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 July 16, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino Allen 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: July 16, 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 seven-story mixed-use development containing retail/restaurant and residential apartments as well as parking 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 Esq. of Cuddy & Feder submitted a letter requesting an adjournment from tonight’s meeting to the August 20, 2020 meeting. The letter stated that at the Planning Commission meeting the Neg Dec was adopted pursuant to SEQRA and at this time the applicant is preparing supplemental materials for the August meeting Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Morlino, which was seconded by Commissioner D’Estrada, the mater was adjourned to the August 20, 2020 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 meeting Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen F 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 July 16, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino Allen 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: July 16, 2020 No. of Case: 2020-Z001 Applicant: Andrea Calabrese 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. Seller of the house. 2. Names and addresses of those appearing in opposition to application. None Summary of statement or evidence presented: Steve Feinstein, Esq. represented this matter for the applicant who was also present. The application is for use areas, because this is a Preexisting non, conforming structure. It's a two family house and in our five single family zone, my client bought it back in two thousand and three. It was an illegal preexisting two family then and the issue is we need to expand it in two thousand and ten. It was a tiny kitchen in the premises they live in is one half of the house, and the apartment that they rent out is the other half of the house. Andrea is a school teacher. Her husband is a house painter and they need the income from the, the second family in order to afford the property. That was the case in two thousand and ten. It's the case today. And with the ever growing age of their family, they just need a bigger kitchen. It was a tiny location of under a hundred square feet. And so they have enough room on the property. There's no setback restrictions or other issues, or the need for any variances. But of course, it's viewed as the expansion of a preexisting nonconforming. That's why they can't get a building permit. They need the, the use variance. Of course, the most difficult one is unnecessary hardship as it relates to dollars and cents proof. That if they use the property in conformance with what's permitted in the district, they couldn't bring her get a reasonable return out of the property. And as far as I can tell, there's a couple of different ways to look at that one way. And I addressed it in the letter is to talk about what would happen if the property was put back in a single family use. That's the only use that is permitted. So, you have the cost to turn a two family house back into a one family house. They've got some estimates that about a hundred thousand dollars to do that and they had a purchase price back in 2000 of about three hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars. And I provided a as an exhibit. I think it was exhibit B, to my submission some appraisals for some, some recent sales, single family properties in the district. And I think you can see there that between the cost of the, the renovation, the cost of the return to a, to a single family district. And the sale price, it would be a financial loss for them to do that. Not to mention the fact that if they were to sell the property, they then have no place to live. So they have to go find a place to live. And that cost can be anywhere from several hundred to many hundreds of thousands of dollars. So, it's, it's not a financial option for them to sell the property and find a place the way they are in the same situation. They were in two thousand and ten, which is they needed to family property from an operating standpoint. There's no way for them to operate the property as a single family zone without the income. So, I think if you look at it from either the sales standpoint, or the operating standpoint, there isn't a feasible financial alternative. In addition, there are other unmentioned expenses. Of course, one of the requirements is whether variance would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I think it would be reasonable to say, and I would submit to you that keeping this a two family house and expanding this kitchen. The modest amount that we're talking about, would certainly be in keeping with the, the character of the neighborhood. And finally, there's the question of self-created hardship, which is always interesting when you're dealing with a application for use variance a Preexisting nonconforming structure. Nobody's denying that when Andrea acquired the house that she knew was a preexisting non, conforming structure. It's not a conversation you usually have a, when you buy a house, it's a two family house. But in this particular case, the truth is, there’s no change in the use that's being proposed the traditional use areas for a changing use or a more intensive uses. Not what's happening here. This is two family use. So I don't believe this is a self-created hardship situation that would be relevant to this application. After being sworn in, Andrea Calabrese gave testimony and concurred with the testimony of Mr. Feinstein. She also described in great detail the need to have a larger kitchen Public Ms. Telesca, who sold Ms. Calabrese the house testified in favor of the application In addition, there were some questions with regard to permitting and the actions of the Building Department. In the discussion with the Board members there were questions with regard to the finances relating to this application as a “Use Variance”. It was suggested by the Board that the matter be adjourned and the applicant provide tax returns to substantiate the hardship. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Allen, which was seconded by Commissioner D’Estrada. The matter was adjourned to the August 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 meeting Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen F 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 July 16, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino Allen 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: July 16, 2020 No. of Case: 2020-Z003 Amended Applicant: Caritas 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 No. 509-511 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 12 off street parking spaces and to waive 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 34514 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. None 2. Names and addresses of those appearing in opposition to application. None Summary of statement or evidence presented: Anthony Tyrone Esq. represented this matter for the applicant. Mr. Tyrone began by clarifying the contents of the Notice of Hearing that was read into the record which was incorrect, however an updated Notice had been posted on line and sent to the surrounding neighbors. Mr. Tirone began by saying Port Chester serves a tremendous amount of people right now and tremendous tons of food are distributed through the organization for several different outlets to feed people in Port Chester. in our previous meeting we mentioned that we were the beneficiaries of a building 509-511 North Main Street, which we are now proposed to use in the manner which is described for you in the sets of plans, For the nature of work that is done at the site parking is not a very large issue. In a previous letter sent to the Board it was indicated that 90% of the traffic that will be visiting will arrive by foot. Bicycle traffic is low, 25% will arrive by car and 75% will arrive by bus or taxi or walking. The code speaks to permanence seating and square foot usage, but it speaks in terms of a social club, or a restaurant type use. Where the parking would normally be at a premium it’s not because it's primarily used for staff and for volunteers that come in. We've gone through this quite a few times on how to find the best parking scenario. . In addition, we have spoken with the neighbors, we have very friendly neighbors who are sympathetic to our cause and what we do and we’re currently at St, Peter's church where we don't have any parking for our patrons and we were previously at Don Bosco where we also had no parking for our patrons and this probably will not change under this proposal. The second is the off-site, truck, loading zone, which is required for commercial uses and this falls within that zone. Their operating plan indicates that, they receive one truck a day or one truck every other day. Primarily the deliveries are made by small vans and they are either picking up the materials are dropping them off. The truck loading zone is not as crucial is it would be for an operating restaurant or other business Sometimes we get a truck every day. Sometimes it's every other day and sometimes it's less than that, and the truck is there for maybe fifteen, twenty minutes. Part of this plan is to construct a walk in cooler. Although we have left a tremendous amount of space in front of the walk in, cooler the requirements for a truck loading zone certainly wouldn't fit within that area. The applicant has a parking lot and whenever a truck would arrive it would arrive would fit in the parking lot to unload and there'll be no unloading from the street and the delivers a relatively small, a pallet or two, maybe times three, but that's the totality of the of the delivers. And this is basically what we would call clearly call a food pantry, food, pantry, primarily, primarily breakfast, lunch. And that's a totality. There may be other services involved, but their peripheral services ancillary services to help people get back on their feet. Mr. Tirone stated that this application makes it attractive for the applicant, and for the Villages because it is not taking up downtown density or parking areas. Its 30 minutes to pick up food and beverage and the applicant has taken that into consideration. The applicant has been working on again, partnering with Salvation Army, Carver and Don Bosco so they can act as a central location to distribute food. The Zoning Board had a brief discussion regarding the truck loading zone and did not find the applicant’s request to be an issue of concern. It was also noted that if the applicant ever ceased operations and somebody else came and bought this property, they would have to come back to the ZBA. In addition, it looks like it's plenty space for a box truck to be there and unload. It doesn't appear that the the applicants use of the property is going to impact the neighborhood in any adverse way. 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 _5__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 Allen F 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 August meeting Record of Vote: For _5__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 Allen F 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 July 16, 2020 at 7:00 p.m. with Chairman Evelyn Petrone presiding. Present in addition to Ms. Petrone were Messrs. D’Estrada, Morlino Allen 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: July 16, 2020 Nature of Request: 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: Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner D’Estrada which was seconded by Commissioner Simmons, the meeting was adjourned to August 20, 2020 Record of Vote: For __5_Against __________ Absent _________ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent ADJOURN MEETING Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen F Morlino F Simmons F Signed___________________________ Evelyn Petrone Title_ Chairman__________________