Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS June  1. 2016

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:           DAN SULLIVAN PATRICIA  CASTELLI MICHAEL  BOSCO THOMAS  QUINN JOAN  SALOMON

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

 

 

ABSENT:                                     NONE

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:                     Dennis  Michaels,  Esq.

Ann Marie Ambrose,

Deborah Arbolino,

Deputy Town Attorney Official Stenographer Administrative Aide

 

 

 

 

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

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

noted below:

PUBLISHED ITEMS APPLICANTS                                   DECISIONS

 

NUNEZ

4 Legends Boulevard

West Nyack, NY

69.07/ 1I10.2;  R-80 zone

FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES APPROVED

ZBA#16-42

 

SEVENTH DAY ADVENTIST CHURCH SIGN

210 North Middletown Road

Pearl River, N.Y.

69.09 I 2 I 52; R-15 zone

SIGN SIZE AND LOCATION VARIANCES APPROVED

ZBA#16-43

 

MCSHARRY

77 Buchanan Street

Pearl River, NY

68.14 I 2 I 15; R-15 zone

FLOOR AREA RATIO,                    ZBA#16-44

SIDE YARD,

TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED AS MODIFIED

 

DELLOLIO

72 Hickory Street

Blauvlet, NY

70.15 I 1I10.1;  R-15 zone

CONTINUED                                    ZBA#16-45

 

REYNOLDS

75 Douglas Court

Pearl River, NY

69.09 I 5 I 38; R-15 zone

CONTINUED                                    ZBA#16-46

 

 

MCKENNA                                        FLOOR AREA RATIO,                   ZBA#16-47

9 Marycrest Road                               SIDE YARD, REARY ARD AND

3″l’.-l-‘:l

Pearl River, NY                       C:”~t-:it’ti(\ij..~~CESAPPROVED AS

69.07 I 1  /24; R-40 zone 1   _, —     ‘·’   ·-    .                       •  .     :M’d:DIP’Eb

6S TL lJ8    02  Nnr  9102

 

Page2

 

 

 

 

O’RIORDAN

63 Campbell  A venue

Tappan,  NY

77.11  / 2 / 81.2;   R-15 zone

REAR  YARD  VARIANCE                  ZBA#16-48

APPROVED   WITH CONDITION

 

 

 

 

 

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  environmental    review  of actions  pursuant  to SEQRA Regulations§     617.6 (b)(3) the following   applications:

Organic  Recycling  Site Plan,  121Route33,      Orangeburg,  NY 74.19/1/3;    LI zoning

district;   RRIS Corp.  Site  Plan  Hotel Plan,   1   Route  340,  Orangeburg,  NY 74.11/2/26;     CC zoning  district;   Kreiger  Minor  Subdivision  Plan  -2 lots;   27  Sunrise  Lane,  Pearl  River, NY 68.18  / 3  / 43; R-15  zoning district;      and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  to request   to be notified  by the Planning  Board of SEQ RA proceedings,  hearings,  and determinations

with respect  to these matters.

 

 

 

 

THE DECISIONS  RELATED  TO THE ABOVE  HEARINGS  are inserted herein  and made part of these minutes.

 

The verbatim  minutes,   as recorded  by the Board’s  official   stenographer  for the above hearings,  are not transcribed.

 

There being  no further  business   to come before  the Board,  on motion  duly  made, seconded  and carried,  the meeting  was adjourned  at  10:30   P .M.

 

Dated:   June  1, 2016

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING    INSPECTOR    (Individual     Decisions) Rockland County Planning

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TBOyWwN~~~TOWN

 

 

 

 

Deborah  Arbolino,   Administrative   Aide

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Angel and Patricia Nunez

4 Legends  Boulevard

West Nyack, New York  10913

ZBA #16-42

Date: June  1, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#  16-42: Application  of  Angel  and Patricia  Nunez  for a variance  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, R-80 District,  Group A, Column  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  10% permitted,  12% proposed)  for a finished  basement  at an existing  single• family  residence.    The premises  are located  at 4 Legends  Boulevard,  West Nyack,  New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 69.07, Block  1, Lot  10.2; R-80 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  June  1, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

Angel  Nunez  and Glen Lumina,  Creative  Designs,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Survey dated 03/24/2015  signed and sealed by Edward  T. Gannon,  P.L.S ..
2. Architectural  plans dated 01/26/2016  with the latest revision  date of 03/16/2016 signed and sealed by Robert  J. Murphy,  Architect.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Angel Nunez  testified  that they have owned  the house  for  ten years and there are three people  in the family; that the existing  first floor has a kitchen,  dining room  and library; that the existing  second floor is bedrooms  and the basement  is the only area for the proposed  gym, wine storage  and theatre.

 

 

 

Glen Lumina,  Creative  Designs  testified  that they are proposing  to finish the existing basement  with open entertaining  space; a gym, home theatre,  wine storage, bar and utility room.

 

 

 

 

 

 

6S  11  Wt!    oz Nnr  91U2

…. ,   ,….       .    –·,     ..

l ; !.~ :_; J. -·  j         I •            ‘               ,_.-·         _;…..     •  ·.   i.’   ·- —

 

Nunez

ZBA#16-42

Page2  of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

Jesse Shannon,  115 Sickletown  Road, representing  Manhattan  Woods,  testified  that Mr. Nunez  is a good neighbor  and he has no objections  to the finished  basement;  that the only concern they would have would be concerning  water drainage.

 

The Board members  made personal  inspections  of the premises  the week before  the meeting  and found them to be properly  posted  and as generally  described  on the application.

 

A satisfactory  statement  in accordance  with the provisions  of Section  809 of the General

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all the documents  submitted,  the Board found and concluded  that the benefits  to the applicant  if the variance(s)  are granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health,  safety and

welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant, for the following  reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested  floor area ratio variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  The footprint  of the building  is not changing,  the existing  basement  space is being utilized  as recreational space for the family.

 

 

 

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.  The

footprint  of the building  is not changing,  the existing  basement  space is being utilized as recreational  space for the family.

 

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.     The footprint  of the building  is not changing,  the existing  basement  space is being utilized  as recreational space for the family.

 

 

 

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  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.

 

 

 

 

‘:!.’v.)t.,t.'(‘) ……..

,…..        t.1i10           I

s~l\?””1·~’

1                                                              r\1:\     –

 

ss tr LJtJ     02  Nnr  srnz

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   June  1,   2016

 

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~~:.f,,L..:.~:::…:::-1–7cz…,~ Deborah  Arbolmo Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

6S ll  LlB   02   NOf’  9102

• r-       •I             ‘r,  j

 

.  ‘,.~         {”  ‘ J       .     ‘

 

I  ‘.r.\    /    

-,    1

l   —     •····—

 

DECISION

 

 

SIGN  SIZE  AND SIGN  SETBACK   VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To: John Halsey  (Seventh  Day Adventist  Church)                  ZBA #16-43

38 Island Road                                                          Date: June  1, 2016

Mahwah,  New Jersey   07430

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#16-43:  Application  of  Seventh  Day Adventist  Church  for a variance  from Zoning Code (Chapter  43)  of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Section  3.11, refers to R-80, Part II, Column  5 #12 (Sign size: 20 sq. ft. permitted,  35.4′  sq. ft. proposed

[  17.5′ per side]) and (sign set back:25′  required,  1′ 6″ proposed)   for a two-sided  church

sign.

The premises  are located  at 210 North Middletown  Road, Pearl River, New York and

are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   69.09, Block 2, Lot 52; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  June  1, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

John Halsey  and Lloyd Scharffenberg,   Secretary  and Pastor appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan with proposed  sign plan labeled  ” Sign Installation  Pearl River Seventh Day Adventist  Church  signed  and sealed by John Halsey,  Architect,  dated November   18, 2015. {lpage)
2. A letter dated May 23, 2016 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

3. Seven 8″ x 1 O”   color pictures  of other signs in the immediate  area.

 

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 seeks to construct  or expand  a primary,  or accessory  or appurtenant,  non-residential structure  or facility involving  less than 4,000  square feet or gross floor area, and not involving  a change in zoning  or a use variance  and consistent  with local land use controls,  this application  is exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQRA),  pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.5 (c) (7); which  does not require

SEQRA  environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:   Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye; and Mr.

Sullivan,  aye.                                                                                                                           Cf

 

 

 

 

:—._,

-\

.:::.:::>

-~

c)

 

 

 

0

John Halsey testified that he is a member of the church and it is a small congregatioh;

that the existing sign has been in its present location since 1998; that it is old and th~

letters need to be changed manu~l~y;th~t they would like to install this more mode~1si~

O?

c.._

c::

:=::::

N

a

 

and take advantage of the new digital sign that manages messages and announcem~ts   f–‘

r.1

 

more efficiently; that this sign was selected by the church members and it has two -.:.!      :-       -i

components, the planter box which is 33″ high brick planter box that is set back furthergt    -~ from the road than the previous sign; and the electronic display sign that can have                 ;;::: changing messages each week with the single line ofletters with the church name; that

 

 

the sign was designed  to sit above snow level; and the number  210 will also be on the

sign for the address;  that when the sign was selected  they did not realize that both sides of the sign counted  in measurement   and thought  they were complying  with the 20 sq. ft.

rule; that they did not realize  that the 17 Yi sq. ft. sign was counted  twice because  it is

double  sided to be able to see it coming  north or south;  that he has several pictures  of larger signs in the area; that the church building  sits back only 25′  from the property  line; and the new proposed  sign will be further off the road than the existing  sign; and the sign will not be scrolling  or flashing  any messages.

 

 

 

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  sign size and sign setback variances  will not produce  an undesirable change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The new proposed  sign is being located  in the same as area as the previous  sign for the church and is not intrusive.  The location  and size of the proposed  sign will allow the church to be easily identified  from the roadway,  without  interfering  with traffic  flow.

 

 

 

2. The requested  sign size and sign setback   variances   will not have an adverse  effect

or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district. The new proposed  sign is being located  in the same as area as the previous  sign for the church  and is not intrusive.  The location  and size of the proposed  sign will allow the church to be easily identified  from the roadway,  without  interfering  with traffic flow.

r … :;

-I        ~-:.,

0    ~

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasib~  fo12;:

the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.                                      o       z

r-       N

r::     C)

 

r

r~

4. The requested  sign size and sign setback  variances,  although  somewhat  substahtial,§§ afford  benefits  to the applicant  that is not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any,i~  the; : health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community,  r-        ~~; The new proposed  sign is being located  in the same as area as the previous  sign1 fofci      ::~ the church  and is not intrusive.  The location  and size of the proposed  sign will allow

the church to be easily identified  from the roadway,  without  interfering  with traffic flow.

 

 

 

 

 

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  sign size and sign setback variances  are APPROVED  and to override  the disapproval  from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Planning  letter dated May 23, 2016; 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.

n

:i  r, 1      .i .1  —      r- ”  \ 1    T! 8     !\\ 0 l

.;’        …….         ,                       *        …

es 111~8     oz  Nnr grnz

‘  .   ‘~  ·-.   i

 

: ‘~   i; i,_J   .:.     ~~-    :  ~,    :   .,    –  ‘    ~·

~      •-‘  t: ••••.      ,…,,,    _:-

 

Seventh  Day Adventist  Church  Sign

ZBA#16-43

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the  requested  sign  size  and sign setback  variances   are APPROVED   and to override  the disapproval    from the County of Rockland  Department  of Planning  letter  dated May 23, 2016;     was  presented  and moved by Ms.  Salomon,   seconded  by Ms.  Castelli    and canied  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye;  Ms.  Castelli,   aye;  Ms.  Salomon,   aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,   aye.

 

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

 

DATED:    June  1,  2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING     INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENT    AL

MGMT.  and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

J’J\

-l-i‘I .

0,1,13\’J     Mf,\01

 

ss 11. Ll’d    oz Nnr 9lffl

.          .  .  ,.    :’)I

r   l ..   ~ v

1~ i,\ 0.:..:.}…,.'”‘···  “‘”‘,  :.i)   \.1 ..   —

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR AREA  RATIO AS MODIFIED  TO  .26, SIDE  YARD,  TOTAL SIDE YARD  AND BUILDING HEIGHT  VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:  Thomas  and Beth McSharry

77 Buchanan  Street

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#16-44

Date: June  1, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#16-44:  Application  of  Thomas  and Beth McSharry  for  variances  from  Zoning

Code (Chapter  43)  of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Group M, Section

3 .12, Columns  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .20 permitted,  .265 proposed),  8 (Front Yard:  30′ required,  29′  proposed:  Eliminated  as unnecessary  due to project modification),   9 (Side Yard: 20′  required,  13′ proposed),  10 (Total  Side Yard:  50′ required,  26. 7′ proposed)  and

12 (Building  Height:  13′ permitted,  23.8’  proposed)  for an addition/  alteration  and demolition  to an existing  single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 77

Buchanan  Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 68.14, Block 2, Lot 15; in the R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  June  1, 2016 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

Jonathan  Hodash,  Architect,  Thomas  McSharry   appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Architectural  plans dated March 28, 2014 with the latest revision  date of January

12, 2016 signed  and sealed by Jonathan  Hodash,  Architect.  (9 pages)

2. A letter dated May 24, 2016 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

3. A letter dated May 6, 2016 from the Rockland  County  Sewer District No.! signed by Joseph  LaFiandra,  Engineer  II.
4. A letter dated April 28, 2016 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Healrt-h._,

Division  of Environmental   Health signed by Scott McKane,  P .E., Senior f:Ybli~

Health  Engineer.                                                                                                   ;:::       c_

c:=

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-l

• .)

 

()               z

r·

r::         N

Mr. Sullivan,   Chairman,  made a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which motion  wa?

seconded  by Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.                                                    c·J        :J.)

C’          3

 

(,:-) On advice of Dennis Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  $..ardm      :..:: Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board  determination   that the foregoing  application  is   –• a Type II action exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA),

pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations  §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or  (13); which  does not require  SEQRA  environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:   Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

Jonathan  Hodash,  Architect,  testified  that the existing  house was built in 1958 and it is a very small cape cod style house  with tiny rooms;  that the layout of the house  is outdated; that the McSharrys’   purchased  the house in 2007 and would like to expand  it; they are proposing  to remove  some of the house  and build an addition  and live in part of the existing  house while the construction  is taking place;  that they are expanding  the living

 

Mcsharry

ZBA#16-44

Page2  of  4

 

space and adding  an additional  bedroom;  that they would like to use the existing foundation  and make a six foot deep front porch in the front of the house; that the house does not sit straight  on the lot and they could make the porch  five foot wide and eliminate the front yard variance  request;  that reducing  the porch by 108,5 sq. ft. reduces  the requested  floor area ratio to .26 and may change the side yard to about  13 Yi foot.

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

Kathleen  Pietanza,  5 Van Buren testified  that she is a neighbor  on the side of the

McSharry’  s and she is not opposed  ; that all of the houses  were originally  small capes and many of the houses  in the neighborhood  have already been expanded  and she would like

to see her neighbors  stay because  they are good neighbors.

 

 

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 as modified  to .26, side yard, total side yard and building  height variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The front porch has been reduced  from six-foot  wide to five-foot  wide and this reduction  has eliminated  the necessity  of the front yard variance  and reduced  the floor area ratio to .26. The side yard setback may also increase  to 13 Yi feet from  13.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio as modified  to .26,  side yard, total side yard and building  height variances   will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  .  The front porch has been-..:; reduced  from six-foot  wide to five-foot  wide and this reduction  has eliminatedahe    ~

yard setback may also increase  to 13 Yi feet from  13. o z   f-;. N   – C)

necessity  of the front yard variance   and reduced  the floor area ratio to .26. Th~.,,..i…de:-c::

 

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.                                     er.      ~

0

.,       ~

-:1         ._.

4. The requested  floor area ratio as modified  to .26, side yard, total side yard an~        tci building  height   variances,  although  somewhat  substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.     .  The front porch

has been reduced  from six-foot  wide to five-foot  wide and this reduction  has

eliminated  the necessity  of the  front yard variance   and reduced  the floor area ratio to

.26. The side yard setback may also increase  to 13 Yi feet from  13.

 

 

C)

‘·I

—

-!

C)

-~-:

 

McSharry

ZBA#l6-44

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  floor area ratio variance  as modified  to .26, and side yard, total side yard and building  height  variances,  are APPROVED;  and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon shall become  effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption by the Board of the minutes  of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

(ii) Any approval  of a variance  or Special Permit by the Board is limited to the specific variance  or Special Permit requested  but only to the extent  such approval  is granted

herein and subject to those conditions,  if any, upon which  such approval  was conditioned which are hereinbefore   set forth.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition  imposed  should, in the sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,  a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement which legally permits  such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

3 0 l.::!.:l O   S : ” ~   J 1 8  N Ii\ 0 l

6S  TI  lJH   02  N1ir    srnz

 

McShany

ZBA#16-44

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   floor area ratio variance  as modified  to .26,  and 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. Quinn,  aye;  Ms. Castelli,  aye;  Ms.  Salomon,   aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,   aye.

 

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

 

DATED:   June  1,  2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING Fl LE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

321.:l’

S ‘l’l·~r -:r  i~J

u11·,.·\o·1   –

 

 

6S 11 tJ8   02  n1li    9lUZ

 

J

I’                 ‘     ••            :        –             ‘

I  ~  j  •   •  .r _‘….

 

DECISION

 

SIDE  YARD,  REAR  YARD,  AND BUILDING   HEIGHT  VARIANCES APPROVED    AS MODIFIED

 

To: Barry McKenna

9 Marycrest  Road

Pearl River, New York  10913

ZBA #16-47

Date: June  1, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#16-47:  Application  of  Barry McKenna  for  variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43)  of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-40 District,  Group E, Section  3.12, Columns   4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .15 permitted,  .16 proposed),  9 (Side Yard:  30′ required,  15′

proposed),  11  (Rear Yard:  50′ required,  12’6″  proposed  to pool,  15′ proposed  to cabana) and 12 (Building  Height:  10′ permitted,  12’9″  proposed)  for an in-ground  pool and cabana at an existing  single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 9 Marycrest Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section

69.07, Block  1, Lot 24; in the R-40 zoning  district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  June  1, 2016 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

Kier Levesque,  Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Survey and Architectural  plans dated December  31, 2015 with the latest revision date of April  12, 2016 (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  do~ot~            -l

require  SEQRA  environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castellfsnd   ~

carried as follows:   Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Qumn, ~;

and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.                                                                                                      ~      ~       c~ ·~

r:   C)

,,-·.

Kier Levesque,  Architect,  testified  that  the applicant  has expressed  a desire to pl~e   tffi  c) pool and cabana as far away from the house  as possible  to have a grassy area for !fle ~:        ~-i to play; that they chose to tuck the pool and cabana in the southeast  property  corner  c.:i       2:

because  it is heavily  planted  and fenced already  that if they conformed  to the rea{iyarcJ:.O and side yard setback the pool would be too close to the house  and need a variance  for that set back; that they have paid a lot of attention  to the property  line and have added a berm  and planted  it with  12 to 15 foot trees; that many of the large trees that were on the property  before  the house  was built were dead; that they were not in violation  for removing  trees and they have added a lot of screening;  that he can take five feet off the length of the proposed  cabana reducing  it to 340 sq. ft., a reduction  of 85 sq. ft.; that they will move the pool to meet the 20′  rear yard setback  eliminating  that variance  but the cabana would be moved  to 22 Yi’ from the rear yard and 20′  from the side yard and

would require   variances;  that the reduction  in the cabana  also reduces  the floor area ratio

variance  to .157.

 

McKenna

ZBA#16-47

Page2  of  4

 

Public Comment:

 

Leonard  Marsigliano,   1   Hogan  Lane, West Nyack,  NY testified  that he is an abutting property  owner  and has been negatively  impacted  by this proposal;  that having  a structure

7 Yi’ from his property line in one-acre zoning is terrible; that the pool would fit into the

required setbacks; that there is plenty of room in the backyard; that he wants to know

where the filtration system will be and asked about a lighting plan; and wanted the cabana rotated toward their house for noise control.

 

 

 

Maureen Marsigliano, 1  Hogan Lane, West Nyack, NY, testified that it is wonderful that some people can afford to build a palace but respect should be shown for the original owners; that they deserve some privacy from these giant structures that have removed all the trees from the property; that these new people come in and take over and this doesn’t really fit into the neighborhood.

 

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 as modified to .157, 20′ side yard, and 22 Yi’ rear yard to the cabana, variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar pools and cabanas have been installed in the neighborhood. The rear yard variance for the pool and the building height variance for the cabana have been eliminated. The cabana has been reduced by 85 sq. ft., reducing the requested floor area ratio to .157 and the pool and cabana have moved to change the requested side yard to 20′ and rear yard to 22 Yi’.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, side yard and rear yard variances, as modified, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar pools and cabanas have been constructed in the neighborhood. The rear yard variance for the pool and the building height variance for the cabana have been eliminated. The cabana has been reduced by 85 sq. ft., reducing the requested floor area ratio to .157, and the pool and cabana have moved to change the requested side yard to 20′ and rear yard to 22 Yi’.

 

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

 

 

 

 

38l:HO S”~EJT) N/AOl

 

6S  Tl   wtJ   02   NOP  9lD2

 

Mc Kenna

ZBA#16-47

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

4. The requested   floor area ratio,  side yard, and rear yard variances,  although  somewhat substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,

if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood  or nearby community.    Similar pools  and cabanas  have been  constructed  in the neighborhood. The rear yard variance  for the pool and the building  height  variance  for the cabana have been eliminated.  The cabana has been reduced  by 85 sq. ft., reducing  the requested  floor area ratio to .157, and the pool and cabana have moved  to change the

requested  side yard to 20′  and rear yard to 22 Y2′.

 

 

 

 

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 floor area ratio (.157), side yard (20′), and rear yard (22 Y2 ‘),   variances, as modified, 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.

.:JV:~~    . .ll,~      .                      ._J    ,..         ;  .. \     –

!   r-,  I    f    .  I    ·\      ;””\  ‘  :  ‘  f  :1  “l ‘)   i.! 1.’  0 !

 

oo 21  tJd    02  Nnr   grnz

 

McKenna

ZBA#l6-47

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

(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   floor area ratio (.157),   side yard (20′),   and rear yard (22 Yz  ‘),      variances,  as modified   was presented  and moved by Mr. Quinn,  seconded  by Mr. Bosco   and carried  as follows:  Mr. Bosco,   aye;

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

 

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

 

DATED:   June  1,    2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY DEPUTYTOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-G.M.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

381~:1)      ~’1\i310    Nf1\0l

00 Zl  lJd    oz Nnr  9lUZ

1.·.·;r··,o , i – J:ji.   :~J .:Jt   ;::.’.C.L

 

\,         ,_.

 

DECISION

 

REAR YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:   Gerald and Erner O’Riordan

63 Campbell Avenue

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA #16-48

Date: June 1, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#16-48: Application of Gerald an Erner O’Riordan for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43)  of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District, Group M, Section 5.227 (Rear Yard: 20′ required, 11′ proposed) for an in-ground pool at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 63 Campbell Avenue, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.11, Block 2, Lot 81.2; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 1, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Erner and Gerald O’Riordan and Lenny Lesin, Penguin Pools, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Site plan with proposed pool drawn on it and pool specifications.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye;

and Mr. Sullivan, aye.

 

 

 

Lenny Lesin, Penguin Pools, testified that in order to minimize the requested variance for the rear yard the O’Riordan’s have opted for a 18′ wide pool; that they have removed a lower deck and stairs to accommodate the pool; that the rear property line runs on an angle and this adds to the problem; that there are no neighbors to the rear of the house; that there is retention pond owned by the town in the rear of the property; and that the house has a full basement and has never had water in it; and the neighbor that is concerned about the water lives uphill from the house..

 

Erner O’Riordan testified that they have owned the house for eleven years and there are five in the family.

 

 

 

 

 

oo 21  tJd    oz Nnr  grnz

 

O’Riordan

ZBA#16-48

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

Lois Graney,  75 Campbell  Avenue,  Tappan,  testified  that she lives next door to the O’Riordans’    and the property  slopes  down to them; that there is a 50 to 75′ drainage  ditch and a 3 acre drainage  lake on Paul Court; that she bought  her house  is 1968 and when the O’Riordan’s   built their house they brought  in a lot of fill and she had run-off  and she is concerned  about how the pool will compromise  her property.

 

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 property  at the rear of the subject property  is owned by the Town  of Orangetown  and cannot be developed.

 

 

 

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 property  at the rear of the subject property  is owned by the Town  of Orangetown  and cannot be developed.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  rear yard 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.    The property  at the rear of the subject property  is owned by the Town  of Orangetown  and cannot be developed.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

3 8 l.:U o  S\’.’~318 iH.\Ol

00 zt hld     02   Nnr  9lUZ

 

D ; :  ,   ..•.

• … ,           1      .~     ‘  •••       {‘.     I

i’,.i ,·_·,  r, -l- -.:::                                  J  .:.; ·.;   r…  i …,·..:..

,\”””         -·

 

O’Riordan

ZBA#l6-48

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 specifically  conditioned  upon the Orangetown  Department  of Environmental   Management  and Engineering  determining  the applicant’s   plans for

the construction  of the in-ground  pool, and any appurtenant  structures,  will result in a zero net increase  in surface water runoff to neighboring  properties;  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.

 

 

 

 

00 zi \J•dI            0 J   Nu”uI’ Oli··i

G               J   ~v

 

O’Riordan

ZBA#16-48

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   rear yard  vanance specifically   conditioned  upon the Orangetown  Department  of Environmental

Management  and Engineering  determining   the applicant’s  plans  for the construction  of

the in-ground  pool,   and any appurtenant  structures,  will result in a zero net increase  in surface water runoff to neighboring  properties;   was presented  and moved by Ms. Salomon,   seconded by Ms.  Castelli   and carried  as follows:  Mr. Bosco,   aye;   Mr.  Quinn, aye;  Ms.  Castelli,   aye;  Ms.  Salomon,   aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

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

 

DATED:    June  1,    2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

By~

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING    LNSPECTOR-M.M.

Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING

F!LE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,    ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

..   ..   )       .,..,     [l”(\1

1l,1    ,\     (j’ i :’  :’\ ‘1 ..          ~     j        I  • l ..  v  —

 

r”

1. 1. ..   \…•         •