Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 1. 2015

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:      DAN SULLIVAN JOAN SALOMON

LEONARD FEROLDI, ALTERNATE PATRICIA CASTELLI

THOMAS QUINN

 

ABSENT:                           MICHAEL BOSCO

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:               Dennis Michaels, Esq.

Ann Marie Ambrose,

Deborah Arbolino,

Deputy Town Attorney Official Stenographer Administrative Aide

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS APPLICANTS                              DECISIONS

 

 

 

POSTPONED ITEM:

 

BERSON

15 Lt. Crawford Court, Blauvelt, NY

69.16 I 3 I 1.5; R-40 zone

• 3.11, COLUMN 2 #7, TOTAL SIDE YARD,
• § 4.51 TWO FRONT DOORS

AND 4.52 NO EXTERIOR CHANGE FOR LOCAL LAW #7 VARIANCES APPROVED WITH COVENANT

 

 

 

NEW ITEMS:   YOUNG	FRONT YARD VARIANCE	ZBA#15-54
9 Summit Place Nanuet, NY	APPROVED
64.18 I  1 I 48; R-15 zone
CARTY 18 Lombardi Road Pearl River, NY	FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#15-55
69.09 I 1I7; R-15 zone
NEUBAUER 96 Lenape Road	FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#15-56
Pearl River, NY
73.05  I 1I33;   R-15  zone
ALBANESE 12 Green Hedges Lane	REARY ARD VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#15-57
Blauvelt, NY
70.09 I 3 I 9; R-14  zone

 

Minutes

Page2

 

 

ANDREOZZI 126  E. Washington Avenue Pearl River, NY 68.16  I 6 I 23; RO zone	SIDE  YARD,  TOTAL  SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED	ZBA#15-58
DONOHUE 28 Liberty Road Tappan,NY 77.05 I 3 I 23; R-15 zone	POOL WAS MOVED 20′ SIDE YARD 20′ REAR YARD NOV ARIANCE REQUIRED	ZBA#15-59
BNM PROPERTIES 3 7 Ramland Road	BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#IS-60
Orangeburg, NY
76.08 I 1  I 6; LIO zone

 

 

 

 

OTHER BUSINESS:

 

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

One Ramland Road Site Plan Amendment -Generator, 1  Ramland Road, Orangeburg, NY; 73.20  I 1  I 24; 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 canied, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.

 

Dated: July 1,   2015

 

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

Deborah Arbolino, Administrative Aide

 

 

 

 

:JOl.:1.::JO    S~J~EJlO    NMOl

8~   IJ   w8   or  1nr sraz

 

Nlt\Ol3VNv(JO     30    NltiOl

 

DECISION

SECTION   3.11, R-80  COLUMN   2 #7 VARIAN  CE;  TOT AL SIDE  YARD, SECTIONS       4.51 & 4.52 VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:    Donald  Brenner

4 Independence  A venue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA#lS-28

Date: July  1, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#lS-28:   Application  of  Barry Berson  for variances  from Chapter  43, R-40 District, Group E, Column  10 (Total  Side Yard:  80′  required,  76.4′  proposed);  Section  3.11 refers to R-80 District,  Column  2 #7 (Conversion  of a detached,  owner-occupied,   single-family dwelling  so as to add 1   additional  dwelling  unit clearly subordinate  to the main  1-family use to occupy  not more than 600 square feet of floor area:  844 sq. ft. proposed)  and from Sections  4.51 (there shall be only one front door: two doors proposed)  and 4.52 (there shall be no significant  exterior  change  and no new structures  built on the property  within

the past  1 O  years so as to create an additional  dwelling  unit; and  addition  is proposed)  for

Local Law #7 owner occupied  for 2°d dwelling  unit for in-laws.  The premises  are located at 15 Lt. Crawford  Court, Blauvelt,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  69.16, Block  3, Lot 1.5 in the R-40 zoning  district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  July  1, 2015 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

Barry and Marsha  Berson  and Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Copy of site plan (1  page).
2. Architectural plans labeled Berson dated April 7, 2014 with the latest revision

date of May 8, 2015 signed and sealed by Jonathan Hodash, Registered Architect

(6 pages).

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was ·

seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

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

 

Barry Berson testified that he and his wife have owned the house for 18 years; that they would like to use one of the existing garages and some space inside of the house to accommodate his mother-in-law; that he would like to add the additional garage onto the house because he has three cars and has always had the three car garage that his mother – on-law is 79 years old and cannot go up and down the stairs and this space would accommodate her and an aide; that they will file a covenant and that they have no problem removing the second kitchen when his mother -in-law no longer needs it.

 

 

/ ~01.:l.:!O  SY.H310    NM©l

B~  !!WH   or  1nr   5IOZ

 

NMOl3~NVCJO  .:10 Nlt\Ol

 

 

ZBA#15-28

Page2  of  4

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  testified  that the neighbors  do not have any objections  to the addition;  that there will be two front doors but one will not be visible  from the street; that the proposed  apartment  will be 831 sq. ft. and the Bersons’  have no problem  filing the covenant.

 

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 Section 3.11, Column 2 #7, Total Side Yard and Sections 4.51 and

4.52 variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the applicant has agreed to remove the stove when Marilyn Seitles is no longer using it.

 

 

 

2. The requested  Section 3.11, Column 2 #7, Total Side Yard and Sections 4.51 and

4.52 variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the applicant has agreed to remove the stove when Marilyn Seitles is no longer using it.

 

-I	~	-I
C>	……..	0

3. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means fealiblelQr  ~

 

the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances.                            ~     ~

r-      …..,.

rn o

::::::-:

.0,,

0

7-J

 

4. The requested Section 3 .11, Column 2 #7, Total Side Yard and Sections 4.~ ando   ~

4.52 variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the appli~t@,       ~ are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfamof~   ·                   ~ surrounding neighborhood or nearby community.  The proposed addition ~in   ..c: ·             ::E keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the applicant has agreed to co     :z remove the stove when Marilyn Seitles is no longer using it.

 

 

 

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#l5-28

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  Section  3.11, Column  2

#7, Total  Side Yard and Sections  4.51 and 4.52 variances  are APPROVED  with the Specific  Condition  that the property  owners  must  execute  and record  a covenant required  by Zoning  Code  § 4.51 to be prepared by the Town Attorney with County Clerk recording fees to be paid by the applicants; the 831 sq. ft. dwelling is to be occupied only by the applicant’s mother-in-law Marilyn S. Seitles (DOB-

08/25/1935); 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.:L:I 0  S)!tl310  NM©l

Bh 11 w~    01 1nr s102

NA\013 e NV’ci 0  .:IO  Ni~Ol

 

Berson

ZBA#l5-28

Page  4 of  4

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application   for the requested  Section  3 .11, Column  2 #7,  Total  Side Yard and Sections  4.51   and 4.52 variances  was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,   seconded  by Ms.  Castelli  with the following  specific  conditions: and carried  as  follows:   (1) that the property  owners must  execute  and record  a covenant required  by  Zoning  Code§    4.51   to be prepared  by the Town Attorney  with County Clerk recording  fees  to be paid by the applicants;  (2) the 831  sq.  ft.  dwelling  is  to be occupied only by the applicant’s  mother-in-law   Marilyn  S.  Seitles  (DOB-08/25/1935);     (3)  the stove shall be removed  when the applicant’s   mother-in-law   no longer  resides  in the space; and carried as  follows:   Mr.  Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye; Ms.  Castelli,  aye;  Ms.  Salomon,

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

 

 

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

 

DATED:   July 1,   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.A.0.

By….,,…._,~.i<…..:…~    ;~,.!..><:l~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

 

 

301.:J.:JO   S)!~310     NMOl

8~  II wH    o I 1nr srnz

 

NMOlJvrH’JO   .:10  Nl<\Ol

 

DECISION

FLOOR AREA RA TIO AND FRONT YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:    William and Lois Young

9 Summit Place

Nanuet, New York 10954

ZBA#15-54

Date: July 1, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#15-54: Application of William and Lois Young  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, .245 proposed) and 8 ( Front Yard: 30′ required, 20′ proposed) for a front porch addition at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 9 Summit Place, Nanuet, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 64.18, Block 1, Lot 48; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

William Young appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Plans labeled” Proposed 60 sq. ft. Exterior Portico Addition for 9 Summit Place, Nanuet, NY. (10 pages).
2. A letter dated June 26, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

3. A letter dated June 30, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..

4. A letter dated June 18, 2015 from the County of Rockland Sewer District No. 1 signed by Joseph LaFiandra, Engineer II.

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

William Young testified that he would like to add a front porch to the house; that it totals approximately 60 sq. ft.; that his existing floor area ratio is .239 and it will be .245 with the addition of the porch; that he also need a front yard variance because the existing house does not have a 30′ front yard and with the porch the front yard will be 20′ instead of the required 30′; and that the house across the street has a front porch and 11 and 13

Villa Drive both have similar front porches.

 

 

 

 

 

301.:l.:JO   SYH31~ N!t\01

Sh n  WI:!      o I  1nr  srnz

 

NA\Ol3~NVLIO jQ   NMOl

 

Young

ZBA#IS-54

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 and front 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 front 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. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

 

 

4. The requested floor area ratio and front 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.

 

 

 

301:1.:IO  S)f H3la  NMOl

8~  ~!lJI:!   or 1nr  sruz

NMOl3fJN’VLJO   .:JO   NA10l

 

Young

ZBA#lS-54

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 and front 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.

 

 

 

301.:J.:JO  S)!H310 NMOl

Sh  1 r WH   or 1nr   srn2

 

NM0!3DN’v’ci0  .:IQ  Nh\01

 

 

 

Young

ZBA#l5-54

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   July 1,  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.

By+–4’~~:    ==–=-_……~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

 

301.:J.:!O   S\iH310    NMOl

6~  ~! !J8    01   1nr   SIOZ

NM 013 D i~ v lJ 0 .:! 0  N iii 01

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Cliff and Kathy Carty

18 Lombardi  Drive

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA#15-55

Date: July 1, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#15-55: Application of Cliff and Kathy Carty for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .218 proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 18 Lombardi Drive, Pearl River,

New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.09, Block 1, and

Lot 7; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Cliff Carty appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Copy of site plan (1 page).
2. A hand drawing of the proposed addition.

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

Cliff Carty testified that they would like to enclose the existing deck for a sunroom; that the sunroom will be flush with the house and not wrap around; that there will be a small landing and steps down into the rear yard; and that they do not need a side yard variance.

 

 

 

301.:1.dO   S)nJ31~  NMOl

Sh  I 1 w~    o ! 1nr s102

 

NM013DNVUO  ~O N/i\01

 

Carty

ZBA#lS-55

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested floor area ratio variance 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.

 

 

 

301.:L:!O  S>!H310  NMO!

Sh  n Wl:!      o 1 1nr  s102

 

Nlt\013 ~HJVU 0  .:W  Nh\01

 

Carty

ZBA#15-55

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 variance is APPROVED; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that such decision and the vote thereon shall become effective and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption by the Board of the minutes of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, in the

sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement which legally permits such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

301~d0  S)PBlQ  NM01

6.h tr w~    or 1nr   s102

NN\013 o Nvd 0 .:I 0  Nh\Ol

 

 

 

Carty

ZBA#15-55

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:     July 1,    2015

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS TO\IVN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN   ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-M.M.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

By~[}_~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY     DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

 

301.:l.:lO  s;rn::i10 NMOl

6h  11  lJ!j    o I 1nr  srnz

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR  AREA RATIO VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Jonathan Hodash (Neubauer)

60 So. Main Street

New City, NY 10956

ZBA#lS-56

Date: July 1, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l 5-56:Application of Ray and Regina Neubauer for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, . Column 4(Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .22 proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 96 Lenape Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 73.05, Block 1, Lot 33; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Samantha Moscardelli from Jonathan Hodash Associates, and Ray Neubauer appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

 

 

1. Architectural plans labeled “The Neubauer Residence” dated March 21, 2015 with the latest revision date of March 26, 2015 signed and sealed by Jonathan Hodash, Registered Architect (7 pages).
2. Two letters in support of the application.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Ray Neubauer testified that they are proposing to add a second floor over the existing garage for a master bedroom and bath; and that they are expanding in the rear of the house to make the kitchen larger and they are moving the front door over and adding a portico over it; that there was a previous addition built for his dad because his dad has Alzheimer’s and they need to watch over him; that there are several similar additions in the area, one on Ellis and two more on Lenape and five or six houses have pushed out in the back.

 

 

 

 

301,j.::10 S>!H310   NMOl

s~ !!WH   01  1nr  s102

 

NM013DNVuO  so N/rtOl

 

Neubauer

ZBA#lS-56

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested floor area ratio variance is not substantial. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

301.:L::JO  S>!H310   NMOl

 

6h Ir Wl:l      OI 1nr 5102

 

Nh\0!3DNY’CJO  .:W NA\Ol

 

 

 

Neubauer

ZBA#lS-56

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 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.

 

 

 

30l=l=IO  S){H310 N/t\01

Sb  rt w~    o I  1nr   s102

NM0!3~NVUO so Nh\01

 

 

 

 

Neubauer

ZBA#15-56

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:    July 1,   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.A.O.

By~~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN, ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

 

30l.:J.:JO   S~.JtJ3lO    NMOl

6~  !I lJt!     0 I   1nr   SIOZ

 

NMOl30Nvi:iO    .::JO   NMOl

 

DECISION

 

 

REAR YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Anthony and Tracey Albanese

12 Green Hedges Lane

Blauvelt, New York 10913

ZBA#lS-57

Date: July 1, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#lS-  57: Application of Anthony and Tracey Albanese for a variance from (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-40 District, Group E, Column  11

(Rear Yard: 50′ required, 39′ proposed) for a deck at an existing single-family residence.. The premises are located at 12 Green Hedges Lane, Blauvelt, New York and

are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.09, Block 3, Lot 9; in the R-40

zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Anthony Albanese appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Survey plan with deck drawn on it. (1 page).
2. Deck plans (6 pages).
3. Four letters from abutting property owners in support of the application.

 

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

 

On advice of De1U1is Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

 

 

 

Anthony Albanese testified that he would like to build a deck off the rear of his house; that the house was built in 1968 and the existing patio and concrete steps are rotting away; that he would like to replace them with a deck that would go out to the existing pool; that the deck is 14′ wide at the jog out and 16′ wide after that; that it will run the width of the house; that the house is zoned R-40 but he has paper work showing that it was R-22 and was changed to R-40 in 1967; that the lot is very undersized for the R-40 zone; that the Erie Railroad is behind the house; and that the property is pie shaped.

 

 

 

301.:l.:!O  S~Hf 310  NMOl

 

6~  I! (Jf:!    0 I  lnr 5IOZ

 

NMOl3DNvtlO .:HJ  Nfr\Ol

 

Albanese

ZBA#l5-57

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 rear yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The lot is undersized and oddly shaped.

 

 

 

2. The requested rear yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The lot is undersized and 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 a variance. The lot is undersized and oddly shaped.

 

 

 

4. The requested rear 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.

 

301.:1.:10   S~!H31a NMOl

6~   ~-~ lJH      or  1nr srnz

NMOl3~NV’;;;JO   .:IO Nh\Ol

 

Albanese

ZBA#l5-57

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   rear 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.

 

 

 

 

301.:ldO S~HJ31~ NMO!

 

6h II (J~   0 I· lnr  5102

 

NM0!3~NVt!O .:!O  Ni1\0l

 

Albanese

ZBA#15-57

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:  July 1, 2015

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.0.A.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

By~f}d~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

381.:UO  ~L~~318   NMOl

Sh 11 wt!     01  1nr  srn2

NM 0 l 3 D N v ti 0 .:l 0 r-U:i0 l

 

DECISION.

 

 

SIDE YARD, TOT AL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT  VARIANCES

APPROVED

 

To: Terri Andreozzi

126 East Washington Avenue

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA#15-58

Date: July l, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#15- 58: Application of Terri Andreozzi 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) 10 {Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 19.4′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 10.5′ permitted, 21′ proposed) for an addition to an

existing single-family residence.. The premises are located at 126 East Washington

Avenue, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as

Section 68.16, Block 6, Lot 23; in the RG zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Terri Andreozzi and Andy McKeon, Contractor, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans labeled 126 E. Washington Ave, Pearl River, NY dated May

8, 2015 signed and sealed by Clifford A. Herbst, P.E.. (2 pages).

 

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

 

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

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

 

Terri Andreozzi testified that the house is a small cottage that was built in 1938 and

hasn’t had any updates since then; that she had one child when she moved in and now she

has two children; that they are proposing to bump out the dormer in the second floor and

add two bedrooms and a bathroom; that the rest of the house would be updated at the same time; that the lot is undersized because it is only 50′ wide and should be 75′ wide; and that the lot is long and narrow.

 

 

301:1.:tO S>!H310   NMOl

 

Sh tt tJ\:!     o 1 1nr  s102

 

NM013 CW1t!O .:10   Nf1\0l

 

 

ZBA#15-58

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 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 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 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.

 

 

 

 

 

30f:l:JO S~H310  NMOl

s~ ~! LJH   or  1nr srn2

 

NM013DNV”b0    .:10  NhWl

 

 

ZBA#lS-58

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  side yard, total side yard and 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.:HO  S)~H310NMOl

6~   ~! WH    0 r 1nr  5IUZ

NA\013DN\1~.W :10 NMOl

 

Andreozzi

ZBA#15-58

Page 4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  Resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard,  total side yard and building  height  variances was presented  and moved by Ms. Castelli,   seconded

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

 

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

 

DATED:   July 1,   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.

By-“-“”‘bA’=-==::..=…–‘-“–+,,.<~=><.

Deborah Arbo ino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,     PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

301.:J.:IO   S.!lJ3lO     NMOl

6~   ~I L.H:J      DI   1nr    5102

 

N Arn l J D NV li O .:1 O  N Iv\ ol

 

DECISION

 

APPLICANT  MOVED POOL -NO VARIANCE REQUIRED

 

To: Kathleen Donohue

28 Liberty Road

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA#l5-59

Date: July 1, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#l 5-59:Application of Kathleen Donohue for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 1 O’ proposed) for the installation of an above• ground pool at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 28 Liberty Road, Tappan,, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section

77.05, Block 3, Lot 23; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Kathleen Donohue and her son Sean Donohue appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy  of site plan with pool drawn on it. (1 page)

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

Kathleen Donohue testified that she has five kids and would like to install the pool for their pleasure; that the property is hilly and she has a small deck 3′ x 5′ on her side entrance and would like to install the pool there; that her neighbor doesn’t want the pool there; that the pool would be too expensive to install in the rear yard because of the slope of the property; that she would like to go home and measure to make sure that it would fit in that comer without too much digging because the kids are paying for the pool; that she and her son measured and it could move it into the comer of the property and meet the

20′ side yard requirement and 20′ rear yard.

 

 

 

 

301:1:10  S~H310 NMOl

 

Sh II Wl:l      OI 1nr SI02

 

NMOl3~HJvbO  .:10   Nh\Ol

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Mr. Joseph Kosofsky testified that he has lived in his house for 46 years; that the objects

to the pool being placed 1 O’ from his side yard because it is intrusive; that it forces him to give up his privacy; that his bedroom is above his garage which is on that side of the property; that the building department file did not have certificate of occupancy for the sliding door or the deck; and that he would not object if the pool was moved into the rear yard with a twenty foot side yard.

 

Donald Brenner testified that he is representing Mr. Kosofsky, the abutting property owner and is objecting to the location of the pool in the side yard; that it should be installed in the rear of the house; that the Building Inspector should be asked to check if this can be done differently; and that his client has no objection to the new proposed location with the 20′ side yard.

 

 

 

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:

 

1. The requested side yard variance will not be necessary because the applicant is relocating the pool to the rear side yard and it will be located with a 20′ side yard and a 20′ rear yard; therefore no variance is necessary.  ·
2. There was discussion with the Deputy Town Attorney regarding the required rear yard for an above-ground pool, and he advised that a 20′ rear yard was the regulation for an in-ground pool only; and since this is an above-ground pool, he suggested that the Board grant a rear yard variance, if they so choose.

 

 

 

30ldd0  S)HJ310 NM©!

Sh 11 w~    ct 1nr  s102

NM013~HNUOso N/i\01

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested side yard variance was withdrawn  when the pool was relocated to a 20′ side yard and, 20′ rear yard, and,. as advised, the Board acknowledged a 20’setback (which may or may not require a variance), and APPROVED it for the proposed above-ground pool; 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.:L:!O S>!~31a  NM01

 

Bh  11  WH   01   1nr   s102

 

NM013DifiUO   so  Nh\Ol

 

 

Donohue

ZBA#15-59

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  Resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  side yard variance was withdrawn  and the requested  20′ rear yard setback  and related  variance  (if required) was presented  and moved by Mr.  Quinn,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon    and carried  as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   aye;  Ms.   Salomon,   aye; and Mr. Sullivan,   aye.  Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

 

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

 

DATED:   July  1,   2015

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS TO\VN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TO\VN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    TNSPECTOR-G.M.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

By(d~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

301.:J.:10   S)1~310     NMOl

s~ !! w8  or  1nr srnz

 

NM013~N\iu0     JO ~Ui\Ol

 

DECISION

 

BUILDING HEIGHT VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

To:  Jane Slavin (BNM Properties)

200 Erie Street

Blauvelt,  New York  10913

ZBA#15-60

Date: July  1, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l  5-60:Application   of  BNM Properties  for a variance  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.12, LIO District,  Group BB, Column  12 (Building  Height:  22′  permitted,    50′ 4″ proposed)   for an amendment  to ZBA#l4-56.

The premises  are located  at 37 Ramland  Road,  Orangeburg,  New York and are identified on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  76.08, Block  1, Lot 6; in the LIO zoning district.

 

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  July  1, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

Jane Slavin, Architect  and John Piccininni  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Copy of site plan ( 1  page)  signed  and sealed by Jane Slavin, Architect.
2. Architectural  plans not dated signed  and sealed by Jane Slavin, Registered

Architect  (1 page).

3. Zoning  Board of Appeals  Decision  #14-56  dated July  16, 2014.
4. A memorandum   from Jane Slavin explaining  the need for the extra height.

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town  Attorney,   counsel  to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board  determination   that 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  board  acting  as Lead Agency  for this application,  pursuant  to coordinated review  under the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA),  pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning  board  conducted  a SEQRA

review  and, on June  11, 2014, rendered  an environmental   determination  ofno   significant

adverse  environmental   impacts  to result from the proposed  land use (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  SEQRA  review  pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulation§   617.6

(b)(3). The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried  as follows:   Ms. C~tel~          ~

(“)                             .,,

aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  ay~r.c:….      ~ Bosco was  absent.                                                                                                          :z:    p    0

r        ._,.

 

~    C)   ~

Jane Slavin, Architect,  testified  that John Piccininni  came before  the Board pre~~:ms~for~

variances  on July 14, 2014; that since then they realized  that the structure  that tke            ~

previously  designed  addition’s   slab was below  the existing  slab of the building  ~d   tSt ‘.                 ~

the previous  design  did not take into account  the existing  building  floor elevati~or   tlle·   =::

structural  requirements   for the proposed  addition;  that the existing  proposed  floor     c.o    z

elevation  is at 92′-0″  the previously  approved  is at 88′-0″,  a four foot difference;  that the previous  floor to ceiling height was 24′  and the applicant  requires  a 30′  floor to ceiling clear height,  a difference  of six feet; that he previous  design had a 1′ structure  for 2nd floor  and roof framing  and the actual design requires  a 4’6″  structural  system  for the 2nd

floor, which means  a three foot six inch difference;  that the structural  system  for the roof

framing  is 3′  6″, which means  a two feet six inch difference;  these differences  total 16′

 

BNM Properties

ZBA#lS-60

Page 2 of 4

 

 

 

difference due to the previous design deficiencies; and the they have reworked the grading to provide a gradual slope that helped to reduce the difference from 16′ to 14

10″ with minimal impact on the site and reducing the extent of the required exterior stairs; and that the dedication of the road reduces the side yard from 82′ 6″ to 17’ 6″.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 building height variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Other buildings in the area are of a similar height.

 

 

 

2. The requested building height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Other buildings in the area are of a similar height.

 

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 building height variance, 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.

 

 

30f.:L:f0  S)P:f 310 NMOl Sh  tr w~   or  1nr  srnz NM013DNVUO   so Niv\01

 

 

BNM Properties

ZBA#lS-60

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 building height 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 deparbnent 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.:L:f  O  S>PBlO NMOl

 

OS  II lJH   01  1nr  5102

 

NM013DNV~l0    .:W  NMOl

 

BNM Properties

ZBA#15-60

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:    July  1,   2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING TNSPECTOR-R.O.

 

BY,,,<4.o<….l….:..W:….:::’-=’–=-f~~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR