Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER   25, 2013

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

DANIEL  SULLIVAN JOAN  SALOMON NANETTE  ALBANESE PA TRICIA  CASTELLI MICHAEL  BOSCO

LEONARD  FEROLDI,   ALTERNATE

 

 

ABSENT:                                        NONE

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:                   Dennis  Michaels,  Esq.

Melissa  Pezzullo, 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

 

 

POSTPONED   ITEM:

 

DOLAN/CLARKE   DECK

77.15  I 1I70;  R-15  zone

SIDE YARD  AND                                  ZBA#13-66

TOTAL  SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

NEW  ITEMS:

 

K.OPUNECK  SUBDIVISION

77.06  I 2 I 69;  R-15 zone

FLOOR  AREA RATIO                          ZBA#l3-68

FRONT  YARD,  SIDE YARD, TOTAL   SIDE YARD,  REARY  ARD VARIANCES  APPROVED  FOR LOT #1

LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH

VARIANCES   APPROVED  FOR Lot #1  & #2

 

DEANS  SUBDIVISION

77.07  I 2 I 26; R-15  zone

LOT WIDTH  VARIANCE   FOR        ZBA#l3-69

LOTS #3 & #4 APPROVED

STREET  FRONTAGE   FOR LOT #1

APPROVED;  TOTAL  SIDE YARD

VARIANCES   FOR LOTS  #1,2,3,&   4 APPROVED

 

MAGEE

69.14  I 3 I 34;  R-15   zone

FRONT  YARD  VARIAN CE APPROVED

ZBA#l3-70

 

MADERA

77.15  I 3 I 23; R-15   zone

FLOOR  AREA RATIO   AND               ZBA#l3-71

FRONT  YARD  VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

McNALLY

69.18   I 2 I 20;  R-15   zone

POSTPONED                                            ZBA#l3-72

 

PUPO

74.18  I 1I35;     R-15 zone

FLOOR  AREA  RATIO AND               .ZBA#13-73

TOTAL  SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES   APPROVED.

 

3GL::l.:W  SY.8310     NMOl

 

8£  6 WH     t I l~O £I02

 

NMOl3$Nv~o    :.W  NhWl

 

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

Brereton  & Messina  Re-subdivision   Plan,  53 and 55 North Williams  Street, Pearl River, NY 68.16 / 4 / 30 & 31; RG  zone; Artists  Studio Site Plan,  183 Oak Tree Road, Tappan NY 77.15 / l / 32; LIO (CO,CS)  zoning  districts;  and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  to request   to be notified by the Planning  Board  of SEQ RA proceedings,  hearings,  and determinations   with respect  to these  matters.

 

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

 

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

There being no further business  to come before  the Board,  on motion  duly made, seconded  and carried, the meeting  was adjourned  at 9:00 P.M.

 

Dated:   September  25, 2013

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

APPLICANT

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN   ATTORNEY TOWN   BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR    (Individual    Decisions)

Rockland   County  Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

B~

 

Administrative    Aide

 

DECISION

 

SIDE YARD AND TOTAL  SIDE YARD VAfilANCES  APPROVED

 

To:   Carol Dolan

5 Van W ardt Place

Tappan, New York  10983

ZBA#   13-66

Date:   September  25, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#13-66:  Application  of Carol Dolan  for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning),  Section

3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Section  5.21 undersized  lot applies;  Columns  9 (Side Yard:

15′ required,  4.6′  existing  &  proposed),   10 (Total  Side Yard: 30′  required,  24.3′  existing

7 proposed)   for a sunroom  addition   and deck at an existing  single-family  residence,  The premises  are located  at 5 Van Wardt  Place, Tappan  New York  and identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  77.15, Block  l, Lot 70; R-15 zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown   at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  25, 2013 at which  time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Carol Dolan  and Meg Fowler,  Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans  dated May  16, 2013 signed  and sealed by Margaret  Fowler, Architect.  (8 pages).
2. A letter dated August  12, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

3. A letter dated  September  4, 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  Heming  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 Enviromnental   Quality Review  Act (SEQ RA), pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or  (13); which  does not require  SEQRA  environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows:  Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

Meg Fowler,  Architect,  testified  that they  are planning  to remove  the existing  deck that is in desperate  need of repair and using that footprint  to build a screened in porch and to construct  a deck along side of the proposed  enclosed  porch in the rear of the house;  that the applicants  are fair skinned  and would  like a shaded area to enjoy the yard from; that the screened  in porch would  also help protect them from the mosquitoes  that come from the creek behind the house;  that the deck was designed  two steps down from the screened in porch area; that he side yard and total side yard are existing  conditions  and are. not changing.

 

 

 

sc   s  wH   tr   1::iu   rrnz

 

N.’\iOJ.3DNVHO   .:10 NMOl

 

 

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. 1. The requested  side  yard and total side yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable change in the character  of the neighborhood or a detriment  to nearby propertie  The proposal  of the enclosed  sunroom  and deck and does not change the existing  side yard or total side yard.  The proposed  enclosed  sunroom  is being  constructed  using the footprint  from the existing  deck that is being removed.

