Meeting Overview

 

–i

~_.    -1

 

c:::>

—

0          c:..n       G

 

MINUTES                                                  =.:=z      CJ

-·.:::

-…..

.,

….:…

 

rr”1

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS                                C)          C::>

rn     co     <.::>

November 18. 2015                                           r

….                                          :;1J

(/)           -u    –

7:                       . .:.:–

……

• “-

 

rTJ

.C.),,

:::3     C)

rn

 

PATRICIA CASTELLI                                             0          O·      –

0

MEMBERS PRESENT:        DAN SULLIVAN                                                     ~l    N:        -4

<

JOAN SALOMON                                                            N        :z

LEONARD FEROLDI, ALTERNATE MICHAEL BOSCO

 

 

 

ABSENT:                              THOMAS QUINN

 

 

 

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

POSTPONED ITEM:

 

BRIGHTVIEW SENIOR LIVING

31 Hunt Road, Pearl River, NY

73.15 I 1  I lO;R-80 zone

 

 

 

 

NEW ITEMS: CARR/SHAW

180 Washington Street

Tappan,NY

77.11I1I49;  R-15 zone

• 3.11, COLUMN 3 ZBA#15-90

USES BY SPECIAL PERMIT, FRONT YARD AND REARYARD

• 3.11, R-80, COLUMN 6 # 6 PARKING SPACES PER BED; § 3.12, R-80, COLUMN 4

FLOOR AREA RATIO;§ 3.11, COLUMNS #12

SIGN SIZE AND LOCATION APPROVED

 

 

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO, LOT           ZBA#15-98

WIDTH, STREET FRONTAGE, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD,

TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

• 5.21 (C) UNDERSIZED LOT APPLIES

 

 

 

 

RIELLY

124 Washington Spring Road

Palisades, NY

78.18 I 1I31;  R-22 zone

GRAVEL DRIVEWAY VARIANCE APPROVED

ZBA#15-99

 

CHRISS

49 Woods Road

Palisades, NY

78.18 I 1I10;  R-40 zone

FRONT YARD FENCE                    ZBA#lS-100

HEIGHT VARIANCE APPROVED

 

FIESTA MEXICO

380 Route 303

Orangeburg, NY

74.11I1I7;  CC zone

POSTPONED                                    ZBA#lS-101

 

Minutes

Page2

 

 

 

 

BREDING

185   Center Street

Pearl River,  NY

68.15   I 2 I 7; R-15  zone

SIDE YARD  AND                                ZBA#l 5-102

TOTAL  SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

 

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

Verizon  Wireless   Site plan  Fuel Storage  Expansion  Plan,  2000 Corporate  Drive,

Orangeburg,  NY 73.15   I 1I19;     LIO zone;    and FURTHER  RESOLVED,   to request   to be notified by the Planning  Board of SEQ RA proceedings,   hearings,   and determinations with respect  to these matters.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

Dated:  November   18,    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

ByCJkiv~

 

Deborah  Arbo lino,  Administrative  Aide

 

 

381.:l.:lO   S>l’-1318    NMOl

 

20   Z   lJd      8     830   SlOZ

 

NA\OL3~t~VLJO      ::JO   [~if\01

 

DECISION

 

 

• 3.11, COLUMN 3  USES  BY SPECIAL   PERMIT:

FRONT   YARD  & REAR YARD;§ 3.11, R-80 DISTRICT,  COLUMN 6 #6

PARKING SPACES PER BED;§  3.12, R-80 DISTRICT,  COLUMN 4 :FLOOR AREA RATIO AND FROM§ 3.11, COLUMN 5, #12 SIGN SIZE AND LOCATION VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:  Donald Brenner (Brightview)

4 Independence Avenue

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA #15-90

Date: November 18, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#15-90:Application of Brightview Senior Living  for a Special Use Permit as per Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-80 District, Group H, Section 3.11, Column 3 Uses by Special Permit Zoning Board #3 Institutions for the

Aged and for variances from the following: (no building shall be located within 300′ of a lot line: 67′ proposed for front yard; 46′ proposed for side yard, 24′ proposed for rear

yard); Section 3 .11, R-80 District, Column 6, #6 (Parking 1   space per bed: 160 beds proposed,  160 spaces required, 92 spaces provided);  from Section 3.12, R-80 District, Column 2, Group D, Column4 (Floor Area Ratio: .10 permitted, .67 proposed) and from Section 3.11, R-80 District (part 2), Column 5, #12 (Sign: 1  (One) sign not more than 20 sq. ft. located 25′ from any lot line permitted: O’  proposed, location in county right-of• way)  for a Senior Living Facility. The premises are located at 31 Hunt Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 73.15, Block

1, Lot 10; in the R-80 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Donald Brenner, Attorney, Michael Glinn, Shelter Development, Diego Villarele, P.E., JMC Associate principal, Andrew Teeters, Shelter Group, Vice President, and Eric D. Anderson, Architect, JAL Architecture & Engineering, P.C., appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Preliminary Site Plan Approval Drawings “Brightview Senior Living Lake Tappan” (14 pages) by JMC Site Development Consultants signed and sealed by Diego A. Villareale P.E.. dated 06/08/2015.
2. Architectural drawings labeled Brightview Senior Living Lake Tappan showing exterior elevations in color dated September 9, 2015 by JAL Architecture & Engineering ,P.C. not signed or sealed (3 pages).
3. Planning Board Decision dated September 9, 2015.
4. A memorandum dated July 22, 2015 from John Giardiello, P.E., Director, Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement, Town of Orangetown.
5. A letter dated October 19, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

6. A letter dated October 21, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P.E..                                                           6   S   ~

7. A letter dated October 19, 2015 from Jean McAvoy, Region 3, Division of~  ~      =-r:

Environmental Permits, New York State Department of Environmental     ~     8j     ~

 

Conservation.

gr-;

–                                   ::.D

CX>        0

 

~-~                       ::;:…. (./)        -0        z

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motio~as.3      ~

0         0

seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.                                               :::]      N    :         –f

fT1         0     I            :e:

N   z

 

 

 

Brightview Senior Living

ZBA#15-90

Page2 of  7

TOWN OF  OS.MIGETOWN

 

2D15 DEC     8     PrJ    2   03

 

TOWN CLEHKS  OFFICE

 

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that since the Planning Board noticed its intent to declare itself Lead Agency and distributed that notice of intention to 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 review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations §617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning Board conducted a SEQRA review and on September 9, 2015, rendered an enviromnental determination of no significant adverse environmental impacts to result from the proposed land use action (i.e., a “Negative Declaration” or

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

 

Donald Brenner, Attorney testified that the applicant has appeared before the Planning Board and on September 9, 2015 was granted a preliminary approval and a neg dee for SEQRA review; that the property is zoned for this use; and they have changed some of the design of the building to work with the neighbors and the Planning Board; that he DEC is involved in the process and they will be watching that any Eagles are protected, that the applicants have been working with the neighbors to reduce the visual impact of the building and to add additional parking for the Little League and the Legion and they

are hooking up the neighbors to utilities for sewer and water; that the facility will pay full property taxes.

 

 

 

Michael Glinn, Shelter Development, testified that this facility would allow couples to remain under the same roof as they age; that they can start out in an independent living unit and as needed move to an assisted living unit and if need by a memory care unit; that they offer health services, buses, dining and housekeeping; that they hire local people; that they are sensitive to their neighbors; that they are happy to be located near a Little League field because it is good for the people living in the facility to be involved in activities; that they have a ratio of 69 independent units/ 45 assisted living units and 26 memory care units and this ratio works successfully; that it breaks down further to 17 independent (2) two bedroom units, 48 independent {l) one bedroom units and 4 independent studios; that the assisted living units breaks down to two (2) – two bedroom

units, 16 ( 1) one bedroom units; and 27 studios; and the memory care breaks down to two (1) bedroom units and 24 studios; that they have been working with the Planning Board and have changed the design of the building from four stories to three stories and have made the building look more residential; that they have offered public utility hook up for all of the neighbors for both water and sanitary sewer.

 

 

 

Diego Vilareale, P.E., JMC, testified that the aerial photo shows the five acre site and surrounding area with the wooded area to the reservoir, the parking are by the American Legion Association and Little League Fields; Hunt Avenue and Orangeburg Road with

R-80 zoning and LI zone to the south; that the main access for the site will be off of Hunt Road up the hillside to the plateau, where the building is planned; that the carport entrance is at the second driveway and that is where the buses would pick up and drop off; on the southern side is where the loading space and supplemental parking is located; that the code requires one (1) parking space per bed but this code is more geared toward

outpatient care at hospitals; that they have a parking summary on a display board to show for six Brightview facilities that works successfully; that the formula that is used for

parking is .75 spaces per independent living unit and .50 spaces per assisted unit; that the

International Transportation Engineers supports this data; that the residents that move into these facilities are usually in their 80’s and are giving up driving or will soon; that

the facility meets many of the needs for the residents, dining and social spaces and by the

time they move into a facility like this, they are driving less, if at all; that the outdoor

 

 

 

Bightview  Senior Living

ZBA#15-90

Page  3   of  7

TOWN OF CfUNGETOWN

ZU15  DEG   .       8    Pfl      z  03

 

TOWN CLEKKS   OFFICE

 

 

spaces are an integral part of the design of the facility; that the garden areas are designed for the residents to enjoy; that there is a secure space labeled the well spring garden for Alzheimer’s patients; that they also have a side walk area that surrounds the space and a two additional garden areas in the back that face the reservoir and the ball fields; that being near the ball fields is an asset for the facility because it feels like part of the community with young people playing nearby; that the facility is surrounded on the south by the American Legion, and three single-family residences on Hunt Avenue and this are will be heavily landscaped with a berm and plantings; that they originally came to the Planning board with plans for a taller building and they have modified the roof lines and the east elevation has come down from the original 54 feet to 38 Yi feet; that the building is residential in character with the dormers and these take away from the over scale of the building; that the new stormwater management design will mitigate improve the conditions in the area; that public utilities will be brought in for the existing residents and buildings for sanitary sewer and water; and that gas will be brought back to the site and the residents and other buildings could hook up to that also if they choose; that peak trips for traffic would be 24 trips in the morning and 34 trips in the evening; that in order for

the facility to function at a profit this is the number of units needed; that the loading dock will have limited truck activity for loading and unloading; that there will not be the

typical tractor trailers; that box trucks are usually used for deliveries and the trash facility will be fully enclosed within a fence.

 

Public Comment:

 

Grace Meyer, 49 Hunt Road, testified that she abuts the property; that she thinks the project is too large for the area; that she is also concerned about the nests for the eagles on the property.

 

Tom Warren, 49 Minuteman Circle, testified that he is a on the Board for the Legion Association and that they are 100% behind the project; that the applicant has been working with the planning Board and the Legion could definitely use the help with parking improvements,

 

Dennis Scherer, 99 Orangeburg Road, testified that James Crosby was on the Boar the last time he spoke to the Zoning board; that he appreciates the great care that has been taken in the planning of the facility with gardens and gazebos; that the improvements will be positive for the youth and the neighbors because of being able to hook up to public sewer and water; that the parking could be shared at peak times with a liability protection provided.

 

Bob Kingsley, 65 Oriole Street, Pearl River, testified that he has a question regarding the location of the loading docks and the service entrance to the facility and was confused regarding the designated parking for the ball field.

 

Joan Bourke, 40 Phillips Lane, testified that she is the president of the Pearl River Little League; that the applicant offer to pave the road, ad parking and utilities will benefit the Little League and the American Legion and the residents; that presently families park at Verizon and they start using the parking after five and they are out by eleven the latest; and they welcome the residents to come and support the concession stand.

 

Randall Weishaur, 2 The Promenate, New City, testified that he is a member of the Legion and he is speaking in support of the project because to all of the support that the applicant is offering the residents, Little League and the Legion.

 

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.

 

 

ZBA#15-90

Page 4  of   7

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

1. The requested Special Permit for Institutions for the Aged will be appropriately located with respect to transportation, water supply, waste disposal, fire and police protection and other public facilities.
2. The requested Special Permit for Institutions for the Aged will not cause undue traffic

congestion or create a traffic hazard.

3. The requested Special Permit for Institutions for the Aged will not create, at any point of determination set forth in Zoning Code§§ 4.16, 4.16, and 4.18, any more

dangerous and objectionable elements referred to in Zoning Code § 4.11 than is

characteristic of the uses expressly permitted as of right in the same district.

 

4. The requested Special Permit for Institutions for the Aged will not adversely affect the character of or property values in the area.

 

5. The Special Permit will not otherwise impair the public health, safety, morals, convenience comfort, prosperity and other aspects of the general welfare of the town.

 

6. The requested Special Permit for Institutions for the Aged will not create any dangerous, injurious, noxious or otherwise objectionable fire, explosive, radioactive or other hazard; noise or vibration, smoke, dust, odor or other form of air pollution; electrical or other disturbance; glare; liquid or solid refuse or wastes; a condition conducive to the breeding of rodents or insects or other substance , condition or

element, all referred to herein as “dangerous or objectionable elements”, in a manner or amount as to adversely affect the surrounding area.

 

7. The requirements of Section 4.31 of the Zoning Code regarding the granting of

Special Permits have been met.

 

 

 

30l:L!O S)!H310  NMOl

 

EO  2   lJd     8     n30  Sl02

 

NM013D!JVUO  .:10  Nh\01

 

 

 

 

 

Bightview Senior Living

ZBA#l5-90

Page  5 of   7

rovm OF OR1-\NGETOWN

..   .

2015 DEG     8     PrJ    2  03

 

TOWN CLEHKS  OFFICE

 

 

 

 

8. The requested§ 3.11, Column 3 uses by Special Permit, front & rear yard;§ 3.11, R80, Column 6, #6 Parking Spaces per bed;§  3.12, R-80 District, Column 4 Floor Area Ratio, and§ 3.11, Column 5, #12 Sign Size & Location variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.

 

 

 

9. The requested§ 3.11, Column 3 uses by Special Permit, front & rear yard;§ 3.11, R80, Column 6, #6 Parking Spaces per bed; § 3.12, R-80 District, Column 4 Floor Area Ratio, and§ 3.11, Column 5, #12 Sign Size & Location variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.

 

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

 

 

 

11. The requested § 3 .11, Column 3 uses by Special Permit, front & rear yard; § 3 .11 , R80, Column 6, #6 Parking Spaces per bed;§ 3.12, R-80 District, Column 4 Floor Area Ratio, and§ 3.11, Column 5, #12 Sign Size & Location 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.

 

 

 

12. 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 § 3.11, Column 3 Uses by Special Permit for Institutions for the Aged is APPROVED; and that the Disapproval from the Rockland County Department of Planning letter dated 10/19/2015 and

signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner, is overridden  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.

 

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested§  3.11, Column 3 uses by Special Permit, front & rear yard; § 3.11 , R80, Column 6, #6 Parking Spaces per bed;

• 3.12, R-80 District, Column 4 Floor Area Ratio, and§ 3.11, Column 5, #12 Sign

Size & Location variances are APPROVED; and that the Disapproval from the

Rockland County Department of Planning letter dated 10/19/2015 and signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner, is overridden;  and FURTHER RESOLVED, that  the applicant must comply with comments “1thru9” of the Rockland County Department of Planning letter dated 10/19/2015; the letter dated

10/21/2015 from the Rockland County Department of Highways and the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation letter dated 10/19/2015; 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.

 

 

ZBA#lS-90

Page  6  of   7

 

 

 

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.:JdO  S)rn310 N!t\01

 

£0    2   lJd     B     030   SlOZ

 

Brightview    Senior   Living

ZBA#15-90

Page   7of7

 

 

 

 

The  foregoing    resolution    to approve   the  application    for the  requested     §  3 .11,    Column    3

Uses  by  Special    Permit   for Institutions    for the  Aged,   front  & rear yard;  § 3.11   , R80, Column  6,  #6 Parking  Spaces per bed;  § 3.12,    R-80 District,  Column  4 Floor Area Ratio, and§  3.11,    Column  5,  #12   Sign  Size  & Location  variances  are APPROVED;   and that the Disapproval   from the Rockland  County  Department  of Planning  letter  dated  10119/2015 and signed by Douglas  J.  Schuetz,  Acting  Commissioner,   is  overridden;    and FURTHER RESOLVED,  that  the applicant  must comply  with comments  “l  thru 9” of the Rockland County Department  of Planning  letter  dated  10/19/2015;    the letter  dated  10/21/2015

from the Rockland  County Department  of Highways  and the New York State Department

of Environmental Conservation   letter  dated  10/19/2015;   was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon   and carried  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms.  Castelli,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Quinn 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:   November  18,   2015

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-NA

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGfNEERING FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

 

381.:l.:lO  S:!~J318    NN\Ol

80     z  LJd     s    8JO   srnz

 

NM013~NVu0   .:10  ~~/,iOl

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR   AREA  RA TIO,  LOT  AREA,  LOT  WIDTH,   STREET   FRONT AGE, FRONT  YARD,  SIDE  YARD,  TOTAL   SIDE  YARD,  AND BUILDING   HEIGHT

VARIANCES   APPROVED§  5.21 (c) UNDERSIZED  LOT APPLIES

 

To: John Perkins (Carr/Shaw) P.O. Box 271

Tomkins Cove, N.Y. 10986

ZBA #15-98

Date: November 18, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#15-98: Application of Lauren Carr for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 4

(Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .336 proposed),  5 (Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft. required,

4,141 sq. ft. existing); 6 (Lot Width: 100′ required, 43′ existing), 7 (Street Frontage: 75′ required, 45′ existing), 8 (Front Yard: 30′ required, 17.1′ existing, 12.9′ proposed), 9 (Side Yard: 15′ required, 8′ existing, 7.8′ proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 30′ required,

17.7′ existing, 17.5’proposed),  and 12 (Building Height: 7.8′ permitted,  10′  proposed); Section 5.21 (c) Undersized lot applies; for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 180 Washington Street, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.11, Block 1, Lot 49; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, November 18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Lauren Carr and John Perkins, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of survey labeled ” Proposed Addition Land Survey for Lauren Carr” dated

August 18, 2014 with the latest revision date of October 23, 2015 signed and sealed by Robert E. Sorace, PLS (1 page).

2. Architectural plans labeled Carr Residence dated August 5, 2015 with the latest

revision date of October 13, 2015 signed and sealed by John Perkins, Registered

Architect (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; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn was absent.

 

 

 

John Perkins, Architect, testified that they are adding an additional 33 sq. ft. to the existing house in order to add a powder room on the first floor of the house; that the lot is extremely undersized for the R-15 District; that 15,000 sq. ft. is required and thi$ lom        , only 4,141 sq. ft.; that he house is non-conforming on the lot and the lot line dis   n6r’tun~ straight along the side of the house; that the increase in the side yard is caused~caiib  of::

the way the house sits on the lot; that the existing side yard is 8′ and the prop~d    if7 .8 ‘g

that they need a powder room on the first floor to accommodate Lauren’s morllheoaose o

she is unable to go upstairs to the second floor to use the only bathroom in th@.ous.q;a, n~ that although the variances seem many, most of them are for existing conditions wttfi    <.:; slight changes to accommodate the 3 3 additional sq. ft. that are being added t~hedul~sl:J

 

-c:’.

0-

l’TJ

,……0

w  z

‘..JI              ~

 

 

 

Carr/ Shaw

ZBA#15-98

Page2  of  4

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

2015  DEG     8     PPJ   2  03

 

TOWN CLERKS  OFFICE

 

 

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, lot width, street frontage, front yard, side yard, total side yard, and building height variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Section 5.21 (c) Undersized lot applies and the lot area, lot width and street frontage variances are for existing conditions that are not changing. The lot is undersized by 10,859 sq. ft. and is 57′ short of meeting the required 100′ lot width; that these existing conditions trigger all of the other variances.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, lot area, lot width, street frontage, front yard, side yard, total side yard, and building height variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Section 5.21 (c) Undersized lot applies and the lot area, lot width and street frontage variances are for existing conditions that are not changing. The lot is undersized by

10,859 sq. ft. and is 57′ short of meeting the required 100′ lot width; that these

existing conditions trigger all of the other variances.

 

 

 

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 width, lot area, street frontage, front yard, side yard, total side yard and building height variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the

health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. Section 5.21 (c) Undersized lot applies and the lot area, lot width and street frontage variances are for existing conditions that are not changing. The lot is undersized by

10,859 sq. ft. and is 57′ short of meeting the required 100′ lot width; that these existing conditions trigger all of the other variances.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Carr/ Shaw

ZBA#lS-98

Page  3  of  4

r01:“11~/     0,r.. O,,.i.’.. , ‘•.\.M, ,;…E TOWN

v

2015  DEG    .        8     PPJ    z  03

 

TOWN CLEHKS   OFFICE

 

 

 

 

 

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, lot width, street frontage, front yard, side yard, total side yard and building height variances are APPROVED; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that such decision and the vote thereon shall become effective and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption by the Board of the minutes of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

(i) The approval of any variance or Special Permit is granted by the Board in accordance with and subject to those facts shown on the plans submitted and, if applicable, as 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.

 

 

 

Carr/ Shaw

ZBA#15-98

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   floor area ratio,  lot area,  lot width,  street frontage,  Section  5.21  (c) Undersized   lot applies,   front yard,  side yard,  total  side yard and building  height  variances   was presented  and moved by Ms.

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

aye; Ms.  Castelli,  aye;  Ms. Salomon,  aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,   aye.  Mr. Quinn 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:    November  18,  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.A.0.

By~C-(L’.J,L…IL–=-…=!~-14—-‘l…,Lt./

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

30L:L:l0 S~l\1310    Nlt\Ol

 

80  2  Wd     8     030  sraz

 

Nli’\OL3DN\iiJO  .:JO     N/:iOl

 

DECISION

 

 

GRAVEL   DRIVEWAY   VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

To:  James  Rielly

124 Washington  Spring Road

Palisades,  New York

ZBA #15-99

Date: November   18, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#15-99:  Application  of  James  Rielly for a variance  from Zoning  Code Chapter 43of the Code of the Town of Orangetown,  R-22 District,  Section  6.332 (Asphalt  driveway required;  gravel driveway  existing  and proposed)   for an existing  driveway  at an existing one-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 124 Washington  Spring Road,

Palisades,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 78.18,

Block  1, Lot 31 in the R-22 zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  November   18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

James Rielly  appeared  and testified.

 

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. Copy of site plan (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; Mr.

Feroldi,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Quinn was absent.

 

 

 

James Rielly testified  that they had originally  proposed  pavers  for the driveway  but after completely  so much of the work on the house;  they are re-thinking  the gravel driveway and have decided  to ask permission  to keep the existing  gravel driveway  because  they would be the only driveway  in the area to have pavers.

 

 

301:.l.:!O s:rn31Q   NMOl

 

£0    2   LJd    B    n30    Sl02

 

NM013~Nvu0 JO N/i\01

 

Rielly

ZBA#lS-99

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 gravel driveway variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Most of the neighbors have gravel driveways because there tends to be drainage issues in the area.

 

 

 

2. The requested gravel driveway variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Most of the neighbors have gravel driveways because there tends to be drainage issues 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 a variance.

 

 

 

4. The requested gravel driveway variance is not substantial, and affords benefits to the applicant the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. Most of the

neighbors have gravel driveways because there tends to be drainage issues 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 variance.

 

 

 

3DL:L:l0  s~nEllD Nfr\01

 

£0    2   lJd     B     D30  5102

 

Nh\013  D NVU  0   .:! 0  tU/\01

 

 

 

Rielly

ZBA#15-99

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  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.

 

 

 

30l:1:Jo s~nn1~  NA\01

 

£0    2   LJd   8     030  5IU2

 

NA\013~NVUO  .:10   N/AOl

 

 

 

Rielly

ZBA#lS-99

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   gravel  driveway variance   was presented  and moved by Mr.  Bosco,   seconded  by Ms. Salomon   and canied as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Mr. Feroldi,   aye ;Ms.   Castelli,  aye;  Ms.  Salomon,   aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,   aye. Mr. Quinn  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:    November   18,  2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARDMEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TO\’IN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

:381.::!.:iO   S~~~:llO        NMOl

 

£0    Z  lJd     8     830  Sl02

 

N AW l 3 D N ‘i~ 0 .:J  0 t’U.\Ol

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT  VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:  William  Bosley (Chriss  Fence)

12 Sugarhill  Road

Nyack,  New York  10960

ZBA#15-100

Date: November  18, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#15-100:  Application  of Neil Chriss for a variance  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43)

of the Town of Orangetown  Code,  Section  5.226 (Front Yard fence: 4 Y2′ permitted,

6’proposed)   for a front yard at a single-family  residence.  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 10; in the R-40 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  November  18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

William  Bosley and Natasha  Chriss appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Landscape  plan for Chriss Residence  Entrance  Gate & Piers dated October  16,

2015 by Daniel  Sherman  not signed or sealed (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; Mr. Feroldi,

aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Quinn was absent.

 

 

William  Bosley testified  that the applicant  purchased  the house one year ago; that he has been doing some renovation  work on the house  and was asked to construct  a gate on the driveway;  that Dan Sherman,  landscape  Architect  was designed  the planting  plan and suggested  that the existing  six-foot  fence be removed  and a new steel powder  coated bronze  fence be put in place to match the proposed  gate; that they are requesting  a variance  for the six-foot  fence and submitting  pictures  of similar fences and gates in the immediate  area.

 

 

 

3Dl.:L:!0 SY~~31~ Nh\01

 

hO   2   lJd    8     n30  5102

 

NIA013DNV::JO  .:IO  Nh\Ol

 

TOWN  OF  ORMrnET0WN

2015 DEG    8     PPJ  2  OY

 

TOWN  CLERi<S OFFICE

 

 

 

Chriss

ZBA#lS-100

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  front yard fence height variance  will not produce  an undesirable

change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The proposed  fence and gate is a steel powder  coated bronze  that will blend into the background  and is easily seen through  and compliments  other fences in the immediate area.

 

 

 

2. The requested front yard fence height  variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district. The proposed  fence and gate is a steel powder  coated bronze  that will blend into the background  and is easily seen through  and compliments  other fences 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  a variance.

 

 

 

4. The requested  front yard fence height  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 proposed  fence and gate is a steel powder  coated bronze  that will blend into the background  and is easily seen through  and compliments  other fences in the immediate 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 variance.

 

 

Chriss

ZBA#lS-100

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  front yard fence height variance  is APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote  thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

3Ql_j.:JO  S)P131~   NMOl

 

hO    2   LJd     8     830   Sl02

 

NM013DNVCJO  .:W Nif\01

 

 

Chriss

ZBA#l 5-100

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

aye; and Mr. Sullivan,   aye. Mr. Quinn 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:   November   18,   2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUJLDING  INSPECTOR-G.M.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

ho   z   lJd    8    ~30  srn2

 

N/A0l:3~mv;_;o  JO  Nf,\Ol

 

DECISION

 

SIDE YARD AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Robert Breunig

185 Center  Street

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA #15-102

Date: November   18, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#15-102:  Application  of Robert  Breunig  for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown  Code, Section  3.12, R-15 District,   Group M,  Columns

9 (Side Yard: 20′  required,  18.4′  existing  & proposed),   10 (Total  Side Yard:  50′ required,

36.2′  existing  & proposed)   for existing  decks  at an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 185 Center  Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the  Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.15,  Block 2, Lot 7; in the R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  November  18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Robert Breuing   appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Copy of site plan (1 page).
2. A letter dated September  2, 2015 from Robert Hoene,  Architect.

 

 

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

 

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

aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Quinn was absent.

 

 

 

Robert Breunig  testified  that he built the deck  17 years ago without  a permit  and it is 1   Y2 feet too close to the property  line; that they are in the process  of selling the house and would like to legalize the existing  deck.

 

381.:L:W  S~hl310 NMOl

 

hO    2   lJd      8     030   5l02

 

NM013DN\’hl0     .:!O   N/1\01

 

 

Breunig

ZBA#lS-102

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 total side yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable change in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.

Similar decks exist in the neighborhood   and this deck has existed  for 17 years without incident.

 

 

 

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. Similar decks exist in the neighborhood   and this deck has existed for 17 years without incident.

 

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  are not substantial.   Similar decks exist in the neighborhood   and this deck has existed  for 17 years without incident.

 

 

 

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.:f so S)1H310  NMOl

 

hO   2   lJd    8    a30  5102

 

NMQ13DNV’cJO  .:!O N/t\01

 

 

 

Breunig

ZBA#15-102

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the

Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  side yard and total side

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

herein and subject to those conditions,  if any, upon which  such approval  was conditioned

which are hereinbefore  set forth.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  within  a reasonable  period of time following  the filing of this decision  and prior to undertaking any construction  contemplated  in this decision.  To the extent any variance  or Special 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.:IO   S)nn10   NMOl

 

hO   2   lJd    8    a30  5IU2

 

Nh\013 DNVoO .:l O   N/,\Ol

 

Breunig

ZBA#15-102

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 Ms.  Salomon and carried as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Mr.  Feroldi,  aye; Ms.  Castelli,  aye;  Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Quinn 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:   November   18,   2015

 

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-“–‘~1’,.L–io<..<.«.L<‘-“‘-t~~”‘–V Deborah  Arbolmo

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

ho    2    Lld     a     830   srnz

 

NA\01:3  0 f ivuo  .:iO  Nt\01