Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS February 17, 2016

 

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

DAN SULLIVAN

LEONARD FEROLDI, ALTERNATE MICHAEL BOSCO

JOAN SALOMON

 

 

ABSENT:

 

 

 

 

PATRICIA CASTELLI THOMAS QUINN

 

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:

Ann Marie Ambrose, Elizabeth Decort,

Official Stenographer

Senior Clerk Typist

 

 

 

 

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

 

NEW  ITEMS: GREISBERG GARAGE

7 Sgt. Parker Road

Blauvelt, N.Y.

70.06 I 1   I 59; R-40 zone

 

 

 

MORRISSEY

91 North Pearl Street

Pearl River, NY

68.15 I 5 I 14; RG zone

DECISIONS

 

 

 

 

LOT AREA, STREET                       ZBA#16-09

FRONTAGE, SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND

BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

SIDEYARD,TOTAL                         ZBA#16-10

SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

 

SLAVITT

41CLOSTER ROAD PALISADES,  NY

78.17 I 2 I 39; R-40 zone

FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

ZBA#16-l 1

 

 

 

 

GUARINO

34 CHESNUT OVAL ORANGEBURG,   NY

74.06 I 1  I 6; RG zone

TOTAL SIDE YARD AND              ZBA#16-12

BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

3 a 1.:1.:! o   s ~’ ‘ ‘ :=! 1 a iH\ o 1

 

sr-

1    lJd      c   HHlJ 9102

 

Page 2

 

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 carried, the meeting  was adjourned  at  8:00 P.M.

 

Dated: February  17, 2016

 

 

DlSTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR (Individual    Decisions)

Rockland   County   Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

By         ~If}?–~

Elizabeth  Decort,  Senior Clerk-Typist   for

Deborah  Arbolino,   Administrative  Aide

 

 

8l   T   lJd     8     HHlJ  9lUZ

 

fi f.\ 013  8;:  ‘.’ L: 0 ~ 0 ii.’.’ 0 l

 

DECISION

 

LOT  AREA,  STREET   FRONTAGE,    SIDE  YARD,  TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  AND BUILDING                     HEIGHT   VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

To:  Justin Greisberg

7 Sgt. Parker Road

Blauvelt,  NY  10913

ZBA #16-09

Date: February  17, 2016

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l 6-09: Application  of  Justin  Greisberg  for  variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-40 District,  Group E, Section 3.12, Columns  5 (Lot Area; 40,000  sq. ft. required,  37,860  sq. ft. existing),  7 (Street   Frontage:  100′ required,  86.41′  existing),  9 (Side  Yard: 30′  required,  4.65′  proposed),  10 (Total Side Yard:  80′ required,  51.54′  proposed)  and 12 (Building  Height:  3.1′  permitted,  18.67′ proposed)  for a new garage at an existing  single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 7 Sgt. Parker Road, Blauvelt,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.06, Block  1, Lot 59; in the R-40 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  February  17, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Justin Greisberg,  owner and Robert  Hoene,  Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans dated  11/18/2015  signed and sealed by Robert Hoene,

Registered  Architect  (2 pages).

2. Photos  of similar projects  within the vicinity  of the Greisberg  Residence;  430

Greenbush  Road in Blauvelt  and 8 and 9 Kopac  Lane in Palisades.

3. A letter stating no objection to the proposed  garage signed by Sankam  Krishnan, MD residing  at 9 Sgt. Parker Road and Alfredo  and Carmen  Ramirez  residing  at 3

Sgt. Parker Road, Blauvelt.

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chairman,  made a motion  to open the Public Hearing  which motion  was seconded  by Ms. Salomon  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 Enviromnental   Quality Review  Act (SEQRA), pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations  §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which  does not require  SEQ RA environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried as follows:   Mr. Bosco,  aye; and Mr. Feroldi,  aye.

 

Justin Greisberg  testified  that he would like to add an additional  two-car  garage to his property  because  he inherited  classic cars from his dad; that these cars must be in a garage to maintain  their value; that he proposed  to add the garage on the side of the house because  existing  driveway  is there and it is the least intrusive  area for it. That it is not an industrial  looking  garage, that it has been designed  to match the architecture of the existing house  and will not look like an addition;  that the placement  of the garage also blocks  his pool from his neighbor  to the north;  and because  he is the R-40 zoning district,  he would have to construct  the garage in the middle  of the back yard

in order to meet the side yard and total side yard requirements   and it would not be

consistent  with the neighborhood.   Mr. Greisberg  testified  he has lived in the house  for

 

14 years with his wife and three children.  That he worked  with his architect  on different  proposals  bu~ ~~y,~fR1~~~~1 ~      fl1~1~f811erty as well as the t~pograph~ ~f the

lot make alternate des1grlg-Jilnpract1caf1He alSB stated that there are pme trees Immg

the side of his property ~ic-f   sfrcie ~a  .rg~i1is      abutting neighbors.

 

Greis berg

ZBA#l6-09

Page2of4

 

 

Architect, Robert Hoene testified that the garage had to be situated at the end of the existing driveway because of the location of the existing pool. Mr. Hoene also stated that garage would provide a walkway to the existing house.

 

 

 

 

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. Salomon 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 lot area, street frontage, side yard, total side yard and building height variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The lot area and street frontage are existing conditions and the side yard, total side yard and building height variances are created because of the proposed location of the new garage next to the existing garage with access to the existing driveway. It is the most sensible area to construct the additional garages.

 

 

 

2. The requested lot area, street frontage, side yard, total side yard and building height variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The lot area and street frontage are existing conditions and the side yard, total side yard and building height variances are created because of the proposed location of the new garage next to the existing garage with access to the existing driveway. It is the most sensible area to construct the additional garages.

 

 

 

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 building height variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if an~, to the health,!, saf~t0 and ~.~W\re of th~ surroun?ing neighborhood or nearby community, Thelllit:hleaMdmt1fPO~fagevanances exist and are not

changing.                 st 1    Wd     c   HHlJ 9lUZ

 

 

“‘flQ                        :_;u

1-.:l:-‘;l··.-;·:···J·       ~

(‘~   ‘I\     –   –  V   I  .                          ‘t      ‘-•

….”l

l’~Li\.,

 

Greis berg

ZBA#l6-09

Page  3   of 4

 

 

 

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 lot area, street frontage, side yard, total side yard and building height 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.             3 O!_:i  .:!O    S\l’l   ::Jl o Nh\01

 

61   1   lJd    8    HHLJ 9102

 

Nh\013  0 .r. … U    .:’. C    iJN.Ol

 

Greis berg

ZBA#l6-09

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application   for the requested  lot  area, street frontage,  side yard,  total side yard and building  height variances  was presented  and moved  by Mr. Feroldi,  seconded  by Ms.   Salomon  and carried as follows:   Mr.  Bosco,   and Mr.  Sullivan,  aye.

 

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:    February  17,  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.

By     a2~A–~

Elizabeth  Decort,   Senior Clerk-Typist   for

Deborah  Arbolino,  Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY     DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

SIDE  YARD,  TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  AND BUILDING   HEIGHT  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:  Thomas  and Tracey  Morrissey

91 North  Pearl Street

Pearl River, NY  10965

ZBA#l6-10

Date: F ebruary 17, 2016

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#16-10: Application of Thomas and Tracey Morrissey for variances from Zoning

Code (Chapter43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, RG District, Group Q, Section

3.12, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 10′ required, 7,7′ proposed), 10 {Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 20.6′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 1.4′ permitted, 1 ‘5.5” proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 91 North Pearl Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.15, Block 5, Lot 14; in the RG zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Thomas and Tracey Morrissey, owners and Dominick Caponigro, Contractor, appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

 

 

1. Architectural plans labeled “Morrissey Residence One-Story Addition” dated

June 16, 2015 not signed or sealed by Harry J. Goldstein, Registered Architect (2 pages).

2. Copy of survey dated June 29, 1951 by Beckerle Brown, Inc. with the proposed

addition drawn on it.

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon 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. Salomon, and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye.

 

 

 

Tracey Morrissey testified that the house is currently 1500 square feet, the kitchen is lO’xlO’ and currently in the front of the house. That the kitchen will be moved to the back of the house and that they will be adding a family room and a den. She stated that they have lived in the house since 1998. She also testified that the house currently has no basement so it is difficult when their kids have friends over. That once the bedrooms and

bathrooms are subtracted from the total living space they are restricted to only 600 square feet of living space. Mrs. Morrissey also testified that their lot is very narrow and that

they worked with the architect on different layouts but the proposed floor plan is the only

one that would improve the layout of the house. That the house on the comer of their street put up a modular addition similar to what they are proposing and another house on their street constructed an addition to the side of their house. The contractor, Dominic Caponigro, testified that the Morrissey’ s have worked with the architect on developing several drafts and it was chaj~1!~tfg~c>’.~et1~t~liil’M-on to work within the small space provided. He also stated this.proposal is the ~~&t   eift,ctive layout for the family’s needs.

6°L   l   lJd   £    tlUW ~lLu

 

 

M 1\\ 0 l 3 \f”‘) •l I: v’,.  r  ‘ ‘ ..‘.   I.’\:  .:~f  n,)

! ·    i  I’   ‘:.    n t

I ..   I;.   v  -·

 

Morrissey

ZBA#16-10

Page2of4

 

 

 

 

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 ofNew York was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon 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 building height variances 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 area.

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard, total side yard and building height variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or enviromnental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

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 building height 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.  Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

30 \:l :.! 0 s;’,\’ 31 Q   Mtr\Ol

 

S”L  ~- \Jd     £     HHhl 9lUZ

…                                                                                                           •    r>       ,,     ‘~.     Ol

N f,\ 013 ~ ii 1.J’G 0 ;;. u  i. J.  \.

 

Morrissey

ZBA#16-10

Page3of4

 

 

 

 

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 building height 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.

 

 

 

 

61:   1   lJd     c   HBlJ 9lUZ

 

 

NJ\\013 Q

v     0

,,…

~l      ci

1f’\    •,1,•101

.:I IJ   1·•111    .

 

Morrissey

ZBA#16-10

Page 4 of 4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing resolution  to approve  the application   for the requested  side yard,  total  side yard and building  height  variances  was presented  and moved by Mrs. Bosco,  seconded by Ms.  Salomon  and carried  as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

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:   February  17,  2016

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

TO\VN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    lNSPECTOR-R.A.0.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

By    tba~‘?h~

Elizabeth  Decort,  Senior Clerk-Typist   for

Deborah  Arbolino,  Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.   and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,       ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

. I .. 01-  ,~ . I.       •       r-.        _.   CJ    i l   •  \   ~,   1

t\ir-:\             :1v   1     •.……                   ,   ,        -·                 •1•             …1

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT  YARD,  SIDE  YARD  AND TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:  Laraine  Slavitt

41 Closter Road

Palisades,  NY  10964

ZBA #16-11

Date: February  17, 2016

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l 6-11: Application  of  Laraine  Slavitt for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-40 District,  Group E, Section 3.12, Columns   8 (Front Yard:  50′ required,  37.6′  existing,  28′  proposed),  9 (Side Yard: 30′  required,  18.3′ existing),  10 (Total Side Yard:  80′ required,  53.3′  proposed)  for an addition  to an

existing  single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 41 Closter Road, Palisades,

New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 78.17, Block 2, Lot

39; in the R-40 zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  February  17, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Laraine  and Ben Slavitt,  owners  and Douglas  Radick,  Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. Architectural  plans labeled  “Proposed  Addition  for Mr. & Mrs. Slavitt”   dated

12/08/2015,   signed and sealed by Douglas  A. Radick,  Registered  Architect  (2 pages).

 

2. 8 Photos  of the existing  Slavitt Residence.

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chairman,  made a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded by Ms. Salomon  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 Mr. Bosco and carried as follows:   Ms. Salomon,  and Mr. Feroldi,  aye.

 

Architect,  Douglas  Radick,  testified  that Mr. and Mrs. Slavitt have lived in their house for

27 years.  That Mr. Slavitt has already had several knee replacements  and cannot have any more surgeries  and stairs have become  problematic.   That they love their house  and their neighborhood   and want to stay in it; that they are proposing  a master bedroom  and master bath addition  to the first floor to the left of the existing  house;  to eliminate  the need for Mr. Slavitt to use the stairs.  Mrs. Slavitt testified  that the house was built in

1927 at which time the front yard variance  may have predated  zoning laws. Douglas

Radick  stated he would  like to make mention  that the notation  on his bulk table was

meant to be consistent  with the preexisting  nonconforming   setback  as the house was built ober 80 years ago in the required  front yard setback.   He also stated the addition  is being done in a way that would make the house  symmetrical  on both sides and that the Slavitt’s have already  gotten approval  from the Historic  Board  of Review.  Mrs. Slavitt stated they are looking to maintain  the look of the house  as it exists now.  Additionally,  she stated

the property  has a down slQI>~ twfirolfis W r.&1el~Mndmake it difficult to properly secure

c

footings for a layout that was designed further,pac.k…17

61:  1   lJd           HdW ~Wv

 

Slavitt

ZBA#16-11

Page 2of4

 

 

 

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 ofNew  York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon  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 front yard, side yard and total side yard variances 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 area.

 

 

 

2. The requested front yard, side yard and total side yard variances 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 area.

 

 

 

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 front yard, side yard and total side 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.  Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

1. l lJd      c    HHlJ srnz

0 I  I   C\ ~                                       J  . ‘   v           j  j  \   ,_,   –

….     ,…         :  f”i  ‘l   ~’    ()   l

‘l  • \                          .1  ..  ,  .                                                             t • I\ j i\     _,_  .:.:.  v   I .•    ‘1    ‘-•              –

 

Slavitt

ZBA#16-11

Page3 of4

 

 

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested front yard, side yard, and total side 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

 

 

 

 

S”L   1    hid      c    HHlJ 9102

J   ::., ·J    LJ;\U

NMOl.-:i ~);-, ~..\.’..’-‘ ·”‘    1r.  11   •~   l”l ·

 

Slavitt

ZBA#l6-11

Page 4 of 4

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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: February 17,   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.

By   ~~JJJ_uJ–

Elizabeth   Decort,  Senior Clerk-Typist  for

Deborah Arbo lino,  Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR

 

61    1   tJd     8     HHU srnz

 

DECISION

 

TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Jane Slavin (Guarino)

200 Erie Street East

Blauvelt, NY 10913

ZBA #16-12

Date: February 17, 2016

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA# 16-12: Application of Alan and Marisa Guarino for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, RG District, Group Q, Section 3.12, Columns 10 (Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 26.9′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height:

15.2′ permitted, 18.16′ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence.

The premises are located at 34 Chestnut Oval, Orangeburg, New York and are identified

on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.06, Block 1, Lot 6; in the RG zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 17, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Alan and Marisa Guarino, owners and Jane Slavin, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

 

 

1. Architectural plans labeled “Renovation Guarino Residence”  dated 10/01/2015, signed and sealed by Jane Slavin, Registered Architect (1 page).
2. Site plan based on survey prepared by Michael M. Burris dated I 0/24/1957 signed and sealed by Jane Slavin dated 12/1112015.
3. Photo of Guarino Residence and areal image of surrounding neighborhood.

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon 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. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Feroldi, aye.

 

 

 

Jane Slavin, Architect, testified that the applicant would like to add a garage to the north side of the house, currently there is no garage, the house is a split level dwelling with the first floor being a slab on grade with the bedrooms above, that there is a living room with a half basement. That there is really not much storage at all, that the applicant would like to add a master bedroom and closet over the garage. The variances needed are for total side yard, with only 3 feet requested;  the floor area ratio requirement  is met and the side yard variance being requested is only 1  feet 4 inches more than what is required for the RG zone. Architect Jane Slavin also stated the lot is very narrow, only 80 feet in width, and that there are several similar additions in the neighborhood. Mrs. Guarino testified that they have lived in the house for 6 years in March.

 

 

 

 

st 1   LJd   ·c   HHW  srnz

 

Nh\013 ~;.JV:_; 0  .:W  l’:li\01

 

Guarino

ZBA#16-12

Page 2of4

 

 

 

 

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 ofNew  York was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon 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 total side yard and building height variances 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 total side yard and building height variances 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 variances.

 

 

 

4. The requested total side yard and building height 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. 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.

 

 

 

61    1   LJd    8     HHlJ 9l02

 

Guarino

ZBA#16-12

Page3 of4

 

 

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the

Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested total side yard and building height 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.

 

 

 

3~1~.:!0  s;p1310  NJ\\01

 

61:   1    lJd      £     HHlJ 9102

 

 

Guarino

ZBA#16-12

Page 4 of 4

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   February  17,  2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-R.A.O.

 

By~)n,~

Elizabeth  Decort,  Senior Clerk-Typist   for

Deborah  Arbolino,  Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR