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: October 15, 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. A letter was received from Mr. Feinstein requesting that the matter be withdrawn. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Morlino, which was seconded by Commissioner Simmons, the matter was withdrawn. Record of Vote: For ___5 Against __________ Absent ___ List names of members and how voted – symbols as follows: F-for, A-against, Ab-absent Withdraw Application 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: October 15, 2020 No. of Case: Case No. 2020-Z001 Applicant: 14 Tarry Lighthouse LLC 5 Waller Avenue, Ste. 301 White Plains, NY 10601 Nature of Request: 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. 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 David Mann. Mr. Gioffre began by saying the plan has been amended by his client and proceeded to give an overview of the plan revisions. The Applicant previously proposed to construct a 7-story, 91'6" tall mixed-use development containing 242 residential units, 356 parking spaces, 26,746 s/f of street level retail spaces, and various amenities at the Premises (the "Previous Proposal"). The Premises is classified within the Village's CD-5 Urban Center Character District ("CD-5 District") which permits the proposed mixed-use development. Variance relief was previously sought for several bulk and design standards including building stories, facade void area, facade glazing, facade articulation, visibility at intersection, and maximum lot width. The Applicant has appeared before the ZBA four times regarding the proposed request for relief, including the most recent appearance at the ZBA's September 17, 2020 Public Hearing ("September Hearing"). During the September Hearing and prior appearances, several members of the ZBA raised concern over various aspects of the Previous Proposal and the requested area variance relief, most notably the potential impacts on the character of the neighborhood if the ZBA granted the requested variance relief for building stories and various architectural designs. Mr. Gioffre further submitted that Amended Plans propose a project which is consistent, to the greatest extent possible, with the Village's vision as set forth in its new Character-Based Code and Comprehensive Plan. The building has been reduced in size to eliminate the need for the previously requested building stories variance relief and has been redesigned to bring the proposal into further compliance with the Character-Based Code's architectural and design standards. The Applicant requests that the ZBA grant the requested interpretation finding that no variance is required for the Visibility at Intersections provision or, in the alternative grant the requested variance relief from such provision, particularly when considering the Village's clear intent for that provision to apply to only residential areas/districts, not downtown mixed-use areas/districts. Similarly, the ZBA should grant the requested relief from the lot width maximum as that is another provision being evaluated by the Village as potentially not achieving its desired affect and since the Applicant has designed the proposed building to further the Village's intended goals of that provision.  The Board held discussions on the materials submitted and also referenced a memo that was provided by the Village Attorney and the Planning Director. There was also discussion as to whether an interpretation is necessary granting of the variance or granting the maximum lot with variance. Mr., Gioffre also reminded the Board that this matter will go back before the Board of Trustees as well as the Planning Commission. Mr. Cerreto told the Board if they are uncomfortable on the application that has such significance to the Village that they should adjourn the matter for another month and allow him to provide another memo on how to move forward. Assistant Planning Director Curt Lavalla offered that we had a 1975 zoning code, and we have completely rewrote that tore it up and it created a new zoning code. You're bound to have some things you're going to have to make some adjustments with. That's just a fact of life you deal with such a very large undertaking and I think what you're seeing tonight, it's probably just a little bit of a glimpse of some other things. That we're going to have to look at it doesn't take away from the effort. It doesn't mean that it should that cast out on what we've done. It's just some things need to be looked at the planning commission has made some recommendations on some proposed changes and that's in front of the board of trustees did not take an action on those requested changes. So, there's a number of things that we're going to have to talk about with the board. even if the board of trustees goes back and says we're going to remain with this or that, or whatever it is, you don't know what those amendments are going to be. And I think that's 1 of the reasons why I really don't feel comfortable in making an interpretation of what the board of trustees meant. Findings of Board: Action taken by Board: On the motion of Commissioner Simmons, which was seconded by Commissioner Morlino, the Village Attorney was directed to prepare findings of fact for the granting of variances for this matter based on the fact that the items sought are going to be adjusted in the new code; they can’t have a 3 foot building to have a sight line and virtually feel the same way about the lot size 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 A D’Estrada A Allen A Morlino F Simmons F After the vote the applicant’s attorney Anthony Gioffre requested that the matter be adjourned to the next month’s meeting since these were directions for the Village Attorney to provide findings of fact. He also stated that the memo that the Village Attorney is to prepare could be used in making a decision at next month’s meeting On the motion of Commissioner Morlino which was seconded by Commissioner Allen, the matter was adjourned to the November meeting to allow the Village Attorney to prepare a memo for the Board to be used in their deliberation on this matter. 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 November Petrone F D’Estrada F Allen F Morlino F Simmons F Signed___________________________ Evelyn Petrone Title_ Chairman__________________