Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

• February 3, 2016

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:        DAN SULLIVAN PATRICIA CASTELLI JOAN SALOMON

LEONARD FEROLDI, ALTERNATE

 

 

 

ABSENT:                               THOMAS QUINN 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                                   DECISIONS

 

 

 

 

CONTINUED ITEM:

 

 

150 BURROWS LANE 150 Burrows Lane Blauvelt, N.Y. 70.09 I 3 I 22; R-22 zone	LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED	ZBA#16-0l
POSTPONED ITEM:
YONDERHILL INTERPRETATION 1  Closter Road	CONTINUED	ZBA#16-05
Palisades, NY
78.18 I 1  I 52; R-40 zone

 

 

NEW ITEM:

 

 

 

MAUREEN’S HAIR STUDIO

464 Main Street

Sparkill, NY

77.08 I 4 I 21;CS zone

SIGN PROJECTION VARIANCE APPROVED AS MODIFIED

ZBA#l6-08

 

 

 

301.:UO S)P.~318 Nfr\01

 

25  2!   Wd   0 ! 81:1   9102

 

NM013DNvuO    .:10   NA\Ql

 

 

 

Page2

 

 

 

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 10:  15  P .M.

 

Dated:   February  3,  2016

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING     INSPECTOR   (Individual     Decisions) Rockland   County Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

By   rJIJ!ffeW~

 

Deborah  Arbolino,  Administrative   Aide

 

 

 

·-  —                                                     vu

25 ZI lJd   OI  8li 9In~

 

DECISION

 

LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES  APPROVED

 

To: John Ritsich

4 Foxburn Street

New City, New York 10956

ZBA#16-01

Date: January 6, 2016

February 3, 2016

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#16-0l: Application of  150 Burrows Lane 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, 35,283 sq. ft. existing), 6 (Lot Width: 150′ required, 100.10 proposed), 9 (Side Yard: 30′ required, 20.3′ proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 80′ required, 40.8′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 13.53′ permitted, 24.5′ proposed) for a new single-family residence. The premises are located at 128 Burrows Lane, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section

70.09, Block 3, Lot 22; in the R-40 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at meetings held on the following Wednesdays, January 6, 2016 and February 3, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

John Ritsich and John Atzl, Land Surveyor, appeared and testified at the January  6,

2016 meeting.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Plot plan dated October 20, 2015 signed and sealed by Ryan A. Nasher P.E., and

John R. Atzl, L.S ..

2. Architectural plans labeled ”Nickyritz Enterprises” dated October 5, 2015 with

the latest revision date of October 9, 2015 signed and sealed by John Perkins, Registered Architect (6 pages).

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

John Atzl, Land Surveyor, testified that the lot is a pre-existing non-conforming lot; that he would argue that Section 5.21 A would apply and then the side yard, total side yard and building height variances would go away; that the Glayolas’ purchased the lot in

1952; that it is zoned for a single-family residence; that they are proposing a 2,600 sq. ft. home; that this is not oversized and fits in with the neighborhood; that there are multiple

properties in the area with undersized lots and some with 2,500 sq.  ft. homes; that the

majority of the houses do not conform to the lots and all the lots are deep but not all of

the lots are wide.                                           3Qld.:10  S)1~~~318  Nh\01

 

ZS  21  LJd   DI 81~   9102

 

NA\013DNVUO   .:iO    NiAOl

 

150 Burrows Lane

ZBA#16-01

Page 2 of  5

 

John Rulsick, testified that the distance from the neighbor’s house is nearly 90′; that there is 120′ to the Tao residence; that the front set back is 75 feet; and to the edge of the road there is about 95 feet; that the house was placed in this location to· save some of the significant trees, the 36″ oak in the front of the proposed house being one of them; that there will be a lot of vegetation left on the lot because of the proposed placement of the house; and that they would like a continuance till the February 3rd meeting to get a better interpretation from the Building Inspector.

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Lixin Tao, 5 Celtic Lane, testified that he consulted with the Board regarding a

subdivision and was told that each house needs an acre of property; that this proposal will be too close to his house; that he will lose privacy and woods; that he will lose value; that the neighborhood size should be consistent; that six area variances up to 50% is too much and he is strongly against it.

 

Donna Goldstein, 115 Burrows Lane, diagonally across the street, testified that her

parents built their house in 1961 on one acre of property; that she is speaking on behalf of her parents and Barbara and Joe Morrrow, that the other houses in the area have significantly  more space between them; that this house would totally change the neighborhood and the height changes the character of the neighborhood also.

 

Poou Varghese-John, 128 Burrows Lane, testified that she and her husband just purchased  the house in September 2015from the Glayolas’; that she knew the lot existed but she thought the house would be built further away from hers’ that the house on the other side of hers is close to her already and she hopes that this one could be reconfigured to provide  privacy.

 

Meeting of February 3, 2016

 

John Ritsich and John Atzl, Land Surveyor, appeared and testified. No new submissions.

Michael Bosco and Tom Quinn were absent.

 

 

Joh Atzl, Land Surveyor, testified that the Building Inspector has determined that they lot does not meet the requirements to be deemed an undersized lot; that they do need all of

the variances that were requested in the publication; that he has done a zoning analysis for the neighborhood and found that 31  of the lots conform to the zoning requirements; that 30% of the lots have less than the required lot area; that 30% have less that the required lot width; that 3 5% have less than the required side yard and total side yards; and 23% have less than the required 20 feet; that the house to the east shall be 90′ away from the proposed house; that the house to the southwest will be 130′ away from the proposed house; that the neighborhood is very mixed with styles from capes , colonials, bi-levels and reaches exist; that the proposed house is 22,050 sq. ft.; that the size is similar to many houses in the area; that the proposal is a nice fit the neighborhood and a new house brings up the value of surrounding houses.

 

 

 

John Ritsich testified that this is the only vacant lot on Burrows Lane; that he is only grading 30′ around the house; that the house is set back to keep an existing large Oak tree and many of the trees on th~  ~PJ~~ ~~~µ~fn!Yl1-F~ 1re being kept.

 

ZS  21  LJd   01   BlJ   9102

 

NA\013 Q NVL 0  .:iO  Nh\01

 

 

ZBA#16-0l

Page3 of 5

 

Public Comment:

 

Tao Xin, 5 Celtic Lane, testified that the new propose house is too large; that it should be smaller; that the lot is smaller and the house should be smaller; that these are 50% variances and they set a bad example.

 

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 lot area, lot width, 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 neighborhood is a mixture of many different style houses and many of them have added additions over the years. Many of the properties have smaller than the required 30′ side yard and this house is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

 

 

 

2. The requested lot area, lot width, 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 neighborhood is a mixture of many different style houses and many of them have added additions over the years. Many of the properties have smaller than the required 30′ side yard and this house is in keeping with the character of 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 lot area, lot width, 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. The neighborhood is a mixture of many different style houses and many of them have added additions over the years.

Many of the properties have smaller than the required 30′ side yard and this housgjs  ~      ~

in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.                                           ~     ~      ~

 

:z    ~

C)

-n

0..

 

 

 

 

~ rn ~ c::> 5. The applicant purchased the property subject to Orangetown’s Zoning Code (Chap~~ -o

43) and is proposing a new addition and/or improvements, so the alleged difficulty ~     ::3 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•.

,,.\

,,–~

-~

 

 

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested lot area, lot width, side yard, total side yard and building height variances are APPROVED; and ~URTHER 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.

 

 

 

 

3QUd0   S)Hf310  NM01

 

ZS 21  Wd   01  BlJ  9lfi2

 

NM0130Nv20 .:!O  NfAOl

 

 

 

 

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

Castelli,   aye;  Ms.  Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.  Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco  were

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:    February  3,  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.

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,    ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

::!Cll~.:!O    s:J~.1318    NMOl

 

£S z1  Lld   01  91J  srnz

 

NfAOl3 o l·l’\’::.’. 0   JO  M f;\Ol

 

DECISION

 

• 3.11, COLUMN 5 #6 (B) (1) SIGN PROJECTION VARIANCE APPROVED AS MODIFIED

 

To:  Maureen Cunningham

160 Edgewood Drive

Orangeburg,  New York

ZBA#16-08

Date: February 3, 2016

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#16-08: Application of Maureen’s Hair Studio for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, CS District, Section 3.11, Column 5, #6 (b)(l)  (sign projection: 12″ permitted,  56″ proposed) for a hanging sign at n existing business. The business is located at 646 Main Street, Sparkill, New York and is identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.08, Block 4, Lot 21; in the CS zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 3, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Maureen Cunningham and Robin Foley, Foley Signs, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Two computer generated pictures of the building and the proposed signs.
2. A color picture of the proposed sign hanging from the existing bracket.
3. A letter dated January 22, 2016 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

4. A letter dated February 3, 2016 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .Et :

 

 

 

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 thatthe foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c)(7); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco and Mr. Quinn were absent.

 

 

 

Maureen Cunningham testified that she needs the perpendicular sign because people driving by the building cannot see the sign on the building; that the pole exists and previous businesses have had signs on it; that the sign will be fourteen feet high and looks smaller when it is place up that high and she would reduce the size by four inches if the Board wants her to and that will change the protrusion to 52″ from the building.

 

Robin Foley, Foley Sign Company, testified that the existing bracket projects 96″ out

From the building over the sidewalk and is 14′ from the ground; that they proposed the

54″ sign so that it would look proportioned to the existing bracket but they could reduce it to 50″ and it would project 54″ from the building.

 

 

301d.:!O  s;!H310 NMOl

 

2S  2~  Wd   0 I  81:1  9I02

 

NN\013 DNVUO    .:I 0  NlAOl

 

 

 

 

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. 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 §3.11, Columns,  Item #6(b)(l)   sign projection  variance,  as modified  to a 54″ projection,  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The 50″ hanging  sign will afford passing  vehicles  time to identify  the location  of the business  easily without  distracting them from traffic.

 

 

 

2. The requested §3.11, Columns,  Item #6(b)(l)   sign projection  variance  as modified, to a 54″ projection,  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental  conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  The 50″ hanging  sign will afford passing  vehicles  to identify  the location  of the business  easily without distracting  them from traffic.

 

 

 

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  §3.11, Column5,  Item #6(b)(l)   sign projection  variance,  as modified  to
	a 54″ projection,  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 r-=> surrounding neighborhood or nearby community.  The 50″ hanging sign will ~or~	-\ ;;

passing vehicles to identify the location of the business easily without distracti~   -n

them from traffic.                                                                                                ~     g

 

‘rn

~C)          C>

:z

)::<•

 

7~

Cf’        -0         C)

5. The applicant purchased or leased the property subject to Orangetown’s Zoninge.rd~  1                    ~ (Chapter 43) and is proposing a new addition and/or improvements, so the alleg~      N   i          ~ difficulty was self-created, which consideration was relevant to the decision oft~      ·     ~ 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 §3 .11, Column 5, Item

#6(b )(1) sign projection (as modified to 54″ projection for a 50″ sign) 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.

 

 

38L:!j     O  S~J:)_~310   Nh\01

 

ZS 21: Wd   01  BJ~  9lfi2

 

NM013t1NV’d0  .:10   NPAGi

 

Maureen’s   Hair Studio

ZBA#16-08

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve the application  for the requested   §3 .11,   Column  5, Item #6 (b) (1) sign projection (as modified to a 54″ projection for a 50″ sign) variance was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by Ms.  Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon, aye;  and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were 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: February 3,  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.

 

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR