Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER   11, 2013

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

DANIEL  SULLIVAN JOAN  SALOMON NANETTE   ALBANESE PA TRICIA  CASTELLI MICHAEL  BOSCO

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

 

ABSENT:                                        NONE

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

PUBLISHED   ITEMS DECISIONS

 

 

NEW  ITEMS:

 

PALISA.DES PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH  SIGN

78.18 I 2 I 9; R-22 zone

SIGN AND  LOCATION          ZBA#13-60

VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

FLYNN

64 .18 I 1  I 66; R-15 zone

FLOOR  AREA  RATIO             ZBA#13-61

FRONT  YARD  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

WILLIAMS

68.11I2132;   R-15 zone

REAR  YARD                              ZBA#l3-62

• § 5.227 & 5.153 VARIANCES APPROVED

 

CONFREY

72.08 I 3 I 17; R-15 zone

SIDE YARD  VARIANCE         ZBA#13-63

APPROVED  WITH  SPECIFIC CONDITION

 

GILL

68.20 I 5 I 69; RO zone

SIDE YARD,  TOTAL  SIDE    ZBA#13-64

YARD  AND BUILDING  HEIGHT VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

TOLLEY  FENCE

64.2011129;  R-40 zone

6′ FRONT  YARD   FENCE        ZBA#l3-65

VARIANCE  APPROVED WITH  SPECIFIC  CONDITION

 

DOLAN/CLARKE   DECK

77.15 / l / 70; R-15  zone

POSTPONED                               ZBA#13-66

 

7WELLSLANE

66.17 I 1  I 25.2; R-22 zone

CONTINUED                               ZBA#l3-67

 

 

Minutes

Page2

 

 

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL    BUSINESS:

 

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board,  the Zoning  Board  of Appeals:  RESOLVED,  to approve  the action  of the Acting  Chairperson  executing  on behalf  of the Board   its consent to the Planning  Board  acting  as Lead Agency   for the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA)  coordinated  environmental  review  of actions pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations§ 617.6 (b)(3) the following  applications:  School of Rock  Conditional  Use Permit,  135 Erie Street, Blauvelt,  NY 74.14 / 4 I 36; CS zone; Dominik  & White  Resubdivision   Plan,  110 Old Pascack  Road  & 21 Buchanan  Street, Pearl  River, NY 68.14 I 2 I 21 & 23; R-15 zone; St. Peters  and St. Paul’s  Church  Site

Plan, 422 Western  Highway,  Tappan,  NY, 74.18 I 3 I 27; R-15 zone; and FURTHER

RESOLVED,  to request   to be notified  by the Planning  Board  of SEQRA proceedings, hearings,  and determinations    with respect  to these matters.

 

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

 

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

There being no further business  to come before  the Board,  on motion  duly made,

seconded  and carried,  the meeting  was adjourned  at 11:00 P.M.

 

Dated:   September  11, 2013

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATIORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATIORNEY

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR (Individual Decisions) Rockland County Planning

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

By~[Mk

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

DECISION

NON-RESIDENTIAL  SIGN APPROVED;  SIGN SETBACK VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

 

To:   Bigelow  Green  (Palisades  Presbyterian)

240 Tweed  Boulevard

Nyack, New York  10960

ZBA#   13-60

Date:   September  11, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#  13-60: Application  of Palisades  Presbyterian   Church   for a variance  from Chapter

43 (Zoning)  Town of Orangetown,  R-22 District,  refers to R-80 District,  Section  3.11, Column  5 #12 (Non-residential   establishment   or institution  maybe  permitted 1  sign not over 20 sq. ft. with permission  from the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  and it should be

located  25′ from any lot line: 2′ proposed  from property  line; 20 sq. ft. sign proposed)  for

a sign at an existing  church.  The  Church  is located  at 117 Washington  Spring Road, Palisades,  New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 78.18,

Block 2, Lot 9; R-22 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown   at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   September  11, 2013 at which  time the Board made  the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Bigelow  Green  appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Survey dated July 12. 2-13 signed  and sealed by Jay A. Greenwell,  Land

Surveyor.

2. Part Architectural  Site plan, Church  Sign Plan, Elevation  & Details  dated August

27, 2013 signed  and sealed by William  E Pfaff,  Architect.

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town  Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board  determination that the foregoing  application  is a Type  II action  exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQRA), pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.5 (c) (7); which  does not require  SEQRA environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows: Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye;  Ms. Castelli,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

William  Pfaff, Architect,  testified  that the church is celebrating  it 150th anniversary;  that he congregation  was looking  for ways  to recognize  this anniversary;  that the proposed new sign, lawn area, low lights  and landscaping  are part of the recognition;  that these items would be helpful  for any functions  held in the evening;  that the proposed  sign is in keeping  with the historic  area and the church; that it is a one sided sign and it is  fifteen

square feet and sits two feet from the property line but appears to be further back because

the property  line is about eight feet in from the street line; that they have met with the Orangetown  Highway  Department  and they are fine with the placement  and size of the sign because it does not interfere  with sight distances  and the distance  from the road is sufficient;  and that the proposed  sign would  also make  a statement  that the church is thriving  and active.

 

Palisades  Presbyterian   Church

ZBA#l3-60

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms.  Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested   sign and sign location  variances  will not produce  an undesirable change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The church is set back from the road and has existed  in this location  for 150 years; the applicant  has requested  a fifteen square  foot one-sided  size set back two feet from their property  line and their property  is an additional  eight feet from the street. Neither  the sign nor its placement  will interfere  with traffic.

 

2. The requested sign and sign location  variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  . TI1e church is set back from the road and has existed  in this location  for 150 years; the applicant  has requested  a fifteen square  foot one-sided  size set back two feet from

their property  line and their property  is an additional  eight feet from the street. Neither  the sign nor its placement  will interfere  with traffic.

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances,  The church is set back from the road and has existed  in this location  for 150 years; the applicant  has requested  a fifteen  square foot one-sided  size set back two feet from their property  line and their property  is an additional  eight feet from the street. Neither  the sign nor its placement will interfere  with traffic.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

3;)i.:~..ii..::\!O.

c..,:”/’.}”{‘ )lD  Nlf1

 

SS-

Z! Yd   “i-_· z   nD’ tlil

 

a30

iuio1~

— …. “‘t”””}{0 ~rn  tH.M.Jl

.J ~i.  ~

 

 

ZBA#13-60

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  sign and sign location

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  constrnction 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 ofthis   decision. Merely  obtaining  a Building  Permit  with respect  to construction   or a Certificate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  “substantial  implementation”   for the purposes  hereof.

 

 

ZBA#l3-60

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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:   September  11, 2013

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING lNSPECTOR-R.O.

By–+YIL(,,f…./L.1′.~~-b.L~~~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVlRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZllA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

FLOORAREA RATIO AND FRONT YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Keith  and Donna  Flynn

13  Villa Drive

N anuet, New York  10954

ZBA#   13-61

Date:   September  11, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA# 13-61: Application  of  Keith and Donna  Flynn for  variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  Town of Orangetown,   Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Columns  4 (Floor Area Ratio:   .20 permitted,  .246 existing,  .251 proposed  and 8 (Front  Yard:   30′  required,

27′  8″ existing,  19′ 4” proposed)  for the addition  of a front portico  at an existing  single•

family residence.  The premises  are located  at 13 Villa Drive, Nanuet,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 64.18, Block  1, Lot  66; R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard  by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   September  11, 2013 at which  time the Board made  the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Keith  and Donna  Flynn appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan  and architectural  plans  dated October  22, 2012 signed and sealed by

David  Ramirez,  R.A. (11 pages).

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Donna Flynn testified  that they would  like to add a portico  to the front of the house; that presently  you walk directly  into the living /dining  room  area; that the proposed  addition would  be 32 sq. ft. on the interior  and 40 sq. ft. from the exterior;  that it would  afford

them space for a foyer and closet; that they have lived in the house for 23 years; and quite a few of their neighbors  have done similar  additions.

 

 

ZBA#l3-61

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  OFF ACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested floor area ratio  and front yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The additional  front portico  is practical  and will enhance  the house. Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio and front yard variances   will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  Other houses  in the area have similar front yard setbacks  and the slight increase  in floor area ratio will have little impact  on the neighborhood.

 

 

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible for the  applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.  The additional  front portico is practical  and will enhance  the house.  Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

4. The requested  floor area ratio  and front yard variances  are not substantial

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

ZBA#13-61

Page  3  of  4

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

ZBA#l3-61

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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:   September  11, 2013

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING !NSPECTOR-B.vW.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

.:

By~Cl…!.a.LU-“-‘-‘=-..!..LL..lc.-=-~j{4·~(,l”T~

Deborah  Arbo  ino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

H!GHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING F!LE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

 

REAR YARD AND §§5.227 & 5.153 VARIANCES  APPROVED

 

 

 

To: Robert  and Erin Williams

71 Margaret  Keahon  Drive

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#   13-62

Date:   September  11, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#  13-62: Application   of  Robert  and Erin Williams  for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  Town of Orangetown,  R-15 District,  Group  M, Column  11 (Rear Yard:  35′ required,  14.4′ proposed)  and from Section  5.227 (Accessory  Structure  side or rear yard:

5′ required,  2.6′  existing)  and from Section  5.153 (Accessory  structure  distance  from principal  building:  15′ required,  5′ proposed)  for the construction  of a rear deck and to keep a shed in its present  location  at an existing  single-family   residence.  The premises are located  at 71 Margaret  Keahon  Drive, Pearl  River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.11, Block 2, Lot 32; R-15 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   September  11, 2013 at which time the Board made  the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Robert  and Erin Williams  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Survey  dated December  15, 2009 with the deck drawn on it signed and sealed by

Robert E. Sorace.

2. Deck plan dated 05/30/2013  signed  and sealed by Michael  R. Zrelak  Jr., Architect.
3. Two letters  of support  for the application  from abutting  property  owners.
4. A petition  in support  of the application  signed by eleven neighbors.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Erin Williams  testified  that they would  like to build a deck in the rear yard; that the backyard  does not have an even ground;  that there are existing  stone  stairs that lead down hilly portion  of the yard and they would  like to keep them and build the deck out into the rear yard rather than wide behind  the house; that the shed was in its present  location  when they purchased  the house three years ago, and they would  like to keep it there because  it

is one of the few flat areas  of the yard; that eventually  they would  replace  it with a nicer shed; and that they have two children  aged two and four.

 

Williams

ZBA#13-62

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  rear yard and accessory  structure  yard and distance  (§§5.227  & 5.153) variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  The rear property  has a severe slope on one side and the driveway  on the other  side; the deck is being  constrncted  around existing

stairs that lead into the rear side yard and the shed existed in its present  location

before the Williams’   purchased  the property.

 

 

 

2. The requested  rear yard and accessory  structure  yard and distance  (§§5.227  & 5.153) variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The rear property  has  a severe slope  on one side and the driveway  on the other  side; the deck is being  constructed  around  existing stairs that lead into the rear side yard and the shed existed  in its present  location

before  the Williams’  purchased  the property.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  rear yard and accessory  structure  yard  and distance  (§§5.227  &  5.153) variances  although  somewhat  substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that arc not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.    The rear property  has a severe slope on one side and the driveway  on the other  side; the deck is being constructed around existing  stairs that lead into the rear side yard and the shed existed  in its present  location  before  the Williams’   purchased  the property.

 

 

 

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,  pre~~1~  1fJ ~1}.a’!}!!fi@0;,-~ea  variances.

8S zi Yd    zz JJS  snz

—                      ·         t.!’1>Qt

Ri.Ol3f>N’?’tl0   .:!O  t””l’t”  –

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  rear yard and accessory structure  yard and distance  (§§5.227  &  5.153) 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 constmction  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   constrnction of the project  or any use for which  the variance  or Special Permit  is granted  is not substantially  implemented  within  one year of the date of filing  of this decision  or that of any other board  of the Town of Orangetown   granting  any required  final approval to such project,  whichever  is later, but in any event within  two years of the filing of this decision. Merely  obtaining  a Building  Permit   with respect  to construction  or a Certificate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  “substantial  implementation”   for the purposes  hereof.

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  rear yard and accessory  structure  yard and distance  (§§5.227  & 5.153) variances  was presented  and moved by Ms. Albanese,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco, aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye ;Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

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:   September  11, 2013

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN AITORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDfNG lNSPECTOR-B.vW.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

/J

By—1-(‘–“””-“‘!,L-1.~c=:      .:~”–“‘<-‘-•

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

 

 

To:  William and Margaret Confrey

91 Turner Road

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA # 13-63

Date:  September 11, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l3-63: Application of William and Margaret Confrey for a variance from Chapter

43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required,

14′ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence, The premises are located at 91 Turner Road, Pearl River, New York and identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 72.08, Block 3, Lot 17; R-15 zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

William and Margaret Confrey appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Architectural plans with site plan dated 04/04/2013 signed and sealed by Robert

Murphy, Architect.

2. A revised bulk table dated 09/06/2013 signed and sealed by Robert Murphy, Architect.
3. Eight computer generated pictures of the Confrey property submitted by the

Comfreys’.

4. A letter from Mary Schaefer, 104 Gilbert Avenue, an abutting property owner expressing concerns regarding drainage.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Margaret Confrey testified that they have lived in the house for 17 years; that they do not want to move; that hey have three grandchildren and two more on the way; that they are proposing to extend the exiting deck by five feet and enclose the area to create a family room for their expanding family; that they are sensitive to nm-off issues; that they have Planted six large pine trees to help soak up some of the water; that the property is located at the bottom of the hill; that Mr. Bonder, our neighbor closest to the proposed addition has seen the plans and is supportive of the application; that this is her first time in front of the Board and she did not know to ask him to attend the meeting or supply a letter of support; that she thinks the Schaefer property is about 50 feet from the property line; that they did remove about thirty trees years ago to create a yard and they planted about 30 arborvitae to make up for the removal of the trees; and that they do not plan to direct the

gutters to:vard the Schaefer property; that they will work with the contractor to dire~t th~”B)l~  NMo01

gutter dramage to the front of the house.                                                           3~\:l::'<O  S ,. ·                                                                      _

g$ zt blct  L2 8S  tIUJ.

 

William Confrey testified that the house sits caddie comer on the lot.

—                     ‘Qt.JW>O\

(jv

~~Oi3~.~LJ ,\”.;,~’  (\  ;j    •    ~”‘””     –

 

Confrey

ZBA#l3-63

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Co1mnent:

 

Mary  Schaefer,  104 Gilbert  A venue,  abutting  property  owner,  stated that her concerns would  be directed  toward  drainage;  that she cannot afford to have  any additional  water coming into the area between  her house  and the Confrey house;  that there is an underground   cave between  the properties  and this area becomes  like an eddy when  it rains; and she does not want  it to get worse because  she has concerns  that it may get larger and come close to her foundation.

 

Carol Schaefer testified  that she has lived in the house for twenty  three years  and the pool of water has gotten larger  since the neighbors  added the deck and patio; that she thinks there is about thirty  feet to the property  line and that she is concerned  that if the pool of water gets large it will effect the foundation  of the house.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew  York was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  side yard variance  will not produce  an undesirable   change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The property  is a corner property  with two front yards  and the original  house was built  set back  on the lot at an odd angle. The proposed  addition  is not large and the requested  side yard variance  is necessary  in order to make the addition  work with the existing  house.

 

2. The applicant  has  agreed to direct the gutter and downspouts  nm-off  from the new addition  away from the Schaefer  property  ( 104 Gilbert  Avenue)  to the greatest  extent possible.

 

3. The requested side yard variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  The property  is

a corner property  with two front yards and the original house was built set back on the lot at an odd angle. The proposed  addition  is not large and the requested  side yard variance  is necessary  in order to make the addition  work with the existing  house.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

5. The requested  side yard variance,  although  somewhat  substantial,  affords 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_co.mrµ.1i!aijy.

rn   c’.J{j  -‘.”‘1~ Ni]~v.

30H:!v   “fl\        –     •

tS ?1.. Lld     LZ   d3S   tltt

– –.~~1;;-nJO  .10 N:&Ol

fi~\Ql.:1vr’l~ u

 

Confrey

ZBA#l3-63

Page  3  of  4

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  side yard variance  is APPROVED  with the SPECIFIC  CONDITION  that the applicant’s   direct the gutter and downspouts  nm-off  from the new addition  away from the (104 Gilbert Avenue)  Schaefer property  to the greatest extent  possible;  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.

 

 

Confrey

ZBA#13-63

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  side yard variance with the specific  condition  that the gutter and downspouts  run-off  from the new addition be directed  away from the Schaefer property  (104 Gilbert  A venue)  to the rear to the greatest  extent possible;  was presented  and moved  by Ms. Salomon,  seconded  by Ms.

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

 

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:   September  11, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-M.M.

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FlLE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD, AND BUILDING HEIGHTVARIANCES

APPROVED

 

 

 

To: W aheed Gill

161 Main Street

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA # 13-64

Date:   September  11, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#  13-64: Application  of  W aheed Gill for  variances  from Town of Orangetown, Chapter  43 (Zoning),  RO District,  Group  Q,  Section  3.12, Columns  9 (Side Yard:  10′ required,  8.27′  proposed),   10 (Total   Side Yard:  30′  required,  18.27′  proposed)  and 12 (Building  Height:  11′ permitted,  27.75′  proposed)   for an addition  to an existing  single family residence.  The premises  are located  at 161 Main  Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.20, Block 5, Lot 69; RG zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  11, 2013 at which  time the Board made  the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

W aheed  and Serafin  Gill appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans  dated  10/25/2011  with the latest revision  date ofOl/31/2012 signed and sealed by Robert  Hoene, Architect.
2. A letter dated August  12, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

3. A letter dated September  3, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..

4. A letter dated August  26, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Drainage  Agency signed by Vincent  Altieri.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Waheed  Gill testified  that he and his wife have four children  and the house has three bedrooms;  that the girls are getting bigger  and need their own bedrooms;  that they would like to extend the house in the rear to add additional  bedrooms  with closets;  that the roof would  be the same height  as the existing  roof; that the house  sits caddy comer  on the lot and that the lot is oddly shaped.

 

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously,

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

 

 

 

1. The requested side yard, total side yard and building height variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The odd shaped property is sloped in the rear and this is the best possible location for the addition because of the grading of the property. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard, total side yard and building height variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The odd shaped property is sloped in the rear and this is the best possible location for the addition because of the grading of the property. 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 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.. The odd shaped property is sloped in the rear and this is the best possible location for the addition because of the grading of the property. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well  as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  within  a reasonable  period  of time  following  the filing of this decision  and prior to undertaking any construction  contemplated  in this decision.  To the extent  any variance  or Special Permit granted herein  is subject  to any conditions,  the building  depart:tnent 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  ofthis  decision  or that of any other board  of the Town of Orangetown   granting  any required  final approval  to such project,  whichever  is later, but in any event within two years of the filing of this decision. Merely  obtaining  a Building  Permit   with respect  to construction   or a Certificate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  “substantial  implementation”   for the purposes  hereof.

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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: September 11, 2013

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BU!LDfNG JNSPECTOR-M.M.

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEER£NG FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHTVARIANCE APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC CONDITION

 

To:   David Tolley

290 Sickletown Road

Orangeburg, New York 10962

ZBA # 13-65

Date:  September 11, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#13-65: Application of David Tolley for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning), R-40

District, Section 5.226 (Front Yard Fence Height: 4 ‘.h’ permitted,  6′ existing & proposed) for an existing fence at an existing single-family residence, The premises are located at 290 Sickletown Road, Orangeburg, New York and identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 64.20, Block 1, Lot 29; R-40 zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Paul Valentine Jr., Attorney, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Survey dated January 29, 2008 by Joseph Haller, P.L.S..
2. A cover letter from Paul W. Valentine, Jr. Esq., Attorney for the applicant.
3. Two color pictures of the site with the fence and a similar fence on a neighboring property.
4. A letter dated September 5, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of

Planning signed by Thomas Vanderbeek, P .E., Commissioner of Planning.

5. Two letters from the County of Rockland Department of Highways dated July 9,

2013  signed by Sonny Lin, P.E. and September 6, 2013 signed by Joseph Arena, Senior Engineering Technician.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Paul Valentine Jr. , Attorney, testified that the applicant purchased his property in 2007 with the existing fence; that in January 2013 the applicant was notified that the existing iron fence that borders the outside of his property along Sickletown Road and Sherwood Lane is in violation of the Orangetown Code and requires a variance; that the applicant applied for a building permit to maintain the fence and was referred to the Zoning Board; that he respectfully requests that the Board consider the following factors: the iron fence is transparent and has a very minimal impact on sight lines for the drivers turning onto

Sherwood Lane from either direction of Sicl<letownRoad; that the fence provides privacy for the applicant from the traffic along Sickletown Road; that the fence does not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and does not impair the

aesthetic value of the property; that the fence cannot be altered and/or removed without          r~o1

significant expense to the applicant; and that the applicant will comply wit.9.~s~~~B310     ‘<•-·

from the Rockland County Highway Department dated September 6, 2013. -.        _  .·         .                                                                             i “‘.                      r4g inll

65

i1ud   ~(; a::

… –                       .                         ‘l.I~{)i

.::\ ~\”1’.J     0  _10 tifn    ‘.

n\\’l'”‘

NA\01~ …

 

 

ZBA#l3-65

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York  was received.

 

 

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

Ms.  Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

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

change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The applicant  has two front yards  and purchased  the house with the existing  fence in

2007; the fence that is along two of the streets provides  privacy  and safety for the applicant  without  encroaching  on any sight lines for the street.

2. The applicant  has agreed to comply  with the letter  from the County Highway

Department  dated September  6, 2013.

 

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. The applicant  has two front yards  and purchased  the house with the existing  fence in

2007; the fence that is along two of the streets provides  privacy  and safety for the

applicant  without  encroaching  on any sight lines for the street.

 

 

 

4_    TI1e  benefits  sought by   the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  a variance.  The applicant  has two front yards  and purchased  the house with the existing  fence in 2007; the fence that is along two of the streets provides  privacy  and safety for the applicant  without  encroaching

on any sight lines for the street

 

 

 

5. The requested front yard fence height  variance  is not substantial  because  it is not a solid fence.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

TI1e foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  front yard fence height variance   was presented  and moved by Ms.  Castelli,  seconded  by Ms. Albanese and carried  as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye ;Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

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:   Septemberll,2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TO\VN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORN’.EY DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-M.M.

 

By~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR