to be above the elevation of the groundwater so I guess the gentleman was that for the nearby property was discussing I'm not sure where he was looking or what elevation he was referring to the wooden post that he had but we've looked at the analysis from the perspective of the groundwater table in a relationship to the proposed soils. Okay, or Bob, can I ask another question? How many of the total percentage of the three inches are rainfall? How many gallons or how many, what's the percentage that the cistern is actually holding for communication? Reuse for the irrigation purpose. I'm not going to be able to tell you that offhand. I'm about percentage maybe 20. So about 20% of the total retention is going into the system. Correct. So then the other three bioswells you have are picking up the other 80% of the three inches of impervious surfaces You know what I don't have the exact numbers I if you want we could give you a complete analysis of our approach and might be better I just don't want to miss it. It's okay. I just wanted to cover the broad strokes I wanted to get a flavor for how much retention The cisterns actually taken I wanted to get a flavor for how much retention the Sister is actually taken Because that's water that's not gonna perk back into the ground correct that's got water that's gonna be used to Water or lawn or wreck and landscaping correct Okay, correct, you know, we're one of the only countries in the world that uses potable water To water our lawns. One of the only countries in the world that uses potable water that we pay for every year to water our lawns. So to put in a system capture system in a place where there's a potential for flooding, I would consider that to be a good thing. That's why I asked a question of what's the percentage. So, thank you. And if you get me that information, I'd greatly appreciate it. Okay. We'll share that with you. Sorry. Paul. I'm sorry. Bob, do you have the sister in the drawing says the sister holds 372 cubic feet. And the total storage provided is 2,900 cubic feet. So let's eat. Mine. So let's meet percent. Right percent. Good. I just got what's on the plan. We will share that analysis. We'll be able to provide that tonight tomorrow. Thank you. I am going to talk to the board. Any questions or comments? Anyone on the board? I guess I'll start. I think the overall concern from the last meeting and I think it's still concern here is the overall structure of the home that's being presented. I know you reduce the footprint somewhat by two feet on each side. But in my opinion, I think there's still an opportunity to reduce the footprint even further to reduce the variances or even eliminate the variances at this time. Unfortunately, this is the last home being built in area, the other homes that you mentioned are over 40 years old, with no other homes there, maybe less impact to the area, to the neighborhood. But a structure like this, a home like this, in that particular lot, unfortunately does have an impact. So those are my main concerns. Anyone else? Yeah, I'm sorry. My I would agree with Mr. Chairman. And Mark, I just think it's you. Maybe just this design just doesn't fit there. Maybe just has a different design as to go there, no other than the Mito side yours, or at least better meet the side yours. Either way the elevator is still on the plan but I'm sorry I was. We're going to point that out. I don't think it makes much difference. No, but I don't want to miss the elevator is there based upon our essentially a cost saving measure to not do a full round of a redesign for plan prior to your final approval of the variance. I did consult with our team and say, if I say it on the record, then that is a statement that is sort of a sworn-to statement in front of this board. If I say it has to be accurate, that's why the statement is on the record. I meant to point out that it doesn't reflect the plan but me saying it on the record. That's what we will be bringing forth to the planning board. I think you have room for you. Along the lines of what my colleagues have said, we've spent a lot of time talking about drainage which is obviously very important but we are supposed to consider the actual variances before us. One of the factors we have to consider is whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. So what I haven't heard, and I wasn't at the last year, so I apologize that this has already been stated, but what I haven't heard is why this benefit, why can't the variances be further reduced? Because two feet to me does seem pretty minimal. I mean, I understand it results in a loss of an elevator, but in terms of the amount of the variances that you're seeking, why couldn't it be more than two feet that was reduced? Well, you have to remember this shape of the site. It's a rectangular site. And it's not two feet is where we double what we were first proposing. So it was a two-feet issue. We went into four feet in terms of the house, but it's now I'm sorry I'm kind of skewing that. It's two feet on one side, two feet on the other. So now we're up to four feet from the design, fitting this design for the quality of life that the owner wants to do within the internal floor plan Based on this e-regular or I should say let me say rectangular based site With the size of the family there are four children two adults plus and And the mother that lives with the family having seven people in the house This is the design that the family it would be comfortable with that the family could live in. This is designed that they, unfortunately, the rectangular fits. Right. But we've had a number of variances come before us in the past where people are explaining their family situation. And unfortunately, I don't think that that's something that we can necessarily take into consideration. Along the lines of what Bob is saying, why can't this design accommodate a smaller request for variance? To eliminate the variances, at all, to go 25 feet on both sides. That's just for the configuration a lot, that's not feasible. We'd be coming back for any kind of a variance. And you know look I mean we did we did go back and you know our positions we came back with a pretty significant change to the plan. So I mean I'm hearing with the board saying you know I look if I'm hearing with the board is saying we adjourned once I want to make sure I'm not sort of shooting myself from the foot here again with this the two adjournment rule If we could have confirmation that we could have one more additional adjournment to try again to look at the plan I just want to I don't want to sort of talk myself out of being on your agenda by trying to agree I mean we have we have done our best. I can't promise that we of talk myself out of being on your agenda by trying to agree. I mean, we have done our best. I can't promise that we would come back with a significant change. But if it's more three out of the six board members are expressing a desire to see maybe one more iteration that in terms of your analysis doesn't sound like we're meeting the balancing test yet. If we can't agree that we would have one more meeting placement, we, you know, perhaps we try one more time and come back for the revised plan for your October meeting. I don't want to speak out of hand, but Regina deferts to your... We'll let you adjourn. We'll adjourn. We also think, Mark, you know, given the situation with the drainage and the, that is very delicate here, and I think the engineer did a great job, but I think you'd have a better situation with the drainage and a more flexible situation if you had more side yard to work with, quite honestly, so with these whales. Well, that's the give and take. I think one of the things we're also suffering from is when the board was showing, I would call them a little provocative, maybe a little misleading pictures relating to the flooding that it's occurring or the standing water that occurs on the site. I think it's important to remember that that right now is an untreated condition, right? I mean, there's no engineering. There's no untreated condition. So we're coming in to, with a treatment plan that's going to eliminate what the pictures are showing you. So I really don't think the pictures are relevant, but I hear what you're saying. I mean, we're hearing everything. So yeah. I appreciate the effort here to address the board's concerns as well as the public concerns, even with the drainage plans which are very detailed by the way. Sometimes maybe make it a little more simpler. We've heard other presentations where they kind of convert gallons, you know, how many gallons of water that these systems hold and able to mitigate. Maybe that helps the public understand a little bit better, maybe kind of address their some of their concerns. In terms of the structure of the home, you heard the concerns here from the board. It's a large structure on a small property. And it's a bigger impact to the neighborhood as far as, at least my point of view. So I think what we're struggling with is even with the, we are a compliant FAR coverage wise, high wise. So it's, you know, it's not, I don't want to concede that it's as simple as just reducing the side. I mean, this is a very challenging side, I think. Now, understand. So, this applicant, look, a journey? Yeah, we're gonna have to request that we adjourn for another meeting. Hopefully we'll get a quick turnaround for your October meeting. That's what I would like to do. Yeah, because it's October 1st is a meeting, so. Well, maybe we'll see in November. But, um, look, I appreciate your comments. Appreciate the comments from the public, and we'll have to turn around and see what we can do one more time. Mr. Blanchard. Yes. Just have having engineer review these calcs on the retention. 372 cubic feet. It turns into almost 3,000 gallons of retention, just in the system. But if you look at a math, I think you have more like 420 cubic feet. So just double check that. Well, look, I think what we're hearing too with the comment is perhaps we'll double check and maybe we'll do something of like a conversion table that's more of like a layman's speak than, you know, then the detailed drawings in front of you. Again, these drawings were prepared for the building department and the drawings are great by the way. From an engineer's standpoint, they're great, But sometimes to translate it in more kind of layman terms, sometimes hard to maybe follow. But when you turn, you say 4,000 gallons of water, that's a lot of water. That's just taken hold. So you're trying to retain the impervious surfaces times three inches. Right, correct. You know, I did a quick calcare and 300 what you're saying it is, 372 cubic feet comes out to 2782 gallons. We'll have to show that we'll like back at school, we'll show our work. Thank you. All right, thank you. All right, thank you. All right, thank you. Thank you, Mark. And thanks for the public coming out again. I appreciate it. We appreciate it. Thank you. Next case tonight. Case 22, 2024. 1042 Webster Avenue. I'm here on behalf of the owner, Mr. Ronnie Santiago. The address again 1042. Where's the revenue? And this is our one-10A. Black 1760, lap 15. I believe the board members visited the site. We are here to legalize the existing deck that does not need to require your setback. We have his attack. My client built a rear deck for his family to enjoy the others doing the COVID period. Not knowing that he needed a permit, he built the deck. The deck has a 21.67 rear yard order for us to get in order to keep the deck. My client told me and wanted me to say he apologizes for doing the deck without a permit. And thank you board members. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the board? I'm sorry. I was looking around and I was not able to find the size of the deck. Can you actually tell me what the dimensions are, the actual deck deck. I believe it's going to be I'm going to say 10 by I'll say 15. It's so sizable deck. And just just to be clear the distance on the distance in the rear yard is almost 30 feet. So whatever you do back there is going to require variances. Yes, absolutely. Any other comments? Questions? I think the dimensions of the deck are on your site plan. 11.7 by 25.85. Is that not the dimensions? Okay. I can't see you. There's two levels, or Mario, right? Was it step down? Two levels, yes. All right. Yes. Any other questions, comments? Does anyone want to present a make-emotion on this one? Anyone? Thank you, Bob. Okay, case number 23. I'm sorry. Jumping in here. Case number 22, 2024, Ronnie Santiago for permission to, for a legalization of the deck in the rear yard of an existing one family dwelling legalized existing whereas the twat plus plus or minus 21.67 rear yard setback to be legalized as less than the minimum required 30 feet in an R1 10A zone district at the premises 1042, Webster Avenue, block 1760, lot 15, it's an area variance. I make a motion to approve the requested variance based on the following. Right, sorry to hear. Whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, it doesn't appear there's a very shallow Reyard to begin with the existing 30 foot rear yard would only allow them about a Three-foot deck. It appears according to the survey and the site plan So anything that's built in the rear yard would require a variance that appears Whether there's an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or two nearby properties. It doesn't appear there would be an undesirable change in the neighborhood or characters nearby properties. The tech appears to be very attractive and appears to be screened from the joining properties as well. Whether it was substantial, it is substantial, but again, is a wood deck that does not very high off the ground that has two levels to it and does not is not very imposing to the other properties. Whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, I do not believe it will and whether the alleged difficulty self-created it is self-created, but again not a reason to deny a an area of variance. So for these reasons I make a motion to prove the application. A second. Erica Eisner. Yes. Fernando Areas. Yes. Abel Rodriguez. Yes. Bob Sanziel.. Yes David Fernandez. Yes. Has Guo Pocopi Yes motion has been approved Good luck. Thank you Next case tonight's case the last case case 23 2023 24 third one Calton Road We have a report on the report. We have a report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the report on the No, Sean. We are. So we're here to see if we can get a permission to put a pool on our backyard. We know we don't have the enough of the what's required in all the neighbors side, which is required 20 feet on each side. We did send them a letter to ask them if it will be not okay but like to give them a heads up that we're looking to do this project in our backyard. So we'll see. You're architecting come today? No, it's it not sure. It would be better if you explain more why you need what you need to the board. That would have been good if he was here, but he's not. You can explain to the board why you want to pull. Why we want to pull? Well, we have three kids. We thought it would be a good idea to have them join the backyard since we don't do much on it when it's nothing to do. And that was the whole reason. Okay. I'll open up the questions from the board or any comments. Oh, yes, sir. I'm sorry. Does someone from public? Yep, please come up. Hi. Tom Loder. I resided 37 Count and Road, which is the house next door. I've been neighbors with Frank and Violet for seven years since they moved in. And they're great neighbors. They do have teenage children. I think what's the oldest just starting the high school? 14. 14, down to seven, and very active kids. So the pool would be great for them. As far as the setbacks are concerned, there would be a variance required of, depending upon which side. So we're on the east side. It would be a setback differential of six feet, which is given the size of the pool that they want to make. Obviously, the pool will take up a big chunk of their backyard, which given the size of the properties in the area, our setback, when we put our deck on, we couldn't get a variance. We didn't come for a variance, we had to reduce the size of the deck to meet the setback minimums. But we think most of the people in neighborhood are not against this and talk to the people on the other side of the house The Falvis and they're they're happy with it as well, so Thank you Okay back to the board you want to speak sir. Oh, I'm sorry Staying in the name and address for the record. Name is Leonard Rice. I live 82 Flanjo Avenue behind the house. Now, what has been running on my property from the two properties behind my house? Like it's stream stream in the park. Yeah. What was the address, sir? I'm sorry. 82 flan. Yeah. Maybe if you want to come up, you just have to stay your name. I'm sorry. My name is May Rice. We live in 82 Flandreau with a property behind the house. But we've had problems with water runoff in the area. Thank you very much. Thank you. I know when they submit their building plans, if approved, they have to submit a site plan with grading to make sure that it shows at least on their property. And so, there is a run problem with water runoff in the area. Thank you. I know when they submit their building plans, if approved, they have to submit a site plan with grading to make sure that it shows at least on their property their grading old stays on to their drainage stays on their properties. It doesn't exacerbate any other situations anyway. So we'll build them, but it has not helped in terms of the wrong walk that we've got. Right. So that's why we are here to make certain that we're not negatively impacted. Good, don't appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. The health address there is you. I understand you're saying the whole area. That's being in the mic. There, you have to sit on the mic. The whole area. The whole area starts is on a sloping hill that starts from the bottom corner here and it slopes downwards towards 88 flandro. And that whole area tends to get run off not only from the streets but from all of the adjacent houses. So it's just a, it's a low sloping. And I think the site plan also has runoff systems into the whole area so that water won't be running down as much as they hit the... Yeah, they should be able to rearrange on this. Right, correct, yep, yep. So the whole area just slopes. So they do get a lot. And I feel for them They had we had a neighbor that tore out a whole bunch of trees. So there's additional water that seeps through That used to be absorbed Thank you I don't think there's anyone else so back to the board any questions comments One of these issues that I have is I'm sorry you want to come up the board's gonna ask you some questions One of the issues that I have is that back yard is completely open You're seeking three barriences On both sides and also in the back And I know as part of the application you're supposed to provide screening I'm taking three barrens on both sides and also in the back. I know as part of the application, you're supposed to provide screening, but in my opinion, I just feel this backyard is way too small for a swimming pool. Did they include a landscape plan? I think they did. I don't know. The variance is that are cited or sort of a little skewed because they're at the minimum. Because the pool is angled is turned. So it's the variance is cited or the minimum setbacks. Otherwise, they're greater at the opposite end, but in any case. Yeah, it looks like that, sir. At the corner, the back corner, right, is the greatest distance on the mid-pull on the other side. Ma'am, do you want to adjourn until your architect can get here and answer some of these questions from the board? For next slide. Say it again. Would you like to adjourn until October 1st so that your architect can answer some of these questions? Yeah, because he did the plan. So he's going to be like easy to approach. I intend to tell what he's trying to put into it. I think the board has some concerns about the plans. Just make sure he's aware that the board does have some questions. Maybe the size of the pool also. If you can also address, maybe, why you picked the size versus smaller size. So those are kind of things he should be prepared to answer next meeting. Yeah. You can convey this information to them, but also all the meetings are posted online. So if they want they can go back and view it on the city's website so they can actually watch this meeting and see what was discussed. Okay. All right. So tell me that you would like to adjourn. Yes. I'll do a meeting. Yes, we do. Okay. Thank you. You too. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. A motion to adjourn the meeting. I'll make that motion. I'll second it. The meeting is over. Have a good night. You too. Thank you.