Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS APRIL  6, 2016

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

DAN SULLIVAN THOMAS  QUINN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

PATRICIA  CASTELLI JOAN  SALOMON

 

 

ABSENT:

 

 

MICHAEL  BOSCO

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:

Dennis  Michaels,  Esq. Ann Marie Ambrose,

Deborah  Arbolino,

Deputy Town Attorney Official  Stenographer Administrative   Aide

 

 

 

 

This meeting  was called to order at 7: 00 P.M. by Mr. Sullivan,  Chairman.

Hearings  on this meeting’s  agenda, which  are made  a part of this meeting,  were held as noted below:

 

 

 

PUBLISHED   ITEMS

 

APPLICANTS                                     DE CONTINUED  ITEM: YONDERHILL   INTERPRETATION	CISIONS         DEFERRED	ZBA#16-05
1  Closter Road Palisades,  NY	DECISION
78.18 I 1I52;  R-40 zone
NEW   ITEMS:
RUOCCO	FLOOR  AREA	ZBA#16-21

 

248 Center  Street

Pearl River, N.Y.

68.11I3  I 14; R-15 zone

 

 

 

BARRETO

28 Closter  Road

Palisades,  NY

78.18 I 2 I 24; R-40 zone

 

 

 

GOLEMAN

80 Ludlow  Lane

Palisades,  NY

80.06 I 1  I 20; R-80 zone

RA TIO VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

 

 

 

 

 

SIDE YARD,  TOTAL                          ZBA#16-22

SIDE YARD  AND REARY ARD VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

 

 

 

STREET  FRONTAGE,                         ZBA#l6-23

AND§  3.11, COLUMN  5 #8

VARIANCES   APPROVED  WITH SPECIFIC  CONDITIONS

 

 

 

 

 

3 0 ! .:! :! 0  sJ      ‘‘   ·” I .:...i..      l tv‘\

~H0\ I

j      -1~      ….

 

 

l I  2~   LJd    T2   HdH 9IDZ

 

N h\ 0  I  :J:)   ;  ~     ·-:  ·:   j    .)  “‘1     ~     !  , “J\  I

—     ….J.    –     •    ~      •       I,.__.     ~……          _..      •••,,;         •  -..     ;   e     ],     ‘-~   –

 

Page2

 

 

OTHER   BUSINESS:

 

In response to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board,  the Zoning  Board of Appeals:   RESOLVED,   to approve  the action of the Acting  Chairperson  executing  on behalf of the Board  its consent  to the Planning  Board  acting   as Lead Agency   for the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQRA)  coordinated   environmental  review of actions pursuant  to SEQRA Regulations   §  617.6 (b)(3) the following  applications:    100

Corporate  Drive,  Bradley  Corporate  Park,  Commercial   Subdivision  Plan,  Internal

Subdivision  of an existing building,   100 Corporate  Park Drive, Blauvelt,    NY; 65 .18   I 1   I

16; LI/LIO  zone;   155 Corporate  Drive  Building  Expansion  and Parking  Lot Addition Site Plan,  155  Corporate  Drive,  Orangeburg,  l\TY;  73.19   I 11   1; LIO zone; Orangetown Commerce  Center  Site Plan and Commercial  Subdivision  Plan  Review,  5 Greenbush

Road, Orangeburg,   NY; 74.15/  1/  2; LI zone; and FURTHER  RESOLVED,   to request   to be notified by the Planning  Board of SEQ RA proceedings,  hearings,  and determinations with respect  to these matters.

 

 

 

THE DECISIONS  RELATED  TO THE ABOVE  HEARINGS  are inserted herein and made part of these minutes.

 

The verbatim  minutes,  as  recorded  by the Board’s  official  stenographer  for the above hearings,   are not transcribed.

 

There being  no further business  to come before  the Board,  on motion  duly made, seconded  and canied,  the meeting  was adjourned  at  10:30   P.M.

 

Dated: April  6,  2016

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPUCANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING  INSPECTOR (Individual  Decisions) Rockland County Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS

TBOyWaN  OF~ORAN~GETOWN

Deborah  Arbolino,   Administrative  Aide

 

 

l I ZT   LJd     12  ~d8  9WZ

hi /110 I  :i  ’11’ I ‘  ..  ‘  “)  _. ·'”\     •  ‘  .•  ”    i

–..Jv'”“-‘-‘–‘..J1                    .•.       J_

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

To: Kevin and Maureen Ruocco

248 Center Street

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA #16-21

Date: April 6, 2016

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#16-21: Application of Kevin and Maureen Ruocco for a variance from Zoning

Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District, Group M, Section

3.12, Column 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .26 proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family  residence. The premises are located at 248 Center Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.11, Block

3, Lot 14; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Kevin Ruocco and Kier Levesque, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of site plan based on a survey dated April 3, 2015 by W.E. James

Associates signed and sealed by Kier B. Levesque, Architect, dated January 2,

2016(1 page).

2. Architectural plans labeled “Ruocco Renovation” dated January 2, 2016, signed and sealed by Kier B. Levesque, Registered Architect (2 pages).
3. A letter dated March 24, 2016 from the County of Rockland Department of

Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning.

4. A letter dated from the County of Rockland Department of Health signed by Scott

McKane, P .E., Senior Public Health Engineer.

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn,

aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

 

 

 

Kier Levesque, Architect, testified that the proposal is to add a one story addition at the rear of the house to expand the existing kitchen and add a family room with a basement below with outside access; that the basement level would have a staircase going down to a full door with a workshop; and that the only other access to the basement is through a bilco door.

 

Kevin Ruocco testified that they have owned the house for 28 years; that here are three people in the family; that the workshop is for his retirement; and that will be happening soon.

301.:1:10  ~'”‘310   NA\01

l r 2~  LJd   I2   ~&J  9IDZ

i’~l’ilU.

N h\ 0 I  710  T·::“  ;  i)     .: r.   :  ‘   .  ~       r-.  l

—                  .,      ”  LI””          -.J   \,)

 

Ruocco

ZBA#16-21

Page2 of 4

 

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.

 

The Board members made personal inspections of the premises the week before the meeting and found them to be properly posted and as generally described on the application.

 

A satisfactory statement in accordance with the provisions of Section 809 of the General

Municipal Law of New York was received.

 

Mr. Sullivan made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by

Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all the

documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if the variance(s) are granted outweigh the detriment (if any) to the health, safety and

welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant, for the following reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested floor area ratio variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

3. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining a variance.

 

 

 

4. The requested floor area ratio variance, although somewhat substantial, affords benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

5. The applicant purchased the property subject to Orangetown’s Zoning Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing a new addition and/or improvements, so the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration was relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but did not, by itself, preclude the granting of the area variances.

 

 

:J ”  f -‘ .r It        (‘    ‘  I ,  I -,  l “

-n.J    •  :..L~  ._1      .::    .·:       ,   :!    v   N/:\Ol

er 2~  LJd   I2   H&J 9IDZ

 

Ruocco

ZBA#16-21

Page 3   of 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECISION: Inview of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested floor area ratio variance is APPROVED; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that such decision and the vote thereon shall become effective and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption by the Board of the minutes of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

(i) The approval of any variance or Special Permit is granted by the Board in accordance with and subject to those facts shown on the plans submitted and, if applicable, as amended at or prior to this hearing, as hereinabove recited or set forth.

 

(ii) Any approval of a variance or Special Permit by the Board is limited to the specific variance or Special Permit requested but only to the extent such approval is granted herein and subject to those conditions, if any, upon which such approval was conditioned which are hereinbefore set forth.

 

 

 

(iii) The Board gives no approval of any building plans, including, without limitation, the accuracy and structural integrity thereof, of the applicant, but same have been submitted to the Board solely for informational and verification purposes relative to any variances being requested.

 

 

 

(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained within a reasonable period of time following the filing of this decision and prior to undertaking any construction contemplated in this decision. To the extent any variance or Special Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall not be

obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, in the sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated

hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement which legally permits such occupancy.

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing variance or Special Permit will lapse if any contemplated construction of the project or any use for which the variance or Special Permit is granted is not substantially implemented within one year of the date of filing of this decision or that of any other board of the Town of Orangetown granting any required final approval to such project, whichever is later, but in any event within two years of the filing of this decision. Merely obtaining a Building Permit with respect to construction or a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to use does not constitute “substantial implementation” for the purposes hereof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

301:1.:10  S\”)310   N/;\Ol

er zr LJd   r2 Hdti  9rnz

 

f’Ji;\0J_3;Jij\’::,1  –1(‘;

“—-     –   –  …..

!\t’\ I

‘.r

1     ” ‘ …  v —

 

Ruocco

ZBA#l6-21

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve the application  for the requested  floor area ratio variance  was presented  and moved by Ms.  Castelli,  seconded by Ms.  Salomon   and carried as follows:  Mr. Feroldi,  aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr.  Bosco was absent.

 

The Administrative   Aide to the Board is hereby  authorized,  directed  and empowered  to sign this decision  and file a certified  copy thereof  in the office of the Town Clerk.

 

DATED:    April 6,  2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRJBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN   BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-G.M.

By~~’lL–J.”-!::..!:=–~.L:i.-=- Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

I.,\

JOU:.J·1    C:’~“T10     ·11io1

8I   zr Wd      I2     ~&J 9IDZ

 

1• 11··1n  I~   – . ··     ··

‘I          ‘-‘–.:.0,,    ~    ~J  -‘~  ‘””!/

–      –       J    H1\v_

 

DECISION

 

SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD, AND REAR YARD VARIANCES

APPROVED

 

To:  Nilsa Barreto

28 Closter Road

Palisades,  New York  10964

ZBA#16-22

Date: April 6, 2016

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l 6-22: Application  of Nilsa Barreto  for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-40 District,  Section  3.12, Group E, Columns  9 (Side Yard:  30′ required,  26.75′  proposed),  10 (Total Side Yard:  80′ required,  68.45′

proposed)  and 11  (Rear Yard: 50′ required,  24′  proposed)   for an existing playhouse  at an

existing  single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 28 Closter Road, Palisades, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 78.18, Block 2, Lot

24; in the R-40 zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting held on

Wednesday,  April 6, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Nilsa Barreto  appeared  and testified.

 

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Copy of plot plan  with  playhouse  drawn on it (1 page).
2. Architectural  plans labeled  As-Built  Drawing  of a Playhouse  for Nilsa Barreto” dated September  25, 2015,   signed  and sealed by Bart Rodi, Engineer  (1  page).

 

Mr. Sullivan,   Chairman,  made  a motion  to open the Public  Hearing which motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.

 

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board determination  that the foregoing  application  is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental   Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations  §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or  (13); which  does not require  SEQRA  environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and

carried as follows:   Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye;

and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

Nilsa Barreto  testified  that the playhouse  was built a long time ago and that she recently found out that it needed  variances  when she had a fire in the house; that there was a 12′ x

16′ shed on the property  when she moved  in and it was in need a repair; that she removed

it and built the 12’x  16′ playhouse  for her four young daughters  at the time; that she has been in the house for 29 years; and would  like to keep the structure.

 

 

3 o i .:I .:J o  ~ ~: ” ::i 1 o tnw 1

 

Br 2~ lJd   T 2 HdtJ  9lOZ

;·.; I \ 0 1      ‘J  ,-\  :. ‘ ·,      .    .      .     ~.      ‘   …,      ‘ j  ‘ I    r>    ‘

c               –   w  \../  i • -~-    t .•    1._.’      _:;   ..,        1  ·• i ..  ~   :.)_t_

 

Barreto

ZBA#16-22

Page2 of 4

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Paul Papay, an abutting property owner, testified that the playhouse has existed for years and he is not opposed to the structure and questioned the site plan and asked if there is an additional structure in that area.

 

The Board members made personal inspections of the premises the week before the meeting and found them to be properly posted and as generally described on the application.

 

A satisfactory statement in accordance with the provisions of Section 809 of the General

Municipal Law ofNew York was received.

 

Mr. Sullivan made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by

Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all the documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if

the variance(s) are granted outweigh the detriment (if any) to the health, safety and

welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant, for the following reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested side yard, total side yard and rear yard variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The playhouse was built many years ago and has existed without incident.

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard, total side yard and rear yard variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The playhouse was built many years ago and has existed without incident.

 

 

 

 

3. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances.

 

 

 

4. The requested side yard, total side yard and rear yard variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. The playhouse was built many years ago and has existed without incident.

 

 

 

5. The applicant purchased the property subject to Orangetown’s Zoning Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing a new addition and/or improvements, so the alleged difficulty

was self-created, which consideration was relevant to the decision of the Board of

Appeals, but did not, by itself, preclude the granting of the area variances.

 

 

–     -J                                               u   !’~   n~    –

3 0 I  _, _,…~   ~ ‘ J   If  ::;I  “‘ tf ”  0 I

.,»                  ,_,                                      ...    :            •

er 2r. Lld    T 2  H&J  9W2

 

 

Barreto

ZBA#16-22

Page 3   of 4

 

 

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested side yard, total side yard and rear yard variances are APPROVED; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that such decision and the vote thereon shall become effective and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption  by the Board of the minutes of which they are a part.

 

 

General Conditions:

 

(i) The approval of any variance or Special Permit is granted by the Board in accordance with and subject to those facts shown on the plans submitted and, if applicable, as amended at or prior to this hearing, as hereinabove recited or set forth.

 

(ii) Any approval of a variance or Special Permit by the Board is limited to the specific variance or Special Permit requested but only to the extent such approval is granted

herein and subject to those conditions, if any, upon which such approval was conditioned

which are hereinbefore set forth.

 

 

 

(iii) The Board gives no approval of any building plans, including, without limitation, the accuracy and structural integrity thereof, of the applicant, but same have been submitted to the Board solely for informational and verification purposes relative to any variances being requested.

 

 

 

(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained within a reasonable period of time following the filing of this decision and prior to undertaking any construction contemplated in this decision. To the extent any variance or Special Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall not be

obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, in the sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated

hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is

issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement which legally permits such occupancy.

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing variance or Special Permit will lapse if any contemplated construction of the project or any use for which the variance or Special Permit is granted is not substantially implemented within one year of the date of filing of this decision or that of any other board of the Town of Orangetown granting any required final approval to such project, whichever is later, but in any event within two years of the filing of this decision. Merely obtaining a Building Permit with respect to construction or a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to use does not constitute “substantial implementation” for the purposes hereof.

 

 

 

3DIJ.:l0     S’-~’1318    NN\01

er 2~   lJd     I 2  Hdl:J 9IOZ

 

 

 

Barreto

ZBA#16-22

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   side yard,  total side yard and rear yard variances  was presented  and moved  by Ms. Castelli,   seconded  by Ms. Salomon    and carried  as follows:  Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms. Castelli,   aye;

Ms.  Salomon,   aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

 

The Administrative  Aide to the Board is hereby  authorized,  directed  and empowered  to sign this decision   and file a certified  copy thereof  in the office of the Town Clerk.

 

DATED:   April  6,  2016

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-G.M.

lly~~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.  and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

>.   ·                                     f!l.\Ol

rl”I>         I  11    ~  >”J~

:.Jv!~.:.                 :!l’)

 

8I   ZI LJd   12  Hdl1   9102

 

 

~J f,\ 0 -I …:..<.ov C:   j  .I•”…..

.   v”

–––‘.\,“,

“,_f.1_· ,·J_r-    •

 

DECISION

 

 

STREET  FRONTAGE AND  SECTION 3.11, COLUMN 5 #8 VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:  Daniel and Tara Goleman

80 Ludlow Lane

Palisades, New York 10964

ZBA#16-23

Date: April 6, 2016

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#16-23: Application of Daniel and Tara Goleman for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-80 District, Section 3.12, Group A, Column 7 (Street Frontage: 100′ required, 40′ existing) and from Section 3.11, Column 5

#8 (No animal shall be housed within 200′ of any property line, 60′ proposed) for an accessory structure to house two (2) horses at an existing single-family  residence. The premises are located at 80 Ludlow Lane, Palisades, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 80.06, Block 1, Lot 20; in the R-80 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on

Wednesday, April 6, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Michael Esmay, Architect, Daniel and Tara Goleman appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of site plan based on a survey by Joseph T. Caruso, P.E., P.L.S., dated

12/21/1986  signed and sealed by Robert Michael Esmay, Architect, dated

2/29/2016 (1 page).

2. Architectural plans labeled “Accessory Structure for the Goleman Residence” dated 02/29/2016 signed and sealed by Robert Michael Esmay, Registered Architect (1 page).
3. A letter of explanation from Michael Esmay, Architect with e-mail attachments and pictures of the horses and the trailer

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application  is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review.  The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn,

aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

s

Michael Esmay, Architect, testified that Tara and Daniel Goleman are moving from their residence in Williamsburg Massachusetts to 80 Ludlow Lane in )Palisades; that at their residence in Williamsburg they have two pet horses, a small Icelandic horse with its mini horse companion who are, like a pet dog or cat, a part of their family; that the Goleman’s plan to bring the horses with them when they move to Palisades; that these horses ere

;g

now housed in a small barn similar to the structure proposed in the application; th~the c::n

proposed accessory structure is equivalent in size to a two car garage and is locatetf on the south west side of the property abutting the Columbia University Lamont Do~y     N Earth Observatory; that it will, as part of the project, replace an existing two car ~ag~

that is being demolished and removed; that the accessory structure conforms in all;~     -o

 

C)

 

 

,…1-·-_”\o

 

respects to the bulk regulations of the R-80 zoning district except for the setback C)         3        ;ii

requirement of 200 feet from any lot line for accessory structures housing domes~at%  ·                          c;

animals, such as horses; that the Golemans do conform to the regulation limiting~e    ~.     :::::

I                      CX)       z

 

Goleman

ZBA#16-23

Page2 ~f 5

 

number of horses on a property of one horse per acre; that the Golemans have been in email communications with all their neighbors in response to the neighbor’s concerns about this project; that he concerns stated are: where are the horses going to walk?, will we run into them with our cars and therefore have to wait?, who cleans up the horse poop?, we don’t want them on our properties, so where do they go? In response to the neighbor’s concerns the Golemans have stated that the horses are housed and cared for in the following way:

1. The horses spend most of their time in the barn and adjacent paddock area; that

they get hay in the morning and evening with snacks in between.

2. The horse area is kept very clean. To deal with the waste the Golemans have a covered cart on tires that gets hauled away when filled to a site where people can buy it for mulch. The waste is picked up morning and night and put in the cart.
3. The stall dirt floor is covered with rubber mats which are in turn covered with

sawdust which is cleaned twice daily. The sawdust will be stored in the hay loft.

4. Primarily the horses are fed hay which is supplements with grain that will be brought in by a truck and stored in the hay loft.
5. The hoses are always kept within the fence-in area adjacent to the barn with gates secured by double latches. They do not roam freely. They have halters, if needed to control them, but this is rarely needed. If the horses leave the property they will be transported in a trailer.
6. Veterinarians and farriers care for the horses in the barn on regularly scheduled visits.
7. Unlike other horses these have dietary restrictions limiting their eating of grass.

As a result they do not need and are restricted from open fields for grazing.

And Mr. Esmay continued to explain that the granting of the variances will not change the character of the neighborhood; and that the requirement for the accessory building to be located 200′ from the property line is impossible in the R-80 District which does not require the property to be 425′ x 425′ at minimum.

 

Public Comment:

 

Gideon Panter, M.D., 99 Ludlow Lane, testified that he has lived in his for 45 years; that be lives next door to the applicant and is speaking in support of the application because there were always horses on the property.

 

The Board members made personal inspections of the premises the week before the meeting and found them to be properly posted and as generally described on the application.

 

A satisfactory statement in accordance with the provisions of Section 809 of the General

Municipal Law ofNew York was received.

 

Mr. Sullivan made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by

Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

3 a 1 .:J .:rn   s \I\~  :J TJ N t.\ o 1

 

BI 21 L.Jd      12 HdtJ  9IOZ

 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all the documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if the variance(s) are granted outweigh the detriment (if any) to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant, for the following reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested street frontage and§ 3.11, Column 5, #8 variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is large and the requested accessory structure is proposed to be constructed on the southwest side of the property abutting the non-residential use

of the Columbia University Lamont Doherty Campus that is not developed; and at the greatest distance from the other abutting residential properties.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested street frontage and§ 3.11, Column 5, #8 variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property is large and the requested accessory structure is proposed to be constructed on the southwest side of the property abutting the non• residential use of the Columbia University Lamont Doherty Campus that is not developed; and at the greatest distance from the other abutting residential properties.

 

3. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The 200 foot setback requirement for the housing of domesticated animals cannot be achieved in any location on the property. The planned use of the proposed accessory structure is located on the property so that it will have minimal impact on the adjoining residential properties.

 

 

 

4. The requested street frontage and§ 3.11, Column 5, #8 variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment,

if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. The property is large and the requested accessory structure is proposed to be constructed on the southwest side of the property abutting the non-residential

use of the Columbia University Lamont Doherty Campus that is not developed; and at the greatest distance from the other abutting residential properties.

 

5. The applicant purchased the property subject to Orangetown’s Zoning Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing a new addition and/or improvements, so the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration was relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but did not, by itself, preclude the granting of the area variances.

 

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested street frontage and§ 3.11, Column 5, #8 variances are APPROVED; with the Specific Condition that the requested 60′ minimum distance from the accessory structure housing the horses is granted only in relation to the southern lot line abutting the Columbia University Lamont Doherty property, as depicted on the Site Plan by Robert Michael Esmay, R.A., dated February 29, 2016; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that such decision and the vote thereon shall become effective and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption by the Board of the minutes of which they are a part.

301.:!.:J:’J  s·-1~1~10   NA\Ol

 

BI 21  LJd   12  HdtJ  9IU2

 

N Ii\ 013 o f.j ·:/ .: J  .:l C.     ;.; .: 0 l

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

(i) The approval of any variance or Special Permit is granted by the Board in accordance with and subject to those facts shown on the plans submitted and, if applicable, as amended at or prior to this hearing, as hereinabove recited or set forth.

 

(ii) Any approval of a variance or Special Permit by the Board is limited to the specific variance or Special Permit requested but only to the extent such approval is granted herein and subject to those conditions, if any, upon which such approval was conditioned which are hereinbefore set forth.

 

 

 

(iii) The Board gives no approval of any building plans, including, without limitation, the accuracy and structural integrity thereof, of the applicant, but same have been submitted to the Board solely for informational and verification purposes relative to any variances being requested.

 

 

 

(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained within a reasonable period of time following the filing of this decision and prior to undertaking any construction contemplated in this decision. To the extent any variance or Special Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall not be

obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, in the sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is

issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement which legally permits such occupancy.

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing variance or Special Permit will lapse if any contemplated construction of the project or any use for which the variance or Special Permit is granted is not substantially implemented within one year of the date of filing of this decision or that of any other board of the Town of Orangetown granting any required final approval to such project, whichever is later, but in any event within two years of the filing of this decision. Merely obtaining a Building Permit with respect to construction or a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to use does not constitute “substantial implementation” for the purposes hereof.

 

3D l.:l.:I 0  S>~~r:n  0  N1~rn1

 

Br  2!  lJd    T2  Hdtl 9IDZ

 

 

Goleman

ZBA#l6-23

Page  5  of  5

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  street frontage  and

• 3.11, Column  5, #8  variances  with the Specific  Condition  that the requested  60′ minimum  distance  from the accessory  structure  housing  the horses  is granted only in relation  to the southern  lot line abutting the Columbia  University  Lamont  Doherty property,   as depicted  on the Site Plan by Robert Michael  Esmay,  R.A.,  dated Febmary

29,  2016;   was presented  and moved by Ms.  Salomon,   seconded  by Ms.  Castelli   and carried  as follows:   Mr.  Feroldi,  aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms.  Castelli,  aye; Ms.  Salomon, aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.  Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

The Administrative  Aide to the Board is hereby  authorized,   directed  and empowered  to sign this decision  and file a certified  copy thereof  in the office of the Town Clerk.

 

DATED:   April 6,  2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLJCANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    fNSPECTOR-G.M.

 

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.   and ENGINEERrNG FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA, PB,   ACABOR