VILLAGE OF HASTINGS-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020

A Regular Meeting and Public Hearing was held by the Zoning Board on Thursday, July 23 2020 at 8:15 p.m. with boardmembers participating via Zoom, live-streamed via WHoH-TV (Channel 75), and online at WHoH- TV.org conducted in accordance with Executive Order 202.1. Members of the Zoning Board and staff participated in the meeting remotely through videoconference. Furthermore there was no public participation in-person, however all public comments could be heard via email at [email protected]. For more information on videoconferencing and how to connect, please go to the Village Website at www.hastingsgov.org/zoomzoningboard

PRESENT: Chairman Matthew Collins, Boardmember Ray Dovell, Boardmember Joanna (via Zoom) Berritt, Boardmember Jeremiah Quinlan, Boardmember David Chen, Village Attorney Linda Whitehead, and Building Inspector Charles Minozzi, Jr.

Chairman Collins: Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the Hastings-on-Hudson Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for July 23rd, 2020. I have a brief statement which I'm going to read into the record just to talk a little bit about the still relatively new format for these meetings, since we are not, for the time being, meeting in person, obviously. I'm going to reason from a statement that Attorney Village Counsel Whitehead has prepared, then we'll dive right into the agenda.

"Due to the public health and safety concerns associated with the Covid-19 pandemic, the board is meeting via videoconference using the Zoom platform, in accordance with the governor's executive orders, specifically 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 their plans and the board has asked any questions." And in this way, it will be exactly as we do it in person.

"If you wish to comment on an application at the appropriate time please do the following: members of the public attending online via the Zoom application may use the "raise-hand" feature at the appropriate time if you would like to make a comment." I will signal when that appropriate time has arrived. "The feature is ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 2 -

located at the bottom of your screen. Thos attending via telephone can press 'star- 9', the meeting host will see that your hand is raised or that you have pressed star-9, and will unmute those waiting, one at a time, so that you can speak.

"Lastly, comments can be e-mailed during the meeting to [email protected]. That's zoningboard – Z-O-N-I-N-G-B-O-A-R-D – all one word at– at hastingsgov – H-A-S-T-I-N-G-SGOV.O-R-G. Any e-mail comments will be read into the record by yours truly. Please note that tonight's meeting is being recorded and a transcript will be provided at a later date."

Finally, we'll close with some ground rules. Zoom is – as I'm sure all of us have come to recognize – not unusual among videoconferencing tools in that it does a really lousy job of supporting multiple people talking at once. And because we're all relying on computer speakers it also is really good at picking up background noise. So we've prepared some ground rules just to help remind us how to make this meeting – under its current constraints – run more smoothly.

When you are given access to speak, please state your name and address. This is true for our presenters – anyone who's presenting tonight – as well as anyone in the public. For my fellow boardmembers, please "mute" yourself when you are not speaking, especially when applicants are presenting. Also for the board – sorry, stray dog in the yard – I will call on you one at a time to speak in order to avoid everyone speaking at once. If you wish to speak at any time and I haven't called on you, just either hit the "raise-hand" function or wave in my direction and will do whatever I can to get you on.

Then finally, we will use roll call voting for purposes of all board motions tonight. That's to ensure that the record is clear and, again, to compensate for the fact that this does a lousy job of recording more than one person at the same time in any sort of coherent way. So that's the way we're going to do things. I'm going to exit the statement, and come back to see all of you. It's great to see all of you here. Before I get to a quick agenda summary, Buddy, how are we on the mailings?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I have been advised by my staff that the mailings are in order, sir.

Chairman Collins: Okay, so – there's a dog in our yard and the neighbors are not happy about it [laughter]. I'm going to just give a quick summary of our agenda. We have one active case this evening. There are two that were noticed, but one of them has deferred until the September meeting. As a reminder to the public watching, there is no August meeting so ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 3 -

our next meeting after this one will be September 3rd. So we've got one agenda item, for one case on the agenda, and then we will have a discussion item for floor area ratio

AGENDA

Case No. 03-20 William Hanauer, Executor, Estate of Elizabeth F. Derow 0 Pinecrest Parkway ** Deferred Until September Meeting ** Relief from the strict application of Village Code Sections 295-68F.2.a[2] for a new single-family dwelling on their prospective property at 0 Pinecrest Parkway. Said property is located in the R-10 Zoning District and is known as SBL: 4.100-95-41 on the Village Tax Maps.

Nonconformity details of the proposed construction are as follows: Development Coverage: Existing – 15.42 percent; Proposed – 37.05 percent; Required Maximum – 35 percent {295-68F.2.a[2]}; Variance Required – 2.05 percent

Chairman Collins: So let me introduce our first case. I will apologize in advance for mispronunciations, and feel free to correct me when you speak. Our first is Case 08-20 for Krysia Mationg.

Case No. 08-20 Krysia Mationg 353 Warburton Avenue The Hearing will be held on the application of Krysia Mationg for View Preservation approval as required under Section 295-82 of the Village Code for an extension of a rear porch on her two-family dwelling located at 353 Warburton Avenue. Said property is located in the R-7.5 Zoning District and is known as SBL: 4.100-93-10 on the Village Tax Maps.

Chairman Collins: The applicant is working on a rear porch – an extension of a rear porch – in the back and is seeking view preservation approval. Linda, do you have a quick update for us on Planning Board recommendation? You're muted, there you go.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 4 -

Attorney Whitehead: Now I'm not. Sorry about that. Yes, at the Planning Board meeting last week they did make a recommendation of view preservation approval to the Zoning Board.

Chairman Collins: All right, very good. Thank you for that recap. Then who would like to present on behalf of the applicant?

Krysia Mationg, applicant: Hi. You actually got my name correct, which most people end up screwing up my first and last name. So I do appreciate the attempt to pronounce my name, I know it's a little more complicated. I'm here with my husband; Adam also will be presenting.

So just to start off, I apologize to the people who were on the call last week because this is probably a repeat for those who attended last week's meeting. In February of this year we had our insurance appraisal here for a separate issue, and while he was here I did ask him about the porch, or my deck. He made a few observations regarding the state of the deck: specifically the staircase had a few issues, including that it did not meet fire code and there was a safety issue involved with, it was structurally unsound.

So at that point we hired an architect and started to create the plans. As we were creating the plans, my husband and I were brainstorming and trying to figure out different ideas of maybe what we could do with the deck to make it a little more functional for us. When we had family and friends over last summer we had to ask people to stand up to get to the other side of the deck. We just wanted a little more space, but kind of wanted to leave it basically the same.

So just to give you a description of the deck, it's a rectangular deck. Then off the deck is this small platform where the stairs go from the first level to the ground level. So our plan was just to extend it to where it currently is already – extend it to the platform – and kind of make it just one large rectangle. We did speak to the buildings department and we are within all the zoning regulations. We're within the zoning setback, and then with coverage, overage; the lot coverage is 27 percent, which is below the 20 percent threshold.

We did submit the plans, with the extension, to the buildings department and we did receive a permit for both the deck and the extension. I did order all the materials except for the glass, based on the fact that the permit was issued. Just to give an overview of the property itself, we have one neighbor to the north and then one to the south. And behind us, it really just slopes downward. It's not very usable land, I grow some tomatoes on the back slope. But honestly I'm like kind of sliding down as I go and plant and then pick my tomatoes. So ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 5 -

this was kind of our way of using our property a little more efficiently. The house to our north is very close to us; we only have like 10 feet to where our property line ends. On the south side it's a little roomier, but we have large cedar/pine trees so it's not the most usable property. So when we usually entertain we do have guests on our deck, and that's the reason we did that.

So as far as the materials we're using, we're going to make it more aesthetically pleasing, I think. My architect, last week, mentioned that our deck was a little bit of an eyesore. That's how I bought it, I didn't change anything to it. So we are upgrading to more of the thin, streamlined railing system, and then we're putting glass paneling on the two decks themselves. And then we're using regular spindled railings down the staircase. The deck is two levels, so the upper-level deck will remain … the footprint remains the same, it's just the first-level deck that will change. Now, from the south side of the house there is no actual change to the footprint. It's just going to affect the northern neighbor.

I don't know if anyone has questions, or I'll just …

Attorney Whitehead: For the benefit of the board, that neighbor had written a letter last week to the Planning Board in support, saying they had no problem with the application. I'm not sure if that letter's been also provided here, but you should be aware of it.

Chairman Collins: It has been, yes. We have it, Linda, and will read it into the record when …

Attorney Whitehead: I just wasn't sure if you had it, so okay.

Chairman Collins: We got it. Thank you for finding it. I visited the property and got a tour of this to get a bird's eye view of it. For that reason, I'm not going to ask the applicant to show any of the renderings that were prepared because the on-site visit was more useful for me than the 2-dimensional pictures that were submitted. And because, really, there's only view impact here this, to me, was a pretty straightforward case to evaluate.

From what I could tell, the only neighbor that could feasibly have any impact on the view was the neighbor to the north. The neighbor to the south is so separated by trees and growth that I think even in wintertime I don't know that there's a way for that homeowner to any view of the porch at all. And so, really, the neighbor that to me was the most relevant for my evaluation is the neighbor to the north. And as we just heard from our attorney, that neighbor has written a letter in support of the case. So that alleviates a good chunk of whatever concern I might have had. But even having visited the property myself and ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 6 -

imagined what that impact would be – and there will be some impact, probably more notably felt in the winter months because right now – quite frankly, 353 Warburton does not have a great view of the river and the Palisades because of all the vegetation that's growing there. So really, this is an issue for the winter months.

I just think the impact from the vantage point to the north is going to be minimal. Given the applicant's improvement for safety, I think the enjoyment clearly will be improved as a result of a substantial upgrade of this part of the home. I cannot find anything to object to from having evaluated it. So I'm going to end my remarks here and I'm going to go kind of one- by-one here and ask each of you weigh in. I'll try to do this alphabetical by last name which means, Jo, you go first.

Boardmember Berritt: Yes, I had a look at the property this week. I live further down Warburton so I was looking … the neighbor that I was concerned about is the one on the north side because they are very close, so it's good to know if they don't have an objection and, you know, you've been sensitive in terms of using the glass panels so that minimizes the sort of impact of the structure. So I don't have any concerns at this time. I think if the neighbors to the north are okay that's fine. I'm comfortable.

Chairman Collins: Thank you, Jo. David, how about you?

Boardmember Chen: I don't have any major objections either – were minor ones, for that matter. I would note – and I know it'll be read into the record – but I found that the letter submitted by your neighbor to the north particularly compelling. Not only do they not object, but they actively supported it and appreciated – according to the letter – you incorporated into the process. So certainly, given that they have not raised any objections, I'm supportive of the project. I can find no issues either.

Chairman Collins: Thank you, David. Ray, how about you?

Boardmember Dovell: No objection. I think it's very (unintelligible), nicely done, and no objections to it.

Chairman Collins: Okay. Thank you, Ray. Your mic was a little bit hard to hear, but I think we got you. You may want to change the volume for when we get to the FAR discussion, though. We'll finish, Jerry, with you.

Boardmember Quinlan: Yes. Everyone said it all, so I have no further comments or anything else to say. Thank you. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 7 -

Chairman Collins: All right, thank you, Jerry. So before I invite the public to raise their hand if there's anyone who wishes to be heard on this, I am going to read the letter that came from Emily Wardwell and her husband who wrote the following on July 16th, 2020, by way of e-mail:

"My husband Nicholas and I own the two-family home most impacted by the extension to the back deck at 353 Warburton Avenue. Our home is the residence at 357 Warburton Avenue that is noted in the view preservation documents.

"After reviewing the architect engineering plans only, we welcome the improvements that our neighbors are making to their deck. The plan seemed really well-considered. Any concerns regarding our view as a neighbor were thoughtfully addressed. We hope the Village board see it to approve the view preservation for this property.

"Thank you for your time and consideration, Emily Wardwell and Nicholas Dodziuk."

Chairman Collins: Again, sorry if I mishandled last names here. So with that, and unless there any other questions for the board, why don't we just do a quick check to see if anyone in the public wishes to be heard. If so, use the "raise-hand" and we'll call on you.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I received no e-mails.

Attorney Whitehead: Yes, and there doesn't appear to be any public on the Zoom.

Chairman Collins: I don't see it either. Ok, well then we'll proceed to roll call vote and we will do it in alphabetical order, as well. Actually, I need a motion before I can do any of that so can I get a motion on this case?

On MOTION of Boardmember Dovell, SECONDED by Boardmember Berritt, with a voice vote of all in favor the Board resolved to approve Case Number 08-20 for 353 Warburton Avenue for view preservation for a deck.

Chairman Collins: Now we'll do roll call voting. Jo? ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 8 -

Boardmember Berritt: "Approved."

Chairman Collins: Jo Berritt says "approved." David Chen?

Boardmember Chen: "Approved."

Chairman Collins: Approved?

Boardmember Chen: Yes, approved.

Chairman Collins: Okay. Ray Dovell?

Boardmember Dovell: "Approve."

Chairman Collins: Jerry Quinlan?

Boardmember Quinlan: "Approved."

Chairman Collins: And I, Matthew Collins, approve as well. So the vote is unanimous, five-to-nil. Congratulations and good luck on the project.

Ms. Mationg: Thank you very much.

Chairman Collins: You're very welcome.

Mr. Adam Cole, applicant’s husband: We'll drop off the application.

Chairman Collins: Say again?

Attorney Whitehead: Feel free to jump off.

Mr. Cole: Get on with your evening.

Boardmember Berritt: Good luck.

Mr. Cole: You, too.

Chairman Collins: All right, so that concludes our one and only case. So that leaves the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 9 -

discussion of the floor area ratio.

DISCUSSION ITEM

Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.)

Chairman Collins: Just for some backdrop, or back story, for context here we recall Ray's work in MR1.5, which is that corridor on Warburton, and coming with the floor area ratio recommendation which we then passed on to the Board of Trustees and they approved. We've had eyes ever since then on expanding our floor area ratio definitions and introduction of floor area ratio definitions for the rest of the Village. And Patrick Cleary and Linda have been working on that.

The Board of Trustees will be meeting on Tuesday, August 4th to take up this matter. And my goal would be, whatever way possible, to provide the Zoning Board point of view on what has been provided, and what may still be provided I suppose, if there are additional changes or more to come so that the board can vote on this. And I think, I suspect, you all are feeling the same sort of sense of urgency that I am, and I know Ray does, too. That this is really important to get right, especially as we see a certain type of development come before the board. It gives us another tool to use to make sure that especially we've got the sort of character of Hastings, character of neighbors, in mind as we review new proposals. So I feel especially a sense of urgency to get this done. I mean, obviously get it done right, but to move it along.

Did you all have a chance to read the relatively brief document that Patrick passed along? I'm seeing nodding heads.

Boardmember Dovell: Yes.

Chairman Collins: All right. Any feedback on … I'm going to start very broadly because I don't want to constrain the coverage. But any questions that any of you have about, especially, the definitions that are there, ideas on how to improve the definitions? I think that would be useful. And also certainly welcome commentary on what you think of by way of that table that shows how a sliding scale FAR pegged to the area of a lot would result in the kind of building that we might see come before us if we were to enact something like that is. Those are, I think, the key areas for me that provoke some discussion. I have some other things that I'm eager to get into, but I'm interested not hearing myself talk anymore. I'm going to open it up to you guys and see what thoughts and recommendations you have. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 10 -

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Before you start, Matt, I want to just mention one small thing before the board has their discussion. It kind of maxes out at 5,000 square feet on 20- thousand square feet and above. If we had a situation again come to us like the mansion that would kind of be a problem. And I don't know if that max would actually … how that would work. That's my only question, or concern.

Attorney Whitehead: If this was really to start the discussion that's actually something that Pat and I spoke about yesterday. I actually had the same concern. That I was a little bit concerned that we have a 5,000 square foot max no matter what the lot size is. And that part of the table may need to be adjusted a little bit. I'd be interested to hear Ray's thoughts on that. That was one thing that jumped out to me as a concern is, well, but we wanted to get this out there for discussion.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I also thought the definitions were right on the money. I thought the definitions were very …

Attorney Whitehead: Well, we spent a lot of time talking about the definitions, so …

Chairman Collins: Yes. And remember, too, that the floor area ratio – whatever we set it at, or I should say whatever the Board of Trustees sets as the sliding scale for almost most certainly will be a sliding scale – I think, for FAR it will go into the code and, like any other code, be subject to requests for a variance. So when I think about how frequently someone with a 20,000 square foot lot may be wanting to build a home in Hastings, my initial reaction is I'm actually comfortable with a 5,000 square foot cap on it because that's why we're here, we can provide a relief valve. And I don't think we're going to have many instances of that in the future anyway.

Boardmember Dovell: But that's not what it's saying, Matt. Matt, that's not what it's saying. I think that whole third column should be eliminated from the code. It's illustrative: the only thing that matters is the numbers, the FAR numbers.

Attorney Whitehead: That's true.

Boardmember Dovell: So 20,000 square feet or more, it's 0.25.

Boardmember Berritt: Right. Whatever that is.

Boardmember Dovell: So assign a portion of it. I don't think we want to volunteer the ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 11 -

arithmetic in this chart. I think we don't want to … I think that is trouble, I think that's is unnecessary. I think just the FAR number is the maximum FAR; that all it means.

Boardmember Berritt: Sure.

Attorney Whitehead: No, what this is saying is that if your lot is 20,000 square feet your FAR is 0.25. I agree with Ray's point: on a 20,000 square foot point lot that's a 5,000 square foot house.

Boardmember Berritt: Right.

Attorney Whitehead: But if your lot is larger, your 0.25 is going to give you a larger house.

Boardmember Dovell: It'd be a larger house, so …

Attorney Whitehead: Right. So I agree with you that that column is misleading.

Boardmember Dovell: I don't think it's necessary.

Chairman Collins: No, I disagree. I think it's actually … I find it very useful because, to me, it comes back to … I mean, maybe it needs another row, where it says 20,001 and up the floor area ratio is 0.25, and nothing in the third column. But one of the things, Ray, that you and I flagged when we talked to Linda and Patrick about this was imagining what would happen if a house were torn down on a lot of varying sizes and then built back up, what would that look like at various FARs. And I think this is illustrative of what that building would look like, but it's clearly not … we wouldn't enact into our code a maximum gross … and again, we've got to get rid of this notion of gross floor area.

Boardmember Dovell: Even if you think the third column shouldn't say (off-mic).

Attorney Whitehead: The third column is useful to you in doing that analysis, and understanding what those numbers result in. They don't belong in the code.

Chairman Collins: Correct.

Boardmember Dovell: No, they don't belong.

Chairman Collins: Anyone with the calculator can figure it out, but it is useful for us to be able to have an idea of (cross-talk) … ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 12 -

Attorney Whitehead: And it really isn't the maximum. It's for that size lot, at this FAR, is what you can have. So it's misleading to call it maximum gross floor area.

Boardmember Dovell: You just got to get rid of it. It's maximum floor area anyway, it's not gross. Because we define floor area as …

Attorney Whitehead: Right, because we took out the word "gross."

Boardmember Dovell: Right, right.

Attorney Whitehead: That was my fault. I forgot to match that up. But it's the maximum for that particular size lot so it's really just doing the math. And I think it'll be helpful for the Board of Trustees to see, it's helpful for you to see, but it doesn't go in the code. So that everybody knows, in our conversations we kind of talked about a 10,000 square foot lot and what we thought was appropriate.

Boardmember Dovell: Right.

Attorney Whitehead: And we worked in both directions from that.

Boardmember Dovell: Right, on the sliding scale.

Attorney Whitehead: Right. That was the starting point.

Boardmember Dovell: I have a question about the definition of floor area. I hate to keep bringing it up, but floor area it says "including basements and attached or built-in garages. But what about an unattached garage? It should count as well, right?

Attorney Whitehead: If you want it to.

Boardmember Dovell: It should. Otherwise, people will just unattach (ph) and then bulk the house up by that much more floor area.

Attorney Whitehead: No, you're right. So I think it should be attached and unattached.

Attorney Whitehead: We'll add detached because really at that point it just becomes garages, including detached garages.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 13 -

Boardmember Dovell: Right, but what about accessory structures? What if somebody … remember the little pool structure that was built? I don't remember where it was, but remember the pool structure that somebody built? You know, if someone's going to build an accessory structure – a potting shed, for example – that turns into a (inaudible) hot tub. Shouldn't that count as well?

Attorney Whitehead: Yes. So if you look at it, you've got building or buildings.

Boardmember Dovell: I would just say "include accessory structures."

Attorney Whitehead: Okay.

Boardmember Dovell: I mean, if you think … I don't …

Attorney Whitehead: Yes, I thought was covered by building or buildings, but we can be specific.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Accessory structures really covers everything: garages …

Boardmember Dovell: Right.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: … play sheds, like we had up there.

Chairman Collins: The one that was turned into a hot tub place.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Correct.

Chairman Collins: It turned into a living room.

Boardmember Dovell: Otherwise, I think the focus after this is what these numbers mean. So if you go back to the baseline – to the 10,000 square foot lot with an FAR 0.350 – which yields a 35-hundred square foot house, now let's just suppose that somebody wants to build that house and it doesn't include the garage or an accessory structure. It's a 35-hundred square foot house, which is a four-bedroom, four-bath house. To me, the question to the trustees is does that represent a comfort level within the Village.

Attorney Whitehead: But we are including the garage.

Boardmember Dovell: Understood. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 14 -

Boardmember Berritt: If they don't build one.

Boardmember Dovell: By the same token, you could park your car in the driveway and have a really big house, right? I mean, you have an option. You can build a garage or you can add another bathroom. Is that the baseline? I'm not making an judgment, I'm only saying does that represent a comfort level. It's considerably less than the 75-hundred that's currently permitted if you look at it from the basis of lot coverage. I mean, I like the sliding scale. I think that's a really nice way of addressing it.

Boardmember Berritt: What is the … and I know there is no such thing as average in Hastings, but is there an average lot size and an average …

Boardmember Dovell: I think you have to look at it as what's the minimum permitted for each district; in an R-10, 7.5.

Boardmember Berritt: Yes, because otherwise it …

Boardmember Dovell: You say, yes, you're going go up and down. If it's less than 10,000 square feet it's a noncompliant lot anyway so you should be entitled to add floor area.

Boardmember Berritt: Right.

Boardmember Dovell: So you take the baseline for our 7.5, which would give you a 28- hundred square foot (cross-talk). That's a four-bedroom house, that's a big house. You know, are these … do these numbers represent the character of the Village and where the Village wants to go. It's maybe a little bigger than I had hoped, but it's kind of a question for the trustees. The sliding scale (off-mic), to my thinking, and it's really just a matter of where the Village wants to be in this.

Attorney Whitehead: I think it's a good point that it's actually much smaller than what is permitted today.

Boardmember Berritt: But it's still big when you look relatively.

Boardmember Dovell: Right.

Boardmember Quinlan: Ray, let me just … can I say something here?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 15 -

Boardmember Dovell: Why, of course.

Boardmember Quinlan: So the Village character is really important to all of us. Square foot, I just try to think about my lot. I'm in a 7.5 neighborhood so I have a 50 by 150 foot lot, which gives me 7,500 square feet, correct? I mean, I'm not a mathematician.

Boardmember Dovell: What is it, Jerry?

Boardmember Quinlan: 50 by 150; 50 wide and 150p long.

Boardmember Dovell: No, it's bigger than that.

Boardmember Quinlan: Well, 50 times 150.

Boardmember Dovell: Yes, 75-hundred is the square footage.

Boardmember Quinlan: So that would put me between 7,000 and 8,000, right? This is all approximate. If I bought that lot now I could probably put a 3,000 square foot house on that, okay?

Boardmember Berritt: Mm-hmm.

Boardmember Quinlan: So my house is … I think it's a good-size house and it's about 2,000 square feet. I mean, we don't have big bedrooms, but it's a house on Hillside Avenue, it fits the lot very well, and yet it's a thousand feet less than 3,000 feet. So I think a 3,000- foot house on a 7,500 square foot lot is going to be big enough, not any bigger. My house, if you drive down the street and look at my house you're not going to say, Wow, that's a teeny little house. I don't know about that, so that's just one comment.

The other comment is I really like the maximum floor area. I don't care if it's in the code or not, but it really helped me visualize and figure out how big these houses are going to be. That was very helpful to me. And I'm in favor of crossing out the gross and putting in accessory structures. And I think that after you get over 20,000 or more, and you have a 5,000 square foot house, here's my problem with the big houses. You talk about mansions so let's talk about the mansion on Broadway a little bit. That is, I've been told – and I've never been in it, but the next door neighbor's a very good friend of mine – it's about al 40,000 square foot house.

Here's my problem. Let's say the owners of that house decide – and they have houses all ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 16 -

over the world – decide, Oh, I think I'll try to sell it. Who's going to buy it, and what are we going to end up in that … not in my lifetime, maybe in 10 years or 15 years or 20 years. The taxes, I heard, are about a million dollars a year – and when I was a trustee, that's probably pretty close – who's going to buy that house and what's it going to turn out to be? It might turn out to be like a non-profit sort of thing and we're going to lose the taxes for the Village? I mean, that's good for him and I'm happy for him, and that was his right, but who's going to buy that kind of property when that guy decides to sell it? He's not going to own it forever, and I think it's going to be onerous for the Village when that turns out to be something that's maybe not as taxably favorable as it could be in the future.

So I don't know where we go from there, but that's another concern I have. I don't know what we do with it, but …

Boardmember Dovell: Jerry, if somebody … that is a residential zone, as I understand it. It's not a mixed-use zone, it's a residential zone. So the only thing permitted on that zone is a residential (inaudible). So let's just say for example that he sells the house, and the only person that could buy that house would be someone who is going to live in it. If that didn't pan out someone would be required to demolish that. A developer would buy that property, demolish it, and cut the lot up.

Boardmember Quinlan: Right. Not to interrupt you …

Boardmember Dovell: The use would require a variance.

Boardmember Quinlan: Next door to that house is the Barnes’s, and next door to the Barnes’s is the big apartment complex. South of the house is another condo development. So is it a residential, or could we put … I mean, someone's going to buy it and build more apartments? Which I'm not totally against more apartments, but I don't know that's kind of a funny area over there.

Boardmember Dovell: It's not a mixed-use (inaudible).

Attorney Whitehead: It's R-20, isn't it Buddy?

Boardmember Dovell: It's R-20 so the only thing that can be built on it is single-family residential.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I think it is an R-20, and that's a 38,000 square foot house with two structures – not just one structure with the accessory structure – on 6 acres. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 17 -

Boardmember Dovell: But, Buddy, the only thing that's permitted in an R-20 district is a house, right? I mean, I'm not debating your point, Jerry, I'm just saying that if that house were sold the only use for it as-of-right would be residential. So you couldn't build a not-for- profit there without a variance.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: As-of-right, correct, Ray.

Attorney Whitehead: There are special permit uses.

Boardmember Dovell: But that's a discretionary action, right?

Attorney Whitehead: Sort of.

Boardmember Quinlan: It's hard. Anyway, it's just something I wanted to bring up.

Boardmember Dovell: That's a really good point, Jerry.

Boardmember Quinlan: I don't think that that's a development that we want to be saddled with in the future. Right now it's fine, guy wants to pay a million dollars worth of taxes or whatever.

Boardmember Dovell: Let's just say he leaves the house and the house has to sell at least (inaudible) his taxes, right? So if it sells who is it going to sell to reasonably? A developer probably. With 6 acres that's how many lots, right? In R-20 it's 20,000; 6 acres, it's 12 lots, Buddy?

Attorney Whitehead: They'd have to put a road in.

Boardmember Dovell: They'd have to put a road in, they'd have to go through planning.

Attorney Whitehead: And I don't think it's 6 usable acres; it slopes down in the back, it's not going to be full houses.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Yes, that includes a slope down to the railway.

Boardmember Dovell: Right, okay. But in any event, there is a methodology to get to a residential development there which may address Jerry's concern, but it wouldn't be a giant house with an untenable tax base; it would be a number of houses – or I'd call it four houses ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 18 -

or five houses or something – big houses, for sure. But they would each have their own tax base and they would each be based on an FAR based on what we're looking at here. See, that's why the FAR notion doesn't bother me, provided the uses are carefully constrained within the district.

Attorney Whitehead: And again, it's allowing less than what's allowed today where you're only constrained by coverage.

Boardmember Quinlan: No, I'm not saying we should change it at all. I just wanted to bring up that point: what do you think about …

Boardmember Dovell: It's a good point, Jerry. It's what we're talking about.

Boardmember Quinlan: What do you think? I mean, are the maximum floor area ratios too high, are we happy with what we've got there? Maybe we are, maybe we aren't.

Boardmember Berritt: You know, part of it for me is not only the sort of development of the Village but environmentally at some point – I know most people aren't too bothered when they buy big houses – we should not be encouraging larger than the average sort of size family house, in my mind. I mean, I don't know what that is. It's probably … I was just trying to sort of see it. It's probably about 26-hundred square feet or something, on average.

But do you we want to … I don't know what the numbers are, but I know that the average family takes up – in terms of their actual footprint of what they actually use in a house versus the space they have … I mean, it feels like these numbers are on the higher side. When you say, Jerry, about your plot and what you could actually build on that, if it all just goes up a little bit and a little bit and a little bit …

Chairman Collins: Jo, I think you make a very good point. Sorry, did you have … I didn't mean to cut you off.

Boardmember Berritt: No, no, go ahead.

Chairman Collins: I was going to say, Ray and I flagged, for Pat, our request that we look at existing housing stock in Hastings that went beyond 13 properties, which is what Pat used initially to come up with his first crack at the FARs. Which I will tell you that the first draft we saw would have allowed for considerably larger homes. So this is a step down in sizing. But, Linda, do you know, did Pat expand his view? I think everyone's asking the right question here, which is how does this square with what the quote, unquote norm is in ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 19 -

Hastings. It would be very helpful to have some actual reference points beyond just what our own personal experiences with roofs over our own heads are like.

Attorney Whitehead: No, and I think when we spoke – when we all had that call and we all spoke about it – I think we'd actually have to get authorization from the Village Manager, from the Mayor. For him to just keep doing that much more work, it's time-consuming. But, you know, listen. We all know the Village … it's a very, very diverse, there's areas that have newer, bigger houses and areas that have smaller, older houses. So, you know, there's a range, there's a real range. Hillside Avenue, like Jerry said, it has its very own unique character.

A lot of the houses are older. You know, they're all different time periods and you do see, in areas where there's newer houses, they do tend to be a little bit bigger. So I think this was an attempt to balance, but if you want to reduce the numbers – you know, recommend reducing the numbers – you can reduce the numbers. What you want to be careful … and I think we used an example, the new house on Rosedale would not be permitted with these numbers. We all felt that was big and didn't fit so well, and when we looked at that – under the numbers as currently proposed – it would've been too big. So that felt good.

I think it's hard. You want to make it so that someone … in terms of Matt talked about they can always come to you for a variance, with something like FAR ideally what you want to have is if someone's building a new house they're not coming to you for an FAR variance. If they're building a new house they should be able to comply. The places where you …

Boardmember Dovell: (Off-mic).

Attorney Whitehead: I'm sorry. The places where you should occasionally see an FAR variance is where someone has an existing house that may be close to the maximum and they want to do something, and it's something that they really need. And this happens a lot with older houses, even some of the larger older houses, because they're just not configured for the way people want to live in them today. So they want to expand the kitchen or they want to do something, and they're the ones who are going to end up needing to go over the FAR. You really want to make new construction conform.

Boardmember Dovell: Okay, so back to the 10,000 square foot base (inaudible). If you drop the FAR from 0.350 to 0.325, and you back out a two-car garage for a 3,000 foot house – which is a four-bedroom house, four bedrooms and three bathrooms – if you include the bathroom, or if don't build the garage, you get another 240 square feet. So it's another bedroom in that way. I think 0.325 would be a good baseline, and work the numbers off that. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 20 -

And that still permits a developer quite a bit of house to build. It's being a little picky, but I think it brings the numbers more into character with what we're seeing around town – on the large side of what we see around town.

Chairman Collins: Really the change, Ray, that you're talking about – as I'm looking at the table – really, in order for that to make sense I think you'd have to start imposing it at least at the 9,000 square foot level. It wouldn't make sense for a person, a property owner, to be able to build a larger house on a smaller lot. Which is what the numbers currently would allow.

Attorney Whitehead: No, you start with that as your middle point and then …

Boardmember Dovell: It's a baseline.

Attorney Whitehead: … you make the changes in both directions.

Boardmember Dovell: Right, right. You go bigger … well.

Chairman Collins: Yes, okay, I just wanted to make that clear.

Attorney Whitehead: Follow the same pattern.

Boardmember Berritt: Mm-hmm.

Chairman Collins: I'm just making that clear. I wanted to make sure we weren't just focusing on that single midpoint …

(Cross-talk)

… but it also does have to cascade down.

Boardmember Berritt: Yes. That would certainly … you know, it's all degrees, isn't it? So it's very hard. But that feels more comfortable, a 3,000 square foot.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: So let me ask a question. On a 10,000 square foot lot you would say that you're only allowed – you're only permitting – a 32-hundred square foot house?

Boardmember Dovell: Correct.

Attorney Whitehead: 3,250. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 21 -

Boardmember Dovell: That's a big house.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I think we might be going in the wrong direction. I think it might be a little bit too small. On a 10,000 …

Boardmember Dovell: What houses do you see, Buddy – I mean, in your code recently, that have been that stock.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Well, I'm looking at … let's look at 19 Rosedale for a second, which we all know is too big. That's probably close to 5,000 feet, that house.

Boardmember Dovell: Is it really?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Almost. I think it's in the high-4s, and that's way to big. But I think your baseline, at 35-, is a more comfortable … for me would be a more comfortable baseline than to reduce it down any further than that.

Chairman Collins: It's just hard to do this without having a reference point with existing stock, all of us relying on a very loosey-goosey sense of … and I don't mean that as a pejorative, but only individual reference points. And they're all going to be flawed in one way or another.

Boardmember Quinlan: You know, I agree with you, Matt. But, I mean, we really can take a look at our own situation of the people that live here and actually live in their houses and know how big they are and know how big the lot is. I mean, it's not the greatest way to figure it out, but it really gives you a personal reference. The problem I see is that younger people that are buying the houses want more space. And the question is, is it because they need more space or they just want it. And I think they just want it, they don't need it, you know.

And Joanna said the environment, things like that. You know, what are we looking for in the future, what is Hastings looking for in the future? And that's not a smaller community, but a more environmentally sound community. We're looking into the future. So I think Ray's idea of 0.325 is at least going in the right direction. Buddy, you said you're not comfortable with it. What makes you uncomfortable with that size of house?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I look at my own house, okay?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 22 -

Boardmember Quinlan: Okay, good. Let's hear about it.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I'm over … I'm on about a 75-hundred square foot lot, and the house is approximately 35-hundred square feet now. And we used every inch of this house.

Boardmember Dovell: Buddy, does that include third floor space?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: That's basement, first floor, second floor.

Boardmember Dovell: Basement, is the basement below grade?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: It's a full, finished basement.

Boardmember Dovell: But is it above grade, is it below grade?

Attorney Whitehead: Would it count?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Oh, I'm sorry. That would be a cellar.

Attorney Whitehead: So it wouldn't count.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: It would not count.

Boardmember Dovell: You could take that out, Buddy. You have to take that out.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I'm sorry, Ray, you're right. I didn't even think about that. A hundred percent right.

Boardmember Dovell: I mean, that's which these definitions are so important.

Boardmember Quinlan: Buddy, do you have a garage?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: No, we have no accessory structures.

Boardmember Quinlan: Okay.

Boardmember Dovell: So what I did – what I did just for fun – is, I went on to the home kits. You know, you can buy a floor plan: what kind of a house do you get for 35-hundred square feet, what kind of house do you get for 3,000 square feet? You should do it for your ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 23 -

own edification.

Attorney Whitehead: They're big.

Boardmember Berritt: Big.

Boardmember Dovell: Thirty-five hundred square foot is a really big house.

Boardmember Berritt: Yes.

Boardmember Dovell: (Unintelligible) a garage, it's a really big house. You're not counting the cellar, so I'm on exactly a hundred by a hundred lot. We have three-bedrooms, big bedrooms, big living room/dining room. It's a full house – we don't have a garage – and it's 22-hundred square feet on 10,000 square feet. I just don't need any more; you know, I don't need any more. And it's not that that should be the basis of it because someone coming in and building is going to pay a lot of money for a site and they'd want a little more return. So I think a 32-hundred square foot house is going to give a developer incentive to want to build stuff in here. I don't think we want to disincentivize the developer, but at the same time you don't want to open up (inaudible).

I imagine, Buddy, if you take out your cellar you are going to be somewhere in the same range. How many bedrooms do you have?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: If you not count the bedroom and the cellar it's going to be a four-bedroom house.

Boardmember Dovell: Okay, there you go.

Boardmember Quinlan: And I guess another question I have is how many people live in the house, Buddy?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Currently, four.

Boardmember Quinlan: Well, that's not bad. Anyway, I think it's going to be a very interesting discussion. I raised three sons in this house. I mean, we don't have big bedrooms, but we're all comfortable, no complaints. I didn't ever hear any complaints.

Attorney Whitehead: I just pulled up the property card on the last house I lived in in Hastings, the house that I mostly grew up in. We lived in three different houses. So this was ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 24 -

a house built in '68 on a 10,450 square foot lot and it was your basic four-bedroom, center- hall Colonial. I'm trying to find the square footage. I'm not finding the square footage, give me one second. Now, the garage is under 'cause it's on a hill – what a surprise – and the square footage is 2,464. And that was your basic 1960s four-bedroom, center hall Colonial: living room, family room, den, kitchen on the first floor, four-bedrooms, two bathrooms upstairs. This would probably be considered small for a family of five today.

Chairman Collins: Mm-hmm, it would be.

Boardmember Dovell: But you could add to it, right? If you understood …

Attorney Whitehead: You couldn't 'cause it was built on the side of a hill [laughter].

Boardmember Dovell: But I mean, theoretically you have access floor area …

Attorney Whitehead: Yes. So, I mean, that's just to give me sort of a good comparison.

Boardmember Dovell: Yes, you could add another bedroom and another bathroom.

Attorney Whitehead: That's why I could pull up all three houses I lived in that I know. Now, that had a basement and it does not include the garage because the garage is under … Buddy, you know which house it is, right? – 118 Edgar's. Then that's an area that has 10,000 square foot lots. Some of these others don't have a lot of 10,000 square foot lots. Just knowing by today's standards, a family of five today would think that was a small house. Buddy, as you said there was room to add. It was 25-hundred square feet, basically.

Boardmember Dovell: So you could add a lot of floor area. Under what we're proposing you could add a lot of floor area.

Attorney Whitehead: You could add 500 … yes.

Boardmember Dovell: So you could have two bedrooms, conceivably, and a bathroom.

Boardmember Dovell: I wanted to see, David, if you had any comments or feedback.

Boardmember Chen: You know, I really don't. Just really a question, and I apologize if this is ground that's already been tread. I just wonder the extent to which any other river towns have adopted FAR into their zoning codes.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 25 -

Attorney Whitehead: Yes.

Boardmember Chen: And for any that have I would just be curious, just as a reference point, to see what kind of ratios they have as compared to what's being proposed here.

Attorney Whitehead: That's Rye, that's not one the river towns.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I know Irvington does, but I don't know what their numbers are.

Attorney Whitehead: I have Larchmont and Rye here. Let me see who else I have. Larchmont's FARs are much higher than even what you're looking at here. The Village of Mamaroneck …

Chairman Collins: I've got Irvington open in front of me. For a 10,000 square foot lot their FAR is 0.28.

Boardmember Dovell: No kidding.

Boardmember Chen: Interesting.

Boardmember Dovell: But what are the definitions?

Attorney Whitehead: Yes, does that include a garage? The Village of Mamaroneck, on the 10,000 square foot, is 0.37.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: In Irvington, that excludes the garage. But it includes the space above a garage if it has a height of 7 feet or more.

Attorney Whitehead: Rye, on a 10,000 square foot lot is 0.3.

Boardmember Dovell: Under what definition for Rye?

Attorney Whitehead: Well, we saw some of Rye's definitions [laughter]. We took what they used on the voids. On basements they count 25 percent.

Chairman Collins: I mean, we're close. If you figure Irvington is not including garage space, and you were to plug that in and then let the FAR float higher as a result to allow for it.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 26 -

Boardmember Dovell: (Unintelligible).

Chairman Collins: It's close. Just say it would bump from 0.28 to 0.31. We're talking about 0.325 on a 10,000 square foot lot. Now you're talking about a very, very small distinction. It seems like there's consensus-building here on a slight reduction at that 10,000 square foot midpoint, and then cascading it up and down.

Boardmember Berritt: Mm-hmm, yes.

Boardmember Quinlan: And I would agree.

Chairman Collins: All right, I'm comfortable with that and it seems this board is, too. I guess it might be helpful … I couldn't detect and I didn't take the numbers back provided and bring them over to a Google spread sheet or an Excel spread sheet to see what's governing the sliding scale. Like is there a formula or something, is there a common … I'm groping here with the words, but is there some order to this so that when we take it down to 0.325 is that a change that then automatically can cascade up and down, or is that going to require some manual work?

Attorney Whitehead: Well, where it goes on the larger lots he basically did it by 100ths. Going the other way it's a little more complicated because you have to be careful as the lots get small that you don't …

Boardmember Dovell: Over-reward.

Attorney Whitehead: So I think he did have a method to his madness, and he just e-mailed me that he's not going to make it, he's stuck on his other meeting.

Boardmember Dovell: But maybe he can just apply whatever logic he can apply to it and work it out.

Attorney Whitehead: So I'll make the change in the floor area definition and I'll give him that new center point, if you will, of 0.325 and have him redo the numbers in both directions. We can e-mail it back to you, and then when we take it to the Board of Trustees on the 4th we'll tell them that, you know, this has basically been reviewed by you, you've spent some time looking at the numbers and trying to sort of come up with what's right. It will, as part of their process, come back to you again because they are required to refer any zoning amendment to both Planning Board and Zoning Board. So if they think they want to make any further changes to it you'll get it back and have a chance to comment on those. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 27 -

Chairman Collins: That's good to know.

Attorney Whitehead: And, David, just for your benefit – since this is all kind of new to you – this really came out of, well, Ray had suggested when we did some pretty major revisions on the MR-1.5 zone that we add an FAR requirement, floor area ratio requirement, in that zone. And then it's come up recently that the primary control on the size of single-family homes is coverage. That really doesn't work; it allows a big house – and the one on Rosedale is a good example – it allows a bigger house than people think really fit. And Hastings has been one of the fortunate communities, frankly, over the last 20 years where there has not been a lot of tear-downs and McMansion-building. But it's starting; slowly, but it's starting. So the idea is to try to, before it starts and gets going too much, to kind of control it to keep the character of the Village. Is that a good summary [laughter]?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Yes, that's very good, Linda. And to echo what Linda's saying, since we're running out of building lots – as we can see from people that are trying to build new houses on these incredibly steep lots – the trend is starting to go towards tear-downs. And it does make a lot of sense.

Attorney Whitehead: So, Buddy, having lived on two incredibly steep lots in this village that's not a new trend [laughter].

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: No, no, no, I meant the tear-down and rebuild's a new trend.

Attorney Whitehead: The tear-downs is a new trend. Building in incredibly steep lots is not [laughter].

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: No, no, that's definitely not. Including my own house [laughter].

Attorney Whitehead: And part of the reason, just so you know why we stole a lot of language from Rye, is that Rye has been dealing with this for 25 years. Rye has been sort of the center of the tear-down and build the McMansion; Rye and Scarsdale. And we do a lot of work in Rye so we've seen it. They have been playing with their floor area ratio numbers and definitions and how it's applied to try to get it right for 25 years, and that's why we tried to kind of build on some of that experience. You guys have been lucky, Hastings has been very fortunate to not have had this happening yet. But it's starting.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: No, we're seeing it now. It's comin', it's comin'. This is the perfect time to do this. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 28 -

Attorney Whitehead: Yes.

Boardmember Dovell: I think these numbers provide some incentive, but we'll work to retain the character of the Village.

Attorney Whitehead: Mm-hmm.

Boardmember Dovell: Especially given the fact that we haven't changed the building coverage and we haven't changed the development coverage. Some interest now, we'll get some variety with architectural form, which Hastings has. So I it's a good starting place. And if it looks like it's too generous or not generous enough it can be readdressed, correct?

Attorney Whitehead: Okay.

Chairman Collins: I just marked up that FAR docket. I don't think there'll be anything you didn't also cover. Linda, I'll send it to you just as a backup. I'll send it to the entire Zoning Board, and I've missed something you can feel free to come over the top.

Attorney Whitehead: All right, and I marked up the changes in the definition on floor area.

Chairman Collins: Yes, I've got all this covered too.

Attorney Whitehead: I think the floor area ratio definition, all we did was take out the re- gross, which didn't belong there. And the basement definition, that's the definition we all worked out on our last call.

Chairman Collins: Yes. I added the accessory structure for clarity, and I just removed any … there's no need to qualify a basement – sorry, garage. I just took out whether (cross-talk).

Attorney Whitehead: Just garages.

Chairman Collins: Yes, just garage. So you'll all see that. After the meeting's over I'll e- mail that to the group, and if there's something for whatever reason I missed or it occurs to you you'd like to address we can flag it that way.

Boardmember Quinlan: Yes, Matt. Those are the same changes I have so I think you got them right.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 29 -

Chairman Collins: All right, thank you Jerry. Okay.

Attorney Whitehead: Well, I know the Board of Trustees is anxious to get this going, so they will. And it could be adopted by the end of September.

Boardmember Berritt: That'd be great.

Boardmember Dovell: That's fantastic.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I want to thank everybody for all their hard work on this, too. This has been a real challenge.

Boardmember Dovell: Yes, it is. It's big, but it's important and I think we made good progress.

Boardmember Dovell: What about two-family, what about 2-R?

Attorney Whitehead: Oh, yes. We had talked about also applying an FAR requirement to the 2-R and the 2-R3.5. So we can add them. The one thing – and this is something for the board to kind of tell me what they think – when I started looking at these numbers I didn't know if we needed to provide different numbers for the two-family zones because I think that in most instances it's anticipated that the houses would be a little bit bigger if they're two-family.

Boardmember Dovell: I mean, it's a little weird. And it's the High Street conundrum, isn't it? I mean, that house was built as a two-family, right, Buddy? That's a two-family house, right?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: That's correct.

Boardmember Dovell: And they were incentivized to build a two-family house because they could get more floor area out of it. Is that right?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Yes, the two houses that were just built on Rose Street, the two 2-families, I mean they're ginormous.

Attorney Whitehead: How big were those lots?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I'm sorry, I don't have the numbers off the top of my head. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 30 -

Boardmember Dovell: But currently, in a 2-R district, is there a different lot coverage? I don't see it. Isn't it the same lot coverage?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: No, there's a different lot coverage for a two-family. The one- families do the percentage, the two-family is a straightforward coverage.

Boardmember Dovell: Right, okay.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I cannot recall the numbers off the top of my head.

Attorney Whitehead: I have it in front of me.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Okay, good.

Attorney Whitehead: The coverage for a single-family, your building coverage is 30 percent, your development coverage – and this is in the 2-R – is 40. And it doesn't say anything for two-families. For all other uses, all buildings it's 25 percent.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: There you go, that's right.

Attorney Whitehead: So actually that's kind of odd. It's less for a two-family?

Boardmember Dovell: So they're not incentivized. So why isn't it the same? I mean, the only thing to me that makes any difference is the use; whether it's one-family or two- families. I mean, I don't think there should be any incentive to building a two-family house versus a one-family. That we should apply … if there's a slight bump in FAR in these zones okay, but don't apply one for one-family and a different one for a two-family. It just gets confusing.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: FAR is completely required in this area.

Attorney Whitehead: No, I'm not saying we shouldn't do it. I'm saying what should the numbers be. Should be numbers be the same.

Boardmember Quinlan: Well if I can say, I can agree with Ray. I mean, if you walk down Rose Street you don't need to know the numbers. Those houses are just enormous and do not fit to Hastings' character. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. And the neighbors that live there in single-family houses will say the same thing. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 31 -

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Absolutely, and they're as-of-right. That's the scary part.

Boardmember Quinlan: Yes, they're as-of-right so I think Ray has a good point.

Attorney Whitehead: That's why I'm curious how big the lots are.

Boardmember Quinlan: They're not that big. I mean, I'm not saying what they are but if they're over 10,000 feet I'd be very surprised, on Rose Street.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Well, 35 Rose is over 10,000. I can't answer for 27, 29 Rose.

Attorney Whitehead: I'll tell you in a minute. I'm on Greenburgh's GIS [laughter].

Boardmember Quinlan: All right, good for you. And Linda, while you're looking we didn't steal Rye's stuff, we borrowed it.

Attorney Whitehead: We used it.

Boardmember Berritt: We appropriated it.

Boardmember Dovell: They'll come back and look at ours.

Attorney Whitehead: Buddy, what are the addresses?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: The first address is 3 Rose Street, which is 3-5, and the second address is … give me one second, I got to think. I think it's 26, 28 Rose Street.

Attorney Whitehead: All right, give me one second. So at 3-5 they actually combine two lots, right?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: No, that was the lot that was there. There was a large house on the lot already, just they made it larger.

Attorney Whitehead: Okay, so that is … no, that's my house, hold on. I got too many things open. I could tell you all about 118 Edgar's Lane. That's 10,000 square feet.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: So 3-5 is only 10,000 square feet? I thought it was bigger, my bad. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 32 -

Attorney Whitehead: That's what the GIS is showing. Now I don't know, give me one second.

Chairman Collins: But the assumption in this group here is that that house is going to be north of 3.250, right? Square footage?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Oh, for sure.

Attorney Whitehead: Yes, I'm trying to figure out the coverage. Because the code is saying it's 25 percent coverage. I can't tell if this is for the new house or the old. Oh, the new one says it's 5,000 square feet.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: And that's on three floors. Both of those houses have finished basements and two full living floors. I mean, they're really nice-sized houses for a two- family on those lots.

Boardmember Dovell: Which one are you talking about, Buddy? Sorry.

Attorney Whitehead: That's 3-5.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: It's 3-5 Rose.

Boardmember Dovell: What's the zone? It's 2-R?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: That's correct, it's a 2-R.

Boardmember Dovell: A 2-R has a minimum lot size of 75-hundred square feet and a minimum width of 75, too, right? So it's very similar to an R-7.5, the difference being that two-family houses are permitted.

Attorney Whitehead: Right.

Boardmember Dovell: So is there a need to … are those districts generally … contain more … greater bulk, Buddy, or not? In a 2-R district.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: This particular district, in this 2-R it's hit and miss. You have some very dense lots and a few small houses. It's very mixed.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 33 -

Boardmember Dovell: The difference between these 2-R zones is that the 2-R3.5 has a minimum lot area of 45-hundred square feet, which is a much … you know, that's where I think you're going to have to look at different (inaudible) than what we've just talked about for … otherwise you're not going to be able to do anything.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: And I think the 2-R3.5 is only Ridge Street.

Boardmember Dovell: It's only Ridge Street.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: There's not a lot of 2-R3.5s.

Boardmember Dovell: But what would be the compelling reason to change the FAR numbers we just had in the 2-R? Not 2-R3.5, but 2-R. Which means that for a 10,000 square foot lot you get the same (inaudible).

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: In all actuality I think it should stay the same. I don't think it should go up, especially in this district that is overbuilt now.

Boardmember Dovell: Because who wants to build a two-family house? I think one off High Street is (inaudible).

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: There's one on the corner of High and Rose which has a Rose Street address, and then there's 35 Rose. Then you also have (cross-talk) …

Boardmember Dovell: What's the enormous house right at the corner, that one that's for sale right now right at Rose, with the big stone front on it?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Oh, the one on the corner of High. That's one of them.

Boardmember Dovell: That's 2-R.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: That's in a 2-R, correct.

Boardmember Dovell: Okay. So if we think about that we would be dialing that house back. That lot is 10,000 square feet?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: That lot is about 10,000 square feet, yes.

Boardmember Dovell: Okay. Well that then house would be grossly overbuilt if we accept ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 34 -

it.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Yes, and both of those houses are … they do have the garage underneath, but they are still a finished basement and two full floors.

Attorney Whitehead: So in that one – and they come up separately on the assessor because they're condos so they're separately assessed.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: That's correct.

Attorney Whitehead: The living area for 26 Rose Street, the one unit is 2,068 square feet. So if they're the same it's a 4,000 square foot building.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Yes, it's way overbuilt.

Boardmember Dovell: That would be cut down to the 32-hundred square foot house.

Attorney Whitehead: I'm trying to figure out what the parcel size is.

Boardmember Dovell: I mean, I know that two-family dwellings are permitted, and why anyone would build one anymore is a little puzzle.

Attorney Whitehead: Money.

Boardmember Dovell: Money, but … okay, money. All right.

Attorney Whitehead: They're condo-ing them and then they're selling them both.

Boardmember Dovell: How do you make a condominium with two units?

Attorney Whitehead: You can.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: They did. It took about a year, but he did it. On 3-5 he's not doing it, but he rented those two units within a month. They were both rented.

Boardmember Dovell: Rented, yes. I think maybe we just apply the same number to the 2-R district. And unless anyone sees any compelling reason to bump it up, to permit greater density, (inaudible).

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 35 -

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I certainly don't see any reason to bump it up. I think you can monetize …

Boardmember Dovell: Jerry, what do you think?

Boardmember Quinlan: I think you're right on target, both of you Buddy and Ray. I think we keep the same. And, you know, the Board of Trustees are going to play around with it, but this will be our recommendation. We see what happens.

Attorney Whitehead: So we'll put that in for both the 2-R and the 2-R3.5.

Boardmember Dovell: No. See, the 2-R3.5 I don't think is going to work. Those are small lots, aren't they? They're 25-foot wide lots?

Attorney Whitehead: Buddy, where in the Village primarily is the 2-R3.5?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Only on Ridge Street. I don't know of any other districts off the top of my head.

Boardmember Dovell: But what is the average size of a lot in the district?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: All those houses are narrow and tall.

Boardmember Dovell: Okay.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: So I'm going to have to say they're on the smaller-size lots. I don't know exactly the numbers though, Ray, I'm sorry.

Attorney Whitehead: Yes, the lots are small.

Boardmember Dovell: So it means the side yard setbacks are going to be different, right?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: The side yard setbacks in that neighborhood are quite tight.

Boardmember Quinlan: They're like 3 or 4 feet, something like that.

Boardmember Dovell: So we can't use the same number or you're never going to get a house sold. You take a 35-hundred square foot house, I mean, (inaudible).

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 36 -

Attorney Whitehead: You know what? They're all nonconforming.

Boardmember Dovell: Right, but it represents a character, right? I mean, that block of houses represents a character. So I think we have to acknowledge that in the numbers somehow. If you take 35-hundred square feet and you multiply that by 0.325 you're going to get an 11-hundred square foot house. It's not big enough. You got to change the numbers on the smaller lots.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: The issue down there is they're primarily multi-family down there, three-family and over.

Attorney Whitehead: They're all nonconforming. You know what? That street needs a different review.

Boardmember Dovell: Right. But Linda, my point is let's just say somebody tore down a house there and we applied a 0.325 FAR. It's not going to yield that much; it's going to yield a tiny little thing. So this is one district I think requires a little more study.

Attorney Whitehead: Yes. So we're going to do the R-2, but not the 2-R3.5.

Boardmember Dovell: I think it needs a little more study. You know, if that's a grouping of lots that are all about that size, I think …

Attorney Whitehead: They're like 3,000 square foot lots; 3-thousand and 35-hundred square foot lots with nonconforming buildings on them. The lots are nonconforming, the buildings are nonconforming.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: They vary. You know, you have the townhouses down there.

Boardmember Dovell: The requirement is the minimum width of 25 feet; 25 feet is the minimum width. Is that about what they are, 25?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: They're all over the place, Ray. They're all different.

Boardmember Quinlan: Ray, I think you hit it. It's just going to need more study and more information. Like you say, Buddy, the townhouses are there. I was on the Zoning Board when those came in the middle '90s. I mean, there was a big battle about that from all the neighbors.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 37 -

Attorney Whitehead: It's a funky street [laughter].

Boardmember Quinlan: It's a funky street, it's a cool little street. It's got some great views on the west side. But we'll need more information.

Attorney Whitehead: It's a funky little street.

Chairman Collins: Well, we've got the priority right which is the single-family part.

Attorney Whitehead: All right, so we're going to include the 2-R in this. This is going to be for single-family and 2-R.

Boardmember Dovell: Do you see this being done incrementally? I mean, do you think this should just go in advance of other districts, Linda, for the trustees?

Attorney Whitehead: I'm sorry? I think we're going to send the FAR for all the single- families and the 2-R.

Boardmember Dovell: Okay.

Attorney Whitehead: That's how we want to apply this.

Boardmember Dovell: Right, but at some point we're going to get the other districts, right?

Attorney Whitehead: Yes, I think we can tell them that we think Ridge Street should be reviewed.

Boardmember Dovell: Yes.

Attorney Whitehead: [Laughter] And it's not necessarily just about FAR. It may be that that 2-R3.5 needs a different kind of overhaul because that's really the only street in town where that zone exists. It doesn't make any sense.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Well, I think there was a reason why that zone was created just for that street. I mean, that was an industrial street back in the day.

Attorney Whitehead: Yes. Oh, there's quite a history to Ridge Street.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: There certainly is. And Jerry could tell us best because he was ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 38 -

on the board at the time. That zone was created just for Ridge Street.

Attorney Whitehead: But it was created, and it made everything nonconforming.

Boardmember Quinlan: It's complicated. We'll have to study it more.

Attorney Whitehead: There is not going to be an easy answer for that street. And part of it is going to depend on whether you want to try make what's there conforming or if you want to keep it all nonconforming so if anything gets torn down it's got to meet a whole different set of rules.

Boardmember Quinlan: I mean, they got everything on street. The last building on the east side is an apartment building owned by the Capuanos, at least there was for Joey.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: It still is.

Attorney Whitehead: Joe still owns it.

Boardmember Quinlan: Yes, Joe owns it so we've got to take a look at that. There's some interesting houses there.

Attorney Whitehead: It's a real mix, it's a lot of multi-family. It's a two-family zone, but a lot of them are multi-family.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: And now they're renovating the house across the street – it's a new owner – and it's a four-family.

Boardmember Dovell: In a 2-R3.5?

Attorney Whitehead: Yes, there's a lot of them. There's threes- and fours-.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Yes, there's threes- and fours- there.

Boardmember Dovell: But how is he doing that as-of-right?

Attorney Whitehead: It's existing.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: It's already existing four-family.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 39 -

Boardmember Dovell: Oh, it's existing. I see, okay.

Boardmember Quinlan: Is that the one across from that building, the Capuano building?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: That's correct, yes.

Boardmember Quinlan: And yes, that's a big old house. And he was terribly upset when the townhouses were built. He went out of his mind. Anyway, I think we've just going to have to take a closer look at that, and we'll worry about that some other time. It's all built out anyway.

Attorney Whitehead: It's more about what happens in the future.

Boardmember Quinlan: Yes, exactly. And it's hard to tear something down there, too, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't do it.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: It's true. There's only one lot left and it's way undersized, and the other lot's owned by Con Edison. So there's not a whole lot left there, but as Linda said it's about tear-downs.

Boardmember Quinlan: Yes.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: And there could possibly be a good handful of tear-downs there.

Attorney Whitehead: But no one's going to tear them down right now because they're so limited on what they can do, to be honest. They're going to try to keep their nonconformities. They'll renovate but they're not going to tear down on that street because they lose the right to what they have.

Boardmember Quinlan: Good point.

Attorney Whitehead: Okay.

Boardmember Quinlan: Matt, are you okay with all this?

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: I know, Matt, you've been very quiet [laughter].

Chairman Collins: No, I'm fine with it. I tend to be … you know, I'm really not objecting too much. If I go back to the single-family issue, the 10,000 square foot, and knocking it ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 40 -

down to 0.325 from 0.35 you're talking about a less than 10 percent decrease in what's permitted. It's fine. I tend to get a little bit more uncomfortable about applying my own experience and what I find okay for my family and making that a basis for how other people might want to use this house or some other house that might go on my lot, but that's a personal preference. And in the end, I feel like the changes we'd be suggesting here are going to permit all kinds of flexibility for an applicant; to be able to imagine bigger families, maybe we turn some day to having bigger families. And if that's the case our code will permit it.

Attorney Whitehead: Jerry's street was full of big families in little houses, right Jerry?

Boardmember Quinlan: That's right. House built in 1905.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Especially the Ryans' house.

Attorney Whitehead: Yes, Hillside Avenue was full of big families in small houses. I know them all. They Ryans, the Flemings, the Matties, all big families.

Boardmember Berritt: The way we're going it'll be multi-generational family space we all need because we'll all be piling in together [laughter].

Attorney Whitehead: And there's something to be said for leaving enough room for that.

Boardmember Quinlan: Well, we're practicing that now, right?

Boardmember Berritt: Yes [laughter].

Chairman Collins: That's right, and it's a good illustration of the unforeseeable and allowing for flexibility to accommodate the unforeseeable. In my mind, going from 0.35 to 0.325's not going to impair the Village's ability to give property owners the flexibility they need so I'm fine with it.

I'm eager to get this, as much as possible … I wouldn't want to advise that the Board of Trustees wait for us to solve these other tiny little slivers of the overall zoning map to act on this. So I think it's a good conversation, but I think we should as soon as possible get this over to them for considering.

Attorney Whitehead: Well, we're going to hold the 2-R3.5 back.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 41 -

Chairman Collins: Yes, I think that's right.

Attorney Whitehead: Okay.

Boardmember Quinlan: So when's the next meeting?

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Next Meeting Date – September 3, 2020

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: It's September 3rd. Unfortunately, on the notice it's August 20th. That is not the date, it's September 3rd.

Boardmember Quinlan: 9-3?

Chairman Collins: 9-3.

Boardmember Quinlan: Thank you.

Attorney Whitehead: That's still before Labor Day. That's still a summer meeting.

Chairman Collins: Labor Day is as late as it can be, I think, this year.

Attorney Whitehead: It is.

APPROVAL OF MINUTES

Regular Meeting of June 25, 2020

Chairman Collins: Let's have a quick discussion on the meeting minutes for June. Any amendments to the minutes?

Boardmember Berritt: No, they look good to me.

Chairman Collins: All right, then can I get a motion to approve the minutes?

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 42 -

On MOTION of Boardmember Quinlan, SECONDED by Boardmember Chen with a voice vote of all in favor, the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 25, 2020 were approved as presented.

Chairman Collins: Sorry, I got to do this by roll call voting.

Bldg. Inspector Minozzi: Wait, who said that?

Attorney Whitehead: You don't have to do the minutes by roll call.

Chairman Collins: Okay, so we can just do a hand-raise?

Attorney Whitehead: For minutes, yes.

Chairman Collins: All right, all those in favor of approving? Thank you.

Attorney Whitehead: And just reflect it was unanimous. That's because there's no legal requirement to approve minutes.

Chairman Collins: Oh, well then maybe I'll skip that step next time.

Attorney Whitehead: [Laughter] Everybody does it.

Chairman Collins: I know, I learned it from watching Brian Murphy for several years so I could evolve it and move on. I'm fine with that. Give us all 15 seconds back.

ADJOURNMENT

Chairman Collins: All right, then, I think we're adjourned.

Boardmember Berritt: Thank you.

Boardmember Quinlan: Okay, nice seeing you all.

Chairman Collins: See you next time. See you around the Village.

Boardmember Dovell: Take care, 'bye. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS REGULAR MEETING & PUBLIC HEARING JULY 23, 2020 Held virtually via videoconference using the Zoom platform Page - 43 -

Chairman Collins: 'Bye everybody.

Boardmember Quinlan: Have a good weekend.