Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS FEBRUARY  4, 2015

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:           JOAN  SALOMON MICHAEL  BOSCO THOMAS  QUINN DAN SULLIVAN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE PA TRICIA  CASTELLI

 

ABSENT:                                  NONE

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

NEW  ITEMS:

 

DEO PERSAUD                                    FLOOR  AREA  RATIO

1   Friar Tuck  Court, Orangeburg,  NY         VARIANCE  APPROVED

69.08 I 1  I 4.13; R-40 zone

ZBA#15-06

 

D’AMICO

11 Klee Lane, Blauvelt, NY

70.18 I 1I19;  R-15 zone

FLOOR AREA RATIO,                    ZBA#l 5-07

SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

 

DOHERTY

12 Sunrise Lane, Pearl River, NY

69.18 / 3 / 21; R-15 zone

FLOOR AREA RATIO,                    ZBA#lS-08

REAR YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

 

GEEVARUGHESE

26 Fairview Lane, Orangeburg, NY

74.13 I 4 I 13; RG zone

SIDE YARD AND TOTAL SIDE    ZBA#l 5-09

YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

 

RIELLY/OREFICE                           SIDE YARD AND TOTAL              ZBA#15-10

124 Washington Spring Road,           SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED Palisades, NY

78.1811I31; R-22 zone               301.:1.:10  S)IH310 NMO’l

Si  ZI :(Jd    ez 9l:l·Sl02

 

NM013~NVHO .:10  NM6l

 

Minutes

Page 2of2

 

 

OTHER  BUSINESS:

 

 

The Zoning  Board of Appeals   members   had a discussion   regarding  threats aimed at the

Board because  of the handling   of the Anellotech   application.

 

 

Daniel   Sullivan  offered  a motion   for the Zoning  Board of Appeals to adopt  a Memorializing    Resolution   that:   he has felt threatened,   bullied   and harassed  by several individuals    on social   media  that are associated  with web sites,   such as “Stop Anellotech”, “Anellotech.blogspot.com”      and  an individual     calling  herself  “Mary  Teresa”;    these

threats were reported  several  times to the Supervisor   and no action  was taken;  the entire Board shares these   concerns,  and they, as  Land Use Board  members,   should  be protected when making  difficult  and unpopular   decisions;    and are formally   requesting  a policy  and procedure  be put into place where  the Town Board  and the Police will act if any Board member  is  threatened;    which  motion  was seconded  by Joan Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

ADDITIONAL    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:   Merritt

Re- Subdivision    Plan,   390 Ehrhardt   Road  and 16 Merritt  Drive,  Pearl River,,  NY; 64. l 8 I

1I11    & 64.18  I 1I78.3;      R-15   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 carriecl,  the meeting  was adjourned  at 9:45   P.M.

 

Dated:   February  4, 2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TO\VN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN   A TIORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATIORNEY TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING     INSPECTOR   (Individual     Decisions) Rockland   County Planning

Deborah  Arbolino,   Administrative   Aide

 

 

381.:L:!O   S>IB31~     NM01

 

6?  Z1  Wd   £l  HJ:! Sl02

NM013 e NV’tlO   :W   NMOl

 

DECISION FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: John Atzl (Deo Persaud)

234 No. Main Street

New City, New York 10956

ZBA#lS-06

Date: February 4, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l5-06: Application of Deo Persaud for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-40 District, Column 4, (Floor Area Ratio: .15 permitted, .195 proposed) for a finished basement at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 1   Friar Tuck Court, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.08, Block 1, Lot 4.13; 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 4, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Deo Persaud, John Atzl, Land Surveyor and Michael Specht, Attorney, appeared and . testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans and site plan dated December 1, 2014 not signed or sealed by
2. Hennessy Architects, P.C.. (1 page)
3. A copy of a survey for lot 13 Nottingham Estates dated 5/31/2001 with the latest revision date of 06/06, 2011 by Jay A. Greenwell, PLS..

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chair, 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. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye.

 

 

 

Michael Specht, Attorney, testified that the house was built eight years ago and the calculations for the basement were not included in the floor area ratio calculations for the house; that the permitted floor area ratio is 15% and the house with the finished basement  · needs a 19.5% floor area ratio; that there is a kitchen and full bath proposed for the

finished basement but there are no bedrooms; that the basement opens to rear yard and

pool; that Mr. Persaud has a business and will be using the basement space for

entertaining and business parties; that they have no objection to a finding of fact that the space will not be used as a single-family conversion.

 

Deo Persaud testified that he also has a home in Garnerville, that there are five people in his family and that they intend to use both houses.

 

 

 

301.:1.:JO  S}IH310 NMO!

 

Si. il;LJd   &Z  B3~  SIOZ

 

• NM013SNVBO .:JO NMOl

 

 

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. The applicant purchased the house with the basement that was not included in the floor area ratio calculation at the time; that he applied for a permit to finish the basement and needs the floor area ratio-in order to finish it. Other houses in the neighborhood have finished basements.

 

2. This is neither a review, nor an approval, of a “single-family conversion” as per

Orangetown Zoning Code Section 4.5.

 

3. 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. The applicant purchased the house with the basement that was not included in the floor area ratio calculation at the time; that he applied for a permit to finish the basement and needs the floor area ratio in order to finish it. Other houses in the neighborhood have finished basements.

 

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

the house with the basement that was not included in the floor area ratio calculation at the time; that he applied for a permit to finish the basement and needs the floor area ratio in order to finish it.

 

 

 

5. 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.

 

 

 

6. 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 dif:§(0.1~0 S~H310 NMO!

sioz

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.   Bi zi lald·  .       £Z  Bl:I

 

Nh\013flNVHO    ~O NMOl

 

 

 

 

 

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 with the Specific Condition that the basement space shall not be occupied as a separate dwelling unit; 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 deparbnent, 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)t~310 NMO! SI  Zl  ldd   &2 833 ~DZ NM0!30NVHO .:JO   NMOl

 

Persaud

ZBA#15-06

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application   for the requested  floor area ratio variance,  with  the specific  condition   that the basement  space shall  not be occupied  as a separate  dwelling  unit,   was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,  seconded  by Mr. Quinn and carried  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms.   Castelli,   aye; Mr. Sullivan,  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  4, 2015

 

 

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 l71LE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

3Cll.:UO  S‘>1~31Cl  NMOl

sz 21 Lld  £2  g11 srnz

 

NJAOl3~NV’BO    .::10  NMOl

 

DECISION

FLOOR AREA RA TIO, SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES  APPROVED

 

To:  Victor and Teresa D’ Amico

11  Klee Lane

Blauvelt, New York 10913

ZBA#lS-07

Date:  February 4, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#lS-07: Application of Victor and Teresa D’Amico for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, Group M, R-15 District, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .22 proposed), 9 (Side Yard: 20′ perrnitted,

10′ proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 50′ required, 36′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height:

10′ permitted, 21′ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family  residence .. The premises are located at 11  Klee Lane, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 70.18, Block 1, Lot 19; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Victor D’ Amico appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copies of architectural plans and site plan dated July 21, 2014 signed and sealed by Harry J. Goldstein, Architect. (1 page)
2. A copy of a survey for D ‘Amico dated May 25, 1971 by William Youngblood, PLS ..
3. A letter dated January 13, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

4. A letter dated February 4, 2014 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..

 

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

 

 

 

Victor D’ Amico testified that they have owned the house since 1967; that his daughter

has been widowed recently and she and their three grandchildren have moved back home; that they are proposing to add a bedroom above the existing garage; that there have been similar additions constructed in the neighborhood; that the house behind them did an addition and there is another house up the street with a similar addition.

 

 

30t~.:IO  S’>1H310 NM01

ii,,ZI     Wd   si B]~   smz

 

NM0!3~NVHO .:10   NMOl

 

 

 

D’Amico

ZBA#l5-07

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, 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 neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, 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. 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 floor area ratio, 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.

 

 

 

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\::i::iO  S)tH310 NMOl sz,~! Wd    EZ  m mz N~Ol3~NV’tl0  so NMOl

 

D’Amico

ZBA#lS-07

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  floor area ratio, 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.

 

301.:ldO  S)IH310 NMOl

 

c

6? Z1 LJd       G  03~   SlOZ

..   —

NM013~NVHO   :!O NMOl

 

D’Arnico

ZBA#15-07

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

Salomon,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   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  4, 2015

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-RAO.

orah Arbolino

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

I-llGHWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING

f-lLE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

301.:UO   §)Hl318    NMOl

gz  21  Wd   s2  g1j sm2

 

NM013~NvtJO      .:10  NMOl

 

DECISION

FLOOR   AREA  RATIO,   TOTAL   SIDE  YARD,  REAR  YARD,  AND BUILDING HEIGHT   VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

To:  Daniel Doherty

12 Sunrise  Lane

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#lS-08

Date:  February  4, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#15-08:  Application  of  Daniel Doherty  for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Columns  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .20 permitted,  .249 proposed),  10 (Total  Side Yard:  50′ required,  44.4′ proposed),  11  (Rear Yard:  35′ required,  22′  proposed)  and 12 (Building  Height:  20′ permitted,  22′  proposed)  for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 12 Sunrise  Lane, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 69.18, Block 3. Lot 21; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

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

Wednesday,  February  4, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Daniel Doherty  and Douglas  Siebenaler,  Architect,   appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans and site plan dated December  11, 2014 signed and sealed by

Paul Douglas  Seibenaler,  Architect.  (2 pages)

2. A copy of a survey labeled  “ZBA Appeal  Proposed  Addition  Land Survey for Daniel J. Doherty”,  dated December  10, 2014 signed  and sealed  by Robert E. Sorace, PLS ..
3. Three letters in support  of the application  from abutting property  owners.

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chair, 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:  Mr. Bosco,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and Mr.

Sullivan,  aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye.

 

 

 

Douglas  Siebenaler,  Architect,  testified  that the lot is undersized;  that it is only 10,945 sq. ft.; that any addition  to the house would require  a variance;  that they are proposing  a second floor and a small addition  to the left side of the kitchen because  the existing

kitchen  is so small; that one of the existing bedrooms  will become  the staircase  to the

second floor; that one will remain  as a guest bedroom  and the other will become  a study;

and he submitted  pictures  of the existing  house.

 

 

Daniel Doherty  testified  that he purchased  the house 47 years ago and never made any improvements;   and that it is time to update  the house.

 

 

 

301.:1.:10   S)IH310 NMO!

 

&a.ii. tJd   £2 91lStUZ

 

N;M0!3~NVHO .:10  Nh\Ol

 

Doherty

ZBA#lS-08

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 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 floor area ratio, total side yard, rear 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 floor area ratio, total side yard, rear 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 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 floor area ratio, total side yard, rear yard and building height valiances, 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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

301.:BO s~~310  NMOl

 

SZ Zitld       £t B1~   51.Dl

..   —

NM013~NVHO  so NMOJ.

 

Doherty

ZBA#l5-08

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 floor area ratio, total side yard, rear 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.

 

 

30\.:t!O S)\~310 NM01.

 

a? ii Yd   £l e1J  s1ni

 

~~;3~NVCIO .:10  NMOl

 

Doherty

ZBA#15-08

Page 4 of 4

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve the application  for the requested floor area ratio,

total side  yard, rear yard  and building height variances was presented   and moved  by Mr. Bosco,  seconded  by Ms.  Castelli   and carried  as follows: Mr. Bosco,  aye; Ms.  Salomon, aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   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 4, 2015

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTIUBUTION:

By~’–“—‘—–“   ;_-=-+,£…..1…,.£-=.!0..

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative  Aide

 

 

APPLICANT                                                                                TOWN CLERK

ZBA    MEMBERS                                                                            HIGHWAY     DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR                                                                     ASSESSOR

TOWN   BOARD   MEMBERS                                                    DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL TOWN  ATTORNEY                                                               MGMT.  and ENGINEERING DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY                                      FILE  ZBA  PB

OBZPAE                                                                                        CHAJRMAN,      ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR BUILDING     INSPECTOR-13.vW.     must  be changed I3e1i retired   changed     lo Glenn.

 

 

38\.:UO   S’>\’8310    NMOl

G“l zt lJd   £Z  <all SlUl

 

N·~Ol3~N\ft!O     30 NMOl

 

DECISION

SIDE YARD AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Matthew and Aleyamma Geevarughese

26 Fairview Lane

Orangeburg, New York 10962

ZBA#15-09

Date: February 4, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l5-09: Application of Matthew and Aleyamma Geevarughese for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 10′ required, 7’9″ proposed),  and 10 {Total Side Yard:

30′ required, 25′ 11″ proposed) for a carport at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 26 Fairview Lane, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on

the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.13, Block 4, Lot 13; RG zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Mathew and Aleyamma Geevarughese appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Architectural plans and site plan dated August 30, 2014 and revised December 27,

2014 signed and sealed by Armando Gasperin, Architect. (1 page)

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Matthew Geevarughese testified that they had to convert the original carport into a bedroom; that the house is a split level; that they have owned the house for thirty one years; that it is easier access to the house from the rear of the proposed carport; and that the property is oddly shaped.

 

 

301dd0  S)ll-1310  NMO!

~ at Wd    £Z  83~  5102

 

NJA013~NVHO  .:!O  Nh\01

 

 

 

Geevarughese

ZBA#lS-09

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 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. Other houses in the neighborhood have similar carports and the property is oddly shaped.

 

 

 

2. The requested 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. Other houses in the neighborhood have similar carports and the property is oddly shaped.

 

 

 

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 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. Other houses in the neighborhood have similar carports and the property is oddly shaped.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

30l:J:JO  S)fH310 NMOl

 

Si  zt lJd    £Z  Bl:l  SIDZ

 

JUA013~NVHO  .:10   NMO!

 

Geevarughese

ZBA#lS-09

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 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 butonly 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.

 

 

3oB:!0 ‘5)HB10 NMO!

o£ zi Lld    &&  EBJ  SlOl

..

.NM013~NVbl0 30 NMO.l.

 

Geevarughsese

ZBA#IS-09

Page  4 of  4

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested  side  yard and total side yard variances    was presented  and moved by Mr. Quinn,  seconded  by Ms.  Salomon and carried as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Ms.  Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms.  Castelli, 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  4, 2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING     INSPECTOR-M.M.

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGl-IWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.   and ENGINEERING

Fl LE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,    ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

301.:UO  g)!tl318    NN!Ol

 

tlt 21 lJd   £2  911 SlOl

 

.   ‘NM013~N\f~O    .:lO    NMOl

 

DECISION

SIDE YARD AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:  Meg Fowler (Rielly/Orefice)

688 Piermont Avenue

Piermont, New York 10968

ZBA #15-10

Date: February 4, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#lS-10: Application of Rielly/ Orefice for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 5.2l(Undersized lot applies), R-22

District, Group I, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 18.33′ proposed) and 10 (Total Side Yard: 50′ required, 47.83’ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 124 Washington Spring Road, Palisades, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 78.18, Block 1, Lot 31; in the R-22 zoning district.

 

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

Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth,

 

Meg Fowler, Architect, and James Rielly appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Architectural plans dated August 15, 2014, signed and sealed by Margaret L.

Fowler, Architect. (6 pages)

2. A landscape site and planting plan dated 10/22/2014 signed and sealed by Daniel

Sherman, Landscape Architect.

 

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

 

 

 

Meg Fowler, Architect, testified that Luke and Jim purchased the long neglected

property and have been restoring it with respect to the historic value of the property; that they are proposing to convert a window on the side of the house to a door and to add a

carport at the side of the house; that in order to do this, they need a side yard variance for

1   ~feet.

 

 

 

Luke Orefice testified that they purchased the house on October 81112015;   that they have done a lot of research for period details of the house, colors, restoring the center hall stairs and even the landscape.

 

301:J:JO S)tH310 NMOl IC:llldd      £~  93~ SWl HA\Ol3~NVCIO  .:10   NMOl

 

Rielly/Orefice

ZBA#lS-10

Page 2 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 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. The applicant’s request is minimal and it is a reasonable request to park on the side of the property instead of in front of the house.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested 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. The applicant’s request is minimal and it is a reasonable request to park on the side of the property instead of in front of the house.

 

 

 

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 and total side yard variances are not substantial.

 

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.

 

 

301.:l.:!O   S)H:f 310    NM01 g~ ?;! lJd    £Z 9ll SWZ NM013~NVHO  .:!O  NMOl

 

Rielly/ Orefice

ZBA#lS-10

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 and total side yard variances  are APPROVED  with the Specific  Condition  that the basement  space shall not be occupied  as a separate  dwelling  unit; 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.:J.:JO S)IH310      NM01 ei Z·l LJd    E Z  9ld SUI! NM013DNVHO  :JO  NMO!

 

Rielly/Orefice

ZBA#15-10

Page 4 of  4

 

 

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

Castelli,  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 4, 2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN   ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-R.0.

By—-‘–LLL<‘-¥-‘”‘–=-=—=c….i-“‘-~ Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA, PB, ACABOR