Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS JUNE  19, 2013

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

DANIEL  SULLIVAN,  CHAIRMAN JOAN  SALOMON

NANETTE  ALBANESE

PATRICIA  CASTELLI

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

 

ABSENT:                                        MICHAEL  BOSCO

 

 

 

ALSO  PRESENT:                   Dennis  Michaels,  Esq.

Ann Marie Ambrose, Elizabeth Decort,

Deputy Town Attorney Official Stenographer Clerk Typist

 

 

 

 

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 CONTINUED ITEMS:

 

TONKOSCHKER                  FLOOR AREA RATIO,                                ZBA#13-28

77.08 / 2 / 30; RG zone          FRONT AYRD, BUILDING HEIGHT, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DISTANCE VARIANCES APPROVED

SECTION 5.223 VARIANCE WITHDRAWN

 

115 ROUTE 303 PARKING

77.07 I 211;  LO zone

TEMPORARY STORAGE               ZBA#13-21

OF VEHICLES APPROVED

FOR TWO YEARS WITH CONDITIONS

 

 

NEW ITEMS:

 

PEAKS

77.08 / 5 I 7; R-G & CS zones

SIDE YARD AND                             ZBA#13-43

TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

CUOMO                                             SIDE YARD VARIANCE AMENDMENT TO ZBA 311-79      APPROVED

69.16 / 1 / 59; R-15 zone

ZBA#13-44

 

DIAZ

77.05 / 3 / 21; R-15 zone

FRONT YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

ZBA#l3-45

 

O’SULLIVAN

69.0912 I 3; R-15 zone

FLOOR AREA RATIO,                     ZBA#13-46

LOT AREA, FRONT YARD,

SIDE YARD,TOTAL SIDE YARD,

AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

 

SWIFT

69.091213; R-15 zone

SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD   ZBA#13-47

AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES

 

 

 

 

 

:Jm:l.:iO ~~H31~N1!61

• -mzitM s _          w mz.

 

y(l133N’1ti0  .:10  NA\Ol

 

Minutes

Page2

 

 

AP ROVED

 

IMPERIAL  SPORTS

77.15 /l  /42; CS zone

SPECIAL  PERMIT  GRANTED             ZBA#l3-48

FOR TWO YEARS  WITH  CONDITIONS

 

 

 

 

MICHEL

74.13 / 4 / 26; RG zone

BUILDING  HEIGHT  VARIANCE      ZBA#13-49

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:  One Ramland  Road-Resubdivision   Plan, One Ramland  Road.  Orangeburg,  NY  73.20 / 1/23

& 24; LIO zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED, to request to be notified by the Planning

Board of SEQRA proceedings, hearings, and determinations with respect to these matters.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at  10:45 P.M.

 

Dated:  JUNE 19, 2013

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORi’\ffiY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR (Individual Decisions)

Rockland County Planning

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

By~~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

3!:11:.BO  S~H310Ni!D’l sztfdJ        s   vmz N&0135tfr!HO   :W NJA01

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR AREA  RAT][O, FRONT   YARD,  BUILDING   HEIGHT,AND     §5.153

ACCESSORY    STRUCTURE    DISTANCE    VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To: Lana Tonkoschk:ur                                                     ZBA # 13-28

 

43 Bauer Street

Tappan,  New York  10983

Date:   May  1, 2013

June 5, 2013

June  19, 2013

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#  13-28: Application  of  Lana Tonkoschkur   for  variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown,  Section  3.12, RG District,  Group  Q, Columns  4 (Floor Area Ratio:

.30 permitted,  .3154 proposed),  8 (Front Yard: 25′  required,  24.6′  existing  & proposed),

and 12 (Building Height: 23.25′ permitted, 24.25′ existing, and 29.33′ proposed) and from Section 5.153 (Accessory structure distance: 15′ required, 12′ existing & proposed) and from Section 5.223 (Fire Escape may project 6′ into required yard: 9 Yz’ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 43

Bauer Street, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as

Section 77.08, Block 2, Lot 30; RG zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on the following Wednesdays,  May 1, 2013 (postponed for no posting), June 5, 2013, and June 19, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

At the June 5, 2013 Meeka Asayag and Vincent Cioffi, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Architectural plans dated 4/15/2013 signed and sealed by Vincent J. Cioffi,

Architect.

2. A memorandum dated 5/29/2013 from Michael Bettman, Fire Inspector, Town of

Orangetown, with 2 excerpts from the NYS Building Code in regard to a 3rd story

addition/ renovation.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Meeka Asayag testified that she recently divorced and moved herself and three children into her mothers’ house; that the house is small; that her mom and her aunt live in the house and that there are only three small bedrooms in the house; that they are planning to expand the existing small kitchen and add a two story addition to the side of the house and to make the existing attic space into an additional bedroom; that there will be

dormers in the rear of the house; that she is a landscape designer and she plans to plant

around the proposed fire escape to soften its effect; and that she would like to request a

continuance until the next hearing to submit the difference in prices from adding sprinklers to the attic space along with the fire escape as opposed to adding sprinklers to the whole house.                                         35’t:BO S)11:131~  ll!Pl

tSilW      e   Y~

 

iU!013$MV’d0  .:!O  Niiill

 

 

 

 

Vincent  Cioffi,  Architect,  testified  that the existing  house is 25 Yz feet wide and they are proposing a 17 foot addition to the side of the house; that the requested floor area ratio is

1  12  % over the permitted floor area ratio; that visually from the front of the house there will not be much of a change; that the existing garage is 12 feet from the house and the one story addition to the rear of the house has been angled so that it does not encroach further; that he will meet with the fire inspector to see if the fire escape can be less wide and still meet the safety requirements; and that they will provide the Board with the information regarding the sprinkler system.

 

At the June 19, 2013 meeting Meeka Asayag and Vincent Cioffoi, Architect, appeared. Meeka Asayag testified that at the last meeting the major concern of the Board was the

fire escape from the third floor additional living space proposed; that she has reviewed

the options and they have decided to sprinkler the entire house instead of adding the fire escape; and in place of the proposed door that would have led to the fire escape they are proposing to add three windows; that this change eliminates the need for the variance from Section 5.223.

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all the

documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if

the variance(s) are granted outweigh the detriment (if any) to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant, for the following reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested floor area ratio, front yard, building height, and §5.153 (accessory structure distance)variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, front yard, building height, and §5.153 (accessory structure distance) variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

‘3~H.::f0 ~’>t’d31~ NA\lll m~!Yd   6_ w··mi NlM)l3t)NVli0  JO iUMtt

 

 

 

 

 

 

4. The requested  floor area ratio, front yard, building  height,   and §5.153 (accessory structure  distance)variances,    although  somewhat  substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.

 

5. Tue 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, front yard, building height,  and §5.153 (accessory structure distance)variances are APPROVED with the SPECIFIC CONDITION that the fire escape, and door opening onto same, shall be removed from the pOlans and the whole house shall have a sprinkler system installed and signed and sealed revised plans shall be submitted reflecting the changes to the Building Department; 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.

 

3’~t:HO~)1~313 Nl\€t1 ti l:l id   6   -mr ml tt~013~NvHOso a~a1

 

 

 

 

Tonkoschkur

ZBA#l3-28

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,

front yard,  building  height,  and §5.153 (accessory  structure  distance)  variances,  with the specific condition  that the fire escape,  and door opening  onto same,  shall be removed

from the plans;was  presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,  seconded by Ms. Salomon  and carried as follows:  Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:   June  19, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APP LT CANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD  MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWNATIORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR ~M.M.

By..Y../.UL:l~~[UX;L_~~~’~<-=-rvz~ Deborah Arbo ino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

3~HA.:1’0 S’)PJ310  N!MJl

as,~IIJd s  vmz

 

~i\t113DNVBO30 N/it>:l

 

DECISION

TEMPORARY  STORAGE  OF VEHICLES  APPROVED  FIR TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE   OF OCCUPANCY WITH SPECIFIC  CONDITIONS

 

 

 

To: Tom Kriz (115 Route 303)

250 Kisco A venue

Mt. Kisco, New York

ZBA#   13-21

Date:  April 3, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#  13-21: Application  of  115 Route 303 for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown,   Section  3 .11, LO District,  Column  5, # 3 (Storage  of goods or equipment  accessory  to uses permitted)   for temporary  storage  of vehicles  within  existing building  not accessory  to business  use. No sales or service  of vehicles  at this location.

The business  is located  at 115 Route  303, Tappan,  New York   and are identified  on the

Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   77.07, Block 2, Lot  1; LO zoning  district.

 

 

Heard  by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown   at meetings  held on the following  Wednesdays,   April  3, 2013 and June  19, 2013 at which  time the Board made  the determination   hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

Tom Kriz  appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. Auto Storage plan  dated  January  24, 2013 signed and sealed by Louis P.

Ramunni,  P.E..

2. A letter dated  March  21, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Planning  signed by Thomas  B. Vanderbeek,   Commissioner   of Planning.

3. A letter dated March  15, 2013 from the State of New York  Department  of

Transportation   signed by Mary Jo Russo,  P.E., Rockland  County  Permit Engineer.

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel  to the Zoning  Board  of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board  dctcrnrination  that the foregoing  application  is a Type  II action  exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQ RA), pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.5 (c) (15); which  does not require  SEQRA environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; and Ms. Albanese,  aye. Mr. Bosco  was absent.

 

 

 

 

Tom Kriz testified  that Palisades  Audi needed  space to park new cars and rented  space in the building  to store new cars in; that the new cars are unloaded  at the dealer  and driven over to the building;  that they might move  up to five cars per day; that they have met all the requirements   of the Fire Inspector;  that they did not know that they could not store the cars in the building  without  a permit;  that they need a variance  because  they  do not have an office in the building;  that they would put up a partition  on the level that the cars are stored  and place  a desk and key hanger  there for the office space if that is permitted;  and that they will request  a continuance  to get the information  t£at the Board is asking for.

3~tBO   S~H3″10 RllD

 

a~!W    6- Ymi

 

!i~OJ.3tJNVHO 30 N~'”Ol

 

115 Route  303 Parking

ZBA#l3-21

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

Ellen McCarthy,  331 Kings highway asked if there would  be trucks  unloading  cars in the area and when the applicant  explained  the operation,  she had no objections.

 

At the June  19, 2013 meeting  Tom Kriz appeared  and testified. The following  items were reviewed  by the Board:

1. An e-mail dated Monday,  may 20, 2013 from Mike Bettrnann,  Chief Fire

Inspector,  Town of Orangetown.

2. A letter dated May 3, 2013 from the Department  of Environmental   Management and Engineering,   Town of Orangetown,   signed by Joseph J. Moran,  P.E., Commissioner.
3. A letter dated May 29, 2013 from the State of New York Department  of

Transportation   signed by Mary Jo Russo,  P .E., Rockland  County Permit  Engineer.

 

 

 

Tom Kriz testified  that he has addressed  the concerns  of the Board; that the trip

impact has been  answered;  that there will be between  five and ten cars in and out each day at the most;  that there will not be any additional  lighting  installed  and the cars

will not be stored  outside;  that he would  be fine with a two-year  approval  and willing to come back for renewals.

 

Public  Comment:

 

Mary  Cardenas,  Pine Tree Lane, testified  that her main  concern  is regarding  lights  and how they would  affect the neighbors.

 

Christine  Zinna, 3 Autumn  Drive, testified  that she is concerned  about parking  outside  in the parking  lot and about the gas in the cars.

 

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York  was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

1. The requested  temporary  storage  of vehicles  not accessory  to a business  use on the same lot will not produce  an undesirable   change in the character  of the neighborhood or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The proposed  interior  storage  of vehicles  is a permitted  use if the business  it relates  to was located  on the same lot; the office space not being  located  on the same lot is not a detriment  because  this is temporary  storage. The applicant  must return to the Board  for any continuation~’~i..f()lS!;f~gr.,il

2 years from the issuance  of the certificate  of occupancy.               –                ”

2. :Oere  sh~l  be no o1:tdoor storage  of vehicles  and no additi~      B11fBg  ~all  V  ·UBZ

mstalled  m the parkmg  lot.                                                                — ~               ·        ·

N!t013~N’V’HO;!0  Nk\01

 

 

ZBA#13-21

Page  3  of  4

 

 

3. The requested temporary  storage  of vehicles  not accessory  to a business  on the same lot will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.   The proposed  interior  storage  of vehicles

is a permitted  use if the business  it relates to was located  on the same lot; the office

space not being located  on the same lot is not a detriment  because  this is temporary storage. The applicant  must return to the Board  for any continuation  of this use for more than 2 years from the issuance  of the certificate  of occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

5. The requested temporary  storage  of vehicles  not accessory  to a business  use on the same lot, is not 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 proposed  interior  storage of vehicles  is a permitted  use if the business  it relates  to was located  on the same lot; the office space not being  located  on the same lot is not a detriment  because  this is temporary  storage. The applicant  must return to the Board  for any continuation  of this use for more  than

2 years  from the issuance  of the certificate  of occupancy.

 

 

 

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

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or  improvements,   so the alleged  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  temporary  storage  of vehicles not accessory  to a business  use on the same lot is APPROVED  for TWO   (2) YEARS from the date of issuance  of the certificate  of occupancy;  with the following  specific conditions:  (1) cars shall be stored inside the building only; (2) No exterior lighting shall be added to the site; 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, includin,g,:.1vitlwlJ$.Ji~~CW-ti01 the accuracy and structural integrity thereof, of the applicant, buti1fMe1t’ave’been sub_mittedto_theBoard solely for informational and verification ~~ygiat{re    tW.~ variances bemg requested.                                                                   – –              ~

Ni\Ql3~N’if H 0  .:!O  R!Aul

 

 

ZBA#l3-21

Page  4 of  4

 

 

(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  variance  for temporary  storage of vehicles  not accessory  to a business  use on the same lot, with specific  conditions:  1) cars shall be stored inside the building  only; (2) No exterior

lighting  shall be added to the site; was presented  and moved  by Ms. Castelli,  seconded  by

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

 

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

 

DATED:   June  19, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR  B.vW.

By~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PD, ACABOR

 

 

w

–

zs,l:J.Ljd s        mz

 

DECISION

SIDE  YARD  AND TOTALSIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

To:  Judy Peaks

15 Union Street

Sparkill, New York 10976

ZBA#  13-43

Date: June 19, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA# 13-43: Application of Judy Peaks for  variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Columns 9 (Side Yard:  10′ required, 6.5′ proposed), and  10 (Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 15.2′ proposed) for a deck at an existing two-family residence. The premises are located at 11 Union Street, Sparkill, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Mapas  Section 77.08, Block 5, Lot 7; RG zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Judy Peaks and Glen Peaks appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Site plan with proposed deck drawn on it.
2. Three pages of deck plans.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Judy Peaks testified that the deck was built without a permit; that she is in the process of selling the house and found out that the deck was not legal; that she is before the Board to legitimize the deck and obtain a certificate of occupancy in order to sell the house; and that she has a certificate of occupancy to the two-family house.

 

 

3i~tl::l0 S’1B310 Nti61

m<~!lMs ..      Wml

N.A\Ol3f!N\i~O  .::lO  rUM).L

 

Peaks

ZBA#l3-43

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested side yard and total side yard variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The deck does not encroach any further into the side yard than the existing house and the lot is long and narrow.

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard and total side yard variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The deck does not encroach any further into the side yard than the existing house and the lot is long and narrow.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested side yard and total side yard variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community.

The deck does not encroach any further into the side yard than the existing house and

the lot is long and narrow.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

ZBA#l3-43

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

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

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

(ii) Any  approval  of a variance  or Special Permit by the Board  is limited  to the specific variance  or Special  Permit requested  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

hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,  a Certificate of Occupanc)9s ‘ ~ issued by the Office  of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration and Enforced;it co o

Permit  granted herein  is subject  to any conditions,  the building  department  shall not2f      ~       -4 obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition  imposed  should, mth~          ~ sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with as contemplated      ~      ~   ·                  z

 

 

 

which  legally permits  such occupancy.                                                                                ~                ~

(;,()        -a      z

0         :::3   G)

“TJ      ~:           rn

1              -I

(v) Any f~regoing  variance  or ~pecial P~it      will lapse. if any c~n:emplated  .constru<io:q.:      ~

of the project  or any use for which  the vanance  or Special Permit  is granted  is not     P:i    .~        z

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.

 

 

ZBA#13-43

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   June  19, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS

TUWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.AO.

By-‘OLl:~~..!0.{..<“”2-¥G<:<c<::::   :

Deborah  Arbo  ino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

~B::JO  S~H31~ NlltU

a 11fatd   6 ·~      1llf  mz

{i,i013~rfv80 :!O Ni!Ol

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE  YARD  VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

To:    Raffaele  Cuomo		ZBA#   13-44
4 Truman  Circle		Date:  June  19, 2013
Blauvelt,  New York	10913

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#  13-44: Application  of Raffaele  Cuomo   for  an amendment  to ZBA#l  1~78 which granted  a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  Town  of Orangetown,  R-15 District,  Group M, Column  9 (Side Yard: 20′  required,  13.27′  granted  and 12.7′  existing)  for an addition that has been constructed  at an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located at 4 Truman  Circle, Blauvelt,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 69.16, Block  1, Lot 59; R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held  on Wednesday,                     June  19, 2013 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Raffaele  Cuomo  and Peter  Cuomo  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. As built survey dated  11117 /2004 with the latest revision  date of 9/18/2012  signed and sealed by Jay Greenwell,  L.S ..

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Raffaele Cuomo testified that the foundation was pre-existing; that the architect that set the house on the plot plan made an oversight; that the footings were suppose to line up according the previous ZBA Decision but upon the final as built survey being done, they did not; that he is not sure if the architect or the builder made a mistake but the foundation was left in place.

 

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew  York  was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested side yard variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The as built  survey changes  the previously  approved  side yard by several  inches.

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard variance   will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The as built survey changes  the previously  approved  side yard by several  inches.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  amendment  to the previously  approved  side yard variance  is not substantial.

 

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

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

 

 

 

~~H.::HO  SJ\831~ fU\0’1

JlilW      s  lff’•ml

 

d0:13~N’fti0 .:H)  Nll(U

 

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  side yard variance  is APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board  of the minutes  of which  they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

–

Zl’IW     6    lratl

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   June  19, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-B.vW.

By–“”‘i…s.a..£¥-~’-“”‘”‘–‘-L-1-‘-.Ll….,..

Deborah  Arbolino ……

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN, ZBA,PB,ACABOR

 

–

ZSllMJ    6    Ymi

 

DECISION

FRONT YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

 

 

To:   Anthony  Diaz

14 Liberty Road

Tappan, New York  10983

ZBA#   13-45

Date:  June  19, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l3-45: Application   of Anthony  Diaz for a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning), Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Column  8 (Front Yard:  30′  required,  20.2′ proposed)  for the installation  of an in-ground  pool at an existing  single-family  residence, The premises  are located  at 14 Liberty  Road, Tappan,  New York  and identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 77.05, Block 3, Lot 21; R-15 zone.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held  on Wednesday,   June  19, 2013 at which  time the Board made  the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Anthony  Diaz,  Craig Bagin and Izzy Castiglia  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan  labeled pool  grading  and SESC Plan dated 03/14/2013  signed and sealed

by Thomas  W. Skrable, P .E..

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Craig Bagin,  B & B Pool and Spa, testified  that they are proposing  to install  an in-ground pool with a patio and they  are replacing  the wood  on the deck with treks; that they  are proposing  a shed to house the pool  supplies  and to fence in the property  because  of the pool; that they comply with the setback  for side yards but this property  has two front yards;  that the rear property  backs  up to Jackson  Street and creates a unique  situation.

 

Anthony  Diaz testified  that there are five members  of the family;  that he installed  a generator;  that they have owned the residence  for 3 Y2 years; that the construction  is confined  to one side of the property;  that they are not bringing  in any dirt; that hey have a landscape  plan designed  to provide  screening  and privacy;  and that he would  install  a PVC  type of fence that would  comply  with zoning.

 

 

3Ut:HO ~)HBl 0 flflllil B2i.lJJ    6   YU N·~o135NVHO  .:10  NllH’ll

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

Joseph  Kosofsky,  22 Liberty  Street, Tappan,  testified  that he owns the lot to the south of the applicant;  that he purchased  his house in 1966; that his daughter  owns the house now; that he has no objection  to the pool but it is too close to where his bedrooms  are; that

there should be a 15′ setback  and the pool is too close to the property  line; that the deck

should be knocked  down  and the pool built there.

 

Chairman  Sullivan  explained  to Mr. Kosofsky  that the variance  is for the rear of the property  (considered  a front yard because  of Jackson  Street) and not the side yard.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York  was received.

 

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

Ms.  Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  front yard variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  The property  is oddly shaped  and the rear yard meets  Jackson  Street, creating  two front yards according  to the zoning  code; however  the property  is clearly used a backyard.

 

 

 

2. The requested  front yard variance   will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The property  is oddly shaped and the rear yard meets Jackson  Street, creating  two front yards according  to the zoning  code; however  the property  is clearly used  a backyard.

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  a variance.  The odd shaped property that fronts on two streets  is the cause of the requested  variance.

 

 

 

4. The requested  front yard variance  is although  somewhat  substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicants  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety

and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.

 

 

 

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

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

~B.:W   ~)iti31!3NM01

–

ii  il  Lid   6    1Dr ml

 

 

 

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

 

–

ii  2I l.Jd    6   1nr ·mz

 

N£013SNV~O.:H) ri!iul

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   June  19, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUlillING INSPECTOR-M.M.

mo

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

–

ZSl.lQd   6   YEW

 

No!i013tiNVUO~O N&O!

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR AREA  RATIO,   LOT  AREA,  FRONT   YARD,  SIDE  YARD,  TOTAL   SIDE YARD  AND BIDLDING   HEIGHT  VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:   Kathleen  O’Sullivan

7 Durham  Lane

Suffern, New York  10901

ZBA # 13-46

Date:   June  19, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#  13-46: Application  of  Kathleen  O’Sullivan    for  variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  Town  of Orangetown,   Section  3.11, R-15 District,  Group M,  Columns  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .20 permitted,  .32 proposed),  5 (Lot  Area:  15,000 sq, ft, required,  12, 365 sq. ft. exiting),  8 (Front Yard: 30′  required,  27.5′  proposed),  9 (Side Yard:  20′  required,  15′ proposed)  10 (Total  Side Yard:  50′ required,  45.3′  proposed)  and  12 (Building Height:

15′ permitted,  27.5′  proposed)  for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 4 Wright  Street, Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  69.09, Block 3, Lot 32; R-15 zone.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held  on Wednesday,   June  19, 2013  at which  time the Board  made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Kathleen  O’Sullivan   appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan dated  04/29/2013  signed and sealed by Paul Gdanski,  P.E.
2. Architectural  plans  dated 04/21/2013signed   and sealed by Paul Gdanski,  P.E.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Kathleen  O’Sullivan  testified  that she has owned the house  for about 20 years; that two years  ago she married  and moved to Suffern with her husband;  that she has been renting the house but wants to move back to Pearl  River; that they  are proposing  to remove  the existing  garage and add a two car garage  with a master  suite above it; that her son, husband  and herself would  be living in the house; that her parents  come to visit from Ireland  several  ties a year and she would  like to have enough  room for them to be comfortable;  that the addition  will allow everyone  to be at home  in the house;  and that she has talked  to her neighbors  and none of them have objections  to the proposal.

 

 

 

 

 

!iijt.:f;iO  S)!.~:[31~ N~O’J.

~~!Qd s: wmz

NM.Ol3eNVBO   ;!O N&Ol

 

 

 

O’Sullivan

ZBA#13-46

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York  was received.

 

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

Ms.  Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested floor area ratio, lot area, front yard, side yard, total  side yard and building  height  variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  Similar  additions  have been  : constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, lot area, front yard, side yard, total  side yard and building  height variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.  Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

3’$l:l::W ~~831$   N!ifll

 

~·~!W   6 _      Y’al

 

itl\013~NV”tl0  dO ~UA01

 

 

 

 

O’Sullivan

ZBA#13-46

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  floor area ratio, lot area, front yard, 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        I 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.                                                                                                          1

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well  as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  withina 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   i 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          I 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      I Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  “substantial  implementation”   for thd

 

~~~~                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              I

 

3”0l:BO S)H:i310 N&tll                              !

ZS zr fltd   6    Y   SDZ

 

O’Sullivan

ZBA#l3-46

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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  19, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.A.O.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FlLE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

3~td:W~~lf310Ni\61

B~!ldd s  ~·mt

)tfAOi3aNVBO    ;iO Nli01.

 

DECISION

 

SIDE YARD, TOTAL  SIDE YARD, AND BUILDING HEIGHT  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Charlotte  Swift		ZBA#   13-47
30 Cara Drive		Date:  June  19, 2013
Pearl  River, New York	10965

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-47: Application  of  Charlotte  Swift  for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Section  3.12, R-15District,   Group M, Columns  9 (Side Yard:  15′ required,  14′ existing,

11.7′ proposed),   10 (Total  Side Yard:  30′  required,  25.7′  proposed)  and 12 (Building Height:  11.7′ permitted,   13.3′ proposed)  (Section  5.21 (c) Undersized  lot applies)  for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 30 Cara Drive, Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section

69.06, Block 2, Lot 3; R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wedriesday,   June  19, 2013 at which time the Board made  the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Jonathan  Ho dash, Architect,  and Charlotte  Swift appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural plans  dated March  6, 2013 signed  and sealed by Jonathan  Hodash, Architect.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Jonathan  Hodash,  Architect,  testified  that the existing  single-family  residence  was built in

1963; that it is a Cape  Cod style house with two bedrooms  on the main level and two bedrooms  upstairs;  that Mrs. Swift is elderly and needs more  accessible  space on the first floor; that they are proposing  to enlarge  the kitchen  and to add a handicap  accessible bathroom;  that the house  is already non-conforming;   that they  area proposing  to add a garage which  would  easily accommodate   emergency  access to the house; that the doors

on the side of the garage would  permit  access to the rear yard for Mrs. Swift;  and that

similar  additions  have been constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

 

 

J~i::!.:!O ~·~’e3ln NAD1

uitw   s  1rmz

 

rUi0135 tnnw  :iO tiIMJ1

 

 

Swift

ZBA#13-47

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew  York  was received.

 

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

Ms.  Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  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 lot is undersized  and the handicap  accessibility  is needed  to accommodate  Mrs. Swift.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard, total  side yard and building  height  variances   will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  The lot is undersized  and the handicap  accessibility  is needed  to accommodate  Mrs. Swift

 

 

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.  The lot is undersized  and the handicap  accessibility  is needed  to accommodate  Mrs. Swift.

 

 

 

4. The requested  side yard, total  side yard and building  height  variances,  although somewhat  substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

3~id.::!O SJl’tl31~ Kli0’1

1111Yd  s  wmz

 

Nli013~ifV’l10 .:!O  N!AOl

 

 

ZBA#13-47

Page  3   of  4

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

~IOH.:10  $)iH31G  0°’1 tS,•·EIU.d   6   Y   mfl Nlt013~N\1UO so Nlt\01

 

 

ZBA#l3-47

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   June  19, 2013

 

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.

n~CJ?c    

• Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

–

~ZIW      6   wmz

 

DECISION

 

SPECIAL PERMIT  GRANTED   WITH   CONDITIONS    FOR  TWO-YEARS    FROM DATE  OF ISSUANCE   OF THE  CERTIFICATE   OF OCUPANCY

 

To:  Daniel  Kim (Imperial  Sports)

1  University  Plaza Drive  Suite 118

Hackensack,  New Jersey  07601

ZBA # 13-48

Date:  June  19, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#13-48:  Application  oflmperial  Sports for a Special  Permit in accordance  with Chapter  43 (Zoning)  Section 3.11, CS District,  Column  3 # 8 (Other Retail/services: Karaoke  Room  and kitchen  proposed)   The premises  are located  at 64 Route 303, Tappan,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  77.15, Block  1, Lot 42; CS zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown   at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   June  19, 2013 at which  time the Board  made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Daniel Kim, Attorney  and Adrian Lee, owner,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan and building  information  plan,  Egress Plan, Proposed  plan opt A, dated

10/25/2009  by Se Hwan Kim, Architect,  not signed or sealed.

2. A letter dated June 4, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Planning signed by Thomas  B. Vanderbeek,  P.E., Commissioner   of Planning.
3. A letter dated may  17, 2013 from the County  ofRocldand Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny  Lin, P .E..

4. A letter dated May 20, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Health signed by Scott McKane,  P.E.,  Senior Public  Health Engineer.
5. A letter  dated June  10, 2013 from the State of New York Department  of transportation   signed by Mary Jo Russo,  P .E., Rockland  County Permit  Engineer.

 

 

 

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

 

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

pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.5 (c) (7); which  does not require  SEQRA     -i       S

environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  b_y Ms. Salomon  ar:d carried as f~owr:_ Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelh,  aye; and  ~          ?E

Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.                                                                                ~

rn     co

:::;:i

?”‘

Daniel  Kim, Attorney,  testified  that the premises  is 2,000 sq. ft.; that currently  thereae     ::g

5-6 pool tables in a portion  of the room;  that there was an issue with the roofleakin@l.at;    ~” has bee:i resolved  with the landlord;  that they would  l~e  to renovate  and ?ut in karaiik-e, $

booths  mstead  of the pool tables;  that they are proposing  to upgrade  the kitchen  to   rn      ·

provide  refreshments;   that they have a liquor license  that provides  beer/wine/  sake; that they  are proposing  the same hours  of operation  that they were granted  for the billiards which  is 12 noon to 4 A.M.; that this is a adult entertainment  for the people  of Tappan; that they do not expect bar type behavior;  that karaoke  will provide better  revenue, charging  for the rental  of the room; that one room  would be for a party  of about  8 people; that the rooms  would  have multiple  TV’s  with pointers  to make  the person  singing  feel like they area star; and that they would  like to renovate  outside  after this.

 

 

 

 

….-\

0

~

:;;Z

0

-n

0

:::0

J>

z

G:>

rn

-4

0

:iE

z

 

Imperial  Sports

ZBA#13-48

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

Janet Wheeler,  25 Livingston  Street, Tappan,  testified  that she is a little perplexed  by the application;  that she has  concerns  about the hours  of operation;  that noise  spills over to the parking  lot; that there is a lot of graffiti on the building  and that she has reported  to the code enforcement   and was told that since it does not face the public  street, nothing

can be done about it; that she had to go to the Board  for a 4 season room that does not

face the street; that commercial  eyesores  should not be overlooked.

 

 

Al Murphy,  19 Convent  Road,  Orangeburg,  testified  that he frequents  the establishment  2 or 3  times a week; that graffiti is not from the customers  but from kids; that he has never seen a fight in the establishment   and the owners  run a tight  a ship.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms.  Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested Special Permit  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The special permit is being granted for two-years  from the date of issuance  of the certificate  of occupancy  with hours  of operation  limited  until midnight  weekdays  and until  1  A.M.  on the eve of holidays  and Friday  and Saturday  nights.

…-1

c:>

2. The applicant  must provide  a parking  table on the site plan  and illustrate  suffici~

parking  is being  provided  for the additional  uses.                                                       0

r•

rn     eo    o

;o                    ;o

:;;;:::                               )>

3. The requested  Special Permit  as conditioned  will not have an adverse  effect or   €0        ~            ~

impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or distri6t;     ~   1          ~

The special permit  is being  granted  for two-years  from the date of issuance  ofthc::J     ~   1                       i£

certificate  of occupancy  with hours  of operation  limited  until midnight  weekdays.1ihd’ ti   z

until  1  A.M. on the eve of holidays  and Friday  and Saturday  nights.

 

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

 

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 special permit.

 

6. The proposed use will be appropriately  located  with respect  to transportation,   water supply, waste disposal,  fire and police  protection  and other public  facilities.

 

 

ZBA#13-48

Page  3   of  4

 

 

7. The proposed  use will not cause undue  traffic  congestion  or create a traffic hazard and will not create at any point of determination   set forth in §§4.16, 4.17 & 4.18 any more  dangerous  and objectionable   elements  referred  to in §4.11 than is characteristic of the uses expressly  permitted  as of right in the same district.
8. The proposed  use will not adversely  affect the character  of or property  values  in the

area and it will not otherwise  impair  the public  health,  safety, morals,  convenience, comfort,  prosperity  and other  aspects  of the general  welfare  of the town.

9. The proposed  use will comply with  all other regulations  applicable  to such use and

the drainage  for the site will not be affected  by the issuance  of the Special  Permit.

 

 

 

DECISION:   Inview  of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  Special Permit  is APPROVED for TWO YEARS  from the date of issuance  of the certificate  of occupancy  with the Specific  Conditions  that (1) the hours  of operation  are limited  to 12:00 noon to midnight weekdays,  and noon till 1 :00 A.M.  eves of holidays,  and Friday  and Saturday  nights;  and (2) a parking  table must be provided  on the site plan  and illustrate  sufficient  parking  is being provided  for the additional  uses; 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.

 

 

3eH.::W SJ1t!31G NR!:Ql

ti 11 Lld   6   y   mi

 

.  d013t1NV’c!O.:W N~Gl

 

 

ZBA#l3-48

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  Special  Permit for TWO YEARS  from the date of issuance  of the certificate  of occupancy  with the Specific Conditions  that (1) the hours  of operation  are limited  to 12:00 noon to midnight

weekdays,  and noon till 1 :00 A.M.  eves of holidays,  and Friday  and Saturday  nights;  and

(2) a parking  table must be provided  on the site plan  and illustrate  sufficient  parking  is being provided  for the additional  uses; was presented  and moved  by Ms. Castelli,

seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried  as follows:  Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye

;Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:   June  19, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN AITORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR ~R.A.O.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENT AL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,zBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

3m.:H.O 3)l’83la WlOi

 

~~!Md   6. v·mtz

 

Nl!Ol3~.Hi’tti0  3.0  N/AOl

 

DECISION

BUILDING  HEIGHT VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

 

 

To:   Scot and Christine  Michel

13 Fairview  Lane

Orangeburg,  New York  10962

ZBA # 13-49

Date:   June  19, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#13-49:  Application  of Scott and Christine  Michel  for a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning),   Section  3.12, RG District,  Group  Q, Column  12 (Building Height:  18′ permitted,  19.9′ proposed)  for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 13 Fairview  Lane,  Orangeburg,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 74.13, Block 4, Lot 26; RG zone.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held  on Wednesday,   June  19, 2013 at which  time the Board  made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Christine  Michel  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans dated  August  13, 2012 signed and sealed by John Perkins, Architect.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Christine  Michel  testified  that they would  like to add a master bedroom  over the existing two-car  garage; that the are one foot over the permitted  height; that they are not changing the existing  footprint;  that they would  like to keep the same roof pitch  and is existing;

that they have  owned the house  for eleven  years; and that there is no opposition  from neighbors.

 

 

 

3~H:::W S)IB31~tifdOl

es n tak\  5 -_      w ·mz

 

iUAOl35NvBO  ~o N!AOl

 

 

ZBA#13-49

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OFFACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested building height variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition is not higher than the existing house and similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

2. The requested building height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed addition is not higher than the existing house and similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

3. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining a variance. The proposed addition is not higher than the existing house and similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

4. The requested building height variance is not substantial.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

3~B.:W S~’t!31Q NRtOl

miIQJS_Ymi

 

N!AOl3~rf~t!O JO iUAOl

 

 

ZBA#l3-49

Page  3  of  4

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  building  height  variance  is APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board  of the minutes  of which  they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained within a reasonable period of time following the filing of this decision and prior to undertaking any construction contemplated in this decision. To the extent any variance or Special Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

30Hj0   S)l?j3.’l~Nlfl!l

m ,1-1 Md    s –      w ·mti

d~;3~NV~i0 .:W  Kll91

 

 

ZBA#13-49

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve the application  for the requested  building  height variance   was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and

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

 

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

 

DATED:   June 19, 2013

 

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,4.<~.fL…-b…4:”””””‘=

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB CHAIRMAN,ZBA,PB,ACABOR