Okay. Good evening everyone. Calling this meeting of the zoning board of appeals to order. My name is Erica Aesner. I'm the chair of the board. Let me just introduce you to everybody sitting before you tonight. At the podium is Kevin Kane, director of planning. To my right we have Regina O'Hare, who's the clerk of the board. We have Paul Vaca, the building commissioner. To his left is Carla Clapper. To her left is David Fernandez. In this chair, hopefully at some point this evening will be Bob Stanzial. To my left is Charlotte Avedir and I would just like to welcome her to the board. She's new and this is her first meeting. To her left is Fernando Arias. To his left is Abel Rodriguez and to his left is Jeffrey Brem the deputy corporate counsel for the city of New Rochelle. Before we move on, I would just like to take a moment of silence to recognize the passing of Tom McFarland, who was not only resident of New Rochelle, but a member of this zoning board of appeals many years ago. So just take a brief moment of silence. Thank you very much. Before we get started, I'm just going to go over how this evening is going to proceed. Just so you all understand, we're not playing on the internet up here. We have laptops in front of us because we are paperless or as paperless as possible. So we're looking over the submissions, the letters that you've submitted, drawings, and such, while we're listening to the presentations this evening. We'll call each case. The applicant will come up and present their case, and then we'll hear voices of opposition from the audience. You will be limited to three minutes and no more than three minutes. We ask that you limit your comments to nothing that has been said before you. We are listening, we've read your submissions, and we are aware of, we did get a few last minutes submissions this evening, but we've certainly read everything that was submitted before now. We just don't want to be here all night. We can't have everybody repeating the same thing over and over again. We will probably have the advocate come back up to address any comments or questions that the board has and anything that's been raised by voices of opposition. As Miss O'Hare said, please keep the talking in the audience down. Don't talk amongst yourselves if you need to. Please step out into the hallway. This meeting is being recorded. And with that, I think we will proceed. So I'm going to call the second case. We're going a little bit about it, Florida. I'm sorry, I'm going to be here in a couple of minutes. I'm going to read the calendar. Sure. I'm going to read the calendar. Sure. A little out of sorts. Tonight's case is our case 1 2025. Just making sure the applicant is here. Opposition of voices to be heard on that case. Okay. Case number six, 2025, the applicant is here. And opposition of voices to be heard on that case. Case number eight, 2025, Lenny Grinberg from 95 prior terrorists. The applicant is here. Opposition of is to be heard on that. Case 9, 2025. 87 interlaken avenue. Applicant is here. And opposition, a voice is to be heard on that. The administrative items tonight are case 45, 2023, 55, Wainman. That's for an extension. Case 16, 2023,23-66 Decated. That is also for an extension of the Varians. In case 45-20-22, another extension. The 159-5. First case tonight. We're taking out of order. Listening to case 6-20-25. Cadillac Drive. Good evening, everyone. My name is John Woodruff. I'm the architect for this application, and my offices are in New Rochelle, New York. This application was before the board previously, two months ago. So I thought I'd just go through the application. Came here. Any better guys? No, straight. I don't know if it's picking you up. How about now? So this application was before the board previously two months ago. So I'm going to go through the board again, through the application again, because I know we have a new board member and we didn't have a quorum last time. So we are here for a conversion of a vacant building lot into a buildable lot. We have 12,061 square feet where 15,000 square feet is required. We are 2,939 square feet less than allowed. Here is our property survey. And on this property survey, you can see, there's my cursor. You can see this area is rock on the property. The rest of the property is fairly clear. And this is our area where we're proposing to put a house. The rock itself is between 8 to 10 feet high in different places. Here's our denial and we're seeking a denial for a lot area. That's the only variance we need tonight. And like I said before, it's 12,000 where 15,000's required. This is a copy of the original January 1968 subdivision map. It shows a separate building lot over 57 years ago. And this is our separate building lot. And this is number three Cadillac Drive and this is number 11 Cadillac Drive. That subdivision plat was created under the 1955 zoning ordinance which had no minimum lot sizes at the time. Minimum lot sizes came along in 2001 and that's why we're here tonight before you for a variance. This is a map that I submitted which shows property within 250 foot radius of our property. Here's our lot right here. And all the areas that are shown in blue are below the 15,000 square foot requirement. And seven of those are below our 12,000 square foot lot. So here's what we're proposing. This blue line is the setback line, which is what zoning will allow. And this brown area is the rock. So we're proposing to push the house back to the right hand corner to avoid the rock. We have a survey which has elevation heights and we plan to put the driveway at elevation and slope that driveway up to the entrance to the garage, which will be about 200 feet. So that's about a four-foot slope up to the garage. And then once we get in the garage, we plan to go up another four feet to the first floor, which is an elevation of 205. So with a first floor at 205, with the top of the rock at that location here being about 200 Nade or 202, if I stay on top of the rock, I will have minimum rock removal of about three to four feet only. And as you can see this is pretty large rock, but by pushing the house back on the property, we're enabled to have a good size house here and just remove portion of the front of the rock where the front porch would be. This house will be very similar to three Cadillac drive, which I got a copy of the site plan, which is to the left of us us and that house was built in 68 and they did the same thing. Here's the house at 3 Cadillac Drive. They pushed the house within 13 feet of the line and pushed it all the way back to 30 and here was the rock. Their house sits on top of the rock as well and their lot is actually 300 square foot less than hours. This is a proposed house last month, the month before we came, without a house and everybody said, well, what would a house look like here? So this is one of the houses that we put together for this lot. It's a 3500 square foot house, five bedrooms, four and a half baths, two car garage with a partial basement, and a full attic storage attic with a pull-down stair. We did a composite site drawing here, so you could see this is 11 Cadillac Drive, which is an existing house. And this is our proposed house. And this is three Cadillac Drive, the house that I said ours would be very similar to if it was flipped. This is a flat elevation of the house. Here's some floor plans. Like I said, it's about 3,500 square feet, five bedrooms, four and a half baths, two cargarage. This is a photograph of where the rock is right now and this is three Cadillac Drive. This is actually a curb cut, which was also built in 1968, because it was intended for this lot to be built on. This is a concrete curb cut, was here and still here and this is where I'd be bringing in my new driveway, putting the house toward the back of the lot off of the rock. We went to the planning board, we had a unanimous positive decision that night. And I know we have a lot of neighbors who want to speak so I think we'll hear from them. And then we can come back and discuss, you know, the other balancing points of the state variance. Thank you. Just want to make a clarification that the action with the planning board was a referral on this variance. It was not on the site plan approval for that. I'm sorry, can you clarify that one? The application was brought to the planning board for a referral for the variance. It was not a site plan application. So I just wanted to make that clear. OK. OK, we'll start with the opposition. Please, when you get to the microphone, you state your name and address for the record. Clearly please. All right just head on up there. Can you hear me okay folks? Okay. How about this? Perfect. That's good. Okay. I'm Conrad Vittola with eight Cadillac Drive and Neuroshell on the 52 year resident of Neuroshell. Graduates in the violin college class of 69 form a Marie and Platoon soldier who finished active reserve at the Naval Armory and Neuroshell. 40-year resident of Cadillac Drive, 57 years ago the former builder chose not to build on the Latin question. Yet today the applicant seeks an approximate variance in price of the amongest 20%. What catastrophic damaging precedent will the city be setting for others to exploit? At that time, there weren't seven homes and beloved families here, no labyrinth of electrical sewer and gas line jet and existence on the newly named Cadillac Drive. Now the applicant tells us that they want to get a varies, so they may make a minor rocking curgeon on the lat, so they may build on top of it a huge house on the hill. So this is no minor in curging. This is a colossal attack on all the families and beloved pets who may have like drive their home. The house that three cat-like drives has rock that is connected to an integral part of the rock on the lot. Any Jackhammering whatsoever will reverberate through all the adjacent properties and can the city of New York down in T that their 50-year-old foundation structures and utilities especially gas and civil lines not be dangerously compromised. I lead through the gas leak in a levering catlight drive across the street and I'm just trying to find to experience forever. My following friends and family who speak to me will address each potential negative impact. So I respectfully ask each of you fine representatives of the people of our faith, city of New York, to take a look in the mirror and say when we are done pleading our face, when I subject my beloved family, my children, grandchildren and our dear text to this potentially devastating department. God bless the city of Nurishau. God bless all the residents, both old and new and pet-like drives, and our generation. And God bless America. OK, next, no clapping, please. Next applicant, please state your name and address for the record. Good evening. My name is Ronit Resinovsky. I am the... I'm sorry, I'm anybody else. I'm the R-A-Z-I-N-O-V-S-K-Y. And you're address? And I live in 3 Cadillac Drive. Directly next to the lot that needs to be built on. I'm speaking to you tonight not only as a homeowner, but as someone whose health and wellbeing are directly at risk. I urge you, please do not approve this development. This is not just a zoning issue. This is about people, families, home, lives. I'm a cancer survivor. My home, my safe heaven, is built directly on the rock that the developer is proposes to blast or chip. Disturbing this rock doesn't just threaten the property, but it's also threatening to my health. Raidon, as you know, radioactive cancer-cosing gas exists in most rocks and soils. When you start breaking and removing rock, you unleash what lies beneath, and this is in this case, that could be means dangerous radon levels sipping into the homes of Cadillac Drive. The vibration from the excavation could cause a real lasting damage to the foundation of my home. The rock is holding up my house. It is the foundation, literally and figuratively. Shake that foundation and you shake the security and peace my family and I relay on every single day. Quality of life, I move to Cadillac Drive because it's quiet, green and safe. I have trees out my window and peace in my backyard. If this home is built just 15 feet from my property line, I will be looking at a structure of a wall, really a wall instead of nature. I will be surrounding by no noise, dust and dirt. I will have to keep my windows shut to breathe clean air. I'm the last house home that was built on this called the Sacstreet. There was a reason for that. It is the rock that runs beneath of all of our homes, and that is why this land was never developed before. It wasn't safe, it wasn't right, and it still isn't right. That's variance is granted to this contractor for reasons that the developer did not do it back in 1968 as the rock disturbance would have been caused prohibitive and the vacant lot was too small for similarity, built home like mine. Just to give you... You need to wrap it up, ma'am. Yes. Okay, my house is 18, I am 1800 square feet. He said it's similar to my house. That one he wants to build, it's 3,500 square feet. It's more than double. Like it's really, it's a double. So it's not the same. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next person. Hello everybody. My name is Matan Resanovsky spelled R-A-Z-I-N-O-V-S-K-Y. I'm a resident of three-cat-elect drive. I would like to just address the members of the board here for tonight to describe a woman who has been living her entire life, working full two jobs, constantly pushing, so that I could have a better life. That house that you see right there is her safe haven. It is her castle. It is the place that she finds most peace. She doesn't get out much. She works every single day from 7 a.m. to about 8 p.m. and comes home and goes to sleep and wakes up and does it all again. These months that are coming forward, the summer or the time that she gets to sit outside daily and have a morning coffee. When she calls me in the morning it is nothing but pure happiness and joy to sit outside and see the animals, the nature and the greenery. This house that is planned to be built on this rock structure will act just as she said a wall that will constantly sit there with an invasion of privacy into our home and into her life and to where she resides. To me, the most important thing is my mother's happiness. And this will sit right there every single day for the rest of her life just dawning over us. So I please ask of you. It's taken to consideration the happiness and the well-being of humans first before you make your final decision. Thank you. Thank you. Next person. Karif. I'm going to go to the next slide. Good evening. I'd like to thank the zoning board for having this hearing and for listening. I'd like to say your name and address for the record. My name is Jennifer Gillan. I live at 197 Vanet in Boulevard. I'm the corner of Cadillac Drive and across the street from the lot in question. I speak tonight on behalf of myself and my husband Chris Richardson. He's on shift tonight in one of the local ERs, so he couldn't be here tonight. I also speak on behalf of Mia, who I'm sure you've all heard. She doesn't say much, but she definitely makes plenty of noise. We moved into this neighborhood about four years ago. We were drawn to Nerochelle because of the opportunity to live in a calm, peaceful and mature neighborhood. We strongly oppose the building variance as we believe it would permanently harm the character of our neighborhood significantly disrupt our quality of life and have real health concerns for our family. You've heard and will hear from our neighbors about the environmental and health impacts, but I myself want to raise a special attention to the issue of how building a new home on a small lot like this sandwich between so many existing homes can have potentially devastating impact on our most vulnerable residents, our kids. In addition to being a mom, I'm also a board-certified pediatrician as well as pediatric critical care physician. The proposed home will require either breaking up or drilling into a sizable rock, potentially aerosolizing dust and debris into the surrounding area. Part of my training includes learning how environmental toxins and other exposures uniquely affect children because of their unique physiology. Because of the small size of the lot in its position between the existing homes, the material that will be released into the air and onto the ground will be both a concentrated and constant feature of our daily lives during the entire construction process. While this would be unpleasant for anyone, children inherently have smaller airways and faster breathing rates, which means that Mia and the other kids in the neighborhood will receive a larger dose by weight of anything that gets released. They also have a greater impact because of the smaller airways, both immediately and potentially long-term. Now, maybe we shouldn't worry about this. The CDC does recommend some measures to mitigate the risk. They say we should keep our windows and doors closed, wipe our shoes, and anything that contacts the ground outside with a wet cloth before entering the home, and prevent our children from getting construction contaminants into their mouths. No, I don't know what your experience with toddlers is But Mia loves to put things in her mouth This will not be safe for her to play outside during construction so she will not be able to safely play there There is no guarantee how long this process will take and this is not the childhood that our family or any family would envision moving into a neighborhood like this. Lastly, even when the construction is down the impact to our family will not end. Because of the nature of this lot, to build a house, the scale that they're proposing, as you saw, they will have to build up and not out. As you can see from the photo that we included in the letter that we submitted, the front of that lot directly looks into Mia's bedroom. That photo was taken from her bedroom. So we'll have a permanent impact on her privacy as well. For these reasons, as well as our other neighbors, the reasons our other neighbors will articulate, we oppose the area of variance. And I thank you for hearing me out. Thank you. Thank you. Next person Thank you for seeing us. If I may, test is a round real quick because we don't have an overhead camera. I wanted to show it to you but apparently you don't have that special thing. My name is Mark Perman, 280 Victory Boulevard. Again, thank you for having us being able to talk to you guys. First and foremost, I'm talking about the water that's going to be polluted and totally messed up from the construction of that little lot. Most construction sites have a hydrant working all the time just to keep the water flowing. As you can see by these pictures and I would like you to look, that's the front of my house. That's 2019 and 2023. That's a 40-pound bag of soil. And that's floating by the front of my house. Right adjacent to the front of my house is a brick. The brick is all victory boulevard adjacent to Cadillac and to Vanetteon and I'm sure you guys know about it. If we have all these pollutants and all these carcinogens coming off a disconstruction project where are they gonna go they're gonna go right into the Brook. We're gonna lose the frogs we're gonna lose the geese we're gonna lose the ducks. I've been living here in New Rochelle for over 31 years. Raise the family. Wake up, look out my window. Take a deep breath, I'm relaxed, I'm retired. I look out my window now, there's a gigantic building on Beverly that somebody zoned in, and it's gonna look just like the one on Cadillac. It's at least twice the size of the existing home set. They ran out of money. It's an eye saw. If it isn't for the fact that the leaves grow four times out of the year, that's the first thing I see when I wake up now, being a resident in a nice quiet area for 31 years or more. I just like you to take a look at what's going on again. The disturbance, nobody likes change. Change is very hard for everybody. But we're all new resilience, and we have to work with each other. But when it's right in your face, and you see that it isn't going to fit, you have to take a stand. And that's what we're all trying to do is let everybody know that we're going to have some major problems. Once this creek is polluted and we lose the animals and things like that We're gonna be very sad as it is now. I have two gigantic yellow lines in front of my house They weren't there when I moved in again. I have this much grass to the up to hill to my backyard Which I don't know how it was zoned across all the homes or at least half the size of it. And I would just like some compassion from the deists. Look at those pictures. Look at the floods that's going on on my street. Again, any kind of disturbance is only going to add to the frustration and the possible contamination of a beautiful piece of nature, the brook across from my house. So thank you very much guys. Thank you. Next applicant. Do you keep that for the left and right? Yes. If you haven't given one of these. Oh, yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Good evening. My name is Laura Malik, M-A-L-I-C-K. I've lived at 12 Cadillac Drive for nearly a decade. I'm a mother of two young girls and I'm also a real estate agent compass and scarsdale. I'm a strong advocate for responsible development in Southern Westchester, especially now, when we're experiencing historically low housing inventory in overwhelming demand. But I draw the line when new development comes at the direct expense of existing families and the character of a neighborhood, which is exactly the case here. My husband and I chose this community intentionally. We wanted to raise our daughters on a quiet, tree-lined street with clean air, minimal traffic, and a strong sense of safety. The proposed variance threatens all of that. Even if the builders commit to minimal rock removal, we know how misleading that term can be. The rock in this area is incredibly dense and stubborn. A colleague of mine who lives nearby recently tried to remove similar rock so she could install a pool. She told me the rock was so hard that instead of removing large boulders daily, they were extracting tiny fragments. She said it was though they were removing ice chips daily. In the end, the cost ballooned and she had to scale back her project. That's the reality we could be facing, only on a much larger, louder and more disruptive scale. Our home is our sanctuary. It's where our daughters play, rest, and recharge. Whether they're playing in their toy room or writing their scooters in our peaceful cul-de-sac. What happens to that sense of peace when there's non-stop jackhammering for weeks or months on end? What about the air they breathe? What fine particulates will be released during excavation? And what about radon, a known danger in this region that can be released during deep digging? Who's responsible for the cost of remediation if it's detected in my basement after this work begins? Just this morning, I reviewed the MLS. Over this past year, the average home sale for single-family homes that are zoned for William B. Ward Elementary School and within a mile of 11 Cadillac Drive was $1.3 million. The applicant purchased 11 Cadillac Drive for 935,000, a significant discount in this market. And if I included pending, it would be the average would probably be closer to one five or one six. Based on the improvements they've already made to the house, they could list it today for substantially more than they got it for. It's already a strong investment. So I ask, when is it enough? At what point does personal gain outweigh the well-being of neighbors? Approving this variance doesn't just impact us today, it sets a precedent. It tells developers they can push boundaries, prioritize profit, and compromise the stability of established neighborhoods like ours. I urge you to protect our community and deny this variance. Thank you. Please not try to repeat what the other people have been saying just for the podium. I'm going to go to the podium. I'm going to go to the podium. I'm going to go to the podium. I'm going to go to the podium. I'm going to go to the podium. I'm going to go to the podium. I'm going to go to the podium. I'm going to go to the podium. I'm going to go to the podium. I'm going to go to the podium. I'm here to speak on behalf of the three three seven ninth Avenue, Pellum, New York Thank you, and I'm Jay Ralph, I reside in Pellam, New York. I'm here to speak on behalf of the three three seven ninth avenue, Pellam, New York. Thank you. And I'm here at the request of the neighborhood who's asking me to speak on their behalf. I'm a licensed real estate broker. I've got 42 years of experience. I took a look at what Mr. Woodruff prepared here, these light blue shaded lots, which are intended to show that the lot that is proposed to be built on would fit in. What he fails to put here on these drawings or on this map is the FAR. I have submitted, and it should be before you, where I've marked up that chart and also gave you an Excel spreadsheet that shows you the FAR. The average FAR for all of those properties is approximately 0.16. What he's proposing to put there for a home is 0.3O, the maximum he could put. I'm sorry, I'm here for a house. What? Go ahead. I'm just waiting for him. Please mute your phone. Yes, turn off your phones. Thank you. So I want to point that out. This is going to be if it's built in that fashion the biggest house on the smallest lot on Cadillac Drive. Now if I can ask you please Mr. Woodruff to put up the plan that shows the rock on it and the setbacks. Thank you. One quick point here is that the proposed deck is over the setback. So I don't know how that occurred unless I'm missing something, but the footprint of the home is within the setback and the proposed patio or deck is over it. So he'll need a variance for that, if that's what they're gonna do. Now, I've been to three meetings at Mr. Vittolo's home with this neighborhood. They are cohesive. Those three meetings lasted an average of two hours each. At the last meeting, Mr. Woodruff requested a, I'm sorry, sorry an adjournment based on the fact that the board has expressed issues about the rock. I believe Miss Clapper you said you had you wanted to lay the fears. He was supposed to come back. I thought with something that would show how he's going to lay the fears. You also said you would be concerned if you were a neighbor. So I would be concerned too if I was a neighbor. Fortunately, I'm not. I live in Pellum. But I feel for the people here because Chipping Rock and blasting, well not blasting. I know you're not going to blast it. You've said that. But Chipping Away the Rock is going to be, you know, held to live through. I've heard it when I built the Hutchinson School behind me. It's not fun. It's a summer of rune summer. So I don't know what the plan is to remediate that or to help lay the fears to use your word Ms. Clapper, but that the rock is really the issue not to mention this slide doesn't conform. It conformed in 1958, 1968, 1998. It didn't conform in 2001 with the new zoning. And from what I understand, from what I've heard from prior meetings, and I've watched this meeting three times in the March meeting, and I've watched other meetings, I've kind of familiarized myself with what you work with and what you don't work with. And this obviously is something that is substantial. This is a huge variance. This is a lot- The lot would have to grow by 25%. He needs 25% more land to go from 12,000 to 15,000. This is not only substantial, this is excessive. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Hi, my name is Ella Fayer. Thank you. Your address. Thank you. 172 Robert Drive. My house is directly behind the home currently being refurbished and alongside the lot in question. We have lived there for more than 40 years and never encountered any runoff, flooding, or other water issues. Our concern is that the alteration of the rock formation will change the natural current flow and will flood our property and the house and promote sea pitch. Another concern relates to the type of removal of the rock itself, the damage that the removal and the removal process may cause. Will it cause foundation cracks or cracks to the inside of our home? There are also environmental issues raised whether by blasting or chipping the rock. There will be particles induced in the area that can affect our breathing. In addition to the adults living in the area, there are many children whose young lives will be affected. This is a substantial and serious detriment to our quality of life. Would you live in an environment like that? I doubt it. So when she lives so close to the construction site, these are troublesome issues. In the Invent you grant a variance and issues result who will pay for our damages to our homes. I expect the owners will set up a shell company to insulate themselves from the liability so it would be up to us to bail the risks of damage. In addition to the damage and the environmental issues, the House as presented in the plans represents substantial change to the character of the neighborhood, both in size and size and style. As you can see, we are a small group of families we are greatly connected and concerned. The owners have mentioned to some that their family will be living there. Do you as a board really believe the owners with new and young children could live there and put up with a construction and possible environmental issues. I believe they're trying to mislead you as they have misled us. I respectfully request you deny the application. Thank you. Next person. My name is Russell Fayer. I live at 172 Robert Drive being adjacently behind the subject property. Other neighbors have or will discuss elements to consider, including the undesirable change in the neighborhood character feasible alternatives. The substantial deviation of non-conformity in the self-created hardship. My focus is on two particular points. Detriment to nearby properties including my own and the adverse environmental effects. My property as our other neighbors are at a lower elevation to the subject property, something that is not shown on any of the applicant's plans, but can be shown by the two pictures I've attached to my formal written opposition. In the more than 40 years I've lived here, I've had no flooding or drainage issues. The applicant intends to do substantial rock destruction and tree removal, all of which affect the underlying substructure and consequently the natural water absorption and drainage, erosion control and soil soil stability with the result that runoff and floating can reasonably be expected to occur. The natural flow rule establishes that higher landowners are generally prohibited from increasing or concentrating the natural flow in a way that causes damage to lower property. Even under the more common reasonable use doctrine, landowners are prohibited from making changes to their property that cause harm to others, specifically lower landowners. Part of the test is whether increased damage to the lower landowner was reasonably foreseeable at the time the alteration was made. I submit that increased damage is indeed reasonably foreseeable. The applicant's self-proclaimed rock expert has already misled this board regarding the character of the rock has not been Manhattan-Shist, which has been contradicted by the applicant's own soil test letter. So the record of this board should be corrected to reflect that fact. What else has, or will the applicant and their so-called experts mislead this board about? The applicant has provided no evidence that the work intended will not adversely affect the neighboring properties. My second point is that the proposed subdivision would cause other detriment to nearby properties. The substantial removal of existing rock outcroppings during the rock chipping, blasting or other removal process will require weeks and months of constant pounding and chipping. This raises serious concerns about vibration damage to neighboring homes and the potential for further serious erosion and drainage issues. The noise, vibration dust and rock chips permitting permitting the entire neighborhood have already been discussed as a health to the residents. The removal of trees and the impending obstruction to our views represents another detriment to me and the other neighbors. Would you members of the board put up with that in your neighborhood? For all of these reasons, I urge you to uphold not just the specifics of the law, but the purpose and spirit of the loaning law and deny the requested variance and subdivision upon the substantial evidence and overriding concerns. Thank you. If anybody else has anything other to say than about the rock and neighborhood, what we've been discussing, please let me know. Can I make suggestions? Sure. We have heard some repeated concerns over the people that have come up and spoke before we hear from anybody else. I think somebody mentioned it was this for its comment to you when you were here last time to address our concerns and we didn't hear that in your initial presentation. We're hearing those concerns repeated again from the audience. Perhaps Mr. Woodruff could elaborate on those issues before we can. Sure. Madam Chair, for sure. I think what happened was at some point we were concerned on, you know, we're taking a property which is not a subdivision. This is a legal tax lot. And we're proposing a house which would be really a separate application before the board once the house is designed. And people are reacting a lot to the house. But what's before you tonight is really whether or not this house itself meets the criteria and balancing points for a variance for the lot area. I can't vote on that tonight, John, without more information. My conflict, and it's a real one, and I thank the gentleman from Pellum for quoting me, which my husband listened to me as much as he did. I'm torn and I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I'm to look outside her window and see a house, but that is, we have to move with the times and deal with new construction. And it would be noisy and it would be a room to summer or a room to fall but that's different than the environmental impact of this rock. I would be interested to know and I'm just saying this in theory not in reality. I'd be interested by a show of hands. Don't do it. If people, if the house could be built on that lot, without disturbing the rock, I wonder how many people would be as passionate and as upset and come out on a rainy night or written letters and take the time. I don't think that the point of evidence of safety has been addressed. And I'm not sure it even falls to you, John. Maybe it falls to the builder to come and speak to the neighbor. No. And I'd like to add that we did do a soil test. And I have that engineer here tonight to testify to talk about the rock and the removal and the quality of the rock. We also got some information about some of the tests that they did. Yeah, the board. So we have the boring test, which was boring, and hard to really kind of, sorry, boss, I'd understand. I thought this was a f***ing f***ing f***ing f***ing f***ing f***ing f***ing f***ing forgive the mic. Thank you. Spoke very well and made some very, very clear points about that, about the difference between the law and the spirit of the law. And that's where I think we're all chewing on this right now to that extent. And I would like to know the difference between what is the information we got about what the soil is and isn't, and perhaps the engineer can enlighten us in all areas. Sure. James can come up and talk with you. I'll leave in a few days. James, the angelus, I resided in Seymour Connecticut. I'm the president of the soil testing incorporated. We did one test boring at the lot in the corner where the rock is expected to be removed. Yes we did one test boring in the corner of the lot where the rock is proposed to be removed and we've that it does fit the description of Manhattan Shest as it's massed by the USGS and I can explain to what that means to everybody quickly. All man here and she is a black, micaceous, metamorphic rock. Can you speak at all to, I mean, we've heard concerns about the process to remove the rock, the potential of raid on release, the air quality during the process. Maybe you can't speak to water and drainage issues, but these are the things that I'd like to hear or respond to that because I know I'm not approving the house, like you said, John, but we're being asked to approve a lot that a house is going to go on in order to put a house on, unless you tell me otherwise, you have to remove some of this rock. So these are all to hit to my mind and it sounds like to Carlos too. Environmental issues, physical issues, and I haven't heard anything. I haven't heard evidence from the audience that it will in fact cause these problems, just concerns, but I also haven't heard evidence that it won't cause these problems. So I don't know how we can possibly make a decision. Nobody's given us any real concrete information to rely upon one way or another. And I just want to make that clear. I'll tell you the truth. I don't know if there's radon in the area in the neighborhood, maybe someone else, their neighbors would know if they have radon systems in their basement. I think the New York State Health Department may have map showing areas that are potentially have a bedrock on them that carry radon. I'm sure that could be easily determined. But- Okay, just you can come up, we'll give you a chance When it comes to rock removal I think That question should be directed at the general contractor how it did different methods that could be used So what exactly does it do? So just so I know exactly what does and what does that mean to these people that are concerned about the health? Well, the test we did was only to determine the type of rock it was and to record the fractured density and the recovery, which has a relationship between your ability to remove the rock from the ground. So the rock is moderately fractured. It's not one silicate in the newest piece. It's already broken in the ground. It has weather zones, meaning again, it's not one silo continuous piece. It's already broken in the ground. It has weathered zones, meaning again, it's not consistently solid throughout. So there's weak points in it, relatively weak. I mean, it's soft rock, but it's still rock. But it's not like a solid piece of granite or a solid piece of marble that you want to take out a big 10 by 10 cubed that has no, actually no flaws in it at all. That's not the situation here. The rock is broken and it has weathered zones. So you want to have a mine there to take things out to make a statue with. It's already broken. It's already weathered as it sits under the ground. That was, I think, the main point of us going out and doing our test point to gather at information. Thank you. I'm sorry for putting you on the spot, but I'm trying to get to the heart of what we need to know. John, do you want to continue with any responses or should we hear from? Sure. I know we have a few more people who want to speak, but I did want to address a few things that Mr. Ralph said. We don't need a variance for the patio. Patios have different setbacks than the houses, so we're in compliance. Also he had sent you a form where he found the FAR of each property. We got to kind of late, but we reviewed it and we saw that, you know, there is a potential for any property in that area to use today's FAR, and they could build, a lot of the neighbors could build quite larger houses than we're proposing today. I just, in terms of the fears, I build a lot of houses in town and build about four or five a year in town. And they're messy procedures. Construction is a war zone, it always is. But thank goodness I build with really great contractors who keep their job sites nice and neat. They clean up at the end of the day. We'll be assigned a building inspector from the building department. That person will be our contact person between the neighbors and the builder themselves. You can get this person's cell phone. The building department is great in terms of following up with the construction. We also do site meetings, periodic site meetings with the builder and any concern neighbors. We put self fences up, we try to contain everything we can on the site. Like I said, this is not necessarily the house that we're building. We may do some kind of different house. This is one of the houses that I've had. But in general, you will see a 3500 square foot house being proposed for this lot. That's what builders build. They build five bedroom, four bedroom houses. Because post-COVID, people want five bedrooms. I have a five bedroom house and two of those rooms are offices and once a guest room And I wish I had more bedrooms This like I said it has always been a buildable lot. It was part of the subdivision It has an existing curb cut. It would be built exactly like three Number three Cadillac Drive they pulled away from the Rock as far as they could. We plan to do the same thing. Our addition, our house that we're talking about, would be a minimal amount of disturbance for rock. This is the whole rock shape. We're talking about just a small portion and that's where the front porch is. We've pushed as far back as we can from from the rock itself. As I mentioned, the zoning criteria changed in 2001. This property has always been a separate building lot with the city tax assessor. Our variance is only for the lot area. We meet all the other requirements. I don't think it'll have an adverse effect on the neighborhood. There are properties across the street from us, but those properties, it's the back of their house. So they're not facing us. Here's an aerial view you can see. Ms. Woodruff. Sorry, I'm not sure if this is on. Could you tell us exactly how many tons of rock you were proposing to have removed? No, I wouldn't have that amount. And would a contractor be able to give us that information? I don't think so, because at some point once you start to do the drilling in the rock, we have to see how it comes out. I mean, I can make a calculation based on surface area if that helps. And so it might, the depth of the, because you have the depth of the rock from the boring crack. I have the depth of the rock from the boring. I could give you a surface calculation of how much rock would be removed. I just wonder if that would be helpful because that might be able to give a little bit more information about just wait some worries. Yeah. How many days, how many weeks it would take to remove that rock? I think that's the one for me. Okay. It's a good point. Good point. Just again to show us where we're located on the lot. Here is Cadillac Drive. This is an aerial shot. This is the area that Vanette and Boulevard where people were talking about the creek. Here's the creek that overflows and floods the road down here. I know there was some pictures submitted. Here is three Cadillac Drive and here is the rock that we share. So this house was built on the rock. I know they're very adamant about how beautiful it is and it is. I hope to build a house here that shares just the same tip of the rock as three Cadillac Drive does. And this is 11 Cadillac Drive down here which faces I believe it's eight Cadillac Drive. So we have a nice area here with an existing curb cut. It's a buildable lot. All those 13 lots that we showed that were undersized are undersized and under the 15,000 and six of those are less than our property. Three Cadillac is 300 feet less than our property. And as I mentioned, it was a Westchester County subdivision from 1968, which was filed, which has this as a building lot. And what else can I? John, can I just jump in here and second ask you a question. We had a case before us a few months ago. You may have, you were probably in the room for a multi-family dwelling in Newer Shell and, and the lower part of New Rochelle, and the reason that the builder was coming for the variance was for the number of units that were allowed to build the site. And the conversation led to how many units what he need to the minimum amount of units and still have it be a profitable worthwhile project for that developer to make. There are plenty of beautiful three and four bedroom homes, maybe many of them are splits in New Rochelle. Is it not financially feasible for this builder to want to build something smaller than 3500 square feet? I'll tell you where I'm going with this. If there is a way to be Solomon and cut the baby in half and be able to build a house and not touch the rock, is that feasible. Is there a number that needs to be a number of square beats so that the brokers can sell that house and it'd be profitable or it's 3500 or nothing? No, it's not 3500 or nothing and that would be an application that would come to us, would not even come to the zoning board because Board, because I wouldn't need, I wouldn't, we'd go to the planning board, and the planning board would judge the house. And honestly, I know it sounds from all the neighbors, that was my intent. We tried to get just only a small portion of this rock, and maybe I have to bring the calculations, as you mentioned, to just really show what a small amount of rock this is, that it's eight feet by 25 feet, three feet down. It's really... Or no front porch. Well, the front porch is very different than the house itself, and that's why I put the front porch there, because the front porch has nothing below it. But you alluded to that unless I am as interpreted, which is possible, that the reason you need to remove the rock is for the front porch. Well, if you can see, and I know it's really hard here, this is the actual rectangle of the front porch, and then we have a small portion of the foundation here, which would be built almost as a crawl space. So we wouldn't go below that, but at some point or another, I'm going to have to put some foundation supports into this rock. So I'd be disturbing it, be disturbing it. And that's why I hatched it and made it a little darker so you could see, based on this large portion of rock, we're really only affecting a small area. So that was our intent coming in. John, have you made any changes in the submission between the last time you were here and now, other than submitting the boring report? We submitted a house. When I came- Let's make sure, but it's not the house that's going to be built. It's just an example, right? It possibly could be, when I came last time, this is what I submitted. Okay Okay that was my original submission which just showed the house and then we had our survey done with the tree survey as well and then since then we created a house for the lot and even did a beautiful rendering where we this is the actual Photoshop of the rock which we put into our design and then we rendered the houses on both sides so you could see three Cadillac and you could see 11 Cadillac and they're staggered so you can see them you know staggered back a little bit and and created a house for the lot itself and you can see here's here's three I didn't get to this picture but this is number three on the rock And here's the stepping where their house is on the rock, but all their utilities, their garage is in this location, and also they've gone as close as they can. They're 13 feet from the property line here. So they did what we're proposing to do, which is to pull it as far away from the rock as you can, and they don't have a basement at all underneath this area. Can you tell us how makes the house would be if you didn't touch the rock? I mean we do a lot of houses. At some point or another this is a narrow area given the zoning, right? So zoning. So this area is the blue line. So this is the required zoning setbacks, which I have to honor. Otherwise, I need another variance. So in order to come to the board with the least amount of variances, we try to stay in this trapezoid blue shape, and we work our house to fit in that area. So if I were to take this house and completely stay off the rock at some point I mean perhaps it's possible. Not sure. I am going to ask the board to take a brief moment. We're going to excuse ourselves into executive session and we will return as soon as possible. Thank you. We're still on, so we can just keep them. In the public, yes. OK, thank you. We will continue and let you finish if you have anything else that you want to add and then we'll open it back up to the public but I'm going to strongly reiterate what Regina just said which is that we'll be here all night. Anybody else who chooses to come up and speak please only bring up new things that have not been discussed. You obviously have heard, we have heard all the concerns. So we need to address, finish this up and hear the other matters on calendar. I think we heard a lot from the neighbors, and perhaps it's wise if we adjourn to next month, and then we could get some, submit some rock removal plans perhaps from our, our geologist, our rock person, our geologist. No, please. Please. Has no say in this. Please keep it down. Or we could listen. I don't. I think it would be a good idea to finish letting those that are present speak as long as it's on new substantive points. But yes, it is your right to adjourn. And if that's what you choose to do then we will allow that. So... Let the public speak. We will listen. Okay. Okay, anybody with something new to speak about? I'm not going to say that. Please, everything's on the record. I'm not so I'm not going to I'm not so I'm not going to I'm not so I'm not going to I'm not so I'm not going to I'm not so I'm not going to I'm not so I'm not going to I'm not so I'm not going to I'm not so I'm not going to I'm not so I'm not going to I'm not so I'm not going to I'm not so I'm not going to go through everything that's been said. But in the soil sample report that the applicant submitted, it requests that before any construction really take place on this site, that a geotechnical engineer review the site. Being my recommendation that the board take that into consideration. And then also based on the topography of the neighborhood and the natural watershed that runs along Victory Boulevard, I'd also recommend that the board take into consideration maybe doing a state environmental quality or a CECRA review of based on potentially developing that site. The other thing I just wanted to hit on is that I feel like the applicants agents have been quite deceptive in this entire process. This is not a buildable lot. It has not been a buildable lot since 2001. You need a variance to build on the lot. I wanted to hit on that. And then it has been spoken. But I mentioned last time that it was an enhanced shift. I did this with my eyes, I did it with a geologic map, someone came up after me and said that I was lying and that was also someone an agent of the applicant in the last meeting and that's all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you. My name is Andrew Vittolo, a Cadillac drive here in Nurechelle. I'm here on behalf of my parents and neighbors. I just wanted to say, you know, we've seen Nurechelle grow in leaps and bounds in the past few years. We've seen a lot of things happening in the downtown area. I know that, you know, when builders come along and they see possible opportunities to grow a business, you know, put a house to possibly make some more business, doesn't necessarily mean that it should happen. The reason why I believe that they keep hammering home the size of this house is because they have to build this size of the house to make it profitable for them to have this lot. This is a self-inflicted problem that the developers have brought up onto themselves and just to re-eiterate quickly when you look at the topography of the land and you see, yes, there is exposed rock but underneath all the other area, there there is more rock so any sort of work that will look to be done will probably involve more work than what they are originally putting. So it looks like they are trying to put a 10 pound house on a 5 pound lot, so to say. So thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Mortfordman 187 Van Hetten Boulevard. I live there 42 years and I'll throw most of this piece of paper away and just deal on a couple points. A couple things. One is on the radon, which the expert was here testified our neighbor across the street at 197 when they moved in four or five years ago had the radiation treatment, radon treatment done. So there was radon in that house with a young girl before she moved in. Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Second thing is little disappointed in the architect. They've had two months now to prepare something as simple as what size, a lot, a house they could build on that lot, two months, but hasn't been done. Hopefully will be done. Last thing for my, since I don't get to cover most of it and it has been covered, It's just a human aspect of this, okay? Cadillac Drive has seven homes on it, okay? Seven addresses for seven. Take away the builder's home, six. Four of the people here tonight are voting, would vote against it, okay? Now you have two other people on Robert's who are here, two people on Vanette and two people on victory who are all affected by this variance proposal. Ten people, to families are out here tonight talking about this on maybe 11, I don't know. But again, thank you for your time and your public service. Thank you. Hi, my name is Richard Pogasthen. I'm here to represent my parents. Please play your last name. PO, GO, STIN. And where do you live, sir? 162 Robert Drive, directly behind the proposed house. They're 85 years old. We've been there since 1970. I've played on this lot. I've been here for 53 years. So what I want to point out is, first of all, a lot along with most in the Rochelle was upzoned in 2001. I presumed they did that for a reason. Went from 10,000 to 15,000 for a reason. You're now waving that reason. Why? What was the reason it was upzoned and why do you feel like maybe it should be waived? I don't think it should be if it was good enough for the other 2,000 lots that they upzoned So as far as this lot goes what he's not he said in himself He's raising this garage five feet off the ground that means means the driveway is going to be a ramp five feet high. That means he's effectively building a dam here. This is the high. Sorry, you have to talk into the microphone. Because it's being recorded. I'm pretty sure it's picking up my voice. I'm moving the car. OK. Please stand over the podium. If you need to point at something, all right. I'm going person on the phone. Okay. No, no, no, house. Your view from there. That's what they're looking at. What you're proposing is on top of that light, now build a two and a half story house. They're gonna be looking at a friggin' skyscraper effectively. Same with the failures, same with everyone on Robert Drive. But again, this is another high point over here. All this water currently goes out to here to Cadillac Drive. What they're proposing is going to create a wall here for the driveway that's going up five feet high. And all this water is going to be forced here. It's going to flood the builder's house if he really actually ever lives there and then it's going to follow these kind to aligns into the failure's backyard and to my parents backyard. That's what you're doing. You're moving an acre of water into a small stream coming straight into our houses. He also, he's talking about this little bit of rock he's taking out. He told us he's building a basement. This is solid rock under this little lawn. They haven't grown grass on that lawn for 50 years because the soil is only an inch deep. That basement's going to take five feet or more of solid rock to be created. Thank you, sir. Anyone else? Something else to say? Yes. That's different. I hope so. Hi, good evening. My name is Chair. My name is Michael Calgee, C-A-L-G-I. I'm an engineer. I've worked for the Department of Public Works and the ladies. Sorry, what do you dress for you, Louisa? Oh, 201, man. And thank you. Which is right opposite the proposed house in the vacant lot. So yeah, I worked for Bob Bellini as a junior engineer as well as Bill Costa. Great guys, miss them. I'm a 72 year lifelong resident in Nersho. 72 years and I've been in construction for 55 years. So 45 years ago I worked for the town, for the city. But anyway, the issue here is that, you know, other people have described it, but we're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, and it's not gonna work. There's a lot of reasons why. And one is because, I was stepping on bags here, and I don't want to, Mr. Woodress bags. But anyway, we don't want to ruin the community. And basically, that's what is going to happen here. Because you know, there's a lot of things that are not considered. And I think one of my comrades mentioned CECRA, which is something that we would really urge the board to consider. This is something that's an environmental impact major, major, okay? To the neighborhood, to the habitants, to the pets, everybody. I think that's been talked about. So, you know, this is a self-imposed hardship, and I can tell you why. When they listed this home, it was put on for .63 acres or somewhere around there by the realtor. The The realtor, a friend of mine, very close friend of mine, went there to, he was interested in buying the house. There was no mention made of a separate lot. It was sold as one piece of property, right? So all of a sudden, Grasso buys the house and he's turning it into two lots. How does that happen? So, you know, we heard Mr. Woodruff's explanation, but the problem is there's not enough room, and you know, they changed the laws in 2001, that there's a reason why, and the reason is that the rock is there. And the rock, it proliferates, you know, everywhere from, you see this red boundary? That's the, you know, their property line. And that's where the rock is. You walk back there, and I don't know if any of you have been there, but it's all rock. There is no way you're getting around that. There's no way you're going to move it. So if he builds on the rock, the rock, you know, is already high, and you got the contours that make, you know, you can see as the rock raises, which he doesn't show, but there's some contours they've been on all of them. And whether you did soil testing or not, and whether it's Manhattan's Schister or not, you're still going to have to remove rock. Now if he builds on top of the existing rock and doesn't take any out, that house is going to be towering over, you know, three Cadillac Drive and everybody else. My backyard face is Cadillac. I'm my backyard is Cadillac driving you can see this big humongous house with a farm style that doesn't fit the character of the property and it's gonna be it's gonna be ugly and it's just gonna stand out like a sore thumb. So just something to think about and lastly I want to just mention quick, that I respectfully urge the board to classify the action appropriately under secret, require the applicant to submit a full environmental assessment form, that's the FEAF, and either conduct its own coordinated secret review or require preparation. Okay. Okay. Environmental impact statement, if an impact cannot be ruled out, given the potential for environmental harm, it would be premature and contrary to the secure issue of variance determination without fully satisfying the board's obligations under the act. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Thank you Mr. Pilge. May I ask your question? Okay. We're going to adjourn this matter to the next calendar. Yes. Madam Chair, we'd like to adjourn till next month. That's fine. Thank you. Okay. This case will be on the agenda. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank's fine. Thank you. Thank you Okay, this case will be on the agenda next month wait wait What? Okay Given that this matter has been on the calendar now twice we are going to close the public hearing on this matter So it will be on the agenda next month, but there will be no public comment next month. Thank you I ask that everybody leave quietly so we can continue the meeting The next case tonight. Is going to be case one. 2025. 25 SCA terrorist and 22 sound view Avenue. Some of the assembly. Good evening Madam Chair and members of the board. My name is Thomas Haynes from Haynes Architecture. Our offices are located at 287 Bowman Avenue in Purchase New York. I'm presenting an application tonight for a four lot subdivision. Can you just speak up a little bit? It's still. Can everybody please move away from the doors and down the hall? Thank you. Just hold on a second. Thank you. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. division located at 25 Acacia Terrace and 22 Sound View Street. Currently the existing lot is split into two addresses, three houses reside on the two parcels currently. So I'll walk you through with this cursor here. So this is an, the drawing that's up right now is an existing site plan to ride from an existing survey. So running through the middle here, you can see the lots are very irregular shaped. So you can just look at the screen on the computer, say it out. Oh, okay, yeah, sure. Okay. So currently the lots are divided right here. So it starts down the middle on a case, and just is very regular shaped, wraps around here, where you can follow the cursor. So that would be the one lot, which is 25 a case. The larger lot of the two consists of two houses, as I mentioned. One is an existing one family dwelling. One is an existing two family dwelling. The existing two family located here in the middle of the larger parcel is going to be proposed to be demolished. We would be leaving then in turn the two existing houses here along this side property line here between Akacia, so one house is located here would remain. The second property would have a parcel right here which would remain. And I will move you so the next screen here shows our proposed subdivision layout split into four parcels as I mentioned so we'd have parcel a right here which is which is the existing house parcel b which is on a case here terrace here would be parcel b parcel c is located on sound view street here, and then parcel D is located here as well on sound view. Again, on sound view, the house remains on Acacia, the house remains, and that other existing house would be located somewhere here in the middle, and it's to be demolished. So, out of these four parcels, one parcel is completely zoning compliant with regard to lot frontage and square footage. So again, I just wanted to mention that tonight we're not proposing dwellings, we're actually just proposing the subdivision of the parcels, jumping further if we do receive a favorable vote this evening for the subdivision. would then be designing homes on the two created parcels that would be fully zoning compliant. So the two houses that we would be constructing new or proposing new would be fully compliant with regards to step back requirements, FAR and all of that. So this evening we're just talking about the actual subdivision of these parcels. So as I mentioned, parcel C, which is one of the four created lots here as part of the subdivision, is completely compliant with regard to frontage, which the minimum requirement is 70 foot frontage on all of these lots. So the requirement, it would be 70 foot minimum and at least 7,000 square foot of area for each parcel. So parcel C, as I mentioned, so one of the four is fully compliant. Parcel A, which is located up here on Acacia, has insufficient front yard with, I'm sorry, a front, a frontage with, right? So we're proposing 65 across this front here where 70 is required. So we're just slightly under the width required there. And again, this parcel would remain that existing dwelling that's there. The second parcel here along parcel B, where we're deficient again in the frontage on this one. So this is 62 and a half feet across the parcel B when 70 is required. And then the last parcel would be parcel D here, where where again 70 foot is required. We're proposing 57 and change here. So 57 and a half feet when 70 is required. But porousal D also carries another variance request as well, which is the lot size. So all three porousals meet the minimum requirement for area of 7,000 square feet. Whereas this last parcel, which has the existing dwelling on it, would propose a lot of 5,649 square feet for that parcel. So just talking a little bit about what we're proposing here, we're taking essentially two very irregular shaped parcels, three existing homes on the combined two parcels, and we're proposing to divide these parcels up, which is much more in line with the fabric of the existing neighborhood. I know that Mr. Harris sent out a past along, an illustration that we had prepared, and I think that this really tells a good story about what we're proposing here in the fabric of that neighborhood. So it is in our firm belief that proposing to subdivide these parcels in the fact, in the way that we have done so, falls completely in line with the entire neighborhood. You can see the colored illustration here that I provided. So what we did is I took a 300 foot radius from our property, which was the required radius for the mailing requirements for the zoning board. And I'm showing the parcels within only that 300 feet of our parcel that are nonconforming parcels. So if you look on the, oh, I know it's not up there. So if you look at the illustration, the solid magenta color, so to speak, it shows that properties that have less than the 70 foot lot with, which is required by today's zoning standards. So out of 45 properties that fall within that 300 foot radius, 36 properties have less than a 70 foot lot width. In fact, most of them have a 50 foot lot width, whereas we're proposing the smallest lot, which is our parcel D, proposes a 57 and a half foot width, which is still larger than most all these other properties that I've highlighted on this illustration, but it unfortunately is less than the 70 foot requirement. The other parcels here within the 300 foot radius that are magenta in color but show the hatched stripe area are properties that exist within the 300 foot radius that have less than 7,000 square foot lot area, which is one of our parcels request as well. So, out of the total 45 properties within the 300 foot radius, 21 of those properties. So, 21 out of 45 properties have a less than 7,000 square foot, and in fact most of which have 5,000 square feet. So, with that said, I'm having to entertain any questions or answer any questions from the public or from the board. We do have some opposition chair just so you know. What are the people saying? Are they present? Yes, we have opposition in the audience, yes. Yes, I think we should. Yes. Sure. Just state your name and address. Good evening. My name is John Sparano. My brother and I own 12 Sound View Street. My parents bought that house in 1951. I played on that street as a child. I have questions for the gentleman which he may address after I finish. This parcel, this here, was a carriage house when I was a child. We played in that. It was part of a larger house. Apparently, when the neighborhood was built, there were two large houses which encompassed the entire block. The house next to my house, 12 Soundview Street, which is Echo Avenue, It was a similar design. It had a large house with an adjoining carriage house. Penis courts in the backyard. This parcel with this gentleman who's wishing to develop was a similar type, a large house which also had a carriage house which was this. At some point, this building was converted into a residence. I don't know how that applies. 22 Soundview Street, which is this building I believe was there and was always a residence. My concern as a resident is this lot is compliant. I've got no beef with that. My issue is parking. I know you don't address this in your or you may, I don't know, but parking is murder. When I grew up there, there was one household parking, one car per household, I'm sorry ladies, but the ladies didn't drive. You know, they were all moms and stay at home. So everybody came home and parked their car in the driveway. We used to play ball on the street using the manhole covers his bases. My brother can attest to that. You know we vote now too. Pardon me? I said we vote now. I'm sorry, I didn't mean it as anything derogatory, but that was the reality of the way the neighborhood was built. The gentleman did say that the houses are 50 feet. He's absolutely right. My house, my brother's house is 50 feet, but it was born, it was built in 1909 or 1910. They've changed zoning in a hundred years. Sir, I have the same question. So I had the same question, so I'm curious to hear the answer. And that's basically it. The other question, well my main question is the structure would used to be a cow's house, what's going to happen to that, and 22 sound you street. How does this become one parcel? Thank you. Thank you, sir. Anybody else want to be heard? Good evening. I'm Marisabel Afonso. I'm right next door to the property. I have no really objections. I would just like 14 Soundview Street. Right, I'm right next door. I would just like to know what construction, like what house are they going to build there? Like how many families? Because I'm the only person right next door. So just so you know, or maybe you can, you want to, just so you know, those are the types of things that come before the planning board for site plan approval. So he can, of course, answer your question to the extent that he knows. But that's not what's before us. And it may not even know at this point. But I'm sure they have an idea. How are you going to approve a lot if you- The government tells us it's a two-family. That's already in the record. So it is in two-family. The existing is a two-family. Well, the new proposal, what I'm really here for the new princess is that two-family agency. So that's going to be on La Tse, a two-family. not be a Nazi says to family. Okay, you answer my question. Yeah. Thank you. Anybody else like to speak on this? Tom? I am curious as to whether these lots are going to provide for off-street parking. Absolutely. OK, so to answer the question regarding parking, so if we look at, I could start in parcel A. So parcel A here, where I'm circling, shows two car garage parking space within the building and the driveway leading up to it. So in theory, there would be four parking spaces for the parcel A. Parcel D has a driveway that comes in from Soundview here where I have my cursor, and then I'm circling two illustrated parking spaces here that exist as well, again with parking potential in the driveway as well. But two are shown as, you know, as required. So we do have the two parking spaces here as well. For the proposed dwellings, again, we're getting a little bit of that ourselves, we started thinking about the planning of what have the two new dwellings, one would be on parcel B and one would be on parcel C, would be fully compliant not only with regard to the setbacks in FAR as I mentioned earlier, but also with regard to the parking apartments. So we plan to have parking in the building, in garage with driveways leading into them, but again, they're not fully designed and developed, but we will fully have off-screen parking that is required by disowning requirements. And as they're developing, if they had approval and are developing their plans to go to the planning board, if it was determined that they didn't have sufficient parking, they would be back before you for parking. Thank you. And in an RMF zone, just so folks know, you're required to have, I believe it's 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit and 0.25 per bedroom, but I'm going to verify that. Thank you, Buckley. You're welcome. Yes, it's 1.25 per dwelling unit and 0.25 for each bedroom. Thank you. And Paul, they would have to round up if there was half a parking spot. Yeah. Presumably, yeah. I can't have a half a parking space. Yes. You have to round up. Yeah. Sir, just go to the microphone. One more question. I think it's going to let him answer the one question. Is what I see here as the existing one family dwelling? Is that what I know as the carriage house? Thank you. I believe it is, yes. OK. Is that carriage house? And did it properly? It didn't. It hasn't been subdivided in my time. But in fact, it was a carriage house of food, raw and property. I went there at the courthouse. Some time ago, somebody must have subdivided and it did two tax lots. Number four, the record from the, well, we have records in the building department which is officially documented as an official resident. Is there? Oh, there. Yeah. Well, you know, it doesn't mean that it was originally a property. Oh, maybe we can. I could certainly check the record as you like. I'm sure Saraya did that before she goes to denial. I'm happy to answer any other questions. Board have any questions for the applicant? One of the issues that I have is that area there is so heavily populated and And the fact that there's going to be four more possible apartments there. And I know you're going to meet the requirement for parking, but I guarantee you those tenants are not going to be able to parking in those area. They're going to be parking back in the street. I just have an issue with that, especially this smaller lot, granting that variance just mainly because of that. The one with the 62. This partial D. Partial D. So partial D is remaining a one family. It's an existing one. I'm sorry. B? OK. So partial B is 7,000 square foot lot. so it's a existing one. Part 2B. I'm sorry. B? Okay. So, Part 3B is 7,000 square foot lot, right? So, it's a larger lot there. It's just deficient a little bit on the frontage. But again, we will have at least, I'm going to say it's going to have to be four parking spaces for the house here. Part 3C is fully compliant, right, with all zoning setbacks. So, you know, we can take this out of the equation, but Parso B will be compliant with parking, so I'm gonna guess it. Parcel C is fully compliant with all zoning setbacks. So, you know, we can take this out of the equation, but Parcel B will be compliant with parking. So I'm gonna guess it's gonna have two, at least two parking. Is Parcel A, A, two family house? Park, correct, that's an existing two family house. And the tenant is parking industry, I guarantee you that. And they have a parking, they have a garage, and they have parking in front. They do, yeah, they have force, force. I got a few attendance of parking in this room. Mr. Arias. I can't answer the answer. I miss smoke. This is still all one lot. It was never subdivided. The house at 22 Soundview is listed as a two family house. The garage was converted to a one-family dwelling in 1986. And the house along Akasha Terrace is a one-family house. Well, that's the records we have. Well, that's not what the picture shows. The picture shows Akasha as a two family and the one family on the other. This is 22 Soundview Street and the case of terrorists block to 10 28. The second card is I think on the application, I have a description, it describes it as a one. I move 12 and it's not, and you look at the actual provider. I'm in front of the assess to realize that there's a big confusion. So 22 sound view, it has a two family dwelling on it, which is where we're moving, and it has the one family on sound view street which we're relieving. So in that parcel would be D would be the one family to remain. The two family which is located in the center were removing that and then on a case. Yeah, it's an existing two family that we're leaving. I don't know how that's some vision work. See. That's very. It's a lot of great idea for me. I'm just to about the, I'd like to have a plan on this. Is going 5,640 square feet, what? 7,000 square feet? That's correct. That's the parcel I'm having to upper with. You know, just want to make sure that the numbers are... To me, that's a substantial variance. You're asking for two on that lot in both size and frontage when, I mean, you could cut it across the middle and make three lots and then you'd be asking for a lot less in the way of variances. I mean, that's a pretty sizable difference, 56, 49 to 7,000. So again, just based on the fabric of the neighborhood, it's not at a character, so that was our approach. And it's also to allow us to have a fully compliant parcel C as part of this application. We could have chosen to split that lot down the middle, not requested the 5600 on the parcel D, but I think the objective with the zoning board should always be, you know, if we can have the opportunity to minimize the required number of variances. So that's why we chose to have parcel C fully compliant. We did not want to come with four lots that all four had variances. I guess my point is that you don't need to come, I mean, you could come with three lots and then there would be fully compliant. Well, it would, if we, even if we had parcel D as, well, I can't speak on behalf of the honor. We're here for four. I understand. Mike, can you say something? My name is Joseph Sporano. You come to the microphone please. My name is Joseph Sporano. I don't know. Speak into the microphone. I'm sorry. My name is Joseph Sporano. I own 12 Southview Street with my brother John. That neighborhood was all one family houses. There was no two family houses in the entire neighborhood. That goes the entire length of Soundview and back up to Franklin Avenue. They went down Franklin this way and then, so it's always been all one family houses. Some of them were substantial in size, which substantial land. This house here that we're talking about, the frontage is what? 125, if that. The whole on sound view is 127 feet. 127 feet. Okay. And the other house based on Katie and Tara. So you're increasing the family size substantially, if you do this. Thank you, sir. I'm looking, Paul, I'm looking at the property cards here. I don't see anything about a two-family house. I see the conversion started, it looks like an 82 and finished in 86 at the garage to the one family dwelling above that if you go above it to 3102 It says alteration conversion from one to yeah, okay, I see it in 1960 correct. Thank you. Okay. You're welcome You can continue Tom. Do you? Does anyone have any questions for the applicant? Would anyone like to make a motion? I know that Tom was waiting for a full board. I didn't realize Bob wasn't going to be here. So he can adjourn one other time. OK. If you want to adjourn or you want to take a vote. I think we can take a vote if that's the best. OK. OK. Does anyone want to close the public? Close the public. OK. We're going to close the public meeting and close it for comment. Would anyone like to make a motion? No one, huh? Okay, I'll make a motion. I'm that on live? Sorry, pardon me. Okay, this is case number 1-2025 Cosmo-trippy for permission for a subdivision of two existing lots, one lot with two existing one family dwellings, one of which to be demolished, and the other with an existing two family dwelling into four lots, one lot for each existing dwelling and two lots for one new dwelling, each to be filed under separate applications. New dwellings not included in proposal and zoning review shown for location on new lots only. Whereas Lot A, the proposed frontage of 65 feet, is less than the minimum required of 70 feet or existing 74.88 feet. Whereas the proposed 65 foot lot width is less than the minimum required of 70 feet existing 74.88 feet. Whereas Lot B, the proposed 62.6 frontage is less than the minimum required of 70 feet. Sorry. Whereas the proposed 62.6 lot with is less than the minimum required of 70 feet. Whereas lot D, the proposed 57.6 frontage is is less than the minimum required of 70 feet. Whereas the proposed 57.6 lot width is less than the minimum required of 70 feet. Whereas the proposed 5,649 foot square foot lot area is less than the minimum required of 7,000 square feet in an RMF .4 zone districts at the premises 25 Acacia Terrace and 22 Sound View Avenue. It's actually Sound View Street. Street. Block 210, lots 29 and 28 seeking an area variance. I move that we approve the application for the following reasons. I'm sorry? Nope. She's not dead yet. Oh, okay, excuse me. I move that we approve the application, whether the benefit, when applying the five factor test, whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I don't believe that they can achieve four separate lots without the proposed subdivision in the manner that it has been submitted. Whether there will be an undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. I don't believe that this proposed subdivision will provide an undesirable change to the neighborhood as all of the lots in the nearby vicinity are of similar size and dimension. And as we've been, as we have confirmed, the nurse all code requires off street parking, so it will not create undesirable effect in increased parking on the street. Whether the request is substantial, I don't believe that the request is substantial with respect to parcel A or parcel B. I do believe that the square footage differential on parcel D could be considered substantial, but that one factor alone I don't believe should be the reason to deny the application in its entirety. And whether the request will have adverse physical or environmental effects, we have not heard any indication that there will be any such negative effects. And whether the alleged difficulty is self-created, it is self-created and that this is a path that the property owner has chosen to go down so that they can subdivide their property. But I don't believe that that alone should be a basis to deny the application. Do I have a second? Second. Fnando Areas? No. Erica Eisner. Yes. Abel Rodriguez. No. Paula Clapper. Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Charlotte Avedere. Yes. The motion has been approved. Thank you all very much. Have a great name. Wow. Next case tonight is case number eight, 2025, 95 prior terrorists. Can we just pause for one moment? Just one moment. I'm Mr. Woodward. Before you proceed, I just want to put on the record that I do know the applicants personally. I have no business dealings with them whatsoever. I have no economic or personal interest in their application. And if there's any objection to me voting on this application, speak now or forever, hold your fees. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Once again, John Woodruff, the architect, and I'm here with the Greenbergs tonight. And we've been working on their house on prior terrace Here's our survey the house is a corner lot which has more restrictions than a regular lot and it is on the corner of Elinton and prior terrace One of the nice things about this lot is you'll see this is my red property line and I have an extra 15 feet of property here on the front and the side that belongs to the city but it makes our lot look a little bit bigger and you'll see as we move along it helps a little bit with the house itself. We are proposing a addition that requires three variances and we said it's 95 prior terrorists. Lenny and Amy Grindberg bought their house in August of 2019 six years ago and, and with the intention of, and we're here tonight with the intention of gaining some more space. As I said, we're on a corner a lot with two fronts and we have that large city right of way that I spoke about. The blue line on this drawing, let's go to the strong. The blue blue line is the zoning line, which restricts where we can build. And the footprint of the house right now is non-conforming and it extends past that blue zoning line. So the house right now extends in this fashion and we are extending along that line with these two yellow areas. And we're going no further than the existing footprint of the home. We need a small FAR variance. Our new house will be 2,952 square feet where 2,812 square feet is required. We're only over on our FAR of about 140 square feet and that is usually within the building officials discretion, but not with the variants. So it is a small 140 square feet increase that we're asking for. Our second variance is a side yard. Since we have two fronts on every corner lot, this second front is existing at 15 feet and it needs to be 25 feet. So that's our second variance. And like I said, we don't go any further than the existing footprint. Our third variance is for the combined side yards. This yard and this yard and we happen to be non-conforming on this side of six feet. So it's almost the same thing but it's it's for it's a yard variance. So we need a total of three variances. The real one is hot. I don't need a, the rear yard right now is 33, 33 feet and I don't need any variance in the rear. So on the side, what is the, what is the depth of what you have on this side? Yeah. So on this side, it's 15 feet where 25 is required because it's a corner lot. So what happens on corner lots, this is a front yard and this is a front yard. I have no problem on the one facing prior terrace, but I am short on the Ellenton side. This is our denial. Can you go back to that job? The house comes out in the middle, right? Yeah. You're putting an addition towards the front and one towards the back. Correct. I mean, you're squaring off that side of the house. Exactly. I'm not making the house any wider. I'm just coming across on this side and I'm coming across on the back here. And then we're putting in a compliant patio. So you're not changing that second front yard set back? Correct. It's existing, and I'm not going any further. Our idea is to add one bedroom and two more bathrooms. Like I said, the house now is a five bedroom to Beth. And we're proposing a six bedroom for Beth, adding about 580 square feet to the total size of the house will basically be changing a 2300 square foot house to a 2900 square foot house. We'll have a larger family room in the back of the house here. We're adding a covered porch in back and we have a new front porch in front. The house will now have a stone and Stco, new windows, new roof. That's a look of the front of the house. We're going to add some stone here and this is our new front porch. And then in the back we have a covered porch, which is also on the side of the house. That's a rendering of what the house will look like when we're done from the front. This is a side view where we add a new front porch and then we'll have a new covered porch in the back of the house. This is the side view on this six foot deep side and we are planning to do stone in the front and wrap it around the corner. This is the existing chimney, and then we add a small bathroom above this existing garage. This is the rear view. This is a new family room addition, and this is the master bedroom addition with the covered porch below. This is what the house looks like now. It's basically a one and a half story cape. It was snowing back then. And this is why I think that this house is unique and should be granted the variance tonight. Because what happens is this Elantin Avenue, there's no house across the street from us. So we have the large front yard and when you look at the side here we have An extra 15 feet which is the city right of way so we're basically adding to this side of the house and we're adding to the backside here Top fence is the neighbor's fence? Yeah, I, this fence is our house. This fence is our house. This is the rear of the house right now. And like you said, we'll be making this room a little bigger, tearing off this room and building a new one. The interesting part about this house is directly across the street from Elenton is a large one acre buffer park which belongs to Iona and then their ballfield is back here. So when you look at their house this is a map here's their house and then they have this large area which is a like I said a park like buffer and then the ballfield is here. So basically on the area where I have the second front yard I have no neighbor but this large park right next door so I think it it it lightens the house up a little bit by not having a neighbor on that side and is very unique. This is our house in relation to prior terrace. Very interesting what happens in this area. This is all the R-115. So we have some smaller houses here and then we have very quite large houses across the street. So I think that bringing this house up in size isn't detrimental to the neighborhood because If you look at these houses across the street they're quite large and this addition I think would would be well-felt in the neighborhood as something that would look good. I just did an aerial view and this is our Cape here that we plan to make larger and this is that buffer area that belongs to Iona that will never be built on and here's their ball field and then here's a few of the big houses which are directly across the street 76 prior terrorists, 80 prior terrorists, 96 prior terrorists and 100. So you can see that you know there are very large houses in the neighborhood in the same zone, but our variance, which is fairly minimal, would really fit the neighborhood. And that's our case for tonight. A question for you, Mr. Woodruff. So you're requesting point three, one, FAR, which exceeds the point three. Was there any change to the design that could be made? So that was not a problem. We really tried hard to do that. As best we could. Yes, we met me. It's a little daunting to take an existing house and try to get a look that we feel comfortable with and also work with that existing structure so we did our best and to keep it within the 5%. Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak? Okay. I'd ask. Does anybody have any questions? Did we receive any letters from neighbors on this? We did not. No. And I spoke to two of the neighbors who are my past clients. Who love the design and also love their neighbors. And it's a really great neighborhood there. Okay. With that, I will close the public meeting. Would anyone like to make a motion? Thank you. Thank you. I make a motion to approve case number 6-2025, Lenny. Greenberg. 8-8. What did I say? I'm sorry. Case number 8-2025, Lenny Greenberg, for permission to construct a new two-story Edition we coverage patio where the proposed 0.31 FAR 2,952 square feet FAR exceed the maximum permitted of 0.30 2,823 square feet where the 15 feet, front yard setback is less than the required of 25 feet on the front yard. Fronting on the street, with a proposed 21.4 combined side yard setback is less than the minimum required. Combined side yard 27 feet in R1, dash 15 zone district at the premises at 95 priors terrace, black number 1036, lot number 52. And applying the balance and test that we are required to implement and whether the benefit can be achieved by all the meaningful to the applicant. In my opinion, some of the variances that the applicant is seeking, there are pretty small variances. And, you know, one of my colleagues as the architect, if there was any way that they could reduce on that, I guess, 140 FAR. And he said that they look into all the options and they didn't have any other way to pull about that. On the side of changes in neighborhood character or detrimental nearby property, you know, they are similar houses in this area, so I don't think this is going to create a detrimental in the neighborhood, whether they request a substantial. In my opinion, it is not. There are three separate variances, but those variances doesn't seem to be affecting anybody in the area. Some of the site yard where the 15 fees required, well, the 25 fees required, they only have a 15 fee, but there's a lot of green area. There's non-avers that are being affected by that there. Where the request we have adverse physical or environmental effect in my opinion it does not, whether the alert is difficult to say self-create it is but in my opinion it's not a reason for denial, well all of those considerations request the variance to be granted. Second. Fernando Arias. Yes. Abel Rodriguez. Yes. Krala Klappa. Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Charlotte Abedir. Yes. Erica Eisner. Yes. The motion is approved. Thank you. I'm sorry if I'm it up your names. Next case. Congratulations. Thank you. 2025, 87 in to Lincoln. I think we should take people with babies first from now on. He's so tired he passed out. Sorry. You came in a rough evening. I know. We love you. We put him asleep. John and Amy guessed it with us tonight. They just purchased the house on 87 interlaken and moved in recently in the last couple months. they bought in February I believe and we are proposing an addition to the back of the house. This is our survey and the interesting thing about interlaken is that our lot slopes from the front to the back about 10 feet. So when I design houses and I work on these I have to include the basement as part of the FAR because it's exposed more than 50% and it's a they call it a story. Also what happens with this property I guess you can see better here is you come down the driveway and you make a turn and you go into the garage So parking is all behind the building The house right now is only 1300 square feet with three bedrooms and one and a half baths and We're proposing a Two-story 24 by 16 edition you get to the right here, 24 by 16 edition in the back of the house, over a one car garage, and it's all entirely in the back of the house, can't be seen from the front, and then we are also proposing a deck in the rear yard. Our denial is for an extra 219 square feet of FAR. It's within 10% of the allowable. And also a rare yard variance just for the deck, not for the house, just for the deck itself. This is our denial from the building department, just to restrictions, variances that we need tonight. Here's our plan layout basement level. We have a garage here, one car garage upstairs. This is the addition, which will be kitchen, breakfast room, and then we reconfigure the inside a little bit. This is the existing house. Then up on the second level will be a master bedroom suite with a walk-in closet and a new bathroom. Like I said, we're only 1,300 square feet with the house right now, very small, and we'll be bringing the house up another 1,000 to 2300 square feet. The red area showed a new addition. This would be the addition in the back. Here's the front elevation. We don't change that at all. And then this would be our deck in the back here. And here's our garage that we enter from this side. This is a side view of the house as it exists. The front porch and this stairs is here. We'll be rebuilding it and then here's our addition in the back. It's a two story addition. We kind of broke it up here so that it wouldn't appear too tall. Under here is the garage and then we have a scissor stair that comes down in sort of two pieces to come back to the yard and then there's a turnaround for the driveway. So you come down the driveway here, you could turn around and pull into the garage or if you needed to you could come up the stairs and go on to the deck and into the house. Front of the house, nothing changes, all the addition is in the back. These are some photos of the back of the house as it exists now. We'll be coming out with our addition here, maintaining this driveway. The shed will be coming down, and our addition will be pretty much in the area where this patio is. This is another view from the rear. You can see here's the driveway where we come down and our addition would be in back here. We're going to abandon this garage but use it for bicycles and toys and things like that. And then our new addition goes in here as a two-story structure. This is the view toward the back of the property. And I think this is why it's very interesting this property is unique because it backs up to Webster Avenue and there's some houses on Webster. I did a little vignette of the neighborhood here and you can see this is our area, this is our house and then behind us is this giant lot on Webster, which one house is on. And we are also, we also did this map to just show that we are the smallest house on the block in terms of coverage. So we are 12% actually easier for me to read from here without my glasses. We are 12% of the lot in terms of coverage and all the other 12 houses are higher than us and we did a little chart here to show that. So that's why we felt that making the house somewhat larger was not problematic. So to the right it's 18% building coverage and to the left is 14. So as you can see they're pretty much almost all the same size lot but we did each of the coverage is to just show that we are the smallest out of one, two, three. And what will you be post-adition? Post-adition, our coverage is within the required zoning. So we don't exceed the coverage at all, but right now we're at 12% and I believe are proposed coverage. Moose? We be 18. So like I said, in looking at the house itself, we have no neighbors in front of us either. So here's our house and we're in the R110A and in front of us is a, it's a wooded area and it's actually the buffer for the Hutchinson River Parkway. So we have no neighbors in front of our house and it is a flood zone, but it's the AE flood zone. It's a high-risk flood zone and it has a 1% chance of flooding each year and they need to purchase flood insurance, but it does create a little bit of a hardship for basement usage, which is common for all the houses on these, in this, uh, this row of houses on interlaken. and behind us, so we have no neighbor in front and we have 766 Webster and it's a very deep lot, 281 square feet. And coincidentally, 760 Webster and 762 Webster are houses where the lot is so big where they'd build a house behind it and this was done in the 60s and they used to call them flag lots because you would have a driveway here back to another house and the city doesn't allow flag lots anymore. Basically because fire engines can't get down the small driveway to put the fire out and I did Webster in 2000, and at the time the bill there was trying to get a flag lot and he couldn't do it, the city wouldn't even accept the application back then. So this house is from 2000, it'll never be built on. So the guests will always have a very deep, it's not their property, but it'll always be an open air buffer on the houses here and here because they can never be built upon. So they have a lot of open air here and a lot of open air behind so that we felt that, you know, taking a smaller house, making it larger, even though the property doesn't belong to them, it still gives them a lot of open air on both sides. And that it was a good application to come to the board for. I think that's it. I think that's it. For anyone having any questions? Does anybody else this? No. John, I think you're outside the flood zone. Okay. Does the board have any questions hearing that there's no opposition? No. Okay, then I will close the public meeting and ask if anyone would like to make a motion. I could do it. Thank you. Case number 9, 2025, John Guest, for permission to construct a new two story edition at the the rear of the house, whereas the proposed 0.38 FAR of 2500, 29 square feet, GFA exceeds the maximum permitted of 0.35 2310 square feet whereas the proposed rear yard setback of 23.8 feet is less than a minimum required 30 feet in an R1-10A zone district at the premises 87 interlock and Avenue block once excuse me 1 6 2 0 lot 98 I propose that we accept or approve this variance using the balancing test whether benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. I think that it's doing it in the best way that it's not visible from the street and doesn't affect the appearance of the house. Under undesirable change in the neighborhood character to nearby properties. Again, it's in the rear. There's a very large property setback behind them. So it's not going to affect the nearby properties. Whether the request is substantial, I think that part of it is substantial with the required setback, however, it's only a deck and not the actual house. The, sorry, whether the request will have at first physical or environmental effects, I believe it does not. And whether the alleged difficulty of self-created, obviously is but I don't see that as a reason for denying the application. Second. Fernando Areas. Yes. Abel Rodriguez. Yes. Carla Clappa. Yes. David Fernandez. Yes. Charlotte Abedir. Yes. Erica A is there. Yes, the motion is going to prove thanks guys tonight Already he's there We have three administrative items Let's go through those if you want to just make one motion for all three, we can do that. We need to read through them. I'll read the case number and the address. Okay, that's good. And then we'll just, that works. So three administrative case 45, 2023 for 55 women. That was the sandwich shop at Home Depot. Case 16, 2023, 66 Decatur. We Construct a New Dec in the Side Kitchen Extension and Legalized Two Storyside Forge enclosure. And K-45, 2022, Construct a New Two Story One Filmage Welling with a tattoo called Garage on a Bacon Lock. The last one, this is the second extension and they're last. So, would someone like to make a motion? I move that we approve all three administrative items. Second. And everyone agrees? Aye? Aye. Aye. I move to close the meeting. Will we We all second. I have no issue. Second. Thank you. The meeting is over. Thank you, Rebecca Knight. you