Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER   16. 2015

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:           DAN SULLIVAN JOAN  SALOMON

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE THOMAS  QUINN

 

ABSENT:                                MICHAEL  BOSCO PATRICIA  CASTELLI

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:                     Dennis  Michaels,  Esq.

Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah Arbolino,

Deputy Town Attorney Official Stenographer Administrative Aide

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS

 

APPLICANTS   REILLY	DECISIONS   FLOOR AREA RATIO	ZBA#lS-73
17 Woodland Terrace, Orangeburg, NY	VARIANCE APPROVED
74.13 I 1I37;  R-22 zone
JOUAS	FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD,	ZBA#l 5-74

26 Iroquois Avenue                BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

Palisades, NY

78.17I1I42;  R-15 zone

 

MARESCA                            SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD,            ZBA#15-75

154 South William Street      BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED Pearl River, NY

72.08 I 1  I 87; RG zone

 

MUCK.ELL                           ACCESSORY STRUCTURE IN

19 Marycrest Road                 FRONT YARD APPROVED

West Nyack, NY

69.07 I 1I21;  R-40 zone

ZBA#15-76

 

CHUNG                                 STREET FRONTAGE AND §280-a

246 Route 9W                        VARIANCES APPROVED

Palisades, NY

78.17 I 2 I 18; R-40 zone

ZBA#lS-77

 

KUPFERSCHMID                            CONTINUED

115 Route 303

Tappan,NY

77.07 I 2 I I; LO zone

ZBA#lS-78

 

BRADLEY CORPORATE PARI~    CONTINUED Bradley Corporate Park Section IVDL:f.:!O S>1li31Q    Nl1Wl Blauvelt, NY                               !

70.06 I 1I50.4;  LO zone              ~ -~  lJd      OZ  130   5IOZ

 

NM0l3DNV’cJO .:JO  Nh\Ol

ZBA#lS-79

 

Minutes

Page2

 

 

 

OTHER   BUSINESS:

 

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board,  the Zoning Board of Appeals:    RESOLVED,   to approve the action of the Acting  Chairperson   executing  on behalf  of the Board   its consent  to the Planning  Board  acting  as Lead Agency   for the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act (SEQ RA) coordinated   environmental   review of actions pursuant   to SEQ RA Regulations   § 617  .6  (b)(3) the following   applications:

The Hollows  Site  Plan Amendment,  500 Veterans  Highway,  Pearl River,  NY; 73.05  I 1   I

53; PAC zone; Bradley  Industrial   Park Parking  Site Plan,   500  Bradley Hill Road, Blauvelt,   NY 70.06  I 1  I 50.4;   LO zone;   319 Blauvelt  Road Subdivision   Plan  2 lot,  319

Blauvelt   Road, Pearl River,  NY 69.09 I 5 I 74;  R-15   zone;  Kenney Deck Plans critical

environmental   area, 815   Route  9W, Upper  Grandview,  NY 75.05   I 1I7.1;     R-22 zone;

and FURTHER  RESOLVED,   to request   to be notified  by the Planning  Board of SEQ RA

proceedings,  hearings,  and determinations    with respect  to these  matters.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

There being  no further business  to come before the Board,  on motion  duly made, seconded  and carried,   the meeting  was adjourned  at 10:45   P .M.

 

Dated:   September  16,  2015

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING    INSPECTOR    (Individual     Decisions) Rockland   County Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

By~~

 

Deborah  Arbolino,   Administrative   Aide

 

 

 

301.:L!O   SY’Eno   N/i’Dl

1~  )_ LJd     oz 100   5I02

 

t I A\O13 D f 1\1 L 0  .:W I JiA Q l

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Tom and Brandy Reilly

17 Woodland Terrace

Orangeburg, New York 10962

ZBA #15-73

Date: September 16, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l5-73: Application of Thomas and Brandy Reilly for a variance from Zoning Code

(Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-22 District refers to R-15

District,(Average Density) Group M, Column 4 ( Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .224 proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 17 Woodland Terrace, Orangeburg  New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.13, Block 1, Lot 37; in the R-22 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Tom and Brandy Rielly and Mike McNally, contractor, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of survey with proposed addition drawn on it. ( 1  page).
2. Architectural plans labeled “Proposed Addition to the Reilly Residence” dated

June 5, 2015 signed and sealed by Paul Douglas Siebenaler, Registered Architect

(2 pages).

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

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

4. A letter dated September 11, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..

5. A letter dated August 17 2015 from the County ofRocldand Department of

Health signed by Scott Mc Kane, P .E..

6. A letter dated September 9, 2015 from the County of Rockland Sewer District

No. l signed by Joseph La Fiandra, Engineer II.

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chairman, 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. Salomon and

carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr.     ~      -4

Sullivan, aye. Ms. Castelli and Mr. Bosco were not present for this hearing.           6   ~   ~

z       C?

~            Cl

1. C) –(  ., Tom Reilly testified that they are proposing to add a bedroom and bathroom on the fust ~    o level of the house in the rear of the house for his mom; that they have owned the ho~e            5:~~ for nine years and have three children; and that his mom just relocated back here fro1W   ~      ~

Florida.                                                                                                               ~    .._. ;         ~

0

C’)           ..J:  I     :E

Mike McNally testified that the proposed addition is small at only 289 sq. ft.; that then   …,….         :z:.

family needs to provide Mike’s mom with a private bedroom and bathroom on the first

level of the house; that similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood; that

#2 Woodland did a similar addition but they did not require a variance because their lot is

a little bit larger; that # 12 did a similar addition to the rear of the property and was

granted a variance; that the proposed addition does not create an undesirable change in

 

Reilly

ZBA#lS-73

Page2  of  4

 

 

 

the neighborhood   character  or to nearby properties;  that the request will not have an adverse physical  or environmental   effects on the neighborhood.

 

 

 

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 floor area ratio 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 neighborhood.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio 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 neighborhood.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested floor area ratio variance, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

38L:L:f 0  S>!H310   N!AOl

..

lh    1   lJd    02  180 5102

 

Reilly

ZBA#lS-73

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 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.

 

 

 

 

l~ _I_ lJd     02   180  5102

N  !_;\ ()l ‘””l !’   >  t  ‘.-·”         t  r’\          I  ()     !  I >’

 

ll    U

-‘-iv1!11’f     -‘.I     ‘w’•.l    ·V  J

– -,   v  1’·‘•-It“‘\()\..l,;

 

 

 

 

Reilly

ZBA#15-73

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

 

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  16,  2015

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

By~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

301.:!.::JO   G   ‘TJlO  Nli\01

 

Th    T  lJd     0 Z  180   SlOZ

 

DECISION

 

FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, AND BUILDING  HEIGHTV ARIANCES

APPROVED

 

To: Jean Pierre Jouas

26 Iroquois Avenue

Palisades, New York  I 0964

ZBA#15-74

Date: September 16, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#lS-74: Application of Jean Pierre Jouas for variances from Zoning Code Chapter

43 of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District, Section 3.12,Group M, Columns 8 ( Front Yard: 30′ required, 21′ proposed), 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 12′ and 15′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 15′ permitted, 16’ proposed) for an addition to an

existing one-family residence. The premises are located at 26 Iroquois Avenue, Palisades, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 78.17, Block 1, Lot

42 inthe R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Michael Scharff, Architect, Jean and Linda Jouas appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans labeled “Mr. & Mrs. Jean Pierre Jouas”  dated 717/2015 with the latest revision date of 7/23/2015 signed and sealed by Michael J. Scharff, Registered Architect ( 4 pages).
2. A letter dated September 4, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of  .

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

3. A letter dated September 8, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..

4. A letter dated August 17, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Health signed by Scott Mc Kane, P .E ..

5. A letter dated September 9, 2015 from the County of Rockland Sewer District

No.1 signed by Joseph La Fiandra, Engineer II.

6. Five letters of support from abutting property owners.

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, 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

t–lo            (;”)

require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and     ~     ~ carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr.     ~      u-.       =~ Sullivan, aye. Ms. Castelli and Mr. Bosco were absent for this hearing.                     :z      g    z

 

0    –1

Michael Scharff, Architect, testified that the family has lived in the house for 33 yeafii    ~

.0,

0

:::J

 

that they raised their family in the house and are ready to move into the next phase of~   -o     _.    k

their lives, active retirement; that the proposal includes plans to expand the kitchen, ~d  CC3       ~

sunroom and deck; that the existing lot is a comer property with two front yards; th~e~        1                         ~ proposed sunroom shall be located on the south end of the house because the plantS<Wil~ -C  ‘.              ~ need a southern exposure; that the south end of the house is the second front yard; aha    1-..&           z requires a variance; that the kitchen is located off the rear of the house and the proposal

for the expansion of it will go further into the rear yard; that the deck will be located off of the kitchen expansion; that the entire rear property line is separated from the property to the east by a substantial hedge line that is between 10 and 12 feet high; and that the

 

hedge also screens along Dakota for the proposed sunroom.

 

 

 

Jouas

ZBA#lS-74

Page 2 of 4

 

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Eileen Larkin, 15 Home Tooke Road, testified that she knows the family for 33 years; that they maintain the property beautifully and are an asset to the neighborhood; and that she fully supports the application.

 

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 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. The hardship for the applicant is the comer lot, however the entire lot is well screened and the proposed additions will be well screened.

 

 

 

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. The hardship for the applicant is the comer lot, however the entire lot is well screened and the proposed additions will be well screened.

 

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. The

hardship for the applicant is the comer lot, however the entire lot is well screened and

the proposed additions will be well screened.                                                  –1      e1    3

0          CJ””I        :..~

~   c=>

:z      c-:>

–i        C)

(‘”J

5. The applicant purchased the property subject to Orangetown’s Zoning Code (~aptQ  -n

43) and is proposing a new addition and/or improvements, so the alleged diffi§llty0         : :J was self-created, which consideration was relevant to the decision of the Boar~pf -c      ~ Appeals, but did not, by itself, preclude the granting of the area variances.    o       :3       ~

-n      ~I            –l

-n              I        0

0       ·…c·    :e:

rn    ~       z

 

Jouas

ZBA#l5-74

Page 3   of 4

 

 

 

 

DECISION: Inview 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.

 

 

 

 

301:J.:JO  S)~H31~  NMOl

 

lh  l  LJd     0 2  180  5102

 

NJA013DNV~O JO  HA\01

 

 

Jouas

ZBA#lS-74

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 Ms.  Salomon,   seconded by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye;   Mr.  Quinn, aye ; Ms.  Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.  Ms.  Castelli  and Mr.  Bosco  were absent for this hearing.

 

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 16,  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  ,_~”‘–=-_:._~=-.::.- Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.   and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

30!.:!~0     S’\1”310     Nh\Ol

Th    r  lJd     oz 1Jo  srnz

 

DECISION

 

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

 

To:  Gary and Jennifer Maresca

154 South William Street

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA#l5-75

Date: September 16, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA# 15- 7 5: Application of Gary and Jennifer Maresca for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .30 permitted, .31 proposed),  9 (Side Yard: 1 O’ required,

5′ existing, 6.3′ proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 25.2′ proposed), and 12 (Building Height: 17′ permitted, 22.4′ proposed) for an addition to a single-family residence. The premises are located at 154 South William Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 72.08, Block 1, Lot 87; in the RG zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Gary Maresca and Jonathan Hodash, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans labeled “The Maresca Residence”   dated January 19, 2015 with the latest revision date of July 28, 2015 signed and sealed by Jonathan Hodash, Registered Architect (11 pages).

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, 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. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr.

Sullivan, aye. Ms. Castelli and Mr. Bosco were absent for this hearing.

 

 

 

 

Jonathan Hodash, Architect, testified that this house has been in the same family since it was built in 1916; that it is a small house with three bedrooms and one bathroom; that the owners would like to enlarge the bedrooms and add two more bathrooms; that the house was built before zoning ans many of the conditions are pre-existing and the proposed addition is extending those pre-existing conditions and some of the new variances are less than the existing conditions; that the new roof line mimics the existing and the height variance is based on the highest point of the roof.

 

Gary Marceso testified that his wife’s great grandfather built the house in 1916; that it

has been in the family ever since; that they purchased the house in 2006 and would like to make the house more accommodating to their family.

 

3Dldd0 SY~!310  N/nOl

 

th t  lJd    0 2  lDO  5102

 

NM013DNVhlO .:lO  Nh\Ol

 

Maresca

ZBA#15-75

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 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 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested floor area ratio, side yard, total side yard and building height variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, side yard. total side yard and building height variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar 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 floor area ratio, side yard, total side yard and building height variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not

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

surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. Similar 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.

 

 

 

Z~   _t_ lJd   02  lGO   5102

 

Maresca

ZBA#15-75

Page 3   of 4

 

 

 

 

 

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

are a part.

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

which are hereinbefore set forth.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained within a reasonable period of time following the filing of this decision and prior to undertaking

any construction contemplated in this decision. To the extent any variance or Special Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall not be obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, in the sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

30f:l.:!O s;.p~310  Nh\01

 

Zh   1   Wd   02  180  5102

 

NA\013D  N7~ 0 .:W W:\Ol

 

 

Maresca

ZBA#15-75

Page 4 of 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested   floor area ratio,

side yard, total  side yard and building  height   variances   was presented  and moved  by Mr. Sullivan,   seconded  by Mr. Quinn and carried  as follows: Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Mr. Quinn, aye ; Ms.  Salomon,   aye; and Mr. Sullivan,   aye.  Ms.  Castelli  and Mr. Bosco were  absent

for this hearing.

 

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 16,  2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS

TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS

TOWN  ATIOIU’1EY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATIORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-RAO.

By~—“”‘.=.=….:…._~-=-4-..-<-‘-“-·V Deborah Arbolino

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

Zh    T   !Jd     OZ  180   Sl02

 

N/i\0130rJV~.O    .:lO   rJi.101

 

DECISION

 

SECTION 5.153 (ACCESSORY STRUCTURE  IN THE FRONT YARD) VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Jrunes and Ann Muckell

19 Marycrest  Road

West Nyack, New York 10994

ZBA#l5-76

Date: September 16, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#15-76:Application of James and Ann Muckell for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-40 District, Group E, Section 5.153, (Accessory Structures or Pools shall not be located in the front yard: pool is located in the front yard) for an existing above-ground pool at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 19 Marycrest Road, West Nyack, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.07, Block 1, Lot 21; in the R-40 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

James Muckell appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of site plan with the pool and deck drawn on it. (1 page).
2. A letter dated September 10, 2015 from Rudolph J. Yacyshyn, Vice Chairman, Clarkstown Planning Board.

 

 

 

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

 

James Muckell testified that he purchased his house in 1985 and they installed the pool shortly after; that the pool was installed in the backyard; that McCandless Court did not exist when the pool was constructed; and now the pool is in a front yard.

 

 

 

3 31.:Lj  0  S :n-! 31 o  NM 0 l

 

2h     T   LJd    02  180 5102

 

NM013DrJVJO   .:!O  lJ/.\01

 

Muckell Pool

ZBA#lS-76

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 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 OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested §5.153 Accessory structure in the front yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is a comer lot with more than one front yard, and the road that runs along the side of the property did not exist when the pool was installed.

 

 

 

2. The requested §5.153 Accessory structure in the front 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 comer lot with more than one front yard, and the road that runs along the side of the property did not exist when the pool was installed.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested §5.153 Accessory structure in the front yard variance, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. The property is a corner lot with more than one front yard. and the road that runs along the side of the property did not exist when the pool was installed.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

301~:10  S)’H310 N/~01

 

z~   _1_ Wd     02  100 s102

 

NM013DNV~O       .:JO   N/1\0l

 

Muckell Pool

ZBA#l5-76

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 §5.153 Accessory structure in the front yard variance is APPROVED; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that such decision and the vote thereon shall become effective and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption by the Board of the minutes of which they are a part.

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

2h   1   lJd    02  l~O  5102

 

Nh\013fJNVUO   .:W Nh\Ol

 

 

Muckell Pool

ZBA#l5-76

Page 4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing resolution  to approve the application for the requested  § 5.153   Accessory structure in the front yard  variance was presented and moved  by Mr. Quinn,  seconded by Ms.  Salomon   and carried as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye; Ms.

Salomon,  aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.  Ms.  Castelli 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:  September 16,  2015

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD  MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN   ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-R.A.O.

By.>….£…j:q,.<:0-1.L-=:….Ie::””–“‘~,.LLA~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAfRMAN,    ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

301.:1.:D   S~”’3lO   NI.  or

2~  J.. l.Jd   02  180  5I02

 

 

N/;i0130il’1GO

–~… O    1·,1,, :·0 _J·_

 

DECISION

 

 

STREET   FRONTAGE    VARIANCE   AND New York  STATE  TOWN  LAW  280a

EXCEPTION    APPROVED

 

To:  Marc Comito  (Chung) P.O. Box 300

West Nyack,  New York  10994

ZBA#IS-77

Date: September  16, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l5-   77: Application  of  Young Ju Chung for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-40 District, Group E,  Column 7 (Street Frontage: I 00′ required, O’ proposed) for the construction of a new single-family residence. The premises will be located at 246 Route 9W, Palisades, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 78.17, Block 2, Lot 18; in the R-40 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, September 16, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Terry Rice, Attorney, Robert Hoene, Architect, Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor and

Marc Comito, Contractor, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

 

1. Plot plan labeled “Plot Plan for Building Permit Chung” dated July 8, 2015 signed and sealed by Jay Greenwell, L.S. and Paul Gdanski, P.E. (1 page)
2. Architectural plans labeled “Chung Residence” dated 3/5/3013 with the latest revision date of7/15/2015, by Robert Hoene, Architect. (7 pages)
3. A letter dated September 9, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

4. A letter dated September 8, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..

5. A letter dated September 9, 2015 from the County of Rockland Sewer District

No.I signed by Joseph La Fiandra, Engineer II.

6. A tax map.

 

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

 

 

 

Terry Rice, Attorney, testified that this lot is completely landlocked; that the only way for viable use of the property is through the two front lots; that the lot is 95,600 sq. ft. lot in an R-40 zone; that the posting was done properly and one poster was on the road at the existing 15′ wide driveway; and that the driveway will be 15′ wide and will require a

permit from Kinder Morgan for the proposed crossing of the Tennessee Gas right-of-way.

 

301.:l.:lO  S\”~310 N!.Wl

2~  }.  Lld    02  lGO SW2

1….<v        ..J              dd       J.

NMOl::J D Nv~,· !0l    J ru    ,·.: !~   0 I

 

Chung

ZBA#lS-77

Page 2 of  5

 

Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor, testified that they did appear before the HABR and are working on revising the house plans to be more in line with the requests of the Board; that he did a research and handed out a tax map with other properties in the area that did not have street frontage; and testified that the applicant would need approval from the

Department of Transportation, the Anny Corp of Engineers, and Kinder Morgan; that he

did find an old map that was dated 1945 by F. Wright and labeled for Henry Kennell that showed part of the property conveyed to the driving range, and a proposed easement that is very similar to what they are proposing today; that it is interesting informational history; that in 1997 the lots were deeded to June Park in two separate deeds and in 2005 they were conveyed to Chung in two separate titles and in separate names; that Mrs. Chung owns some and Mr. Chung the other; that without access by right-of-way the property is deprived of its use; and that they would not object if the Board chose to grant

a 280-a and the street frontage variance; that he worked on a property over on Lauren and

Oak Tree Road where the property crosses the Tennessee pipeline and the property had to be excavated by hand and had to be in compliance with Kinder Morgan and the same

will have to be done here.

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Blythe Anderson Chase, 286 Route 9W, testified that the driveway is not consistent with the neighborhood because it is gated and it is a large driveway.

 

Larry Bucciarelli, 700 Oak Tree Road, testified that he is speaking as a private citizen and not a member ofHABR; that he recused himself from the Board when the applicant appeared before HABR; that the property was not properly posted; that the postings were not seen from the road; that the flag lot is held in different names; that the home on this lot could be built and another house could be built to the south and a third lot added; that crossing the Tennessee gas line is dangerous; that he remembers when the County was

dredging the Sparkill Creek and they had to stop because they almost hit the gas line; that the gas line is not properly marked and could be a problem if the sewer main clogs.

 

Paul Riccobono, 15 Hey Hoe Woods Road, testified that he would like to know if the same person owns all of these lots.

 

Eileen Larkin, 15 Home Tooke Road, testified that Rockland County Drainage should have to comment on this and questioned if the map was sent to them for review; and asked about ownership of the lots and if they were going to build more than one house.

 

Phillip Bauman, 23 6 Route 9W, testified that he has concerns similar to Larry’s regarding the safety of crossing the Tennessee gas line with a driveway and the impact that could have on the community; that this is a red herring and there should be an alternate plan for the driveway that does not cross the gas line.

 

Carol Baxter, 34 Lawrence Lane, testified that this house is not in keeping with the historic area around it and asked everyone from Palisades to raise their hands if they agreed with her.

 

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.

 

 

 

301.:L:lO  s:rnJlQ   Nta101

 

2h    1   LJd   02  180  Sl02

 

NMQ13Drf’1UO  :JO  NA\01

 

 

ZBA#lS-77

Page 3   of  5

 

 

 

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 street frontage variance and NY State Town  Law 280-a exception will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a

detriment to nearby properties. There are several properties in the area that lack street frontage.

 

 

 

2. The requested street frontage variance and NY State Town Law 280-a exception will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in

the neighborhood or district. There are several properties in the area that lack street frontage.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested street frontage variance and NY State Town Law 280-a exception, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed  by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the

surrounding  neighborhood or nearby community.  There are several properties in the area that lack street frontage.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

301:!.:IO  S)W318 N/AOl

 

2~ -~ Wd   02  180  5102

 

NMOl3DNv!d0   :JO  NA\Ol

 

 

ZBA#l5-77

Page 4 of  5

 

 

 

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

Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested street frontage variance and NY State Town Law Section 280-a exception 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.

 

 

Zh   1   LJd   02   180  Sl02

 

NM013DNVUO   .:iO  Ni’AOl

 

 

Chung

ZBA#15-77

Page  5  of  5

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   street frontage variance  and NYS  Town Law Section  280-a exception   was presented   and moved by Mr. Feroldi,   seconded  by Ms. Salomon   and carried as follows:    Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr.  Quinn, aye ;  Ms.  Salomon,   aye; and Mr. Sullivan,   aye.  Ms.  Castelli  and Mr. Feroldi were absent for this hearing.

 

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  16,  2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD  MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    fNSPECTOR-R.A.0.

 

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR