Zoning Board of Appeals

MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held via WebEx Video Conferencing on May 21, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino and Simmons Also in attendance were Building Inspector Kevin Donohue, Assistant Planning Director Curt Lavalla, Planner Evan Breining and Acting Secretary Constance Phillips Date of Hearing: May 21, 2020 No. of Case: 2019-0186 (revised) Applicant: Tarry Lighthouse LLC 5 Waller Avenue, Ste. 301 White Plains, NY 10601 Nature of Request: on the premises No. 163, 175, 179 North Main Street, 18 Mill Street and 20 Abendroth Avenue, located in the C2 Main Street Business District and being Section 142.23, Block No. 2, Lot Nos. 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 on the Assessment Map of the Town of Rye, New York, for an interpretation and/or in the alternative area variances from the applicable Zoning Ordinance or Ordinances in the following respects: Application is hereby made in accordance with the discretionary power vested in you by Sections 345-19 and 345-29A, and/or in the alternative 345-30 of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Port Chester. The Applicant hereby requests under the discretionary power vested in you by Sections 345-30, area variances pursuant to Sections 345-48 C2 Main Street Business District, Schedule of Regulations for Non-Residential Districts, Attachment 3B, 345-14D (1) and (3) and 345-61(Q) (5) of the Zoning Ordinance of the Village of Port Chester for permission to: construct a nine-story mixed-use development containing retail/restaurant and residential apartments as well as parking A request was made by Anthony Gioffre, Esq. of Cuddy & Feder to adjourn this matter to the June 18, 2020 meeting On the motion of Commissioner Morlino, which was seconded by Commissioner D’Estrada the matter was adjourned to the June 18, 2020 meeting Record of Vote: For __4_Against __________ Absent ___1______ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Adjourn to June Meeting Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen Ab Morlino F Simmons F Signed___________________________ Evelyn Petrone Title_ Chairman__________________  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held via WebEx Video Conferencing on May 21, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino and Simmons Also in attendance were Building Inspector Kevin Donohue, Assistant Planning Director Curt Lavalla, Planner Evan Breining and Acting Secretary Constance Phillips Date of Hearing: May 21, 2020 No. of Case: 2019-0188 Applicant: Luis Lopez 560 Westchester Avenue Rye Brook, NY 10573 Nature of Request: on the premises No. 7 Willow Street, located in the C4 Building Zone District, being Section 142.38, Block No 2, Lot No. 47 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: convert a former cabaret establishment into a restaurant with parking – amend previously granted variance(s) 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: Anthony Gioffre Esq. of Cuddy & Feder represented this matter for the applicant who will be calling in to the meeting. The Traffic Engineer Don Tone was also present on the WebEx. Mr. Gioffre began by saying this application was started almost a year ago and variances were granted. (Required: 30 spaces; provided: 13 spaces; requested variance: 17 spaces), Mr. Gioffre said the applicant is asking the Board to grant a parking variance for one more space than was previously granted because they are looking to eliminate one of the parking spaces in in the lot, because it will be a little tight. The applicant has been working with the Planning Commission as well as the villages consultants in connection with this application and determined that one of the spaces would be a little tiny or the turning movements to be made in the parking lot. A five-point turn would have to be made in order to save the space, but it was determined by all that eliminating one space and doing a three point turning movement Don Tone Traffic Engineer. has demonstrated that the initial one space could be absorbed onto the roadway network and the existing on street parking. Some of that has been provided to the Board as part of the record s to verify movements in the parking lot and other parking survey Pre COVID-19 was to verify parking availability in the local roadway network and the recirculation at Willow Street So the applicant is looking for more space than you previously granted, we're looking to eliminate one of the parking spaces in in the lot, because it will be a little tight It was the recommendation of the Planning Commission as well as the Villages Planning consultant to eliminate that one additional space and to seek one additional space variance Chairman Petrone summarized for clarity” So, we go from seventeen, a variance of seventeen spaces that was granted to eighteen. That’s really to make the lot cleaner and easier. Mr. Gioffre concurred Two members of the public spoke on favor of the application/no one opposed the application PREVIOUSLYN GRANTED VARIANCE (for reference) 6. A public hearing was conducted on April 18 and May 19, 2019 wherein the applicant and all interested parties were given a full and complete opportunity to be heard. 7. Mario Demarco, Esq. represented the applicant. He was accompanied by Oscar Ovalle, architect. At the first hearing, counsel advised the applicant seeks to open a restaurant. The premises was used for a nightclub. However, the building has been vacant for several years. Mr. Demarco stated that the Zoning Regulation requires 30 off-street parking spaces and the applicant is providing 13 spaces on property he owns across the street. Therefore, a variance of 17 parking spaces is being sought from the Zoning Board. 8. The Zoning Board questioned counsel as to whether the applicant could provide additional parking in the lot through a valet operation. The Building Inspector advised the Board that the Planning Commission should provide comment with regard to a valet operation. 9. At the second hearing, Aldo Vitagliano, Esq. appeared on behalf of Attorney Demarco. 10. The Village Department of Planning and Development provided a memo advising the Zoning Board that the subject of a potential valet parking operation should not be considered by the Board. A valet is a separate and distinct process with its own approvals through the Police Department. 11. Attorney Vitagliano advised the Board that there was a survey performed which concluded that there was ample on-street parking in the area. He noted that the Zoning Board had previously granted variances for lack of off-street parking for a near-by property on South Main Street for a restaurant. Willow Street is a short dead-end street with only local traffic. The predominant nature of the neighborhood is mixed use, with commercial automotive-related establishments in close proximity. 12. The applicant closed by stating that he and his family have been trying to open up a restaurant at this location for some time and want to do everything in a lawful manner. 13. No one testified in favor or against the application. 14. The matter was before the Planning Commission for site plan approval which is pending the determination of the Zoning Board. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW l. The Zoning Board take judicial notice that the Zoning Regulation provide for a minimum number of required off-street parking spaces, with no accommodation for tandem parking with a valet operation. Therefore, the application for the variance must be reviewed as against these requirements. 2. With regard to a request for an area variance, Village Law , Section 7-712-b(3)(b) requires the Zoning Board of Appeals to balance the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted as against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall consider: (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood; and (5) whether the alleges difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance. 3. The requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The restaurant will occupy a building that has been vacant for several years, and, as proposed, will not have the secondary impacts of the prior night-club use. 4. The applicants cannot otherwise operate the restaurant without a variance. 5. The requested variance is significant if evaluated as a percentage deviation from the requirements of the Zoning Regulation. However, if properly viewed not as a mathematical exercise but in the totality of the circumstances, the deviation is of lesser concern. 6. The requested variance will not have any adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The variance will not result in any decrease of light, air, privacy, security for fire and other dangers or overcrowding. Nor is there any evidence that the variance would negatively impact the natural environment and/or any ecological systems. 7. Since the applicant purchased the property with presumptive knowledge of the restrictions contained within the C4 Zoning District, there is arguably the existence of self- created hardship. However, this is only one factor for the Board to consider and does not outweigh the other foregoing factors that otherwise tips in its favor. 8. The Zoning Board is mindful that the Planning Commission will be addressing site- specific impacts of the proposed restaurant through the site plan approval process. 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 __1_______ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen Ab Morlino F Simmons F On the motion of Commissioner Simmons which was seconded, by Commissioner D’Estrada, the Village Attorney was directed to prepare Findings of Fact for the June meeting Record of Vote: For __4_Against __________ Absent __1_______ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent PREPARE FINDINGS Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen Ab Morlino F Simmons F Signed___________________________ Evelyn Petrone Title_ Chairman__________________  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held via WebEx Video Conferencing on May 21, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino and Simmons Also in attendance were Building Inspector Kevin Donohue, Assistant Planning Director Curt Lavalla, Planner Evan Breining and Acting Secretary Constance Phillips Date of Hearing: May 21, 2020 No. of Case: 2020-0199 Applicant: Mahesh Amin Raul Bello 12 Empire Lane Bello Architecture, PLLC Bethel, CT 06801 36 New Street Rye, NY 10580 Nature of Request: 57 Woodland Drive is lot #2 as shown on Filed Map# 26580 and 29234 and located in the R20 District. The Village of Port Chester Zoning Law, Section 345-39 R20, One Family Residence District, Schedule 1B, requires a minimum front and rear yard dimension of 40 feet. A review of the site plan reveals that the proposed front yard dimension at the front entrance step is 32.7 feet and the proposed rear yard dimension at the rear entrance step is 35 feet, 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: Raul Bello of Bello Architecture represented this application for the applicant. Mr. Bellow began by saying This is an application to construct a new single family dwelling in an R20 zone. the proposed front yard dimension at the front entrance step is 32.7 feet and the proposed rear yard dimension at the rear entrance step is 35 feet, So, there is a variance required for the front and rear yard straight to the street the new address is 57 Woodland Drive. Woodland Drive is located off of Beachwood Boulevard, which leads to King street. the property is located in an R20 zone. The plans represent a proposed new one story, single family home, the home would consist of three bedrooms, two, and a half baths. The basement would be unfinished and a two car garage that is proposed to the home would be two thousand, five hundred and fifty square feet, which brings the total to .186, which is well below what's allowed. So, in order for the applicant to build the home we're going to require two variances. One is for the front yard. The required front yard setback is forty feet. The front porch is thirty-two point seven We're asking for a seven point Three front yard variance. The other variance that is require is at the rear, the rear yard setback required is forty feet. The steps that lead from the first floor down to a stone patio is thirty-five feet and we're requesting a five foot rear yard variance for these steps at the rear. The applicant feels that the variances that we are requesting are not substantial and feel that the proposed house is fitting with the existing neighborhood and with the overall area in general. Chairman Petrone stated that it appears that the home from the drawings and plans that we've seen is going to be keeping with the neighborhood and that she did not see any great diversion from the existing homes in the neighborhood. Most of the homes in the area are one story, A question was asked with regard to how far do the front steps project from the house towards the street. Mr. Bellow replied that the front property line, we have thirty-two feet point seven. There were additional questions with regard to how many steps going up from the front and how many from back? Mr Bellow said there are four risers in the front. In the back there are three only because I have the patio in the back, The zoning analysis that was presented the applicant, it didn't appear to me to pose any kind of a problem as far as the fitting in with the neighborhood. Chairman Petrone said that in her opinion the variances are pretty minimal to which the Board agreed. the, the entire front surface of the house is within a half where it needs to be where you would have needed a variance similar situation in the back. Some alternative suggestions were made by the Board but ultimately they agreed to go with the requested variances. No one from the Public spoke for or against this application Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner D’Estrada, which was seconded by Commissioner Simmons, the Public Hearing was closed. Record of Vote: For __4_Against __________ Absent ___1______ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen Ab Morlino F Simmons F On the motion of Commissioner D’Estrada, which was seconded by Commissioner Simmons, the Village Attorney was directed to prepare Findings of Fact for the June meeting PREPARE FINDINGS Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen Ab Morlino F Simmons F Signed___________________________ Evelyn Petrone Title_ Chairman__________________  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held via WebEx Video Conferencing on May 21, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino and Simmons Also in attendance were Building Inspector Kevin Donohue, Assistant Planning Director Curt Lavalla, Planner Evan Breining and Acting Secretary Constance Phillips Date of Hearing: May 21, 2020 No. of Case: 2020-Z001 Applicant: Angela Calabrese ( s/b Andrea) 14 Elmont Avenue Port Chester, NY 10573 Nature of Request: on the premises No. 14 Elmont Avenue, located in the R5 Building Zone District, being Section 136.77, Block No 1, Lot No. 22 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 obtain a Use Variance to construct a rear addition to enlarge an existing legal non- conforming two family dwelling. The Village of Port Chester Zoning Section 345-13B states: “No such non-conforming use of land shall be increased or shall it be extended to occupy a greater area of land than that occupied by such at the time of the adoption of this Regulation, nor shall any such nonconforming use be moved in whole or in part to any other portion of the lot or parcel of land occupied by such non-conforming use at the time of the adoption of this Regulation. Building permit application to construct a rear addition to enlarge an existing legal non- conforming two family dwelling in the R5 District is hereby DENIED for non-compliance with the Village of Port Chester Zoning Section 345-13B for the proposed expansion of a non- conforming 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: John Scavelli represented this matter for the applicant So, the proposed application is to add a rear addition to an existing two family residential dwelling. when the application was submitted, there was a denial because no enlargement or additional square footage could be added to the home without going through any sort of a variance process. In terms of the, the scope of work the owners are looking to do is at the rear side of the first floor, there's essentially a very small kitchen and laundry area which they're looking to demolish and then expand out a single story addition within the same width of the current house towards the rear of the property, approximately at eleven and a half feet towards the rear. And within that new addition would be an expanded kitchen, a new laundry room as well as a, a powder room. The proposed addition is within all of the required zoning setbacks. And where the addition is happening with the width of the house, it's less visible from the street. there's no intrusion into the side of the property where the addition is very visible from the street and all the exterior materials being used, match the existing siding of the home. So, it's looking to keeping character with the existing home. And the existing neighborhood. And the use of the space is essentially the same space that's there now, but looking to basically expanded to make it a little bit more user friendly for, for the, the owner and occupants. It's not going to exceed the zoning envelope for the area, but because it's a non-conforming use at the time. Chairman Petrone asked the applicant to explain why this is a non-conforming use. Mr. Scavelli explained that it was his understanding there was a zoning law change for it being a family dwelling when the house was originally constructed, those zoning laws have changed since then. Mr. Scavelli said as part of that resolution there is basically a section of the code that's indicating that if you have a legal nonconforming to family dwelling in this R5 District, if there's any sort of proposal for enlargement or increasing any square footage, it would be denied without any sort of variance approval which is the process what we're presenting to the board at this time. It was a legal, two family house, but then became no good because of zoning change. There was some confusion as to whether the applicant was looking for an interpretation, an area variance or a use variance. The Village Attorney indicated that if the applicant is looking for a use variance, not enough information has been presented to substantiate the request The applicant walked the Board through the submitted materials, some of the highlights The property next door is a similar situation where it's a Preexisting non-conforming use. So, essentially, the area proposed for demolition is the rear kitchen. And then there's a small laundry room area with a walk downstairs to the backyard. The current kitchen and laundry room and essentially the proposed addition is from this corner to this corner towards the backside of the property. Chairman Petrone said that this matter would be held over to the June meeting because additional information is needed and more time is needed to review the matter. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner D’Estrada, which was seconded by Commissioner Simmons, the matter was adjourned to the June 18, 2020 meeting Record of Vote: For ___Against __________ Absent _________ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Signed___________________________ Evelyn Petrone Title_ Chairman__________________  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held via WebEx Video Conferencing on May 21, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino and Simmons Also in attendance were Building Inspector Kevin Donohue, Assistant Planning Director Curt Lavalla, Planner Evan Breining and Acting Secretary Constance Phillips Date of Hearing: May 21, 2020 No. of Case: 2020-Z002 Applicant: Robert & Nancy Cruz 146 Breckenridge Avenue Port Chester, NY 10573 Nature of Request: on the premises No. 146 Breckenridge Avenue located in the RR5 Building Zone District, being Section 133.76, Block No. 2, Lot No. 23 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: to: construct a 14 x 12 deck in the rear yard of the dwelling 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: Richard Kotz of Richard Kotz Architecture represented this matter along with the applicant. The applicant stated that the application is to construct a fourteen by twelve deck in the rear yard off of the kitchen. Currently there is no deck. To go downstairs there is a door from the basement and around the front door. What we are doing is in the backyard, we are proposing a new deck. That would be approximately four feet above grade and we would have seven risers going up to the deck and Mr. Kotz said We're able to step directly into the existing kitchen where we have a breakfast room right now that is existing so right now the breakfast room has windows. We would replace/convert those windows into a pair of sliding doors. Currently you have to go from the kitchen into an area down a few steps into a little existing room. before you step outside. So we want to raise a deck to have it flush or six inches below the first floor level so you could have direct access from the first floor to the backyard deck. Stairs will be running parallel to the existing stoop. That is a couple of feet above grade. The rear yard is thirty feet in the back of the house is pretty much thirty feet so the, the deck would be within the, the thirty-foot setback. So it's, it's a modest size deck for the proportion of the backyard because you have circulation space, you want to have a little round table to seat four, for barbecuing and then maybe a couple of chairs, It's entirely into the rear The deck is still usable open space as we define it in the outgoing code. Commissioner Petrone said if you, take a look at the areas of the neighborhood, my initial impression was it's generally keeping with uses of backyards, In fact, I was looking at the areas right now and I see a lot of the houses that are existing there look to have separate garages that are running up against the property line. I'm just thinking that it's big. Mr Bello said We thought was practical to, to have it functional and work properly. There's no point in doing a deck too small that doesn't work. So we felt twelve feet was a reasonable request. and the deck looks like it meets the lines of the of the other frame of the house too. It's absolute there was an addition dating back many years that bumped out to the thirty-foot rear yard and that was the breakfast room that was added. So, we're just going to extend those existing walls in form of in the shape of the deck. Well, they would have the benefit of this particular area variance, but as you mentioned he height of the deck is a biggie, but there's a lot of fencing separating property lines and many very equivalent size lots. A very detailed discussion was held in relationship to the size of the deck however the Board agreed to grant the requested variance. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner D’Estrada, which was seconded by Commissioner Morlino, the Public Hearing was closed Record of Vote: For _4__Against __________ Absent ____1_____ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen Ab Morlino F Simmons F On THE MOTION OF Commissioner Simmons, which was seconded by Commissioner Morlino, the Village attorney was directed to prepare Findings of Fact for the June meeting. PREPARE FINDINGS Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen Ab Morlino F Simmons F Signed___________________________ Evelyn Petrone Title_ Chairman__________________  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held via WebEx Video Conferencing on May 21, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino and Simmons Also in attendance were Building Inspector Kevin Donohue, Assistant Planning Director Curt Lavalla, Planner Evan Breining and Acting Secretary Constance Phillips Date of Hearing: May 21, 2020 No. of Case: 2020-Z003 Applicant: Carita’s of Port Chester Law Offices of Anthony Tirone 509-511 North Main Street 170 Hamilton Avenue, Suite 300 Port Chester, New York 10573 White Plains, New York 10601 Nature of Request: on the premises No509-511 North Main Street located in the C4-R Building Zone District, being Section 134.64, Block No. 1, Lot No. 34 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: waive 8 off street parking spaces and 1 off street loading spot The proposed variance and relief from the parking requirements are set forth in the Port Chester Zoning Code Article IV Section 345=14 Off street parking, truck loading and vehicular access, Subsection C (2) Schedule of off street parking space requirements. Zoning Code §345-14 C(2) requires 1 parking space per 200 sq., ft. of gross floor area and 1 parking space per 3 permanent seats requiring applicant to provide 22 off street parking spaces. The applicant will provide 14 spaces where 22 are required, therefore a variance of 8 off street parking spaces is requested, Zoning Code §345-14 E(1) All accessory off-street parking and truck loading facilities shall be located on the lot with the use that they serve. Zoning Code §345-14 D(1) requires 1 off street truck loading space for each 5,000 sq. ft. of gross floor area. The applicant proposes 0 off street loading spaces where 1 is required, therefore a variance of 1 off street truck loading space is required 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: Anthony Tirone represented this matter fir the applicant. He began by saying that he would be asking for an adjournment because the application is currently being revised. Mr. Tirone said that This matter has appeared before the Board of Trustees for Special Exception Use approval. The matter is before the ZBA for a parking variance as well as an off street loading space variance. One we were looking for the turning and parking site plan and engineering to be done and it was only completed 2 days ago, so we're not able to get you a full application before tonight We are only able to provide ten parking spaces as opposed to twelve once we change the operational procedures for the special exception the full set of plans, the application, the use and operation plan, the site plan, the architectural and the surveys, which will lay out the application. Mr. Tirone also said the volume of food delivery went from about a six thousand pounds a month. Maybe five, six, seven thousand pounds a month to thirty two thousand pounds of food a month. This past month we went to thirty two thousand pounds because of COVID 19. We have, we usually feed about two hundred people a day on a normal scenario. We're now feeding six hundred people a day. We're usually feeding about six hundred families a month. Now we're feeding about a thousand families per week. our, our demand for food is going through the roof. We've been very fortunate to receive a tremendous amount of donations from. We change their operational plan where previously people were coming to us for food and now we are making delivery to families for food on a daily basis. And there's a huge demand for food and food security. We are and having no patrons come to the location, but we've partnered with many other organizations to provide them food. Some churches, a Salvation Army carver center that do not have the same network of food access that we do. there are twenty-two parking spaces required because of the fact that we're putting in a handicap lift to get people to second for the other part of carry us and I'll address this as ancillary services. So our objective not only the feed the line, but too short in the line. Mr Tirone went on to explain the inner workings of his operation. He explained that people do not come there in droves and park their vehicles. A lot of people walk to the site with rolling bags and hand carts and others use taxis which get loaded and pull right off. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Simmons, which was seconded by Commissioner Morlino, the matter was adjourned to the June 18, 2020 meeting. Record of Vote: For _4__Against __________ Absent ___1______ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Adjourn to June 18, 2020 Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen Ab Morlino F Simmons F Signed___________________________ Evelyn Petrone Title_ Chairman__________________  MINUTES OF MEETING Application for Permit or Variance A meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals was held via WebEx Video Conferencing on May 21, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino and Simmons Also in attendance were Building Inspector Kevin Donohue, Assistant Planning Director Curt Lavalla, Planner Evan Breining and Acting Secretary Constance Phillips Date of Hearing: May 21, 2020 Adjourn meeting to June 18, 2020 On the motion of Commissioner Simmons, which was seconded by Commissioner Morlino, the matter was adjourned to the June 18, 2020 meeting. Record of Vote: For _4__Against __________ Absent ___1______ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Adjourn to June 18, 2020 Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen Ab Morlino F Simmons F