Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS October 21, 2015

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:        PATRICIA CASTELLI, ACTING CHAIRPERSON JOAN SALOMON

LEONARD FEROLDI, ALTERNATE THOMAS QUINN

 

 

 

ABSENT:                               DAN SULLIVAN MICHAEL BOSCO

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:                 Dennis Michaels, Esq.

Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah Arbolino,

Deputy Town Attorney Official Stenographer Administrative Aide

 

 

 

 

This meeting was called to order at 7: 00 P .M. by Ms. Castelli, Acting Chairperson. Hearings on this meeting’s agenda, which are made a part of this meeting, were held as noted below:

 

 

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS

 

APPLICANTS CONTINUED ITEM:	DECISIONS
KUPFERSCHMID	SECTION 3.11, COL. 2	ZBA#lS-78
115 Route 303 Tappan,NY	USE VARIANCE APPROVED
77.07 I 2 I 1; LO zone
NEW ITEMS:
CLANCY GARAGE	CONTINUED	ZBA#lS-87
57 Harding Street
Blauvelt, NY
69.16 I 1I45;  R-15 zone
MARTIN 285 South Middletown Road Pearl River, NY 72.08 I 3 I 64; R-15 zone	FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED	ZBA#lS-88

 

BARANEK FENCE, GATE & PILLARS    FENCE HEIGHT

8 Chipman Road                                      VARIANCE APPROVED Palisades, NY

80.06 I 1  I 9; R-40 zone

ZBA#15-89

 

BRIGHTVIEW SENIOR LIVING

31 Hunt Road,

Pearl River, NY

73.15 I 1  I lO;R-80  zone

POSTPONED                        ZBA#15-90

 

MALANAPHY                  3Ql.:J-!<1  ~,,\131xitQfilYARD

20 Private Delregno Court,         – ~    ‘”‘   .      -·              V~CE           APPROVED

~~~~;~1{ ~.10;      R-15 zon~C   ?!  IJd     6     flON 5102

NA\ 013  0 NV J 0  .:I 0 N /A 0 l

ZBA#15-91

 

Minutes

Page 2

 

 

 

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

Orlando  Site Plan,  Critical  Enviromnental   Area,  Replacement  of Retaining  Wall Plan

1150 Route 9W,Upper  Grandview,  NY;  71.05 I l I  9;  R-22 zone; Sisters of St. Dominic of Blauvelt  Subdivision    Plan,  496 Western  Highway,  Blauvelt,  NY,  74.061311.l         & 1.3; R-40 zone;  The Cunningham  House  Site Plan parking  Facility  and Fence,  118   Main

Street,  Tappan,  NY 77.11/3     I 2;  CS 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 9:30 P.M.

 

Dated:  October  21,   2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

By~~

 

 

DISTRlBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATIORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN AlTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING   INSPECTOR  (Individual   Decisions) Rockland  County Planning

Deborah  Arbolino,   Administrative   Aide

 

 

 

301.:!.:lO   S)l~310   N/i\01

BS  ~.! lJd   s    noN srnz

 

Nt~\OL:lDirt’;.;o  JO   j!i,Wl

 

DECISION

 

SECTION 3.11, COLUMN 2, USE VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Donald Brenner, Esq. (Kupferschmid)

4 Independence Avenue

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA#15-78

Date: October 21, 2015

 

 

From: Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA #15- 78: Application  of Linda Kupferschmid  (“Applicant”)  for a variance from the Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown  Code, LO District, Section 3.11, Column 2 (use not permitted by right: self-storage facility proposed). The premises is located at 115 Route 303, Tappan, New York, and is identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77 .07, Block 2, Lot 1   (“Premises”);  located in the LO Zoning District.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown  (hereinafter sometimes referred to as “the Board”) at a meeting held on Wednesday,  September  16,

2015, at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Donald Brenner, Esq. (attorney), Dennis Lynch, Esq. (attorney), Lawrence “Larry” Mccarron, Esq. (attorney), Linda Kupferschmid, and John Collins (traffic consultant), appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were submitted, and reviewed by the Board:

1. Architectural  plans labeled “Proposed  Storage Building,”  dated June 29, 2015,

signed and sealed by Dennis T. Mitchell, Registered Architect (8 pages).

2. A cover letter dated August 13, 2015, from Stephen M. Honan, Esq. (attorney for

Applicant), with a 1-page attachment from Sherman & Ross, CPA.

3. A bound booklet, dated September 2015, prepared by Donald Brenner, P.E.,

LL.B., containing the following (hereinafter “Applicant’s booklet submission”): (a) Letter of transmittal,  dated 09/08/2015;

(b) Introduction;

(c) Procedure;

(d) Secondary Data;

(e) Summary;

(t) Appendix A – Deed to the subject Premises;

(g) Appendix B – Reports and Statements from several commercial real estate brokers;

(h) Appendix C-  Orangetown Zoning Code, §3.11, Table of General Use

Regulations, for the LO District;

(i)  Appendix D – Letter from attorney for Applicant to the Orangetown Building Department (i.e., Office of Building, Zoning & Planning Administration  and Enforcement);

1. G) Appendix E-Application to OBZPAE, delivered on 07/08/2015;

(k) Appendix F -Applicant’s  attorney’s Narrative Summary to Application for

Building Permit, dated 07/08/2015;

(1)  Appendix   G – Appeal to the Zoning Board of Appeals;

(m)Appendix  H-Applicant’s   Statement of Operations (2010-2014),  IRS Form

1040 Schedule  E, Supplemental Income and Loss, for years 2010-2014;

(11)  Appendix I-Financial  Statement (property taxes 1999·-  2015);

(o) Appendix J -Traffic impact report, by John T. Collins, Ph.D., P.E., ofMasYL,   -\ Consulting, dated 08/27/2015;                                                           –\    ;3-    S..

(p) Maps – Location of Building (vicinity map) and Zoning Map.             ~     ;        ::::

4. A letter dated September 11, 2015, from the County of Rockland Department o@      ::_~ Planning, signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner  of Planning~

0

5. A memorandum,  dated September  16, 2015, from John Giardiello, P.E., D~ctoff     –1

Office of Building, Zoning & Planning Administration  and Enforcement of~e    -o      :i:;

 

Town of Orangetown (“OBZPAE”).

::3    -~

0

 

-n       ~·         ~

-r\ Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing, which motion ~ w o ~ seconded by Ms. Salomon, and carried unanimously.                                               rn o» :z

N.

 

 

 

 

I

 

Kupferschmid

ZBA#l5-78

Page 2 of9

 

 

 

Dennis Lynch, Esq., attorney for the Applicant,  testified  that he does not agree with the determination  by the Deputy Town Attorney,  Dennis Michaels,  that this is a Type II action and requires  SEQRA review; that they are using the existing building with no change to the footprint;  and he wants it noted for the record that he does not agree; that there are no objections  from the neighbors  that they have tried to lease and sell the property  and even under Appendix  C uses permitted  by right and Special permits the owners have been unable to get a reasonable  retum on the property  because no one wants to occupy the space under the uses permitted  by right; that all of the plantings  that were installed in the 70’s at the edge of the property  shall remain; that there will be no change to the exterior of the building  that there is no drainage  issue because  there will be no change to the exterior and he does not think that any of the neighbors  object to the proposed  use.

 

Donald Brenner,  Esq., attorney for the Applicant,  testified  that be would like to give the Board a little history on the property;  that on November  20, 1970, the Orangetown Planning Board granted final approval to a map prepared by the firm of Adler, Caruso & Young for a commercial  subdivision  to Baum Textile  Company,  The existing building was used for the manufacturing  of ladies garments,  storage and distribution  of said items, and offices; that in July 1985 the building  was occupied by Grant Industries,  a company that manufactured  and distributed  nuts and bolts; that due to the death of the primary owner, Mr. Baum, his estate sold the building to Lan M. Kupferschmid  in June 1991;

and title was subsequently  transferred  to L. Kupferschmid  in May 2002; that Mr. Kupfersclnnid  operated several businesses,  in which he domestically  manufactured  and distributed  products,  such as linen plastic tablecloths;  that unfortunately,  these products were undersold  by manufacturers  in Asia, which resulted  in Mr. Kupferschmid

businesses  going into debt; that he attempted  to keep the businesses  running and to avoid laying off his employees,  he subsidized  the operation  out of his own funds; that due to

this economic  downward  spiral, he could not pay rent to the Realty Company;  and accordingly,  the Realty Company  started to lose money as early as 2008; that several realtors and the owner attempted  to rent and/or sell the facility but were unsuccessful;

that the lack of tenants and the unique zoning of the property  resulted in a partially vacant building;  that Mr. Kupferschmid  died in May 2013; that the owner of the building,  the Estate of Lawrence  K.upferschmid, entered into a contract with 115 Route  303 LLC to

use the existing building  as a self-storage  facility; that the on July 8, 2015 the application was denied for a use variance  and they are appearing  to state their case; that the owner

has not been able to use the building  and obtain a reasonable  return under the permitted uses since 2010; that the owners have paid realty taxes in the sum of $2,006,888.36  since

1999; that he owner has attempted to rent/sell the building  under the requirements  of the Code since 2010 and has been unable to do so; that the alleged hardship relates to the fact that the property  in question is unique and, by zoning,  does not conform to the bordering neighborhood;  that the existing building  is located on the north-east  comer of the intersection  ofNew York State Route 303 and Kings Highway  in the hamlet of Tappan, that the area zoning affirms that the property  is located in an “LO” zone bordering  an

“LI” zone to the north; that a residential  zone “R-15” to the south, New York State Highway  Route 303 to the west and the Palisade  Parkway to the east; that since this is an existing building,  site plan adjustment  is not an issue; and in fact, the prior permitted use

of light manufacturing  and distribution  is a much greater use than that of the proposed storage facility; that the building  is surrounded  by trees and landscaping  since the seventies  and it is the applicants  belief that there is not another property  in all of

Orangetown  as Unique as this one; that the change in use will not alter the essential r…:>          ~

character  of the neighborhood  and will not have an adverse physical  or enviromgnt~     ~

effect on the neighborhood;  that the building  is hooked up to Orangetown  Sewe~  thai:::’:        ::-..!:

they have utilities  from Orange & Rockland  and United Water; that they have pdfice ~      ~~ protection  from Orangetown  Police, fire protection  from Tappan Fire Departme~and         c» ambulance  from Orangetown  Ambulance;  and that drainage  and wetlands  are no/;n  isC/fie     ~–~

because it is an existing building;  and that they would like to request a continuancj, unti’b    z-:

the October 21, 2015 meeting.                                                                             o       ::3 .        ~

 

-.r.in

~·         -\

N        o

 

2                                                            Q    ~     ~

rn    C1J     z

 

Kupferschmid

ZBA#15-78

Page 3 of9

 

 

 

 

Mrs. Linda Kupferschmid  testified that she has submitted tax returns from 2010 through

2014 showing how the property has lost money; that her husband put a lot of his own money into the building, trying to keep his employees in a job; that in December 2013 she had to let people go; that she still has to go there every day; that it is very hard; that

her husband went through nearly a million dollars trying to keep people employed; that they tried to rent the building to Larry King, Amazon .com but that did not work; and that the property has become a burden.

 

John Collins Ph.D., P .E., of Maser Consulting, testified that the traffic study in the file compared the LI zone to the self- storage use and transportation  engineers state 1/3 to less than 30% peak elevation for traffic; that less traffic will be introduced for the proposed

use than the light industrial use; that evaluation was limited to the number of vehicular trips that would be generated by the existing square foot (93,000) of the existing and proposed uses; that the reference used was the Trip Generation  Manual  (9’h edition)

published by the Institution of Transportation  Engineers.

 

Dan Sullivan made a motion that the Board issue a Notice of Intention to Declare the Board Lead Agency under SEQRA, and to distribute the Notice of Intention to all Involved Agencies, pursuant to coordinated review under State Environmental  Quality Review Act Regulation  §617.6(b)(3); which motion was secondedby Joan Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

Public Comment:

 

Charles Scholl, 87 Autumn Drive, Tappan, testified that there have been no meetings

with the neighbors and he has no objection to the project as long as they do not install an

entrance or exit onto Kings Highway and that the south side of the property should remain the same with all of the trees in place.

 

Eileen Larkin, Palisades, NY., testified that she knows Mrs. Kupferschmid  from Palisades; that she understands the problems of the widow; that this is a great use for the property with no change to the sewer and that she agrees with Mr. Collins about the traffic study.

 

Mary Cardenas, 66 Pine Tree Lane, testified that she has been a resident for 45 years; that she agrees with Charlie regarding no exist onto Kings Highway and agrees that this is the best use for the property.

 

Margaret  Guliano, 283 Kings Highway, testified that she is the neighbor directly to the south of the property and that she is looking forward to the project. and wished the applicant luck but would like them to be careful regarding the lighting.

 

Paul Riccoboni,   15 Hey Hoe Woods Road, testified that he thinks this is a great use for the property that hasn’t been used for fifteen years; that it is low key and low maintenance  and no change in the greenway and also no neon palm trees.

 

October 21. 2015

 

Donald Brenner, Esq. (attorney for the Applicant), Dennis Lynch, Esq. (attorney for the Applicant), Steven Yassky, of Rockland Realty Commercial Real Estate Services (licensed real estate broker), Linda Kupferschmid,  Lawrence  “Larry” McCan-on, Esq. (attorney for the applicant), and Ern.e~t Schlesinger   (licensed  real estate broker), appeared

and testified.                                 .::Wl.:I.:IO SY1~31~    NMOl

8£ ?!Lld   6    fl ON  5102

 

Kupferschmid

ZBA#l5-78

Page 4 of9

 

 

 

 

Additional items submitted:

 

1. A 3-page notarized affidavit by Linda Kupferschmid,  dated September 28, 2015.
2. A letter dated October 15, 2015, from the County of Rockland Department of

Planning, signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning  (3

pages).

3. A letter dated October 15, 2015, from the County of Rockland Drainage Agency,

signed by Vincent Altieri, Executive Director.

4. A letter dated September 16, 2015, from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways (received September 21, 2015), signed by Sonny Lin, P.E.

5. Lead Agency sign-off sheets, dated October 14, 2015, from Kevin Garvey, Planning Board Chairman, Town of Orangetown,  and from the Rockland County

Planning Department,  signed by Arlene Miller, dated October 21, 2015.

6. A letter dated October 13, 2015, from Steven Yassky, of Rockland Realty

Commercial Real Estate Services.

 

Ms. Castelli made a motion to declare the Board Lead Agency for the application of Kupferschmid  (ZBA # 15-78) seeking a Use Variance from Orangetown Zoning Code (Chapter 43), § 3.11,  Table of General Use Regulations, LO District, Column 2, Uses Permitted by Right; which motion was seconded by Joan Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

Donald Brenner, Esq. (attorney for the Applicant), testified that they presented a case for the use variance at the last hearing and they believe that they have met all of the elements for a use variance; that they have submitted all of the financial returns and they have brought more real estate agents to testify; that he has 110 problem with the letter from Rockland County Planning Department, but would like the Board to consider over-riding several of the comments because they are not planning to change the outside of the building; that they would like the Board to over-ride Rockland County Planning Department items #5 through #10, and# 13.                                        ·

 

Steven Yassky, Rockland Realty Commercial Real Estate Services, testified that he is very familiar with the property at 115 Route 303, Tappan, NY; that he has been a commercial real estate broker representing  landlords/sellers,  and tenants and buyers, in the Rockland County market for the past 28 years; that upon reviewing the zoning of the subject site, LO in the Town of Orangetown, he has never been able to work with a tenant/buyer that would be desirous of such zoning where their use fits into the following

categories such as, school of general instruction, executive conference/lecture  facilities or business/professional  office, in that size building, or research, experiment and testing labs subject to performance  standards procedures  and additional use requirements; that, in his professional  opinion, these permissible uses make the property practically unmarketable

in this region based upon the zoning code limitations; that properties in the LIO District

are easily occupied, but not in the LO District.

 

Dennis Lynch, Esq. (attorney for the Applicant), testified that, at the previous meeting, the Chairman had asked that they return showing that all of the uses permitted by right were not viable in the building; that if no one is interested in renting the building or purchasing the building and using it for the uses permitted, then the uses, and returns for uses, are zero return; that Mr. Yassky is the third real estate broker to testify that no one is interested in renting the building under the uses permitted in the zone; and the other agents submitted letters that were presented to the Board members.

 

Dennis D. Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, read into the record Linda Kupferschmid’s affidavit, dated September 28, 2015.

 

 

 

301:1.:IO  SYH31~    NA\01

 

Bt: 2I   L1d4   6      flON  5102

 

rJ•  ,r.·:\·01—i’•.’1′(v·,•’·’.’ . .. I   .“_.. ‘.1• ‘v”‘

‘ 9   :’ ·’·’0·  l

.._:.J.,   ,.              I’• H\

 

Kupferschmid

ZBA#IS-78

Page 5 of9

 

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Mary Cardenas,  66 Pine tree Lane, asked if this storage facility would be for household storage and she was told that it would be a self -storage facility for individuals.

 

Charles Scoll, 87 Autumn Drive, testified that he did not see a change to the plans and wanted to make sure that they did not change since the last meeting; that he does not want to see an entrance/exit to Kings Highway and that he objects to the statement that the neighbors have no problem with the proposal because he doesn’t recall a meeting with all of the neighbors but he has no problem with the proposal.

 

The Board reviewed the Short Environmental  Assessment Form, Parts I and TT,  and deliberated over, and rendered a, SEQRA Determination,  which is appended at the back of this Decision.

 

The Board members made personal inspections of the premises the week before each meeting, and found it 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

Ms. Salomon, and carried unanimously. FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all the documents  submitted,  the Board found and concluded  that the Applicant has shown that applicable the zoning regulations  and restrictions  of the LO Zoning District have caused unnecessary  hardship to the Applicant,  and has demonstrated  to the Board that, for each and every permitted use, under the zoning regulations  for the LO Zoning District, (a) the Applicant has been unable to  realize a reasonable return as  demonstrated by the Applicant’s  competent financial evidence, (b)  the  hardship relating to  the  subject premises is unique, and does not apply to a substantial  portion of the LO Zoning District or neighborhood,   (c) the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood,  and (d) the Applicant’s hardship has not been self-created; for the following reasons:

 

1. The Applicant has shown, by competent financial evidence, that it cannot realize a reasonable return on the property without the use variance, as supported by (but not limited to) the Applicant’s booldet submission, the testimony and reports of several licensed commercial real estate brokers, and Linda Kupferschmid’s  affidavit of

09/28/2015.

 

2. The Applicant has not been able to use the Premises and obtain a reasonable return as a permitted use since 2010; and has tried to rent/sell the building as any permissible use under the Zoning Code since 2010, and has been unable to do so.

 

3. The Applicant’s  unnecessary  hardship  also relates to the Premises being unique, and, by virtue of the Zoning Map, does not conform to the bordering neighborhood. The Premises is located on the northeast comer of the intersection of New York State Route 303 and Kings Highway,  in the hamlet of Tappan, within an LO Zone that borders an LI Zone to the north, and a residential Zone (R-15) to the south, and New York State Highway Route 303 to the west, and the Palisades Parkway to the east.

 

3DL:L:l0  S~,’.~1318   Nli\01

 

B£ 21  hld     6     flON 5102

 

NA\013DNVU 0  .:10 N/~\01

 

Kupfersclunid

ZBA#l5-78

Page 6 of9

 

 

 

4. The requested Zoning Code Section 3.11, Column 2, use variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and will not have an adverse physical or environmental  effect on the neighborhood  (see SEQRA Determination  appended hereto).

 

5. The Applicant’s hardship has not been self-created. Mr. Kupfershmid operated several businesses,  in which he domestically manufactured  and distributed products, such as linen plastic cloths. Unfortunately,  these products were undersold by manufacturers  in Asia, which resulted in Mr. Kupferschmid’s  businesses going into debt. He attempted to keep the businesses running and to avoid layoffs, and subsidized the operation with his own personal funds. Due to this economic downward spiral, he could not pay rent to the Realty Company and accordingly, the

Realty Company started to lose money as early as 2008. The change in manufacturing

products being supplied from Asia was not in the control of Mr. Kupferschmid.

 

DECISION:   For the foregoing reasons, the Board RESOLVED that the Application  for the requested Use Variance from Orangetown Zoning Code (Chapter 43), §3.11, Table of General Use Regulations,  LO District, Column 2, Uses Permitted by Right, so as to allow a self-storage business, is APPROVED/GRANTED;   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.                        3 O L:L:!  O   S )’ )J ;J 1 Q   N l’A 0 l

8~   ?!  Wd 6 6      flON  5102

 

Kupferschmid

ZBA  #15-78

Page  7of9

 

 

 

 

Ms.   Castelli   made  a motion  to override   Modifications      #5,  #6,   #7, #8,  #9,  #10,    #13 and

#14  of the Rockland   County  Department    of Planning’s     letter   dated  October   15,   2015, signed   by Douglas   J. Schuetz,  Acting Commissioner  of Planning;  which motion was seconded by Ms.  Salomon,   and carried unanimously.

 

The foregoing Resolution  to approve/grant  the Application for the requested Use Variance from Orangetown Zoning  Code (Chapter 43),  §3.11,   Table of General Use Regulations,   LO District,   Column  2, Uses Permitted by Right,  so as to allow a self• storage business  was presented and moved by Ms.  Castelli,   seconded by Ms.  Salomon, and carried as follows:  Mr. Feroldi,   aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye;  Ms.  Castelli,   aye; and Ms. Salomon,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Bosco 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 ofthe  Town Clerk.

 

DATED:   October 21,  2015

 

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

By~~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative  Aide

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TO’vVN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

ORANGETOWN  DEPARTMENT  OF TOWN ENVIRONMENT AL MANAGEMENT   & ENGINEER1NG

FILE,  ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

3 0 !.:U 0 S )1  >-i 318   NIA 0l

 

8S Z1 LJd   6     noN  SlOZ

7

Nh\Ol3Dl~’·1.;.]0     .::10   !1fAOJ.

 

 

 

Kupferschmid

ZBA #15-78

Page 8 of9

 

 

 

SEQ RA DETERMINATION    OF NEGATIVE   DECLARATION

 

Patricia Castelli made a motion that, pursuant to the State Environmental  Quality Review Act (SEQRA) Regulation §617.7, the Board, as Lead Agency, for the reasons articulated in the Board’s  analysis of Part 2 of the SEQ RA Short Environmental Assessment Form (EAF)-which      reasons are summarized in this motion (which constitutes the Board’s Part 3 of the SEQ RA Short EAF) –   hereby determines that the proposed action will not have a significant  adverse environmental  impact, and a Draft Environmental  Impact Statement will not be prepared.

 

After having identified the relevant areas of environmental  concern, namely: NONE;

 

after having taken a hard look at said environmental  issues, and after having deliberated regarding such concerns over the course of two meetings;

 

and having heard from the Applicant, and the Applicant’s professional representatives, namely Donald Brenner, Esq., Dennis Lynch, Esq., Steven Yassky, real estate broker, Ernest Schlesinger, real estate broker, John T. Collins, Ph.D. P.E., traffic consultant, Lawrence McCarron, Esq.; and

 

having heard from the following officials or consultants of the Town of Orangetown – John Giardiello, P .E., Director of OBZPAE, and Dennis D. Michaels, Esq., Deputy Town Attorney;

 

and having reviewed the following documents:

 

1. The  Applicant’s completed Part 1  of the SEQRA Short EAF.
2. A letter dated October 15, 2015, from the County of Rockland Department of Planning, signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning (3 pages).
3. A letter dated October 15, 2015, from the County of Rockland Drainage Agency, signed by Vincent Altieri, Executive Director.
4. A letter dated September 16, 2015, from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways (received September 21, 2015), signed by Sonny Lin, P .E.

5. Architectural plans labeled “Proposed  Storage Building,” dated June 29, 2015,

signed and sealed by Dennis T. Mitchell, Registered Architect (8 pages).

6. A cover letter dated August 13, 2015, from Stephen M. Honan, Esq. (attorney for

Applicant), with a 1-page attachment from Sherman & Ross, CPA.

7. Applicant’s  booklet submission,  dated September 2015, prepared by Donald

Brenner, P .E., LL.B.

8. A memorandum dated September  16, 2015, from John Giardiello, P.E., Director, OBZPAE.        ~

-t        ~

 

a summary of the.

reasons supporting this determination  are, and the Board fin~-:::; thazr

 

the proposed action:                                                                                        z       c:::>

0          c:::

r

C.>,

C.)

 

• Will not significantly effect existing air quality or noise levels;                       ~…

C.D

 

o      Will not significantly effect existing surface water quality or quantity or draina~;    -u

o      Will not significantly effect existing ground water quality or quantity;             0          ;::           ~

1

o      Will not significantly effect existing traffic levels;                                           ~     N   ;           (3

e      Will not create a substantial increase in solid waste production;                       o

o      Will not create a potential for erosion, flooding, leaching or drainage problems; rn

8

 

 

Kupferschmid

ZBA#lS-78

Page 9 of9

 

 

 

• Will not have a significant adverse impact on the environmental characteristics of our critical environmental area or environmentally sensitive sites or features;

e      Will not have an impairment of the character or quality of important historical, archeological or architectural resources; Kupferschmid

e      Will not have an impairment of the character or quality of important aesthetic resources;

o     Will not have an impairment of existing community or neighborhood character;

o     Will not remove or destroy large quantities of vegetation or fauna;

o     Will not remove or destroy large quantities of wildlife species or migratory fish;

o     Will not have a significant adverse impact to natural resources;

o     Will not have adverse economic or social impacts upon Orangetown;

o      Will not create a hazard to human health;

o     Will not create a substantial change in the use of land, open space or recreational resources; and

e      Is consistent with Orangetown’ s comprehensive/master  plan.

 

THEREFORE, pursuant to SEQRA, the Board hereby issues a

”NEGATIVE  DECLARATION”  (i.e., no significant adverse environmental impact). Seconded by: Joan Salomon

Aye/Yes: Tom Quinn, Leonard Feroldi, Joan Salomon, and Patricia Castelli. Dan Sullivan and Michael Bosco were absent.

 

Date: October 21, 2015

 

 

 

301.:UO S>!~310 NA\01

9

Bf:  21  IJd    6     flON 5I02

 

DECISION

 

FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Edward and Cara Martin

285 South Middletown Road

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA#lS-88

Date: October 21, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

 

ZBA#l 5-88: Application of Edward and Cara Martin  for variances from the Zoning Code of the Town of  Orangetown Chapter 43, R-15 District, Section 3.12,Group M, Columns 8 (Front Yard: 30′ required, 21 ‘8″ proposed) ,9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 14.8′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 14.8’ permitted, 28’1″ proposed) for an addition to an existing one-family residence. The premises are located at 285 South Middletown Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section

72.08, Block 3, Lot 64 in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Cara Martin and Karl Ackerman, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of site plan W.E. James Engineering and Land Surveying, PLLC. Dated

August 15, 2015(1 page).

2. Architectural plans labeled Proposed Addition IAlteration for Martin Residence dated 6/24/2015 with the latest revision date of 8/24/2015 signed and sealed by Karl Ackermann, Registered Architect (3 pages).

 

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

 

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

 

Karl Ackerman, Architect, testified that the Martin family have lived in Pearl River for

20 years; that they have children in the school district and want to stay in the home; that

they need more space; that the hardship is that this property has more than one front yard;

that it is a modest home that fronts on South Middletown Road and second fronts onto Elizabeth Street; that they would like to continue on the existing side yard of 14.8 on one side and add a second story to the structure; that they have an existing side yard of 22.9 feet on the other side and would like to bump in to 21.8 feet on that side; and that they are conforming to what is existing.

 

Cara Martin testified that they have lived in the house for 20 years and that they have four children and really need the extra ~~O      SY\J31 O   NA\01

 

8£   21   LJd    6     flON 5102

 

Martin

ZBA#15-88

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.

 

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

Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested front yard, side yard and building height variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or.a detriment to nearby properties. Similar additions have been constructed in the area and this house has a hardship of being located on a comer lot with two front yards.

 

 

 

2. The requested front yard, side yard and building height variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar additions have been constructed in the area and this house has a hardship of being located on a comer lot with two front yards.

 

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 front yard, 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 additions have been constructed in the area and this

house has a hardship of being located on a comer lot with two front yards.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

B~ 21  Wd     6      flON  5102

 

Martin

ZBA#lS-88

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, 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.

 

 

 

381.:uo  s~qn1~  Nf,\Ol

BC  zi hld      6      noN  Sl02

 

I .’:   ”      I

N I,\ 0 13 J •   ‘   • ,.•   ., •      ·’.            !   ,~          •.   ~

 

i-i

-i ‘v     ::i -:    1   ~  1  ”   -..:  –

 

 

 

Martin

ZBA#15-88

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   front yard,  side

yard and building  height  variances   was presented  and moved by Mr. Quinn,  seconded  by

Ms. Salomon   and carried  as follows:    Mr.  Feroldi,  aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms.  Castelli, aye; and Ms.  Salomon,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan  and Mr. Bosco 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:   October  21,   2015

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   !NSPECTOR-M.M.

By—ll!;..i,.q~=:i.:~<:….{.J.,L(…L.~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  ofENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.   and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

30LL.W  S’l’::J31Q    NM.01

 

88 2l  LJd   G      noN    srnz

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT  VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Michael Leone (Baranek)

60 N. Harrison Avenue

Congers, New York 10920

ZBA#lS-89

Date: October 21, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#lS-89: Application of Matthew Baranek for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 5.226 (Front Yard fence height: 4 Yi’ permitted, S’proposed for fence and 6′ proposed for columns) for a front yard at a single• family residence. The premises are located at 8 Chipman  Road, Palisades,  New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 80.06, Block 1, Lot 9; in the R-40

zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Michael Leone, Contractor, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of site plan showing location of proposed fence labeled: Pool Plan for Baranek dated 4/29/2014 with the latest revision date of 9/28/ 2015 by Gdanski Consultants Inc. signed and sealed by Paul Gdanski, P .E.. (I page).
2. A letter objecting to the fence from Linda Falcone.
3. Two pictures of the site submitted by Linda Falcone at the meeting.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

Quinn, aye. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Bosco were absent.

 

 

 

Michael Leone, contractor, testified that the holes in those pictures were from the columns that were removed during the construction of the pool; that they were on the

(3           g

right-of-way; that a survey has been done and the new fence and columns will be  r-..:i         -t

c:::>

z

installed on the Baranek property and the old holes will be filled in.                      tn

::::      z

:Z        g    C.)

o                  -rt

 

Public Comment:

rn  c.o      c)

 

;r:1                   :~

7:·.                     _,,

Linda Vezzetti, 58 Closter Road, testified that she lives at the corner of Chipman R~       0

and that she was concerned that the fence was going to block the right-of-way t&;the~ :            ~

swim club and she is pleased to hear that the new fence will be entirely on Mr. Blra1″!cc;s ~

property and that the holes in the right-of-way will be filled in.                        ~     ~      :z

 

Deirdre O’Hagan, 54 White Avenue, South Nyack, testified that she is President of the Palisades Swim Club and she was in the building department office for two hours today and at the end of her visit Michael Manzare, Building Inspector came in and told them

 

Baranek

ZBA#15-89

Page 2 of 4

 

 

 

that he spoke to the contractor and found out that the new fence was going in behind the survey lines and the original holes are being filled in; and that she came to the meeting to make sure that this is what will be approved.

 

 

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested front yard fence height variance will not produce an undesirable

change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The brick posts for the fence are six-feet tall, however the fence is five-feet tall and it is a black wrought iron fence, that is not a solid fence, and blends into the surrounding area.

 

2. The fence and the brick pillars will be constructed within the property line of the

Baranek property as shown on the site plan labeled “Pool Plan for Baranek” dated

4/29/2014 with the latest revision date of 9/28/ 2015 by Gdanski Consultants Inc., signed and sealed by Paul Gdanski, P .E..

 

 

 

3. 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.

 

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

 

 

 

5. The requested front yard fence height variance is not substantial. The brick posts for the fence are six-feet tall, however the fence is five-feet tall and it is a black wrought iron fence ,that is not a solid fence, and blends into the surrounding area.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

301.:!.:f O   S)!H310  NMOl

 

SC 21  lJd    6     noN 5102

 

Baranek

ZBA#lS-89

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.

 

 

 

301.:1.::10   s;lB31Q N~\01

6£ zi Wd    6     noN  SlOZ

 

 

Baranek

ZBA#15-89

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

Salomon,   aye.   Mr. Sullivan  and Mr. Bosco  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:    October  21,   2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPUCANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    lNSPECTOR-M.M.

By–<–1″‘-“”-_.:._-‘–   ,_”-b”””-‘-= Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

30!.:l.:lO    S:-!Tno     Nff\01

 

68  21  L.Jd     6      noN    SlOZ

 

N/,\OlJJfJ’.”:..;O    :.JO   rJ/,\01

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:  Charles and Patricia Malanaphy

20 Private Delregno Court

Blauvelt, New York 10913

ZBA#lS-91

Date: October 21, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#15- 91: Application of  Charles and Patricia Malanaphy for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.1~, R-15 District, Group M, Column 8  (Front Yard: 30′ required, 26′ 6″ proposed) for a front porch at an existing single-family residence. The premises is located at 20 Private Delregno Court, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.13, Block 1, Lot

23 .1 O; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on

Wednesday, October 21, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Charles and Patricia Malanaphy appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans labeled Porch Addition to The Malanaphy Residence dated August 3, 2015 signed and sealed by Eugenia Masucci, Registered Architect (3 pages).
2. Survey dated March 30 1998 signed and sealed by Theodore F. Atzl.

 

 

 

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

 

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

Quinn, aye. Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Bosco were absent.

 

 

 

 

Charles Malanaphy testified that he would like to remove the existing porch and replace an extend it by four feet so that it would be a usable space; that presently it does not hold a chair; that he was looking at the zoning code and he does not think he needs a variance because if you go to column 8, Group M R-15 District you can go to notes 6 and 7 which

states that the front yard requirements are less and he would not need a variance; that they have lived in the house for 16 years and have two children.

 

 

 

 

 

The Board looked at the code and agreed that this section would be for average density.

3Qld~O S)l\131~  N/i\01

 

6£ 21 Wd     6     noN  Sl02

 

 

NM 013

C\ h’1 ‘vJ      •d.       Q    It°v‘     1·\1 r‘~‘ l 0·  1

 

0                      .:J

 

Malanaphy

ZBA#lS-91

Page2 of 4

 

 

 

 

Public Co1mnent:

 

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.

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all the documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if

the variance(s) are granted outweigh the detriment (if any) to the health, safety and

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

 

 

 

1. The requested front yard variance will not produce an undesirable  change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

 

 

2. The requested front yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. . Similar additions 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 front yard variance is not substantial.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

301.:L:!O s~nl31 o NMOl

 

6C 21 hld     6      noN  Sl02

 

Nh\013 0 NVJ  0 .:l 0 Nj,\01

 

Malanaphy

ZBA#lS-91

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 variance is APPROVED; and FURTHER RES.OL VED, 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.

 

 

 

30  L:J:l 0  S)l>1310  NMOl

Oh 21  Wd      s     noN    s102

 

 

 

Malanaphy

ZBA#l5-91

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  front yard  variance was presented  and moved by Ms.  Castelli,  seconded  by Ms.  Salomon   and carried as follows:    Mr.  Feroldi,  aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; and Ms. Salomon,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan  and Mr. Bosco  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:   October  21,  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   ,,_-lP-“-“”-~”‘”-‘-=4;,,,…<-=-= Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,    ZBA, PB,  ACABOR