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 August 20, 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: August 20, 2020 No. of Case: Case No. 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, NY 10573 White Plains, NY 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 12 off street parking spaces and to waive 1 off street loading spot 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 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 Allen, 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 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 August 20, 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: August 20, 2020 No. of Case: Case No. 2019-0186 Revised Applicant: Tarry Lighthouse LLC 5 Waller Avenue, Ste. 301 White Plains, NY 10601 requesting area variance relief from the provisions of Chapter 345 of the Village of Port Chester Character-Based Zoning Code. The area variance relief is sought in connection with Tarry Lighthouses LLC’s application to redevelop the property know as 163, 175, 179 North Main Street, 18 Mill Street and 20 Abendroth Avenue (Section 142.23, Block 2, Lots 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 on the Town of Rye, New York Assessment Map) with a seven-story mixed-use development containing commercial/retail/restaurant uses, residential apartments, and off-street parking located in the Village’s CD-5 Urban Center Character District. The Applicant requests the variances from the following standards contained in Chapter 345, Table 345.405.A-6 (District Standards - CD-5 Urban Center Character District) and Section 345.405.C(7) of the Character-Based Code of the Village of Port Chester: - Height: A variance to permit the construction of a 7-story building where 6-stories are the maximum permitted: a variance of 1-story; - Façade Void Area: A variance to permit a Façade Void Area of 47% on the first floor where the Character-Based Code requires a minimum Façade Void Area of 70% on the first floor: a variance of 23%; - Façade Glazing: A variance to permit a Façade Glazing of 47% on the first floor where the Character-Based Code requires a minimum Façade Glazing of 70%: a variance of 23%; - Façade Articulation: A variance from the Façade Articulation requirement which requires a change in shape, sill, and header height, detail, size, spacing, rhythm, and muntin pattern of windows: a variance to permit Applicant’s windows to be consistent; - Visibility at Intersections: A variance from the requirement that no structure be erected within the sight triangle area formed by the intersecting lines of the roadbed and a line drawn between the points along the thoroughfare lines that are 40’ from their point of intersection: a variance to permit the principal building to be built within the sight triangle areas; Lot Width: A variance from the 120’ maximum lot width requirement to allow the lot width of 305’: a variance of 185’ 1. Names and addresses of those appearing in favor of the application. None 2. Names and addresses of those appearing in opposition to application. Summary of statement or evidence presented: Chairman Petrone read the application into the record and commented that the requested variances seem to be different from those previously presented. Anthony Gioffre Esq. of Cuddy and Feder represented this matter and concurred that the application had been revised.  In addition to Mr Gioffre representing the case was David Mann, Michelle Colletti, Aaron Dweck, Dan Patrick, Luz Demato, Brian Dempsy and Nicky ??? Mr. Gioffre requested of the chair that although they have been before the Board several times it has been a while since they have appeared and would like to take the time to go over the amended application We submitted an application to the DBA in February of two thousand and nineteen. At that time, the proposal was for nine floors, the prior iteration and that proposal was also on a smaller footprint. It didn't involve the whole block which is being proposed right now. It was discussed with many in the village that the project would be better if it was incorporated the whole block. So the application was put on hold, and the applicant worked for many, many months, and was able to control the entire block and reinvested in Port Chester, the applicant also modified the proposal to incorporate a project that evolved the whole block. The Applicant throughout this entire process has listen to the concerns raised by the village as well as by the members of the public that appeared and connection with this application and has modified the proposal. The proposal that is before you this evening involves a seven story building. The Applicant proposes to construct a new 7-story, 91’6” tall mixed-use development at the Premises (the “Proposed Development”). The Proposed Development consists of 242 dwelling units (96 studio apartments, 89 1-bedroom apartments, and 57 2-bedroom apartments). The Proposed Development also proposes 26,746 s/f of street level commercial retail and restaurant spaces that will activate the streetscape and create a welcoming, pedestrian friendly presence in the Village. This mix of uses will be supported by 356 structured off-street parking spaces, bicycle storage, and 2 off-street loading spaces as well as various amenity spaces such as a pool, courtyards, and open space. The 356 off-street parking spaces will be distributed among two floors of parking provided within the building behind the street level commercial uses as well as residents and the public. In addition to maintaining an appearance that conforms with the goal of the community and providing much needed parking to the downtown area, the Proposed Development is highly compatible with the goals and initiatives set forth in the Village’s Comprehensive Plan. The Proposed Development is located in a “Higher Intensity Planning Zone” as defined by the Comprehensive Plan, which states that the “goal for these areas is to allow for contextual mixed- use development that will reinforce the Village’s key commercial center and enhance the waterfront.” The Comprehensive Plan also notes that the Higher Intensity Planning Zones are “intended to absorb development pressures in the Village’s residential neighborhoods.” The Proposed Development absorbs development pressures in the Village’s lower-density communities by providing residential units targeting singles, young professionals, and empty- nesters while simultaneously furthering the Comprehensive Plan’s transit-oriented development (TOD) initiatives since the Premises is conveniently located less than 1/3 mile from the Port Chester Train Station and in close proximity to bus stops. The Proposed Development is also consistent with the Village’s Strategic Plan in that it will boost economic development in the downtown, redevelop a key Village Gateway, and redevelop sites for their highest and best use. In addition to being consistent with the Character-Based Code, Strategic Plan and Comprehensive Plan, the Development is also consistent with Westchester County Planning Board policies. In fact, in its Referral Review dated January 25, 2019 the County Planning Board found that the Proposed Development “would direct new development to an existing center where infrastructure can support growth, where public transportation can be provided efficiently, and where redevelopment can enhance economic vitality.” An in depth discussion was held with the Board as Mr. Gioffre and his team proceeded to go through and describe the requested in his submitted amended application. He also stated that the Applicant waives review of the Proposed Development under the prior Chapter 345 and requests that the Application be reviewed in accordance with the provisions of the new Character- Based Code. The Character-Based Code now classifies the Premises in the CD-5 Urban Center Character District which promotes higher-density mixed-use development with a tight network of thoroughfares and buildings close together. There was also great discussions and disagreement with regard to the visibility intersections variance as well as disagreements about the facade of the building Public Al Shehadi Richard Hyman Michael Feldman After Public Comment it was determined that more information and clarity is needed as it relates to conflicting comments of the code, affordable housing, 6 variances which seem to be at odds with the new code, the ability of the applicant to eliminate 1 story and remove some parking, visibility intersections and total lot coverage, examples of façade and glazing as renderings Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Morlino, which was seconded by Commissioner D’Estrada, the matter was adjourned to the September 17, 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 SEPTEMBER 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 August 20, 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: August 20, 2020 No. of Case: Case No. 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. None 2. Names and addresses of those appearing in opposition to application. None Summary of statement or evidence presented: Steve Feinstein represented this matter for the applicant. Mr. Feinstein began by saying that he had asked for use variance simply because the family wants to expand a very small kitchen and because it's a Preexisting non-conforming structure that requires a variance we had presented what we thought was a plethora of information and evidence concerning the hardship. They don't want to move and the increase in the size of the kitchen amounted to nine percent of the floor areas of the entire premises, which we submitted. Respectfully. It was a small increase. The increase is not visible from the street. There's plenty of room on the side, and behind the property, there's no area variances that are required and it certainly wouldn't have any impact on the character of the neighborhood. We've provided a map that shows the multitude of multifamily properties in, and about the neighborhood where this home is. And I believe we heard from one member of the public at the last public hearing. The hardship is that they're not going to be in the house, they're going to have to sell the house and leave if they're going to not be able to expand the kitchen they have to spend a lot of money to turn it back into a single family property She has a special needs child that she's caring for and it's a, it's a difficult circumstance that they dealt with as best they could for as long as they could. But it's just something that they have to fix and this seems to be the most efficacious way to fix it which is just to do a modest expansion of it be able to stay in the two family house, be able to receive the income from the second family pay the mortgage and taxes and be great neighbors. But the thing that I like to focus on, and I've asked towards for decades to focus on in the situation is the notion that there is no intensity in the increase of the non, conforming use very often. If an applicant comes to you, it says, I, want to expand this preexisting nonconforming use they're adding gas pumps to a nonconforming service station, or their readings base to another forming garage. And you say that's an increase in the intensity of the non-conforming use, and that's really what the statute is there to prevent. In this case there is no intensity increase in the non performing use. There's a two family use going on now that we get to family use going on afterwards. There's plenty of room for this kitchen. There are no additional children. There's no additional taxes. There's no additional infrastructure changes. So, there really is no change in the intensity of the uses. No detriment to the Village. So I think those are the things that best support this application and hopefully that's something that’s meaningful in your analysis. what are your estimates in terms of how long it'll take once you the approval that to actually get the construction done if you unmute yourself and you think the answer to their question I think I think the contractors said two to three months? As of right, but the only thing, in the way is the fact that it's a non-conforming use but am I correct that they'd be able to expand the kitchen as of right? There was one member of the public at the last meeting that was in favor of the of the applicant. The Board and the applicant held a hearty question and answer session to get clarity in the non- conforming uses and the proof of hardship. The Board believes that the hardship is that this is owner occupied as opposed to a case where, where the tenant wants to expand beyond the increasing dependency. If this is where the owner lives, and they want to expand then it would be increasing the value of the property that is being rented out and therefore command a higher rent which could increase the intensity. Public No one from the public spoke for or against this application. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Allen, which was seconded by Commissioner Morlino, the Village Attorney was directed to prepare SEQRA Negative Declaration and Findings of Fact for the September 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 SEQRA & FINDINGS Petrone D’Estrada Allen Morlino Simmons 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 August 20, 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: August 20, 2020 No. of Case: Applicant: Nature of Request: Adjourn Meeting to September 17, 2020 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: Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner D’Estrada, which was seconded by Commissioner Simmons, the Public Hearing was adjourned to September 17, 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__________________