Michael Bosco
Term till:
December 31, 2024
Meeting - Zoning Board June 15, 2011 (View All)
Overview
Documents
Meeting Members
| Date | Name | Group(s) | Type | Approved | File |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 06/15/2011 | Zoning Board June 15, 2011 | Zoning Board of Appeals | Minutes |
Meeting Members
Meeting Support
Meeting Overview
| Scheduled: | 06/15/2011 7:00 PM |
| Group(s): | Zoning Board of Appeals |
| Location: |
| Documents | Type | File |
|---|---|---|
| Zoning Board June 15, 2011 | Minutes |
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
JUNE 15, 2011
MEMBERS PRESENT: WILLIAM MOWERSON
JOAN SALOMON
NANETTE ALBANESE
PATRICIA CASTELLI
THOMAS WARREN, ALTERNATE
ABSENT: DANIEL SULLIVAN
ALSO PRESENT: Dennis Michaels, Esq. Deputy Town Attorney
Ann Marie Ambrose, Official Stenographer
Deborah Arbolino, Administrative Aide
This meeting was called to order at 7: 00 P.M. by Mr. Mowerson, Chairman.
Hearings on this meeting’s agenda, which are made a part of this meeting, were held as noted below:
PUBLISHED ITEMS
APPLICANTS DECISIONS
CONTINUED ITEMS:
MARKS/GARVEY POSTPONED ZBA#11-02
75.13 / 1 /2; R-40 zone
NEW ITEMS:
KWON SIDE YARD AND ZBA#11-43
77.10 / 3 / 33; R-15 zone REAR YARD VARIANCES
APPROVED
BRENNAN REAR YARD ZBA#11-44
68.14 / 4 / 20; R-22 zone VARIANCE APPROVED
MEEHAN SIDE YARD (15’) AND ZBA#11-45
74.17 / 4 / 18; R-15 zone REAR YARD (12’) VARIANCES
APPROVED
CARROLL SIDE YARD (15’) AND ZBA#11-46
74.18 / 1 / 18; R-15 zone REAR YARD (15’) VARIANCES
APPROVED
HERAGHTY POSTPONED ZBA#11-47
68.15 / 2 / 60; R-15 zone
PARAKKATTU SIDE YARD (21’) AND ZBA#11-48
73.20 / 1 / 7; R-22 zone REAR YARD (41.5’) VARIANCES
APPROVED
MORGAN’S PUB POSTPONED ZBA#11-49
77.10 / 3 / 17; CS zone
REEVES SIDE YARD (7 ½’) VARIANCE ZBA#11-50
77.10 / 2 / 66; R-15 zone APPROVED
ADDITIONAL BUSINESS:
In response to requests from the Orangetown Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals: RESOLVED, to approve the action of the Acting Chairperson executing on behalf of the Board its consent to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) coordinated environmental review of actions pursuant to SEQRA Regulations § 617.6 (b)(3) the following applications: Bond Minor Subdivision: re-approval of final subdivision plan; 210 North Main Street, Pearl River, New York, 68.12 / 6 / 50; RG zone; Schuyler Associates LLC Subdivision Plan, 45 Schuyler Road, Blauvelt, NY, 65.15 /1/ 7; R-40 zone Edge Landscaping Site Plan Amendment; 25 Greenbush Road, Orangeburg, NY; 74.11 / 1/ 13; LI zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED, to request to be notified by the Planning Board of SEQRA proceedings, hearings, and determinations with respect to these matters.
THE DECISIONS RELATED TO THE ABOVE HEARINGS are inserted herein and made part of these minutes.
The verbatim minutes, as recorded by the Board’s official stenographer for the above hearings, are not transcribed.
There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 10:00 P.M.
Dated: June 15, 2011
DECISION
SIDE YARD, AND REAR YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Robert Kwon ZBA # 11-43
55 Charles Street Date: June 15, 2011
Tappan, New York 10983
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
ZBA#11-43: Application of Robert Kwon for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, Group M, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 20’ required, 19’ proposed) and 11 (Rear Yard: 35’ required, 30’ proposed) for a deck at an existing single-family residence. Premises are located at 55 Charles Street, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.10, Block 3, Lot 33; R-15 zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Robert and Bohak Kwon appeared and testified.
The following documents were presented:
- Survey with proposed deck drawn on it.
- Deck plan.(3 pages)
Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson 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; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.
Robert Kwon testified that they presently have a concrete patio that they would like to cover with a wood deck; that they have grandchildren and would like to fix the yard up to entertain family; that the deck would be the same size as the patio and would cover it; that the contractor told them that the minimum size for a deck to hold tables and chairs and a grill would be sixteen feet wide; and that the proposed deck would look better than the old patio.
Bohak Kwon testified that the deck would create a nicer space to entertain the family; and that it would look prettier.
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. Mowerson 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:
- The requested side yard and rear yard variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar decks have been constructed in the area.
- The requested side yard and rear yard variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar decks have been constructed in the area.
- The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The applicant’s house is not centered on the property and in order to have a rear deck off the existing kitchen a variance request is unavoidable.
- The requested side yard and rear yard variances, although substantial, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area. Similar decks have been constructed in the area.
- 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 side yard and rear 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.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard and rear yard variances was presented and moved by Ms. Salomon, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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 Clerk.
DATED: June 15, 2011
DECISION
REAR YARD VARIANCE APPROVED
To: John Brennan ZBA # 11-44
50 Burdick Road Date: June 15, 2011
Pearl River, New York 10965
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
ZBA# 11-44: Application of John Brennan for an amendment to variances approved in ZBA#10-60; and from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12 R-22 District, Group I, Column 11 (Rear Yard: 45’ required, 36’ approved, 31’ proposed) for the construction of a deck at an existing single family residence.. The premises is located at 50 Burdick Road, Pearl River, New York an identified on the Orangetown tax Map as Section 68.14, Block 4, Lot 20; R-22 zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
John Brennan appeared and testified.
The following documents were presented:
- Survey with proposed deck drawn on it.
2.Deck plans (4 pages).
- Zoning Board Decision #10-60 dated October 6, 2010.
- A letter dated May 26, 2011 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning signed by Thomas Vanderbeek, Commissioner of Planning.
- A letter dated May 6, 2011 from the County of Rockland Department of Highways signed by Joseph Arena, Principal Engineering Technician.
Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson 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; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.
John Brennan testified that the original application for the deck did not leave enough room for the stairs; that he needs the additional space to include the staircase; that the proposed deck will be 16’ wide and 26’ long; and that he needs a 31 foot rear yard.
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. Mowerson 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. Similar decks have been constructed in the area.
- The requested rear yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar decks have been constructed in the area.
- 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 shaped like a trapezoid with a very narrow rear yard.
- The requested rear yard variance, although substantial, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area. Similar decks have been constructed in the area.
- 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 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.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested rear yard variance was presented and moved by Ms. Albanese, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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 Clerk.
DATED: June 15, 2011
DECISION
SIDE YARD (15’), AND REAR YARD (12’) VARIANCES APPROVED AS MODIFIED
To: Michael Meehan ZBA # 11-45
93 Hardwood Drive Date: June 15, 2011
Tappan, New York 10983
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
ZBA#11-45: Application of Michael Meehan for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, Group M, R-15 District, Column 9, (Side Yard: 20’ required, 12’ proposed) and from Section 5.227 (Rear Yard for Pool: 20 required, 12’ proposed) for the installation of an in-ground pool at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 93 Hardwood Drive, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.17, Block 4, Lot 18 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 15, 2011 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Michael Meehan and Mike Leone, Prestige Pools, appeared and testified.
The following documents were presented:
- Survey with pool drawn on it.
- Two pages of pool plans.
Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson 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; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.
Michael Meehan testified that they would like to install an in-ground pool in the rear corner of their property; that they would like to fence the pool separately from the rest of the yard and that is why they chose this area; that they have a patio in rear of the house and would not want the pool too close to the patio; that they would like to keep the other side of the yard for the kids to play and there are a few large trees in that area; that the house directly behind then is up on a hill and the house closest to the proposed pool has many trees and bushes between the two properties; that he does not have drainage easement of the property; that his neighbor does have one; that the pool sits higher and the slope for the water will remain; and that they can move the pool over three feet to allow a fifteen foot side yard.
Mike Leone, Prestige Pools, testified that by keeping the pool in that portion of the yard there is less grade to contend with; and that they could move it over three feet to increase the side yard.
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. Mowerson 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:
- The requested side yard as modified to 15 foot and rear yard variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar pools have been installed in the neighborhood.
- The requested side yard as modified to 15 foot and rear yard variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar pools have been installed in the neighborhood.
- The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The property is sloped in the rear yard and the area where pool is proposed has less of a slope than the rest of the yard.
- The requested side yard and rear yard variances, although substantial, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area. Similar pools have been installed in the neighborhood.
- 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 side yard as modified to 15’ and rear 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.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard as modified to 15’ and rear yard variances was presented and moved by Mr. Mowerson, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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 15, 2011
DECISION
SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Henry and Susan Carroll ZBA # 11-46
12 Mallory Lane Date: June 15, 2011
Tappan, New York 10983
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
ZBA#11-46: Application of Henry and Susan Carroll for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 9 ( Side Yard: 20’ required, 15’ proposed) and from Section 5.227 ( Rear Yard for Pool: 20 required, 15’ proposed) for the installation of an in-ground pool at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 12 Mallory Lane, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.18, Block 1, Lot 18 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 15, 2011 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Henry and Susan Carroll appeared and testified.
The following documents were presented:
- Survey with pool drawn on it.
- One page pictures of pools.
- One letter from a neighbor in support of the project.
Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson 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; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.
Henry Carroll testified that they would like to install an in-ground pool in the rear corner of their property; that the proposed location would give them enough clearance from the patio and still leave some yard for the two girls to play in.
Susan Carroll testified that the property slopes and the pool will not be completely in the ground; that she would like a 15’ side yard and a 15’ rear yard so that the pool is a safe clearance distance from the cement steps; and that the dog is very large and between the dog and the girls, she would like to make sure that the pool is separate from the rest of the yard.
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. Mowerson 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:
- The requested side yard and rear yard variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar pools have been installed in the area.
- The requested side yard and rear yard variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district Similar pools have been installed in the area.
- The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The area proposed for the pool is the least sloped area of the yard.
- The requested side yard and rear yard variances, although substantial, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area. Similar pools have been installed in the area.
- 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 side yard (15’) and rear yard (15’) 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.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard (15’) and rear yard (15’) variances was presented and moved by Mr. Mowerson, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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 Clerk.
DATED: June 15, 2011
DECISION
SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Kuriakose Parakkattu ZBA # 11-48
280 Brandywine Drive Date: June 15, 2011
Orangeburg, New York 10962
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
ZBA#10-48: Application of Kuriakose Parakkattu for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12 R-22 District, Group I, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 25’ required, 21’ proposed) and 11 (Rear Yard: 45’ required, 41.5’ proposed) for an addition to an existing single family residence. The premises is located at 280 Brandywine Drive Orangeburg, New York an identified on the Orangetown tax Map as Section 73.20, Block 1, Lot 7; R-22 zoning district
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 15, 2011 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Kuriakose Parakkattu appeared and testified.
The following documents were presented:
- Survey with sunroom drawn on it.
- Architectural plans dated 04/21/2011 signed and sealed by James A. Clancy, P.E.
- Revised survey with existing pool and sunroom drawn on it.
- Copy of Certificate of Occupancy for existing pool.
Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson 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; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.
Kuriakose Parakkattu testified that they would like to add a four season’s sunroom in the rear of the house; that the shape of the property is a pie shaped corner lot with two front yards and this is what causes the need for the variances.
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. Mowerson 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:
- The requested side yard and rear 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.
- The requested side yard and rear 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.
- The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The applicant’s property is a corner pie shaped lot with two front yards and the house was not built in the center of the lot.
- The requested side yard and rear yard variances, although substantial, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.
- 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 side yard and rear 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.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard and rear yard variances was presented and moved by Ms. Albanese, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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 Clerk.
DATED: June 15, 2011
DECISION
SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED AS MODIFIED
To: Anne Reeves ZBA # 11-50
23 Central Avenue Date: June 15, 2011
Tappan, New York 10983
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
ZBA#11-50: Application of Anne Reeves for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, Group M, R-15 District, Column 9, (Side Yard: 15’ required, 5’ proposed); ( Section 5.21 Undersized lot applies) for the installation of an above-ground pool at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 23 Central Avenue, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.10, Block 2, Lot 66 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 15, 2011 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Anne Reeves appeared and testified.
The following documents were presented:
- Survey with pool drawn on it.
- One letter of support by abutting property owner.
Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson 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; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.
Anne Reeves testified that she would like to install an above-ground pool in that area of her yard because it is the safest place to install it; that there are retaining walls in the rear yard and a paver patio; that she is afraid to install the pool too close to the paver patio because it may get ruined; that the rear portion of the yard below the existing retaining wall is used for physical therapy for her son; that there are flower boxes along the steps behind the driveway and she does not want to construct the pool too close to them because one of the kids may jump of them; that she moved the shed and she can draw its new location on the survey; and that she can move the pool over 2 ½ feet.
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. Mowerson 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:
- The requested side yard variance as modified to a 7 ½ ’ setback, will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar pools have been installed in the area.
- The requested side yard variance as modified to a 7 ½’ setback. will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar pools have been installed in the area.
- The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining a variance. The applicant’s lot is undersized.
- The requested side yard variance as modified to a 7 ½’ setback, is not substantial, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area. Similar pools have been installed in the area.
- 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 side yard (7 ½’ setback ) variance is APPROVED as modified; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that such decision and the vote thereon shall become effective and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption by the Board of the minutes of which they are a part.
General Conditions:
(i) The approval of any variance or Special Permit is granted by the Board in accordance with and subject to those facts shown on the plans submitted and, if applicable, as amended at or prior to this hearing, as hereinabove recited or set forth.
(ii) Any approval of a variance or Special Permit by the Board is limited to the specific variance or Special Permit requested but only to the extent such approval is granted
herein and subject to those conditions, if any, upon which such approval was conditioned which are hereinbefore set forth.
(iii) The Board gives no approval of any building plans, including, without limitation,
the accuracy and structural integrity thereof, of the applicant, but same have been submitted to the Board solely for informational and verification purposes relative to any
variances being requested.
(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained within a reasonable period of time following the filing of this decision and prior to undertaking any construction contemplated in this decision. To the extent any variance or Special
Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall not be
obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, in the sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement which legally permits such occupancy.
(v) Any foregoing variance or Special Permit will lapse if any contemplated construction of the project or any use for which the variance or Special Permit is granted is not substantially implemented within one year of the date of filing of this decision or that of any other board of the Town of Orangetown granting any required final approval to such project, whichever is later, but in any event within two years of the filing of this decision. Merely obtaining a Building Permit with respect to construction or a Certificate of Occupancy with respect to use does not constitute “substantial implementation” for the purposes hereof.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard variance as modified to a 7 ½ ‘ setback was presented and moved by Mr. Mowerson, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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 Clerk.
DATED: June 15, 2011
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF ORANGETOWN
By__________________
Deborah Arbolino
Administrative Aide
DISTRIBUTION:
APPLICANT TOWN CLERK
ZBA MEMBERS HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
SUPERVISOR ASSESSOR
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL
TOWN ATTORNEY MGMT. and ENGINEERING
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY FILE,ZBA, PB
OBZPAE CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR
BUILDING INSPECTOR