Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS January  22. 2014

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:               JOAN  SALOMON PATRICIA   CASTELLI DANIEL  SULLIVAN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

ABSENT:                                   MICHAEL  BOSCO NANETTE   ALBANESE

 

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:

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

PUBLISHED   ITEMS DECISIONS

 

 

POSTPONED   ITEM:

 

EGGERS  AUTOMOTIVE

68.20 I 5 I 4; CO zone

AMENDMENT   APPROVED               ZBA#l3-85

 

 

NEW  ITEMS:

 

 

 

LEVESQUE                                            FLOOR  AREA  RATIO,                           ZBA#l4-05

78.17 I 2 I 48; R-40 zone                      FRONT  YARD,  SIDE YARD, AND BUILDING  HEIGHT

VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

PEARSON                                               TOTAL  SIDE YARD                               ZBA#l4-06

68.19 I 4 I 47; RO zone                         VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

CORNIELLE                                          FLOOR  AREA  RATIO,                          ZBA#l4-07

74.17 / 3 I 42; R-15 zone                      AND  SIDE YARD  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

CHES MAN                                            POSTPONED                                            ZBA#l4-08

69.18 I 2 I 9; R-15 zone

 

 

 

BRERETON/MESSINA LOT LINE CHANGE

68.16 I 4 I 30 & 31; RG zone

LOT AREA,  LOT WIDTH,                    ZBA#l4-09

REAR YARD,  TOTAL  SIDE YARD, AND ACCESSORY   STRUCTURE DISTANCE  VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

HOLIHAN

74.14 I 2 I 36; 15 zone

CONTINUED                                           ZBA#14-10

 

Minutes

Page 2 of2

 

 

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:  BNM Properties  Site Plan; 37 Ramland  Road,  Orangeburg,  NY;   76.08 I 1I6;  LIO zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED, to request to be notified by the Planning Board of SEQRA 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 carried, the meeting was adjourned at 9:30 P.M.

 

Dated:  January 22, 2014

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

By~

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR (Individual Decisions) Rockland County Planning

Administrative Aide

 

DECISION

 

 

AMEDMENT TO ZBA #12-72 APPROVED WITH SPECIFICCONDITIONS

 

To: William Eggers

11 Prospect Avenue

Woodcliff Lake, New Jersey 07677

ZBA#  13-85

Date: January 22, 2014

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#13-85: Application of  Eggers Automotive LLC, requesting the Zoning Board of

Appeals (ZBA) to amend the ZBA’s prior Decision, dated 10/17/2012, regarding ZBA #

12-72, so as to allow the Applicant to rent/lease U Haul motor vehicles, with no greater

than three rental/lease U-Haul motor vehicles to be parked on the subject premises at any time. The premises are located at 88 South Main Street, Pearl River, New York and identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.20, Block 5, Lot 4; CO zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

William Eggers and Janice Ganley appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Survey dated June 30, 1978 by Decker, Dillin and Sorace, P.E.
2. Hand drawing of the site showing where the trucks would be parked.
3. Zoning board of Appeals Decision #12-72 dated October 17, 2012.

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chair, 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 seeks to construct or expand a primary or accessory/appurtenant Non-residential structure or facility involving less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area and not involving a change in zoning or a use variance and consistent with local land use controls; this 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. Salomon and carried as follows: Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco and Ms. Albanese were absent.

 

 

 

William Eggers testified that he would like to rent U-Haul vehicles because this would help him to stay in business; that he started out servicing the vehicles and U-Haul asked if he would like to rent vehicles; that he could make approximately $10,000 a year doing

this and it would help him to stay in business; that it is an extension of the business that he is in; that he would like to have three U-Haul vehicles available to rent; that there are

times that he could also be servicing U-Haul vehicles; that other times a one way rental may be dropped off at his shop and picked up within a couple of days; that the lot is large enough to accommodate the vehicles and that this accessory use would help him while he is establishing bis car repair business.

 

Eggers

ZBA#13-85

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 amendment  to ZBA#  12-72 is granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health, safety and welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant,  for the following reasons:

 

The proposed  accessory  use  as described  and represented  by the applicant:

 

 

1. Will be appropriately  located  with respect  to transportation,   water  supply, waste disposal,  fire and police  protection  and other public  facilities.
2. Will not cause undue  traffic  congestion  or create a traffic  hazard.
3. Will not create at any point of determination   set forth in §§4.16, 4.17 and 4.18 any more  dangerous  and objectionable   elements  referred  to in § 4.11 than is characteristic   of the uses  expressly  permitted  as of right in the same district.
4. Will not adversely  affect the character  of  or property  values  in the area.
5. Will not otherwise  impair  the public  health,  safety,  morals,  convenience,  comfort, prosperity  and other  aspects  of the general  welfare  of the town.
6. Will comply with all other regulations  applicable  to such use. For all special permit  uses, a proposed  plan  showing  the size and location  of the lot, design  and location  of the proposed  facilities  (including  access  drives,  screening  and streets within  1,000 feet), and a detailed  description  thereof,  must be submitted  in accordance  with the rules prescribed  by the Board.
7. The Board has instructed  the applicant  to submit such plan  (described  in #6

above) to James  Dean,  Superintendent   of Highways,  Town of Orangetown,   for his approval.

8. Before any special permit  is granted,  the applicant  must secure  approval  of the proposed  drainage  structure by the Town  Engineer  or the consulting  engineers  for the Town  of Orangetown.  The drainage  criteria  for special permit  uses shall be the same  as the drainage  criteria  in the Highway  Specifications   of the Town of Orangetown   and the Orangetown   Subdivision  Regulations.  The special permit

shall also require  that, where  it is not practical  to install  permanent  drainage

facilities  prior to the completion  of the work  for which  the special permit  is granted,  it will be necessary  for temporary  drainage  structure  to be provided  so that all surrounding  properties  are protected  from flooding  hazards  during construction  of the project  for which  the special permit  is issued. No permit  shall be issued  by the Inspector  unless  and until a drainage  plan approved  by the Town Engineer  and/or  consulting  engineers,  shall be filed with the Inspector.

9. The Zoning  Board has instructed  the applicant  to submit  a drainage  plan

(described  in #8 above) to the Orangetown  Department   of Environmental

Mana?ement   and Engineering   (“?EME”)    for approval.               .     1.                  l~””‘l;)     Nff.01

I 0. The site development plan subnutted must show that concret_s)!$idelWaik~lliid

curbs, to be constructed in accordance with the specifications of,;¥  ~°\~–OZ \11:1  hlfil

Orangetown, are to be provided.                                            ‘Zt ~ _-:   Wa

–  -i~·1’ti·,_10 ;iO MMOl

NM.0.L=>vl’• ~  o

 

 

 

11. The Zoning Board has waived the sidewalk  and curbs requirement  (described  in

#10) because  there have never been  sidewalks  in this area and no construction  is taking  place  on the lot.

 

 

 

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

Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  amendment  to the Special

• Permit granted in ZBA#12-72  to allow the applicant  to rent/lease  U-Hanl  motor vehicles, with no greater than three rental/lease  U-Haul  motor vehicles  to be parked  on the subject premises  at anytime;  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”   ~or ~e    _  r ~.tll

purposes  hereof.                                                                                             3:~H:i0 S’A’113 i~        N –

 

~  Zl \.JJ    OZ \B3  Lifl1

—                ·~[“;·.

=-·-“”‘

• ~ 0 I…, n ..n-n:i.O :10 NNtJJ..

R~\   .i:

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  amendment  to the Special  Permit  granted  in ZBA#12-72  to allow the applicant  to rent/lease  U-Haul  motor vehicles,  with no greater than three rental/lease  U-Haul  motor vehicles  to be parked  on the subject premises  at anytime;  was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows:  Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco and Ms. Albanese 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: January 22, 2014

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRJBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-M.M.

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

;~H.:UO S>!B310 NK<\01

zt Zl  lJd    0 2 filj litHZ

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOORAREA RATIO,FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:     Shawn Levesque and Sara Pir

14 Swan Street

Palisades, New York 10964

ZBA#  14-05

Date:  January 22, 2014

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#14-05: Application of  Shawn and Sara Pir Levesque for an amendment to ZBA#

13-31; which granted variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning)of the code oftheTown of Orangetown, Section 3.12, R-40 District, Group E, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .15 permitted, .20 granted, .23 proposed), 8 (Front Yard: 50′ required, 29.8′ and 37.2′ existing & 30′ granted), 9 (Side Yard: 30′ required, 19.8′ existing, 17.8′ proposed to second floor overhang) and 12 (Building Height: 23.25′ permitted, 24.25′ existing, and

29.33′ granted) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are

located at 14 Swan Street, Palisades, New York and are identified on the Orangetown

Tax Map as Section 78.17, Block 2, Lot 48; R-40 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Shawn Leveque Sarah Pir Levesque and Donald Brenner appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Architectural plans dated !April 1, 2013.revised 10/31/2013 signed and sealed by

Kier B. Levesque, Architect.

!

 

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chair, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and earned 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. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Ms. Albanese and Mr. Bosco were absent.

 

 

 

 

Donald Brenner, Attorney, testified that the family has lived in the house for many years; that they have two children aged 9 and 11; that they came before the Board and received variances for the proposed addition; that the addition was started and the applicant decided that they should fill in the second floor with much needed closet space and also

to move the laundry room to second floor; that these proposed changes do not effect the site plan; that the overhang on the second floor does change the setback because it is

measured from that proposed overhang and the changes do increase the floor area ratio slightly.

 

Levesque

ZBA#14-05

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. 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 floor area ratio, front yard, 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 and these are minor changes from the previously approved variances granted in ZBA#13-31, dated May 15, 2013.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, front yard, 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 area and these are minor changes from the previously approved variances granted in ZBA#l3-31, dated May 15, 2013.

 

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, front yard, 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 and these are minor changes from the previously approved variances granted in ZBA#13-3 l, dated May 15, 2013.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

ZBA#l4-05

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, front yard, 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.

 

 

 

..,,!\,     1JO

S’ll831Ci .Nb\01

,:Evl.:,L.…;            ,.

2& zr lJd   0z fi11 Iillll

 

r{rt.OL3.~NvBO .:iO  NN\Ol

 

 

ZBA#14-05

Page  4 of  4

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  floor area ratio, front  yard, 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. Ms. Albanese  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:  January 22, 2014

 

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.

By~~4L-!.44.4L-!-t.Lt:.-,E.~ Deborah Arboli  o Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCE  APPROVED

 

To: Margaret Pearson

105 Elwin Street

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA#  14-06

Date: January 22, 2014

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#14-06: Application of Margaret Pearson for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning) of the code of the Town of Orangetown, Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Column 10 (Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 25.67′ proposed) for the addition of a deck to an existing single-family residence. The property is located at 105 Elwin Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.19, Block 4, Lot 47; RG zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Margaret Pearson appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Architectural plans dated 11/2512013 signed and sealed by Robert Hoene, Architect.

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chair, 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. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco and Ms. Albanese were absent.

 

Margaret Pearson testified that she has owned the house for forty years; that her husband built the deck in 1985; that he passed away in 1999; that the house is for sale and she is before the Board to legalize the deck that has not change since it was built in 1985.

 

 

zt ZI Lid    02 Hll mtl

 

,NJl’,Qlj~N¥”d0  .:10  tiNWl

 

Pearson

ZBA#l4-06

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.  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 variance  will not produce  an undesirable   change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The deck has existed  since  1985 without  incident.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested total side yard variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The deck has  existed  since  1985 without  incident.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  total side yard variance  is 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.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  total side yard variance   was presented  and moved by Mr. Feroldi,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms.  Castelli,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco  and Ms. Albanese  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:   January  22, 2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  ME.1v1BERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDJNG INSPECTOR-R.A.O.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

 

3~tbW S)!B3lO  ~mun

zt l!  Lid    OZ BJ:i  hlfiZ

 

NM013DN’Vl:W  .::10   Nh\01

 

DECISION

 

FLOORAREA RATIO AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:  Jorge and Elba Cornielle

102 Princeton Drive

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA#  14-07

Date: January 22, 2014

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#14-07: Application of Jorge and Elba Comielle for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Orangetown, Section 3.12. Group M, Columns 4 (Floor Area ratio: .20 permitted, .22 existing.. 238 proposed), and 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 18.3′ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 102 Princeton Drive, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.17, Block 3, Lot 42; R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, January 22, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Jorge and Elba Comielle appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Architectural plans dated 10/1112013signed and sealed by Jorge L. Lopez, Architect. (3 pages)
2. Survey dated October 28, 2013 by Robert Sorace, PLS.
3. Three letters from abutting property owners in support of the application.

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chair, 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. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco and Ms. Albanese were absent.

 

 

 

 

Jorge Cornielle testified that they would like to add two small additions to the existing house; that the upstairs addition would enlarge the master bathroom, which is quite small; that the second addition to the first floor would extend the dining room; that they have owned the house for thirteen years; that there arc seven members of the family and they need a little more space.

 

Cornielle

ZBA#14-07

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 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 and 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  floor area ratio  and 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  floor area ratio and 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.

 

Comielle

ZBA#14-07

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   Inview of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested floor area ratio and 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.

 

Cornielle

ZBA#14-07

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  floor area ratio and side yard 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. Bosco  and Ms. Albanese  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:   January  22, 2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-B.vW.

By~~

Deborah  ArclillO

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

 

DECISION

 

LOT  AREA,  LOT  WIDTH, REAR  YARD,  TOTAL SIDE  YARD  AND ACCESSORY  STRUCTURE  DISTANCE VARIANCES  APPROVED

 

To:  Sarah Brereton

53 N. William  Street

Pearl  River, New York  10965

ZBA # 14-09

Date:   January  22, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l 4-09: Application  of  Brereton/Messina    Subdivision  plan for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  of the code of the Town of Orangetown,   Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Columns  5 (Lot Area:  10,000 sq. ft. required,  7,444 sq. ft. existing   & 9,495 sq. ft. proposed  for lot #31),   6 (Lot Width:  75′  required,  56′  proposed  for lot #31). 9 (Rear Yard: 25′  required,  10.7′  existing  for lot#  30) and 10 (Total  Side Yard:  30′ required,

28. l’ proposed) and from Section  5.227 (Accessory  Structure  :  5′ from property  line required,  3′ & 2′ proposed)  for a lot line change,  no new construction).  The premises  are located  at 53 & 55 North Williams  Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.16, Block 4, Lots 30 & 31; RG zoning  district.

 

 

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

Wednesday,   January  22, 2014 at which  time the Board made  the determination hereinafter   set forth.

 

 

 

Jack  and Sharon  Messina  and Peter  and Sarah Brereton   appeared  and testified.

Jack Messina  disclosed  that he is a member  of  ACABOR  in the Town of Orangetown, The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Plans labeled  “Z.B.A.  Appeal  Lot Line Change  for Brereton  & Messina   dated

09/09/2013  with the latest revision  date of  1210212013  signed and sealed by

Robert  E. Sorace,  PLS. (1 page)

2. Certificates  of Occupancy  dated August  27,  1956, August  7, 1959,  and August

24, 2006.

3. A copy of a building  permit  dated December  3, 1958 for a two-car  garage  at 55

No. William  Street.

 

 

 

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  since the Planning  Board noticed  its intent to· declare itself Lead Agency  and distributed  that notice  of intention  to all Involved  Agencies,  including  the ZBA who consented  or did not object to the Planning  acting  as Lead Agency  for this  application,  pursuant  to coordinated  review

under the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act Regulations   §617 .6 (b) (3); and since

the Planning  board  determined  that no significant  adverse  environmental   impacts  to result from the proposed  land use  action  (I.e., a ”Negative Declaration”   or “Neg Dec”),  the

ZBA is bound by the Planning  Board’s Neg Dec and the ZBA cannot require  further

SEQRAreviewpursuantto   SEQRARegulations     §  617.6 (b) (3). The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:  Ms. Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms.  Castelli,  aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco  and Ms. Albanese  were  absent.

 

J a~k Messina  testified  that they would  like to sell a wedge  of their property  to ~      -.1:i.0  s )i tJ 310  Nm0 l

neighbors’   the Brereton’s’; that the wedge  of property  also has the garage that was 6mlt

in 1949 on it; that the existing  house has a n:vo car gar~ge that was built in 195~@~d          OZ ffi~IJW

 

ex~hange  of property  does _not detra~t anything  from his l~t and adds a garage tOhi~  -_   ,

,     •                 •                 , _ ~O

 

neighbor  and the property  m rear going to the Brereton’s’  is 79.41 feet.               NM~Ol.:i~N1 ‘lf bO .:iO  ~iN    1

 

Messina/  Brereton

ZBA#l4-09

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  OFF ACT 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 width,  lot area, rear yard, total side yard and accessory  structure distance  variances  will not produce  an undesirable   change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  There is no new construction planned  for the application  and the lot line change  exchanges  a slice of property  and an accessory  structure  that has existed  since  1949.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested lot area, lot width,  rear yard, total side yard and accessory  structure distance  variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  There is no new construction  planned  for the application  and the lot line change  exchanges  a slice of property  and an accessory  structure  that has existed  since  1949.

 

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  variances  are not substantial.

 

 

 

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject to Orangetowu’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.

 

 

tt  ZI  Yd    OZ fBj fil!Z

• • M “‘i 4 ‘\l’fi/’d0 .-.rn Nft\Ol

ftft’\V—        v  •

 

 

Messina/  Brereton

ZBA#14-09

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 lot area, lot width, rear yard, total side yard and accessory structure distance 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.

 

 

 

 

30L:UO SYH310  Nl~Ol

 

 

 

 

NM013DNvtlO dO NMOl

 

 

 

Messina/  Brereton

ZBA#14-09

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  lot area, lot width, rear yard, total side yard, accessory  structure  distance  variances   was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:   Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco  and Ms. Albanese  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:   January  22, 2014

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEi\1BERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-NA

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

By/Jk~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

3G1~30 S’J!B318  Nf.1\01 ss ~~ lJd    oz \Bj   ltTUZ N~\Ol3~NvBO :.10  Nfli.01