Meeting Overview

Town  of Orangetown Architecture and Community Appearance Board  of Review

Meeting  of June 6, 2013

 

MEMBERS PRESENT: Thomas Warren, Chairman; Paul Papay, Vice Chairperson; Jill Fieldstein, James Dodge and Alex DiMenna

 

MEMBERS ABSENT: Jack Messina and Blyth Yost

ALSO PRESENT: Ann Marie Ambrose, Stenographer and Cheryl Coopersmith, Chief Clerk

 

Thomas Warren, Chairman, called the meeting to order at 7:30 p.m.

Mr. Warren read the agenda.  Hearings as listed on this meeting’s agenda which are made a part of these minutes were held as noted below.

 

Grape  D’Vine  Solar  Panel  Plans

Review of Solar Panel Plans

77.08/4/26; CS zoning district

 

7 Wells  Lane Plans

Critical Environmental Area

28 South Boulevard Subd. Lot #25.2

Review of Site/Structure Plans

66.17/1/25.2; R-22 zoning district

 

 

Beital’s Aquarium Sign Plans

Review of Sign Plans

68 .19/4/16; CO zoning district

 

 

SMK-Erie  Subdivision Plan Review of Subdivision Detention Pond Planting Plan

Amendment to ACABOR #13-18

70.13/1/21; R-15 zoning district

 

 

MWD Star –  Comito Plans

Palisades Historic Area

Route 9W Golf Subd. Lot #3.2

Review of Site/Landscaping Plans

78.13/1/3.2; R-40 zoning district

Approved as

Presented

 

 

 

Approved Subject to Conditions

 

 

 

 

Approved

as Modified

 

 

 

Approved as

Presented

 

 

 

Approved Subject to Conditions

ACABOR  #13-24

 

 

 

 

ACABOR  #13-25

 

 

 

 

ACABOR  #13-26

 

 

 

 

ACABOR  #13-27

 

 

 

 

ACABOR  #13-28

 

 

A motion was made to adjourn the meeting by Thomas Warren and seconded by James Dodge and agreed by all in attendance.  The Decisions on the above hearings, which Decisions are made by the Board before the conclusion of the meeting, are mailed to the applicant.  The verbatim minutes are not transcribed, but are available. As there was no further business before the Board, the

meeting was adjourned at 8:45 p.m. The next ACABOR Meeting is scheduled

for June 20, 2013.

 

Dated: June 6, 2013

 

 

3~~I::f.:W ~)IH310 NJ\.0-1

 

~·· t  W   QI ··lilr ml

 

UUI3flNV80  .:IO M&0′.1

 

ACABOR  #13-24:  Grape  D’Vine  Solar  Panel  Plans – Approved as Presented

Town of Orangetown -Architecture  and Community Appearance

Board  of Review  Decision

June  6, 2013

Page  1  of 1

 

 

TO:                  Doug Hertz, Sunrise Solar Solutions, LLC, 510 North State Street, Briarcliff Manor, New York 1051O

FROM:         Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review

RE:               Grape D’Vine Solar Panels Plan: The application of Sunrise Solar Solutions, LLC, applicant, for Joseph Printz, owner, for review of the installation of solar panels at a site known as “Grape D’Vine  Solar  Panels  Plan”,  in accordance with Article 16 of the Town Law of the State of New York and

Chapter 2 of the Code of the Town of Orangetown. The site is located at 6 Depot Square, Sparkill, Town of Orangetown, Rockland County, New York, and as shown on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.08, Block 4, Lot 26 in the CS zoning district.

 

Heard by the Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held Thursday, June 6, 2013,  at which time the Board made the following determinations:

 

Doug Hertz appeared and testified for the applicant. The Board received the following items:

1. Plans prepared by Sunrise Solar Solutions, LLC, dated March 15, 2013, unless noted;

 

1. S1: Site Plan

 

1. S2: Elevations, dated May 20, 2013 c. S3: Roof elevation
2. S4: Equipment installation

 

1. Photographs of Solar Panels installed on similar structures.

 

1. Letter from Sunrise Solar Solutions, signed by Doug Hertz, dated

May 20, 2013.

 

FINOINGS  OF FACT:

 

1. The Board found that the solar panels would be flush mounted on the south side of the building roof. The solar panels would be black framed, black

backsheet monocrystaline module panels for the best possible look. The  ·c:;

applicant stated that this type of panel would absorb the sunlight and not b~

r

reflective or have an objectionable glare.                                                       0

2. The Board found that Grape D’Vine is a house like structure and that g;

residential type solar panels would be installed rather than commercial pan~.     ‘””Q

:::3

The hearing was then opened to the Public. There being no one to be hear~           l

 

 

0,,

0

;o

)>

%

c

Fl

…….

 

from the public, the Public Hearing portion of the meeting was closed.          ~

0

DESICION:   In view of the foregoing and the testimony before the Board, th~

application was APPROVED  AS PRESENTED.

 

The foregoing resolution was presented and moved by James Dodge and seconded by Jill Fieldstein and carried as follows: Paul Papay, aye; Jack Messina, absent; James Dodge, aye, Alex DiMenna, aye; Blyth Yost, absent; Thomas Warren, aye; and Jill Fieldstein, aye.

 

The Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this Decision and file a certified copy in the Office of the Town Clerk and the Office of the Architecture and Community Appearance Beard of Review.

Dated:June6,2013           ~ff_._                                                       /p

Town of Orangetown                              LEJDMi J;n.”Tf7\

Architecture and Community Appe  ranee BocfrdofReview

~!   0

%

‘·~’      :E

 

ACABOR  #13-25:  7 Wells  Lane Plans –  (258 South  Boulevard Subdivision• Lot 25.2) – Approved Subject to Conditions

 

Town  of Orangetown -Architecture  and Community Appearance Board of

Review  Decision

 

 

June 6, 2013

Page  1of3

 

TO: FROM:

Jasko Lucin, 37-19 56th Street, Woodside, New York 11377

Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review

 

 

RE:               7 Wells Lane Plans: The application of Jasko Lucin, owner, for review of Site/Structure Plans at a site in the Critical Environmental Area, to be known as “7 Wells Lane Plans”, and as lot 25.2 in the 258 South Boulevard Subdivision, in accordance with Article 16 of the Town Law of the State of New York and Chapter 2 of the Code of the Town of Orangetown. The site is located at 7 Wells Lane, Upper Grandview, Town of Orangetown, Rockland County, New York and as shown on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 66.17, Block 1, Lot

25.2 in the R-22 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held Thursday, June 6, 2013,  at which time the Board made the following determinations:

 

Jasko Lucin appeared and testified.

 

The Board received the following items:

 

1. Plans prepared by Highland Associates, signed and sealed by Glenn

Leitch, R.A., last revision date of April 10, 2013:

 

A-100: Cover Sheet, dated October 24, 2012

 

A-200: General Notes & Fastener Schedule, dated November 7, 2012

 

A-300: Foundation Plan & Details, dated November 7, 2012

 

A-400: Framing Plans, dated November 7, 2012

 

A-500: Framing Plans, dated November 7, 2012

 

A-600: Stair Details & Window Types, dated November 7, 2012

 

A-700: Elevations & Details, dated November 7, 2012

 

CV-1:   Site Work Plan, signed and sealed by Paul Gdanski, P.E.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT:

 

1. The Board found that the house Would have a facade of metal paneling, wood, stone, steel, glass and concrete. The color scheme would be browns, greys, beige and rustic earth tones. The wood siding would be Horizontal Cumaru Rain Screen Panels, manufactured by General Woodcraft. The color of the wood siding would be yellowish brown to reddish brown. The stonework would be in natural tones.

 

 

 

 

3′{}t:!.:IO  S)t’t!31~  NJaOi

–

R l  Md    II 1IP ·mt

—

 

 

 

2. The Board found that the chimney would be the same stonework as used on the house fac;ade.Stonework and metal panel may also be used to extend around the base of the house, specifically, to cover the “jagged” appearance of the foundation on the south elevation. The stonework and metal panel would match in material and colors with the house facade. Jn addition, the Board suggested placing landscaping to cover the foundation on the south elevation.

 

3. The Board found that the house would have a flat roof, consisting of Felt

Membrane with a gravel finish.

 

4. The Board found that the air conditioning unit was proposed to be placed on the roof. Alternative ground level locations were discussed. The Board selected the new air conditioning location to be on the south side of the house in a small recessed area, behind the garage.

 

5. The Board found that the lighting would be LED lighting energy efficient.

Scone type lighting would be mounted to the left and right of the front door entrance, and along the balconies and garage doors.

 

6. The Board found that the site is wooded and no new landscaping is proposed.

 

The hearing was then opened to the Public. There being no one to be heard from the public, the Public Hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing and the testimony before the Board, the application was APPROVED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:

 

1. The proposed house will have a facade of metal paneling, wood, stone, steel, glass and concrete. The color scheme will be browns, greys, beige and rustic earth tones. The wood siding will be Horizontal Cumaru Rain Screen Panels, manufactured by General Woodcraft, in yellowish brown to reddish brown color.  The roof will be flat Felt Membrane with a gravel finish.

 

2. The chimney will be the same stonework as used on the house facade.

The Board gave the applicant the option  of using stonework and metal panel to extend around the base of the house, specifically, to cover the “jagged” appearance of the south elevation foundation. The metal panel and stonework will match in material and colors with the house facade. ln addition, landscaping may be used to cover the foundation on the south elevation.

 

 

 

 

3~B’::IO SJra310 NAUi

a 1  YJ Ullttr·mi

U013~N\i?Wso NJMH

 

 

 

3. The air conditioning unit shall be placed on ground level at the south side of the house in a small recessed area, behind the garage.

 

4. Lighting will be LED lighting energy efficient. Scone type lighting will be mounted to the left and right of the front door entrance, and along the balconies and garage doors.

 

5. No grading is to take place within five feet of any property line, except as specified on the approved site plan.

 

6. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 21-25 of the

Town of Orangetown Shade Tree Ordinance.

 

 

7. Trees to be saved shall be protected with snow fencing to the drip line during construction.

 

The foregoing resolution was presented and moved by James Dodge and seconded by Alex DiMenna and carried as follows; Paul Papay, aye; Jack Messina, absent; Jill Fieldstein, aye; James Dodge, aye; Thomas Warren, aye; Blythe Yost, absent; and Alex DiMenna, aye.

 

The Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized, directed, and empowered to sign this Decision and file a certified copy in the Office of the Town Clerk and the Office of the Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review.

1″-

Dated: June 6, 2013	~/i	_	–       .£}
Town of Orangetown		L.tfD	~         \

Architectureand CommunityApp   ranee ~d       of Review

 

 

 

3’0.l::L:W SJ{H310   N.fttU Ii 1  Yd    Oililrmtt D013~ntVUO  .:lO  MMOl

 

ACABOR  #13-26 –  Beital’s Aquarium  Sign Plans – Approved  as Modified Town  of Orangetown   -Architecture  and Community  Appearance  Board  of Review  Decision

 

 

June 6, 2013

Page  1of2

 

TO: FROM:

George Hanken, 73 Pearl Street, Pearl River, New York

Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review

 

 

RE:               Beital’s Aquarium Sign Plans: The application of George Hanken of Sign-a-rama, applicant, for Pearl River Properties, owner, for the Review of Sign Plans at a site to be known as “Beital’sAquarium Sign Plans”, in accordance with Article 16 of the Town Law of the State of New York and Chapter 2 of the Code of the Town of Orangetown. The site is located at 73 Pearl Street (Route

304), Pearl River, Town of Orangetown, Rockland County, New York, and as shown on the Orangetown. Tax Map as Section 68.19, Block 4, Lot 16 in the CO zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held Thursday, June 6, 2013, at which time the Board made the following determinations:

 

George Hanken appeared and testified. The Board received the following items:

2012. Sign Plans prepared by Sign-A-Rama, dated May 2, 2012.

 

2013. Submitted at the meeting, modified Sign Plans prepared by Sign-A-Rama, undated. Modification satisfied Town of Orangetown Zoning Board of Appeals condition, established under ZBA #13-39, dated June 5, 2013.

 

1. Photographs of the facade with imaging of the Sign on the building.

 

1. A Vicinity Map and a copied Site Plan noting the proposed location for the signs, dated February 14, 2013, last revised February 27, 2013, prepared by Jay Greenwell, PLS.

 

2013. Copy of Building Permit Referral, dated February 6, 2013.

 

 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT:

 

1. The Board found that the applicant proposed signage on the front and side of the building facade,  Both signs would read the same, “Beitals’s Ponds Aquariums”. The applicant presented the following scenarios for placement of the signs:

 

1. a) Sign #1: located on the front of building Pearl Street (Route 304)

 

1. b) Sign #2: placed on the side of building, abutting parking area

 

2. The Board found that the signage consisted of individual letters to be mounted into the face of the building or raceway mounted to the face of the existing structure.

 

 

 

3~l:l30$)HB1~NflDl

-ft t  tdd   OIJl!rml

 

M:iiOJ.3f>N’t’ti0  :10 tllMll

 

ACABOR  #13-26  –  BeitaPs Aquarium  Sign Plans – Approved  as Modified Town of Orangetown -Architecture   and Community Appearance Board of Review Decision

 

June 6, 2013

Page 2of2

 

 

3. The Board found that the lettering  of the signs consist  of front  illuminated LED Channel  letter UL rated.   “Beital’s”  and “Ponds” would  be made with Aqua acrylic faces with color matching  5″ aluminum  returns  and  1″ trim caps.   “Aquariums”  will be made with Blue acrylic faces with  matching  5″ aluminum  returns and  1″ trim cap. The sign will be lite with  1   Stroke  LED

120 volt transformer.

 

4. The Board found that the square  footage  of the sign required  a variance from the Town  of Orangetown  Zoning  Board of Appeals,  which was granted  at the June 5, 2013  meeting,  ZBA #13-39.   The Zoning  Board modified  the original  square  footage  request,  and new plans were submitted  at the ACABOR  Meeting.

 

5. The Board found that there will be no additional  lighting  on the building.

 

6. The Board found that  lettering  on the sign would  consist  of the following dimensions:

 

1. Sign #1 (Front)

 

 

Word

 

Beital’s

Height

 

7.75″

Width

 

40″

 

Ponds             7.75″ Aquariums      20.25″ Total  sign height:  56″

36.5″

 

162″

 

 

1. Sign #2 (Side)- as modified  by ZBA #13-39: Word        Height             Width

Beital’s            6. 75″               34.25″

 

 

Ponds             6.75″ Aquariums      15″

Total sign height: 41.5″

31.25″

 

120″

 

 

The hearing was then opened  to the Public.   There  being  no one to be heard from the public, the Public Hearing  portion of the meeting  was closed.

 

DECISION: ln view of the foregoing  and the testimony  before the Board, the application  was APPROVEDAS MODIFIED.

 

The foregoing  resolution  was presented  and moved  by Alex DiMenna  and seconded  by Jill Fieldstein  and carried as follows:  Paul Papay,  aye; Jack Messina,  absent;  James  Dodge,  aye, Alex  DiMenna,  aye; Blyth Yost, absent; Thomas  Warren,  aye; and Jill Fieldstein,  aye.

 

The Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized,  directed  and empowered  to sign this Decision  and file a certified  copy in the Office of the Town  Clerk and the Office of the Architecture   and Community  Appearance   Board of Review.

‘\

Dated: June 6, 2013                  /”\   //~·                                              ·                                        v~              —-.         /0

Town of Orangetown           LA?.               ~

Architecture and Community Appe  r  nee B    rd of Review

 

 

3;)t::!.:W S)H!31G  NA\01

&i 1   L1d   oiarmz

 

UOi35WifHO   dO MilCJl

 

ACABOR  #13-27:  SMK-    Erie  Subdivision   Detention   Pond  Planting

Plan:  Approved   as Presented

 

 

Town  of Orangetown    Architecture   and  Community  Appearance

Board  of Review   Decision

 

June  6, 2013

Page 1of2

 

TO: FROM:

Jay Greenwell, PLS, 85 Lafayette Avenue, Suffern, New York

Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review

 

 

RE:               SMK-Erie Subdivision Detention Pond Planting Plan: The application of Sean Keenan, applicant for SMK Home Builders, Inc., owner, (Robert Knoebel, attorney for the applicant), for the review of a Subdivision Detention Pond Planting Plan, Amendment to ACABOR #13-18, at a site to be known as “SMK-Erie Subdivision Detention  Pond Planting  Plan”, in accordance with Article 16 of the Town Law of the State of New York and Chapter 2 of the Code of the Town of Orangetown. The site is located 86 West Erie Street, Blauvelt, Town of Orangetown, Rockland County, New York, and as shown on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.13, Block 1, Lot 21 in the R-

15 zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held Thursday,  June 6, 2013, at which time the Board made the following determinations.

Jay Greenwell appeared and testified.  The Board received the following items: A.  A copy of PB #13-05, dated February 13, 2013, Preliminary Approval

Approved Subject to Conditions, Neg. Dec.

 

2013. A letter signed by Jay Greenwell, PLS, dated May 16, 2013.

 

2013. A copy of ACABOR #13-18, SMK-Erie Subdivision Plan, Approved subject to Conditions, dated April 18, 2013.

 

2013. An Interdepartmental memorandum from the Department of Environmental Management and Engineering (DEME), Town of Orangetown, signed by Bruce Peters, P.E., dated June 6, 2013.

 

2013. SMK-Erie Subdivision Plan – Drawing 3: Road Plan/ Profile & Details, dated December 12, 2012, last revision date of May 13, 2013.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT:

 

1. The Board found that this application returned to the Board for review of the Detention Pond planting. The June 6, 2013 memorandum from DEME stated that placement/ planting of trees and shrubs, inside the proposed detention basin is not acceptable. The drawings have been revised in accordance with the requirements of DEME.

 

2. The Board found that the revised detention basin plans provide for denser planting around the pond, specifically along the street side and the West side of the access road leading to the pond. All trees and vegetation, with the exception of pond grasses, have been removed from the detention pond.

 

3. The Board found that the roadway leading to the Pond would be a 10 foot wide stamped grey asphalt driveway, in accordance with Town of Orangetown requirements.

 

 

ml  l  Id   8IMrntZ

 

UOl3~NVHO JG NAQ1

 

ACABOR  #13-27:  SMK-    Erie Subdivision Detention  Pond Planting

Plan: Approved  as Presented

 

 

Town of Orangetown  Architecture and Community Appearance

Board  of Review  Decision

 

 

June 6, 2013

Page 2of2

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Erie Miller, 103 West Erie Street, requested information regarding the necessity of the paved roadway leading to the Detention Pond.

 

The Public Hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony before the Board, the application was APPROVED AS PRESENTED.

 

 

 

The foregoing resolution was presented and moved by James Dodge and seconded by Alex DiMenna and carried as follows: Thomas Warren, aye; Jack Messina, absent; James Dodge, aye; Jill Fieldstein, aye; Paul Papay, aye; Alex DiMenna, aye, and Blyth Yost, absent.

 

The Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this Decision and file a certified copy in the Office of the Town Clerk and the Office of the Architecture and Community Appearancejsoarq    f Review.

ll

Dated: June 6, 2013

Architectureand CommunityApp

Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

3m3.:IO  s;rH31~ MSOi Ii t Yd  Qitmrilll U013tf   NVHO   .:10 Ulil!

 

 

TO:  Marc Comito,  87 Sixth Avenue,  Nyack, New York  10960

FROM: Architecture   and Community  Appearance   Board of Review

 

 

RE: MWD Star –  Comito  Plans:  The application  of Comito  Construction Company,  owner, for review of Site/Landscaping   Plans at a site located  in the Palisades   Historic  District, to be known  as “MWD Star –  Comito Plans”, and as lot 3.2 in the  Route 9W Golf Course  Subdivision,  in accordance  with Article  16 of the Town  Law of the State of New York and Chapter  2 of the Code of the Town

of Orangetown.   The site is located  at 4 Kopac  Lane, Palisades,  Town of

Orangetown,   Rockland  County,  New York and as shown  on the Orangetown  Tax

Map as Section  78.13,  Block 1, Lot 3.2 in the  R-40 zoning.

 

 

Heard by the Architecture   and Community  Appearance   Board of Review of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held Thursday, June 6, 2013,  at which time the Board made the following  determinations:

 

Marc Comito,  Robert  Hoene and Jay Greenwell  appeared  and testified. The  Board received the following  items:

1. Site Plan prepared by Jay Greenwell, PLS, dated April  19, 20103

 

1. Architectural Plans  prepared  by Robert  Hoene,  RA, dated June 20, 2012: A-1:  Front & Right Elevations,  revised  dated August  17, 2012

A-2:  Rear & Left Elevations,  revised April 16, 2013

 

A-3:  First Floor Plan, revised April  16, 2013

 

A-4: Second  Floor Plan, revised April 16, 2013

 

1. A photograph of a similar  house to be constructed.

 

1. Landscaping Plan.

 

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT:

 

1. The Board found that the site was located in the Palisades  Historic District and that the application  had been reviewed  and approved  by the Historic Areas  Board of Review #13-05,  May 14, 2013.   ACABOR reviewed  the Site Plan and Landscaping   Plans.

 

2. The Board found that Belgium  Blocks would  be used as curbing  along the driveway  to be consistent  with the neighboring  properties.

 

 

 

3!ll::HOS)i8310  RMOl

sl 1  W  QI Jlr’ml

 

ti•OJ.3t>NVHO  dQ  N/A0J,

 

 

 

3. The Board found that the house as proposed would have a front facade in cultured stone in Grey Cobblefield with Hardi Shingle, straight edge in Boothbay Blue. The remaining sides would be Hardi Shingle, straight edge in Boothbay Blue with 3′ Cultured stone grey Cobblefield knee

wall. The trim boards, soffit and fascia would be vinyl/aluminum in white.  The shutters and front railing would be black and the garage doors in carriage style in white.  The front porch would be bluestone with steps in bluestone treads and matching stone rises. The lighting would be Coach Style lantern, placed above the front door and garage doors.

4. The Board found the landscaping plan as presented acceptable. The hearing was then opened to the Public. There being no one to be heard

from the public, the Public Hearing portion of the meeting was closed.

 

DESICION:   In view of the foregoing and the testimony before the Board, the application was APPROVED   SUBJECT  TO THE FOLLOWING   CONDITIONS

 

 

1. Belgium Blocks will be used as curbing along the driveway to be consistent with the neighboring properties. The sidewalk would be blue stone.

 

2. Trees to be saved shall be protected with snow fencing to the drip line during construction.

 

3. No grading is to take place within five feet of any property line, except as specified on the approved site plan.

 

4. The applicant shall comply with the requirements of Section 21-25 of the

Town of Orangetown Shade Tree Ordinance.

 

The foregoing resolution was presented and moved by Alex DiMenna and seconded by Paul Papay and carried as follows: Thomas Warren, aye; Jack Messina, absent; James Dodge, aye; Jill Fieldstein, aye; Paul Papay, aye; Alex DiMenna, aye, and Blyth Yost, absent.

 

The Clerk to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this Decision and file a certified copy in the Office of the Town Clerk and the Office of the Architecture and Community Appearance Board of Review.

Dated: June 6, 2013            fl-1 /J          · Architecture and Commun~  Ap~ance      Board  of Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

1. I W iit1r··mz

 

Ni\013~J(VHO .:W NJMli