Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MAY 20. 2015

 

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

DAN SULLIVAN JOAN SALOMON

LEONARD FEROLDI, ALTERNATE THOMAS QUINN

PATRICIA CASTELLI

 

 

ABSENT:

 

 

MICHAEL BOSCO

 

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:

Dennis Michaels, Esq. Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah Arbolino,

Deputy Town Attorney Official Stenographer Administrative Aide

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS

 

APPLICANTS

DECISIONS

 

 

 

NEW ITEM:   HELMKE & ALATSAS	FLOOR AREA RATIO, LOT	ZBA#15-38
342 Blauvelt Road,	AREA, AND STREET
Pearl River, NY	FRONTAGE VARIANCES APPROVED
69.13I2I18.2; R-15 zone
O’SULLIVAN	CONTINUED	ZBA#15-39
34 Hawk Street, Pearl River, NY
69.18 I 1I63;  R-15 zone
LITTEE	§ 9.34 ONE-TIME EXTENSION OF	ZBA#lS-40
7 Ferdon Avenue,	NON-CONFORMING, FRONT YARD,
Sparkill, NY 78.05 I 1  I 12; CS zone	SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND § 5.153 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN
	FRONT YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
HYUN 42 Woods Road, Palisades, NY 78.18 I 1I38;  R-80 zone	§ 6.332: GRAVEL DRIVEWAY VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#lS-41
DAWSON 3 Knutson Knolls Tappan, NY	§ 5.153 SHED IN FRONT YARD, §  5.226  FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED	ZBA#lS-42

 

77.06 I 1I40;  R-15 zone

301.:!.:IO   S)!H31~  NMOl

 

s2 1 I LJ8    s     Nnr   s102

 

NM013DNVUO   .:W Nfr\01

 

Minutes

Page2

 

 

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

 

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

 

There being no further business  to come before  the Board,  on motion duly made, seconded  and carried,   the meeting  was adjourned  at 9:10 P.M.

 

Dated: May 20,  2015

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING    INSPECTOR   (Individual     Decisions) Rockland   County Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

Deborah  Arbolino,   Administrative    Aide

 

 

 

301.:.l.:.lO   s.iti:JlQ     NMOl

sz 11   lJ8     s   Nnr  srnz

 

l~/,\Ol::JaiNtlO      .::lO  tJ!.\01

 

DECISION

FLOOR  AREA RATIO, LOT AREA AND STREET  FRONTAGE  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: George Alatsas

17 Bluefields Lane

Blauvelt, New York 10983

ZBA#l5-38

Date: May 20, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#15-38: Application of Helmke & Alatsas for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District, Section 3.12, Group M, · Column 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted,  .24 proposed),  5 (Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft. required, 14.357 sq. ft. existing) and 7 (Street Frontage: 75′ required, O’ proposed)  for a new single-family residence to replace the one being demolished. The premises are located at 342 Blauvelt Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.13, Block 2, Lot 18.2; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

George Alatsas, Bill Helmke and Robert Hoene, Architect, and appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy  of site plan dated March 24, 2015. (1 page).
2. Architectural plans dated03/20/2015 signed and sealed by Robert Hoene, Architect. (4 pages)

 

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

 

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

 

George Alatsas testified that the lot was created in the 1920’s; that this lot and the one in front of it were owned by the same family; that they purchased the house from the estate; and that the existing house is set about five feet from the west lot line.

 

Robert Hoene, Architect, testified that the floor area ratio is over a bit because of the front porch and the second floor walk-in closets and bathroom; that the porch adds aesthetically to the house and adds curb appeal; that the existing house that is being demolished is only about 700 sq. ft.; and that they are over on the floor area approximately 500 sq. ft. on the new house.

 

 

 

 

Bill Helmke testified that the driveway and utility easement is 15 ‘wide and belongs to the rear lot.

 

301.:L:W  S)l~310 NM@l

sz !1   WtJ      s     Nnr  Sl02

 

N/A013f.H~Vu J :30  [~h\01

 

Alatsas & Helmke

ZBA#l5-38

Page 2 of 4

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all the documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if the 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, and street frontage variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed new house is in keeping with changes made to other houses in the area.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, lot area and street frontage variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed new house is in keeping with changes made to other houses in the area.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested floor area ratio, lot area and street frontage 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.

 

 

 

3Ql:Jd0 S>!tJ310  NMOl

sz 11  WtJ      s    Nnr  Sl02

 

Nh\013~trtd0  so iH.\01

 

Helmke & Alatsas

ZBA#15-38

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 and street frontage variances are APPROVED; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that

such decision and the vote thereon shall become effective and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption by the Board of the minutes of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, in the sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated

hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is

issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement which legally permits such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

301.:1.:10  S)!H310  NA\01

s~ r r wt1    s    Nnr  s102

 

Helmke & Alatsas

ZBA#l5-38

Page 4 of 4

 

 

 

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

 

The Administrative   Aide to the 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: May 20,  2015

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTIUBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-M.M.

By—‘-.lL.J.,,~–=-.:::-===—>-o<..+..,~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

301.:UO   S~~),1310     Nf.\01

62 TI  LJ8     s    Nnr  Sl02

 

DECISION

ZONING   CODE  §9.34, FRONT   YARD,,  SIDE  YARD,  TOTAL   SIDE  YARD, BUILDING   HEIGHT  AND ACESSORY    STURCTURE    IN FRONT  YARD

VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

To: Ludovic  Littee

7 Ferdon A venue

Sparkill, New York  1097 6

ZBA#lS-40

Date:  May 20, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l5-40:   Application  of Ludovic  Littee for  variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown  Code,  CS District,  Section  9.34 (Extension  of existing non-conforming   use: one time up to, but not exceeding  50% of the floor area ratio) and from Section  3.12, Group FF, Columns  8 (Front Yard:  O’  or 45′  required,  15.90 existing,

22.15′  proposed)  9 (Side  Yard: 0/12′  permitted,   16.90′  proposed)  10 {Total Side Yard:

0125′ permitted, 33.40′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 22′ 6 3/8″ permitted, 26′  1″ proposed) and from Section 5.227 (Accessory structure in front yard)  for an addition to

an existing single-family residence and acknowledgment of an existing shed in the front yard. The premises are located at 7 Ferdon Avenue, Sparkill, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 78.05, Block I, Lot 12; in the CS zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

Ludovic Littee and Robert Hoene, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

 

1.

Architectural plans dated 03/05/20153 with the latest revision date of 04/01/2015 (3 pages) signed and sealed by Robert Hoene, Architect..

2. A letter dated April 29, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

3. A letter dated May 20, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P.E..

4. A letter dated May 5, 2015 from the County of Rockland Drainage Agency signed

by Vincent Altieri, Executive Director.

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of,      -; Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing applicilio1~    ~ a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQ~),  c.,       z 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. Castell~d  c.n    0 carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Q~nn,          ~ aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.                                                 en      ~      z

0         _,;;;;,         G”)

.,,        J–..’ l       f-l;1

Robert Hoene, Architect, testified that this is one of the first houses as you turn dewn ._. ·                         o

Ferdon; that there are several houses in the area and they are all zoned Communi~   f’i5 :           ~

Shopping; that being in a commercial zone is what triggered the variances; that the code

only allows for a one time less than 50% expansion of a pre-existing non-conforming use; that the house is being increased by 48%; that they have kept the existing front line of the house with the front porch and have stepped the proposed addition back from it;; that

they kept the height at the existing 26.1 ‘ and continued the existing roof line; that they

 

Littee

ZBA#15-40

Page 2 of  4

 

 

did not want to intrude  on the neighbor  and that is why they kept the side yard at 16.90 instead  of the permitted  0/12 and the total side yard was kept to 33.40 instead  of the permitted  0/25′;  and that the accessory  structure  in the front yard is a 8′  x 1 O’ shed that Ludovic keeps his motorcycle in; and that he has applied for a permit for it.

 

Ludovic Littee testified that his neighbor told him that he could not have the shed in the front yard and that he applied for a permit for it but could not add it onto this application and that he appreciates the Board considering now.

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal Law ofNew York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all the documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if the variance(s) are granted outweigh the detriment (if any) to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant, for the following reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested § 9 .34(Expansion of non-conforming use), Front Yard, Side Yard, Total Side Yard, Building Height and§ 5.227 (accessory structure in front yard) variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The existing house is small and the proposed addition allows the family to comfortably use the property. The small shed in the

front yard is not intrusive and is suitable for the storage of a motor bike.

 

 

 

2. The requested § 9.34(Expansion of non-conforming use), Front Yard, Side Yard, Total Side Yard, Building Height and§ 5.227 (accessory structure in front yard) variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There are several pre-existing non• conforming residential structures in the immediate area.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested § 9.34(Expansion of non-conforming use), Front Yard, Side Yard, Total Side Yard, Building Height and§  5.227 (accessory structure in front 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.  There are several pre-existing non• conforming residential structures m.J~¢Jl:Cl~lm~\    01

62 u LlH     s   Nnr   SlOZ

Nh\013  e NV’JO   .:10 N/-t\Ol

 

Littee

ZBA#15-40

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested§   9.34 (Expansion  of non• conforming  use), Front Yard,  Side Yard, Total  Side Yard,  Building  Height  and§

5.227 (accessory  structure  in front yard) variances  are APPROVED;  and FURTHER RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board of the minutes  of which they are a part.

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until, and unless,  a Certificate  of Occupancy  is

:z      en  i~ed    by the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement

·       ~

~     •C’J

0        ~ch     legally permits  such occupancy .

.,_ :   r-t        LL- w                    0 (.!)       E

cc   (v~y       foregoing  variance  or Special Permit  will lapse if any contemplated  construction

t.n    oftlhe project  or any use for which the variance  or Special Permit is granted  is not

z    su&tantially   implemented  within  one year of the date of filing of this decision  or that of

=5 ~other      board  of the Town  of Orangetown  granting  any required  final approval  to such

~   pr~ect,   whichever  is later, but in any event within  two years of the filing of this decision.

~    M~ely   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.

 

 

Littee

ZBA#15-40

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve the application  for the requested   §  9.34  (Expansion of non-conforming   use),  Front Yard,  Side Yard,  Total  Side Yard,  Building  Height and§

5.227   (accessory  structure  in front yard) variances   was presented  and moved by Ms. Salomon,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli    and carried  as follows:    Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   aye; Ms.  Salomon,   aye;  and  Mr. Sullivan,   aye.  Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:    May 20, 2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING     INSPECTOR-R.O.A.

By~

‘ Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.   and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

3 0 I_:!   .:l 0  s :nn 18  N IA 01

sz 11  wti   s   Nnr srnz

 

DECISION

ZONING   CODE  SECTION   6.332 GRAVEL   DIRVEWAY   VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:    Mikyong  Hyun

P.0.Box   689

Palisades,  New York  10964

ZBA #15-41

Date:  May 20, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l 5-41: Application  of  Mikyong  Hyun for a variance  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-80 District,  Section  6.332 (Driveways   shall have at least three (3) inches  of binder mix with a top wearing  course of one and one-half (1  ‘l’l) inches of fine mix asphalt or concrete: gravel is existing and proposed) for an · existing driveway at a single-family residence. The premises are located at 42 Woods Road, Palisades, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section

78.18, Block 1, Lot 38; in the R-80 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Mikyong and Chui Hyun appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of site plan dated June 2, 2000. (1 page).

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Mikyong testified that she purchased the property 16 years ago; that the gravel driveway existed when she purchased the lot; that she built a new house and enlarged the gravel driveway; that it was always shown on the plans as a gravel driveway; that she put money in escrow and wants to get it back and in order to do that, she needs to get a variance for the gravel driveway; that every house in the area has gravel for the driveway because of all of the water problems in the area; that there is only one house that has a step driveway that has a portion of it paved and all of the other driveways in the neighborhood are gravel.

 

 

 

 

301.:1::!0 $~~310 N/t\01 sz 11  LJtJ     s    Nnr  srnz Nh\Ol3~NVUO       .:IO Nh\01

 

Hyun

ZBA#IS-41

Page2 of 4

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.

 

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

 

 

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

Municipal Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested § 6.332 gravel driveway variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The vast majority of the houses in the area have gravel driveways because the area is wet and gravel is more pervious.

 

 

 

2. The requested § 6.332 gravel driveway variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The vast majority of the houses in the area have gravel driveways because the area is wet and gravel is more pervious.

 

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 § 6.332 gravel driveway variance, although somewhat substantial,

afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community.

The vast majority of the houses in the area have gravel driveways because the area is

wet and gravel is more pervious.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

301.:J.:lO S)1~31D    NPr\01 sz tr W8   s    Nnr  srnz N/;\013 e i’JVU 0  .:i 0  Nh\Ol

 

Hyun

ZBA#l5-41

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

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, in the sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated

hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is

issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement which legally permits such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

301.:L:lO S)!}j310 Nh\01

sz n  wtJ     s    Nnr  srnz

 

Nh\013~lfVUO    .::10   Mh\01

 

 

 

Hyun

ZBA#15-41

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested   § 6.332  gravel driveway  variance  was presented  and moved by Ms.  Castelli,   seconded  by Ms.  Salomon and canied  as follows:    Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye;  and  Mr. Sullivan,   aye.  Mr. Bosco  was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:   May 20,  2015

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    lNSPECTOR-R.0.A.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

By{)~O

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

3Q 1.:UO  s~1~31  Q   NMOl

62  11  lJ8    s   Nnr  SlOZ

 

NA~Ol:J  ~ NVJO .:!O   N;,\Ol

 

DECISION

ZONING CODE SECTION  5.153 FRONT YARD SHED AND SECTION 5.226

FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:   Cohn and Kate Dawson

3 Knutson Knolls

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA #15-42

Date:  May 20,  2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l5-42:  Application of Cohn and Kate Dawson for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District,  Section 5.153 (Shed  shall not be erected in front yard: shed is existing  and proposed  3 Yi’ from property line) and from Section 5.226 (Front Yard Fence:  4/12′   permitted; 6′  existing & proposed) for an existing fence and shed at a single-family residence. The premises are located at  3

Knutsen Knolls, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as

Section 77.06,   Block  1,   Lot 40; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 20, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Colm Dawson appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. 1. Copy of site plan dated December 7,  1964  with the shed and fence drawn on the plan.  (1 page).
2. 2. A petition in support of the application signed by three neighbo
3. Eight letters from abutting property owners in support of the application.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

Colm Dawson testified  that he installed the fence and the shed four years ago;  that he thought they were installed in his side yard and did not realize that he has two front yards because he has a comer lot;  that he has two small kids and the bus stop is at the corner of his lot; that the fence was installed for the safety of his own children but all the kids in

the neighborhood come into his yard to wait for the bus; that the shed is at least 1 O’  off the road and is an 8′ x 10′ shed;  and that he maintains the property  outside the fence along the sidewalk  and up to the curb.

 

 

 

 

3 o 1.:U 0  S )PE.11o M fr\01

08  11 lJ\j     s  Nnr  SlOZ

 

Ntt\013fJNVtiO   .:JO  N’1\0l

 

 

ZBA#IS-42

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

Carolyn  Masseri,  31 Washington  A venue,  testified  that the Dawson’s  maintain  the

property  along the sidewalk  that their property  is very well kept and the fence keeps  all of the children  safe while they are waiting  for the bus.

 

Bob Cunningham,   12 Knutson  Knolls,  testified  that he has live in his house for 38 years; that the fence is good looking;  that he kids all play inside the fence while waiting  for the bus; that this an asset to the neighborhood   and the Dawson’s   are an asset to the neighborhood.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all the documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if the variance(s) are granted outweigh the detriment (if any) to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant, for the following reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested §5.153 shed in front yard and§  5.226 front yard fence height

variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Testimony from neighbors in overwhelming support of the application because of the safe area the fenced in yard provides for all the children while waiting for the school bus, makes the fence an asset to the neighborhood.

 

 

 

2. The requested §5.153 shed in front yard and§  5.226 front yard fence height variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Testimony from neighbors in overwhelming support of the application because of the safe area the fenced in yard provides for all the children while waiting for the school bus, makes the fence an asset to 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.

 

 

:z     C)

4. The requested §5.153 shed in front yard and§ 5.226 front yard fence height variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not

w     outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the

 

3:    :M        (.)

I-

0          ~       LI…         surrounding neighborhood or nearby community.  The applicant has two front yards.

llJ       l   r-i          L!-

C!>         e::   0

z      cc      U)

c::

<              ~- The applicant purchased the property subject to Orange town’s Zoning Code (Chapter

….J

1. C) LI?       w     43) and is proposing a new addition and/or improvements, so the alleged difficulty

z

l.J…

1. C) (.)             was self-created, which consideration was relevant to the decision of the Board of

 

0

I-

-z~–

==>

z

~       3:     Appeals, but did not, by itself, preclude the granting of the area variances.

L,r_.)             0

 

<:::)                  I-

c-..J

 

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested §5.153  shed in front yard and § 5.226 front yard fence 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.

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested   §5 .153    shed in front yard and§   5.226 front yard fence height   variances   was presented   and moved by Mr. Sullivan,   seconded  by Ms.  Salomon   and carried as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,   aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   aye; Ms.  Salomon,   aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,   aye.  Mr. Bosco  was absent.

 

The Administrative   Aide to the 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:    May 20,  2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING     INSPECTOR-M.M.

 

By~

Deborah  Arbo1ino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING Fl LE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR