►
From YouTube: Beacon Zoning Board 6 21 23
Description
The City of Beacon Zoning Board Meeting from June 21, 2023
A
Jennifer
yeah,
you
know
as
long
as
he
knows
my
mom,
so
all
right
good
evening.
Welcome
to
the
June
21st
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,
as
well
as
our
city
staff
and
Consultants,
including
our
city
building
inspector
Bruce
flower,
our
city
attorneys,
George
and
Judson,
as
well
as
the
zoning
board
secretary
Amanda.
Thank
you
all
for
being
here.
A
Also
on
the
city's
website
is
a
link
to
the
rules
and
procedures
of
the
zoning
board
of
appeals.
I
just
want
to
take
a
minute
to
explain
our
board's
procedures.
We
will
hear
each
application
of
which
there
is
some
agendas
on
the
podium.
If
anybody
needs
to
grab
one
we'll
hear
each
application
in
the
order,
it
was
noticed
on
the
agenda
for
each
application,
we'll
first
hear
from
the
applicant,
and
then
the
board
will
open
the
floor
up
to
comments
from
the
public.
A
If
you
wish
to
comment,
please
step
forward
to
the
podium
state,
your
name
and
address
for
the
record.
All
comments
should
be
addressed
to
the
board,
not
the
applicant
themselves
or
the
city
staff.
Because
of
the
number
of
people
here
and
the
topics
tonight
we're
going
to
limit
comments
to
know
more
than
three
minutes.
Public
comment
is
not
supposed
to
be
a
question
and
answer
session
you're
supposed
to
do
in
theory,
state
your
opinion
and
we'll
ask
questions
to
the
applicant.
Should
you
raise
one
that
we
wish
to
ask
them?
A
Well
emails
another
written
correspondents
sent
to
the
zoning
board
secretary.
We
made
part
of
the
official
record
for
the
application
and
just
a
little
more
specifics
about
what
we
do.
There's
only
board
of
appeals
hears
and
determines
appeals
from
administrative
decisions,
petitions
on
variances
and
other
such
matters
as
may
be
required
by
the
city
council
or
by
the
laws
of
the
state
of
New
York.
A
variance
is
permission
granted
by
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
so
that
property
may
be
used
as
a
matter
not
allowed
by
local
zoning
code.
A
Variance
variances
provide
flexibility
in
the
application
of
zoning
law
and
afford
the
landowner
an
opportunity
to
apply
for
administrative
relief
for
certain
provisions
of
the
law.
The
zoning
board
is
limited
to
granting
minimum
the
minimum
variance
necessary
that
addresses
the
need
for
the
variance
while
preserving
the
character,
health,
safety
and
Welfare
of
the
community.
A
The
first
four
agendum
items
are
area
variances,
and
these
are
the
factors
that
we
must
balance
in
order
to
determine
for
a
positive
or
negative.
Will
the
undesirable
change
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
detriment
in
nearby
properties
be
created
by
the
granting
of
an
area
variants?
A
Can
the
benefit
be
saw?
Can
the
benefits
saw
by
the
applicant
be
achieved
by
some
other
method
feasible
for
the
applicant
to
pursue
other
than
the
area
variants?
Is
the
area
variance
substantial?
Will
the
proposed
variance
have
an
adverse
effect
or
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
in
the
neighborhood
or
district,
and
then,
finally,
is
the
alleged
difficulty
self-created?
The
fifth
agenda
item
which
I
imagine
some
of
you
are
here
on,
is
actually
on
the
interpretation
of
the
law
of
the
of
the
zoning
code
by
the
building
inspector.
A
The
hearing
on
that
issue
will
be
tonight
any
hearing
on
any
variance
requests
by
that
owner
will
be
held
in
July.
That
should
just
be
noted.
So
we'll
talk
more
about
that
later.
That's
my
intro.
Welcome
to
the
zoning
board
of
appeals.
Can
I
have
a
motion
actually
has
everyone
have
the
opportunity
to
review
the
May
minutes,
any
comments
or
changes,
or,
if
not,
can
I
have
a
motion
to
accept
the
minutes
from
May.
A
C
D
A
E
F
F
We
were
here
last
month
to
review
the
application
and
we
made
some
changes
in
response
to
some
of
the
items
that
the
board
had
some
concerns
about.
Originally,
the
applicant
was
fine,
removing
that
side
window
in
the
stair,
because
it
was
very
close
to
the
neighboring
property
line,
but
after
meeting
the
owner
of
that
property
and
the
applicant
met
and
and
talked
about
it
and
the
the
neighbor
was
fine.
F
The
the
other
thing
we
did
is
we're
showing
the
six
parking
spaces
now,
so
we
completely
eliminated
that
parking
variance.
Although
if
there's
some
way,
the
owner
is
still
interested
in
seeing
if
there's
any
way
to
condition
the
approval
on
building
out
three
and
doing
the
other
three,
if
it
becomes
apparent
that
they're
really
necessary,
but
you
know
you
can
see
that
they
can
easily
accommodate
the
six
they're
fine
doing
it.
But
if,
if
there
is
some
way
to,
you
know
make
some
accommodation
there.
F
That
would
be
appreciated,
but
basically
you
know
they
want
to
maintain
the
residential
look
of
the
property
and
not
have
it
look
like
a
parking
lot
in
the
side,
yard
and
and
the
that
property
is
very
walkable
to
Main
Street.
You
know,
so
they
don't
actually
think
that
there's
going
to
be
a
real
need
for
a
lot
of
cars
there
in
any
case,
but.
G
F
We
would
still
end
up
needing
a
rare
yard
variance
to
get
the
depth
required
and-
and
the
other
thing
is
that
the
way
the
house
is
configured
you
know,
there's
windows
in
the
back
and
and
that
those
would
get
blocked
by
an
addition.
So
the
the
whole
thing
would
have
to
get
reconfigured.
It
would
become
a
very
extensive
renovation
and
an
expensive
project
and
the
the
current
occupants
would
have
to
leave.
While
that's
happening,
it
would
kind
of
be
like
a
gut
renovation.
So
we
we
just
don't
think
that
that's
a
feasible
alternative.
F
H
Hi
everybody
thanks
for
having
me
I'm
Kristen
Battersby
owner
in
Residence,
at
five
Willow
and
Beacon
I,
just
wanted
to
touch
on
one
or
two
things
that
we
were
talking
about
last
time.
I
was
here
and
I
just
wanted
to
say
that
the
plan
for
the
property
plan
for
the
barn
is
meant
to
restore
the
existing
building,
keeping
the
historical
Integrity
of
the
building,
because
both
those
buildings
were
built
in
the
1800s
and
we
want
to
keep
the
existing
building,
but
also
maintain
all
of
those
details
that
are
there
that
make
it
distinctive.
H
J
D
J
A
main
building
I
believe
the
way
it's
written
in
the
zoning
code
that
I
believe
that
they
can
park
in
the
front
yard.
So
that
would
be
the
area.
The
setback,
distance,
so
they're
behind
the
I
have
to
take
a
look
at
the.
What
the
distance
is
over
there
behind
the
other,
10
or
20
feet,
then
it
wouldn't
be
an
issue.
I
J
So
if
it's
not
like
it's
not
like
a
larger
development
for
most
of
the
time
on
fire
department,
access
comes
into
Play
Fire
Department
access
would
be
as
if,
let's
say,
the
building
was
set
further
back
off
the
road,
and
then
they
were
building
a
firearm
around
this
access
road.
You
know
for
their
private
driveway
different
requirements
kick
in
so
the
further
they're
away
from
the
public
way
that
road
would
then
have
to
be
wider
kind
of
normally
minimum
is
usually
24.
to
access
the
thank
you.
C
J
J
J
F
I
mean
you
know,
I
think
the
issue
would
be
if
it
you
know,
if
you're
getting
complaints
that
people
were
taking
up
street
parking
on
on
Willow
Street
as
a
you
know,
people
that
should
be
parking
on
that
driveway.
So
it
you
know
if
there
was
a
complaint,
you
know
that
they
could
build
it
out
and-
and
really
that's
just.
F
A
D
A
C
E
N
A
A
A
I
guess
Two
by
Two
by
one
let's
take
two
and
three,
which
are
the
setbacks
first
and
then
I
know
I'm
doing
it
in
reverse,
so
we'll
take
223-17d
for
both
of
them.
For
the
one
foot,
side,
yard,
setback,
10,
feet
required
and
1.8
feet,
rear
yard
setback
20
feet
required
as
to
whether
the
undesirable
change
will
produce
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
our
detriment
to
nearby
properties
will
be
created
by
granting
the
area
variants.
So,
let's
discuss
please.
B
K
C
D
C
I
A
I
L
C
C
Think
about
it,
but
to
me
changing
into
a
use
variance
would
set
more
of
a
dangerous
precedent
than
granting
a
variance
on
an
existing
structure
as
an
area
variance
which
is
what's
put
before
us.
It's
not
put
before
us
to
decide
whether
I
think
that's
up
to
Bruce
right.
You
decide
what
like
it's
not
a
used.
Variance
that
we're
looking
at
is
it.
G
I
A
A
B
I
mean
I
would
agree
with
you.
I
I
wouldn't
challenge
it
on
the
use.
Very
Insider
suggest
that,
but,
as
submitted
I,
don't
think
there's
another
way
to
achieve
the
goal.
I
mean
I.
Thank
you.
You
looked
into
what
we
talked
about
last
month
and
that
was
potentially
extending
out
the
existing
building
still
requiring
a
rear
yard,
but
maybe
less
as
significant
as
what
was
originally
asked.
So
I
think
you're.
Looking
at
that,
I
really
don't
think
there
is
another
way
to
achieve.
This
question
then
becomes.
Is
this
something
that
should
be
approved
right.
O
C
B
B
E
A
O
A
I
I
would
agree,
I
think
I.
Think
one
and
three
are
kind
of
tied.
If
you,
if
you
follow
the
logic
montosh
used
as
the
use
will
change
so
will
that
the
intensity
of
that
of
the
use
of
that
structure?
Obviously
people
will
be
living
there
and
and
therefore
that
changes,
what
a
setback
means
and
and
the
substantiality
of
such
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
C
A
Sure,
okay,
so
we'll
we'll
run
this
back
for
Section
223-12a,
which
is
the
allowance
of
more
than
one
main
building
on
the
lot
period.
So
as
to
whether
the
undesirable
change
will
reduce
will
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
detriment
to
nearby
properties
will
be
created.
By
granting
the
variance.
O
A
M
M
A
I
think
it's
very
hard
to
determine
what
change
will
be
reduced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
I.
Don't
know
if
that
change
would
be
desirable
or
undesirable,
based
on
this
I
I,
don't
think
it
would
set
a
precedent.
I
don't
know
it.
Certainly
it
would
be
a
change
by
allowing
a
second
main
building,
whether
or
not
that
would
be
desirable
or
undesirable.
C
C
O
O
A
B
P
Q
B
M
B
F
I
M
M
B
I
R
C
A
C
A
A
I
D
S
A
S
C
S
G
F
S
S
Hi
good
evening,
I'm
Steve
Whalen
of
Whalen
architecture
representing
the
owners
of
75
Oak
Street.
So
our
proposal
is
to
do
an
addition
to
the
southwest
side
of
the
property
on
a
pre-existing
non-conforming
lot.
The
addition
we're
proposing
it's
going
to
be
two
stories.
It's
about
six
feet
deep
and.
S
Feet
wide,
which
is
the
width
of
the
existing
residence
we're
proposing
this,
so
that
we
can
reconfigure
the
layouts
on
the
first
and
second
floor
of
the
existing
house
or
need
a
larger
kitchen,
we're
proposing
a
back
porch
and
then
a
larger
master
bedroom.
On
the
second
floor,
with
this
we
are
seeking
an
area
variance
because
it's
a
pre-existing
non-conforming
lot.
C
S
It's
more
yeah
because
we
have
a
change
yeah.
Let's
say
it's
152
square
feet
each
floor,
there's
just
a
back
porch
on
the
we're
actually
right
now.
It's
like
you
can
actually
see
it
partially
here
in
the
foundation
plan,
so
we're
actually
just
going
to
complete
there's
like
an
L
shape
on
the
back
of
the
house,
so
we're
just
going
to
complete
that
add
a
back
porch
and
then
build
over
that
footprint.
On
the
second
floor.
S
Q
You
don't
mind
me
asking
just
to
clarify
for
the
board
and
for
myself.
The
proposed
work
is
just
an
addition
to
the
the
rear
of
the
household
correct.
The
structure
of
the
remaining
house
is
not
changing.
No
setbacks,
because
the
house
is
is
pre-existing
non-conforming
for
the
existing
portion
of
it,
but
you're
not
proposing
to
change
anything
there
in
terms
of
the
structure
or
anything
right.
S
S
D
J
Q
I
I
just
wanted
to
be
sure,
because
originally
I
saw
some
requests
for
certain
feat:
3.2
feet
versus
3.5
or
whatever
so
I
just
wanted
to
be
sure,
because
I
know
the
pro
the
house
is
somewhat
on
an
angle
on
the
property,
so
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that
it
was
indeed
the
rear
of
the
house
and
it's
been
clarified.
Bruce.
Thank
you
and
thank
you
very
much.
Yeah.
G
B
A
T
The
concern
I
have
is
not
so
much
for
the
house,
but
for
the
swamp
Maple
that
sits
back
there
if
they
go
in
the
ground
to
expand
the
backyard
I,
don't
know
what
damage
that
will
do
to
the
roots
of
that
dying,
swamp
maple
that
swamp
Maples
limbs
are
big
enough
and
heavy
enough
to
be
trees
of
Their
Own.
If
it
should
come
down,
it
will
tear
out
my
shed
my
fence,
my
pool
fence
and
my
pool.
So
my
concern.
E
T
T
S
Sure,
if
there's
anything
that's
on
this
property
during
construction,
that's
going
to
be
a
danger
to
any
of
the
surrounding
neighbors
yeah,
we'll
definitely
address
it.
You
know
if
we're
hitting
roots
in
that
within
that
six
feet,
or
even
if
we
get
out
there
and
that
tree
has
died
even
more
yeah,
we'll
take
it
down.
S
If
we,
the
last
time
we
were
out
there,
you
know
it
was
like
the
beginning
of
Spring,
so
we
couldn't
tell
if
it
was
still
dead
or
alive
or
not.
Now
we
can
obviously
tell
so
if
we
go
we'll
do
a
site
visit
and
if
it's
looking
a
little
shady,
no
pun
intended,
but
if
it's
looking
a
little
bad,
we'll
definitely
take
it
down.
S
D
S
Yeah,
we'll
definitely
speak,
you
know
offline,
we
do
have
there's
it's.
Obviously
it's
a
very,
very
tight
lot,
but
on
the
what's
that
side
of
the
property
or
the
Northwest
side
of
the
property,
we
know
that
the
property
has
not
been
maintained.
We've
got
a
couple
Gates
there's
a
couple
of
like
I,
think
like
concrete,
like
little
like
sidewalks
or
like
little
retaining
walls
we'll
take
them
out,
but
we'll
just
we'll
make
sure
that
we've
got
access
going
back
and
forth.
There.
A
A
Can
I
have
a
second
second?
Second,
all
in
favor
aye,
all
right.
We
can
take
these
together,
so
we'll
go
through
the
factors
as
to
whether
the
on
excuse
me
as
to
whether
an
undesirable
change
will
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
detriment
to
nearby
properties
will
be
created
by
the
granting
of
the.
D
I
A
I
A
M
C
D
I
D
A
J
D
G
U
U
U
The
reason
why
we're
doing
this
is
because
I
have
a
two-year-old
son
who
loves
to
play
outside
and
loves
running
in
the
street.
Coincidentally,
so
we
are
hoping
to
relocate
the
driveway
in
order
to
fence
in
our
backyard
and
do
so
in
a
way
that
would
be
aesthetically
pleasing
to
the
neighborhood
rather
than
having
to
wrap
a
fence
around
the
existing
driveway.
U
Yeah,
instead
of
sort
of
going
around
the
driveway
in
a
I,
don't
know
strange
kind
of
rectangular
shape.
You
would
just
go
straight
through
it
and
the
reason
why
I
believe
at
least
I
don't
have
any
historical
documents
to
prove
this.
But
the
reason
why
I
believe
the
driveway
was
originally
located
in
the
front
yard
anyway,
is
because
most
of
the
driveways
in
my
neighborhood
are
in
the
front
of
the
dwelling
and
my
house.
U
So
it's
been
assumed
by
a
number
of
contractors
and
plumbers
and
electricians
that
have
come
to
the
house
that
at
one
point
in
time
that
was
a
garage
that
was
inside
the
house
and
was
then
converted
to
a
a
living
room.
So
the
driveway
very
likely
went
up
the
the
front
yard
beforehand
anyway,
leading
into
that
that
garage.
I
U
U
C
C
The
driveway
from
your
neighbor
I
was
there
today
looking
at
the
site.
So
did
you
if,
if
you'd
in
use
that
five,
if
you
didn't
obey
that
five
five
feet,
you
could
probably
move
it
a
couple
of
feet
over
and
not
be
in
front
of
the
house
at
all,
then
you
would
need
a
side
yard
setback.
Instead
of
this
parking,
Stones
yeah.
C
D
B
M
M
B
M
U
Yeah
some
some
do
some
are
entirely
in
front
of
the
the
house
there's
also
yeah,
there's
also.
We
have
a
lot
of
different
driveways
in
my
neighborhood.
It's
a
you
know
a
pretty
wide
range,
but
some
of
them
are
in
front
of
the
house.
Some
of
them
are
in
front
of
a
converted
garages
which
are
now
part
of
the
house.
No
longer
have
a
garage
door,
it's
a
whole
mixed
bag.
Some
people
have
circular
driveways.
It's
all
over
the
place.
C
U
A
A
N
Theresa
Kraft,
in
addition
to
matching
the
other
neighboring
driveways
relocating,
the
driveway
should
be
allowed
in
this
case,
as
the
house
and
the
parcel
sits
on
a
corner
of
two
streets
and
there's
access
to
the
dwelling
at
the
new
location,
and
it
has
that
front
porch.
So
it's
not
really
in
the
living
room.
Thank
you.
D
A
B
I
B
C
M
C
E
B
R
A
B
A
A
A
A
B
W
W
W
C
W
F
W
B
G
W
In
the
other
corner
of
the
yard,
where
you
see
the
other
Little
Steps
coming
down
in
the
garage
of
the
existing
garage,
those
driveways
are
join
driveways
and
the
garages
are
like
up
two
feet
apart
and
they're,
both
rear
the
backs
of
them
are
on
the
property
lines
and
the
garage
is
existing.
Both
are
on
property
lines,
everything's
kind
of
squashed
in
that
neighborhood.
W
W
Just
I
guess:
that's
the
way
that
there
was
probably
failing
members
in
the
1950s
or
something
when
they
they
were
done
and
that's
how
it
was
and
that's
how
it
is
God.
You
know
at
the
building
inspecting
our
coffee
down
at
the
retina,
the
diner
in
town
or
whatever
you
know,
whoever
back
in
the
day,
nobody
made
a
big
deal
out
of
it,
I
suppose,
but.
W
O
I
D
A
C
C
A
A
O
I
O
A
B
A
A
I
A
A
The
fifth
agenda
item
is
for
an
interpretation
of
law,
so
the
five
factors
that
I
went
through
four
separate
times
are
not
being
asked
for
now,
although
this
was
noticed,
By
Request
of
the
applicant
for
both
an
interpretation
and
potential
variances.
If
any
variances
are
to
be
considered,
they
will
not
be
considered
this
evening.
This
is
again
just
for
the
interpretation
of
the
code.
A
The
code
was
interpreted
by
our
building
inspector
and
that
interpretation
has
been
questioned
and
appealed
to
our
board
and
our
board
will
be
the
decider
of
the
interpretation
of
that
code.
Therefore,
when
you
make
your
comments,
although
I
expect
they
will
be
similar
to
the
correspondence
we
received
comments
about
potential
variance.
Is
that
may
be
applied
to
would
be
addressed
in
July?
X
Good
evening,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
zoning
board,
for
the
record,
my
name
is
Taylor
Palmer
I'm,
a
partner
with
the
law,
firm
of
Cuddy
and
fader
on
behalf
of
the
applicant,
because
I
see
that
the
city
brought
two
of
its
attorneys
I
brought
one
of
my
colleagues
with
me,
Max
maholic,
also
from
Cutty
and
fader.
Our
Hudson
Valley.
Excuse
me:
Hudson
property
advisors,
our
Financial
Consultant,
again,
not
for
tonight's
discussion.
X
Who
provided
the
submission
to
your
board
is
not
here
with
us
tonight,
but
would
be
here
in
July
if
necessary,
as
the
chairman
mentioned,
while
Max
is
trying
to
get
our
our
super
secure
software
that
doesn't
let
our
computer
download
the
application
to
put
some
of
the
visuals
up.
All
the
presentation
materials
we
had
tonight
are
submitted
to
the
record
included
in
your
package
tonight,
I'm
going
to
start
with.
X
What,
exceptionally,
would
be
your
exhibit
a
which
are
just
the
visual
exhibits
to
kind
of
give
a
background
of
where
you
are
just
to
try
and
buy
Max
a
few
more
minutes
here.
As
the
chairman
mentioned,
we
are
before
your
board
in
connection
with
a
public
hearing
regarding
our
application
to
appeal
a
pair
of
interpretations.
X
X
At
the
end
of
the
day,
the
building
we're
talking
about
the
applicant
was
in
the
process
of
renovating
pursuant
to
issued
building
permits.
So
this
was
an
existing
building
that
had
been
there
for
nearly
a
century.
He
had
a
building
permit
to
reduce
that
building
down
from
16
units
to
nine
units
and
was
in
the
process
of
doing
so.
When
you
all
saw
the
island
current
or
may
have
been
seen,
you
know,
and
I
meant
many
of
the
public
were
probably
here
when
that
building
was
burned
down
effectively.
X
The
Proposal
is
that
of
a
less
non-conforming
use
than
existed
and,
of
course,
as
you
all
know,
for
the
benefit
of
the
public
who's
attending
this
evening,
we
did
provide
a
detailed
submission,
but
this
less
non-conforming
building
in
the
affordable
housing
that
it
may
provide,
is
located
directly
across
from
the
same
exact
use.
So
there's
a
the
abbreviation
that
I'll
use
and
is
used
in
our
submission
is
short-term.
Excuse
me
single
room,
occupancy
or
boarding
houses.
X
It's
been
known,
these
are
existing
legal
non-conforming
legal
non-conforming
uses
in
on
the
property,
and
there
was
one
directly
across
the
street
and,
of
course
were
in
proximity
to
the
beacon,
Housing
Authority
property.
So
now,
by
way
of
background,
see,
Max
is
still
working
on
getting
the
visuals,
but
in
your
exhibit
a
it
shows
the
visuals
of
the
property
where
it
is
on
the
in
in
our
city.
X
X
Some
of
these
submissions
that
we
utilize
are
just
visuals
again
Aerials
of
the
property.
We
also
went
back
to
try
and
because
the
city's
files
are
so
small
on
this
particular
use.
Notwithstanding
that
it's
existed
for
nearly
a
century,
the
historic
Aerials
showed
dating
back
to
at
least
1936,
so
I
can't
take
full
credit
for
a
century,
but
we
know
it's
been
there
for
a
long
time
and
the
use
itself
preceded
the
adoption
of
the
city's
zoning
ordinance
as
well,
and
an
interesting
twist
of
fate.
X
There
actually
was
another
fire
in
this
building
in
1991,
which
repairs
were
allowed
pursuant
to
the
records
that
we
could
find
through
our
foil
request
that
we
reviewed
to
the
city's
documents
on
December
12th
of
last
year,
the
applicant
received
a
building
permit
from
the
building
department,
as
I
mentioned,
that
allowed
interior
renovations
to
convert
16
units.
So
again,
16
single
room
vacancy
boarding
house
units
to
nine,
so
we
was
reducing
it
down
nearly
in
half
of
what
was
originally
permitted
on
the
use
in
existed
for
decades.
X
Pursuant
to
that
building,
permit
The
Proposal
in
that
building
was
to
have
each
unit
would
include
a
bathroom
and
kitchenette
again.
The
boarding
house
and
its
operations,
and
some
of
the
visuals
that
you
probably
have
seen
in
the
Highland
current
or
other
articles,
show
that
there
was
a
shared
kitchen
and
that's
generally
consistent
with
these
existing
non-conforming
uses.
The
app
was
installing
new
plumbing
sprinkler
systems,
so
all
things
that
really
would
have
probably
prevented
what
happened
at
the
site.
X
Notwithstanding
someone
trying
to
do
so,
nefariously
and
arson
ing,
albeit
not
a
word
arson
in
the
building.
Unfortunately,
before
the
renovations
were
completed,
the
building
was,
of
course,
severely
damaged
by
a
fire,
and
the
walls
of
the
building
actually
were
then
demolished
at
the
request
of
the
fire
department.
So
they
could
extinguish
the
fire
shortly
after
the
January
3rd
arson,
the
building
inspector
initialed,
a
original
determination
dated
January
19th
that
the
re-establishment
of
the
world
reconstruction
of
the
approved
use
in
the
r110
was
not
permitted,
subject
to
section
223-10-d
of
the
zoning
code.
X
So
again,
there's
two
determinations
that
the
building
inspector
made
the
first
was
just
of
this
one
section
223
10
d,
so
we
had
initially
submitted
an
appeal
to
you
dated
March
20th
that
appealed
that
one
specific
section
which
again
regulates
restoration
speaking
to
the
restoration
of
non-conforming
buildings,
not
non-conforming,
uses
that's
a
very
explicit
point,
so
non-conforming
buildings,
rather
than
non-conforming
uses
that
same
day,
council's
predecessor
submitted
a
letter.
There
was
one
follow-up
building
inspector
determination
that
we
received
and
it
stated
that
two
other
components
of
the
building
code
were
triggered
for
review.
X
So
this
room
I
call
that
the
revised
the
termination
so
there's
two
determinations
that
are
before
you,
but
for
our
convenience,
the
second
or
the
revised
determination
included
the
same
provision
from
the
original.
So
it's
probably
easiest
to
rely
on
the
revised,
because
it
includes
all
of
the
details
we'll
be
discussing
this
evening.
X
X
So,
if
you're
getting
tired
of
my
voice
at
any
point
or
you
need
me
to
jump
around
and
get
everybody
going,
let
me
know
but
I'm
going
to
start
with
223
10d,
because
again,
that
was
the
original
interpretation
and
again
the
focus
is
on
non-conforming
buildings,
non-conforming
uses.
So
in
the
original
and
new
determinations,
the
building
inspector
argues
that
the
continued
use
is
no
longer
permitted
due
to
the
destruction
of
the
building.
X
Respectfully,
this
section
of
the
code
is
irrelevant
to
the
continued
use
of
the
building,
which
is
the
effectively
what
the
applicant
is
seeking
in
this
instance
is
to
continue
the
use
the
non-conforming
use,
just
to
quote
the
section
of
the
code
that
was
that's
relevant
to
this
particular
interpretation,
22310d
States
and
relevant
part
that
if
any
non-conforming
building
again
that's
the
key
here
underlying
bold.
If
any
non-conforming
building
shall
be
destroyed
by
any
means
to
an
extent
of
50
percent,
no
repairs
or
reconstruction
shall
be
made
unless
every
portion
of
such
building.
X
So
there's
a
key
word
non-conforming
building
and
the
word
unless
every
portion
of
such
building
is
made
to
conform
to
all
regulations
of
the
chapter
for
the
district
at
which
it's
located
so
again,
it's
speaking
to
non-conforming
buildings,
not
the
non-conforming
use
so,
respectively,
submit
from
from
the
applicant
side
a
plain
reading
of
this
section.
Construing
again
any
ambiguity
in
favor
of
the
property
owner
as
is
required
that
this
provision
refers
to
the
building
conforming
to
the
now
and
effect
bulk
regulations.
X
B
X
What
the
so
again,
specifically
the
the
building
inspector's
determination,
was
saying
that
they
use.
He
was
utilizing
this
section
of
the
code
to
indicate
that
the
use
could
no
longer
be
permitted
on
the
property,
but
the
code
section
doesn't
say
that
the
use
cannot
be
continued
on
the
property.
It
says
that
the
non-conforming
building,
if
it's
destroyed
more
than
50
percent,
would
have
to
be
built
to
the
bulk
regulations
of
the
now
in
effect
zoning
standard.
X
X
Correct
so
you'll
there's
more
there's
two
sections
of
the
code:
one
speaks
to
non-conforming
buildings
and
others
speak
to
non-conforming
uses.
So
the
original
determination
only
included
this
section
and
we
had
spoken
to
council
before
the
new
determination
came
forth.
Not
not
Council
present
this
evening
and
identified
why
that
provision
probably
wouldn't
be
the
best
to
to
rely
on
because
it
did
not
include
the
use.
The
use
is
clearly
permissive,
but
the
building
itself
would
have
to
be
zoning
compliant.
So
that's
from
a
dimensional
standpoint,
not
the
use
well.
I
X
I
W
X
So
I
guess
I'm
not
following,
so
that
that
section
is
explicitly
defined
as
non-conforming
buildings
not
uses.
So
the
section
of
the
code,
the
building
inspector
was
relying
on
had
no
consequence
of
use.
It
was
saying
that
the
use
that
section
explicitly
says
if
any
non-conforming
building
is
destroyed,
no
repairs,
no
reconstruction,
dot,
dot
dot
unless
meaning.
Unless
so,
if
you
do,
if
that
happens,
in
this
case,
you
know
we're
saying
effectively:
100
loss
because
of
the
fire
and
the
demolition
directed
by
the
fire
department.
X
X
X
So
the
I
think
the
building
inspector
went
one
step
further
in
the
revised
determination,
because
that
section
talked
about
building
the
next
determination
included
discussions
of
use.
So
that's
where
we're
going
in
the
next
conversation,
but
that
specific
section
is
explicit
to
building
itself
so
the
building.
So,
let's
just
if
we,
if
we
ignore
the
other
two
pieces
of
interpretation,
material
that
we're
in
the
revised
determination-
and
we
stick
with
this
one
for
a
moment
if
the
board
said
you're
right,
it's
all
about
the
building
itself,
it
has
to
be
a
dimensionally
conforming
building.
X
If
the
applicant
didn't
the
applicant
chose
to
rebuild
the
building
in
the
exact
location,
if
that
building
doesn't
fit
from
a
height
setback
or
other
bulk
requirement,
it
would
require
area
variance
relief
from
your
board
to
be
rebuilt.
The
use
itself
is
not
of
consequence
there.
It's
then
the
building
has
to
Glide,
so
parking
would
have
to
be
all
the
things
that
are
now
in
effect,
as
a
bulk
regulation
would
be
applicable.
So
that's
that's
only
one
step
of
this.
M
X
So
the
building
that
existed
was
what's
considered
a
legal,
not
ill.
It's
a
it's
hard
to
say
that
a
legal,
not
ill
legal,
a
legal
existing
non-conformity,
it
pre-existed
the
adoption
of
the
city's
zoning
ordinance
and,
and
really
nearly
a
century
old.
It's
it's
a
use,
that's
no
longer
permitted
in
the
zoning
ordinance.
Today
you
couldn't
apply
for
one
correct,
correct,
yeah.
The
the
area
was
highly
developed
around
it.
X
X
X
Uses
and
if
I
may
Mr,
chairman
I'll
caveat
that
with
a
so
and
one
of
the
factors
we'll
discuss
in
just
a
moment
relates
to
whether
there's
a
affirmative
action
by
a
individual
like
a
property
owner
to
change
something
or
do
something.
The
code
regulations
that
we're
about
to
speak.
To
that
talk
about
whether
the
building
wasn't
was
removed
right,
that's
the
language
that
we're
going
to
get
to
next,
but
that
is
it's
the
next.
It's
a
direct
segue
Mr,
chairman
of
the
of
the
conversation
and
not
altering
the
structure.
X
It's
designed
to
say
you've
got
a
legal
non-conformity.
It
exists.
We
don't
want
you
to
necessarily
touch
every
part
of
this
building
and
and
touch
it
up,
and
you
know
get
an
unfair
sort
of
access
to
your
your.
You
know
an
exceptional,
reasonable
return
on
your
Investments.
So
to
speak,
it's
it's
designed
to
limit
it.
There's
a
specific
code
regulations
that
say
you
can't
do
more
than
25
improvements
and
that's
designed
to
sort
of
sure.
A
But
specific
to
this
section
is
a
year
contention
that
the
purpose
of
223-10d,
specifically,
if
there's
a
pre-existing
non-conforming
use
and
that
whatever
that
is
wherever
that
is,
however,
many
there
are
in
this
city,
if
that
is
destroyed
more
than
50
percent.
Your
contention
is
that
that
can
be
rebuilt
and
the
use
remain
the
same.
So
this
this
section
is
not
to
take
away
the
use.
That
is
your
contention.
The.
X
The
it's
not
to
take
away
the
use
it's
to
try
and
it's
trying
to
have
buildings
that
are
more
conforming
than
what
that's
our
contention,
that
that
more
less
non-conforming
and
more
conforming.
Whichever
word
order,
you
like
to
say
that's
the
intent
of
that
section,
because
it's
speaking
to
non-conforming
buildings
here
here,
the
issue
is
not
one
of
whether
it
was
a
non-conforming
building.
It's
the
use
that
was
not
conforming.
A
Do
you
agree
what
say
you
about
the
sentence
after
that,
where
it
does
speak
to
use
in
the
same
section,
so
it
continues.
That
section
continues
to
read
so
where
the
destruction
of
the
non-conforming
building
is
less
than
50
percent,
it
may
be
restored
and
the
non-conforming
use
continued.
Doesn't
that
apply
that
if
it
was
destroyed
more
than
50,
the
non-conforming
use
may
not
be
continued.
X
I
might
return
that
question
back
to
you,
Mr
chairman
and
say
it's
quite
ambiguous
and
it's
not
the
word.
The
use
is
explicitly
excluded
from
the
50
requirement,
which
again
goes
back
to
that.
You
know
for
playing
Math
Games,
terrible
things
to
do
with
lawyers,
but
if
we
play
the
math
game,
there's
there's
code
restrictions
on
the
use
being
improved
by
more
than
25
percent
right.
No,
that
wasn't
even
applied
when
the
applicant
went
forth
had
a
building
permit
submitted
plans.
The
improvements
were
not
more
than
25
percent
of
the
Val
another
trigger
here.
X
It's
talking
about.
You
know
the
total
extinguishment
of
the
use.
In
this
case
the
whole
building
was
gone,
so
the
use
itself
was
not
foregone.
It's
seeking
to
have
non-conforming
buildings
that
are,
you
know
consistent
with
the
current
regulations,
because
that's
oftentimes
what
you
see
with
non-conforming
buildings,
a
building
that
might
be
four
stories
where
only
threes
permitted
the
use
itself.
If
you
have
a
one-story
building,
it
could
be
a
house,
it
could
be
an
art
studio,
it
could
be
an
office.
X
X
Great
with
that
segue,
because
it's
it
is
a
lot
of
the
same
I-
mean
naturally
we're
talking
about
the
same
thing.
It's
really
the
use
of
the
building
on
the
site
and
the
intent
to
reconstruct
the
same
product
same
a
new
reconstruct
a
better
product
than
was
there
one,
that's
less
non-conforming,
but
consistent
with
what
was
already
approved
to
be
done.
So
we
then
turned
to
223
10
C5
and
that's
the
applicant's
request
for
an
interpretation
that
the
building
itself
wasn't
affirmatively
removed.
X
So
this
kind
of
goes
I
think
the
Chairman's
question
kind
of
also
walks
into
this
section
of
the
code,
because
it's
talking
about
removal
of
a
building
a
lot
of
times,
you'll
have
uses
or
non-conforming
uses
and
if
it
is
discontinued
for
a
period
of
time
that
use
May
extinguish
because
it's
of
non-use,
so
with
this
section
of
the
code
we're
seeing
an
interpretation
that
the
applicant
did
not
remove
the
use.
I
mean
this
is
a
very
unique
situation
and
I'll
get
to
that
that
the
trigger
point
in
just
a
minute
and
I.
X
X
The
building
inspector
states
that
the
building
was
completely
destroyed
by
fire
started
by
a
former
tenant
of
the
property.
Thereafter,
with
the
consent
of
the
property
owner,
the
walls
of
the
house
were
demolished
in
order
to
give
access
to
the
fire
department
to
completely
extinguish
the
fire,
so
that
these
again
it's
all
in
the
newspapers,
it's
all
there
and
the
neighbors,
probably
I'm
sure
saw
a
first-hand
account
of
everything
that
took
place.
X
Moreover,
the
building
inspector
also
said
the
building
was
completely
destroyed
by
a
fire
and,
as
a
result,
the
unstable
walls
were
required
to
be
demolished
under
New
York,
State
Building
Code
to
address
health
safety.
Concerns
now
withstanding
that
the
building
was
damaged
by
arson
and
required
to
be
demolished
under
state
law.
I
find
that
the
building
was
removed
as
a
result
of
the
fire
and
demolition
work
and
no
usable
portion
of
the
building
exists.
X
So
let
me
sort
of
break
that
down,
so
the
fire
department,
of
course,
had
to
literally
demolish
the
building
to
protect
the
budding
and
nearby
properties,
many
of
which
actually
suffer
heat
damage.
Just
because
this
thing
you
could
see,
as
you
all
know,
from
Newburgh,
but
all
seriousness
aside.
This
was
not
an
affirmative
voluntary
act
by
the
property
owner.
Again,
this
property
owner
is
new,
as
of
2022
2022,
the
prior
owners,
the
prior
occupants,
whoever
utilized
this
building
or
tenanted
it
they're,
not
here
anymore.
X
This
is
a
new
owner
who
was
renovating
this
building
and
trying
to
make
this
thing.
You
know
less
non-conforming
than
was
existing
and
trying
to
better
the
facilities.
So
when
the
building
inspector
concluded
that
the
building
was
removed
and
therefore
the
use
can't
continue,
it
flies
directly
in
the
face
of
case
law
that
speaks
to
that
affirmative
action,
meaning
the
removal
and
I'll
get
to
that
now.
So
when
we
look
at
the
case
law
that
applies
to
removal
and
that's
the
word-
that's
the
focus
of
this
our
focus
of
this
section.
X
It
should
be
the
affirmative
action
of
a
property
owner,
so
here,
naturally,
this
building
was
burned
down
by
a
tenant,
not
the
applicant,
not
the
owner
period,
as
I
mentioned,
the
applicant
had
literally
pursued
a
building
permit
to
reduce
the
non-conformity
from
16
units
down
to
nine.
So
here
you
know
to
claim
that
the
removal
of
the
use
it's
really
directly,
in
contrast
to
what
the
zoning
code
says
and
that's
really
regulating
the
abandonment.
X
The
thing
we
talked
about
the
beginning
is
the
abandonment
of
non-conforming
uses,
but
it
has
no
reference
to
these
affirmative
acts
of
removal,
so
naturally,
now
we're
sort
of
utilizing
that
it's
ambiguous
in
the
code.
So
we
we
have
to
rely
on
our
good
old
friend,
Miriam
Webster,
the
dictionary.
So
we
we
look
to
the
word
remove,
which,
in
part
of
that
definition,
is
to
get
rid
of
the
applicant,
didn't
get
rid
of
the
use
the
building
was
destroyed
by
another,
while
the
applicant
tried
to
renovate
it
and
effectively
reduce
its
existing
non-conformity.
X
So
updating
sorry
up
upholding
this
determination
by
the
building
inspector
could
also
have
other
unintended
consequences
or
or
intended,
which
includes
the
removal
of
important,
affordable
housing.
Again,
this
is
not
16
units.
This
is
nine
as
a
reduction
and
that's
really
in
direct
contravention
of
the
city's
current
efforts.
The
comprehensive
plan
efforts
and
the
city's
long-standing
objective
to
provide
more
affordable
housing.
So
that's
sort
of
a
policy
issue,
not
necessarily,
but
it's
something
that
we
find
important
here
as
it
relates
to
this
determination.
X
Because
again,
the
applicant
didn't
take
that
affirmative
step
to
remove
the
use
from
the
site
this.
This
was
quite
literally
taken
from
them
and
then
directed
by
the
fire
department
to
be
raised
for
the
safety
of
the
neighborhood.
That
is
not
an
act.
An
affirmative
act
by
the
owner
to
remove
the
use.
B
X
Only
you
know
it's
it's
fun.
So,
with
respect
to
the
question,
you've
asked
an
excellent
one.
Was
a
we've
included
in
our
supplemental
submission,
the
the
specific
case
law
that
we
referenced.
Of
course,
Council
will
advise
you
you're.
Certainly
not
you
know
it's.
It's
illustrative.
It's
not
binding
on
you
by
any
stretch,
but
the
the
case
law
that
exists
that
relates
to
these
issues
does
speak
to
affirmative
acts,
because
what
it's
looking
at
is
you
know:
Taylor
buys
a
single-family
home,
but
it's
approved
for
20
units.
X
B
U
P
X
I
misunderstood
your
question:
I
apologize
I
when
you
say
the
law.
Naturally,
the
lawyer
in
me
comes
out
for
a
minute
and
I
go
to
the
case
law,
but
the
code,
the
zoning
code,
is
that
you're
referring
to
the
zoning
code,
so
the
zoning
code
is
very
much
ambiguous
in
that
there
is
no
definition
of
the
word
remove
in
your
code
and
when
this
specific
issue,
which
we
see
regularly
in
this
line
of
non-conformities
existing
so
on
and
so
forth,
it's
it's
not
a
matter
of
first
impression
for
the
courts.
X
The
courts
have
seen
this
issue
in
many
communities
and
have
weighed
this
specific
removal
concept
and
it
and
they've
the
courts
have
had
to
add
in
sort
of
the
the
keywords
right
and
in
that
instance,
they've
used.
The
word
affirmative,
because
that's
what
they're?
That's
what
you're
regulating
is
the
affirmative
acts?
Why
are
you
you
know?
Why
effectively?
Are
you
punishing
in
this
case?
It's
it's
totally
unique,
totally
specific
individualized.
It
is
not
something
that's
going
to
be
on
every
property
in
the
city.
X
You
know,
I,
don't
even
know
how
many
boarding
houses
even
exist
and
maybe
Bruce
might
have
a
list.
Excuse
me
Mr
flower.
It
may
have
a
list,
but
this
is
a
unique
property,
uniquely
situated
this
relief
that
we're
seeking
is
completely
specific
and
is
not
precedent.
Setting
and
effectively.
This
section
of
the
code
speaks
to
removal,
but
it's
intent
as
expressed
by
the
applicant
again.
Ambiguities
read
in
favor
of
the
property
owner
and
when
you
read
a
a
regular
definition,
a
Miriam
and
apply
it
to
the
case
law.
X
X
So
so
the
question
is
well
well
received.
It
depends
on
the
code.
Words
are
oftentimes
defined
removal.
Addition
alteration,
you
guys
are
helping
me
with
my
Segways.
So
I
really
appreciate
that,
because
the
next
relief
we'll
focus
on
reconstruct
versus
alter
also
words
of
definition,
meaning,
but
it
has
different
meanings
depending
on
what
code
and
who's
defined
it.
X
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
a
specific
reference
for
you
to
that.
We're
relying
on
the
case
law
that
has
spoken
to
this
specific
issue
to
make
that
position,
but
they're
the
court
interpreting
it
is
is
probably
I
would
I'm
not
going
to
speculate
otherwise,
but
other
codes
will
define
specific
words
to
avoid
this.
This
conversation
right
and
it
look,
you
can
over
regulate
and
Define
the
word
the
in
and,
and
you
know,
lawyers
are
probably
the
ones
doing
that
too
right
because
we
get
paid
by
the
word,
but
naturally
it's
here.
X
It's
it's
again,
going
back
to
the
the
old
precept
that
effectively
a
ambiguous
code.
Provision
needs
to
be
read
in
favor
of
the
property
owner
and
here
the
courts
again
not
binding,
but
illustrative
to
help
the
board
understand
sort
of
how
on
appeal
or
otherwise,
a
court
may
look
at
this.
Look
at
this
exact
issue
and
what
reconstruct
means
and
in
the
in
the
context
of
non-conforming
uses.
Now
what
that
means
and
they're
looking
for
an
affirmative
televised
the
house,
it's
got
this
use.
He
changes
it
to
an
office,
but
now
he's
that
use.
X
C
X
Thank
you,
lastly,
but
not
leastly
right,
that's
how
that
works
is
223,
10
Z2.
So
our
position
on
this
specific
relief
and
again
this
is
in
the
revised
or
the
amended
determination-
is
that
the
applicant
is
not
altering
the
structure.
Now
we're
talking
again
about
very
specific
words,
but
that's
because
of
how
they're
defined
or
not
defined
in
the
zoning
code
and
what
the
code
itself
specifically
says.
X
So
the
second
addition
again
to
that
new
determination
from
the
building
inspector
argues
that,
since
there
will
be
a
structural
alteration
that
far
exceeds
the
25
percent
of
the
building's
fair
market
value.
That's
the
math
thing
we
were
talking
about
before
so
I'll
start
again
that
since
there
will
be
a
structural
alteration,
that's
the
key
word
bold,
underline
alteration
that
far
exceeds
25
percent
of
buildings.
Fair
market
value,
the
previous
non-conforming
use,
is
no
longer
permitted.
X
So
now
we're
focused
again
on
the
use,
but
it's
speaking
to
alterations
that
exceed
25
of
the
building's
fair
market
value
just
to
wind,
the
tape
back
for
a
minute,
the
building
inspector
prior
to
the
fight
prior
to
the
arson
event
at
the
site,
bringing
the
building
down
had
issued
a
building
permit
to
renovate
and
alter
the
building
to
go
from
16
units
down
to
nine.
At
that
time
there
was
no
trigger
saying
that
those
alterations,
because
those
were
alterations
or
Renovations
exceeded
that
threshold
right,
so
there
was
no
variance
required.
X
X
X
A
reconstruction,
okay
right
so
where
our
position
is
that,
when
the
applicant
applied
for
to
the
building
department,
an
application
to
alter
and
renovate
the
building
from
1916,
excuse
me
down
to
nine
units
and
was
issued
that
permit.
At
that
time,
no
variance
relief
was
sought
from
your
board
because
it
didn't
exceed
that
threshold.
He
was
permitted
under
the
code
to
reduce
the
non-conformity
from
16
down
to
nine,
improve
it
sprinklers,
kitchenettes,
all
the
things
you
know
and.
M
X
Would
I
agree
with
that?
I?
Don't
I
can't
speak
with
definition,
but
again
it
stands
the
reason
that
when
these
things
are
reviewed,
they're
reviewed
in
the
context
of
what's
permitted
and
it
wouldn't
have
reached
that
threshold.
So
here
we're
our
position,
that's
an
I'm
not
going
to
say
that's!
A
good
question
is
that
this
is
a
reconstruction
and
not
an
alteration.
Renovation
and
I'll
explain
that
more
now,
in
the
context
of
what
the
code
says.
X
So
our
position
is
that
section,
22310
C2,
the
one
we're
talking
about
now,
specifically
regret-
regulates
structural
alterations.
That
goes
back
to
an
early
conversation.
We
had
about
what
you're
trying
to
do.
You've
got
an
existing
non-conforming
use,
you're,
not
trying
to
add
a
windfall
economic
economic
windfall
to
a
property
owner
where
they
can
just
renovate
every
unit,
lamb
them
up
and
now
charge.
You
know
through
the
roof,
for
what
it
is
here.
The
applicant
was
reducing
the
number
of
rentable
units
to
try
and
better
the
building
in
in
that
area
of
the
community.
X
X
So
as
we
all,
we
noted
in
our
submissions,
the
zoning
code
does
include
a
definition
in
this
instance
for
the
word
alter.
So
that's
that's
key.
As
this
thing
from
the
last
interpretation,
we're
seeking
so
alter
in
the
zoning
code
is
defined
as
to
change,
enlarge
or
rearrange
the
structural
parts
or
the
exit
facilities
of
a
structure
or
to
move
a
building
from
one
location
or
position
to
another.
I
think
that's
pretty
clear
about
what
it's
regulating
that's
a
standing
building.
That's
there
we're
altering
it
right.
X
Accordingly,
the
footprint
of
the
reconstructed
building
will
be
approximately
the
same
as
previously
as
the
previously
demolished
building
and
the
Reconstruction
does
not
comprise
an
alteration
which
triggers
The,
Zone
and
code
provision.
I'm
gonna
get
there
I
promise
I'm.
Sorry,
thank
you
for
bearing
with
me-
or
this
is
tonight,
is
not
going
to
end
our
our
discussion.
I
assure
you.
X
So
this
is
a
comparison
to
the
Reconstruction
right
I'm
doing
my
air
quotes
reconstruction,
which
is
referenced
in
this
section
of
the
code
which
sorry,
which
is
referenced
in
223
10d
of
the
code
and
which
is
defined
by
Black's,
Law,
Dictionary
or
lawyer.
Dictionary
reconstruct
is
to
build
something
again
after
destruction,
damage
or
impairment.
Reconstruction
also
is
defined
in
Black's
Law
as
the
act
or
process
of
rebuilding
recreating
or
recognizing
something
right
alterations
there.
X
X
I
certainly
would
defer
to
council,
but
this
is
kind
of
the
the
issue
that
we're
faced
with
here
is
that
each
of
these
criteria
is
trying
to
say
that
the
use
can't
be
considered
or
can't
be.
So
all
these
things
are
are
really
are
trying
at
the
use
they're
not
trying
it
all.
These
things
may
require
area,
variances
or
otherwise.
We've
talked
about
that
sort
of,
in
the
context
of
that,
first
variance
that
the
building
it's
the
use
itself,
okay,
but
the
building
now
has
to
conform
to
the
zoning
regulations
and
the
bulb
requirements.
X
That's
the
applicant's
position.
The
same
is
true
here.
If
a
variance
is
necessary,
if
determined
that
this
does
indeed
only
apply
to
alterations
when
the
applicant
comes
back
before
you,
if
there
is
a
determination
made
about
what
our
our
position
is,
the
25
does
not.
The
25
doesn't
apply
because
it
doesn't
apply
to
a
reconstruction.
It
applies
to
a
renovation,
that's
the
short
answer
to.
A
Me
is
your
contention
that
all
of
these
Provisions
taken
together,
they
are
not
meant
to
disallow
the
use,
not
a
pre-existing.
Non-Conforming
use
a
building
is
not
intentionally
removed.
So
if
it's,
if
it's
destroyed
by
Act
of
God
or
Act
of
crime
or
whatever,
is
it
your
contention
that
all
of
these
Provisions
taken
together
do
not
limit
the
use
they're?
Only
speaking
to
the
structure
and
the
dimensions.
X
Mr
chairman,
the
response
that
I
would
have
is
that
other
zoning
regulations
and
other
zoning
codes
in
other
communities
will
be
much
more
explicit
about
termination
of
uses
and
Beacon's
code,
whether
it's
intentional
or
not,
is
ambiguous
as
it
relates
to
these
specific
issues.
The
sections
that
the
building
inspector
cited
do
talk
about
buildings
do
talk
about
if
you're
renovating
do
talk,
but
those
are
not
the
issue.
That's
before
the
board,
when
you
dial
it
down
into
what
it
is.
X
The
applicant
is
simply
trying
to
rebuild
reconstruct
the
thing
that
he
had
a
building
permit
to
do
on
this
property
and
stop
and
retain
exactly
the
uses
is
particular,
but
we
are
not
making
any
statement
or
claim
that
that
building
doesn't
need
to
conform
to
the
bulk
regulations
of
the
code.
So,
while
the
use
is
permitted,
the
bulk
regulations
will
control
and
I
think
that
was
done
and
again.
X
I
can't
speak
to
the
founding
fathers
or
the
you
know,
or
or
so
on
and
so
forth
of
of
the
code
as
it
was
written,
but
there
could
be
explicit
Provisions
that
would
have
otherwise
regulated
this
and
in
so
doing
you're
effectively.
Also,
if
the
applicant
today
went
back
in
to
build
what's
permitted,
the
zoning
regulations
will
certainly
be
more
strict
than
when
there
were
no
zoning
regulations,
they're
going
to
create
a
more
confined
building
envelope
and
have
other
regulations
from
a
bulk
standpoint
against
setbacks
and
so
forth.
X
B
C
X
Either
more
conforming
or
less
non-conforming,
yes,
so
the
board
in
your
code
and
Mr
I
just
want.
This
is
one
key
point
and
I
think
it
ties
this
a
nice
bow
your
code.
Your
zoning
code
also
included
a
very
explicit
provision
that
allows
your
board
to
make
a
determination
that
you
that
allows
you
to
reduce
non-conformities.
X
It
allows
you
to
say
that
this
use
is
less
non-conforming,
you
you
know
separate,
and
apart
from
all
these
discussions,
and
it
all
kind
of
ties
back
into
what
we're
talking
about,
because
this
building
the
use
has
not
been
extinguished.
The
applicant
didn't
affirmative,
there's
a
word,
remove
the
use
and
it's
just
the
opposite:
he
applied
for
a
building
permit
got
one
was
renovating
the
building
and
it
was
torched
here.
The
applicant
is
simply
trying
to
build
that
again,
but
should
the
board
find
that
these?
X
For
all
of
these
determinations,
the
applicant
would
still
have
to
proceed
before
your
board
if
he
does
not
build
a
zoning
bulk
requirement.
Yeah
permitted
building,
so
the
use
permitted,
but
the
bulk
regulations
would
have
to
be
satisfied
and
any
of
those
that
aren't
met
would
need
relief
from
your
board
for
area
variances.
X
X
C
A
A
X
Probably
not
okay,
so
any
new
building
that
would
be
proposed
if
it
was
the
same
building.
That
was
that
was
there.
If
it
doesn't
meet
the
bulk
requirements,
it
would
require
variances.
So
the
applicant
would
either
need
to
submit
a
plan
again.
You
approve
the
determinations.
The
applicant
would
need
to
submit
a
zoning
bulk
requirement
plan
that
meets
the
current
regulations
in
The
District,
in
which
it
stands,
which
is
nearly
verbatim
from
what
it
says
in
your
code,
and
that
goes
to
that
original
piece
of
interpretation
material.
A
A
X
A
X
X
Goes
back
to
the
conversation
we
had
about
the
fact
that
we're
it's
structural
alterations
right.
This
is
not
a
alteration.
This
is
a
reconstruction,
so
we're
that
issue
is
I,
think
separate,
and
apart
from
the
issue,
I
I,
don't
I,
don't
have
a
definition,
though,
for
a
a
life
but
I
think
if,
if
you're
trying
to
read
it-
and
this
is
it-
this
is
Taylor
on
on
law,
not
the
Black's,
Law
or
otherwise.
X
But
if
we're
looking
at
the
structure,
the
light
we've
been
talking
about
as
it
relates
to
this
application
and
affirmative
acts
and
removal
of
a
use.
You
know
the
affirmative
act
of
removing
a
use
that
would
seem
to
be.
You
know
if
a
use
is
discontinued
or
affirmatively
removed.
That's
in
a
that's
a
non-conforming
use.
Those
seem
to
be
the
life.
Otherwise
as
it
would,
it
would
continue
as
long
as
it's
being
used
for
that
use.
So.
X
Right,
so
our
our
position
again
is
that
it's
not
a
alteration,
so
this
your
this,
the
code
section
you're
speaking
to
you
just
don't
think
it
applies
at
all
I,
don't
think
it
applies
to
a
reconstruction
I
think
it
applies
to
an
alteration
and,
as
I
mentioned,
the
applicant's
original
building
permit
application
that
allowed
the
renovations
and
alterations
to
take
place
met
that
threshold.
But
what's
at
issue
from
the
applicant's
perspective
has
been
a
total
loss
and
now
we're
reconstructing
in
the
building.
We
are
not
altering
it.
X
X
Thank
you,
Mr
chairman,
just
for
the
record
and
for
the
procedural
comments.
This
is
a
type
two
action,
the
interpretation
as
a
type
2
action
under
secret.
So
there
is
no
secret
environmental
review
specific
to
this
so
again,
just
to
sort
of
hone
in
the
issues
the
applicant
through
this
relief
is
seeking.
The
ability
effectively
seeking
Max
is
going
to
get
this
up
as
soon
as
I'm
done,
which
is
good.
X
The
public
can
still
utilize
his
presentation
from
his
iPhone,
but
the
applicant
is
simply
trying
to
build
the
that
is
that
the
use
remains,
but
the
building
any
building
to
be
reconstructed
on
that
site
would
have
to
apply
to
the
bulk
regulations
of
the
code,
otherwise
it'll
be
before
you
for
area
variances.
So
with
that
I'll
certainly
turn
to
the
public
and
again
Mr
chairman.
A
Let
me
take
some
notes
and
we'll
we'll
revisit
that.
Just
before
before
we
go
to
the
public
I,
just
I
just
want
to
acknowledge.
We
received
quite
a
few
emails.
Amanda
received
quite
a
few
emails
and
I
just
I
just
want
to
read
the
names
of
those
that
submitted
letters
pretty
much
exclusively
in
opposition
I'm,
going
to
butcher
names
and
I
apologize
to
those
that
I
butcher.
A
A
Q
Q
L
X
The
city's
website,
so
all
the
materials
that
we
have
are
included
they're
always
there,
but
this
the
visuals
that
show
the
property
the
where
it
is
on
his
attack
slot
in
relation
to
the
zoning
and
so
on
and
so
forth.
It's
all
included
and
that's
Mission
but
I,
know
you're
all
very
familiar
with
where
this
property
is
so
and.
A
Well,
we
I
try
to
attempting
to
stress
that
we
are
again
here
only
to
determine
the
legal,
the
legal
determination
and
interpretation
of
the
city
code
with
that
being
said,
we'll
have
a
three
minute
timer
to
respect
everyone's
time
this
evening.
So
if
you
could
again,
as
you
come
up
state
your
name
for
the
record
foreign.
V
In
the
board,
I'd
like
to
thank
you
for
having
the
opportunity
to
speak
and
I
will
maintain
it
to
the
topic
of
law
that
we're
covering
tonight
and
not
further.
My
name
is
Lisa
Wagner
I
live
at
66
Sargent
Avenue
I
live
directly
next
door
to
the
boarding
house
for
the
last
four
54
years,
I've
seen
a
lot
of
life
out
of
that
house.
V
D
V
Probably
the
reason
why
1920
when
The
Boarding
House
was
built,
there
was
no
zoning
over
time.
We
came
to
realize
that
there's
a
certain
area
of
neighborhood
that
we
want
to
maintain
its
Integrity
safety
and
stature.
So
we
developed
zoning
laws
and
we
decided
that
this
area
should
be
commercial.
This
area
should
be
residential
and
so
forth.
V
By
doing
so,
parts
and
Parcels
were
designated
as
multiple
family,
single
families,
learning
Etc
as
you've.
All
just
demonstrated
this
evening
that
property
next
to
us
has
a
disclaimer
in
the
zoning
law
that,
if,
and
in
fact
it
is
completely
demolished
which
it
was
regardless
of
how,
when
or
why
that
that
property
should
be
utilized
going
forth
as
a
single-family
residence.
V
V
I
think
what
most
of
us
are
looking
for
is
to
conform
to
that
law
and
those
changes.
I
understand
the
owner
wants
to
rebuild
as
such,
and
he
you
know,
has
his
financial
interests
at
heart
as
well,
but
the
community
also
has
something
that's
trying
to
maintain.
Okay
and
and
preserve,
and
I
I
would
highly
ask
that
we
take
into
deep
consideration
turning
that
property
back
into
an
SRO
or
a
multi-family
income
generating
property
in
the
middle
of
a
single
family
residential
area
that
we're
trying
to
maintain
the
Integrity
of
in
the
city
of
Beacon.
N
Teresa
Kraft
we're
going
to
have
to
watch
the
video
to
see
ambiguity.
How
many
times
it
was
said,
I
believe
it's
an
open
and
closed
book
with
the
interpretation
clearly
written
in
our
city
code,
and
this
appeal
must
be
denied.
Tonight
we
watched
a
riveting
book
with
unreliable
narratives,
hoping
for
the
ambiguitous
ending.
N
There
is
no
valid
justification
for
requesting
or
granting
a
variance
for
a
multi-unit
structure
at
925,
Wolcott
Avenue.
The
zoning
law
is
clear
and
straightforward.
The
prior
non-conforming
exemption
has
expired
with
the
removal
of
the
existing
structure
and
the
permitted
use
no
longer
exists.
Less
non-conforming
is
not
better
than
non-conforming.
Please
deny
this
appeal
as
requested
and
vote
no
following
our
codes
and
in
support
of
the
residents
who
reached
out
in
force
against
rezoning.
N
K
Hollis
Kellogg
Beacon
native
for
eight
years,
I
live
at
942,
Walcott
Avenue
I'm,
very
concerned
about
a
nine
unit
Place
being
put
on
that
property,
which
is
very
near
a
school
zone.
There's
a
lot
of
traffic
around
there
there's
a
house
which
has
been
repeatedly
hit
with
a
car
that
is
on
the
corner
of
teller
and
90
and
I.
Think
that
should
be
taken
into
consideration.
P
I
knew
many
of
the
former
tenants
of
the
boarding
house.
I
helped
a
lot
of
them
out.
They'd
come
by
and
they'd
talk
to
me.
I
gave
one
of
the
men
Tim
a
bunch
of
bed
clothes
once
because
he
said
that
the
furnace
room
did
not
come
with
a
pillow.
He
wasn't
sleeping
well.
I
know
anecdotally.
That
rants
were
very,
very
low
people
paid
by
the
week
they
paid
by
the
month,
many
of
them
on
public
assistance.
P
My
understanding
it
was
a
few
hundred
dollars
a
month.
Something
of
this
nature
unbelievably
cheap,
but
the
rooms
didn't
have
bathrooms.
They
didn't
have
a
kitchen.
It
was
a
shared
kitchen
and
there
was
you
know
it
was
not
well.
A
pillow
was
a
luxury
right.
When
the
new
owner,
the
current
owner,
purchased
the
place
within
a
few
months,
they
were
evicting
all
the
tenants
and
the
story
I
heard
from
them
was
the
tenants
said
that
they
were
going
to
be
given
an
opportunity
to
come
back
to
their
rooms.
They
were
just
preparing
some
electric.
P
P
Now
with
a
bathroom
and
so
question
which
I
have
because
we
don't
have
sros,
aren't
legal
in
Beacon
anymore,
and
but
apartments
are
right,
you
can
have
multi-unit
apartments
with
a
kitchenette
with
a
bathroom,
so
I'm
curious,
because
when
I
look
at
any
definition
that
I've
been
able
to
find
four
sros,
they
most
commonly
do
not
they
most
commonly
have
a
shared
bathroom
and
a
shared
kitchen,
which
these
would
not
have
now.
I
understand
that
the
attorneys
were
referencing
the
renovation
plans,
but
we're
not
talking
about
renovation
plans.
P
We're
talking
about
is
this:
whatever
building
they
might
build
with
plans.
We
haven't
seen
yet
one
minute
remaining
right:
I
live
across
the
street.
There
are
countless
issues
that
I
think
arise
from
having
this
building.
That's
not
in
line
with
the
rest
of
the
community,
but
our
need
for
having
that
level
of
low-income
housing
and
I
mean
really
low
income.
Housing
was
so
desperate.
It
was
understandable.
P
We
could
live
with
that,
but
that's
not
what
this
is
going
to
be,
and
that's
not
what
this
current
owner
is
ever
going
to
build
in
that
place.
Whatever
new
building
they
build
is
going
to
be
by
their
own
records,
starting
at
two
thousand
two
hundred
dollars
a
month
for
220
square
foot,
apartment
I
think
it's
pretty
clear
that
that's
not
the
same
use
right.
This
is
not
continuing
the
SRO
use.
This
is
making
a
new
apartment
building.
B
E
I
agree
with
the
original
determination
of
our
building
inspector
that
text
source
is
made
to
go
forward
to
all
the
regulations
of
this
chapter
from
The
District,
in
which
it
is
located.
The
chapter
in
this
case
is
chapter
223,
so
it
applies
to
our
entire
chapter.
That's
what
organizations
is
referring
to.
Thank
you
also,.
D
E
Y
To
regards
of
whooping
set
here
tonight
have
been
set
here
tonight,
I
see
it.
The
other
way
around
the
owner
was
trying
to
do
everything
in
his
power
before
some
first
class
nut
decided
to
burn
this
place
down
and
he's
getting
static,
unnecessary
static
from
I
believe
where
he
shouldn't
be
getting
unnecessary
static
from
and
I
call
that
word
discrimination
on
my
end
and
I'm,
not
I'm,
not
referring
to
the
board,
throwing
that
his
way.
I
just
wanted
to
clarify
that.
Y
E
Z
Hi
I'm
Meg,
Oakes,
913
Walcott
I,
wanted
to
just
I,
tried
my
hardest
to
understand
everything
tonight
and
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
obviously,
but
just
as
an
average
person,
it
seems
like
the
code
is
clear.
You
know
that
what
it
states
that,
when
something
is
destroyed,
50
or
more,
it
changes
it.
So
to
me
it
sounds
very
clear:
I
also
was
very
beat.
Z
R
AA
AA
X
No
Mr,
chairman
I,
think
we've
heard
the
comments
this
evening.
Certainly,
we've
presented
the
details
to
you
with
respect
to
the
interpretation,
a
lot
of
the
comments
for
us
we're.
Certainly
we
certainly
understand
and
relate
to
communicare
community
character
again,
something
that's
been
there
for
nearly
a
century
and
again
the
action
that
the
applicant
was
seeking
to
do
on
the
on
the
property.
From
again
the
applicant's
position
is
reducing
an
existing
non-conformity
in
any
building
built.
X
So
Mr
chairman
think,
if,
if
proper,
we'd
we'd
ask
the
ability
to
respond
in
the
next
I
guess
it's
week
before
the
next
submission
deadline
and
then
we'll
also
make
sure
to
bring
our
economic
consultant
as
well
again
only
if
we
go
to
the
variance
relief
component,
but
we're
certainly
not
pressing
the
board.
So
I
think
the
idea
is
to
be
able
to
hear
the
comments
as
we
did
tonight
and
those
that
apply
to
the
interpretation
requests
to
address
those
explicitly
at
this
time.
In
writing.
A
E
A
Accept
any
additional
written
submission
and
to
have
a
discussion
on
the
code
this
evening
and
then
based
on
that
discussion,
direct
our
Council
to
author,
a
director
for
our
consideration
at
the
next
meeting.
So
if
you,
if
you'd
like
to
respond
to
the
public
and
how
they
what
they
had
to
say
about
their
interpretation,
please
do.
X
X
You
know
it
weighs
in
this
instance
of
granting
the
applicant's
requested
determination
as
it
relates
to
those
three
criteria
set
forth
by
the
building
inspector.
So
our
position,
you
know,
looking
at
the
comments
you
know,
I
think
there
was
a
sort
of
a
a
generalized
Community
opposition
aspect
of
it,
but
again
not
specific
to
the
interpretation,
rather
the
variances,
that
that
would
otherwise
be
alternative
relief
before
the
board.
So
with
that
I
I
think
that's
our
response
to
those
comments.
Thank
you.
A
X
AB
A
Just
on
the
point
of
the
interpretation
of
the
law
or
intending
to
close
the
public
hearing
and
then
we're
going
to
discuss
what
we
think
about
what
was
presented
today
by
the
applicant
and
what
was
said
by
the
public
and
our
interpretation
of
Bruce's
determination
or
really
just
our
interpretation
of
the
code
period.
Because
we
don't
have
to
get
deference
to
Bruce.
A
Then
we're
going
to
direct
our
attorney
to
draft
a
document
based
on
the
discussion
that
we're
going
to
have
in
a
minute
and
then
we're
going
to
be
able
to
review
that
and
vote
on
it
next
month.
And
then
the
applicant
will
still
have
the
ability
to
apply
for
variances,
which
is
when
comments
that
a
lot
of
people
submitted
become
relevant
and
so
there'll
be
another
opportunity.
AB
In
the
video
I
mean
it
could
be
another
public
yeah.
The
the
point
is
that
the
public
hearing
with
regard
to
the
variance
aspect
of
this
proposal,
if
that
becomes
necessary,
is
going
to
continue
in
July.
There
will
not
don't
expect
another
round
of
of
mailed
notices
or
or
publication
that's
been
done.
It
was
done
for
everything
and
that
public
hearing
that
sort
of
Omnibus
public
hearing
open
tonight,
but
the
board
decided
it
would
be
more
economical
or
more
efficient,
just
to
carve
off
the
interpretation
piece.
So
that's
being
dealt
with
and
being
closed.
AB
Everything
else
is
open,
still
open
and
is
going
to
continue
in
July.
The
public
should
be
aware
of
that
you're
not
going
to
get
another
like
I
said
there
won't
be
another
round
of
re-noticing,
but
that
public
hearing
will
continue.
So
you
know,
keep
keep
your
eye
out
on
board
agendas
and
everything
else,
but
we'll
be
back
in
July.
A
AB
D
C
D
A
I
A
C
M
A
Yeah
I
think
I
think
removed
at
you
know,
just
to
repeat
and
further
emphasize
I
think
I
think
there
is
a
ambiguity
there
as
far
as
if
there
is
an
active
component
and
I
think
that,
based
on
the
law,
that
ambiguity
needs
to
be
read
towards
the
applicant.
So
on
that
provision,
I
would
I
would
agree
with
the
applicant's
interpretation
as
to
223
-10
C2
mantos.
B
C
A
I
just
think
to
to
bring
that
one
around
I
I
think
this
code
provision
is
applicable
to
something
that's
not
occurring
here.
I
think
this
code
provision
could
have
been
useful
at
the
beginning
stages
prior
to
the
auction,
but
it
was
not
I
think
the
life
of
the
building
ended
and
therefore
this
this
code
revision
doesn't
apply
at
all
here
and
as
to
223
10.d.
A
C
O
A
I
I
agree
with
Bruce
Bruce's
ruling
on
this,
especially
since
later
in
the
code
it
it
mentions
that,
if
it's
less
than
50
percent,
then
the
non-con
forming
uses
continued.
If
it
didn't
refer
to
use,
it
wouldn't
have
referred
to
it
in
less
than
50
percent
destruction.
So
I
agree
with
Bruce's
decision
I.
A
Yeah
and
I
I
agree
as
well.
I
think
it's
important
to
to
note
the
difference
in
ambiguity
between
removed
and
10
C5
and
the
language
in
in
10d
I
think
that
it's
clear
that
the
section
speaks
to
again
in
a
quote
where
the
destruction
of
such
a
non-conforing
building
is
less
than
50
percent
it
may
be
restored
and
the
non-conforming
use
continued.
I
think
that
when
you
take
that
section
as
a
whole,
the
only
logical
way
to
construe.
A
That
is
that,
if
it
is
more,
the
non-conforming
use
should
not
be
continued.
I
think
that
is
different
than
what
we
determined
in
C5
and
with
that
I
will
Direct
our
attorney
to
draw
up
a
determination
to
be
voted
on
at
the
next
meeting
and
with
that,
I
will
ask
for
a
motion
to
adjourn
this
meeting
tonight.
So.
A
X
G
X
X
That's
still
pending
related
to
that
specific
session,
provide
additional
support
for
us,
because
it
will
translate
directly
to
an
area
variance
associated
with
that
code
provision
it's
already
been
applied
for,
but
we
we
will
put
more
information
into
that
as
it
relates
to
that
understanding.
The
board's
consideration
of
that
section.
So
thank
you
again
tonight.
Thank
you
to
the
public
for
speaking
to
the
issues.