Zoning Board of Appeals

MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Courtroom of the Police Headquarters Building, 350 North Main Street, Port Chester, NY, on July 18, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman William Villanova presiding Present in addition to Chairman Villanova were Messrs.: Petrone, D’Estrada, Alzate and Morlino (alternate) Also in attendance was Village Attorney Anthony Cerreto, Building Inspector Kevin Donohue and Assistant Planner Adam Pisarkiewicz. Date of Hearing: July 18, 2019 No. of Case: 2019-0186 Applicant: Tarry Lighthouse LL Anthony Gioffre III 175 & 179 North Main Street & Cuddy & Feder LLP 20 Abendroth Avenue 445 Hamilton Avenue, 14th Fl. Port Chester, NY 10573 White Plains, NY 10601 Nature of Request: on the premises No. 175 & 179 North Main Street and 20 Abendroth Avenue, being Section 142.23, Block 2, Lot Nos. 25, 27 & 28, on the Assessment Map of the said Village, being a variance from the applicable Zoning Ordinance or Ordinances in the following respects: Application is hereby made in accordance with Village Law Sections 7-725-a(3) and 7-725-b(3) which permit applications to be made to the Zoning Board of Appeals for Area Variances pursuant to Village Law Section 7-712-b without the necessity of a decision or determination of an administrative official charged with the enforcement of the zoning regulations. The Applicant hereby requests under the discretionary power vested in you by Sections 345.30, 345-48 C2Main Street Business District, Schedule of Regulations for Non-residential Districts, Attachment 3B and 345-61(Q)(5) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Port Chester for permission to: construct an eight-story mixed-use development 1. Names and addresses of those appearing in favor of the application. None 2. Names and addresses of those appearing in opposition to application. None Summary of statement or evidence presented: Anthony Gioffre III Esq. of Cuddy & Feder represented this matter for the applicant. Mr. Gioffre requested an adjournment of this matter to the July meeting because the applicant continues to make modifications to the plan. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Petrone, which was seconded by Commissioner D’Estrada, the matter was adjourned to the September 19, 2019 meeting. Record of Vote: For _5_Against __________ Absent __________ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Adjourn to August 15, 2019 F Petrone F D’Estrada F Villanova Ab Allen F Alzate F Morlino Signed___________________________ William Villanova Title_ Chairman____________ ATTEST:  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Courtroom of the Police Headquarters Building, 350 North Main Street, Port Chester, NY, on July 18, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman William Villanova presiding Present in addition to Chairman Villanova were Messrs.: Petrone, D’Estrada, Alzate and Morlino (alternate) Also in attendance was Village Attorney Anthony Cerreto, Building Inspector Kevin Donohue and Assistant Planner Adam Pisarkiewicz. Date of Hearing: July 18, 2019 Case No.: 2019-0192 Applicant: George & Perri Caso 27 Halstead Ave Port Chester NY 10573 Nature of request on the premises No. 27 Halstead Avenue, being Section 136.47, Block No. 1 Lot No. 2 on the Assessment Map of the said Village, being a variance from the applicable Zoning Ordinance or Ordinances in the following respects: Application is hereby made under the discretionary power vested in you by Section 345-29A, 345-13 or in the alternative 345.30 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Port Chester for permission to obtain construct a 10’ x16’9” second story side addition PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 27 Halstead Avenue is located in the R7 District which requires a minimum of a 10 foot side yard dimension. A review of the construction drawings revealed that the existing building has a one story enclosed room with a side yard dimension of 4.8 feet and is hereby deemed to be a legal non-conforming building. The construction of a 10’ x 16’9” second story side addition on top of the existing one story enclosed room will increase the degree of the non-conforming side yard dimensions in violation with the Code of the Village of Port Chester (Zoning Law) section 345-13 D. (1) Zoning Law Section 345-13 D. (1). States “A nonconforming building or structure that is not devoted to a non-conforming use may be reconstructed or altered, enlarged or extended, and the provisions of Subsection C, above, shall not apply, except that the degree of nonconformity shall not be increased.” 1. Names and addresses of those appearing in favor of the application. 2. Names and addresses of those appearing in opposition to application. Summary of statement or evidence presented: Commissioner Petrone summarized the Findings of Fact as prepared by the Village Attorney Anthony Cerreto Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Petrone which was seconded by Commissioner D’Estrada the Findings of fact as prepared by the Village Attorney were approved Record of Vote: For __5_Against __________ Absent _________ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Approve Findings F Petrone F D’Estrada F Villanova Ab Allen F Alzate Signed___________________________ William Villanova Title_ Chairman____________ ATTEST:  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Courtroom of the Police Headquarters Building, 350 North Main Street, Port Chester, NY, on July 18, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. with Commissioner Petrone Presiding, Chairman William Villanova was present later in the meeting Present in addition Ms. Petrone were Messrs.: D’Estrada, Alzate and Morlino (alternate) Also in attendance was Village Attorney Anthony Cerreto, Building Inspector Kevin Donohue and Assistant Planner Adam Pisarkiewicz. Date of Hearing: July 18, 2019 Case No,: 2019-0193 Applicant: Daniel & Hazel Williams Anthony B. Gioffre III, Esq. 31-33 Poningo Street Cuddy & Feder LLP Port Chester, NY 10573 445 Hamilton Avenue White Plains, NY 10601 Nature of request: on the premises identified as 31-33 Poningo Street (Section 142.22, Block No. 2 Lot No. 18) for a determination under the discretionary power vested in the Zoning Board of Appeals by Village Code Sections 345-13 and 345-29A. The Applicants respectfully request a determination of the Zoning Board of Appeals overturning the Village Building Inspector’s denial of the Applicants’ building permit application based on a determination that the existing 6-family dwelling use is not permitted. The requested determination is in furtherance of the Applicants’ building permit application for minor renovations and fire- protection improvements to the existing legal nonconforming 6-family dwelling at the premises. 1. Names and addresses of those appearing in favor of the application. None 2. Names and addresses of those appearing in opposition to application. None Summary of statement or evidence presented: Anthony Gioffre III Esq. of Cuddy & Feder represented this matter for the applicant. Mr. Gioffre began by saying that at the last meeting the Board wanted to hear more from Mr. Donohue who was unable to attend last month’s meeting. As an outgrowth of the meeting that were held Mr. Mark Kaminski who was Mr. Williams attorney at the time provided an affidavit, Mr. Kaminski said what he focused on was the question that arose about discussions with the prior building inspector as far back as 2014 and 2015. Mr. Kaminski said he had several discussions and determined that the building had been in RA3 and subsequently the Zone was changed to R2F. It was established through conversations and letters from the county and proof of work done in the mid 80’s to convert to a 6 family was done and operating well before the Zone change. This was dine in a private meeting and not through a public hearing but notes from Ms. Youngblood who was the Planning Director at the time and Mr. Kaminski notes both matched the information that was given to the building inspector at the time who was in concurrence. Meetings were held with the Planning Department, the architects and the former Building Inspector it was determined that no use variance was required. Mr. Miley also agreed that from the records this premises had been used as a 6 family dwelling as far back as the mid 80’s. Mr. Donohue said that he had no knowledge of this information in his files. Mr. Gioffre said that the applicant is seeking a determination that the preexisting non-conforming six family use is permitted to continue. The applicant is not looking for a use variance but is only looking for an interpretation. Mr. Gioffre said that at last month’s meeting they spent a significant amount of time going through each of the documents in support of the use continuing. Some of the highlights are listed below. In addition to the Certificate of Occupancy/Property Zoning and Use Verification Letter dated October 21, 1986 confirming the 6-family use, is the Certificate of Occupancy/Property Zoning and Use Verification Letter dated August 14,1985 issued by the Village Building Department affirming that the "existing multi-family use can continue." This Certificate of Occupancy/Property Zoning and Use Verification Letter dated August 14, 1985 was issued approximately two years after the same Village Building Inspector issued a Plumbing and Drainage Permit for work related to three fixtures at 31 Poningo. This corresponds with the existing layout of the Premises shown at whereby the six dwelling units are split evenly between 31 and 33 Poningo, both of which make up the Premises. The Village's 1982 Zoning Code and Zoning Map shows that at this time, the Village permitted multi-family dwellings, which were defined as buildings with three or more dwelling units, in the RA3 District. Since the Premises was classified in the RA3 District from at least 1982 until 2013, the Certificates of Occupancy/Property Zoning and Use Verification Letters and the Plumbing and Drainage Permits explicitly and unambiguously prove that the Village had approved and confirmed the 6-family use at a time when such use was permitted at the Premises. Thus, the Building Inspector's determination that the Premises is only a 3-family use based on records from 1956 is wholly inconsistent with the Building Department files and must be overturned. The original mortgage agreement between the County and the Applicants from 1986 clearly states that "31-33 Poningo street is a 3-story wood frame structure with 6 apartments." The plans prepared for the minor construction for fire-protection purposes and submitted to the Building Inspector in furtherance of the Building Permit Application show that the Premises is currently a 6-family use, not a 3-family use. Mr. Donohue said that nothing in the files is consistent. Various documents conflict with one another so that is why the matter is before the Zoning Board of Appeals to consider all of the paperwork from all sources and make a determination. Mr. Donohue said the applicant has applied for a permit. The floor plan is for the6 family dwelling and the repairs that need to be done. If the Board gives a positive interpretation allowing a six family dwelling to continue it will be documented in the folder and be noted as such going forward with a Certificate of Occupancy No one from the public spoke for or against this matter Chairman Villanova joined the meeting at this point. He said he knows the property well with extensive history and has no problems with the matter going forward. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of On the motion of Commissioner Morlino, which was seconded by Chairman Villanova, the Public Hearing was closed Record of Vote: For __5_Against _____0_____ Absent __1_______ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Close Public Hearing. F Petrone F D’Estrada F Villanova Ab Allen F Alzate F Morlino On the motion of Chairman Villanova, which was seconded by Commissioner D’Estrada, the Village Attorney was directed to prepare Findings of Fact for the August meeting. Record of Vote: For __5___Against _____0_____ Absent __1_______ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Prepare Findings. F Petrone F D’Estrada F Villanova Ab Allen F Alzate F Morlino Signed___________________________ William Villanova Title_ Chairman__________________ ATTEST:  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Courtroom of the Police Headquarters Building, 350 North Main Street, Port Chester, NY, on July 18, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. with Commissioner Petrone Presiding, Chairman William Villanova was present later in the meeting Present in addition Ms. Petrone were Messrs.: D’Estrada, Alzate and Morlino (alternate). Chairman Villanova joined later in the meeting Also in attendance was Village Attorney Anthony Cerreto, Building Inspector Kevin Donohue and Assistant Planner Adam Pisarkiewicz. Date of Hearing: July 18, 2019 No. of Case: 2019-0194 Applicant: Benjamin & Jennifer Bernstein Steven Secon Architects 7 Rye Road 145 Palisade Street Port Chester, NY 10573 Dobbs Ferry, NY 10522 Nature of Request: on the premises No. 7 Rye Road, located in the R7 Building Zone District, being Section 142.70, Block No 1, Lot No. 11 on the Assessment Map of the Town of Rye, New York Application is hereby made under the discretionary power vested in you by Sections 345-19, 345-29A, and 345-13 or in the alternative 345-30 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Port Chester to: construct a 12’ x 52’ deck on the rear of the dwelling 7 Rye Road is located in the R7 District. The Village of Port Chester Zoning Law, Section 345-40 R7, One-Family Residence District, Schedule 1B, requires a minimum rear yard dimension of 30 feet. A review of the one page plan A-0, reveals that the proposed rear yard dimension to the deck is 26.25 feet. The Building Permit Application to construct a12’ x 52’ deck on the rear of the dwelling is hereby DENIED for non-compliance with Zoning Section 345-40, R7 District, Schedule 1B, which requires a minimum 30 foot rear yard dimension and where the plans proposes the deck to have a 26.25 feet rear yard dimension. 1. Names and addresses of those appearing in favor of the application. None 2. Names and addresses of those appearing in opposition to application. None Summary of statement or evidence presented: Commissioner Petrone informed the Board that she would be recusing herself from this case because the applicant is a client of hers. Chairman Villanova proceeded with the case at this point. In summing up the application Chairman Villanova said the applicant is looking for a 3.75 ft. rear yard setback. Steven Secon Architect, represented this matter for the Bernsteins. Mr. Secon began by saying the lot is non-conforming, the depth of the lot in particular lacks the minimum depth which is part of the reason for the appearance tonight. The existing deck that is going to be removed is about eight and a half feet deep and is in a bad state of disrepair. To build in the same location didn’t make much sense and the reconfiguration extends significantly wider on the neighbors side did not seem to be the best configuration for the occupants or for the neighbors. After many discussions it was decided that the most effective use would be to build a 12 ft. wide deck that would be closer to the residence and allow for a better flow through the property. This is being done in conjunction with improvements in the basement where they will be installing a second means of egress door from the playroom. This deck would not cause any undesirable changes to the neighborhood and will be an improvement in terms of the proximity to the neighbor. The small variance requested does not affect the neighbors in the rear as they are separated by a small tennis court. This was the smallest sensible deck to meet the needs of the applicant. There’s no adverse effect on the environment and the variance is not substantial. After living in the house for several years the applicants realize that they are unable to fully use the current deck. The existing deck is eight feet and the applicant would like to make it twelve feet and more to the center of the house away from neighbors on either side. The deck in its current position is non-conforming. No one from the public spoke for or against this matter Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Morlino which was seconded by Commissioner D’Estrada the public hearing was closed Record of Vote: For 4_Against __________ Absent _________ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Close Public Hearing Petrone F D’Estrada F Villanova Ab Allen F Alzate F Morlino On the motion of Commissioner Alzate, which was seconded by Commissioner Morlino, the Village Attorney was directed to prepare Findings of Fact for the August meeting Record of Vote: For 4____Against __________ Absent _________ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Prepare Findings Petrone F D’Estrada F Villanova Ab Allen F Alzate F Morlino Signed___________________________ William Villanova Title_ Chairman____________ ATTEST:  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Courtroom of the Police Headquarters Building, 350 North Main Street, Port Chester, NY, on July 18, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. with Commissioner Petrone Presiding, Chairman William Villanova was present later in the meeting Present in addition Ms. Petrone were Messrs.: D’Estrada, Alzate and Morlino (alternate). Chairman Villanova joined later in the meeting Also in attendance was Village Attorney Anthony Cerreto, Building Inspector Kevin Donohue and Assistant Planner Adam Pisarkiewicz. Date of Hearing: July 18, 2019 Case No.: 2019-0195 Applicant: Lori Pasqualini Jody T. Cross, Esq. 4 Berkshire Blvd Zarin & Steinmetz Bethel, CT 06801 81 Main Street White Plains, NY 10601 Nature of Request on the premises No. 41 & 43 Betsy Brown Road, located in the R7 Building Zone District, being Section 136.37, Block No 1, Lot(s) No. 44.2 & 44.3 on the Assessment Map of the Town of Rye, New York Application is hereby made under the discretionary power vested in you by Sections 345-19, 345-29A, and 345-13 or in the alternative 345-30 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Port Chester to: construct a new single dwelling at 41 Betsy Brown Road Betsy Brown Road is located in the R7 District and a review of the construction plans, site plan and the Filed Map #28009 revealed the following non-compliances with the Code of the Village of Port Chester; 1. Proposed vehicle parking in the front yard is not in compliance with the Code of the Village of Port Chester Section 345-6. I. (3) which states, “Accessory off-street parking spaces”… “shall not be located within a required front yard, nor within a required side yard.” 2. Propose width of the access driveway is 20 feet and is not in compliance with the Code of the Village of Port Chester Section 345-6. I. (4) which states, “Access driveways through required front yards and required side yards shall not exceed 10 feet in width” 3. Proposed structure on a lot which does not have a minimum frontage of 30 feet (maintains at least that width to the minimum front yard depth) on a street or highway in compliance with the Code of the Village of Port Chester Section 345-9. B. which states, “No building permit shall be issued for any structure unless the lot upon which the structure is to be built has a minimum frontage of not less than 20 feet at the front property line on a street or highway as defined in § 7-736 of the Village Law, which street or highway shall have been approved by the Planning Commission as provided in said law, and the lot maintains at least that width to the minimum front yard depth. Applicant is requesting an interpretation of Section 345-29A or in the alternative seeks an exception from frontage requirements of Section 345-9B 1. Names and addresses of those appearing in favor of the application. 2. Names and addresses of those appearing in opposition to application. Summary of statement or evidence presented:  Dan Richmond Esq. of Zarin & Steinmetz represented this matter along with the CEO of Ability & Beyond Jane Davis, and Larry LePere of Solli Engineering. Mr. Richmond began by saying Ability & Beyond is a 501-C3 Non-Profit Organization dedicated to performing community services for people with disabilities including residential services, community living, employment and involvement in activities. He said they are here this evening on an appeal of the April 19, 2019 denial letter issued by the Building Inspector who denied a building permit on the grounds that lot 3 lacks sufficient frontage on a street or highway in conformance with section 345-9B of the Village Code. This denial raised two other issues which have since been resolved with the Building Inspector. (Parking in the front yard and Driveway of less than 10 ft. in width) Kevin Donohue Building inspector concurred with the applicant saying that a site plan had been sent to him showing compliance with Numbers one and two of the denial and the only issue remaining is Number three. Requesting an interpretation from the Board that the property has sufficient frontage on the street or highway in compliance with the aforementioned sections of the Village Code. The properties are a part of an approved subdivision plat that was vetted for 2 years by village staff and was approved by the Board of trustees in 2007. Mr. Richmond proceeded to walk the Board through the history of the site which was previously submitted to the Board. The history is summarized as such: The Planning Commission conducted an extensive review" of the Subdivision Application over the course of 8 meetings from May 2005 through May 2006. On May 22, 2006, the Planning Commission i ssued its Subdivision Recommendation Resolution, which recommended that the BOT grant the application As a condition of approval, the Planning Commission expressly recommended the creation of a fourth lot- Lot 4 (the "R.O.W. Lot")- for the purposes of creating a shared private street or road off of Betsy Brown Road for vehicular access only to Lots 2 and 3. Access to Lot 1 would continue to be via an existing driveway from Betsy Brown Road, a public road. The R.O.W. Lot was to be a "separate right-of-way parcel, the ownership of which shall be divided among the owners of Lots #2 & #3." The Planning Commission R e s o l u t i o n f u r t h e r required that the right of way. Lot "shall b e subject to an access easement and maintenance agreement that shall permanently assure access into the new lots and shall obligate the owners to maintain the driveway at their own expense." Review and approval by the Village Attorney of the easement and maintenance agreement shall be required prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy for any residence on Lots 2 and 3 As part its review of the Subdivision Application, the Planning Commission reviewed various plans on which the Subdivision Application was reflected. Relevant to the instant Application, the Planning Commission expressly considered both a Common Driveway Private Street Plan, dated May I, 2006as well as a drawing showing road profiles. Thus, in mandating the creation of the Right of way Lot, the Planning Commission unquestionably approved a private street as a means of access to Lots 2 and 3. Public: The following residents offered comments regarding this application Bart Didden – 123 Betsy Brown Road Chris Scala – 60 Betsy Brown Road Christina Collins – 139 Betsy Brown Road Joe Breslin – 54 Woodland Drive Diana McCarthy - 678 King Street Kerry Flynn Scala – 60 Betsy Brown Road Phil Semprievo – 86Betsy Brown Road Kelly Beyre – 678 King Street Brett Collins – 139 Betsy Brown Road Lily Dimitri – 50 Betsy Brown Road Ken Berkowitz – 115 Betsy Brown Road Jessica Berkowitz – 115 Betsy Brown Road  Additional historic information on this property was requested of village staff for the next meeting. In addition the applicant has agreed to further explore the concerns of the neighbors as it relates to drainage and flooding of the roadways. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Petrone which was seconded by Commissioner Morlino, the matter was adjourned to the August 15th meeting Record of Vote: For 5____Against __________ Absent _________ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Adjourn to August 15, 2019 F Petrone F D’Estrada F Villanova F Allen F Alzate Morlino Signed___________________________ William Villanova Title_ Chairman__________________ ATTEST:  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held at the Courtroom of the Police Headquarters Building, 350 North Main Street, Port Chester, NY, on July 18, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. with Commissioner Petrone Presiding, Chairman William Villanova was present later in the meeting Present in addition Ms. Petrone were Messrs.: D’Estrada, Alzate and Morlino (alternate). Chairman Villanova joined later in the meeting Also in attendance was Village Attorney Anthony Cerreto, Building Inspector Kevin Donohue and Assistant Planner Adam Pisarkiewicz. Date of Hearing: July 18, 2019 Nature of Request: Adjourn meeting to August 15, 2019 On the motion of Commissioner Petrone, which was seconded by Commissioner Allen, the meeting was adjourned to August 15 Record of Vote: For 5 Against ______ Absent _____ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Adjourn to August 15, 2019 F Petrone F D’Estrada F Villanova F Allen F Alzate Morlino Signed___________________________ William Villanova Title_ Chairman__________________ ATTEST: