Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS May 4, 2016

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:           PATRICIA  CASTELLI MICHAEL  BOSCO THOMAS  QUINN

 

 

 

ABSENT:                               DAN  SULLIVAN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE JOAN  SALOMON

 

 

 

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 Ms. Castelli,   Acting  Chair.

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

 

 

 

PUBLISHED   ITEMS

 

APPLICANTS       NEW   ITEMS:	DECISIONS
HELMKE/  ALATSAS	FLOOR  AREA  RATIO,  SIDE	ZBA#16-29
69.10/ 2 I 70; R-15 zone	YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD,
	AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED
LAMOND POOL	SIDE YARD AND REARY ARD	ZBA#16-30
77.11I2 I 45; R-15 zone	VARIANCES APPROVED
CARO	SIDE YARD AND TOTAL SIDE YARD	ZBA#16-31
68.15 I 4 I 41; RG zone	VARIANCES APPROVED
CASS/LANCASTER 69.05 I 2 I 58; R-15 zone	TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#16-32
BRANT POOL	CONTINUED	ZBA#l6-33
70.13  I 2 I 19; R-15 zone

 

HAMILTON BIOS ADDITION   FLOOR AREA RATIO,

68.08 I 1  I 5; LI zone                     AND LAND COVERAGE VARIANCES APPROVED

ZBA#l6-34

 

CHRISS PERGOLA

78.18 I 1  I 10; R-80 zone

NO VARIANCES REQUIRED                   ZBA#l6-35

 

 

 

.::J..I.”.,) 11::‘..–:ti”.\.’

c–;: \ !  ”   “.:11 ‘.)   !.}..:...\ 0 l

 

 

1C  21  Lld     S2   hHlJ 9102

 

Page2

 

 

 

OTHER   BUSINESS:

 

 

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

Ice Factory,   Special Permit,  1   Veterans  Parkway,   Pearl  River, NY; 69.05  I 2 I 76; CO

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  9:30 P.M.

 

Dated:  May 4, 2016

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

By~~

 

 

DISTRJBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR  (Individual     Decisions) Rockland  County Planning

Deborah Arbolino,  Administrative Aide

 

 

1~.”.0l

.::JQJJ.i”I     ‘””.•1J1-1-       ..

• –·      -‘                             ·  J

If ZI /Jci

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR   AREA  RATIO,   SIDE  YARD,  TOTAL   SIDE  YARD,  AND BUILDING HEIGHT                 VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To: Helmke/  Alatsas

4 Independence  A venue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA#l6-29

Date: May 4, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  16-29: Application  of Helmke/  Alatsas  for  variances  from Zoning  Code  (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Column  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .20 pennitted,    .28  proposed),  9 (Side Yard: 20′  required,  15′ proposed)  10 (Total  Side Yard:  50′  required,  31′  proposed),   and 12  (Building  Height:

15′ permitted,  25′  proposed)  for a new single-family  residence.  The premises  are located

at 104 South Reld Drive,  Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown

Tax Map as Section  69.10, Block 2, Lot  70; R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  May 4, 2016 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

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

1. Architectural  plans dated 03/26/2012  with the latest revision  date of 01/22/2015

signed and sealed by Robert  Hoene,  Architect.

2. Plot plan dated March  22, 2016 with the latest revision  date of 4/15/2016  signed and sealed by Steven Michael  Sparaco,  P .E., and William  Youngblood,  P .E..
3. A google map picture  of the house  and surrounding  area.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Ms. Castelli   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  SEQ RA environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Mr. Quinn and carried  as follows:   Ms. Castelli,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; and Mr. Quinn,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Salomon  and Mr. Feroldi  were absent.

 

r–.;,

-i         ~

~      ::;:::

George Alatsas testified that they are local builders; that the existing house is a Seif.S ki~

house; that it is not structurally sound enough to hold a second floor; that because Pf thee=

condition of the house it is easier to knock it down and build a new house; that the£:!   ~

c:    ~

existing detached garage is only four feet from the property line and this house will have an attached garage; and that they will be removing a lot of blacktop from the site.

-I

0

 

 

<:)

–.1

0

 

 

CJ

 

-.-;         )–\     .                   r:-j

 

Robert Hoene, Architect, testified that he knows about the front to back Cape styl~     ~      ~ houses that Mr. Quinn is referring to; that this style house would fit better onto th1e1Iotlbnt   z cannot have a garage; that the lot is only 75′ wide and it is not possible to conform to

yard requirements when the garage is attached to the house; that he designed the house

next to this one and it also required some variances but fits into the neighborhood nicely.

 

Bill Helmke testified that this property sits about three feet lower than the road.

 

Helmke/  Alatsas

ZBA #16-29

Page2  of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  floor area ratio, 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 houses  have been constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, 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 houses  have been constructed  in the area.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  floor area, 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.  Similar houses have been constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

:i”1 ! _r  -~ :”:    ,~. ‘-‘  ‘ f  1 .., ·!     ~. i r: 1    O   I

-\.    ‘-·   ·   –      ‘     ·        ..       ‘      I’-‘     ;·.!‘.;\.       _

 

1£ ZI LJd     S 2   AYlJ 9102

 

Helmke/ Alatsas

ZBA#l6-29

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, 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.

 

 

 

 

J:v). J  _J_. -,1·  I.“.)    ~•.·   \!’I

• °1-l ‘.1…  .j1J. !~1\1 01

 

re 21   tJd     S2  ~HlJ 9IOZ

 

Helmke/  Alatsas

ZBA#16-29

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  floor area ratio, side yard, total side yard and building  height  variances   was presented  and moved by Mr. Bosco,   seconded  by Mr. Quinn   and carried as follows:   Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye; and Ms.  Castelli,   aye. Ms.  Salomon,   Mr. Feroldi  and Mr.  Sullivan  were 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 4,  2016

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TO\\’N ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-R.A.O.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

By~f)~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

~ 8 ! _! · 1   ::    ~   ‘ I \ ‘  11 J i . .’.’, 0l

 

TS  Z I  lJd     S 2  r\HlJ  9102

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE  YARD  AND REAR  YARD  VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To: Keith and Megan Lamond

4 Paul Court

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA #16-30

Date: May 4, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#16-30:  Application  of Keith and Megan  Lamond  for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter43)                      of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Group M, Section 3.12, Column  9 (Side Yard: 20′  required,  18.3′  proposed)  and from Section  5.227 (Rear Yard:

20′  required,  10′ proposed)  for an in-ground  pool at an existing  single-family  residence. The premises  are located  at 4 Paul Court, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.11, Block 2, Lot 45; 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 4, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Keith and Megan Lamond appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Site plan labeled “Pool Grading Plan for Lamond” dated 02/03/2016 signed and

sealed by Chester Dilorenzo, P.E..

2. A letter dated April 26, 2016 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

3. A letter dated April 25, 2016 from the County of Rockland Highway Department signed by Sonny Lin, P.E.

 

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

 

 

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Castelli 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 Mr. Quinn and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye. Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Salomon and Mr. Feroldi were absent.

 

Keith almond testified that they have a very small rear yard; that they reduced the size of the pool to try to get it to fit in the yard; that they have a 20′ rear yard and anything they put in it will require a variance; that they are asking to install a 15′ wide by 30′ long by

5′ deep in -ground pool on the rear right side of the yard because it fits there the best;

that if they put it in the middle of the rear yard it would be too close to the rear sliding doors and they would have to remove the existing patio; that they have owned the house for eight years and they have three children; and their neighbors at 1  Paul Court got a 10′ side and  6′ rear yard variance for their pool because they also have a small rear yard.

 

 

 

 

is  21  Wd   s z  ~HlJ   srnz

 

Lamond  Pool

ZBA#l6-30

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 ofNew   York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  side yard and rear yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable

change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  Other properties  in the neighborhood  have received  similar variances  for in-ground  pools.

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard and rear yard variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.

 

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 rear yard variances,  although  somewhat  substantial, afford benefits  to the applicant  that is 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.

 

2C  21  hJd   S2  AHlJ   91U2

 

Lamond Pool

ZBA#16-30

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 rear yard variances are APPROVED; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that such decision and the vote thereon shall become effective and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption

by the Board of the minutes of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

–.:;! f»‘J\ I!-Ji  .·.’.-. ·”J.·   r,)  , ‘ l \ II_,11  ·\•,)

~’.· !Ill. ,I,’, O·l

 

 

2£   21   LJd    S2   ~HlJ 9l02

 

Lamond  Pool

ZBA#l6-30

Page  4 of  4

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested    side yard and rear yard variances was presented and moved by Mr. Quinn, seconded by Ms.  Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye;   Mr. Quinn, aye; and Ms.  Castelli, aye. Ms. Salomon, Mr. Feroldi and Mr. Sullivan were 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 4, 2016

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN   ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-RAO.

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

2£  21  tJd    SZ  ~8tJ  SluZ

 

DECISION

SIDE YARD AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

To: Eddie and Janet Caro

78 Lieutenant Cox Drive

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA #16-31

Date: May 4, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#l6-31:  Application of the Eddie and Janet Caro for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43)  of the Town of Orangetown Code,,  Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Column 9 (Side Yard: 10′ required, 5′ existing) and 10 (Total Side Yard: 30′ required,

25′ proposed) for an addition and handicap ramp at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 78 Lieutenant Cox Drive, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.15, Block 4, Lot 41; in the RG zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Janet Caro appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans dated 02/24/2016 with the latest revision date of 04/13/2016 signed and sealed by Joseph J. Bruno, Architect (3 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, Ms. Castelli 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 Mr. Quinn and

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

 

Janet Caro testified that they would like to convert the existing garage into a bedroom

and handicap accessible bathroom for their nine year old son that is in a wheelchair; that they are also adding a handicap ramp from the driveway to access the bedroom; that they need to raise the floor of the garage to be level with the house and they have owned the house for fourteen years.

 

 

–        \_;     I  •4         •      ,       ~                    v.,       ,                  _J    l •J      :  ·:  ! ;

~r11-l-‘(J     r’·’-‘.·,1.:–:-.r-i        ·.”’\Ol

 

2C 2I   lJd    S2  ~YtJ   srnz

 

Caro

ZBA#16-31

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  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 existing  five foot side yard is not changing  and the construction  of the handicap  ramp is on the north side of the house  which will maintain  a 20′  side yard.

 

 

 

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 existing  five foot side yard is not changing  and the construction  of the handicap ramp is on the north side of the house  which will maintain  a 20′  side yard.

 

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 existing  five foot side yard is not changing  and the construction  of the handicap ramp is on the north side of the house which will maintain  a 20′  side yard.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

v'”‘         I.                        G   ntjLtJ     ~lLJ~

-Jr.  z T     LJ.1,d.    S ..,      1   “1   1           nrr -~

 

Caro

ZBA#l6-31

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 onlyto 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.

 

 

 

.:.::,1t0″\.I:’:.::,,’….1   ·~·.””””·::il’I ·~       i‘..:J;;“~J“-~‘I

 

2£  21  Wd   sz ~mJ srnz

 

N                                              ~1     ~.    ~     :~ ·\

. ‘· n ‘    -: r. ·   ~   ·      ·   ·     ·    r-:     _:                      n i

f (\ cJ l. .:.: ‘-‘ I  j     ,      ·-      ~J        -·        –‘        I >  l  •  •  ‘-‘     —

 

Caro

ZBA#l6-31

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. Castelli,   seconded  by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Quinn, aye; and Ms.  Castelli,  aye.  Ms. Salomon,  Mr. Feroldi and Mr.  Sullivan were 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 4,  2016

 

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-RAO.

By~~,AL-~=—->…£_~~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

c,~        L    :;d

/I’    z- L1   •

 

 

! II'”‘   l   ~ c:     ‘

. rl’         —   -1 .._  •

 

DECISION

 

 

TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Michael Cass & Lynne Lancaster

97 Veterans Parkway

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA #16-32

Date: May-l, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#16-32: Application of Michael Cass and Lynne Lancaster for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43)  of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District, Group M, Section 3.12, Column 10 (Total Side Yard: 50′ required, 33.5′ proposed) for a second story dormer at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 97

Veterans Parkway, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown  Tax

Map as Section 69.05, Block 2, Lot 58; 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 4, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Michael Cass and Lynne Lancaster appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Site plan.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Castelli 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 Mr. Quinn and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye. Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Feroldi and Ms. Salomon were absent.

 

 

 

Michael Cass testified that they are proposing to add a second story dormer to the front and rear of the existing house to enable them to have a full bedroom and bathroom on the second floor of the house; that he footprint of the house is not changing and the existing total side yard is 33.5′.

 

2c  21  Wd   s2  ~HlJ   srnz

 

Cass/Lancaster

ZBA#16-32

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 total side yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The total side yard of 33.5′ is not changing and the applicant is adding two second story dormers.

 

 

 

2. The requested total side yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The total side yard of 33.5′ is not changing and the applicant is adding two second story dormers.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested total side yard variance, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. The total side yard of 33.5′ is not changing and the applicant is adding two second story dormers.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

2 8  Z 1  lJ d    S 2  A 8 lJ  910 Z

 

Cass/Lancaster

ZBA#l6-32

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 total 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

 

 

 

 

 

:….·.)    ;:_.:::          .                               –·                 ·-   …                     –

-1  r,  !          1            i    -I      r  ‘ 1       \   1       1-11   ‘)      l” i\ \ 0 I

..·

zs z l LJd      s 2   ~8lJ   srnz

 

Cass/Lancaster

ZBA#16-32

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

Feroldi and Mr. Sullivan were 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 4, 2016

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-RAO.

By~~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

 

Z0(‘  z-L

lJ· d.

SZ    WlJ   9IDZ

 

f~/,\OLiDil\”‘     .J  sc  f!.’.\01

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR AREA  RA TIO,  AND LAND  COVERAGE    VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:  Ed Bennett  (Hamilton  Bios) Pfizer

401 N. Middletown  Road

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#16-34

Date: May 4, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#16-34:  Application  of the Hamilton  Bios Addition  (Pfizer  Site Plan Building  #222) for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, LIO District  refers to LI District,  Group  QQ, Column  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .50 permitted,  .531 proposed)  and from notes to use and bulk tables,  note # 14 Maximum  Land Coverage:

(80% permitted  in the LI Zone; 89.34% proposed) for an addition to an existing building.

The premises are located at 401 North Middletown Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.08, Block 1, Lot 5; in the LI zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 4, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Donn McMullen, Pfizer, Steven Green, Architect Designer, and Vu Ly. Santect Engineer, appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans dated 01/13/2016 with the latest revision date of 02/19/2016 (15 pages) signed and sealed by Joseph F. Masiello, P.E..
2. A letter dated March 23, 2016 from John Giardiello, Director, OPZPAE.
3. Zoning Board Decision #14-25 dated April 16, 2014.
4. A letter dated April 25, 2016 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

5. A letter dated May 4, 2016 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P.E.

6. A letter dated April 7, 2016 from the Town of Clarkstown signed by Rudolph J.

Yacyshyn, Vice Chair.

7. A letter dated April 4, 2016 from the Rockland County Department of Health signed by Scott McKane, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer.

 

r–, .:.,

_,              .;.:::;>

 

I                  ~—

Ms. Castelli , Acting Chair, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which moti<fnwa8′ seconded by Mr. Quinn and carried unanimously.                                                    –~=    ~

c       -c:

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,” counsel to the Zoning Bo~d o~ Appeals, Ms. Castelli moved for a Board determination that since the Planning Board ·-u noticed its intent to declare itself Lead Agency and distributed that notice of intention t03

all Involved Agencies, including the ZBA who consented or did not object to the ~-;    :=::;

Planning board acting as Lead Agency for this application, pursuant to coordinated.    co review under State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulation§ 617.6 (b)(3)(ahd N

since the Planning Board conducted a SEQRA review and, on March 23, 2016, rendered an environmental determination of no significant adverse environmental impacts to

result from the proposed land use action (i.e. ”Negative Declaration” of ”Neg. Dec.”), the

ZBA is bound by the Planning Board’s Neg Dec and the ZBA cannot require further

SEQRA review pursuant to SEQRA Regulation  §617.6 (b) (3). The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye. Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Salomon and Mr. Feroldi were absent.

-1

 

 

 

r.:

-l

C’

 

Hamilton  Bios Addition  (Pfizer) ZBA#16-34

Page2of   4

 

Donn McMullen  testified  that this project  is a Pfizer project;  that two years ago the property  was subdivided  and this site is on the 22.9 acre portion  of the subdivided property;  that it is part of the 222 building,  which is 186,000 sq. ft.; that he Planning board  approved  the 4,000  sq. ft. addition  to the building  that will house  a robotic  freezer; that they presently  store millions  of samples  of blood,  vaccines  and urine and other samples,  frozen; that this new robotic  system will allow storage  and retrieval  of these samples to happen  more  efficiently;  that a scientist  will now enter the building  and press a few buttons  and a robotic  system will either take the sample  and store it or retrieve  a sample for the scientist;  and that this is a complex  expensive  warehouse  that will help with the vaccine  research  taking place on site.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Ms. Castelli made a motion  to close the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded  by

Mr. Bosco   and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  floor area ratio and land coverage  variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The robotic  storage  freezer  will increase  efficiency  at the research  facility without  changing  the character   or physical  or environmental   conditions,  of the neighborhood.

 

 

 

2. The requested  floor area ratio and land coverage  variances   will not have an adverse effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  The robotic  storage  freezer will increase  efficiency  at the research  facility without  changing  the character   or physical  or environmental   conditions  of the neighborhood.

 

3. The applicant  has agreed to satisfy the conditions  of the Rockland  County Department  of Planning  letter dated April 25, 2016  signed by Douglas  J. Schuetz, Acting  Commissioner  of Planning.

 

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

 

 

 

3 8 l.:U .J  S ” ” J 1 0  rUA 0 l

 

28   21  tJd     52   AUlJ 9102

 

Hamilton  Bios Addition  (Pfizer) ZBA#16-34

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

5. The requested  floor area ratio and land coverage  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 robotic  storage  freezer  will increase  efficiency  at the research facility without  changing  the character   or physical  or environmental  conditions,  of

the neighborhood.

 

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   floor area ratio and land coverage  variances  are APPROVED   with the Specific  Condition  that the applicant satisfy the conditions  set forth in the letter dated April 25, 2016 from the County of Rockland  Department  of Planning  signed by Douglas  J.  Schuetz,  Acting

Commissioner   of Planning;  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 8 l .-J .:’.  e:    ~· ~  ·’  1      ~l l J ;–: :?\OJ.

2s z 1 lJd    s 2   ~UtJ   srnz

 

Hamilton  Bios Addition  (Pfizer) ZBA#16-34

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  and land coverage  variances  with the Specific  Condition  that the applicant  satisfy  the conditions  set forth in the letter  dated April  25,  2016 frorri the County of Rockland Department  of Planning  signed by Douglas   J.  Schuetz,   Acting  Commissioner  of

Planning;   was presented  and moved  by Ms.  Castelli,   seconded  by Mr. Quinn  and carried

as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye ;  and Ms.  Castelli,   aye.  Ms. Salomon,  Mr. Feroldi  and Mr. Sullivan  were 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 4,  2016

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTIUBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY    TOWN  ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    TNSPECTOR-N.A.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and ENGINEERTNG FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

2£  2 l LJd     S Z  AHlJ  91UZ

 

DECISION

 

SIDE  YARD  AND TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES    NOT  REQUIRED    FOR  AN ARBOR:   DOES  NOT  REQUIRE    A BUILDING   PERMIT

 

To: William  Bosley  (Chriss  arbor)

12 Sugarhill  Road

Nyack, New York  10960

ZBA#16-35

Date: May 4, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#l6-35:   Application  of  Neil Chriss for  variances  from  Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code,,   Section  3.12, R-80 District,  Group A, Column  9 (Side Yard:  30′ required,  12′ proposed)  and 10 (Total Side Yard:  100′ required  51.8′ proposed)  for an arbor. The premises  are located  at 49 Woods  Road, Palisades,  New

York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 78.18, Block  1, Lot 1 O;

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 4, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

William Bosley, contractor and Daniel  Sherman, Landscape Architect, appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Site plan signed and sealed by Daniel Sherman, Landscape Architect dated

December 9, 2015.

2. A letter dated March 29, 2016 from Dan Sherman.
3. Five computer generated pictures of the rear yard.
4. Three pages of hand drawn details of the arbor.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Castelli moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is., a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQ~,     ~ pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does nbt  :3 require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn and~      ~ carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye. Mr. SuUlvan~ Ms. Salomon and Mr. Feroldi were absent.                                                               ; .

c..       ·-o

3

Bill Bosley testified that he has an active building permit  for the pool and the terraces pn

the property; that he went into the building department to amend the permit and add-an N

arbor and requested to go before the Historic areas board of review for the review ~th~ arbor; that the building inspector told him that he needed a variance for the arbor; that he would argue that the code states that an arbor does not require a building permit and he went over the code Sections 5.221 and 10.221.

 

 

–t

 

 

 

()

 

 

 

 

G)

r.·;

–{

0

 

 

Dan Sherman, a NYS licensed Landscape Architect, testified that, in his expert opinion, the proposed structure is an arbor, and the arbor is not a structure that requires a building permit: that the Code is clear on that, as described in his 03/29/2016 narrative, and that the structure will serve to shade part of the patio and be planted well.

 

Chriss Arbor

ZBA#16-35

Page2  of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

Joan Lehman,  43 Woods  Road, testified  that she has been here before  when the previous owners  of the property  were before  the Board;  that she was assured by the Chriss’ s that they would not be asking  for variances  and lo and behold  she gets this letter; that they did say that they would withdraw  the application  is they need a variance;  that she likes her new neighbors  very much but the property  is overbuilt  and clogged  with an enormous house  and enormous  barn a large pool downhill  toward  Corbett  Lane and it is constipated and the view from 43 Woods  is a compound  under  construction  setting an extremely negative  precedent;  that there was never a variance  granted  on Woods  Road and this is overbuilt  and busting  out from all sides and some people  are just  greedy.

 

Bill Bosley,  once again stated that if a variance  is needed  the application  will be withdrawn.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

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

Mr. Quinn and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all the documents  submitted,  the Board  found and concluded  that:

 

 

 

1. The proposed  structure  is an arbor, and therefore,  the requested  side yard and total

side yard variances  are not necessary because a building permit is not required for an arbor, pursuant to Zoning Code§  5.221 and §10.221.

 

 

2C 21  lJd    S 2  ~UlJ   91U2

 

Chriss Arbor

ZBA#16-35

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 NOT REQUIRED because a building permit is not required for an arbor; 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 ofthe 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.

 

 

 

28   21  LJd   S2  ~mJ  9102

 

Chriss Arbor

ZBA#l6-35

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to acknowledge  that the requested   side yard and total  side  yard variances   are not required for the proposed  structure  because  a building  permit  is not required  for an arbor; was presented  and moved by Mr. Bosco,   seconded  by Ms.  Castelli and carried  as follows:  Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye; and Ms.  Castelli,  aye.  Ms. Salomon,  Mr. Feroldi   and Mr. Sullivan  were 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 4,  2016

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-G.M.

By~-¥-‘~-“‘–‘–=–‘””-~~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   ofENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.   and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,     PB

CHAIRMAN,    ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR