ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 1 -

VILLAGE OF HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021

A Regular Meeting and Public Hearing was held by the Zoning Board on Thursday February 25, 2021 at 8:15 p.m. with Boardmembers participating via Zoom, live-streamed via WHoH-TV (Channel 75, and online at WHoH-TV.org

PRESENT: Chairman Matthew Collins, Boardmember Ray Dovell, Boardmember Joanna (via Zoom) Berritt, Boardmember Jeremiah Quinlan, Boardmember David Chen, Village Attorney Linda Whitehead, and Deputy Building Inspector Steven Stanislawczyk

Chairman Collins: Good evening everybody, thank you for joining us for the Zoning Board meeting for today, Thursday, February 25th, 2021. As we've done as part of the pandemic, we are obviously meeting here remotely. I have some opening remarks which I'm going to lead with just to sort of lay the rules of the road for how this meeting will work and outline some specific guidance especially for the interaction of the board, but also for any members of the public who are going to wish to be heard tonight. So I'll just read this statement, then we'll get right into things.

"Due to the public health and safety concerns associated with the Covid-19 pandemic, the board is meeting via video conferencing using the Zoom platform in accordance with the governor's executive order 202.1. There is no public participation in person tonight. Rather, the public can watch the live meeting through Zoom, online, and on cable. Notice of tonight's meeting was published as required, and posted on the Village Web site. The Web notice included instructions for members of the public to access the meeting and participate in any public hearings.

"For each application on the agenda this evening public comments will be taken at the appropriate time after the applicant has presented the plans and the board has asked any questions." And I'll signal when that time has arrived. "If you wish to comment on an application at the appropriate time, please do the following. Members of the public attending online by the Zoom app may use the 'raise-hand' feature at the appropriate time if you would like to make a comment. The feature is located at the bottom of your Zoom screen. Those attending via telephone can press 'star-nine.' The meeting host will see that your hand is raised or that you have pressed star-nine and will unmute those waiting, one at a time, so you

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 2 -

can speak.

"Lastly, comments can be e-mailed during the meeting to [email protected]. Any e-mail comments will be read into the record. Please note tonight's meeting is being recorded and a transcript will be provided at a later date." And because it's being recorded and because we're doing this via video conference as opposed to in-person, the challenge we're trying to overcome is to make sure we don't talk over one another. That's why I'm going to give you a few ground rules. Number one: "When you're given access to speak, please state your name and address. For boardmembers, please 'mute' yourself when you are not speaking. Boardmembers, I will call on you one at time to speak to avoid everyone talking all at once. If you wish to speak at any time when I am not calling on you, just raise your hand. You know, wave at me or use the raise-hand function. We will use roll call voting for purposes of board motions just to make sure that the record is clear."

Thank you to everybody for your patience. I will say we've been doing this, I think, since May of 2020 and we have found a way to make it work. I am confident we'll do that again this evening.

Steven, I know you're in place of Buddy tonight. How are we on the mailings?

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: I've been informed by my staff that all the mailings are in order.

Chairman Collins: All right, thank you Steven.

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: You're welcome.

I. AGENDA

Chairman Collins: We are going to change the order up here a bit. We have five cases on the docket this evening, four of which are, I think, relatively straightforward at least as it relates to their complexity, and one that is not so straightforward. And I've discussed this with my fellow boardmembers. We're going to go ahead and move the opening case for 447 Warburton and save it actually until the end. We will begin therefore with case 06-21.

Case No. 06-21 Eric Zamore & Molly Roberts 3 Edmarth Place

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 3 -

Relief from the strict application of Village Code Sections 295-70E.1(c), w/295-55A & 295-70E.3(a)[1&2] for the addition of a new side covered entrance and stairs at their single-family dwelling located at 3 Edmarth Place. Said property is located in the 2-R Zoning District and is known as SBL: 4.30-20-23 on the Village Tax Maps.

Non-conformity details are as follows: 1. Side Yard Setbacks to Covered Porch and Stairs: Existing - Side 1/Total of Both: 5.8 feet /11.7 feet ; Proposed – 5.4 feet /11.3 feet ; Required – 8 feet /20 feet {295-70E.1(c) w295-55A}; Variance Required – 2.6 feet/8.7 feet 295-55A Extension of an Existing Nonconformity 2. Building Coverage: Existing – 34.4 percent; Proposed – 35.6 percent; Required – 30 percent maximum {295-70E.3(a)[1]}; Variance Required – 5.6 percent; Development Coverage: Existing – 63 percent; Proposed – 64.7 percent; Required – 40 percent maximum {295-70E.3(a)[2]}; Variance required – 24.7 percent

Chairman Collins: Before I dive into the variances the applicants are seeking, I'll just apologize in advance if I mispronounce any names. I'll do my very best. Case 06-21 is seeking variances for side yard setbacks related to a covered porch and stairs, and building coverage and development coverage. With that, I will turn it over to whomever is presenting on behalf of the applicant.

Jill Anderson, Baldwin & Franklin Architects: I am the applicant. The owner, Molly Roberts – well, the owner's Molly Roberts and Eric Zamore, who are at the meeting – is going to be using screensaver to present the drawings. So I hope that will happen now.

These photos, taken from Edmarth Place, show number three from the west and the east. Originally, the front door at the west side of the house was accessible through an open porch. Then when previous owners enclosed the porch they installed a rather narrow door, only 2 foot 8 wide, right at the east end of the porch. This makes finding the entrance door to the house difficult from the street. It requires walking through the constricted porch space in order to get to the front door.

The next drawing, AB-1 – (Molly, are you moving? Great.) – we propose a new front door accessible directly from Edmarth Place within a 4-foot recess at the west side of the house, shown here on the existing floor plan. This door will open directly into the central hall and bypass the porch entirely. The proposed entry would be located within the existing window

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 4 -

opening and will have a 4-foot wide stone platform and steps with a new open shed roof. The hatched areas illustrate the extent of the existing with side yard and front yard nonconformities. None of the proposed platform construction reduces the existing setbacks, however we do wish to install a small roof canopy over the entrance. This projects 5 inches into the existing side yard just so that the rain doesn't not drip on the platform.

The next drawing shows the front existing elevation and illustrates the west side yard nonconformity. And the proposed platform steps and roof canopy are shown crosshatched. The next drawing of the existing west elevation illustrates the front yard nonconformity and the proposed changes are also shown crosshatched. The next drawing, we propose to remove the existing canopy porch door on the east side, but there are no changes proposed for the existing setbacks on this side.

Now we come to the zoning analysis. We're asking for the following changes: a decrease on the west side yard setback from 5.8 feet to 5.4 feet which, due to the existing nonconformity, means a variance of 2.6 feet and an 8.7-foot combined side yard setback variance. The increase in lot building coverage would be 1.2 percent, requiring a variance of 5.6 percent, whereas the development increase in coverage of 1.7 percent will require a variance of 24.7 percent. And you'll see this analysis on your drawings, the site plan S-1 which is, I think, the next drawing. If we go straight on to A-1, the proposed first floor plan shows the new front door …

Chairman Collins: Could we zoom in on that? Thank you.

Ms. Anderson: … and the platform and the steps. Can you see enough?

Chairman Collins: Maybe one more click for my old eyes. There we go, that's very good.

Ms. Anderson: The next drawing is the proposed front elevation (I think we're back three, Molly). For some reason it's skipping the front elevation, which is A-2. That's it. The proposed front elevation shows the new entry platform and roof. And we also propose to restore and improve the appearance of the existing enclosed porch. This would include rebuilding the original east and west roof overhang so the eve is continuous. At the moment, they're cut off and very awkward. The next drawing, A-3, shows the proposed west elevation. And there you can see the entry roof canopy supported on brackets, the masonry platform and steps, and the metal railing. Then the final drawing shows the proposed east elevation, where … just showing the renovated porch with the existing canopy over the doorway removed.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 5 -

I believe there are letters from neighbors supporting this project, and I'd be happy to answer any of your questions.

Chairman Collins: You got that right about the letters from the neighbors. I think in my tenure on the board I've never seen so many letters one way or the other. But certainly this was – and we'll get to them later – unanimous in its support of the project. Thank you for the overview. You know, this is a project that is remedying what arguably is a flaw in just the flow and design of the main entrance to the house in a very modest way. When you layer in both the modesty of the variances that are requested alongside the unique character of the neighborhood and the other houses in Edmarth and some of the other streets there, you have a condition that's relatively unusual in Hastings with the density of these homes. Almost all of them in some way, I'm sure, are noncomplying relative to side yard setbacks.

So this is a modest ask in service of a self-evident improvement so I have absolutely no concerns about this at all. We'll go round-robin on this and let my fellow boardmembers … and Jo, you just happen to be the first in the Brady Bunch square here, any questions for the applicant?

Boardmember Berritt: No, not at all. I think it'll make a nice improvement for you and I'm fine with it.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you. David.

Boardmember Chen: No concerns whatsoever. It looks very nice to me.

Chairman Collins: Thank you. Jerry?

Boardmember Quinlan: No questions, no concerns.

Chairman Collins: Thank you, Jerry. Ray?

Boardmember Dovell: No, I think it's very nicely done and in character, and it's quite minimal, so I think it's perfectly appropriate. No further questions.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you. Let's just check to see if we have anyone who would like to be heard from the public on this. So we'll just go to our attendees. Lou, you've got your hand raised so I'm going to let you in. Can we let Lou in, Raf?

Village Tech. Dir. Zaratzian: I did.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 6 -

Chairman Collins: He's muted. Lou, if you'd like to say something on behalf of this case just unmute your line.

Village Tech. Dir. Zaratzian: He's got to unmute. I can't unmute him.

Attorney Whitehead: I'm not sure he intended to speak on this matter.

Village Tech. Dir. Zaratzian: Well, now his phone number has also got a hand up.

Attorney Whitehead: Try that one.

Chairman Collins: That's muted as well. Why don't we, while we're waiting for that to sort itself …

Attorney Whitehead: I think it's sorted. Lou, did you want to speak on this case?

Louis Maggiotto, Nobile Magarian & DiSalvo, LLC: No.

Chairman Collins: That's okay. I don't see any attendees here who are wishing to speak on the matter so, Steven, can you just give us an overview of the letters that came in in support of this project? We don't need to read them all, but I just want to acknowledge them and perhaps just who they were from?

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: You want them unanimously or tell who each letter is from?

Chairman Collins: I think if we can just say we received letters from X, Y, Z. And these are all in favor of the project.

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: And then read the contents of the letters?

Chairman Collins: No, we don't need to read them. They're already in the record and they'll be kept in. I just want to acknowledge the fact that we have received them and they will be entered into the public record.

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: Understood. We received letters from Joann and Patrick Trautmann from 78 Maple Avenue; Brit Walgren of 11 Riverview Place. We have another one here from Andrew Wilson, 86 Maple Avenue. We have another one here from

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 7 -

Jean Schnibbe at 5 Edmarth Place. We have another one from Steve Brent at 4 Edmarth Place. We have another one from Darryl and Rebecca Strutton at 2 Ridgedell Avenue; another one from Bill and Amy Weber at 94 Maple Avenue; another letter from Andrew Tucker at 10 Maple Avenue; Tom and Deidre Forbes at 60 Maple Avenue, and 4 Ridgedell Avenue. We have another one, the last one is from Lynn Hock at 102 Maple Avenue.

Chairman Collins: Ten letters in favor. That's not too shabby.

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: A good amount of letters.

Chairman Collins: That's a lot of letters. It's more than I've ever seen in my 12 years on the board, so there you go. All right, then if there are no other questions or comments from the public or any members of the building department can I get a motion, please?

Boardmember Berritt: Am I unmuted? I'll move to approve case number 06-21 for 3 Edmarth Place, relief from the strict application of the code 295-70E1, 295-55A, 295-70E.3 – if that's all the sections – for a new side covered entrance and stairs.

Boardmember Chen: I will second the motion.

Chairman Collins: Thank you, David. David Chen has seconded. Then we'll go in roll call. Jo, how do you vote?

Boardmember Berritt: Move to "approve."

Boardmember Chen: "Approve."

Boardmember Quinlan: "Approved."

Boardmember Dovell: "Approve."

Chairman Collins: And I, Matt Collins, also "approve."

On MOTION of Boardmember Berritt, SECONDED by Boardmember Chen, with a roll call vote of all in favor the Board resolved to approve the preceding resolution.

Chairman Collins: Congratulations, good luck with the project.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 8 -

Eric Zamore, applicant: Thank you very much to the board and to Mary Ellen as well. Have a great night.

Molly Roberts, applicant: Thank you.

Chairman Collins: Yes, you too. Take it easy. All right, very good. So we will go next – and let me just reference my agenda … to case 07-21.

Case No. 07-21 Betty Ming Liu 243 Farragut Parkway Relief from strict application of the Village Code Sections 295-20C(2) and 295-68F.2(a)[2] for documentation of a previously installed patio and decorative walls at her single-family dwelling located at 243 Farragut Parkway. Said property is located in the R-10 Zoning District and is known as SBL: 4.110-109-12 on the Village Tax Maps. Nonconformity details for the patio and walls are as follows: 1. Paving in a Required Yard: Existing – 373 square feet; Proposed – 373 square feet; Required Maximum – None {295-C(2)}; Variance Required – 373 square feet 2. Development Coverage: Existing – 54 percent; Proposed – 54 percent; Required – 35 percent Maximum {295-68F.2.a.[2]}; Variance Required – 19 percent

Chairman Collins: This is for documentation of a previously installed patio and decorative walls at her home at 243 Farragut Parkway. The variances requested here are paving in a required yard and development coverage. As with every documentation of her previously installed or completed project, the obligation of this board is to treat it as if it has not happened and to review it as if it were being proposed to us on paper for the first time. I will say that all of us here, I'm sure, have read your letter, Ms. Liu, and appreciate the context and background that you've provided, and certainly I'm grateful for that context. We don't need to really go into all that context here. I think let's just treat this as we would any other project and focus on the variances requested and the benefits you're seeking as a result of this patio installation. I think that'll strike a good conversation.

So it looks like, Christina, you're here, which suggests you're going to be presenting on behalf of Ms. Liu. Is that correct?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 9 -

Christina Griffin, project architect: Yes. I think Ms. Liu wanted to begin the presentation just to explain the status of the patio. Then I'm going to show you the drawing we prepared and the zoning analysis.

Chairman Collins: Okay, that works. Go ahead, Ms. Liu. You just need to unmute your line. There you go.

Betty Ming Liu, applicant: You actually could call me "Betty" if you want.

Chairman Collins: I'm happy to call you Betty.

Ms. Liu: Even my students don't call me "Professor" anything, it's just Betty. In some ways I kind of wish the patio hadn't happened and I was really applying for this because of the journey of this patio. So here we go. I want to thank my neighbors. Ten of them have said they had no objection and are showing their support, eight of them signed a petition, and two sent e-mails. These yellow dots show exactly where they're located, and this is my house right here. This is important because if you look at our street all of these houses have the same driveways. We have a driveway, there's a turnaround, it's all blacktop, and then garages underneath the houses. Some of the house have been renovated since they were first built in the 1950's.

I'm part of a threesome of houses that are still little white Capes. When I bought the house in 2003 it looked like this; 2005 it underwent a total transformation in the hands of Christina Griffin and Suzanne Levine – they gave me my dream house – and that's what it looks like today. What I love about my house is that I have an accessory apartment that was in the basement, and was so grateful for that. Because of that apartment I was able to raise my daughter here, but when she grew up I suddenly really needed the accessory apartment because the house was too big for me. I flipped the accessory apartment so it was the house that got rented and I moved into the one-bedroom in the basement. And with all these tenants in my house since 2018, it's a family. I really felt compelled to create a patio.

I went ahead and I made this beautiful patio with a new garden with the decorative retaining wall. Behind the retaining wall is a drain pipe, and this is a permeable concrete paver. I have stockade fencing, I have lots of plants. I brought in a garden designer. And I did all this 'cause I can't grow grass. There's just too many big trees. That leaves me in a spot where I tried everything. I tried sod, I tried fertilizer. Everything died or turned to mud, and last summer I ended up with black fungus. So I went ahead and did this and this is what it looks like. It's beautiful, it's peaceful, and I've got drainage everywhere. I have drainage

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 10 -

from the driveway, going down, and then I have a new drain pipe going behind this decorative wall all the way back, across the back, into a small new drywell here. I have a French drain here. And these are all new plantings – all this is all new plantings – and also a raised flower bed.

This is what it looks like. I know the concern is stormwater and all of that, and I learned so much doing this because this was a real journey for me. If you can see, I'm not going to flood anybody because I've got this retainer (sic) wall and I've got plants everywhere. And I'm not bothering anybody because there's a stockade fence and there's lots of greenery. Oh, and if you look, it's just big enough to socially distance four chairs. The problem is, I did this without a permit. And I initially was so frustrated with my grass, it's hard to believe but this space here in photo one was once all sod, gorgeous sod. When it died last summer I was out of my mind and I was like, What am I going to do about this?

So I brought in a stone mason who had done some of the walkways I have, and I was so frustrated. He said, Why don't you just do pavers, and why don't you just do the whole patio? And I'm like, Yeah, let's just do it and get rid of the grass once and for all. It was so big, the Building Department saw it and said, You don't have a permit for this and it's way too big. And I'm like, Oh, no. So I was so mortified. This yellow piece here shows where I just basically cut it in half, ripped out everything I had just done, and planted the garden. And this is what you see today. That's what I'm applying for: the variances to make this patio okay.

I actually felt like I couldn't I just do this because when I had the stone mason come back in 2005 he put in this nice round patio – 12 foot around – and you can see all my plantings. They were very young then, and this is what I ended up with by 2020. It was crowded in the corner. I'm like, Look, I can't socially distance anybody here, plus look what happened to the grass. I was fertilizing like mad. So this is the new patio, with dimensions which Christina will present to you in greater detail. What else do I want to show you? She'll go into all this stuff. I think this is where you take over, Christina, since you all do know my story and you know how sorry I am that I did this without a permit. If I knew I needed a permit I would've done it because all these years that I've lived here I've always been as law-abiding as possible and I just feel like it's a great house and I would like to keep making it lovely and safer for myself and for the tenants and for the neighborhood. And I really need this patio because as a senior citizen – I'm 64 years old – I'm in a high-risk group. Anyway, I'm a little nervous but I hope this presents our story.

Chairman Collins: Yes, thank you, it's a helpful preamble. So Christina, why don't you take us through some of the dimensional components here.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 11 -

Mr. Griffin: Okay, just a second. I'm trying to get the drawing up.

Ms. Liu: I just shared my screen.

Chairman Collins: We're not seeing it.

Ms. Liu: Is it not working?

Chairman Collins: No.

Ms. Liu: I'm going to try again.

Ms. Griffin: I can introduce myself. I'm principal of CGA Studio Architects at 12 Spring Street. I'm with Suzanne Levine. She is an architect who worked on the house with me originally. Betty asked us to help her with this. We're very familiar with the house. We designed the extension renovation that was done in 2005, we also designed the accessory apartment, and we're familiar with the patio that's been built. I'm going to go through the zoning variances we're requesting.

This lot currently has a development coverage of 53.4 percent, and the maximum allowed is 35 percent. Before this patio was built it was actually at 49.5 percent, so it was always way over the maximum requested coverage. I want to point out that this lot is only 6,600 square feet so it's an undersized lot in the R-10 zone. It's very similar to lots that are next to it. There's, I think, three in a row that are the same size; they're 60 feet wide by 110 feet deep. This diagram is just showing that actually before this patio was built there was a smaller patio that was circular. That's on the right, and that's in red. That's just to let you know that there was a patio that she replaced because she wanted something that was closer to her apartment and also could be a little larger so she could socially distance, when she had guests over, on that patio.

Next slide please, Suzanne? This is the site plan we submitted.

Chairman Collins: Can we zoom in on that, please?

Ms. Liu: I'm sorry?

Chairman Collins: Can we zoom in on that?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 12 -

Ms. Liu: Yes, of course.

Chairman Collins: Thanks, that's better.

Mr. Griffin: This is showing the dark dashed line you see, the setbacks required. One variance we need is paving in a rear yard. Then the second variance we're requesting is for the 53.9 percent impervious surface coverage. As you can see, I just want to point out that the patio is only … there's already, even before the patio was built, a lot of impervious surfacing because of the driveway and other walks that are around the house. Next slide, please.

I'm going to show you that there's a walk in the front and around the sides of the house. This is our zoning analysis showing the required setbacks and coverage. Instead of proposed, we show existing only because everything has already been built. If you go down the list of our zoning analysis you'll see that 35 percent is the development coverage that's required as a maximum; we're at 53.4 percent. But in all other respects the building meets the zoning code except for the second variance which is the paving in a rear yard.

This is our location map down here. I think we have a blowup of this. (Do we, Suzanne?). The reason we blew this up and why this is important is because these lots … and the one that's shaded in yellow, I hope you can see, is 243. That is, I think, the same size as the lots next to it. It's 60 by 110. There's three this size, then there are two more that are very similar, a little bit wider. I think these might have been built at the same time, and they all had turnarounds in the back. Some of the turnarounds have been removed. In Betty's house it was removed. When we did the addition – and I think it was removed maybe a long time ago – there has been a pattern of paving in their rear yard in this neighborhood.

The yellow dots are the neighbors that have signed this petition that simply says they are not in opposition to the variance. See there, most of them are next door neighbors. There's a photograph, an aerial view, on the right. The reasons we included that (maybe you could zoom in, Suzanne) is because (and go in a little closer even) … see where the marker is, at 243? We just want to point out that this patio is really tucked into the backyard with lots of tall trees around it. So it's very private and has very little impact on the neighbors; not even visible probably from the neighbors' yards. I also want to point out – and it's hard to see – that maybe two houses down there is a driveway with a turnaround in the back. And that was the pattern of the paved areas for these Cape Cod homes originally: driveway, with a turnaround in the back. So this paving in the backyard is not uncommon. Next slide please, Suzanne.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 13 -

Ms. Liu: Just a photo before and after.

Mr. Griffin: We just thought you'd like to know that I don't know what point in time this smaller patio was here, but this is when Betty had a smaller patio with a lawn area here. The lawn was impossible to keep because of the tremendous shade in the back. You can see there's a tall 6-foot stockade fence around it. She abandoned the idea of the lawn and moved the patio over. She's gone through considerable expense to actually find the right kind of ground cover and plants that will thrive in the back there. This image on the left is what exists, or just before she put the plants in. I know she has invested a lot in trying to make this property work and bring back the greenspace. She has a gardener that has a lot of experience in selecting plants that will work in this shaded area. And the size of the patio is really so she could put some chairs here, have company during the pandemic and have them socially distanced.

The area of this patio is 373 square feet and the original patio was 113. So the difference is only about 250 square feet or so. Also, this patio is really only adding 3.9 percent more development coverage than the property had before.

Chairman Collins: Right. Christina, I didn't want to cut you off but then you also shared this, too, so I'm sensing we may be reviewing some things here for the second time. In your zoning analysis, Christina, did you look at the development coverage in the homes around the neighborhood here to get a sense of how common, or not, the proposed lot coverage for this application is?

Ms. Griffin: We haven't done that, that study. We only took a look at the aerial views. We don't have those numbers tonight, but we could probably look into that.

Chairman Collins: Did you look and see how many others have paving in the backyard? You mentioned the neighbor that has a turnaround drive in a yard, but did you look at that particular feature and how common it is in the neighborhood?

Ms. Griffin: No. I think Betty did an extensive study of the neighborhood, and I think she might have those answers. Betty, do you happen to have that information?

Ms. Liu: If you look at that map, all those purples are existing blacktop driveways with turnarounds, and mine used to be exactly the same. So when I bought this house it was almost all turnaround in the backyard. With the addition I finally got a backyard. I got rid of all that blacktop, and all the dirt that got dug up got thrown in this big blacktop space that was left over and turned into a backyard. So I actually created more dirt over the years as

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 14 -

opposed to less, and now with all those plantings that suck up so much water it's going to suck up even more water than a lawn would.

Chairman Collins: Okay. And how many of the properties there have the same 600- hundred square foot dimension?

Ms. Liu: There are three in a row that are 60 by 110, the undersized lots. And then the two going, I guess, west are … I think they're 65 by 110. They're slightly wider.

Chairman Collins: Right, okay.

Ms. Liu: So it's really about five properties you see on this tax map that are very similar in size and under the 10,000 square foot minimum lot size for the zoning district.

Chairman Collins: Thank you. The reason for my questions here are really to get at the character of the neighborhood and how well this house fits in with the character of the neighborhood; in this case, relative to the two variances that are being requested. So development coverage – and you've already presented how this row of smaller-than- permitted lots – just by looking at it aerially you can see they all have very similar dimensions. So getting a sense of how the development coverage here compares to the other houses in the neighborhood is a useful data point. So too is the presence of paving, including turnaround driveways. Again, eyeballing it, it looks like the applicant's property is in keeping with the neighborhood, which is an important consideration when you're looking at variances that – on paper, without knowing the context – can look otherwise like they're pretty significant. But when you actually zoom down into the neighborhood visually this looks like it's absolutely in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

Those are, I think, important things to document for the record because of the very nature of the community in which we live and to be able to establish that. In spite of the fact that the variances may, on paper, look like it's meaningful or significant, actually in the context of the neighborhood they're not that significant at all.

Ms. Griffin: I also want to point out that I'm not sure if there was this development coverage maximum when we worked on the house in 2005. We couldn't find that in our original zoning analysis. Anyway, we were going through our files and trying to find it. It's possible a lot of the paved areas on this site and on the neighbors' were possibly done before there was enforcement of that kind of maximum development requirement.

Chairman Collins: Yes, that's possible That's certainly possible. Again, my assessment

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 15 -

overall here is that it is a relatively modest increase in the size of the paving; what had been a 113 square foot patio into, now, 173 square feet. We're not talking about a lot overall. Again, it is a modest home on a modest-size lot. I would feel more comfortable being able to, for myself, vote on this if I knew how that compared to the other houses in the neighborhood.

So that's the extent of my comment, but I want to invite my fellow boardmembers to ask the questions or make the comments that may be on their minds. So Jo, how about you?

Attorney Whitehead: Matt, if I could just jump in for one second. I believe the provisions on development coverage and also the paving in a required yard were added in 2008.

Chairman Collins: There you go. Thank you, that's good context.

Attorney Whitehead: And again, remember the paving. There's no paving in a required rear yard. Unfortunately, here the whole thing is within that 30-foot rear yard setback.

Chairman Collins: Right. Okay, thank you. Jo?

Boardmember Berritt: I'm assuming most people have those turnarounds because you're backing out onto Farragut Avenue so it makes sense. I don't know if they were part of any original requirement from way back when; that that was part of what those properties had to do. I actually know the area well, I rented the house next door in a previous life before I moved into the house I had. So I do know it, and these are very tight lots. There is very little backyard at all in these properties. And having no side- or front yard either, really the only place you can do this is at the back. It's unfortunate, as with all these cases we see where it's done without a permit because there probably could've been a way to do it differently. I sort of understand the nature of that neighborhood, and the fact that the driveway does finish, I'm assuming, at the gate? Is that where the current driveway ends?

Ms. Griffin: Yes.

Boardmember Berritt: I'm not concerned.

Ms. Liu: Actually, the driveway ends at the trench drain.

Ms. Griffin: Sorry, I was looking at it from a distance.

Boardmember Berritt: Okay. So that's all, Matt.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 16 -

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you. Jerry, how about you?

Boardmember Quinlan: No questions, no concerns.

Chairman Collins: All right. David.

Boardmember Chen: Just a very quick question for my own edification. I know somewhere on the slides you noted that the patio's constructed out of permeable stone. Was that right?

Ms. Liu: Yeah. I actually have information from the manufacturer. They kind of interlock, but it's porous. Also the joints between them, water can go through there.

Boardmember Chen: I see, okay. As opposed to, say, asphalt/blacktop.

Ms. Liu: That's just totally pervious.

Boardmember Chen: Got it.

Ms. Liu: Now I know what these words are. So it does have some permeability.

Boardmember Chen: Okay, thank you.

Ms. Liu: Thank you.

Chairman Collins: Okay. Ray, how about you?

Boardmember Dovell: No, I have no further comment. And I think the fact that considerable work has been done to alleviate runoff is really important. I'm sorry that some of this had to be ripped up in the process, but I think much has been done to assure that there isn't soil and erosion runoff to the neighbors. So I have no further comment.

Chairman Collins: Okay, then we will proceed to any questions from the public here. let's see, Bridget Nelson has raised here hand. Bridget, just unmute yourself and you should be able to speak. There you go, go ahead.

Mark Nelson, 233 Farragut Parkway: Hi, can you hear us?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 17 -

Chairman Collins: Yes, we can.

Mr. Nelson: We are Betty's neighbors down the block just a couple houses there, at 233. We wanted to speak to your concern about the turnarounds because that is, of course, a feature of this street from the '50s, back when cars ruled and garages ruled and everything. Almost all of us back our car out onto Farragut now, and we just want to say for the record that we think Betty is basically the model for the whole street. I mean, she's the first one to have solar panels, she's the first one to do major plantings, and we've taken our cue from her really. We've worked a lot on getting bigger, better plantings in the front, and now we're going to deal in the future with the same types of issues in the back: ripping up some of the old, ugly blacktop that's there and working on some kind of similarly and more environmentally kind of progressive idea of what should be there so it isn't all blacktop.

We just want to lend our support to her. We think it's great what's she's done and is doing. And I can say I probably speak for many of the neighbors as well. I'm going to throw in one other thing, which is simply that somebody did raise the issue of cars backing out onto Farragut. I just want to throw in for the record that ever since that speed light came down – the digital speed limit sign – we have noticed a huge uptick in speeders roaring down Farragut. So those two things are a little bit interlocked; that everybody right now on the entire block is backing out onto Farragut as cars are speeding down it because no one is using a turnaround anymore on the block. I just don't think that is happening on any of these houses.

Bridget Nelson, 233 Farragut Parkway: If I could just add one other thing, when we moved in 2014 all the houses on Farragut were completely empty in terms of plantings. But I saw, when we first looked at the house, that Betty had beautiful plantings out front. As soon as I saw her come out of her house I ran up to introduce myself so I could meet Florence, who is her landscape designer, to help us build up our plantings in the front. Which beautifies all of Hastings because it's the gateway to the town. So Betty was our inspiration in that regard.

Mr. Nelson: And we can also say that Mihai, the neighbor in between us, did the same. You know, everybody's taken their cue from Betty, and there's no doubt she's been directly and indirectly responsible for increasing green rather than decreasing green.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you very much for your comments.

Mr. Nelson: You're welcome.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 18 -

Chairman Collins: Anyone else wish to be heard from the public? Homegrown pictures. Raf, can we let them in? Okay, just unmute yourself. Go ahead.

Gabby Ebron, Los Angeles: Hi. I don't know if you guys can see me, I can't see myself.

Chairman Collins: We have who you are and were you live.

Ms. Ebron: Betty's my mom. I currently live in Los Angeles, but grew up at 243 Farragut. I apologize that my name's not correct on the screen. I just wanted to show my support for my mom, and the patio. As the Nelsons said, I think my mom has been like a huge inspiration and motivator for change in the neighborhood. She's been very innovative with how she's handled the house and has put a lot of money, time, energy and love into it. I think she's always concerned about the neighbors, and beautifying the neighborhood. The home has been, you know, a great source of joy for me growing up. And also when I'm able to come home and visit, the backyard is just really crucial, especially in these new times when we have to social distancing. Being able to visit with friends and family outdoors, from a safe distance, I think is crucial for physical and mental health.

You know, I think this might be a different situation if my mom had, you know, more land, which obviously the zoning codes clearly affect people differently based on income and social status. I think my mom has always done the best she can with what she has. And I know she's realized she didn't understand the need for a permit and has recognized that mistake, but is trying her best to do what she can to make it safe for everybody. I hope that you all will take that into consideration.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you very much. Anyone else wish to be heard on this? I don't see any other hands going up. Steven, can you summarize the petition as well as any e-mails that came in on this project?

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: We have an e-mail here from Zoe Knight at 24 Fenwick Road. We have another e-mail from Joan Vaillancourt, at 247 Farragut Avenue. And then I have the list here of neighbors that do not object. There is eight of them, do you want me to go through?

Chairman Collins: If you can just list off the names and addresses of those who do not object.

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: Yes, Mark and Bridget Nelson, 233 Farragut; Mihai Cuibus, 237 Farragut. I can't really read this person's handwriting, Branford Avenue. I can't

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 19 -

read their name, 245 Farragut Avenue. Again, I can't read that name. Tina and Kelly Piscitello at 239 Farragut; Joyce and Victor Freeman, at 5 The Fenway. Another name I cannot read, not very legible, 10 The Fenway; and 43 Branford.

Chairman Collins: Okay, very good. Thank you very much.

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: You're welcome.

Chairman Collins: If there are no other comments on this, if any of one of my fellow boardmembers wish to make a motion now is the time.

Boardmember Dovell: I'll move to approve Case 07-21 for 243 Farragut Parkway. Paving in required rear yard: existing 373, proposed 373, required maximum zero, variance required 373 square feet. Development coverage: existing 54 percent, proposed 54 percent, required 35 percent, variance required 19 percent.

Chairman Collins: Then we'll do roll call voting. Jo, how do you vote?

Boardmember Berritt: "Approve."

Boardmember Chen: "Approve."

Boardmember Quinlan: "Approved."

Boardmember Dovell: To "approve."

Chairman Collins: And I, Matt Collins, abstain on this one for the reasons I articulated earlier.

On MOTION of Boardmember Dovell, SECONDED by Boardmember Berritt, with a roll call vote of 4-0 (Chairman Collins abstaining), the Board approved the preceding resolution.

Chairman Collins: The project passes with four votes, so congratulations and thanks for sharing the project with us.

Ms. Liu: Thank you so much.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 20 -

Chairman Collins: Yes, you bet.

Ms. Liu: All right, good night.

Chairman Collins: Good night.

All right, then let's move to case 08-21.

Case No. 08-21 Yevgeniy Grinberg 62 Euclid Avenue Relief from strict application of the Village Code Sections 295-20C(2) & 295- 68F.2(a)[2] for construction of a semi-pervious patio in place of an existing deck at their single-family dwelling located at 62 Euclid Avenue. Said property is located in the R-10 Zoning District and is known as SBL: 4.40-29-13 on the Village Tax Maps. Nonconformity details for the patio are as follows: 1. Paving in a Required Yard: Existing – None; Proposed – 282 square feet; Required Maximum – None {295-C(2)}; Variance Required – 282 square feet 2. Development Coverage: Existing – 50.81 percent; Proposed – 55.96 percent; Required – 35 percent Maximum {295-68F.2.a.[2]}; Variance Required – 20.96 percent

Chairman Collins: Again, apologies if I've mispronounced the name. The applicant is seeking two variances: paving in a required yard and development coverage. This is for construction of a patio in place of an existing deck. Eva, are you presenting?

Eva Bouhassira, Klein & Eric: Yes.

Chairman Collins: Okay, I thought you were up.

Ms. Bouhassira: Hello everybody, good evening. I'm the architect for Mr. and Mrs. Grinberg for their project at 52 Euclid Avenue. The project concerns renovation of their outdoor space situated in the backyard. I will share my screen to show the drawings and explain the aspects of the project. Before I do that, I would just like to briefly say that it is interesting that we are looking at two patio projects one after the other. There are possibly

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 21 -

some similarities, but there are also differences in these two projects.

The first thing I would like to say is that Mr. and Mrs. Grinberg moved into the neighborhood about a year-and-a-half ago. They have purchased this home recently, and obviously the last year they have spent in quarantine, sheltering and not really being able to talk to their neighbors as much as people would normally do. We're going to explain this project based on the technical parameters. And I certainly appreciate the tremendous neighborhood support the previous project received, but in this case the owners are new to the neighborhood and therefore the situation is a little different. So I am going to share the screen and talk about what we have here.

So 62 Euclid Avenue is located on the north side of the street and is one of the wonderful original houses in the neighborhood. It was built in approximately 1911 and is a truly wonderful, classic Colonial home. The way the house is laid out it has that center hall and a living room, dining room, and kitchen. When the owners purchased the house it came with a wooden deck. The deck is located alongside the back wall of the house. I'm trying to decide if I should show the plan first or I should show the pictures first, but I'm going to start with this drawing where we see the existing house.

We see there is a wood deck at grade which follows the back wall of the house. In this drawing you can also see the buildable envelope of this lot. Here are the side setbacks, rear, and front. When the owners settled into the house they quickly realized that this existing rear wooden deck had certain issues. It was built over a shallow crawl space, and if you take a look at the pictures you can see that the slope comes down towards the house. As a result, there is a considerable amount of humidity and dampness that happens underneath this deck, which resulted in issues with crickets and water in the basement, et cetera. The more they thought about it, the more they felt it would be much healthier for the house and the yard if the deck was replaced with a stone patio.

In proposing this new patio, we followed the same idea. In other words, we extended the proposed paved space alongside the back of the house. At this time, the way the outdoor space is accessed is that you walk from the kitchen into the hall, through the back door, and back outside. So there is no direct access from the kitchen to the back. We're going to change that by adding new doors leading from the kitchen into the yard. For this reason we have proposed that directly in front of the kitchen there will be a dining area which will have a barbecue space, maybe a spice garden, and a place for an outdoor dining table.

Then the next section of this proposed space is a seating area where people can maybe view the fire pit and sit and socialize, which has of course become more of an issue then ever in

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 22 -

terms of people being able to meet their family and friends outside. We continue with this paved area to provide, basically, a play area for the children. The homeowners have young children. And just like everybody else, to have any kind of socializing including the children they need some outdoor playing space.

The slope of the backyard is retained in this proposal by a low wall which continues. There is a low wall currently between the driveway and the yard. We are intending to extend this low wall – which happens from this existing wall continuing towards the south – which will give us a flat area for the yard and a flat area for this proposed patio. We have sort of divided the backyard into two functional spaces. One is the open greenspace and one is the paved area. We have proposed seating in the play area to be constructed in 2 by 4 pavers with 4 inches of space between them, making the area permeable. The pavers are bordered either by pea gravel or grass.

In order to talk about the numbers, two things have happened. One is that part of this proposed paved area is in the side yard of the lot. That's one. Two, the coverage of the lot exceeds the required coverage. I will start by talking about the coverage. We have a lot which currently has a building coverage of 25.18 percent, while the required number is 25 percent. So the building coverage is pretty much on the nose and compliant with the existing and, in fact, we're not making any changes. The existing development coverage is 50.81 percent, which of course is a number much higher than the required 35 percent. The question is, how can this coverage be so high already? And what happens if we further increase this coverage to 55.96 percent by constructing this new deck?

In order to understand how this can possibly be, there are a couple of different aspects. One is that there are various pathways: the front staircase to reach the house, and the different little steps and walkways which have come with the house. Most importantly, there is a very large paved driveway which leads to the garage, which exists in the back. So in order to understand how this works, if we look at the neighborhood we can see there are a number of houses in the neighborhood that have been built with the same idea in mind. In other words, the garages were placed in the rear. If you look at the block plans, you can see the driveways happening. And if you look at the specific diagram which shows some of these garages in the neighborhood, and then you look at the photographs that show the houses with these garages, you can see that the same idea has been repeated over and over.

However, not all the lots were impacted in the same way in terms of coverage. When you take another look you can see that this lot is relatively small compared to its neighbors. For example, both of a adjacent properties don't have the same coverage even though the houses are pretty much the same size. In other words, even though the lots are not all the same, the

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 23 -

houses were, in fact, built about the same. When you drive through the neighborhood this is not apparent, but in this particular case having this driveway increases the coverage dramatically. And in fact, the driveway constitutes about 15.77 percent of the coverage. So if the house has 50 percent coverage and the driveway is over 15 percent, if that driveway didn't exist – if the garage was right in the front – the development coverage impact would be about 35 percent, which is where it should be at. Due to this driveway which exists, we have to add the 15 percent to the 35, and end up at 50. Then with the added patio we end up at 55 or so.

We are removing the deck, which covered about 5.7 percent – the 644 square feet – and adding something which is about twice as big and covers about 10 percent. That's where we get the increased 5 percent. If you look at it in terms of pictures, then as you can see here's the existing deck, which is about 6 feet in front of this kitchen bump-out. That 6 feet is really just a passageway, not a place where you can actually put furniture. Then there's about 12 or 13 feet in front of the house – which, again, is very limited – for a dining table, a seating area, and all that. Our proposed paving happens somewhere – if you can see my mouse – right about here, where we're basically capturing the flat area of the property before the grade really goes up. That's really the crux of the coverage issue.

Then in terms of the side setback, because we're following the house and because that does make sense – that's how the house always was and that's how the backyard functions – we end up protruding into the side yard where, technically, the paving is not allowed. Even though at that point all the pavement is basically these loose, or permeable 2 by 4 bluestones, it's not like a hard paved area. Then we have a few steps leading down to catch up with the existing grade on the side of the house. To that same issue, the existing deck also protruded into the same side setback as we are protruding here. You can see that at the smallest point of the side setback the distance is only about 2.9 feet, so the house is built extremely close to the neighbors. However, this is not a problem in terms of the neighbors coexisting because, as you can see, the other house is very far from that shared property line. In fact, what they have on this side of the lot is their long driveway and garage at the rear of the property. Even though we're very close here, we're not anywhere near the neighbors or their house.

I think that's basically the main points I would like to get across without talking on and on. And please ask any questions.

Chairman Collins: Yes, thank you. That's helpful. Am I right – I'm just looking at the case in the agenda, but am I right – in that the new patio, plus new steps and stone path, is scoped to be 501 square feet plus 46 square feet plus 680 square feet, in total?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 24 -

Ms. Bouhassira: Correct, which adds up to 1,227 square feet.

Chairman Collins: So 12-hundred and …

Ms. Bouhassira: 27.

Chairman Collins: 1,227 square-feet-and-change of proposed paving in the yard total.

Ms. Bouhassira: Well, it's not the change actually. The original deck is 644 square feet.

Chairman Collins: Right. I'm not asking about the change, I'm just asking about total dimension.

Ms. Bouhassira: Yes.

Chairman Collins: And of that, you need 282 square feet that you're proposing to include in the required yard; in this case, the side yard.

Ms. Bouhassira: Correct.

Chairman Collins: If we’ve had a bigger paving proposal, in total, that's come before us I don't recall. This is a really substantial project. And as I look at how this situates relatively to the home itself and the overall footprint of the house, this is a really substantial paving project. I'm just curious. I mean, I can see what's intended for this space. And while it is true, yes, that without the driveway – and if it were on a bigger lot – the development coverage would not be so severe. But I'm curious to understand why the need for over 12-hundred square feet of paving space. Could you have imagined getting what you want out of this without requiring a variance for the development coverage?

Ms. Bouhassira: Well, I'm going to answer your last question first. The answer to that is "no" because even the existing development coverage is noncompliant. In fact, to get to compliance we would have to go back and undo what is there without putting anything new in. So any enlargement of the existing, which is already noncompliant, means we are in a noncompliant situation. As to the size of the area, there is kind of a dual logic to it. One is that the area is meant to serve three different purposes: the dining, the seating area, and the play area. Another way to look at it is that the outer area is in proportion to the house. This is a generously-sized house which, in fact, has a substantial property.

Since the sloped grassy area is not as usable as a paved area, if we don't undertake this

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 25 -

improvement then the owners can't actually take advantage of their property in the same way. So basically, right now the situation which is there, the spaces available, the area is sitting there but they cannot comfortably use it because it is all wet, grassy, muddy and uneven, and cannot be enjoyed and used in a practical way. They do have a community of friends and family they would like to see and be able to entertain outdoors, particularly this year. Therefore this paved area actually makes sense for them to have.

Chairman Collins: I understand the need, and believe me we have seen so many outdoor proposals since Covid this has become the norm. And I understand the development coverage already surpasses the maximum allowed. What I'm asking is, could you have accomplished this without requiring a variance that has you developing paving into a required yard? Again, you're talking about a 12-hundred-and-change square foot patio. If you cut 282 square feet out of that, could the applicant have achieved the same outcome here without needing that variance?

Ms. Bouhassira: Well, you know, after all the conversations we had with the homeowners I am going to say no for the following reason. One is that as you can see, the dining area is very reasonably-sized. There is one large outdoor dining table with the barbecue area, which is not oversized. It allows for traffic from the kitchen in and out and for people circulating around the dining table. Then we have the seating area which, again, is a group of seats that will hold maybe seven, eight, ten, twelve people sitting or standing around, which is reasonable. Then this is the area we're discussing, and asking whether it is necessary.

Here is the space meant to become the play space for the children. They can play here while they are under parents' supervision. The children are in elementary school, and they can play right next to the family, which is dining, or talking. If we don't pave this area it is not as practical. You cannot, you know, put in the jungle gym, you cannot put in the children's toys, and you cannot just give them sort of a designated playing area in the same way as if you just had grass. I mean, it is possible but it is something that is just not their preference. They would like to have that sort of supervised play area right next to the grownup area. We would like to pave that area for that reason if at all possible, and that is really the main purpose for it.

Chairman Collins: Yes, I understand that. But I would push back a little bit. I mean, the dimensions you're describing for the paved area that's permitted – in that they're not intruding into a required yard – these are dimensions you would see in houses, inside of houses, in Hastings, and you're proposing creating as large of a square footage space on the outside. To me, this is a substantial amount of paving that you're proposing, even before you get to the paving in the required yard request you've made. So I'm going to be eager to hear from my

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 26 -

fellow boardmembers. I don't have any other questions. The development coverage, to me – in some ways, as we've pointed out – this home was already impaired in that regard. So I don't really have any questions there. My question focuses on whether or not the applicant can achieve this without requiring paving into the side yard.

Ms. Bouhassira: I'm going to say just one more thing before maybe having everybody comment.

Chairman Collins: Sure.

Ms. Bouhassira: Okay. You can see that when you come up to the house, which is up the hill, there's a bunch of stairs. There is a landing, the front porch. There is a patio area which was installed possibly when the house was built or maybe not so long after that. I suppose it was meant to be a place to spend some time because it's facing the street, facing the south. But in reality, that area is isolated and not really usable. Also as you can see, it's entirely in the site setback. So I will say that if it would make logical sense to the members of the board we could possibly remove that area and think of this added area here where it's useful and practical as an exchange for this existing patio which happens here but is not terribly practical.

Chairman Collins: Got it, okay. Thank you, that is a helpful consideration. Ray, how about you? Got any comments?

Boardmember Dovell: Yes. The lot is not undersized. It's an 11,000 square foot lot so I don't think to characterize it as undersized is really accurate. The other thing that was stated is that bluestone is not permeable, at least to my understanding. There may be joints in it, but it's an impermeable surface. The house occupies a large … could you go back to the plot plan, please, Eva? Leave that up for a moment. It's a large house. It also has a large what looks like covered front porch. You don't have a photograph of the front porch, of the front of the house, but it's a fairly large and enclosed.

Ms. Bouhassira: There it is.

Boardmember Dovell: Have you counted that in building coverage, or in development coverage?

Ms. Bouhassira: That is included in the building coverage because it has a raised platform and the roof over it. So that is a building.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 27 -

Boardmember Dovell: Okay. What are the dimensions of the outdoor patio spaces? Could you just take us through that?

Ms. Bouhassira: Are we talking about the existing?

Boardmember Dovell: What's being proposed.

Ms. Bouhassira: Okay, so what we have here is the dining area, which is basically a circle which has a diameter of 14 feet.

Boardmember Dovell: So it's 28 feet across, roughly.

Ms. Bouhassira: It's 28 feet across, correct. And then the proposed area with the 2 by 4 pavers is approximately … it's a little less than 26 feet times 35 feet.

Boardmember Dovell: So these are really large areas. I mean, a dining area of 28 feet is not a small space, nor is the other paved portion. It just seems like an enormous amount of paving for the intended use. And I do think your idea of getting rid of some paving in the front of the house is a good idea and reducing it in the side yard is a good idea, but my feeling is it's just too much. It's just out of scale, it's out of character, and programmatically I just don't understand the need for it. I understand what you've said, but it's a lovely property, as they all are on Euclid Avenue. I'm just uncomfortable with the overall scale of it.

I think the design is quite nice. It just seems a little out of scale. And you know, the coverage is quite large. From 35 percent to 55 percent is a very large paved area.

Ms. Bouhassira: Can I do a quick response?

Chairman Collins: Yes, go ahead.

Ms. Bouhassira: Yes, it is a rather large area. I'm not going to say that it's tiny. However, if you look at the house, and for example know the size of the living room, the house is generously-sized to start with. So what we have done, in fact, is sort of replicate the size of the living room and create sort of a grownup living room area outdoors and sort of a children's living room, or living space, next to it. It may be, you know, large in terms of square feet, but it is not entirely oversized in proportion to the house. And as you can see, the dining area allows for standard circulation. And by the time there are doors and people going back and forth, if you'd like to have a table that seats 10 people then in fact that would be perfectly appropriate.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 28 -

Boardmember Dovell: I disagree. A 28-foot diameter for a table is not in proportion. That is an enormous space.

Ms. Bouhassira: Well, if you visualize it here – and if you see that this is the wall that divides the yard from the driveway, if you imagine yourself standing here – it is, in fact, a space that's not out of proportion to having a small crowd of people having a dinner together. It may look a little scary in numbers or on the floor plan, but standing there it is just a … here's another view, for example, going from here to this back wall. That is a very comfortable space. Is it oversized because it's in proportion to the house, or just because it could be oversized in proportion to maybe another house or another lot? You know, it just seems to be comfortable in terms of size.

Chairman Collins: Ray, anything else?

Boardmember Dovell: Well, I think if it were an institutional building I would agree with you that 28 feet is a nice space for a dining area. But to me it just seems unsupportable in terms of lot coverage and what's really needed, as has been explained.

Chairman Collins: Yes, okay.

Boardmember Dovell: I have no further comment, Matt.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you. Jerry, how about you? Just unmute yourself, Jerry.

Boardmember Quinlan: I'm just going to pass for now, Matt, thank you. I'd like to hear the other comments by the other two members of the board. I would like to just make one comment, though, and I have no questions. Would the boardmembers be more comfortable if the play area was eliminated? I mean, I'm kind of old-fashioned; playing on grass is probably just as good as playing on stone. That's a personal thing. It does get rid of quite a few of the square feet of paved yard, but I'm just going to pass for now, thanks.

Chairman Collins: Okay, we'll come back to that. Jo, how about you?

Boardmember Berritt: Yes, I tend to agree with what's already been said. I think this probably has a garden that can be used. It's grass, it's a perfectly suitable area for kids. I don't think there are many houses in Hastings that have flat grassy areas, so kids are certainly used to, in this town, running on slopes. But I understand the wall would make it flat. There's also the driveway. It's really hard for me. I understand the idea of sort of creating

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 29 -

these rooms for a dining room and a sitting room, but a 26 by 35-foot area is a big area.

I mean, I don't want to sort of start redesigning it by saying what you could do in terms of getting back to something that is more reasonable, but certainly, obviously, the right-hand side and the area in front of the sunroom that isn't currently being used would be the two areas I would look at. But still it's a significant amount of hard surface.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you Jo. David, how about you?

Boardmember Chen: Jerry actually hit on my comment exactly, which is I'm just not really following the logic of why a play area would need to be paved, or frankly why you would even want it to be paved. That's my comment. The only question I had is, I understand the point about it's a bit of an apples-to-oranges comparison with the two adjacent properties as far as coverage because they're so much bigger, but it seems to me that most if not all the properties behind this one are about the same size, roughly. I think it was 11,000 square feet. And I'd be curious to know what kind of percent coverages are there. I think that would be a comparison I would want to see before I could vote to approve this. That's my only comment.

Chairman Collins: Yes, that's a great point, David, and one that I would recommend as well. That in making a case that this is in character – or in keeping with the character of the neighborhood – we really do need to look at that dimensionally, including how the development coverage in the existing property compares to those around. Then we can obviously extrapolate what that would mean for the proposed coverage.

I agree with the comments that have been made. I think, again, even if you were to remove the need for paving in a side yard you would still be left with a nearly thousand square foot paved space. Which still might be, to Ray's point, programmatically out of step with the home and the neighborhood. What you are proposing here is essentially a mirroring of the indoor space outdoors. And everything you showed, Eva, around the property, as you were taking us through the photographs, reinforced for me the impression that what the applicant's wanting to do here is big.

You're showing it the way, in the photographs, that for me personally reinforces that this is a big space that would be able to accommodate a lot of people outdoors; all being able to either sit or stand on a paved surface. In my experience on this board I've not seen a request for a patio this big. I think even if we were to remove the paving that's been proposed in the side yard, I don't think I've seen one that's been a thousand square feet that's been proposed. So I think the feedback you're getting from the board here is that there is an opportunity to go

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 30 -

back to the drawing board a bit and figure out how you can get what you're wanting by minimizing both the number of, and the extent of, the variances you're currently requesting.

I'll pause there and see if any of my other fellow boardmembers would want to amplify or clarify any of that for the applicant.

Ms. Bouhassira: I will comment at the appropriate time.

Chairman Collins: Ray, go ahead.

Boardmember Dovell: I think the overall design is quite nice. I just think the circular dais for the dining is very nice, and it's got all the bones of a really nice backyard space. I just believe it is simply way too much coverage.

Ms. Bouhassira: I understand.

Boardmember Dovell: And that something smaller could deliver, programmatically, what you're looking for and really cut down on the ask of coverage.

Ms. Bouhassira: I'll ask a question. But before I do that, I would just like to sort of … if we were to come back to you with a revised proposal I would want to understand whether it is necessary to provide more numbers than what we see from this block map where we can see that there are indeed other lots on the other side which are of a similar size. But these particular lots, some of them have the garages in the back, some of them don't. We will probably come up with numbers which are either similar, or lower than, this particular lot which, as you can see, is truly sort of squeezed. The house is almost side-to-side on the lot, and the garage is in the far back corner. So all these coverages will be somewhat lower, however this is not of our doing because this is how this house was built 110 years ago. And the garage was placed where it is, you know.

So I would say that probably it would not be an exercise that would help us to make the decision of what is appropriate unless you feel that's something we should truly do. In terms of the coverage, I am just going to ask the obvious question. If we removed the paved area which is in the yard and intended for the play area, would the rest of the design then satisfy the board?

Chairman Collins: I think you're hearing from my colleagues that perhaps the geometry, the shaping of it, is appealing but that it's bigger than I think some of us are comfortable with; that you can achieve some of the same things you're wanting – you can have a very

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 31 -

comfortable and accommodating outdoor space – without requiring it to be literally bigger than the indoor dining room, as I'm seeing it, on the inside of the house.

Ms. Bouhassira: What we're working with here also is the existing driveway and existing wall. If somebody says, Well, this dining patio is too large, then the solution would be to, I don't know, leave more area which is unpaved and make the dining area smaller. I don't really see a practical way of handling the sort of interstitial space between the existing driveway and the wall and the existing house. I mean, this is also a result of a simple logic of filling in the space which already exists. That’s one comment, then there is this other area which could be discussed.

Chairman Collins: I do think it will be essential for you to produce the dimensions for the other properties in the neighborhood in that circle that you established over the top of those homes. As I look at this property, there are a lot of houses – across the street and in the backyard on the other side of the house – that have much more constraints in terms of their space. So I think it will be important to see what the development coverage is for what you have here in the circle, or at least for the homes that lie entirely inside that circle. Let's take a look at those.

Ms. Bouhassira: All right.

Chairman Collins: I think what you're hearing from this board is a suggestion that you go back to the drawing board and figure out really what is it that you're trying to achieve. As the law requires us to do, we ask you to see how much of that you can get accomplished without requiring a variance or requiring the least possible variance. My feeling is that we can get rid of – I feel very confident we can at least eliminate – one variance entirely and you're still very much likely to get a lovely outdoor space that would accommodate what the applicant is seeking here.

Ms. Bouhassira: All right.

Boardmember Quinlan: I'd just like to make one comment, if I can, before you leave.

Chairman Collins: Yes, go ahead Jerry.

Boardmember Quinlan: Just quickly, in your presentation – and I'm talking about the side yard that's not in use – you kind of said, and I agree with you, it's kind of off to the side and not easily accessible. If in reality that is not used and it's just sitting there, then I would think that decreasing that pavement would mean a lot to me. It may not mean a lot to the other

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 32 -

members of the board. If it's not used, then why have it? I just wanted to say that that's from my own perspective.

Ms. Bouhassira: Thank you.

Boardmember Quinlan: And if it's used, then keep it, you know.

Ms. Bouhassira: All right, we will discuss with the homeowners.

Chairman Collins: Anyone else on the board have anything to say on this before I just check and see if any members of the public wish to be heard on it? Anyone in the public wish to make a comment on this? I do not see any hand-raisers.

All right then, I'm assuming you'd like to adjourn this case until the next time rather than proceed to a vote, right?

Ms. Bouhassira: Sure, yes.

Chairman Collins: Okay, I think that's the right call. Well, thank you for presenting it. There's a lot to like about what this proposal is. My hope is anyway that you've got some direction here that will make it even better.

Ms. Bouhassira: Sounds good.

Chairman Collins: All right, thank you.

Ms. Bouhassira: All right, thank you for your time.

Chairman Collins: Yes, you bet. I know you're hanging around, Eva, right? For the next? All right, good. Let me refer back to my agenda. And our next case is for case 09-21 for Matthew Kelly and Rachel Martin.

Case No. 09-21 Matthew Kelly & Rachel Martin 60 Stratford Lane Relief from strict application of the Village Code Sections 295-68F.1(a) & 295- 20C.2 w/ 295-55A for a new covered front entrance and front covered patio at their single-family dwelling located at 60 Stratford Lane. Said property is

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 33 -

located in the R-10 Zoning District and is known as SBL: 4.110-108-21 on the Village Tax Maps.

Nonconformity details are as follows: 1. Front Yard Setbacks: Existing – 23.17 feet; Proposed – 19.25 feet; Required – 30 feet {295-68F.1(a)}; Variance Required – 10.75 feet 2. Paving in a Required Yard: Existing 90 square feet; Proposed – 228 square feet; Required Maximum – None {295-20C(2)}; Variance Required – 228 square feet

Chairman Collins: Applicants are seeking two variances: front yard setback related to the proposed new covered front entrance, and front covered patio for their single-family dwelling. So it's a front yard setback and paving in a required yard that are both on offer here. We've had lots of paving in required yard cases tonight and I guess, Eva, you're presenting this one as well. Is that right?

Ms. Bouhassira: That's right, and I am going to take just 30 seconds and be right back.

Chairman Collins: Yes, take your time.

Attorney Whitehead: And just for the record, this is the house I lived in from the time I was two until I was about nine, back in the '60s. My parents were the original owners of this house.

Matthew Kelly, applicant: Oh, really? I'm Matt, I'm the current owner.

Attorney Whitehead: Hi [laughter]. Yes, my parents were the first owners back in 1963.

Mr. Kelly: That's amazing. After this I'll have to get your e-mail, if you don't mind.

Ms. Bouhassira: Actually, Linda, I'm going to say I knew that because Charles Minozzi told me as much.

Attorney Whitehead: [Laughter] And it wasn't yellow then either.

Mr. Kelly: Right. I think the Jennings must have painted it, but we love the house.

Attorney Whitehead: And my initials might be in the base of the basketball hoop.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 34 -

Mr. Kelly: Oh, you're kidding me. I'll go take a picture tomorrow, I'll look for it. That's so funny.

Chairman Collins: All right, Eva, why don't you take us through the project?

Ms. Bouhassira: I'm the architect for Mr. Kelly and Ms. Martin, and they own 60 Stratford. I am going to share the screen and show the drawings we submitted. The project at 60 Stratford is involved with building a new front entry, a new mudroom. I'm going to start by maybe asking Linda if she thinks the entryway of this house is sufficient in size. This is a split-ranch, two-level house. All the living space and the bedrooms are on the first floor, then there is a lower level. About half of it belongs to the garage, or maybe 30 percent belongs to the garage, and the rest of it belongs to the rec room, a spare bedroom, et cetera.

The entire living space is happening on the upper floor. When you go through the front door you find yourself in an entry area which is really a landing between the staircase that goes up and the staircase that goes down, and there is one closet. So I think it's pretty obvious at a glance that when four people go in and out, and maybe five or six people including the family, the baby-sitter, et cetera this space is actually really small. This was always a dream for the homeowners to have a better area to come in, take their coats off, put their stuff down, and have more space to function.

For that reason, we have proposed a new mudroom which extends the existing landing, and includes three closets instead of one and a little bench area. However, in doing so we are dealing with the zoning implications. What happens is, the existing house already projects into the front yard. Right now there's that open front porch – which you have seen, or you can see in the picture behind me – and that already all happens in this sort of red-hatch here in the existing front yard. So this is a noncompliant situation.

Just by way of background, why did this happen in the first place? As you can see the lot is irregular. The back part of the lot is extremely steep. In fact, it's retained by a tall retaining wall. The side yards are okay, but the whole steep slope situation pushed the house forward. So this is really the only flat area of the lot before the lot basically keeps going down towards the street. You can sort of see this here. Here's the retaining wall, and a tall slope which is not usable. Then here is the flat area, and here's the sloped area going down.

Here's our open front porch, then the existing elevation. What we're proposing to do is, we are proposing to have this new mudroom, which is this part of the blue schematic. That part, in itself, is smaller than the existing front porch. Then in front of it we have an open porch, again just to provide a roofed area upon arriving at the house. I think this schematic would

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 35 -

be helpful to show that. Here's the existing porch and here's the new porch, which has the enclosed functional mudroom. Then it has sort of an equivalent in a way of the open porch as you approach the front door.

I am also going to share the proposed elevation and, in fact, the side view of the house where you can see the required setback happens somewhere here. Then we are into that required setback building of this porch and the open part. Here is a schematic, a picture, where you can see roughly the volume of the proposed front entry and the open porch. We are right at the edge of the slope, which goes from flat to steep. We're careful not to go there.

And that's pretty much it.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you. Very well presented again. I lived in a split-level house once and encountered a similar problem with just not enough space in that nexus of upstairs-to-downstairs, inside-to-outside. If you had any more than two people arriving or going at once it became a traffic jam, and sometimes a slip-and-fall hazard with boots and shoes and wet umbrellas and you name it. In my opinion this is a very modest request to solve, again, a problem with this type of home. And I think it's been tastefully done, tastefully proposed here. Again, I don't think the variances being asked for here are that significant in their scope so I don't have any objections. I'm going to invite my fellow boardmembers to speak on this. David, how about you?

Boardmember Chen: I agree. And I have no comments, no questions.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you. Ray?

Boardmember Dovell: Could we talk about the lot, just the configuration of the lot, just for a minute? The lot is how large, Eva?

Ms. Bouhassira: The lot is about 12,000 square feet in a zone which is required to be 10,000 square feet. So the lot is of sufficient size for the zone. I would also mention this page here which shows the vicinity of the house. As you can see, in this particular neighborhood – and part of Burnside or Shadowlawn – there is a mix of older homes of sort of Tudor character. Then there's a mix of newer homes which were built after World War II. I think what happened was some of those lots, or some of those dimensions, at that point were less generous in comparison to the original development in the area and ended up with some imperfections in terms of the zoning dimensions and in terms of the lot shapes and sizes.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 36 -

Boardmember Dovell: Mm-hmm. Well, I think there's a lot accomplished in a very small area. And I understand it's all in the front yard – beyond the setback line, but minimal – and I think it's in character. In terms of the transformation of the house, it will be a very nice composition and a great improvement, I think. I think all minimal and in character, so I have no further comments on it.

Chairman Collins: All right, thank you. Jerry?

Boardmember Quinlan: I have no questions or no concerns.

Chairman Collins: Thank you very much. Jo?

Boardmember Berritt: No, I think it looks very strong, and for all the reasons I think it's fine.

Chairman Collins: All right, great. Then I will canvass the attendees. It looks like I see Travis at peaknyc.org, if we can just let that individual in. Just unmute yourself, introduce who you are and where you live.

Jim Metzger, 427 Warburton: It's actually me. I'm on my wife's Zoom thing here. Anyway, I just wanted to say first of all it's really hard to do a nice transformation of your typical split-level, and I think this is really nice. I also say that I had a situation where I did a small bump-out kind of a house here on Warburton Avenue a few years ago and it was minimal just like this. But the effect in the house was enormous. I think this is a really nice solution to what is a really annoying problem in houses that didn't think about the fact of people coming in and out and carrying groceries and dealing with everything. I think this is going to be a really nice solution to that problem, and I think it's going to something that people are going to look at and go, You know, this is a good way to solve a problem in all of these split-level houses; we have to make them look more updated.

So I'm in favor of the project, I think it's very nice.

Ms. Bouhassira: Thank you.

Chairman Collins: Thank you, Mr. Metzger. That’s great. Anyone else wish to be heard? Okay, I don't see anybody else so can I get a motion?

Attorney Whitehead: I think you had one e-mail, Matt, that came in today.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 37 -

Chairman Collins: Oh, we did. Steven, can you just give us a summary of who that e-mail is from and where they live? Just unmute yourself.

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: Sir, I don't have an e-mail address for this proposal.

Attorney Whitehead: It came in just this afternoon. It was the owners of 57 Stratford, I believe, and they had no objection. They supported the application.

Chairman Collins: Yes, I see it. Actually, I pulled it up. It's from James David, at 57 Stratford Lane. It's from James David and Nicholas Gavin, and they wanted to go on record in support of the project. Thank you, Linda, for that reminder.

Okay, then may I have a motion? Ray, you're muted.

Boardmember Dovell: I will move to approve Case 09-21 for 60 Stratford Lane. Front yard setback: existing 23.17, proposed 19.25, required 30; variance required 10.75. Paving in required rear yard: existing 90 square feet, proposed 228; required maximum, none; variance required 228 square feet.

Chairman Collins: Okay. Anyone wish to second?

Boardmember Chen: I will "second" the motion.

Chairman Collins: Seconded by David. I will do roll call voting. Jo, how do you vote?

Boardmember Berritt: "Approve."

Boardmember Quinlan: "Approved."

Boardmember Dovell: To "approve."

Boardmember Chen: "Approve."

Chairman Collins: And I, Matt Collins, "approve" as well.

On MOTION of Boardmember Dovell, SECONDED by Boardmember Chen, with a roll call vote of all in favor the Board approved the preceding resolution.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 38 -

Ms. Bouhassira: Thank you very much.

Chairman Collins: Five-nil. Congratulations, good luck on the project.

Ms. Bouhassira: Thank you.

Mr. Kelly: Thank you so much.

Attorney Whitehead: I can't wait to see it [laughter].

Mr. Kelly: Linda, I'm going to look for your initials tomorrow morning. Thank you, everyone.

Chairman Collins: Thank you, good luck with the project.

Before we get into the next case, I for one need a bit of a bio-break. I was consulting with Linda on this in our time of Zoom and apparently I need a motion for that, which I suspected. So I need a motion for a five-minute break. Do we have to call it an adjournment?

Attorney Whitehead: A recess, just a five-minute recess.

Chairman Collins: Can I get a motion for a five-minute recess?

Boardmember Chen: I will so "move," Mr. Chairman.

Boardmember Berritt: "Second."

Boardmember Dovell: "Approve," yes.

Boardmember Quinlan: "Approve."

Chairman Collins: And I, Matt Collins, "approve."

Attorney Whitehead: We'll see you all in five minutes.

On MOTION of Boardmember Chen, SECONDED by Boardmember Berritt, with a roll call vote of all in favor the Board voted for a five-minute bio break.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 39 -

Chairman Collins: Jerry, we're just taking a five-minute recess. Go wet your palette and stretch your legs.

Boardmember Quinlan: Okay, thank you.

[ Board reconvenes ]

Chairman Collins: All right. Linda, I assume we need a motion to reconvene. Is that correct?

Attorney Whitehead: Sure, why not?

Chairman Collins: That's "sure, why not," or we don't really need one?

Attorney Whitehead: Do you have everybody back yet? I don't see David or Jo yet.

Chairman Collins: They're not on video yet. There's Jo. David, if you're there can you go on video? All right, we have everyone back. Do we need a motion, or can we just fire up the engine again?

Attorney Whitehead: You can just fire it up and go.

Chairman Collins: All right, let's do it.

[ Board reconvenes ]

Chairman Collins: I'll just thank the applicant here in advance for moving around the agenda. I appreciate your patience as we work through some cases here that I think, by comparison, didn't have as many moving parts. But we'll get into now case 04-21. This is a carryover from last month, for Brian and Andrew Korb.

Case No. 04-21

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 40 -

Brian & Andrew Korb 447 Warburton Avenue View Preservation and approvals as required under Sections 295-82, 295-24 w/295-36A, 295-72.1D(1), 295-72.1E(2)[a & c] & 295-72.1E(3) w/295-55A of the Village Code for exterior addition/renovations and construction of a rear deck, off-street parking reduction, and conversion of a mixed-use building to a two-family dwelling at their building located at 447 Warburton Avenue. Said property is located in the MR-O Zoning District and is known as SBL: 4.70-52- 20 on the Village Tax Maps.

Nonconformity details of the existing and proposed construction are as follows: 1. Rear Deck from Property Line: Existing – none; Proposed – 5 feet; Permitted – 6 feet {295-20B(6)}; Variance required – 1 foot 2. Lot size for Two-Family Residence: Existing – 2,129 square feet; Proposed – 2,129 square feet; Required – 5,000 square feet {295-72.1D(1)}; Variance Required – 2,871 square feet 3. Front Yard Setback: Existing – zero feet; Proposed – zero feet; Required – 10 feet {295-72.1E (2)[a]}; Variance Required – 10 feet 4. Side Yard Setbacks: Existing S1 – 1.4 feet/S2 – 2.6 feet; Proposed S1 – 1.4 feet/S2 – 2.6 feet; Required S1 – 8 feet/S2 – 8 feet each side {72.1E(2)[c]}; Variance Required S1 – 6.6 feet/S2 – 5.4 feet 5. Coverage: Existing – 52.3 percent; Proposed – 57 percent; Required Maximum – 50 percent {295-72.1E(3)}; Variance Required – 7 percent Variances are to be included with Extension of an Existing Nonconformity – {295-55A}

Chairman Collins: The applicant is seeking view preservation approval in addition to the variances related to rear deck from the property line, lot size for a two-family residence, front yard setback, side yard setbacks, and coverage. Now recapping from the last meeting, we really had sent the applicant back to do some homework on how this property stacks up relative to others in the neighborhood. I know the applicant has furnished that, but I don't think that in any other way the property has changed. So I'm going to be looking for a presentation and analysis of that comparison.

I also want to point out that which the board has been living with in every single meeting – that both the applicant and some neighbors who have some concerns about the property have raised – which are the five factors the State of New York requires us to review and make a determination regarding variances. Since the application hasn't changed, and in this case both the applicant as well as an attorney representing one of the immediate neighbors –

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 41 -

adjacent neighbors, and both have provided comments through the lens of the five factors – I'm going to encourage us as a group to be focusing on, and the applicant to be really focusing on, presenting their case through the lens of the five factors. And, as much as possible, minimize the amount of conversation that falls outside of that. That is what the state mandates as a tool we use to evaluate all these cases.

Let's start with a presentation of the analysis of the neighborhood, the homes in the district. Especially as it relates to the extent to which those homes, those existing properties, are compliant or not. Then we can go from there. So who's going to be presenting on behalf of the applicant? I'm guessing someone is muted who otherwise intends to speak.

Dep. Bldg. Inspector Stanislawczyk: We're waiting for Steve.

Steven Accinelli, Esq: Good evening, everyone. Can you hear me?

Chairman Collins: Yes, we hear you and we see you.

Mr. Accinelli : Good evening, Mr. Chairman. I'm with the firm of Veneruso, Curto, Schwartz and Curto, on behalf of the applicant.

Chairman Collins: Good evening, Mr. Accinelli. Thanks for joining us. Why don't you go ahead and take us through the analysis we asked the applicant to complete.

Mr. Accinelli: In starting off with the analysis, as you've requested, the applicant performed a pretty detailed analysis which was submitted. Hopefully boardmembers have had a chance to review it. The applicant studied the entire MR-0 zone and narrowed down, really, the discussions of the parcels that contain structures and divided it in, I think, a way that makes sense: the west side of Warburton Avenue and the east side of Warburton Avenue. I think there's a distinct difference between the properties located on the west side versus the east side of Warburton Avenue. With respect to west side of Warburton Avenue, we'd like to focus on that because we think that is most appropriate, Mr. Chairman.

The number of parcels with structures on the west side of Warburton Avenue: there are 25 parcels. Of the 25 parcels, all 25 had one or more nonconforming characteristics. So it's 100 percent nonconforming with respect to properties with structures in the MR-0 district. These nonconformities include area lot size, side setback, front setback, and lot coverage. And some properties are nonconforming in one aspect and some properties are nonconforming in all four aspects. I think the data establishes very clearly and numerically with respect to each property and each category that the subject property relative to all the other properties on the

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 42 -

west side of Warburton Avenue is, and would be, substantially similar and in character following the proposed renovation and reconstruction work at the property.

Chairman Collins: Okay, I'm looking at slide 19 in your presentation. I think that's the one that really gets to the numbers, correct?

Mr. Accinelli: The color-coded one

Chairman Collins: Yes, it looks like it's a cut-and-paste from an Excel spread sheet.

Mr. Accinelli: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. The architects Joe Crocco and Chris Crocco, are on. Perhaps would it be helpful to the board if we have them share the screen, or is that not necessary, Mr. Chairman?

Chairman Collins: I think unless they want to call our attention to something in particular we all have it and can review it on our own screens. But if there's something in particular you want us to focus on, you're welcome to share your screen. That's available to you, or you can just direct us to it. Because of the way this slide is presented, you can direct us to a particular address if you wanted us to see a particular address. In the column for area and lot size and square footage you have several that are in bold font, where you've outlined the borders. What does that indicate?

Mr. Accinelli: According to the property card data, Mr. Chairman, there are seven lots inclusive of the subject property that are identical in the square footage.

Chairman Collins: Oh, I see.

Mr. Accinelli: The 2,129 – and I think Joe can maybe jump in here – I think the actual property card was 2,178. But we took an extra measurement from the survey so it shows 2,129.

Chairman Collins: I see. And in the pink shading here, the salmon shading, these are properties where you're indicating there's already an existing nonconformity. Is that correct?

Mr. Accinelli: That's correct, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to point that in the majority, or close to the majority, of the cases relative to certain of these nonconforming conditions they are more nonconforming than the subject property. The applicant is not proposing any changes whatsoever relative to the setbacks or other footprint attributes of the property. So three out of those five requested variances are preexisting nonconforming and are going to

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 43 -

remain that way, unchanged by the application.

Chairman Collins: Yes, I can see that. Just looking at the addresses you looked at, these are all odd numbers. So the ones you're really focusing on are the west side, as you indicated. You do have some on the east side, and it's interesting to see that they are actually, even perhaps proportionately to the number of homes surveyed, still quite a high number of homes that have existing front yard and lot coverage existing nonconformities.

Mr. Accinelli: Right. With respect to the east side there are 12 parcels with structures, of which 10 of them have nonconforming attributes. The west side of Warburton is 100 percent nonconforming on a percentage basis relative to the parcels with structures, and on the east side you've got 83.3 percent of those structures that have nonconforming attributes. When you actually add the two, which is 37 parcels, the percentage is 94.6 percent of every lot in this zone contains a structure and have one to four nonconforming attributes, and in many cases all four of them.

Chairman Collins: I see. Okay, so your conclusion, based on the neighborhood analysis, Mr. Accinelli, is what?

Mr. Accinelli: Well, my conclusion is, you know, I presented sort of the supplemental principal points, Mr. Chairman, wherein I discussed the balancing test and the five factors of law pursuant to section 295-146(c) of the Village code. If the board would like I can go through them and read through them specifically, but in terms of the highlights I think this is one of those odd situations where actually increasing the technical actual nonconformity is going to result in a structure that ends up becoming more in line with the characteristics of the character of the community. Because this house, when you look at it, it stands out as being significantly smaller than all of the other houses on the west side of Warburton.

When you implement the proposed improvements it will actually fit in much better to the character of the neighborhood and align much better with the streetscape, and stand out less than it does now after the improvements are made to the structure.

Chairman Collins: Okay, I think it would be helpful – since your letter came in, I think, relatively late this afternoon, if I'm not mistaken about the timing – if you could you walk us through your reasoning here that you've outlined in the letter you wrote us.

Mr. Accinelli: Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. As the board is aware, under section 295-146(c) of the Village's zoning code in determining whether to grant an area variance, "The Board of Appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant of the variances granted, as

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 44 -

well as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board of Appeals shall also consider five factors …" – which I would like to discuss, as follows:

"'Whether the variances will create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties." The variances, and extension of nonconformity, will not create an undesirable character of the neighborhood and will not be a detriment to nearby properties. On the contrary, we respectfully submit that the development of the project in a manner proposed by the applicant, and the renovation and reconstruction of a vacant and deteriorated structure in the community, will be a welcome and significant investment in the neighborhood and will also improve the overall character and desirability of the area.

The neighborhood buildings to the north and south of the property on the west side of Warburton Avenue are a mix of multi-family, multi-story residential structures. And in two cases, at the southern end of the zone there are two ground floor retail businesses. The vast majority of these are taller and, in some cases, substantially taller than the subject property, such that in its current state the property is out of character with the neighborhood in respect to its height. The applicant respectfully submits that this application represents a unique situation where the proposed expansion of a nonconformity will actually decrease the physical nonconformity of the property as it relates to the community and surrounding properties relative to height.

Once completed, the property will be significantly more in line with the aligned existing structures on the west side of Warburton Avenue to both the north and the south, and the property will no longer stand out in a negative way due to its current height. The overall streetscape will become more consistent, buttressed by the complete interior and exterior renovation of the property. As the board is aware, the applicants proposed height increase is still below the permitted height within the zone of 35 feet. And in fact, the applicant could have asked for additional height beyond which is currently before the board and still be within the required height limitation, since the proposed height increase is to 33 feet 4 inches. This fact demonstrates that the applicant is sensitive to requests and associated impacts.

Relative to the lot size, front setback, and side setback conditions of the property, these are already existing, and these deficiencies will not be expanded or extended in connection with the proposed work. No increase to the footprint of the existing building structure is proposed. With respect to the rear deck variance and associated coverage issue, which is triggered by creation of the rear deck, as previously mentioned by the project architect the

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 45 -

rear deck to property line variance is generated by, and due to, competing code requirements that are being complied with as proposed, coupled with practical difficulties in impacts related to openings and room size. The addition of the deck is a desirable design element as opposed to alternatives, and is similar to rear decks existing at many of the properties in the immediate area, especially given the beautiful Hudson River and Palisades views. Given the location of the proposed deck in the rear of the property, the zoning deficiencies created by its addition are not noticeable ones, observable or otherwise visible to the public, and the area is unique to the property in terms of any impacts.

Based on the foregoing, we once again respectfully submit that the variance sought as part of this application, together with the associated extension of existing nonconformities, will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. On the contrary, they will enable the renovation and reconstruction of the structure that will provide a desirable housing opportunity, and be an improvement and benefit to the character of the neighborhood from that which currently exists.

Lastly, it's worth noting, and certainly relevant, that the Cleary consulting report dated January 21st, 2021, which I understand was commissioned by the Village in connection with site plan review of the property before the Planning Board, stated therein that, quote, "The majority of other buildings in the vicinity of the subject site are 2-1/2 or 3 stories in height, including both adjacent buildings. The proposed addition is not inconsistent with the character of the surrounding buildings." Again, a copy of this report was also submitted to the Zoning Board for its review.

Number 2) "Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than area variances." The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by any alternate, more feasible methods, other than the area variances and expansion. After analyzing feasible alternatives, discussions with design representatives over bulk and dimensional concerns – and in order for the applicant to maximum the use of the available property area for the intended purposes – the applicant could not configure or otherwise relocate or position the proposed improvements, dictated largely by the existing structure and property usage on all sides as well as the applicable building code requirements, topography, site conditions, and character of the neighborhood. The applicant explored design and layout possibilities in an attempt to achieve the desired result, while at the same time minimizing any adverse effects or impacts with respect to these considerations.

Number 3) "Whether the requested area variances are substantial." We respectfully submit that the requested area variances and expansion of the existing nonconformity under the

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 46 -

circumstances of this application are not substantial. Of the five variances, three of them are existing and will remain unchanged by the proposed work. The remaining two, namely the rear deck and associated coverage consideration, are numerically minor. The rear deck setback variance is 1 foot, where 6 is required and 5 to be provided. The coverage increase generated by the addition of the deck raises the nonconformity from an already existing nonconformity at 52.3 percent to the proposed 57 percent, which is an additional 4.7 percent from that which already exists. Should the board consider the variances to be substantial, the applicant respectfully submits that they are mitigated and outweighed under the circumstances of this application, in that the requested variances, due to their nature and location and associated impacts, if any – and as already explained to the board will go unnoticed to the general public, the community at large, and are consistent with the prevailing conditions in the immediate area – will have no adverse impact to the general public and neighborhood community.

4) "Whether the proposed variances will have an adverse effect or impact on environmental conditions in the neighborhood." The requested variances, due to their nature, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. A review of the adjacent properties and surrounding structures, and existing property conditions, reveals that there will be minimal impact to the surrounding areas and that the project will not adversely effect natural environmental characteristics such as water use, pollution, energy use, drainage, runoff and flooding, nor create any noise, light, odor, visual or other nuisance conditions.

5) "Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created." While it is possible that the applicant had actual constructive knowledge of the zoning law prior to the acquisition and proposed renovation and reconstruction of the property, as the board is well aware the self-created hardship rule is merely a consideration and does not necessarily bar the granting of the variances. Additionally, where the grant of the variance would only have a de minimis impact on the surrounding community, the self-created hardship factor may carry less weight. We respectfully submit that under the circumstances of this application, and given the nature and type of the area variances required and the proposed extension of the existing nonconformity, especially given the condition of the existing property and its associated characteristics, the benefits to the applicant and the community if the area variances are granted outweigh any detriment to the community.

We therefore request that the Zoning Board of Appeals approve this application.

Chairman Collins: All right. Last question from me before I'll invite my fellow boardmembers to speak up, one of the neighbors – and I think it's the neighbor directly to the

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 47 -

south – has commented on the impact the increased height would have on some of the units in her building, specifically as it relates to things like lighting and how much natural light gets in. She has positioned that as a detriment to a nearby property. And you, in your statement there, indicated you didn't see any detriment overall to the quality of the neighborhood or to the nearby property. How would you answer her?

Mr. Accinelli: I mean, Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully … I can certainly appreciate and understand input from the neighbors. And, you know, my clients certainly want to be and intend to be good neighbors. With respect to some of the issues that were raised, the northerly-facing wall of the adjacent property to the south contains nine windows, Mr. Chairman. And six of those windows, the lower six, are already … will be unaffected by the improvement to the property as proposed. The three windows at the top, towards the top, will be partially impacted as it relates to the proposed height increase, however I would submit that the window closest to the Hudson River is past the point of the building and will not be impacted.

It's also worth noting that the building to the south actually casts shadows on the subject property. This is not a situation where the increase in the height is going to cast shadows on the property of the neighbor who's in opposition to the project. So we're not creating a light or shadow impact under the circumstances due to the relative location of the building structure to the south of the subject property. In addition, it's also worth noting, Mr. Chairman, that of the nine buildings …

Chairman Collins: And windows.

Mr. Accinelli: … and windows – I'm sorry, of the nine windows. It is February, and six of them have, through the window, air conditionings (ph) that are still in the windows. So I would submit to the board that, you know, if the neighbor was truly interested in perhaps increasing some of the light, the tenants of the building should also consider removing the windows … the air conditioning units that are in the windows year round.

Chairman Collins: Okay. I don't have any other questions at this time, but I appreciate the presentation.

Mr. Accinelli: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Collins: You've given me some good things to think about. Jerry, how about you? You have any questions? You're muted.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 48 -

Boardmember Quinlan: I was just looking at the letter. I want to pull up the plans again for one second. I have a few questions. Let me just go back to where we are here. Let's go here, okay. So I have some questions of Mr. Crocco. I think he'll be able to answer these better, but now I can try them with anybody. I would like to, first – I'm just, my computer – get the plans up here. I got you on the phone Zoom and I got the plan on my desktop here. I was just looking at Mr. Accinelli's letter from the e-mail. Give me a minute, it's coming up.

Chairman Collins: Yes, take your time.

Boardmember Quinlan: So it's not up yet, but I'm interested in … let's start with ZA-1. Here it comes. Let's take a look at that. Here it is, ZA-1. So my biggest concern is the third floor. We're taking a look here at the floors; first, second and third. First of all, my question to Mr. Crocco is, on the third floor, running east to west, how many feet from east to west, is the length of the third floor? How many feet is that? And also the next question is the width from north to south. So we're talking about length and width of the third floor.

Joseph R. Crocco, project architect: The width of the building, or the width …

Boardmember Quinlan: Width of the building, of the third floor. Just talking about the third floor as it's pictured right there.

Mr. J. Crocco: Okay, the overall width of the building is 20 feet and the length of the building I believe is 42 feet. But the third floor is a half-a-story. So the area, the developed area, is 50 percent of the floor below.

Boardmember Quinlan: Okay, so just taking a look at this picture here, the cross-checked are the expansion of the nonconformity. Is that correct?

Mr. J. Crocco: Yes.

Boardmember Quinlan: You know, I'm just taking a common sense view of that. It would look to me like the extension of the nonconformity on the third floor, half-floor, is probably as much or more as the existing nonconformity. That it would be allowed by the zoning in the zone.

Mr. J. Crocco: The buildable area …

Boardmember Quinlan: I'm not talking about buildable area. I'm talking about the cross- check to the white. The white I understand you could build by right.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 49 -

Mr. J. Crocco: Yes.

Boardmember Quinlan: The extension nonconformity is all across. To me, that looks like there's more extension to the nonconformity than the amount of building you could do as-of- right. Would you agree?

Mr. J. Crocco: Not necessarily. The cross-hatched area is unusable attic. It's shown as part of the third floor, but it's not usable space. It's 3 feet high.

Boardmember Quinlan: But that's not going to make any difference to the neighbors whether it's an attic or whether it's a bedroom. It's going to be bulk of the building. So you need the attic, I assume, or you wouldn't be building it.

Mr. J. Crocco: The developed attic allows us to create the half-a-story and give us conforming height for habitable area.

Boardmember Quinlan: Okay, so that's right. So you need it. So it seems to me that the extension of the nonconformity on that half-story is as much or more as the amount you're allowed.

My second question is, what is the total square foot of the third floor as planned? That includes the livable place, the attic and everything else. What is the total square footage?

Mr. J. Crocco: Chris, do you have that number?

Chris Crocco, project manager: Yeah, but the third floor livable or the entire?

Boardmember Quinlan: The entire, everything you need for the building.

Mr. C. Crocco: (Inaudible).

Mr. Accinelli: What was that, Chris?

Mr. C. Crocco: 935 square feet.

Boardmember Quinlan: And the total nonconformity – the total extension of the nonconformity area – is how many feet?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 50 -

Mr. C. Crocco: I'm sorry, say that again? The total area …

Boardmember Quinlan: You see all the cross-check, the extension of the nonconformity, which is what will happen. How many feet is that? Let's just go back. It's 900 and what feet total?

Andrew Korb, applicant: 935.

Boardmember Quinlan: That's close enough. Okay, so what is the total of the nonconforming area that's an extension in that half-floor, full-floor, whatever you want to call it? I have it as over 700 feet.

Mr. Korb: How, how?

Boardmember Quinlan: No, you tell me. All that cross-check.

Mr. J. Crocco: The white area is 9 feet wide. What's the length of it, Chris? I can't tell from my drawings.

Mr. C. Crocco: Hold on, I'll give you a full measurement. Hold on.

Boardmember Quinlan: You have the answer, I don't. You know, I'm not an architect so you tell me. The cross-checked, you have the cross-checked in that picture there.

Mr. C. Crocco: And you said it was 700?

Boardmember Quinlan: No, I don't know what it is. You tell me.

Mr. C. Crocco: All right, 530.

Boardmember Quinlan: Okay.

Mr. J. Crocco: Chris, can we put up the latest drawings that show the section?

Boardmember Quinlan: No, not right now. You can put up anything you want when I'm finished with this. I'm not quite finished yet, but thank you. So the 935 feet, or 530, are an extension of the nonconformity. So that's more than half, or more than 100 percent exactly, of what you could do. So my point is, and one thing that Mr. Accinelli didn't talk about, section 295-55A. And I'll just read it very quickly. "No lot, building or structure that is

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 51 -

lawfully nonconforming with respect to any area requirement including, without limitation, height, minimum yard size, or minimum yard per family, 'shall' …" – that's important, that word "… be enlarged or altered in such a manner as to increase the nonconformity or so as to substantially enlarge or increase the habitable or other useful area of a nonconformity including, without limitation, the alteration of a roof or floor levels or the addition of habitable or other useful areas above or below, or lawfully nonconforming, building or structure."

So "shall" is an interesting … because also – as counted up by the other attorney for the neighbors – in Hastings' code section 395(E)4 "shall" is a mandatory and not discriminatory, not a discretionary, word. And that's in the zoning code also. So what I'm thinking is that that type of expansion of an existing nonconformity is certainly substantial, which makes factor 3 a problem for your application. I see that as a substantial variance.

The deck on the second floor is also a problem for me because that would not allow, I mean, any privacy for either the neighbors or the proponents themselves if they decided to live there, or whoever they rent it or sell it to. The side yards are so small – one is, I think, about 2 feet 6 inches to the south, and to the north 1 foot 4 inches – that even the quietest gathering of people would be a noise nuisance. With more than half of the deck nonconforming to side yard, I think that also would be a factor of number 1: a detriment to the neighbors. And also number 3 is substantial. The building you're renovating was built in 1920 as a two-story framed building. I believe it can easily be renovated and upgraded as a two-story building and a benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved without any area variance at all, which would be covering number 2 of the area requirement factors.

Last but not least, the last difficulty was self-created. The applicants bought it, they knew it. They should have known they're going to need numerous variances before buying the property. Even though that's not determinative, it does come in to our determinations about whether these variances should be granted, all five. And if you believe the extension of the nonconformity is substantial we have a problem with precedent in the neighborhood. It would be very difficult for me to refuse any large extension of nonconformity if this variance is granted because people could say, Well, look what happened on 447, we granted them an extremely large, substantial extension of the nonconformity.

So I'd like to hear some arguments about why that is not a substantial expansion of the existing nonconformity. I get it. I have to say I do get it that it's within the character of the neighborhood. But as a member of the Zoning Board I have to look at the laws and apply them as written. And I just don't see any way – personally, and as a member – that I can get any way to approve most of the variances you're requesting. That's all for now.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 52 -

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you Jerry. Ray, how about you?

Boardmember Dovell: I have a question, a building code question first of all, before I get to the zoning issues. The side elevations, the north and south elevations, are unfenestrated and I assume that is for lot line separation, fire protection. Is that correct?

Mr. J. Crocco: Yeah, that's correct. In order to have an unprotected opening relative to a property line you have to be a minimum of 3 feet from the property line, and you're only allowed 15 percent of operable opening in that wall area.

Boardmember Dovell: Beyond, or greater than, 3 feet.

Mr. J. Crocco: Yes. The percentage of fenestration goes up as you get further from the property line. Less than 3 feet is zero unprotected. Technically you could put in fire shutters, but that's not practical.

Boardmember Dovell: Right. And what about the existing building north and south? How far are they off the lot lines?

Mr. J. Crocco: I think on one side we're 2-1/2 feet and probably similar on the other side of our building.

Mr. Accinelli: Three feet and 1-1/2 feet; 3 feet on the south side, 1-1/2 feet on the north side.

Mr. J. Crocco: Yeah.

Boardmember Dovell: So it is, in fact, 3 feet on the south side or on the north side?

Mr. Accinelli: The south side.

Mr. J. Crocco: South side.

Boardmember Dovell: South side it's 3 feet. So those windows on the adjacent building area all legal windows. From a code perspective they're legal windows.

Attorney Whitehead: Ray, can I just clarify? Were you asking how far this building is from the property line, or how far the existing, the adjacent, buildings are?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 53 -

Boardmember Dovell: I'm asking for both buildings. The subject building and the building to the south.

Mr. J. Crocco: The building's a little bit on a skew on our south side. The closest is 2 foot 6, and on the north side it's more like a foot.

Mr. Accinelli: 1.4.

Mr. J. Crocco: Yeah, 1.4. I can see it now.

Boardmember Dovell: Right. And for the building, on the south side it's 3 feet in general along that lot line.

Mr. J. Crocco: Yes.

Boardmember Dovell: Okay, that answers it. So those windows are all code-compliant windows in the existing adjacent building to your building. Okay, that answers the question. No? Hello.

Mr. C. Crocco: Sorry, that was me. I was speaking to somebody else. I apologize.

Boardmember Dovell: Okay, I want to first address the overall MR-0 district. There are a lot of lots that don't comply, and I think you've done a nice job of pointing that out. They don't comply, the lots themselves don't comply, because they're undersized. That's a problem that exists uniformly. There are lots that are 25 feet wide, a handful or more than a handful that are 25 feet wide, that are fully built. The zoning would only permit, I think, an 8-foot or a 9-foot wide building, as you pointed out. So there's an issue with the smaller, narrower lots in the district. There's also the number of dwelling units that are permitted. It seems to me that for a two-family dwelling you need 5,000 square feet. But if you look at the number of units we're seeing, that you've illustrated, there are considerably more.

You know, you're looking at lots of roughly 5,000 square feet with nine units in them, if I'm reading your chart correctly. There is a substantial degree of noncompliant buildings in this district. And, in fact, that kind of is the character of this district. These buildings are, as you point out, on the west side of the street are narrow, they're very close together, and they contain a number of dwelling units. That is kind of the character of this area. So to look at the first aspect of this that we're looking at here, whether the variance created undesirable change in the character I would have to say it does not. That's what's being proposed, in fact,

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 54 -

is in character with the neighborhood and would not create the detriment. That it is in fact filling in kind of a broken tooth on the streetscape that I think is in character. From that point of view it's an improvement.

Regarding whether the benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, or other area variances, I don't know how you could possibly build an as-of-right project in here. Now this is an existing building so it's a slightly different issue, but to add to it – an 8-foot wide room at the top – is a pretty tough. Programmatically it's pretty tough. So I think it would be hard to achieve what the applicant's looking for in another manner. Whether these requested variances are substantial, yes, they are certainly substantial – numerically they're certainly substantial – and that's a troubling aspect of this, that they are. It's a large ask in terms of a percentage. But I have to go back and look at the character of this district to really understand that.

While it's troubling, I have to look at this, the substantial variance, in connection with neighborhood character. And that's where I think there is an argument to say that yes, it is substantial but it is in character. Whether the proposed variances will have an adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood, I think it will certainly have a negative effect on the neighbors to the north and south. But to the overall neighborhood I think it will not be a detriment.

Then finally, whether it was self-created. Well yes, I think it was. I think that's a very hard one to get around that the zoning was known and what you're asking for is, in fact, a large variance. And that it generally was self-created by the particular asks. So at this point I'm comfortable with this on the neighborhood character, I'm comfortable with this on the degree of the variance, but I'm less comfortable with the local and what it's going to create there. By "local" I mean to the north and to the south.

Mr. J. Crocco: We can address that. We developed a further study involving the neighbor's building to the south. The north, I don't think there's any effect because they don't have any windows facing us. So I don't think they're affected at all. But if you see the drawing we just put up on the screen, the first picture is a graphic representation of 445. The next drawing is a representation of 445, with 447 as it exists superimposed on the elevation. (Go to the next drawing, next drawing). This, again, is the existing building. The next drawing the cursor is on is showing the new roofline superimposed on the adjacent building. Yes, we affect two windows. Two of the windows have air conditioners in them, as already stated.

But if we go to the action view of this, you can see that in the graphic section that the actual effect is far greater than it looks in elevation because the neighbor's windows on their third

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 55 -

floor are much higher than our windows. We have a sloping roof that slopes away from the neighbors. And the dormer is only going to create headroom over the stair, and that steps back another 2 or 3 feet from our existing wall line. So we've tried to mitigate the effect on the neighbor when we initially studied this. I think this helps our case that we're really not imposing as much of a hardship on them as it may seem initially.

Boardmember Dovell: Have you explored other configurations of that upper floor to perhaps give some more relief between the two buildings? Because as you pointed out, you're 2-1/2 stories so the uppermost story is 50 percent of the story below. Is there a way to rethink that roof to further mitigate the proximity between the two?

Mr. J. Crocco: Yeah, I have thought about it. I haven't put pencil to paper, but if we went to the proper setback line and just built a vertical wall and put a flat roof over the existing, and then put some kind of roof over what we've created as a half-a-story, it certainly would not have any aesthetic value to it. It would just be a pure form-follows-function design which, in this case, is not the right answer for this area.

Boardmember Dovell: But perhaps there's a modified roof shape you could look at that might address the issue. Not just a straight wall, but some modified roof shape at that point. I don't think you've exhausted the possibilities here of some relief for a legitimate concern.

Mr. J. Crocco: Certainly there's another way. There's always more than one way to do something. Is it the right way? We can certainly take a look at it and see if we can make it any better.

Boardmember Dovell: I have nothing more, Matt.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thanks Ray. David, how about you?

Boardmember Chen: You know, I don't really have too many additional comments. I pretty much would echo, almost to a T, what Ray said. I just had one question about sort of the internal structure. I just want to have a better understanding. That top floor – or I guess half-a-story, I just want to make sure I understand it – is an attic space for the second floor apartment? Is that right?

Mr. J. Crocco: Not following the question.

Boardmember Chen: Let me back up. The intent here is to have a two-family building, right? And that two-family building consists of 2-1/2 stories. So there's a first floor, right?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 56 -

And then a second floor. I'm still not quite sure. I mean, I see all the schematics and the distances and everything like that. But from an apartment rental perspective, what does this look like here? You've got one rental unit on the main floor, right? And then the second one above that. And then this half-story that's above that is just all attic space?

Mr. C. Crocco: No. On the first floor you have one apartment. On the second and third floor, that is the second apartment. On the second floor you have one bedroom and living space, and on the third floor you have just two bedrooms and a bathroom to make it …

Boardmember Chen: I see, okay. That's where I was getting confused because it keeps being talked about, the 2-1/2 stories. I wasn't quite sure how the half-story fit into it. I understand now. So it's really three, just squeezed into a 2-1/2 story frame.

Mr. C. Crocco: Correct.

Boardmember Chen: All right, thank you.

Mr. J. Crocco: Not a three-family, a two-family.

Mr. C. Crocco: Not a three-family, it's a two-family. Our requirement is two floors.

Boardmember Chen: Got it.

Mr. C. Crocco: Well, 1-1/2 floors.

Boardmember Chen: All right, thank you.

Chairman Collins: Okay. Jo?

Boardmember Berritt: Yes, I just wanted to go back over a couple of things that were brought up last time. I think I'm right in saying that in the Planning Board – and then again last week Jim Metzger also brought up a question of the deck – I understand there's a big slider you want to put in, but whether there was a different configuration that would reduce that particular issue. I wondered if that was something, after the meetings, that you had looked at: a way of reconfiguring that so it wasn't an issue. Or is it something …

Mr. J. Crocco: No, we haven't developed any other scheme for the deck. There's always a possibility, but it's a 1-foot variance. If that's a make or break we can certainly find a way to change it.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 57 -

Boardmember Berritt: Okay. The bedrooms, I was trying to look on the plan. Can you just list the size of the bedrooms? I've got a 13.10 by 14.4, a 10.6 by 17.9, and a 14.4 by 10.6. Is that right?

Mr. C. Crocco: What floor are you on?

Boardmember Berritt: The three bedrooms for the second and third floors.

Mr. J. Crocco: Second and third floors? For bedroom one you have 14.4 by 13.10.

Boardmember Berritt: Okay.

Mr. C. Crocco: For bedroom two you have 10.6 by 17.9, or actually make that 15.9 because you've got the closet over here. And it's basically the same on the other side.

Mr. J. Crocco: It's smaller.

Boardmember Berritt: 10.6, right? I mean, I would tend to agree in terms of the character of the neighborhood and the overall sort of presentation, the design you've put forward. I think it is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood, this sort of handsome design you've put forward. I would agree with my fellow boardmembers in terms of whether it's the deck. Or rather I think at the last meeting we brought up the roof and whether there was a different configuration that would try and ease some of the issues that have been raised by the neighbors to make sure whether it's a different style of roof. And I appreciate what you're saying that that will alter the look of the property, and whether there's a way to reduce the variances you're requesting so they're less substantial.

The light for the property, I understand from the last meeting also that the neighbor to the north, we asked them to present, or take photographs, from their windows. But I don't think we received anything that indicated that. And I think the property owners on the south did talk about the reason for the air conditioners with the heating challenges they have in that building. There's a number of different things going on here, but I think it would be worth looking, as Ray suggested and was brought up last time, just whether there's a way to reduce any of the impact – whether it's the deck, whether it's the roof shape – I think would be worth doing.

Chairman Collins: Jo, thank you. Let me close the loop perhaps on the board's comments, and then we'll open it up to anyone in the public who wishes to be heard. I'm going to give

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 58 -

my analysis, too, relative to the five factors.

But before I do that, the third-floor analysis. I want to take it, and I'd like to understand what portion of the livable square footage would require intruding into nonconforming space versus how much of it would be conforming. So not the entire footprint of the third floor, but just the … so in other words we're taking out stuff that would be underneath eaves and really just focusing on the proper square footage of the inside of the floor. Does that make sense?

Mr. C. Crocco: I'm sorry, what are you asking?

Chairman Collins: That's okay. For the third floor, tell me how much of the livable square footage of the third floor is as-of-right versus that which would need to be built in a nonconforming manner.

Mr. C. Crocco: So the amount that is conforming we are using is about 296 square feet, and the amount that I guess is nonconforming …

Chairman Collins: Yes.

Mr. C. Crocco: … but in the livable area, is 103 feet.

Chairman Collins: 103 square feet.

Mr. C. Crocco: Yeah.

Chairman Collins: So the applicant really needs 103 square feet in variance relief if we think about it that way, because it otherwise stand to be built in a nonconforming space. I consider that to be modest in the grand scheme of things. So as I go through my logic of the five factors I think, overall, this design as presented makes a compelling case for improving the character of the neighborhood. Relative to the status quo where you have an empty building that looks out of place relative to the existing architecture of the neighborhood, this is, I think, without question an upgrade. There is some question about possible negative impact to a few of the units to the south, but I also feel confident that we can continue to improve upon that impact or lessen the impact with perhaps another cut. But I found the applicant's presentation of sort of the slope of the roof relative to 445 and the amount of light that will actually be actually be able to get through to be pretty compelling and thoughtfully done. So overall I feel very comfortable with their standing relative to the first factor.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 59 -

The second factor is whether the benefit sought by the applicant could be achieved by some other method. I think the answer is no, and I go back to Ray's reasoning on this. I just think given their space constraints, and if they weren't to add on a half-story, this would be awfully tough to achieve for them. So I think they're acting within reason and in a way that is perhaps the only method with which they can achieve the outcome they want. Whether the area variances are substantial, I submit that's a product, as the applicant has demonstrated, of the neighborhood. That these are uniquely dense neighborhoods where homes are built for density. You can see that to the north and to the south. This homeowner, or this property owner, is seeking to develop a property in a way that would be absolutely in keeping with that.

So numerically, yes, they are substantial. But in terms of the character and how it fits into the character – the very unique character and the density in this part of the Village, which I think we want – I actually don't consider them to be substantial as it relates to the actual character and the numbers that are pervasive throughout this part of the neighborhood. I don't believe this will have any negative environmental conditions in the net. I actually think it will improve, again relative to a vacant building right now, an unused and dilapidated structure. I do believe this difficulty is self-created, but that to me is not … that doesn't outweigh my comfort as it is on the other four factors.

That's how I break it down, but I appreciate the thoughtful input. And I would also welcome another slice at this that looks at ways to further diminish the impact from the half-story on top and its impact on the dwelling spaces in the units to the south. That, I think, would be useful to have you take another look at and perhaps to look at ways to minimize the impact of the proposed rear deck. But overall I think that in the net this project is heading in a direction that makes me feel good about what this will ultimately do for the quality of that part of the Village.

Mr. Accinelli: Mr. Chairman, with your permission may I have a brief opportunity to just respond to a few of the items that have been brought up? With your permission?

Chairman Collins: Yes, please go ahead.

Mr. Accinelli: So just a couple of points that I would like to make for the benefit of the record, for the board, and for the public – couple of things. Relative to a concern about setting precedent, zoning and variances are not precedent-setting. Real estate is one of those things where each piece is considered very unique. And I don't think the board has a concern, or should have a concern, over setting a precedent with respect to the granting of this application. This is, I think as we've discussed here and as I've outlined in my

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 60 -

presentation, a truly unique situation whereby the proposed work is going to in fact be an improvement and render the structure a more consistent condition with the streetscape and the character of the neighborhood.

You know, the standard the Zoning Board has to keep in mind is that it's a balancing test in light of the five factors. And the test is not whether or not there is any impact on a particular apartment or a particular house. It's a totality, it's a balancing test. I think under the facts, the circumstances, of this particular application I feel we've satisfied the burden. Again, we understand what the code says, which is precisely why we are before this board asking for relief.

As it relates to noise and use of the backyard and whether a deck is a good thing or a bad thing, the applicant has made a decision for purposes I think make sense for the tenant of that building to have an outdoor deck area that's appropriate for its use. And whether or not some people agree or disagree, I don't think that's a relevant factor for the board to be considering.

As it relates to noise and disturbing neighbors and the like, the Village has an enforcement mechanism for that. There are code enforcement officers, there are noise ordinances, there are procedures and tools in place that are outside the jurisdiction of the Zoning Board to address any of those issues should they come up in the future as it relates to the use and occupancy of the property.

I don't have anything further to add, Mr. Chairman. I did however want to just make a few of those additional comments for the record and for the board's consideration.

Chairman Collins: Thank you, Mr. Accinelli. I appreciate that, and I also want to reiterate that zoning boards of appeals exists for this very reason. To provide a relief valve from the strict language of zoning codes. So our code will be rife with language that says "shall" or "shall not," but zoning boards exist for the very purposes of being able to provide relief from some of that language. That's spelled out in the basis for why zoning boards exist in the first place.

Why don't we see if members of the public wish to be heard on this. They've been very patiently waiting. If any members of the public wish to be heard, go ahead and use the … okay, I see Ms. Goodman. Can we let Ms. Goodman in? Okay, Ms. Goodman, you're on.

Danielle Goodman, 445 Warburton: Hello, good evening. My Internet is fading …

Chairman Collins: Oh dear.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 61 -

Ms. Goodman: … and I am likewise, so I'll try to keep my wits about me. But Honorable Zoning Board of Appeals, thank you again for permitting me to speak to you about my concerns and those of my husband Robert. Honestly, I wish I had no objections, but 447 is a problem child, and the world of pain you see outside was also experienced from the inside. No one more than my husband and I want to see this property rehabilitated. And in case I didn't make that point before, I make it to you now. However when so many variances are being requested, as is the case here, it's respectfully submitted that the ability to ameliorate the detrimental impacts becomes more difficult, and the detrimental impacts need to be viewed in your totality.

You see, I do believe in a totality of circumstances. And here, for example, when we look at lot coverage and speak about other neighborhoods in the Village and we talk about decks, there's multiple discussions about greenery and setbacks and the ability to plant. None of that exists here – none. So I beg you to please consider the totality of all the variances. You grant variances, I think, one by one, not en masse. So I beg you to keep sight of that.

On the issue of precedence, let me tell you that this matter invokes many of the policy considerations relevant to setbacks: the preservation of air, light and view; sufficient space to perform maintenance; privacy; noise abatement; safety and security; adequate space for snow removal and drainage. A walking tour of this neighborhood clearly demonstrates the product of these previously allowed, nonconforming setbacks, or in some cases the lack of any setback at all. Two stories are squished into three stories. One story is squished into three stories. Three stories can be squished into three stories. In some instances you can't even put a knife blade in between the properties. And what you have resulting here – the precedent in this neighborhood – is the lack of ability to maintain properties that aren't being maintained; the creation of numerous dark alleys, nooks and crannies.

So I beg of you, what was acceptable in 1908 when my house was built, and 1920 when 447 was built, should not be our guiding light in 2021. Please don't continue this pattern. This "character" you speak of, when you look between the buildings there's rot because we can't maintain them. And we are struggling, Robert and I, to maintain our building. We're going to improve it. There's been some mention, multiple mentions, of my windows. And I've held my tongue. But if you look at my prior submission where I labeled my windows, I don't know if you will permit me to share a document. If you won't, I'll just refer you back to my depiction on page nine where I labeled my windows. Windows one, two and three …

Chairman Collins: You can share them. If you'd like to share them we can have our applicant stop sharing if you prefer, that's fine. It's up to you.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 62 -

Ms. Goodman: I don't see where I can share a document here.

Chairman Collins: If you're on a computer it should be at the very bottom.

Ms. Goodman: No, I have the "hand," the "mute." I don't think I have …

Chairman Collins: We lost her. Let's wait for her to come back. Ms. Goodman, you're back but you're muted. Ah, there we go.

Ms. Goodman: Can you hear me?

Chairman Collins: Yes.

Ms. Goodman: Now I have to find it.

Chairman Collins: I suppose it's conceivable that the way the Village Zoom is set up you may not be able to share unless …

Attorney Whitehead: She can now. Raf added her as a panelist, so she should be able to share now.

Chairman Collins: Okay, so you should see a green "share" icon at the very bottom of your window, a share-screen.

Ms. Goodman: Yeah, except the document I need isn't there. I don't want to waste your time.

Chairman Collins: Okay.

Ms. Goodman: In my exhibit where I labeled all my windows one through nine, window number two – which the applicant did have up on the screen – there's an air conditioner in there. And this goes to my point on maintenance. That particular window is broken. I had a repair person come, but the former owner of 447 refused to let me put a ladder on his property. So that one air conditioner is there by virtue of the fact of having a broken window, which is going to be replaced by the way. It'll be taken care of. And that's a petty point, but I keep hearing about my air conditioners.

What zoning can't do is, it can't zone in cooperation between property owners. I intend to be

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 63 -

cooperative, and I am cooperative. Down the hill from me I have a garage that's right up close to a three-story building. They needed to re-side and repaint that building. I gave them permission to put all the ladders they needed on my property, including on my garage roof. But that's what goes on here, and you know none of these stories will you ever hear because you're not going to hear them unless you're told. So the character of the neighborhood is a maintenance problem, and the lack of setbacks has contributed to that.

On to my next point, and forgive me for taking up too much of your time but this is the only shot I have. At this late date, my husband and I have yet to be provided with timely drawings or overlay which demonstrate the precise relationship of the building proposed at 447 to our home. I again ask the question is it not customary to request the applicant to provide a basic building elevation drawing depicting its relationship and impact on adjacent buildings? I keep hearing about verbal descriptions. At the last meeting I understood the applicant to admit that our second floor windows would be entirely covered by the higher proposed south wall. So in my prior submission I took pictures out of those windows and there is plenty of light on the second floor still coming through.

My concern is not only the third floor, but is very much the second floor. And if you look at my first submission to the Zoning Board I took pictures – or my tenant took pictures – out of the second floor windows. Shouldn't we, at this juncture, ask for a better overlay and description of what's going to happen to the north side of my building? I ask that these overlays be considered by you prior to making any decision on this matter. Also I submitted to you this time an explanation regarding our window air conditioning units. I state: "The air conditioning units permit at least a 70 percent view through the upper portions of the windows." So they don't completely block the windows, and I don't think they're relevant to the point of light coming through the windows. Air conditioners these days are built to permit a view.

Just quickly, on to the number crunching. I did, this afternoon, have a chance to look at the summary provided, and I questioned more than one ask of the calculations. The west Warburton properties were tabulated as being 25 because they subtracted the vacant lots. The east Warburton properties were tabulated as 12, but they included … they failed to subtract one vacant lot and the two properties that are not questionably in the MR-0 zone. Therefore the properties with structures should total 36, or maybe 34. Why does that make a difference? It does make a difference when you're doing the calculations and percentages of impact on the neighborhood. And I'm happy to send you my own number crunching and data crunching. But here's my point. If you look at the front yard setbacks, why do I care about the front yard setback? I care because the front wall holds up a roof that's going to severely impinge on my three stories worth of bay windows.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 64 -

If you look at what their numbers say – and what they don't say, what they didn't lay out – 30.5 percent of the properties in this neighborhood have zero setback. That's using the number 11 for the zero-setback properties and the number 36 for the total properties. So 8.3 percent of the properties have setbacks at 1 to 1.5 stories; three out of 36 properties. Therefore 61.2 percent where the majority of properties have some type of front yard setback – and an overwhelming majority if you add the 8.3 to the 61.2 – 69.5 percent have some front yard setback. Why is that important? The streetscape we're all focused on, most of the buildings are in line with the others and they're not overshadowing or impinging each other. The roof and walls of the front yard setback for 447 are the exception, not the rule.

If you look at the recent renovation of 400 Warburton, which could be instructive – the old Vitamin Factory which was renovated to three-story condo units – the building's second and third floors were set back. Lot coverage: when you look at 447 and you actually compare it to the nearby two-families – because we're going to talk about a two-family precedent here – the lot coverage at 441 Warburton is 39 percent; 427 Warburton the lot coverage is stated to be 18 percent. Now 447 currently is 52.3 percent, with proposal for 57. So I say it's out of line for the two-families. Nonconforming properties: lot coverage for all the properties, not just the two-families, there are 36.1 percent nonconforming properties; conforming properties are 58.3 percent. So again the majority of properties in this district conform to lot coverage requirements. Although there's a lot of nonconformity in this neighborhood, there's plenty of conformity.

Thank you, and I'll send you these numbers.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you Ms. Goodman. I was taking some notes off to the side and I think it would be helpful to this board to see if it's possible to do like a SketchUp of what 447 would look like from the second and third floor windows on 445 that face to the north. You can see from some of those pictures the framing that's been done to the front, but I wonder if it's possible, Joe, to do a SketchUp there so you could start to see, especially as you presented it, some of the angles to that roof. I think that would be interesting to seem through kind of a mockup or illustration, what that impact might look like. Is that possible?

Mr. J. Crocco: I'm not following what you are asking.

Chairman Collins: Ms. Goodman presented a view from second and third floor windows of her property at 445 on north-facing windows, facing north. Yes, that picture right there. So what we can see from the picture is the framing you've done facing the street, and I'm wondering is it possible for you to take that as a basis and do a SketchUp modeling on top of

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 65 -

it to show what that design would look like from the perspective of the windows from the second and third story windows at 445.

Mr. J. Crocco: On an angle?

Chairman Collins: I'm talking about adding … and maybe, Ray, you can help me out here if you're following me. I'm just wondering is it … we have seen before with projects similar to this, when there's some proposed impact on a view and there's some disagreement about the nature of that impact, the applicant will, instead of just relying on framing will actually go to software to illustrate what that impact would be by using … and often times I know they use SketchUp as the tool to do that.

Mr. J. Crocco: So yeah, you want a rendering from that angle.

Chairman Collins: Yes, that's what I'm wondering. Is that possible?

Mr. J. Crocco: Yeah, that's possible. This picture is taken from a deck, though. This is not taken from a window.

Chairman Collins: If Ms. Goodman would provide access – or I should say her tenants would provide access – to get an accurate photo for the purposes of a rendering I do think that would be valuable. And you may want to consider that rendering through the lens of both the as-proposed roof as well as any adaptations you might make to the roof in keeping with some of the comments Ray offered.

Mr. J. Crocco: Okay.

Chairman Collins: Did I summarize that well, you think?

Boardmember Dovell: I think you did, Matt. I think a SketchUp model where you can … you know, a SketchUp model can be rotated in many different ways for many different snapshots, so to speak. So I think that two have been identified, the one that we're looking at right now and the one from the back terrace. Perhaps there's a third from approximately the location of an upper window. But I think with that you'll be able to evaluate the impact more directly.

Mr. Accinelli: Hey Joe … I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. If I may question my architect, Joe in order to do what the board is requesting do you need to get access to these apartments? And if so, perhaps we can … you know, we have Ms. Goodman on the meeting, so to speak. Will

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 66 -

you need to get into the apartments, Joe, Chris to do this?

Mr. C. Crocco: Yeah, we need quality for this.

Mr. J. Crocco: Can we do it from Google Earth?

Mr. C. Crocco: No, there won't be high enough resolution.

Mr. J. Crocco: All right.

Mr. Accinelli: So Mr. Chairman, can we get Ms. Goodman's cooperation to assist in providing access in a timely manner so we can get in there and do the study as requested by the board? I'm just concerned, you know, with Covid and people's concerns and things of that nature. You know, we don't want to be in a situation where we're kind of held at bay because of tenant concerns given the pandemic, things like that.

Chairman Collins: Well, Ms. Goodman's on the line, she's unmuted. I'll let her speak to this, so go ahead if you wouldn't mind answering the question.

Ms. Goodman: Well, my third floor tenants are pregnant and I don't even go into their apartment. The baby is due early April.

Chairman Collins: So that's probably a no.

Ms. Goodman: So that's going to be problematic, but I'll see if I can work something out with them.

Chairman Collins: Okay.

Ms. Goodman: And I would have to say people that come – I'll say people that I've seen walking around 447 – have been unmasked outside. So they have to be double-masked, you know, gloved and shoe covers to come in. The second floor tenant I think I can get more access to more quickly. I will secure cooperation, but I need an agreement that people are going to be double-masked. There's a new variant. And don't think I'm paranoid about this stuff, but I work for the Department of Health as a Covid monitor so I'm acutely aware of the new variant and I'm very concerned about it.

Chairman Collins: That's fair, Ms. Goodman. I would just ask why don't you go ahead and take it off-line or have your attorney take it off-line with Mr. Accinelli and you can agree

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 67 -

on it …

Ms. Goodman: Okay.

Chairman Collins: … and at least try to sketch out the parameters for what would be reasonable. Thank you.

Mr. Metzger, you've got your hand raised.

Mr. Metzger: Good evening. I've been drinking a little coffee while this is going on. So I'm still awake and I ask you to bear with me, I have quite a number of notes. Mr. Accinelli was questioning whether we actually set precedent when we allow variances. And he said we don’t, that each project is looked at on its own merits. But the reality is this entire meeting is based upon the precedence of nonconformance and how much nonconformance will you allow here. So the answer is, every time you allow a nonconformance it gets used by the next client to say, You allowed that, I want you to allow me to do that. So there would be nothing to prevent anybody along the block to say, I want to build out to the street line on my front property line, you allowed it here. So let's make sure we know what we're talking about when we talk about setting precedent.

I think Mr. Quinlan was right on point when he said this could set a very dangerous precedent. In this neighborhood I've been looking at projects going on here for 20 years, and everybody wants to push the envelope. I understand, I'm an architect. They ask me to push the envelope for them. We have to set some boundaries that say this is going to lead to a disastrous process down the line. So I ask you to consider that. I'm now going to ask you – I'm going to say right now what I'm saying is little bit facetious and I hope you take it with the fact that I understand it that way – we keep talking about the character of the neighborhood and that this project is keeping with the character of the neighborhood: got a sloped roof on it, it's got some nice windows. I said at the last meeting I thought it was actually a handsome project.

The question is keeping with the character of the neighborhood. So let's look at what would happen if we took this building – and again, I am being facetious – and dropped it in the middle of Warburton Avenue. Of course it wouldn't be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. I am saying that allowing this project to be built out to the streetline, to the front property line and going up to 34-1/2 feet or whatever it is, is nowhere near in keeping with the character of this neighborhood. And in fact there isn't a single photograph taken showing what this building would look like if you were walking north on Warburton from, say, three (background noise) up from Ms. Goodman's house. You would see a 20-foot high

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 68 -

white wall and then you'd see a 10-foot high tile roof. It would be featureless, it would be a monolith, it would be really ugly. I'd like to see that photograph. No one's showing that to us.

When you look at it straight on you don't get a sense of how overwhelming this building will be. And just seeing that wood framing from the front doesn't tell you anything. I think when the chairman asked to do the modeling of the roof from various angles that'd be a lot more informative on how overbearing the size of this building will be. As a very minor point, I took a look at some of the square footages and numbers the applicant put together. In fact, my property at 427 is not 5,000 square foot; it's about 6,000 square feet. I'm happy to say I actually go back down to the paper street on Ridge. But my building is not the size they say and, in fact, I don't occupy 18 percent of my property. I have a two-family house that occupies 13.6 percent of my property. So there are smaller two-family homes here. Let's use that as a precedent instead of the bigger houses so we keep the scale of the neighborhood somewhat manageable.

Going down, the 10-foot setback on what is now code in this neighborhood: zoning code is a 10-foot setback so I understand we're grandfathering in an existing building. We all agree the building that's there is awful. That's not to be used to put in a building that's only slightly less awful. We should use this opportunity to do a building that's better for the neighborhood. So my suggestion is – and I understand there's one architect talking to another architect so you could be turning your sound off now if you like 'cause you may not want to hear this – why does the third floor, the second-and-a-half floor, the two bedrooms up above … one of those bedrooms is 155 square feet, the other bedroom is 186 square feet. Those are enormous bedrooms, and that doesn't even take into account the huge landing that's at the top of the stair.

If they took the top floor of that building, compressed those bedrooms a bit and compressed the landing on that third floor, they could push the whole third floor – or the second-and-a- half or however you want to refer to that – from the streetline, keep the existing outline of the existing building, and open up a lot of that view preservation. So there are solutions to these problems, but they haven't been looked at yet.

I would also suggest that we should not – and this goes back to my first point – look to use existing nonconformities to further other nonconformities. This is a tough site, nobody is arguing with that. Anything they want to do here is going to involve some nonconformities. Not all nonconformities are equal. There's no way they're going to get the side yard setback that is required by the zoning. We all understand that. But the question is, do you have to allow that third floor to be built all the way out? I believe somebody suggested reconfiguring

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 69 -

the volume of the roof so it doesn't come all the way out to the side of the building. Let's become more creative with what that volume looks like to open up the light and air to the buildings to the north and the south.

We're getting close, folks. I know it's getting really late. On the deck in the back, one of the things that’s been talked about is the amount of light and air to the depth of this building. As someone who works in New York – I made this point earlier – I totally understand that. The thing is, it doesn't need to be an 8-foot wide sliding glass door onto a 10-foot wide deck. It could be a single door within 6 feet or 5 feet of windows next to it. So the deck could be made smaller and it wouldn't impinge on the privacy issues of the adjoining neighbors. That being said, my druthers are there should be a small deck out there; a place to maybe put a couple of chairs where you could sit out and enjoy the view of the river. Does it need to be big enough to put in a barbecue and entertain? I don't believe so. You're only about half a story off the backyard. I have to go from my second floor, out my front door, and around the back of my building to get to my backyard. It's what we do in this neighborhood, it's how you deal with these sorts of issues.

The last thing is garbage location. One of the issues we have in this neighborhood – and it's been an issue since the day I moved in, especially the buildings that are built out to the property line – if you followed any of the Planning Board reviews dealing with garbage removal, garbage disposal is a very big deal in this neighborhood because of multi-family housing. So in this particular project there has been no allocation for a place to put garbage pails for the tenants to then be able to put them out on garbage day. And what happens is, people end up putting their garbage pails out and they leave them out all week long. They get knocked over, people from next door decide they're going to start dropping their garbage in there, it starts overflowing and becomes a real problem. So this is more of a code architecture/Building Department question or Planning Board question. But this property leaves himself no possible place to put garbage pails. Something simple as that radically affects the livability of this neighborhood.

So I'd like to make sure we deal with not only the big issues, as Ms. Goodman has said, but we also have to deal with the small issues of what a project like this would entail. I really thank you for the opportunity to speak. I know it's ridiculously late. It's a small building but a very important project in our neighborhood and I hope you'll take some of the things I said to heart and reconsider some of the feelings about this project, and look at some of the effects of what those feelings may have. Thank you.

Chairman Collins: Thank you, Mr. Metzger. I think the last hand to be raised here, I suspect is Lou. Why don't we let him in and we'll find out.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 70 -

Mr. Maggiotto: I'm representing Danielle and Robert Goodman. Mr. Chairman, I understand that no motion will be made tonight so any comments I have I'll include in my next letter.

Chairman Collins: I just wanted to make sure we had your name and affiliation for the transcriptionist. Is there anything you wanted to comment on or add to?

Mr. Maggiotto: I'm going to put what I was going to say in a letter. But for example on the air conditioners, they're going to be gone. They're there for not only the summertime but for the wintertime because the heat doesn't work properly. Danielle and Robert are going to change all that, and the air conditioners will go away. So they're not a long-term issue.

Mr. Accinelli, in covering the five points I think I would cover them differently. But again, it's too late. I'll just put it in a letter.

Chairman Collins: Okay.

Mr. Maggiotto: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Collins: All right, thank you Mr. Maggiotto.

Boardmember Quinlan: Matt, I just had one more ask.

Chairman Collins: Yes, go ahead Jerry.

Boardmember Quinlan: I'd like to see a plan developed by the architects for the applicants to make the bedrooms smaller on the second-and-a-half floor, whatever you want to call it. They are big bedrooms. We live … in most of Hastings we know what small bedrooms look like. I think it could really help the bulk of this project if those bedrooms were made a lot smaller. No too much smaller, but a lot smaller; anything to decrease the bulk of that top floor. I have a million other arguments I can make, but I'm not going to do that tonight; you know, the air, and light and things that. I mean, we have no evidence at all of what the effect of the air and light will be other than the people that live there. But that's another story. I'd like to see some plans of smaller bedrooms before the next meeting.

Chairman Collins: Okay. Look, I'm grateful for the very …

Mr. Korb: I'm the owner. May I interrupt because I know we have a letter in support of

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 71 -

this. Secondly, I guess we can continue to come back and make changes to these drawings. And that's what I think Ms. Goodman and Lou and everybody wants us to do. So we get to the point where there's two options. Bedrooms smaller: you know, we don't necessarily want to do that. So I could leave the building as is, put a minimal amount of money into it, and it's going to look exactly the same. We'll get tenants in there that pay low rent and it stays exactly as is. If that's what everybody seems to want, and we continue this month after month, then we can make a change that way.

But there seems to just be this argument of, you know, we keep making small changes. We already did the analysis, we did what you asked, and now I get to this point where when does it end? We got moved two times to the end. I have an attorney here that I'm paying hundreds of dollars an hour to and, you know, we've been on this call for four hours.

Chairman Collins: Mr. Korb, do you want us to go to a vote right now? Because we can do that if you like.

Mr. Korb: Well, no, but I just want to understand the process and how long this keeps moving forward.

Attorney Whitehead: I just want to make one statement in response to what you've said. You did provide the additional studies, but we haven't seen any modifications to the plan so I don't think …

Mr. Korb: But we weren't asked for modifications to the plan. We were asked for the study, we were asked about the back porch, we explained that that has to do with air and vent so that we couldn't change it 'cause there's a competing code requirement for it. But beyond that we did what you asked from the last meeting and now all these new questions come up. And Lou and Danielle continue to change … whatever they write it becomes a different argument, meeting after meeting after meeting, from Planning Board to Zoning Board one to Zoning Board two.

Chairman Collins: You know, I would love to be able to say that after two and three meetings that everyone gets to the finish line, but that's not the way these things go. These are deliberative. The consequences are substantial, not only to the property owner but also to the neighborhood and to the Village. Our goal is to balance all those things and to make sure we put in the right deliberation and do our very best to get to the right conclusion.

I appreciate your point in sticking with us. We're going to do our very best to continue to execute what we're here to do. But to say it must be done, it should be done within a

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 72 -

particular time frame or a certain number of meetings, is just not … it's unfortunately just not the way this works.

Mr. Korb: No, no, okay. And I appreciate that, but I just want to get to a point where you have your asks, we make the change, and then we kind of move forward, right? I don't know.

Chairman Collins: You always have it within your … it's your call to make whether you want to adjourn a case or whether you want us to go to a vote. If you feel at any given time that you've gone as far as you want to go then we'll vote on it at that moment in time. I think what you're hearing is what I hope will be some constructive feedback for you to consider that will allow you to have a shot at preserving what it is you're out to preserve. But at any given time in this process you have the power to bring it to the end . You can say, No, we're actually not entertaining any more changes and we want to vote on it.

Mr. Korb: Okay, no, no, no. And I do appreciate what the Zoning Board is doing and I understand that. I guess this is more a comment from Ms. Goodman and Lou and all the rest. I mean, how much do you want to just keep making us do this? That's really the point. You say you want to be a good neighbor, you say you want to get onto our property to fix your windows. Whatever it is, I don't know Ms. Goodman. What do you want from us?

Attorney Whitehead: I'm going to interrupt for a second here 'cause this really shouldn't be a discussion between the applicant and the neighbors.

Mr. Korb: Okay.

Attorney Whitehead: You don't need to convince the neighbors. It's the board that makes the decision, it's not the neighbors who are making the decision on your application. They have a right to speak and say what their concerns are, but I think you heard very thoughtful comments from the board tonight – some positive and some remaining concerns – trying to really work through how to balance you being able to improve your building and get what you want with trying to lessen the impact on the neighbor. And that's what the board is trying to accomplish.

Mr. Korb: Got it, understood. Thank you for that clarification.

Chairman Collins: Yes. And too, the fine work you did to contextualize the property within this neighborhood really does set a very solid foundation for us to talk about what really is – or have a debate amongst ourselves about what is or is not – in keeping with the

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 73 -

character of the neighborhood, both dimensionally as well as architecturally. So in many ways, furnishing that data has given us the starting line I think many of us felt we needed in order to start having some of these broader discussions.

Again, I appreciate your point. This is not easy stuff, and I know it's expensive and I know it's time-consuming to be on a call as long as we have been. And I just want to thank everybody here for being civil, being patient, and continuing to stick to the process. And we'll look forward to, I hope, seeing you back next meeting. But take as much time as you need to feel like you get it right, and whenever you're ready we'll be ready for you.

Boardmember Quinlan: Yes, but Matt I want to know am I going to get my plans for smaller bedrooms, or not?

Mr. Accinelli: I think, you know, we've heard the comments and questions from the board, and I'll speak to my client and the architect. If it's in time for the next meeting … again, I haven't had a chance to speak with my client and/or the architect. You know, we may – assuming they want to proceed and explore redesign, et cetera – if they want to do that and agree to do that … you know, it may not be feasible in time for the next meeting. So we may adjourn it. I have to speak to the client and the architect. But, you know, we will be back. It may or may not be in March, it may be in April, but we will get them to the board well in advance of the next time we plan to be on the agenda.

Chairman Collins: I think, Jerry, you made your point. Why don't we let the applicants go back and digest the feedback they've received in totality. You've made you point very clear. We can come back with whatever they feel addresses the board in totality and can reassess at that point.

Mr. Accinelli: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've obviously got a number of issues we need to talk about and consider. We just don't want to be rushed and pressured into making decisions and doing things without having the opportunity to investigate and explore them as appropriate under the circumstances.

Chairman Collins: Yes, that's the right move.

Boardmember Quinlan: Yes, but there's no pressure here, there's no rush. If you want to go to the April meeting, you want to go to the May meeting, you know, let's talk about it. We are not pressuring anybody, we're just asking for … it's an evolving situation. We're trying to do the best we can, we're trying to ask for modifications to your plan. You don't have to give them if you don't want to. Take all the time you want, but we take this very,

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 74 -

very seriously. And we need to have all the information we can get to make a decision. That's all we're asking for. It's up to you to decide if you want to provide it to us or not, but there's no pressure, there's no nothing. You take your time.

Mr. Accinelli: Thank you, Mr. Quinlan.

Mr. Korb: With the neighbor's letter, I think, that was submitted. I don't know if you got it.

Chairman Collins: We did, yes. Actually, thank you for that reminder. I will pull it up, 'cause I saved it. That came in … just bear with me. Thank you, yes, I will capture this for the record. Okay, this came from … wait a minute, sorry. When was that letter received?

Attorney Whitehead: It was from Joan Dinowitz, at 3 Ward.

Chairman Collins: Oh, I see it. Yep, got it. Okay, Joan Dinowitz lives at 3 Ward. She wrote in that she's got a clear view of the mockup roofline from her west-facing deck, dining room, and living room. She walks by the property regularly. She met with Brian when he was taking photographs to submit with the application that he subsequently shared with the project plan and links to their online submission and drawings. She's seen the property and she feels she's familiar it.

She writes: "I was impressed with the thoughtful design and modest variance request. I am no architectural expert, but the building the Korbs are asking to build seems right in keeping with Hastings-on-Hudson character, which I know is important to many. Given that we have robust green building codes, any new construction will help towards our climate resiliency goals. But this gracious two-family will further enhance the charm of Hastings-on-Hudson. I admire the Korbs' aesthetic and support their building as a net positive for our village." So thank you for reminding me to get that into the record.

Mr. Accinelli: Thank you.

Chairman Collins: Okay, then we will adjourn 421 until the applicant is ready to come back. Take your time, work with our Building Department and our Village Attorney if you have any questions. Okay?

Mr. Accinelli: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the board.

Chairman Collins: Thank you very much for your presentation.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 75 -

Mr. Accinelli: Thank you.

Chairman Collins: All right, boardmembers, we just have the matter of the minutes to get through.

II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Regular Meeting of January 28, 2021

Chairman Collins: Are there any proposed amendments or edits to the minutes?

Boardmember Berritt: There were a couple of minor things that I sent to Mary Ellen.

Chairman Collins: Okay, thank you Jo. Anybody else? Okay, can I get a motion to approve the minutes, as amended? I think we can just do a hand vote for this one.

Attorney Whitehead: Ray, you weren't there?

Boardmember Dovell: I wasn't there.

Chairman Collins: We'll let the vote reflect that.

On MOTION of Boardmember Quinlan, SECONDED by Boardmember Berritt, with a hand- raise vote of 4-0 (Boardmember Dovell abstaining), the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 28, 2021 were approved as amended.

III. DISCUSSION

Attorney Whitehead: It's late.

Chairman Collins: It sure is.

Boardmember Quinlan: So we're not done yet, are we?

Chairman Collins: You want to keep on going?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 76 -

Boardmember Quinlan: Exactly. I think there was some sort of … I mean, I don't want to mention it, but weren't we supposed to do something tonight after this meeting? Or we're not going to do it, or not?

Boardmember Berritt: I think that was based on earlier.

Chairman Collins: Oh, you're talking about the straw vote.

Attorney Whitehead: But you've asked them to come back with more information.

Chairman Collins: Yes, that was the decision point. We were only going to do that if we felt like we had all the information.

Boardmember Quinlan: Oh, okay. I just wanted to make sure we're clear on it.

Attorney Whitehead: I had a question, and I can't believe it's this late and I forgot this. The proposed zoning amendment for height should've been referred to you.

Chairman Collins: It has not, not that I'm aware of.

Attorney Whitehead: All right, it should've been referred and should've been on the agenda, but I think Ray has already kind of discussed it with you and at this late hour neither Ray nor I are going to bring it up.

Boardmember Dovell: We discussed it awhile ago, but I don't think the final language was submitted to the board. I don't think anyone has seen it.

Attorney Whitehead: All right.

Chairman Collins: Let's get that onto the docket for next time.

Boardmember Quinlan: I just want to say one other thing that's kind of funny. When I was on the board …

Attorney Whitehead: Let me just jump in. Jerry, let me just finish on that. The Village Board has scheduled their public hearing, but they're going to have to continue it because it didn't get put on your agenda and the Planning Board didn't meet last week.

Chairman Collins: Ah, okay.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING FEBRUARY 25, 2021 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 77 -

Boardmember Quinlan: One funny story. When I was on the Board of Trustees and Lee Kinnally was the mayor, one night we came over – and it's 11:56 – at 12:01 he said, "I just want to announce to everybody 'good morning.'" That was so funny, and we all got a chuckle out of it. Then we just went home and went to bed, but that was so funny.

Chairman Collins: We've had a couple of marathon meetings like that in my time. I've had a chance to say "good morning," I think, at least once on one of these.

Boardmember Quinlan: Good, I'm glad you did.

Chairman Collins: But I don't intend to do it now.

Attorney Whitehead: Yes, let's not do it tonight [laughter].

Boardmember Quinlan: Because that's in four more minutes.

Chairman Collins: With 2-1/2 minutes to spare, let's adjourn. But thank you all for hanging on. This was a tough one, but I appreciate everyone staying alert and staying engaged.

Boardmember Quinlan: Thank you, and good night.

IV. ANNOUNCEMENTS

Next Zoning Board Meeting Date – March 25, 2021

V. ADJOURNMENT