►
From YouTube: Beacon Zoning Board 8 15 23
Description
The City of Beacon Zoning Board Meeting from August 15, 2023
B
All
right,
as
Jordan
said,
my
name
is
George,
represent
the
zoning
board
here,
City
attorney,
so
we're
going
to
have
a
quick
presentation
for
the
board
and
for
the
public
today
on
the
new
local
law
that
was
adopted
by
the
city
council
on
his
effective
January,
1st
2024
concerning
all
electric
all
electric
buildings,
the
inspiration
for
the
law.
It
was
a
state
thing,
New
York
adopted
the
climate
leadership
and
Community
protection
act.
B
So
in
New
York
state
the
pending
all-electric
proposals,
you
have
first
the
governor's
budget
proposal
that
calls
for
the
installation
of
fossil
fuel
equipment
and
Building
Systems
and
any
new
single-family
Residential
Building
of
any
height
or
any
new
multi-family
Residential
Building,
not
more
than
three
stories
in
height
that
shall
be
prohibited
on
or
after
December,
31st
2025..
So
we're
still
a
couple
years
away
from
that.
B
But
that's
that's
something
to
keep
on
the
radar,
the
installation
of
fossil
fuel
equipment
and
Building
Systems
in
any
new
multi-family
Residential
Building,
more
than
three
stories
in
height
or
new
commercial
buildings
shall
be
prohibited
on
or
after
December,
31st
2028.,
so
for
multi-family,
residential,
more
than
three
stories
or
for
commercial.
So
typically
larger
projects
they're
giving
them
a
little
extra
time.
That's
20
28,
but
for
a
single
family,
residential
or
multi-family
residential
buildings.
Less
than
three
stories
that's
prohibited
on
or
after
December
31st
2025.,.
B
E
B
B
In
that
situation,
it's
it's
a
question
of
what
crosses
the
line
of
renovation
right
if
you're
renovating
but
you're
keep
you're
tearing
out
everything
except
the
exterior
walls.
Is
it
really
a
renovation
right?
That's
going
to
be
probably
municipality
to
municipality
specific
and
that's.
You
know,
determination
for
the
the
building
inspector
at
if
and.
G
The
wall
that
the
city
passed
a
few
months
so
I
think
it
was
more
than
a
few
months
back
now,
but
the
law
of
the
city
passed
was
that
if
somebody
was
to
do
75
percent
renovation
or
more
of
the
home-
and
they
were
also
changing
out
the
you
know
the
heating
system
in
the
house,
they
would
have
to
go
all
electric
at
that
point.
That's
that's
a
trigger
just
for
the
city
of
Beacon
right
now,
or
at
least
we'll
be
starting.
The
first
of
the
year.
B
A
list
of
things
here:
manufacturing
facility,
commercial,
food
establishment,
laboratory,
laundromat,
hospital
or
other
medical
facility
or
critical
infrastructure,
such
as
backup
power
for
wastewater
treatment
facilities
or
crematoriums.
Things
like
that
that
that's
an
exemption
and
where
the
exemption
is
permitted.
The
exemption
shall
limit
to
the
full
system
feasible.
B
Provided
that
they
don't
adversely
affect
the
health
safety
security,
fire
protection,
Financial
considerations
stuff,
like
that,
it's
not
a
financial
consideration,
is
not
a
sufficient
basis
to
determine
infeasibility
right.
It's
not
enough
to
say
that
this
is
going
to
be
too
expensive,
so
it's
unfeasible,
it
really
has
to
do
with.
Is
it
going
to
affect
the
health
safety
security
things
like
that?
These
core
principles,
if
now
going
to
more
local
February
6
2023
city
of
Beacon
city
council,
will
introduce
the
proposed
law
to
create
chapter
106,
Article
5
of
the
city
code.
B
It's
entitled
all
electric
buildings.
This
is
to
require
the
electrification
of
new
residential
and
commercial
buildings
and,
as
Elaine
referred
to
and
Bruce
explained
major
Renovations.
This
was
adopted,
March,
1st
I
believe
2023.
So,
a
couple
weeks
later,
the
purpose
of
the
law
is
to
establish
a
local
energy
code,
supplement
for
all
new
construction
and
major
renovations
and,
like
I,
said
it's
to
really
go
green.
It's
to
really.
B
The
goal
is
to
eliminate
what
people
call
obsolete
natural
gas
infrastructure
and
Associated
greenhouse
gas
emissions
in
new
buildings,
where
all
electric
infrastructure
can
be
most
practically
integrated,
and
this
is
again
to
reduce
the
environmental
and
health
hazards
produced
by
transportation
of
natural
gas
consumption
of
natural
gas
and
anything
related
to
that
that
is
effective
in
the
city
of
Beacon,
starting
January,
1st
2024,
that's
in
the
local
law,
just
an
FYI
I,
don't
believe
e-codes
has
been
updated.
Yet
I
looked
at
e-codes.
This
isn't
on
e-codes
yet,
but
it
should
be
shortly
coming.
B
B
Though
the
2025
was
for
the
state,
but
in
the
city
of
Beacon,
it's
January,
1st
2024
that
it's
affected
so
and
you'll
see
why
that's
relevant
to
the
zoning
Board
in
a
couple
slides.
But
right
now
again
that's
for
new
buildings
and
major
Renovations.
That's
not
I,
don't
think
the
goal
anywhere
is
to
go
retroactively
and
say:
well,
you
have
a
gas
stove
change
that
out
for
no
reason
other
than
you
have
a
gas
stove.
B
But
you
know
the
Authority,
for
this
is
under
New
York,
State
energy
law,
section
11-109,
it's
and
subject
to
the
requirements
of
that
section.
The
city
of
Beacon
has
the
power
to
promulgate
a
local
energy
conservation
construction
code
that
is
more
stringent
than
the
energy
conservation
construction
code
of
New
York
state,
so
New
York
State
could
say
you
have
to
do.
X,
Y
and
Z
city
of
Beacon
or
any
municipality
could
say
you
have
to
do
XYZ,
plus
ABCD,
that's
well
within
their
right.
B
The
city
also
has
the
authority
to
enact
the
law
based
upon
Article
1
Section
19
of
the
State
Constitution,
which
guarantees
each
person's
quote
right
to
clean
air
and
water.
In
a
healthful
environment-
and
we
see
more
and
more
throughout
the
country,
these
movements
to
go
green
to
clean
the
environment
have
cleaner
air,
cleaner
water
things
like
that
city
of
Beacon
is
not
alone.
However,
some
anecdotes
in
December
2021
New
York
City
Council
passed
legislation
to
phase
fossil
fuels
out
of
new
construction
starting
in
2024..
B
This
law
means
that
new
buildings,
with
few
exceptions,
will
be
all
electric
and
emit
less
carbon
all
while
improving
local
air
quality
and
making
occupants
more
comfortable.
It
places
an
effective
ban
on
fossil
fuel
systems
and
new
buildings
and
renovated
ones
pushing
to
make
all
new
buildings
completely
Electric.
B
This
affects
everything
from
how
the
building
is
heated
to
the
kind
of
stoves
that
will
be
in
apartments
right,
I.
Think
generally,
when
we
think
gas
versus
electric
it's
probably
HVAC
system
is
heat,
for
example,
and
stoves.
That's
really
what
it
comes
down
to
dryers,
to
clothing
dryers.
That's
another
big
one,
water
heaters,
water
heaters
as
well
yeah.
So
there's
there's
really
these
key
things
that
everyone
thinks
of
and
places
are
trying
to
get
out
ahead
of
that
and
and
require
you
good
to
go.
B
Greener,
with
whatever
side
effects
that
has
whether
it's
added
cost
or
less
efficiency,
more
efficiency
whatever
it
is-
that
that's
really
the
the
desire
Behind
these
laws
in
New
York
City.
The
requirements
will
be
phased
in.
For
example,
new
quote-unquote
low-rise
buildings
will
be
required
to
be
electric
by
2024.
schools
by
2025
and
larger
buildings
by
2027
in
New
York
City.
The
lock
cover
is
almost
all
new
construction
renovations,
with
the
exception
of
again
some
manufacturing
hospitals
and
restaurants.
B
Right,
there's
certain
obviously
carve
outs
for
this
requirement
with
the
intention
that
places
like
hospitals
that
we
see
a
lot
are
manufacturing
facilities
might
not
be
feasible
again
for
the
health
safety
welfare
of
the
community,
not
necessarily
for
the
economic
reasons.
Another
example
is
the
town
and
city
of
Ithaca.
They
also
adopted
a
similar
legislation,
their
effective
January,
1st
2026.
All
buildings
must
be
built
to
have
Net
Zero
greenhouse
gas
emissions,
and
they
shall
not
use
fossil
fuels
for
space
heating,
water,
heating
or
clothes
Shrine
right.
Those
are
some
of
the
things
we
just
mentioned.
B
It
also
requires
that
all
new
buildings
constructed
in
such
a
way
to
produce
40
percent
fewer
greenhouse
gas
emissions
than
New
York
state
code
requires,
and
it
requires
that
new
construction
be
Net
Zero
by
2030..
This
is
an
overlay
to
the
state
energy
code,
which
includes
its
own
efficiency
requirements,
including
lighting
ventilation,
other
requirements.
So
that's
again
an
example
of
you
have
the
state
overarching
goal,
but
you
also
have
the
ability,
as
a
municipality,
to
be
more
stringent
than
the
city
of
Ithaca,
is
showing
that
now
being
specific
to
City
of
Beacon.
B
B
B
Another
thing
that
stands
out
on
this
slide
is
the
the
exception
for
any
project
that
receives
site
plan
approval.
The
purpose
of
that
planning
board
exemption
is
to
address
situations
where
projects
might
undergo
phased
in
development.
So
that's
that's
sort
of
what
the
the
the
rationale
behind
that
is,
but
again
being
at
it's
August,
15th
and
we're
having
this.
This
presentation
there's
a
good
chance
that,
however
many
handful
of
projects
are
approved,
but
going
forward
now
site
plan
approval
received
from
today
forward
that
exemption
does
not
apply.
B
The
article
also
provides
requirements
and
standards
that
are
in
addition
to
and
supplement
the
requirements
and
standards
set
forth
in
the
energy
code
and
in
chapter
119,
which
is
uniform
fire
prevention
and
building
code
of
of
our
city
code.
If
a
requirement
of
this
article
is
less
stringent
than
that
of
the
energy
code,
in
effect,
at
the
time
of
application
for
a
building
permit,
then
the
more
stringent
energy
code
requirements
shall
take
precedence.
B
So
if
you
have
energy
code
requirement-
and
you
have
this
section
requirement-
you
go
with
the
more
stringent
one
at
the
time
of
the
building
application
permit.
The
city
shall
enforce
this
article.
In
addition
to
the
city's
enforcement
of
the
energy
code,
chapter
119,
which
is
a
uniform
fire
prevention
and
building
code,
sets
forth
the
method
for
administration
and
enforcement
of
this
article,
and
that
establishes
powers,
duties
and
responsibilities
and
connection
there
with
including
penalties
and
other
violations
and
other
remedies
for
violations
of
this
article.
I
B
G
Of
guy
I
do
that
yeah
that
would
be
the
attack
would
be.
You
know,
all
electric
ready,
actually
there's
currently
Provisions
today
for
some
things
to
be
newer
homes
to
be
ready
for
solar
system,
so
the
city
adopted
the
stretch
energy
code,
so
there
are
Provisions
within
the
electrical
requirements
there
that
they
have
to
put
in
wiring
and
get
ready
to
put
in
a
car
charger
as
well
as
you
know,
putting
in
the
at
least
the
conduits
for
the
solar
system.
You
know
that
may
possibly
come
up
in
the
future.
G
This
law
would
be.
You
know
something
very
similar,
so
if
they
were
put
in
I
guess
a
fossil
fuel,
you
know
furnace,
you
know
they
would
have
to
have
Provisions
or
at
least
have
enough
power
within
the
building.
You
know
with
a
proper
breaker
in
the
Box
in
order
to
still
run
a
heat
pump.
You
know
for
some
at
that
point
in
time
when
they
switch
over.
B
B
All
plans
submitted
with
in
connection
with
any
application
for
new
construction
subject
to
the
provisions
of
the
article,
must
include
notes
and
drawings
to
show
the
removal
of
petroleum
tanks
and
demonstrate
that
any
tank
removed
was
appropriately
closed
in
accordance
with
state
regulations
right.
So
it's
not
only,
let's
see
electric,
we
don't
really
care
about
what
happens.
You
also
have
to
have
a
plan
to
remove
everything
safely,
because
again
it's
not
a
matter
of
my
building
is
electric
going
forward
great
it's.
B
B
Required
to
support
an
emergency
backup
generator,
for
example
right.
So
if
you
are
keeping
natural
gas
around,
you
have
to
be
able
to
point
that
either
we
cut
it
off
here
or
it's
around,
but
it's
for
this
limited
purpose.
Right
again,
this
is
very
forward
thinking.
You
don't
want
to
leave
a
stone
unturned.
You
don't
want
it
to
be
the
fact
that
cut
it
off.
You
don't
have
to
know
what
I'm
doing
you
know
you,
don't
you
don't
have
to
worry,
there's
no
more
gas
going
to
this
building.
It's
it's
a
matter
of.
B
We
want
to
make
sure
everything's
done
properly.
Everything
has
to
be
pointed
out
or
relevant
to
the
zba
is
a
hardship
exemption
right,
so
any
applicant
who's
building
permit
application
has
been
denied.
May
apply
to
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
for
the
hardship
exemption.
This
is
in
an
effort
to
obtain
relief
from
the
all-electric
buildings
requirement
to
obtain
the
certificate
of
hardship.
The
applicant
must
prove
the
existence
of
a
hardship
by
establishing
that
compliance
with
this
article
is
financially
technically
or
physically
infeasible.
B
There's
five
points
that
really
again
apply
to
the
zba
and
it's
in
the
local
law
and
just
want
to
go
over
those
quickly
so
that
you
guys
are
aware
of
it
and
the
public
is
aware:
an
applicant
who's
building
permit
application
has
been
denied
May
apply
to
the
zba
for
the
hardship
exemption
upon
receipt
of
an
application
for
relief
for
this
hardship
exemption.
The
zba
shell
within
45
days
hold
the
public
hearing
right.
B
So
you
get
the
application
to
the
zba
45
days
later
public
hearing
generally,
that
shouldn't
be
an
issue
because
we
have
meetings
every
month
right.
So
if
you
have
the
application
in
you're
going
to
be
within
that
30
31
days,
there's
we
don't
take
a
month
off
where
then
you're
rushing
to
get
into
that
45-day
period.
Notice
of
the
public
hearing
is
going
to
be
the
same
as
every
other
public
hearing
right.
You
have
posting,
you
have
mailing.
B
You
have
publication,
it's
going
to
be
just
like
that
at
the
public
hearing,
the
board
may
hear
a
testimony
and
entertain
the
submission
of
written
evidence
from
the
applicant
and
or
the
public.
So
again,
it's
similar
to
what
we
do
every
month
here
public
gets
to
speak.
The
applicant
gets
to
speak.
You
guys
have
questions
you
ask
about
it
now
to
obtain
the
certificate
of
hardship.
B
Yeah
it
has
to
be
non-self-created
and
it
has
to
be
either
I
physically
could
not
do.
This
is
going
to
cost
me
20
million
dollars
to
make
this
building
all
electric
or
there's
just
not
no,
there's
no
power
here
where
there's
not
enough
power.
Whatever
the
case
is
thereafter,
the
zbs
make
a
decision
within
30
days
of
the
conclusion
of
the
hearing.
Board's
decision
shall
be
in
writing,
shall
State
the
reasons
for
granting
or
denying
the
application
so
again
very
similar
to
what
we
do
here
every
month.
B
Anyway,
notwithstanding
this
General
hardship
exemption,
all
new
construction
and
major
Reserve
Renovations
shall
be
required
to
be
all
electric
ready
right.
So
again,
maybe
you
can't
be
all
electric
right
now,
but
be
all
electric
ready
for
if
something
changes
in
a
few
years,
you
don't
have
to
now
tear
down
the
whole
building
and
go
all
electric.
You
have
to
show
that
you
are
ready
to
receive
or
to
to
take
that
step
forward.
Have
the
clean
energy
under
the
city
code
and
under
the
state
regulations?
B
That's
the
relevance
to
the
zba.
That's
the
relevance
of
the
public
who,
if
they
are
applying
for
an
exemption,
will
be
before
the
zba.
That
was
a
super
quick
overview
again
this
this
isn't
on
e-codes
right
now,
but
I'm
sure
it's
somewhere
on
the
website
or
you
could
always
request
it
from
the
city
clerk
or
whatever
the
case
is.
You
could
always
search
it
online
under
the
New
York
State
documents
as
well.
It
should
be
on
e-codes
shortly.
I
would
imagine
I'm
not
sure
how
often
e-codes
is
updated,
but
it
it's
on
there.
B
C
B
That's
something
that
you
know
it's
not
like
an
area
of
variance
for
example,
or
use
variants
where
we
have
state
mandated
requirements
or
considerations
to
take
factors
to
take
into
consideration,
but
one
hearing
an
application
for
this
hardship,
exemption
and
you're
asking.
Why
is
this
infeasible?
It's
up
to
you
guys
to
determine
okay?
Well,
did
you,
for
example,
like
manto,
said
yeah
and
maybe
there's
better
examples?
B
I
don't
know,
but
did
you
buy
the
property
assuming
that
you
could
come
to
the
zba,
and
this
was
going
to
be
rubber
stamp,
for
example,
right,
maybe
that's,
not
persuasive
enough,
as
opposed
to
I
bought
the
property
it's
located
somewhere,
where
there's
just
not
enough
power
to
supply
to
the
to
the
building
right
now
right.
So
those
are
some
different
things
and,
as
you
probably
know,
from
the
variances
applications
that
we
get
and
everything
properties
are
always
unique
right,
it's
always
a
case-by-case
basis.
B
There's
no
two
properties,
the
same
there's,
no
two
cases
the
same,
so
it's
probably
going
to
be
the
same
thing
with
the
hardship
exemption,
no
two
properties,
the
same,
no
two
applications,
the
same.
No
two
rationales
are
the
same,
but
that's
where
you
hear
you
ask
the
questions
the
applicant
submits.
You
know
their
application,
the
public
has
their
say
and
we
take
it
Case
by
case
all
right.
B
A
Thank
you
George
and
I'll,
just
intro
the
meeting
as
as
normal
good
evening,
welcome
to
the
August
15
2023
meeting
of
the
city
of
Beacon
zoning
board
of
appeals.
My
name
is
Jordan
haug
and
I'm.
The
chairman
of
this
board
joining
us
tonight
are
my
fellow
board
members,
and
also
our
staff
Consultants,
including
the
city
building
inspector
Bruce,
City
attorney,
who
we
just
just
heard
from
George
and
the
new
zoning
secretary
Mercedes.
Thank
you
for
joining
us.
A
The
application
materials
that
will
be
discussed
tonight,
including
any
proposed
resolutions
and
other
documents,
will
be
available
on
the
city's
website.
Also
on
the
city's
website
is
a
link
to
the
rules
and
procedures
of
the
voting
board
of
appeals.
I
want
to
take
a
minute
to
explain
the
board's
procedures.
First,
we'll
hear
each
application,
not
in
the
water
that
it's
noticed
on
the
agenda,
I'm
going
to
explain
that
later
for
each
application
we
will
hear
from
the
applicant
first
and
the
board
will
open
the
floor
to
the
comments
from
the
public.
A
If
you
wish
to
comment,
please
step
up
to
the
podium
when
called
upon
clearly
state
your
name
and
address
for
the
record,
and
all
comments
should
be
directed
towards
the
board,
not
the
applicant
or
city
staff.
Please
limit
your
comments
on
a
night
like
tonight
when
there's
many
people
here
for
no
more
than
three
minutes.
All
email
and
other
written
correspondence
that
has
been
sent
to
the
zoning
board
secretary
will
be
made
part
of
the
official
record
for
the
application.
A
The
zoning
board
of
appeals
hears
and
determines
appeals
from
administrative
decisions,
petitions
for
variances
and
such
other
matters
as
may
be
required
by
the
city
council
or
the
laws
of
the
state
of
New
York.
A
variance
is
permission
granted
by
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
so
that
a
property
may
be
used
in
a
manner
not
allowed
by
local
zoning
code.
Variances,
provide
flexibility
in
the
application
of
the
zoning
law
and
afford
the
landowner
and
opportunity
to
apply
for
administrative
relief
from
certain
provisions
of
the
law.
A
The
zoning
board
is
limited
to
Grant
the
minimum
variance
necessary
that
addresses
the
need
for
the
variance
while
preserving
the
character,
health,
safety
and
Welfare
of
the
community.
Our
final
decisions
on
any
variance
application
must
be
based
on
the
evaluation
of
the
application,
statutory
factors
as
set
forth
in
the
general
city,
law
and
city
code
and
those
factors,
and
this
is
important,
as
both
types
of
variances
will
be
heard
tonight.
A
So
these
are
the
factors
that
will
be
helpful
when
to
speak
to
when
making
public
comment
in
foreign
area
variants.
These
are
five
factors
that
we
have
to
balance
well,
an
undesirable
change
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
detriment
to
nearby
properties
be
created
by
the
granting
of
an
area
variance.
Will
the
proposed
action
compromise
the
character
of
the
neighborhood?
Can
the
benefit
be
sought
by
the
applicant
and
the
benefits
saw
by
the
applicant,
be
achieved
by
some
other
method
feasible
for
the
applicant
to
pursue
other
than
the
area
of
variance?
A
For
example,
can
a
proposed
Edition
be
constructed
in
a
different
location
of
the
property,
where
a
variance
would
not
be
needed?
Three
is
the
requested
area
variance
substantial?
Will
it
propote
for
will
the
proposed
variance,
have
an
adverse
impact
or
effect
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
in
the
neighborhood
or
district?
And
finally,
five
is
an
alleged
difficulty
self-created
and
then
for
a
use,
variance
which
are
rare,
but
all
four
of
these
factors
must
be
met
for
a
use.
Variance.
A
Can
the
owner
not
realize
that
the
owner
cannot
realize
a
reasonable
return
on
the
property
is
zoned?
The
hardship
must
be
unique
to
the
owner's
property
and
not
applicable
to
a
substantial
portion
of
the
zoning
District
No
alteration
to
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Granting
the
variants
will
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
for
the
hardship
is
not
self-created.
Every
decision
decision
must
also
be
supported
by
evidence
in
the
record.
A
A
Let's,
let's
do
let's
do
it
that
way,
yeah,
so
we're
going
to
hear
the
miscellaneous
business
first
on
the
agenda,
which
is
to
consider
a
request
for
a
two-year
extension
of
the
area
variants.
Two
at
22
Edgewater
Place
submitted
by
Scenic
Beacon
Development
LLC.
This
is
not
a
public
hearing,
applicant
or
well
yeah.
You
are
still
the
applicant
hello.
I
Welcome
hello,
we
are
still
the
album
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
boards
director
Taylor
Palmer,
with
the
law
firm
of
cutting
fader
on
behalf
of
the
applicant.
As
the
chairman
just
stated,
we
are
before
you
in
connection
with
the
request
for
a
two-year
extension.
We
did
put
a
letter
to
you
sort
of
trying
to
come
to
terms
of
what
substantial
completion
is.
I
During
the
entitlement
process
several
years
ago,
the
applicant
did
receive
variance
relief
from
this
board
and
then
also
got
a
special
permit
from
the
city
council
and
planning
board
approvals
for
site
plan
and
subdivision
or
lot
merger.
In
that
case,
the
variants
were
conditioned
on
the
applicant
well
on
many
conditions,
one
of
which,
in
the
only
remaining
condition
of
which
was
substantial.
Completion
of
the
project
within
five
years
of
the
last
land,
use
approval
that.
D
I
Was
was
hard
to
sort
of
discuss
with
the
board
at
the
time
it
was
trying
to
sort
of
put
something
together
for
the
largest
project
that
had
been
approved
in
the
city
without
real
precedent
to
kind
of
lay
out
why
we
would
do
that,
especially
as
it
took
several
years
to
get
a
building
permit,
so
they
couldn't
even
build
the
project.
The
relevant
approval
that
were
faced
with,
which
is
the
last
plan
approval,
was
the
planning
boards
approval
and
that
was
issued
on
September
11th
of
2018..
I
There
have
been
no
project
changes
since
that
time,
and
there
are
no
changes
currently
proposed,
as
the
board
may
be
aware,
if
you've,
driven
by
or
seen
the
site,
the
Edgewater
project
is
currently
under
development,
and
that's
been
pursuant
to
the
building
permit
literally
issued
in
2022..
So
to
give
contacts.
The
applicant
worked
with
the
city
for
years
to
coordinate
the
sewer
agreements
with
the
county
health
department.
There
was
a
whole
sewer
upgrade.
I
It
was
a
quite
a
process
before
even
a
building
permit
could
be
issued
and
that's
you
know
not
even
considering
the
covid-19
pandemic.
That
happened
to
be
right
thereafter
as
well,
so
it
did
take
a
long
time
to
put
those
things
together.
Ultimately,
a
permit
was
there
just
for
benefit
of
those
it's
provided
in
our
letter,
but
the
applicant
has
been
working
diligently
since
the
issuance
of
those
permits
to
construct
the
project
itself
at
this
time.
I
The
first
three
buildings
are
approximately
60
complete
on
the
site
and
he
expects
the
applicant
expects
those
buildings
will
be
fully
constructed
by
next
march
and
then
the
remaining
four
buildings
are
expected
to
be
completed
by
June
of
2026..
So
because
of
of
the
the
items
I
mentioned,
delays
enabling
enabling
to
get
to
that
permit
I
think
now
that
the
language
of
the
resolutions
actually
speaks
to
the
issuance
of
a
building
permit
for
this
exact
or
a
similarly
situated
project.
B
Yeah,
so,
to
that
extent,
I
just
want
to,
and
Mr
Palmer
explained
it
well,
the
substantial
completion
question
that
that
showed
up
in
the
letter.
That's
a
question
for
for
Bruce
the
building
inspector.
So
that's
why
Mr,
Palmer
and
Bruce
can
have
the
discussion
offline
after
the
fact
in
terms
of
substantial
completion,
Bruce
has
come
to
the
you
know.
Conclusion
that
is
not
substantially
completed.
I
Is
some
I
mean
the
grading,
some
of
the
grading
work?
A
lot
of
the
sort
of
the
layout
of
the
site
has
to
come
together
before
any
of
the
buildings
could
be
put
together.
So
the
answer
is
yes
in.
In
so
many
words,
but
the
actual
building
construction
has
not
begun.
They
have
to
do
those
in
phases
so
where
they
can
put
material
Vehicles
construction
equipment,
they
do
them
in
a
process.
I
We
had
suggested
between
five
and
seven
years
to
get
the
whole
project
completed
and
then
again,
building
permit
wasn't
issued
until
2022.,
so
that
would
still
be
in
line
with
the
development
program
and
again,
were
you
know
getting
materials
pulling
it
together.
All
of
it.
It's
a
it's
a
substantial
project
as
five.
I
We
were
yeah,
we
we
gave
a
general
timeline
as
far
as
building
out
the
project
and
we
actually
noted
to
the
board
at
the
time
it
was
issued
that
this
wouldn't
have
been
a
sufficient
time
and
we
were
told
five
years
ago
that
we
will
see
you
for
an
extension
at
that
time.
If
that's
the
case,
so
we
are
here
well.
D
I
I
The
zoning
board's
approval
required
that
we
have
a
building
permit
issued
within
a
certain
period
of
time,
so
we
got
an
extension
from
those
Provisions
other
conditions
that
were
required,
and
that
has
been
satisfied,
so
we
haven't
issued
building
permit
within
the
time
frame
that
the
board
provided
for
that
extension.
We
are
now
seeking
an
extension
of
the
last
remaining
condition,
which
is
that
the
project
be
substantially
complete
the
applicant's
perspective
as
it
is,
but,
of
course
that's
not
his
the
realm
of
the
building
inspector.
So
here
we
are.
I
The
last
approval
was
the
planning
board's
approval
in
in
most
of
the
documents
you'll
see
going
forward.
Typically,
it's
the
issuance
of
a
building
permit,
rather
than
the
final
approval,
because
just
by
having
a
planning
board
approval,
you
can't
go
build
the
project.
It
could
take
a
substantial
amount
of
time
to
get
the
entitlements
or
satisfy
conditions
of
an
approval.
You.
A
Know
and
that's
why
our
language
changed.
We
used
to
approve
things
this
way
and
then,
if
you
remember,
Drew
changed
how
we
approved
things
when,
in
conjunction
with
other
boards
planning
board
in
the
city
council
at
some
point
because
of
this
project,
and
so
now
in
theory,
they're
all
linked
up
together
and
not
on
different
approval
schedules.
That's.
A
D
A
F
A
We
are
going
to
hear
these
out
of
order
tonight.
I
know
the
majority
of
public
is
probably
here
for
number
one
I
I
would
the
board
briefly
spoken.
We
would
like
to
get
the
easier
applications
done
with,
so
they
don't
have
to
sit
through
this
as
much
as
everyone
else.
Unfortunately,
so
I
will
accept
a
motion
to
open
the
public
hearing
on
agenda
item
number
three.
K
So
the
property
is
an
existing
single
family
residents
at
359
cherry
the
owner
wants
to
add
to
the
existing
house
to
create
additional
living
space
and
sorry
there's
an
existing
deck
that
would
be
enclosed
and,
and
that
would
have
an
additional
story
on
top
of
that,
and
then
there's
a
one-story
bedroom
adjacent
to
that
the
the
house
is
existing.
It
was
there
before
the
zoning,
so
there's
already
a
non-conforming
side
setback
and
then
there's
a
driveway
to
the
right
of
the
house.
K
L
Good
evening,
members
of
the
board,
thank
you
for
having
me
my
name
is
Eva
Garcia
and
I
live
in
359
Cherry
Street
I
love
my
house,
my
neighborhood,
my
neighbors
and
the
community.
When
I
bought
the
house
in
2016,
my
long-term
Vision
was
to
move
to
become
full-time
as
soon
as
my
daughter
in
high
school
at
the
time,
went
off
to
college
accelerated
this
process.
For
me
and
become
is
my
permanent
home.
Since
2020.
L
we
were
lucky
to
be
able
to
leave
New
York
City
and
find
Sheltering
Beacon
during
those
trying
times,
and
there
is
no
going
back
so
I
call
I
now
call
because
my
home,
the
reason
I'm
applying
I'm
planning
to
put
this
addition
to
the
house
is
because,
in
the
past
years,
I
have
developed
a
chronic
Achilles,
tendinitis
and
joint
pain.
That
makes
it
hard
for
me
to
handle
the
stairs.
L
Currently
all
bedrooms
and
the
only
bathroom
in
the
house
are
on
the
second
floor.
I
see
this
house
as
my
retirement
home
and
would
like
to
have
a
bedroom
and
a
bathroom
in
the
first
floor
in
case
my
condition
worsens
as
I
grow
older
or
to
have
more
Independence.
If,
in
the
future,
my
family
needs
to
move
back
with
me.
L
K
F
C
C
H
K
K
F
A
This
is
written
to
us.
I
am
writing
on
behalf
of
myself
Elizabeth
I'm,
not
even
going
to
try
to
pronounce
the
last
name
and
her
partner
Alfred.
They
live
at
355
tieronda
Avenue,
which
abuts
the
rear
line
of
359
Cherry
Street
they're,
aware
of
the
application
they
have
the
following
concerns.
The
proposed
editions
will
create
substantial,
additional
impervious
service
area.
How
will
the
storm
water
runoff
be
handled?
So
it's
not
directed
onto
335
to
ironde
Avenue.
We
are
downhill
from
359
Cherry
Street.
A
There
is
a
drain
pipe
that
extends
out
of
the
concrete
retaining
wall
with
an
elbow
on
it.
So
storm
water,
runoff
is
directed
towards
335
tieronda.
That
pipe
is
approximately
six
feet
from
the
property
line.
We
request.
We
request
that
this
drain
pipe
be
redirected
and
the
storm
water
runoff
from
359
Cherry
Street
is
not
directed
into
335
tieron
Avenue.
We
request
that
the
site
plan
show
stormwater
drainage
plan
that
will
stop
storm
water
from
359
Cherry
Street
flowing
into
3,
35,
tieranda,
Avenue
upon
or
above
noted,
concern
being
addressed
and
corrected.
D
E
D
L
I'm,
not
the
architect
when
we
looked
into
these
before
it
seems
to
be
really
difficult,
because
the
other
side
of
the
house
is
it's:
it's
crawl
space
or
it's
Solid
Ground.
So
there
is
no
basement
and
on
the
side
of
the
house
that
you're
proposing
it's
the
the
egress,
it's
the
access
to
the
basement.
So.
L
K
L
Driveway
and
then
when
I
repave,
my
current
driveway
I
left
that
space
with
gravel
for
the
time
being
because
the
garage
is
not
in
a
very
good
condition.
The
foundation
is
to
be
reappointed.
So
right
now
it's
not
it's
not
it's
not
a
very
good
idea
to
put
the
heavy
weight
of
a
car
inside
of
that
garage,
but
I
would
like
to
retain
that
right
in
the
future.
If
I
manage
to
fix
it.
K
E
H
F
O
Elizabeth
about
the
rear
yard,
our
concerns
that
we
wrote
about
or
with
the
water
obviously
we'd
like
that,
taken
care
of,
but
in
the
light
of
full
transparency
which
I,
don't
think
is
being
presented
this
evening,
the
property
is
operated
as
an
Airbnb.
We
fear
that
the
extensions
will
be
used
for
that.
The
side
yard
that
nobody
wants
to
talk
about
should
show
on
the
site
plan
that
a
septic
exists.
There
there's
no
speaking
of
upgrading
that
to
facilitate
this
either
so
just
wanted
to
put
that
out.
There.
F
P
L
Q
Who
wouldn't
want
to
live
in
Paradise?
The
applicant's
house
original
footprint
is
close
to
the
expansion,
so
I
see
this
going
through
could,
and
you
mentioned
it,
could
they
build
going
back
further
and
not
off
to
the
side
as
much
as
shown
kick
it
in
half,
as
the
board
mentioned
in
their
concerns.
I
hope
the
applicant
is
willing
to
work
with
its
neighbors
to
redirect
the
storm
water
runoff
with
a
guarantee
before
this
moves
forward
with
a
vote.
Thank
you.
Q
C
A
K
B
B
C
C
F
A
R
F
R
F
M
M
Pdfs
are
coming
up
online,
so
we
were
here
a
couple
months
ago,
same
project.
We
were
at
that
time
we
were
seeking
an
area
variance
for
a
proposed
Edition
in
the
back
of
the
existing
residence.
Since
then,
we've
been
out
to
the
house
a
number
of
times
review
the
key
existing
construction,
which
is
really
poorly
done.
M
So
our
proposal
tonight
is
to
demolish
the
building
and
then
to
reconstruct
it
in
the
existing
footprint,
along
with
the
proposed
Edition
along
the
back,
maintain
the
same
height.
So
we're
not
going
to
increase
the
footprint
outside
of
the
addition
across
the
back,
but
that
is
triggering
a
couple
of
variances,
because
the
existing
building
as
it
is
right
now,
is
beyond
the
both
the
left
and
right
setback
lines
or
the
side
yard
setback
lines.
M
B
And
while
he's
pulling
that
up
the
snow's
point,
the
previous
variances
approved
were
for
the
rear
addition
to
the
house
which
are
in
those
plans,
it's
that
shaded
area.
So
they,
if
the
variance
is
under
consideration
today,
are
actually
sort
of
higher
up
on
the
house.
So
the
previous
variants,
for
example,
on
that
bottom
right
hand
corner,
was
three
and
a
half
feet:
side,
yard
setback
or
3.5
for
yeah
three
and
a
half
feet.
B
Now,
it's
a
3.1
and
on
the
left
that
little
part
of
the
house
that
pops
out
it's
a
5.4
foot,
whereas
the
previous
one
in
June
was
8.2
feet
because
it
was
just
the
addition.
So
it's
it's
obviously
very
similar
and
easy
to
understand,
but
I
just
want
to
state
that
they're
not
the
same
exact
numbers
and
that's
because
one
when
the
applicant
came
into
in
June
we're
focused
just
on
the
rear
Edition,
but
now
that
it's
being
proposed
in
the
same
exact
footprint.
We
take
the
wider,
the
widest
aspect
and
the.
A
B
And
to
that
extent
as
well,
I
just
want
to
state
that
my
understanding
is:
there's
no
front
yard
variance
required
under
Section
223-13
Point
K,
which
has
to
deal
with
Conformity
with
the
rest
of
the
neighborhood.
So
the
only
variances
needed
are
side,
yard
setbacks,
one
for
the
east
side
and
one
for
the
West
Side.
There's
no
rear
yard
issue
and
the
front
yard
is
under
that
223-13
point:
K
consideration.
M
A
Q
Sorry,
Teresa
Kraft
I'm
not
opposed
to
these
side
yard
setbacks,
but
perhaps
this
applicant
should
have
completed
the
formal
process
through
the
zba
before
it
lists
its
potential
building
on
Zillow
shy
of
a
million
dollars.
The
zba
should
have
take
a
hard
look
at
rubber,
stamping
these
reliefs
for
setbacks.
Maybe
they
could
have
redesigned
the
house
to
fit
in
the
loud
footprint.
A
O
H
A
H
S
R
A
C
T
C
A
Yeah
I
think
you
know
again
mathematically
right,
I
think
that
they
are
I,
think
the
the
backyard
one
is
is
more.
Even
relative,
I
don't
think
it's
determinative,
however,
as
to
whether
the
proposed
variances
will
have
an
adverse
effect
or
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
in
the
neighborhood
or
District.
A
A
And
then
my
question
to
the
applicant
prior
to
any
action
on
this
item.
Would
there
be
any
problem,
number
one
paying
all
fees
to
the
city
and
then
obtaining
a
building
permit
within
six
months
and
commencing
construction
and
then
sorry
obtaining
a
building
per
month
in
six
months,
commencing
construction
within
six
months
after
the
obtaining
of
the
building
permit
and
then
completing
construction
and
obtaining
a
CFO
within
two.
M
A
A
B
A
I
The
board
previously
had
a
public
hearing
on
the
interpretations
which
was
opened
and
closed
at
the
June
21st
zoning
board
meeting.
We
then
appeared
before
you
in
July,
at
which
time
this
board
overturned
two-thirds
of
the
building
specters
determinations,
which
brings
us
back
to
you
all
this
evening
for
continued
review.
I
So
to
that
end,
our
discussion
tonight
focuses
explicitly
on
223
10
C4,
notwithstanding
the
applicant's
plane
reading
of
the
code
that
that
section
only
applies
to
non-conforming
buildings
but
uses
again
that
was
related
to
the
termination
discussed
last
month.
So
in
a
minute
again,
I
will
have
Hudson
property
advisors
address
their
financial
analysis,
as
it
relates
specifically
to
the
use.
Variance
factor
is
no
relation
to
the
area
of
variance
factors
before
you.
I
So
the
section
of
the
zoning
code
excuse
me:
I'll
have
to
I'll
pull
that
section
up
in
just
a
minute,
but
the
factors
that
we're
discussing
with
you
this
evening,
just
to
summarize
concern
whether
the
an
undesirable
change
will
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
detriment
to
nearby
properties
will
be
created
by
granting
the
area
variants.
Of
course,
this
building
had
been
existing
on
the
premises
well
before
many
of
the
residents
that
surround
it,
as
it
was
also
an
existing
non-conforming
use,
at
least
the
history
we
have
on.
I
It
goes
back
to
at
least
1960
five.
Of
course,
it
was
before
that,
if
you
look
at
the
historic
Aerials
of
the
property,
there
is
also
the
same
use
directly
across
the
street
from
it
at
916,
Walcott
Avenue,
and
there
are
a
number
of
other
multi-family,
including
the
cities,
affordable,
housing,
property
right
down
the
street
for
the
beacon,
Housing
Authority.
And,
of
course,
this
proposal
is
actually
a
reduction
in
the
existing
non-conformity
and
it
would
reduce
it
down
from
16
units
to
nine
and
our
submission.
I
We
go
through
a
number
of
the
other
nearby
adjacent
nuisance,
including,
as
I
mentioned,
the
beacon,
housing
authority
and
others.
You
know
that's
a
general
breakdown
on
on
the
first
Factor.
The
next
factor
is
whether
the
benefits
sought
by
the
applicant
can
be
achieved
by
some
other
method
feasible
to
the
applicant
to
pursue
other
than
the
area
variants,
as
we
detailed
in
our
March
submission.
If
the
errands
area
variance
is
not
granted.
Of
course,
the
applicant,
in
this
instance
short
of
overturned
or
or
bringing
it
and
challenging
the
building
inspectors.
I
Determination
at
the
Supreme
Court
would
not
be
able
to
rebuild
that
structure.
It
would
only
be
allowed
to
which
our
console
will
get
into
a
minute.
We
only
need
use
in
the
current
zoning
would
be
a
single-family
home,
of
course,
that
would
also
put
further
pressure
on
beacons
available
housing
stock
that
including
that
of
affordability
and,
of
course,
that's
in
direct
contravention
of
the
city's
comprehensive
plan
and
objectives.
I
One
of
the
questions
or
one
of
the
the
third
factor
to
consider
for
you
all,
is
whether
the
requested
variance
is
substantial.
Of
course,
substantiality
isn't
necessarily
just
measured
based
on
the
percentage
deviation.
It's
it's
a
it's
a
balancing
test
here,
of
course,
we
respectively
submit
that
this
is
not
substantial.
I
The
fourth
factor
is
whether
the
proposed
area
variants
will
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
physical
environmental
considerations
in
the
neighborhood
and
District.
This
typically
gets
in
sort
of
the
secret
discussion.
The
granting
of
this
variance
in
the
r110
district
will
not
be
of
any
more
intensity
of
the
long-established
use
that
was
on
this
property
again,
reducing
it
from
16
units
down
to
nine.
I
I
The
one
factor
you
all
were
just
discussing
on
the
prior
application.
The
fifth
factor
is
whether
the
self,
the
alleged
difficulty
is
self-created,
which
is
a
consideration,
that's
relevant
to
your
decision,
but
doesn't
necessarily
preclude
the
granting
of
an
area.
Variance
now
remember
we're
only
talking
about
the
area
of
variance
we'll,
probably
I,
think
we'll
maybe
go
through
that
and
then
how
the
chair
wants
to
run
the
discussion.
We
may
shift
I'm
I'm
pleased
to
present
on
both,
and
then
we
can
go
from
there,
but
I'll
touch
for.
I
So
it
well,
it
is
the
original
submission
that
we
made
included
the
area
variance.
So
the
initial
request
was
for
interpretations,
and
there
were.
There
were
three
determinations
made
by
the
building
inspector.
So
then
the
the
alternative
relief
was
laid
out
for
each
of
the
meaning.
If,
if
you
decided
that
all
three
of
those
determinations
were
upheld,
we
would
then
our
alternative
relief
would
be
to
get
an
area
variance
or
in
the
further.
I
So
I
believe
that
the
council
will
probably
address
that
as
we
we
go
forward
and
that's
likely
to
lead
to
a
further
supplemental
submission
to
address
that
particular
issue.
And
now
it's
standing.
We
still
have
our
our
pending
relief,
but
we'll
I
think
that's
more
of
a
legal
question
that
we're
going
to
have
to
address
in
a
supplemental
submission.
I,
don't
know
if
you
want
to
talk
to.
B
I
B
I
B
B
I
Effectively
saying
that
50,
so
the
the
the
critical
threat,
the
threshold
variance
issue
is
that
if
it's
more
than
50
percent,
then
so
we're
numerically
we're
we're
asking
effectively
for
100
we're
seeking
a
50
relief
to
allow
them
to
the
building
inspector
made
a
determination
that
we
don't
agree
with.
We
believe
that,
if
a
use
ceases
for
more
than
a
year
in
that
instance,
then
the
use
is
gone,
but
the
building
inspector
has
made
a
specific
determination
that,
as
soon
as
more
than
50
percent
of
the
building
is
gone,
the
use
is
gone.
I
Correct
the
building
inspector
made
the
term
is
you
upheld
the
determination,
so
you
didn't
make
the
determination
for
the
building.
You
upheld
the
building
inspector's
terms,
so
the
position
is
exactly
right,
so
so
what
we're
doing
and
what
the
I
guess?
Maybe
we
should
have
started
with
the
tolling
agreement.
F
F
E
I
The
Best
For
Last.
So
what
we're
proposing
in
this
instance
now
that
the
zoning
board
has
upheld
the
building
inspector's
determination
on
that
issue,
we're
seeking
a
50
numerically
we're
seeing
a
50
variance
to
allow
the
building
to
be
reconstructed.
So
it
says
that
the
uses
no
longer
permissive.
You
know
again,
that's
the
building
inspectors,
determination
that
we
disagree
with,
so
we're
asking
the
board
to
wait
or
to
vary
that
standard
to
allow
100
destruction
to
allow
the
building
to
be
reconstructed.
That's
the
area
of.
B
Well,
so
that
that's
the
that's
the
question
that
requires
some
legal
research
and
to
that
extent
tonight,
Mr
Palmer
is
prepared
to
present
both
the
justification
for
an
area
variants
and
a
used
variance
right,
I
think
it
might
be
cleaner
to
go
one
at
a
time
instead
of
merging
them
for
next
meeting
is
when
our
office
will
be
able
to
look
into
it
further
and
say:
okay,
we
looked
into
it.
It's
actually
used
variants.
B
H
I
I
only
have
15.,
it
is
it's
a
numeric
standard
if
it
was
49
that
the
issue
wouldn't
be
before
you're
board
so
because
Brett
fifth,
it's
saying
same
same
as
Building
height
same
as
number
of
units.
It's
we're
seeking
to
vary
the
numeric
threshold.
That's
driving
this
consideration
if
the
use
was
not
permitted,
which
is
not
so
that's
that
that
goes
into
the
use
variant
standard,
that's
the
appropriate
consideration.
We
are
suggest
you
know
again.
We
we
disagree
and
we
we
have
reserved
the
right
through
the
tolling
agreement,
to
effectively
appeal
that
determination.
The
court.
I
Could
you
know
if
the
board
were
not
to
adopt
an
approval
on
an
area
or
a
use,
variance
alternative?
We
would
seek
relief
from
all
these
and
it
would
start
with
that
initial
determination,
because
you've
upheld
his
determination,
the
alternative
relief
we're
seeking
because
of
the
total
uniqueness
of
this
like
when
we
dial
this
thing
down
to
what
the
application
before
you
is,
we
have
a
building,
it
was
burned
down.
The
applicant
wants
to
rebuild
it
literally
pursuant
to
a
building
permit
that
they
were
actively
building
out.
I
Was
destroyed
by
another
intentionally,
not
intentionally
by
the
property
owner
and
the
applicant
is,
is
merely
trying
to
which
they
invested
their
money
in
rebuild
the
existing
non-conforming
use,
which
our
perspective
is
permissive
by
the
zoning
code.
If
it's
done
within
one
year,
the
board
didn't
address
that
issue,
because
it
upheld
the
building,
inspector's
determination
about
the
50
threshold,
terminating
the
use.
I
So
as
a
consequence
of
that
determination,
we
are
now
specifically
appealing
again
based
on
these
five
factors,
weighing
the
hardship
the
applicants
faced,
what
he
can
do
on
that
site
under
the
under
the
current
zoning
versus
what
was
approved
literally
with
a
building
permit
I
mean
that's
particularly
unique
one
that
I
can't
imagine
this
board
has
seen
I
in
my
experience,
have
not
seen
it
before
your
board.
That's
only
talking
about
10
years,
so
it's
particularly
unique,
and
that's
so
again
that
area
of
variant
standard
is
is
varying
that
50
threshold
of
the.
H
I
Asking
it
was
100
destroyed,
correct
and,
and
the
code
says
that,
if
it's
more
than
50
percent,
our
reading
of
the
code
says
if
it's
more
than
50
destroyed-
and
this
is
blame
reading
the
code,
it's
that
I'll
read
you.
You
know
the
section
of
the
code.
It
says
if
any
non-conforming
building
shall
be
destroyed
by
any
means
to
an
extent
of
more
than
50
percent.
No
repairs
or
reconstruction
shall
be
made
unless
every
portion
of
the
building
is
made
to
conform
to
all
the
regulations
of
this
chapter
for
the
district
and.
H
I
I
I
Make
a
great
Point
remember
what
we're
we're
going
to
address
this
with
Council
in
a
supplemental.
We
have
to
there's
no
way
around
it
effectively.
What
we're
asking
the
board
to
do
is
balance
the
factors
assuming
we
come
to
Collective
on
this
as
a
you
know,
what
it's
our
perspective
in
looking
at
this
as
a
numerical
threshold,
and
thus
it
can
be
varied.
It's
in
zoning,
that's
what
we're
seeking
looking
at
the
hardship
regulations
this
you
see
the
dip
here
and
I'll.
Let
me
just
anecdotally
make
a
reference
here.
I
We
believe
that
this
is
not
something
you
typically
see,
because
you
won't
the
the
uses
would
have
to
have
ceased
for
a
year
that
didn't
happen
here.
So
we
don't.
This
provision
is
rubbing
up
against
the
reality
of
what
the
code
regulates
so
because
we
we
are
we're
well
within
it.
One
of
the
matters
we'll
submit
to
you
in
our
supplemental
submission
relates
to
52
South
Chestnut
you're,
all
familiar
with
analyx
Auto
Body,
formerly
Chevron,
now
Ed's
that
building
was
destroyed
in
snowstorm.
It
was
vacant
or
it
was
it
was.
I
There
was
no
building
on
that
site
for
several
years
and
then
years
later,
this
board
granted
it
a
use
variance.
That
was
because
the
use
had
ceased
for
not
because
it
was
destroyed
more
than
50,
but
because
they
use
these
are
on
information
and
belief.
We
haven't
been
provided
access
to
the
city's
files,
yet,
but
again,
information
and
belief
from
discussions
with
well
residents,
removing
files
looking
at
foils
everything
else,
that
building
was
allowed
to
be
rebuilt
through
use
variants,
and
that's
because
it
was
more
than
a
year
when
the
use
ceased.
I
So
that's
different
than
what
we
have
our
applicant.
The
data
thing
was
burned
submitted
for
insurance
and
came
back.
You
know
you
know
effectively
saying
hey.
I
already
have
a
building
permit
for
this.
Let
me
rebuild
it
and
the
building
inspector
said
using
this
because
of
this
provision.
You
cannot
rebuild.
I
We
didn't
have
discussions
at
that
time
about
the
other
sections
of
the
code,
for
example
ceasing
as
more
than
one
year.
Practice
is
practice,
but
we
just
read
the
code.
Plainly,
your
board
upheld
it
so
we're
sort
of
in
a
a
rock
of
a
of
a
place,
but
the
reality
of
what
we're
asking
you
to
do
is
if
we
can
come
to
the
legal
ease,
understanding
of
it,
the
board
would
be
looking
at
your
five
factors.
I
The
same
way:
you'd,
look
at
a
building
height
or
setback
or
otherwise
and
saying
in
this
instance,
or
a
building,
is
destroyed
by
somebody
else,
maliciously
where
a
property
don't
have
the
right
to
use
it
for
what
it
was
and
looking
at
the
five
factors
balancing
it.
You
know
on
the
application
that
the
applicant
would
receive
a
50
relief
so
as
to
be
able
to
to
build
the
pro
the
project
George.
I
D
A
I
B
Just
interpretation
basically
said
this
section
of
the
code
applies
to
both
the
bulk
regulations,
which
Mr
Palmer.
That
was,
you
can
see
it
that
it
applies
to
the
bulk
bulk
regulations,
and
we
said,
oh
well,
the
board
said
it
also
applies
to
use
regulations
to
that
extent
fast
forward.
Now
the
interpretive
question
is
is
a
thing
of
the
past.
Mr
Palmer
is
not
asking
for
an
interpretation
on
that.
B
The
question
now
becomes.
Okay
would
like
a
variance
from
this
when
you
say
I
want
a
variance,
you
have
to
characterize
it
as
an
area
or
a
used
variant.
To
that
extent,
Mr
Palmer's
position
is
that
it
is
an
area
variance
because
it
has
a
numerical
factor,
it's
50
percent.
Typically,
as
you
see
with
area
variances,
it's
easy
to
say:
okay,
here's
a
schedule
of
bulk
regulations.
We
want
an
area
of
variance
from
this.
This
is
why
this
one's
a
little.
This
is
unique.
B
This
is
a
unique
aspect,
so
we
have
to
look
further
into
it
to
confirm
whether
it
is
we
can
all
agree.
It's
a
variance.
We
have
the
confirm
whether
it's
an
area
variant
or
a
use.
Variance
to
that
extent,
the
the
best
practice
and
I
think
the
cleanest
way.
For
that
to
happen
is
presentation
today
on
the
area
variants.
You
guys
can
ask
your
questions.
I
C
I
Is
not
I
think
council
is
a
represented
this
time.
Just
speaking
for
counsel
no
vote
is
taking
place
tonight.
The
public
is
providing
input,
we're
going
to
prepare
our
supplemental
submission
that
addresses
this
separate,
completely
legal
issue
and
we're
here
to
present
both
of
the
applications.
So
all
this
material,
whether
the
resolution,
whether
the
agenda
needs
to
be
updated
for
next
month.
However,
it's
appropriate
it's.
A
A
I
It's
going
to
be
continued
to
next
month,
so
anyone
here
or
not
will
have
that
information.
It's
been
clarified
on
the
record
tonight
with
with
excuse
opposite
detail,
with
the
relief
that
we're
seeking
in
twofold
the
area,
variance
or
in
the
alternative.
It
is
completely
laid
out
in
our
applications
all
which
are
posted.
I
This
notice
provides
more
than
ample
detail
with
respect
to
the
relief
that's
being
saw,
which
is
area
or
use
variances,
so
explicitly
it
does
satisfy
the
code
requirements
and
we
did
also
notice
in
accordance
with
the
city's
regulations
and
we
re-noticed,
based
on
the
requirements
of
the
board.
So
with
that
I
will
finish
the
area
of
variance
factors.
The
one
we
got
up
to
was
the
alleged
difficulty
being
self-created.
This
I
think
is
a
pretty
clear
instance
of
it
not
being
a
self-created
hardship
for
for
many
reasons
again.
These
are
the
this.
I
Yeah,
the
area
variance
is
a
balancing
test
right,
no
more,
no
one
factor
is
more
just
positive
than
the
other
they're
all
sort
of
put
into
a
blender
looking
at
it
from
a
you
know,
perspective
of
how
this
this
thing
comes
out
again
before
the
board
is
really
a
request
to
rebuild
a
building
that
was
there
for
nearly
100
years
for
a
less
non-conforming
use
than
was
there
more
generally
more
consistent
with
the
area
than
it
had
been
previously,
so
that
that's
an
area
variance
balancing
test.
Look
in
the
second
alternative.
I
We
shift
now
to
a
different
standard,
the
use
variant
standard
and
effectively
we're
seeking
a
in
the
alternative
to
the
area,
variance
a
use,
variance
to
permit
the
multi-family
use
that
existed
on
the
property
to
continue,
as
was
approved
pursuant
to
the
building
permit
from
2022,
which
is
number
350
354..
That
was
to
reduce
the
non-conformity
effectively
from
16
units
down
to
nine.
I
So
this
was
a
long
established,
multi-family
use
that
was
on
this
property.
Our
letters
and
supplemental
submissions
provide
again
very
heavy
detail.
I'm
not
gonna
I
mean
we
would
be
here
for
a
long
time.
For
me
to
go
through
it
for
the
members
of
the
public,
we've
gone
through
extensive
details
and
and
supplied
exhibits
and
we'll
make
one
presentation
tonight
on
our
financial
analysis.
That's
one
of
the
the
factors
that
will
be
considered
here,
but
all
of
those,
including
this
report
are
available
online.
I
So
I'll
summarize,
and
then
I'll
ask
my
colleague
here
to
go
through
the
report
that
we
presented
and
then
I'll
come
back
to
the
other
factors,
because
it'll
be
too
hard
to
kind
of
jump
around
and
leave
this.
This
important
condition
out
I
want
to
make
sure
that's
in
the
record
with
this,
and,
of
course,
if
the
board
has
specific
comments
of
the
financial
analysis
or
it
or
should
it
suggest
that
it
have
a
consultant
review
our
Consultants
report
that
way
we
can
proceed
from
there.
So,
just
very
briefly,
we
did
submit
this.
I
This
was
in
our
original
application
materials,
a
zoning
feasibility
analysis.
What
I
refer
is
the
fiscal
analysis
and
that
was
prepared
by
Hudson
property
advisors
and
that
you
know
ultimately
goes
through
how
much
what
this
property
was
purchased,
how
it
was
being
used
and
effectively
what
could
be
generated
there
with.
I
So,
while
the
total
number
of
existing
non-conforming
units
will
be
reduced
from
16
units
down
to
nine,
the
applicant
respects
has
a
certain
expectation
of
income
related
to
those
to
the
number
of
units
that
were
there
and
as
proposed
and
as
is
presented
to
you
in
this
in
this
application,
with
that
I
think
it's
probably
easiest
to
have
our
Financial
Consultant
run
through
his
report
and
then
I
can
try
and
sort
of
Express.
The
reality
of
what
this
is
looking
at
is
under
current
zoning.
I
The
only
thing
they
could
rebuild
if,
if
this
use
was
gone
for
more
than
a
year
our
perspective,
if
it's
gone
for
more
than
a
year,
then
you
could
only
build
today.
A
single
family
house,
I
think
some
of
the
other
uses
are
parks,
preserves
Community,
Gardens
and
places
of
worship
right.
So
the
analysis
is
looking
at
what
you
could
build
versus
what
was
effectively
what
the
use
was
that
the.
H
I
You
look
only
at
the
permitted
uses,
you
don't
look
at
specially
permitted
uses
or
other
uses
in
the
district.
You
only
look
at
the
permitted
uses,
so
our
consultant
will
address
that.
But
I
just
mentioned
those
uses
that
are
as
of
right
in
the
r110
single
family
homes
and
then
Parks
preserves
Community,
Gardens
and
places
of
worship.
B
I
H
I
Think
some
of
our
factors
will
go
through
it's
hard
to
do
this
compartmentalized
right,
the
overall
application,
the
area
variance
is
nice
because
you
can
kind
of
blend
it
and
talk
about
it
in
in
each
of
its,
but
because
it
is
an
experience
you
have
to
be.
You
have
to
consider
each
of
the
factors
together.
If
any
one
factor
is
see,
you
later
use
variance
right.
I
So
this
is
a
little
bit
more
specific,
but
we
will
get
into
that
discussion
because
this
board
has
issued
use
variances
for
other
multi-family
structures,
effectively
reducing
non-conformities
on
those
sites.
So
there
are
a
number
of
instances
of
that.
We
have
submitted
those
all
for
your
for
your
consideration:
Eliza
Street
tyronda,
that's
Ronda,
Eliza,
Street,
rombout
yeah!
I
Thank
you
one,
two,
three
rombout
and
then,
of
course,
we
will
be
submitting
to
you
52
South,
chest
50
52,
South
Chestnut,
all
of
which,
were
you
know,
dealing
with
existing
non-conformities
that
we
believe
were
you
know,
went
to
multi-family
uses
right,
they've
reduced
that
non-conformity
were
the
same
from
an
SRO
to
effectively
a
you
know.
Multi-Familiar.
A
A
A
I
So
because
the
building
inspectors
determination,
they
said
that
more
than
50
of
the
app
I'm
going
to
let
the
sure
we're
pleased
to
submit
these
in
in
writing.
But
I
don't
want
to
sort
of
get
into
a
back
and
forth
before
because
we're
missing
the
factors
here.
We
haven't
gotten
into
the
financial
analysis,
yet
so
I
want
to
stick
to
that,
because
this
is
quite
important.
So
I'll
turn
back
to.
H
I
That
was
brought
to
our
attention
by
folks
in
the
city
at
a
later
date.
So
we
have
to
include
that
in
our
submission.
But
that's
going
to
come
to
you
and
I
think
that
will
Point
directly
to
exactly
what
you
said.
The
precedent
set
by
this
board
with
respect
to
use,
variances
and
otherwise
again
I
don't
want
to
go.
There's
there's
a
lot
of
arguments.
There's
a
lot
of
discussion
and
I
just
want
to
make
sure
we
address
the
first
factor,
which
is
that
the
app
cannot
realize
a
reasonable
return,
provided.
H
B
The
non-com,
the
the
requirement
to
look
at
permitted
uses,
is
for
the
economic
feasibility.
So
it's
it's
I.
If
that's
the
question
you
were
asking,
why
is
Mr
Palmer
mentioning
other
non-conforming
uses
when
two
minutes
before
that
we
said
we
can't
look
at
non-conforming.
We
can't
look
at
non-conforming
uses
for
the
sake
of
determining
you
know
it.
Why
can't
you
build
a
hotel
there
tomorrow
and
it
you
know,
realize
your
economic
return,
but
Mr
Palmer
is
mentioning
those
non-conforming
uses
for
the
sake
of
explaining
precedent
from
this
board
on
prior
used
variens's
issue.
I
I
think
another
important
factor
that
will
go
into
that
I
agree
with
Council
and
that
characterization,
but
one
of
the
other
factors
and
we're
going
to
talk
about
that
self-created
hardship
again
right
in
this
instance
the
applicant
portrait.
The
reason
why
there
is
no
self-created
hardship
notwithstanding
that
it
was
burned
down
was
because
the
applicant
purchased
the
property
with
the
use
at
so
if
they
bought.
If
you
were
to
buy
prior
application
or
before
this
evening
you
buy
a
single
family,
residential
property,
it's
got
a
home
on
it.
I
You
then
decide
you
want
to
build
a
stadium,
it
was
not
a
use
that
was
permitted.
You
knew
that
the
use
fair
you're
going
to
fail
the
use,
variance
Factor
right
out
of
the
gate.
So
that's
that's
part
of
that
discussion
and
that's
why
they
use
the
applicant
is
seeking
is
again,
you
know,
one
that
was
on
the
property
and
now
is
being
reduced
to
non-conformity,
so
we're
trying
to
meet
a
lot
of
these
thresholds
and
characterizations,
but
but
again
it
really
dials
back
to
just
rebuilding
the
building.
That
was
that
was
there.
U
Hello,
my
name
is
Bill
forsheimer
from
Hudson
property
advisors,
I'm,
a
real
estate
appraiser
and
we've
been
asked
to
do
a
feasibility
analysis
to
study
the
permitted
uses
under
the
zoning
requirements
for
this
property,
and
basically,
what
we've
done
is
to
prepare
a
single
family
use
to
a
multi-family
use.
This
property
is
located
at
the
intersection
of
route
90
Walcott,
Avenue
and
Teller
Avenue,
which
is
Route
52.,
also
at
the
junction
of
Sergeant
Avenue,
which
has
a
moderate
degree
of
traffic
as
well.
T
U
U
We
also
were
provided
by
the
client
with
a
appraisal
that
had
been
done
in
May
of
22,
which
determined
the,
as
is
value
of
the
property
that
was
there
prior.
The
multi-family
property
had
a
value
of
1.7
million
dollars
and
when
compared
to
the
majority
of
the
homes
that
we
looked
at
between
600
and
1.2
million
dollars,
we
naturally
ended
up
with
a
very
large
discrepancy
between
the
value
of
a
single
family,
home
and
the
value
of
a
multi-family
home.
Excuse.
U
U
C
C
C
I
So
again
we're
so
the
the
report-
that's
before
you
we're
looking
at
the
economic
data
right,
we're
looking
at
a
reasonable
return.
That's
as
usual.
What's
a
reasonable
return!
So
before
you
were
I,
we
can
try
and
expand
on
this
in
our
and
there
were
some
questions
that
came
out
tax,
assess
value
ensured
about
all
these
things.
We
can
certainly
provide
this
information,
we're
getting
questions,
we're
trying
to
answer
as
many
as
we
can
in
real
time.
So
with
that
I
believe
we
can
I
guess.
C
I
That's
right,
so
that's
not
the
that's,
not
precisely
that
the
report
itself
is
just
looking
at
the
the
use
that's
permitted
in
the
district
and
the
use
that
was
on
the
property,
so
we're
we're.
What
our
analysis
is
showing
is
that
that
wouldn't
be
a
re
again.
This
is
in
the
eye
of
of
of
the
board
and
what
you
all
find
to
be
a
reasonable
return
is
that
five
dollars
is
that
a
million
dollars
is.
H
I
These
are
all
questions
you're
asking,
and
we
can
put
this
into
the
analysis.
They
were
not.
These
aren't
great
there's
no
prerequisite
to
to
how
to
complete
a
financial
analysis.
We
utilizing
prior
approvals
that
this
board
is
granted
in
preparing
this
analysis
for
use
variances.
This
was
this
is
how
this
was
prepared.
So
we
will
take
these
questions
and
incorporate
them
into
this
analysis.
So
they
fully
spell
out
the
information
that
you're
looking
for
as
a
board
of
totally
different
persons
that
were
not
on
that
board.
So.
C
My
questions
are
more
towards,
let
me
say
from
an
expectation
standpoint
right,
I
would
expect
a
financial
analysis
is
going
to
show
us
that
if
they
went
with
a
single
family
home,
this
is
what
the
investment
cost
is
in.
This
is
what
they
can
expect.
Therefore,
it's
going
to
be
a
negative
to
them.
That's
a
hardship.
H
I
So
we'll
we'll
have
to
I
think
what
what
we'll
go
through
when
we
detail
this
in
the
supplementalist
mission
is
explicit,
is
is
what
the
courts
look
at
when
they
evaluate
what
constitutes
a
reasonable
return,
because
it's
like
you,
said
before:
why
don't
we
just
do
a
hotel
right?
We
can
make
a
lot
of
money,
but
that's
not
permissive.
So
these
are
all
considerations,
but
the
board
has
you
know
there
is
a
limit
to
what
hypotheticals
can
be
contemplated
here,
because
we
could
be
here
forever.
What
what
if
we
brought
the
Space
Center
here?
I
I
I
M
I
U
R
I
I
D
B
To
that
extent,
I
think
Mr,
forsimer
apologizes.
If
I
mispronounced
your
last
name,
he
could
continue
with
the
presentation
of
the
feasibility
analysis
if
there
are
any
other
questions
that
way.
Mr
Palmer
knows
exactly
what
to
come
with
for
next
month.
For
the
sake
of
efficiency.
We
don't
want
it
to
you
know
we
want
to
get
all
the
questions
out
tonight.
So
to
that
extent,
obviously
Mr
forceheimer
can
only
speak
to.
I
U
Basically,
you
know
what
we
found
was
that
yes,
a
single
family
home
is
is
not
going
to
be
worth
as
much
as
a
multi-family
home,
which
is
very
obvious.
We
also
looked
at
it
from
a
rental
point
of
view:
the
rents
on
single-family
homes.
They
range
from
2000
up
to
over
four
thousand
dollars
these
days,
a
single
family
home,
then,
even
if
it
rented
out
a
top
dollar
four
thousand
dollars
a
month
say
won't
come
close
to
the
income
that
was
produced
by
a
multi-family
property
which
was
in
the
neighborhood
of
yeah.
U
Bear
with
me
previously
over
twenty
thousand
dollars
per
month,
income
from
the
existing
building,
the
prior
building
and
the
other
building
that
was
going
to
be
built.
The
proposed
building
would
produce
an
estimated
17
550
a
month
compared
to
the
four
thousand
dollars
that
a
single
family
home
would
rent,
for
that
also
shows
the
the
lack
of
viability
of
a
single-family
home
on
this
site.
Just.
D
D
D
A
D
A
I
I
My
opinion
yeah
both
of
you
but
again
I'll
I'll
I,
think
I'll
the
way
defer
that
into
a
written
response,
because
it's
I
have
to
stay
within
the
conf.
My
opinion
is
just
that
of
my
opinion.
It's
not
what's
the
legal
threshold
that
is
considered
for
the
reasonable
return,
so
my
opinion
is
yes,
it's
clear.
U
C
F
C
C
I
C
I
Thing
the
Board
needs
to
consider
in
this
application.
That's
particularly
important
is
that
I
couldn't
go,
buy
this
property
today
and
come
to
you
for
a
use,
variance
for
the
application.
That's
before
you
I,
couldn't,
because
I
buying
that
property
would
only
be
permitted
based
on
the
current
set
of
circumstances
based
on
these
determinations
and
all
the
other
things
we
disagree
with,
and
let's
just
use
a
different
property
I
want
to
go,
buy
another
single
family
residence,
the
one
that
was
on
the
applications
earlier
tonight.
I
K
I
You
could
I.
Could
you
would
deny
me
because
I
failed
the
test
of
a
non-self-created
hardship.
This
application
is
particularly
unique
very
specialized
because
there
is
no
self-created
hardship.
The
applicant
bought
the
property
with
multi-family
use
and
is
before
you
trying
to
quite
literally
rebuild
the
thing
that
was
there
for
100
years.
So
that's
that
we're
talking
about
the
financial
analysis,
we're
going
to
get
you
that
information,
but
that
is
important
to
know
with
this
application.
I
I
I
would
absolutely
so
if
we
came
to
you
seeking
a
use,
variance
for
20
units
and
the
board
said
no,
the
the
minimum,
the
the
minimum
relief
necessary
to
make
a
reasonable
return
is
in
that
we're
proposing
nine.
That's
the
minimum
relief
necessary
to
have
a
reasonable
rate
of
return.
Absolutely
that
and
so
what
before?
That's.
So,
if
that's
the,
if,
if
the
board
makes
a
determination
that
the
minimum
relief
necessary
to
achieve
a
economic,
a
reasonable
return
is
for,
then
that
would
be
the
case.
A
R
I
Reasonable,
as
the
chairman
mentioned,
if
the
minimum,
it's
the
it's
still
the
same
as
in
that
regard,
it's
the
minimum
relief
to
make
an
economically
viable
return,
reasonable
return.
So
if
that's
nine
units,
if
that's
eight
units,
that's
where
our
position
is
based
on
the
submissions
and
the
material
and
and
and
the
owner's
investment
and
the
required.
That's
all
why
it's
nine
units
like
they
did
that
math
I
think
the
question
was
asked
like:
why
would
you
reduce
right
from
16
to
nine
If,
You're
Gonna
Lose?
I
I
F
I
Correct
and
this
and
just
you're,
absolutely
correct,
Mr,
remember
what
it's
it's
in
this
instance
we're
right.
We
had
a
building
permit
to
build
the
thing,
so
we're
trying
to
keep
it
we're
trying
to
say
that
what
was
there
is
all
we're
trying
to
rebuild
that
that's
not
going
to
affect
you
know,
because
there's
all
these
other
standards
right,
so
we're
trying
to
make
this
as
straightforward
as
possible,
just
quite
literally
trying
to
rebuild
the
thing
that
we
had
a
permit
to
do
so,
you're,
absolutely
right.
B
U
F
U
I
R
E
R
I
All
right
so
I'm
going
to
shift
to
the
hardship
component
so
part
of
the
the
second
of
the
four
factors
that
we're
going
to
talk
about
here
concerns.
Thank
you
appreciate
it.
Whether
this
is
unique
and
does
not
apply
to
a
substantial
portion
of
the
district
and
neighborhood.
So
that's
the
the
current
factor
is
the
hardship
is
unique
and
does
not
apply
to
a
substantial
portion
of
the
neighborhood.
So,
as
we
noted
in
our
March
and
June
letters,
excuse
me
the
hardship
is
very
unique.
I
You
know
this
is
because
of,
of
course,
the
circumstances
before
you.
You
know
we
don't
submit
that
that
people
will
do
this
intentionally,
but
this
was
an
intentional
act
caused
by
another,
so
I
think,
what's
even
more
unique,
is
the
applicant
had
a
building
permit
to
build
out
the
proposal.
You
don't
really
see
this
fact.
Pattern
often
and
hope
to
not
see
it
again,
so
we
don't
believe
that
it
will
be
replicated
elsewhere
as
detailed
in
our
other
submissions.
I
The
use
existed
since
1965
so
preceded
the
city's
enactment
of
zoning,
the
shift
in
the
character
of
the
area.
Of
course,
the
development
of
the
city's
housing
authority
and
other
uses
in
the
area
certainly
changed
area.
But
again
the
uniqueness
does
not
require
that
the
property
that
subject
of
use,
variance
be
the
only
property
that
suffers
from
this
particular
hardship.
I
mean
again,
there
is
a
916
Walcott
in
proximity,
but
never.
Nevertheless.
This
is
a
very,
in
our
perspective,
very
unique
hardship.
Taylor.
I
A
I
I
Multi-Family
use
of
this
type
so
I
think
it's
particularly
unique
and
does
not
apply
to
a
substantial
portion
of
the
district
or
neighborhood,
but
it
isn't
you're
correct
it's
an
and
foreign.
The
next
factor
in
the
test
is
that
it
will
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood.
Of
course,
this
this
use
has
been
there
since
at
least
1965
again
well
before
that,
and
there
are
other
multi-family
buildings
and
there's
also
a
existing
boarding
house
multi-family
use
at
916
Walcott
directly
across
the
street.
I
We've
mentioned
in
our
submissions,
the
895
Walcott
for
Russell
Heights,
along
Creek
Drive
in
the
immediate
vicinity
of
the
property,
and
then
we
included
an
illustration,
our
submission
that
highlighted
other
development
in
there,
of
course,
the
city's
housing
authority,
and
otherwise,
how
are
you
defining
neighborhood
I?
Don't
I
guess
in
a
defined
neighborhood,
but
it's
it's
it's
it's
effectively.
It
could
be
the
whole
city,
but
in
this
particular
neighborhood
it
is
immediate.
If
you're,
if
you're
saying
neighborhood,
you
could
say
directly
across
the
street
from
the
same
use
the
hardship.
H
C
I
I
would
read
it
as
it's.
The
question
is
the
variants
will
not
alter
the
essential
character
of
the
neighborhood,
so
where
our
perspective
is
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
has
been
well
established.
This
use
has
been
there
well
for
the
most
part
well
before
the
single
family,
residences
or
other
areas
cul-de-sacs
that
have
been
developed
in
this
area
right,
including
beacons
housing
authority
and
other
development
in
this
particular
neighborhood
and
area.
I
So
it
is
effectively
part
of
the
essential
character
of
that
neighborhood
you'll
hear
probably
public
comments
tonight
about
the
neighborhood
and
what
it
has
been
the
applicant
for.
You
is
seeking
to
reduce
that
non-conformity
right
to
to
effectively
bring
it
more
in
conformance
to
what
is
otherwise
permissive.
So
if
anything,
it
would
be
a
you
know
we're
suggesting
a
betterment,
but
nothing
prohibits
someone
from
building
a
building
the
exact
same
size,
as
was
on
that
property.
C
I
I
Thank
you.
The
last
consideration
before
turning
it
over
to
the
public
or
to
the
board
for
other
questions
is
whether
or
not
it's
been
the
hardship
has
been
self-created.
That's
a
similar
factor
to
your
area
variance
test,
and,
of
course
this
in
this
instance
is
not
self-created.
The
building
was
burned
down
by
a
tenant.
The
applicant
purchased
it
with
the
legal
existing
non-conformity
on
on
the
property.
So,
ultimately,
that's
our
submission
on
that
factor.
D
I
D
T
I
Excellent
question
the
the
boarding
house
or
sros
those
uses
are
not
permitted
in
the
in
city
code.
If
you
were
to
build
one
today
right
so
effectively
you
you
know,
there
are
multi-family
uses,
there
are
others,
so
I
think
there
was
a
comment
about
efficiency
units.
They'd
have
any
use
any
Bill.
Any
unit
built
today
would
have
to
meet
the
State
Building
Code
requirement
as
an
efficiency
unit,
so
single
room
occupancy
typically
had
a
connotation
with
a
shared
kitchen
or
a
shared
bathroom.
I
We've
been
you
yeah
I
think
we've
been
moving
away
from
that
that
characterization
just
referring
to
it
as
multi-family,
because
again
it's
how
they,
the
State
Building
Code,
will
refer
to
it.
But
the
board
ultimately
has
you
know
the
use.
We're
seeking
is
that
multi-family
use
has
an
opinion
one
way
or
the
other
on
on
calling
it
SRO
or
multi.
Yeah,
sorry
Bruce,
but
no
I,
I
Bruce
I
didn't
mean
to
put
you
on
that.
G
G
G
The
only
thing
within
the
building
code
was
inefficiency
unit,
so
when
they
were
going
when
they
were
reducing
the
number
of
units
prior
to
the
fire
actually
prior
to
the
prior
to
the
fire,
the
work
was
started
without
a
golf
department.
So
we
need
to
that
that
really
needed
to
be
clear
because
the
the
owner
decided
to
do
all
the
renovations
without
a
permit.
G
So
lo
and
behold
we
had
you
know
the
place
was
pretty
much
wide
open
because
of
the
demolition
it
had
already
taken
place,
which
you
know.
Ultimately,
when
the
fire
was
lit,
it
basically
went
through
the
building,
much
quicker
than
if
it
was
totally
finished
off
as
a
all
finished
spaces,
but
the
SRO
they
were
still
going
to
have
to
maintain
that,
because,
on
the
on
the
books,
it
was
always
through
the
history
anything
from
1965
going
forward.
The
city
has
always
identified
that
as
an
SRO.
G
I
A
I
B
And
to
that
extent
and
Bruce
feel
free
to
correct
me
if
I'm
wrong,
the
schedule
of
use
regulations
just
provides
multi-family
dwelling,
so
it's
almost
like
potato
potato
kind
of
deal.
The
application
is
for
multi-family
the
one
the
building
permit
is
before
Bruce
and
the
plans
are
before
Bruce
Bruce
will
make
sure
everything
is
up
to
code
for
whatever
it's
supposed
to
be,
but
right
now.
B
G
And
I
believe
it
would
be.
You
know
it's
up
to
the
you
know
up
to
the
board,
to
whether
this
is
a
continuing
use
and
if
it's
a
continuing
use,
it
be
the
same
use
as
what
was
in
the
past
going
forward
and
not
sometime
some
type
of
recreation
into
something
different
like
creating
this
into
one
or
two
bedroom
units
right
yeah,
where
it
might
actually
intensify
the
use
on
the
property
right
that
would
have
to
be.
You
know
if
it
was
to
go
that
direction.
I
would
have
to
be
analyzed.
H
B
Well,
I
think
Bruce.
Your
point
is,
if
there's
a
lot
of
things
here,
if,
hypothetically
speaking,
a
use
variance
was
approved,
the
determination
at
that
point
is
okay
is
the
use
that
is
now
permissible
for
this
particular
property
going
to
be
the
prior
building
permit,
which
was
to
renovate
the
old
building,
or
would
it
be
for
okay,
fine,
it's
a
multi-family,
but
I.
Don't.
I
Yeah,
we'll
need
a
we'll
need
a
new
building
permit
period,
because
it's
a
full,
it
would
be
a
full
reconstruction.
They
were
just
doing
renovation
work,
so
the
building
itself
was
going
was
being
retrofitted,
but
it
would
require
a
submission
of
a
new
building
permit,
but
once
a
use
is
determined
permissive
by
this
board,
as
distinct
from
what
it
was
as
an
existing
non-conformity.
That
use
runs
with
the
land
right.
It's
it's,
it's,
that's
the
that's
the
distinction,
so
it's
it's!
The
building
would
effectively
be
approved,
as
is
proposed.
B
I
G
Well,
yes,
they
will
need
it
under
the
building
code,
new
construction-
it
wouldn't
need
sprinklers,
but
that's
you
know
just
an
additional
cost
that
they
have
to
spend
if
they
want
to
go
forward
or
if
it
goes
forward.
Yeah
again
it's
just
my
take
on.
It
is
again:
it's
you
know
with
what
was
upheld
was
they
can't
show,
because
you
know
the
non-conforming,
the
non-conforming
use
of
the
building
being
destroyed?
If
you
were
allowing
them
to
go
forward,
you
know
it
would
still
be
a
continuation
of
that
existing
years
unless
they're
making
application
otherwise.
I
I
A
E
A
E
T
My
kind
of
takeaway
from
this
evening
of
what
I've
been
hearing
and
I
did
miss
the
last
meeting,
but
you
know
we're
talking
I'm
hearing
a
lot
about.
You
know
financial
hardship
and
investment
investment
strategy
costs.
All
of
that
stuff
Finance
degree
gives
me
a
little
bit
of
an
edge
of
understanding
what's
going
on,
but
with
any
type
of
investment.
T
An
investment
in
property,
especially
there's
like
a
lot
of
inherent
risk.
Just
like
running
the
stock
market
or
having
an
investment.
You
have
the
opportunity
for
big
return.
You
have
the
opportunity
for
loss.
God
only
knows
the
war
in
Croatia
cost
me
80
grand,
but
if
I
were
going
to
buy
a
multi-property
and
use
it
as
an
investment,
I
would
really
want
to
know
what
my
worst
case
scenarios
would
be
like
wow.
If
my
property
burned
down,
I
can
only
build
a
single
family
residence.
Would
this
be
worthwhile
for
me?
T
T
I
checked
that
out
first,
but
that's
just
me,
you
know
I
know,
there's
a
big
debate
about
what
this
property
should
become
and
we
talked
you
know.
We
spoke
of
properties
in
the
neighborhood,
the
property
across
the
street,
the
other
SRO
Etc,
that's
been
there.
My
question
again
would
Harkin
II
if
that
burned
down.
E
T
Does
that
become?
Is
that
in
the
same
zoning
that
925
is
in?
Would
that
revert
to
a
single
family
home
as
well,
because
we're
in
the
same
zoning
district-
and
you
know
maybe
the
reason
we
establish
those
zonings
and
the
type
of
properties
that
we
wanted
in
those
areas?
It's
because
we
wanted
to
change
the
footprint
of
the
neighborhood
and
maybe
not
have
single
family
multi-family
residences
of
that
nature
in
the
neighborhood
that
was
evolving
and
growing
over
the
last
60
years,
there.
E
T
So
you
know
again
just
because
what
was
there
once
before
does
not
mean
it
has
to
be
what
was
their
today.
That
is
the
hence
definition
of
change
and
evolution
in
in
a
town
or
a
neighborhood,
and
as
far
as
Financial
loss
and
hardship,
I
feel
it
too,
with
the
economy
and
I
understand
that
that
may
be
happening
here
as
well,
but
that's
inherent
in
the
risk
of
an
investment.
Q
I
am
still
opposed
to
granting
an
area
of
variance
by
way
of
any
loophole
to
permit
reconstruction
and
I
am
also
opposed
to
the
second
alternative,
issuing
a
use,
variance
or
the
second
loophole
presented
from
section
223-17c
to
permit
a
multi-family
or
an
SRO
building
in
the
single-family
resident
Zone
neighborhood
I
do
not
believe
the
applicant
should
be
allowed
to
set
the
building
standards
in
the
city
when
our
own
local
laws
prohibit
such
multi-family
or
Sr
buildings
to
be
built
after
the
single-family
zoning
change.
Regardless
of
how
the
original
building
met
its
demise.
Q
Tonight,
we
heard
the
owner's
Renovations
without
a
required
building,
permit
ultimately
helped
accelerate
the
fire
and
the
total
loss
of
the
original
building
the
applicant
should
not
be
allowed
to
rebuild
and
continue
to
have
a
non-conforming
use,
building
disguised
as
a
new
build.
This
parcel
is
a
freestanding
parcel
and
it
should
not
be
based
on
other
non-conforming
buildings
in
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
Q
Unfortunately,
the
applicant's
purchase
was
iffy
from
the
get-go
and
should
not
become
the
financial
hardship
of
all
residents
of
Beacon
with
the
discussion
of
a
potential
lawsuit,
nor
should
its
surrounding
neighbors
be
denied
their
quality
of
life
existence.
If
you
are
to
approve
this
project
based
on
this
long-winded
argument
and
interpretation
based
on
their
own,
unreasonable
requests,
Beacon
might
as
well
not
have
a
building
inspector,
no
city
building
codes
and
no
zba.
Thank
you
vote
no.
S
Can
you
hear
me
yeah?
Yes,
my
name
is
Ward
three
I'm
not
going
to
refer
to
the
area,
variance
because
it
doesn't
sound
like
it's
a
valiant
option
on
the
table
at
this
time,
but
in
terms
of
the
use
variants
there
I
really
appreciated
the
board's
questions
about
the
financial
analysis
and
I
would
like
to
hear
the
answers.
K
A
P
Island
I
often
take
walks
down
teller
Avenue
with
my
dog
and
baby
to
begin
daily,
and
the
existing
crosswalk
is
incredibly
unsafe
with
that
with
the
curve
in
9d
going
west.
That's
like
not
only
is
it
fast-moving
traffic
road,
but
it's
hard
to
see
cars
coming
and
yeah,
so
I'm,
just
yeah
I'm
large
how
dangerous
it
is
and
and
with
Sergeant
Avenue
being
a
fairly
busy
road
as
well
going
to
the
school
and
the
district
office
and
the
condos
and
Madame
Brett
I
feel
like
it's.
P
E
P
You
have
like
they
have
a
crosswalk
guard,
like
kind
of
like
right
in
front
of
like
the
on
the
Stag
I'm,
sorry,
the
Elks,
Club
and
yeah,
and
sorry,
and
also
as
so
yeah,
so
I'm
gonna
crosswalk
to
to
the
island
and
with
with
a
pedestrian
Crossing
yield
to
pedestrian
sign
with,
like
maybe
an
Amber
blinking
light.
So
people
driving
fast
can
see
it
and
also
as
a
Financial
Consultant
boy.
P
Now
that
this
property
is
surrounded
by
high
traffic
streets
and
it
so
it
would
be
a
public
service
and
would
move
the
applicant
to
build
a
sidewalk
for
the
safety
of
these
potential.
The
family
residents
I
think
multi-family
residents,
regardless
or
if
it
is,
if
it
does
end
up
being
some
other
I
mean
a
single
family
home.
It's
still
it's
for
the
health
and
safety
of
the
neighborhood.
Sorry
yeah,
not
the
best
public
speaker.
A
G
F
V
V
V
V
It's
going
to
make
it
worse
and
we
do
not
need
an
extra
30
40
cars
and
that
little
space
we
don't
need
it
and
I
would
appreciate
if
they
not
come
up
here
and
say
that
a
multiplex
would
be
better
than
a
single
family
and
it
would
be
more
traffic
with
a
single
family,
because
it's
not
true.
Thank
you.
N
Hi
I'm
Meg,
Oaks,
913,
Wolcott
I,
couldn't
make
a
lot
of
sense
out
of
the
discussion
about
the
area
variants,
but
with
the
I
wanted
to
comment
on
the
use
variants
that
I
really
feel
that
definitely
going
from
what
it's
now
the
single
family
to
multi-family
will
be
detrimental
to
the
to
the
neighborhood.
It's
a
pretty
neighborhood.
There's
a
lot
of
pretty
homes,
a
lot
of
people.
You
know
tourists
come
and
drive
through
there
and
I.
Just
think
that
I
put
so
much
weight
in
variance
were
granted.
N
W
Like
many
others,
we
have
participated
in
school
in
neighborhood
area,
cleanup
days
and
all
sorts
of
other
community-based
activities
that
take
place
in
the
site
in
question.
We
walk
and
drive
by
this
corner.
Daily
doesn't
say
we
know
it
well,
it
is
my
hope.
The
conversations
in
City
Beacon
will
work
to
improve
safety
and
Mobility
for
existing
residents,
including
school
school
age.
W
W
I
am
not
opposed
to
growth
and
change,
but
when
growth
happens
and
it's
set
by
folks
without
direct
ties
or
knowledge
of
the
character
of
the
community
and
or
exists
only
in
supportive
investment
or
investors,
we
must
say
no
and
finally,
in
closing
there
is
no
valid
justification
for
requesting
or
granting
a
variance
for
multi-unit
structure
at
925
Walcott
Avenue.
The
zoning
law
is
clear
and
straightforward.
W
The
prior
non-conforming
exemption
has
expired,
so
I
wrote
this
last
time
when
we
were
unable
to
share
with
the
removal
of
the
structure
and
the
permitted
use
no
longer
exists.
Please
vote
no
to
following
no
following
our
codes
and
maintain
and
preserve
a
single-family
zoning
in
support
of
the
many
residents
who
have
shared
their
concerns,
which
are
valuable
and
valid.
I
asked
the
zoning
appeals
board
to
stand
by
the
Integrity
of
our
zoning
and
deny
the
developers
appeal
and
Zoning
variance
request
for
925
Walcott.
Thank
you
so
much.
W
U
X
X
The
only
thing
I
wanted
to
say
otherwise
was
just
about
the
safety
of
the
neighborhood.
The
sidewalks
are
are
lacking,
but
also
the
traffic
the
whole
intersection.
So
even
if
the
sidewalks
were
added
like
just
the
crossings,
everything
would
be
still
an
issue
also
I
just
wanted
to
say
the
difficulty
was
not
self-created,
but
this
property
owner
willingly
took
a
risk
in
buying
this
property,
knowing
that
the
building
in
use
were
non-conforming,
and
if
the
building
was
destroyed,
they
would
lose
that
right,
a
city
where
we
can't
agree
on
anything.
A
I
think
that's
everyone.
All
right
just
want
to
acknowledge
some
additional
written
correspondence
from
James
case
Leo
Stephen
and
Meg
Oakes
and
Gregory
Cole
resubmitted
his
letter
of
621-23,
and
then
we
just
have
some
additional
housekeeping
items.
To
take
care
of
one
would
be
the
tolling
agreement.
Yeah
George.
Do
you
want
to
just
introduce
that
yeah.
B
B
The
there's
a
potential
agreement
tolling
agreement,
basically
pushing
back
the
the
date
to
commence
an
appeal
with
the
Supreme
Court
of
the
interpretation
issue.
There's
no
legal
downside
to
this
is
currently
proposed
under
this
agreement
to
be
I,
believe
September,
25th,
2023,
so
I'm
pushing
it
out
about
a
month.
There's
no
legal
downside
to
this.
B
It's
really
a
housekeeping
issue
and
as
much
as
if,
hypothetically
speaking,
there
were
multiple
appeals
of
decisions
made
by
the
board,
it
wouldn't
make
sense
for
the
board
or
for
anyone
to
have
to
deal
with
three
separate
things
right.
So
the
idea
is
told
the
have
the
tolling
agreement.
So
if
also
the
use
variance
is
granted
or
an
area
of
variance
is
granted
or
whatever
the
case
is,
then
there
wouldn't
be
a
lawsuit,
because
the
applicant
has
gotten
what
they
were
seeking.
So
the
tolling
agreement.
B
It's
it's
been
provided
to
the
board,
it's
three
pages,
one
of
which
is
a
signature
page,
but
what
it
essentially
does
long
story
short
is
on
page
two
paragraph
one,
the
date
by
which
the
owner
must
file
any
any
petition
pursuant
to
article
78
is
hereby
extended
through
and
including
September
25th
2023.
That
is
the
proposal
So.
To
that
extent,
again,
no
legal
downside,
if
you
would
I,
would
ask
that
if
the
board
would
like
to
make
a
motion
to
authorize
the
city
to
enter
into
the
tolling
agreement,
George.
A
Just
just
for
some
clarification
is
there
a
reason
so
normally,
if
this
was
not
filed,
they
would
have
until
August
20th.
Is
that
correct,
correct,
yes,
and
is
there
a
reason
why
September
25th
was
picked
rather
than
I
know?
There
was
some
discussion
I
believe
there
was
some
discussion
that
we
would
hold
this
open
until
our
whatever
Final
Act
we
made
was
determined.
I
Have
gone
to
play,
the
board
may
have
acted
this
evening,
yeah,
in
which
case
that
would
have
set
the
30
days
in
motion,
so
in
all
likelihood
this
will
we
would
if,
if
the
board
does
not
have
all
of
its
materials
and
is
not
making
a
decision
next
month,
it
will
likely
be
amended
to
go
out
until
October
I
think
the
idea
was
to
make
we.
It
was
in
division
that
the
board
might
be
in
position
tonight
to
make
terminations,
in
which
case
it
would
effectively
have
been
about
30
days.
A
B
B
Right,
okay,
yeah,
so,
to
that
extent,
to
Taylor's
Point
yeah,
it
is
in
theory.
If,
if
we,
you
know,
Taylor
comes
back
12
more
times
or
it
keeps
getting
adjourned
for
whatever
reason,
then
the
window
to
start
that
proceeding
both
for
the
applicant
and
for
for
the
city
to
be
aware
of
it
can
be
extended
a
year
which
I
think
is
not
necessarily
something
that
either
I
mean
benefits
one
party
more
than
the
other,
but
but
the
lack
of
certainty
to
that
extent
is
something.
I
F
I
H
I
B
A
B
B
You
know
the
feasibility,
the
reasonable
return,
if
the
board
deems
it
prudent
to
hire
a
consultant
to
analyze
the
report
and
sort
of
take
whatever
Mr
Palmer
presents
at
the
next
meeting
or
any
subsequent
meeting
to
Aid
in
that
decision.
That
is
something
that
is
not
unheard
of
plenty
of
boards.
Do
that?
To
that
extent,
if
the
board
feels
that
is
the
way
to
go
forward,
you
would
also
need
a
motion
to
authorize
the
the
entry
of
into
an
agreement
with
the
consultant
for
for
this
purpose
on
this
application.