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 September 17, 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: September 17, 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 this is the third month that this is on the agenda and at the last meeting a motion was made to prepare Findings of Fact for this matter. Mr. Feinstein asked if there were any additional questions that he could answer for the Board. Chairman Petrone stated that the Public Hearing on this matter is closed and that they cannot take any additional information at this time. However, they did seek guidance from the Village Attorney and it was determined that Findings based on the submitted documents and testimony in the records, the Findings could not be prepared in favor of this application. Chairman Petrone advised Mr. Feinstein that the Board would like to give his client an opportunity if they so desired to resubmit a notice on this matter and submit additional information/proof to make a better case that would be found in favor. We felt after looking at everything that findings cannot be drawn. Mr. Feinstein replied that he was terribly disappointed to hear that. He said that he had listened intently when there was a vote three to two to draft the resolution and the public hearing was closed. He also said he was a bit surprised that all that changed internally without a discussion with the applicant and this is the first time hearing about it, so he would obviously have to deal with the procedure. Chairman Petrone said the procedure is that our attorney can provide us with legal opinions and guidance at any time during the course of a matter that's pending before the Board whether or not there's a public hearing open at the time, whether it's before or after we get memos from our Council and from the Planning staff and other professional staff. In this particular instance, it was determined Mr. Feinstein said that the applicant had open and honest discussion with proof and with a give and take for over two meetings and a vote was taken to draft a resolution finding in support of the application and then, without any explanation to the applicant as to what the deficiencies are, I'm being told that that the matter is not able to be to be pursued without further submission. Chairman Petrone stated based on the factors required for the expansion of a nonconforming use or any use variance, the Board felt that not only no sufficient evidence was provided but no expert testimony on the issue of financial hardship was provided and also the fact that there was the presumptive knowledge of the requirements of the zone. And also that there was really not sufficient proof on the issue of reasonable rate of return. So Mr. Cerreto determined that findings could not be provided in favor of the application. Village Attorney Anthony Cerreto said that in his opinion the record has been made. This is not the time or place to go back over the record. If the applicant would like to rest on the records presented, the Board can make a decision and simply direct him to write Findings in the other direction. Mr. Cerreto also said that he believes what we're trying to do tonight is to provide the applicant the opportunity to review the record and search the record on his own and if it's sufficient that's fine then the Board can rest. If the applicant wants the opportunity to present additional testimony or approve, that's fine, too. We're giving them the opportunity to decide. Mr. Feinstein thanked everyone for the opportunity to address the issues that were being raised which he felt were of a different mind last month, based on the same proofs. He said he has not had a chance to discuss this with his client. So he asked that the matter be continued until the next monthly meeting. He said he would chat with his client and determine if the applicant intends to proceed There were some procedural questions about renoticing the matter. However, as it stands right now the hearing is closed. If the applicant wants to get back to the Zoning Board as quickly as possible, we would consider waiting to rehear the application under the circumstances. It was agreed by the attorneys that if the decision is made in the next few days to proceed, Mr. Feinstein would connect with Mr. Cerreto to discuss procedurally the best way to move forward. Mr. Feinstein said he would speak to his client and make some decisions and if it has to be renoticed he has some thoughts on that as well because they will have to consider the time and expense to do this. If there is no communication between Mr. Feinstein and Mr. Cerreto, The Village Attorney will proceed as previously directed to write Findings not in favor of the application. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: No action was taken by the Board. The Public Hearing on this matter is already closed. The Attorney for the Applicant will contact the Village Attorney in the next few days to discuss the plan of action. The matter will come back before Record of Vote: For ___Against __________ Absent ___ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent 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 September 17, 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: September 17, 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. See “Public” below Summary of statement or evidence presented: Anthony Gioffre Esq. of Cuddy and Feder represented the matter for the applicant David Mann, who was also present. Also present was Brian Dempsey-Traffic Engineer, Aaron Dweck on behalf of the ownership. Mr. Gioffre began by saying here were a couple of items that were raised in connection with this application Some clarification as it related to some of the variances I understand that the village attorney and village planner prepared a joint memorandum for your consideration which discussed the majority of the variances which demonstrated that there was merit in the asking for these variances. Chairman Petrone said there was actually a joint memo which is very comprehensive very instructive and very, in my opinion useful in helping us to understand some of the changes in the new code and understand how they affect this application and how the application is affected by those changes. So, I wanted to thank the staff for doing this, because I know how much work goes into this and it was very useful. Thanks to Mr. Cerreto as well. Chairman Petrone said she would defer to our planning staff because some of the Form base code objections are very technical in nature and I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of all them. also looking at the memo from the director of planning and development and village attorney they are going to focus mostly on the summaries that are provided. we have six area variances are requested. And that each are individual and individual decision you’ll be, distinguishing between them as, as you go through and consider each one they're considered individually. the summary from the village counsel and director of planning that that this is being revisited. It was also mentioned that some of the items in the new code are going to be revisited. The Board took time to discuss in great detail each one of the requested variances. In the discussion a queston was raised about having an interpretation with regard to the application and the new code. Having said that Village Attorney told the Board that they have the right to modify alter change and make whatever decisions to make the right decision in short you could make that interpretation and the memo provides you the basis for making that determination. the only question is whether or not the application needs to be renoticed so that you have jurisdiction to make that decision. So if the applicant wishes, they could amend their application to seek the interpretation and then you would have sufficient basis to make that decision The applicant could join or not. And that's fine, but I think the memo speaks for itself and I think that's evidence enough to make that interpretation. But the question still remains, the application is not presented in that fashion and would need to be amended to request that release. The Board and the applicant and associates continued to discuss the remaining submitted variances with drawings and renderings. There was in depth discussion as it related to façade, frontage, building height and shading and intersection visibility Public Letter from Sustainable Port Chester Alliance Carol McMillan Al Shehadi Stephen Meskers Marisa Torento Butkiewicz Findings of Board: Action taken by Board:  On the motion of Commissioner Simmons, which was seconded by Commissioner D’Estrada, the Public Hearing was closed Close Public Hearing Petrone A D’Estrada A Allen A Morlino F Simmons F On the motion of Commissioner D’Estrada (with commentary pertaining to the five variables of granting an area variance) which was seconded by Commissioner Simmons, direction was given to the Village Attorney to prepare findings to Deny All Variances Commissioner D’Estrada noted for the record that Drawing A05 was representative of how this application would change the character of the neighborhood. Record of Vote: For _2__Against ____3______ Absent ___ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Prepare Findings Petrone A D’Estrada A Allen A 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 September 17, 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: September 17, 2020 Adjourn Meeting On the motion of Commissioner Morlino, which was seconded by Commissioner Allen, the meeting was adjourned to October 15, 2020 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__________________