 

2. The applicant  has applied  for a permit  from the Rockland Comity Drainage  Agency and shall provide  all pertinent  information  from the agency to the Building  Inspector prior to the issuance  of a building  permit.

 

 

 

3. 3. The requested  side yard and total side yard variances   will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental conditions  in the neighborhood or dis TI1e proposal  of the enclosed  sunroom  and deck and does not change the existing  side yard or total side yard. The proposed  enclosed  sunroom  is being  constructed  using the footprint  from the existing deck that is being  removed.

 

4. 4. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.  The proposed  sunroom  is being  constructed  on the same  footprint  as the deck that is being removed  and the requested  variances  are for pre-existing non-conforming conditions.

 

 

 

5. 5. The requested  side yard and total side yard variances,  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  community. The proposed  sunroom  is being  constrncted  on the same footprint  as the deck that is being removed  and the requested  variances  are for pre-existing  non-conforming conditions.

 

 

 

6. 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,

 

3JL:!JO S)1831~ fH.101 m: s  LIB     n 130   rmz NM0l3f>NVHO   .:W NJAOl

 

Dolan

ZBA#l3-66

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  side yard and total side yard variances  are APPROVED  with the Specific  Condition  that the applicant  obtain  a permit from the County  of Rockland  Drainage  Agency;  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.

 

 

 

 

RC  ~   lJ8    t I  .l:lfl  nnz

 

NM013SNV80        :IO  NlnOl

 

 

 

,,:             -·’···    …..  1,,. ..

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  side yard and total side yard variances,  with the Specific  Condition  that the applicant  obtain  a permit  from the Rockland  County Drainage  Agency,  was presented  and moved  by Ms. Salomon, seconded  by Ms.

Castelli and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  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  25, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-B.vW.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

 

3(H.:HO S)!H31Q NMOl sr · s wH   11  130 crnz NA\Ol3DN¥HO .:W  NMOl

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, TOTAL  SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD FOR LOT #1; LOT AREA AND LOT WIDTH FOR LOTS #1 & #2; APPROVED

 

To:    Kathy Kopunek

20 Stueben Avenue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA#   13-68

Date:   September  25, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-68: Application  of Kopunek  Subdivision  for a variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  Town of Orangetown,   R-15 District,  Group M, Columns  4 (Floor  Area Ratio:

.2 permitted,  .26  existing  for lot #1); 5 (Lot Area:  15,000 sq. ft. required,  7,486 sq. ft.

proposed  for lot #1 & #2); 6 (Minimum  Lot Width:  100′ required,  75′  proposed  for lot #1

&#2).   8 (Front Yard: 30′ required,  25.1′  existingforlot#l),    9 (Side Yard: Section  5.21 (c) applies:  15′ required,  10.9′ existing  for lot #1);  10 (Total  Side Yard: 30′  required,

22.5′  existing  for lot #1) and 11 (Rear Yard: 35′  required,  33.6′  proposed  for lot #1) for a proposed  two-lot  subdivision.  The property  is located  at 20 Stueben Avenue,  Tappan,

New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 77.06, Block 2, Lot

69; R-15 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  25, 2013 at which  time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Kathy Kopunek  and Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Survey dated April  11, 2013 signed and sealed by Robert  E. Sorace, PLS.
2. Planning Board Decision#  13-16 dated April 24, 2013 and #13-24  dated July 10,

2013.

3. A memorandum   dated August  22, 2013 from the County of Rockland  Department of Planning.
4. A letter dated September   13, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..

5. A letter dated  September  18, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Sewer District

No. l signed by Joseph  LaFiandra,  Engineer  IL

6. A letter dated March 29, 2013 from Kathy  Kopunek.
7. A portion  of a tax map showing  similar  sized lots in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

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 since the Planning  Board noticed  its intent to declare  itself Lead Agency and distributed  that notice of intention  to all Involved  Agencies,  including  the ZBA who consented  or did not object to the

Planning  Board  acting  as Lead Agency  for this application,   pursuant  to coordinated review  under the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act  Regulations   §617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning  Board  conducted  a SEQ RA environmental  review  for the application,  and on July 10, 2013, rendered  an environmental   determination  ofno

significant  adverse  environmental   impacts  to result  from the proposed  land use action, the

ZBA is bound by the Planning Board’s Neg Dec and the ZBA cannot require  further SEQRA  review pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulation3’~P.l.1(P tb)~3)f6fR~<ftion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried  as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms.”‘Salomon, aye;

Ms.  Albanese,  aye;  Mr.  Bosco,   aye; and  Ms.  c6¬ te°6i,W-  t!  laa £lfil

 

NH,0135NVHO   .:W NMOl

 

 

ZBA#13-68

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  testified  that the applicant  was before the Planning  Board

twice and received  a “neg  dee’  and preliminary   approval  from the Planning  board  on July

10, 2013; that it was questionable  if the applicant  needed  to appear because  the property was shown  on a 1929 subdivision  as two tax lots; that at some time in the past the lots were merged  by the tax assessors  office; that the applicant  is requesting  to return it to two lot; that it is the kind  of development  that has existed  in the area; that it fits with the neighborhood   and that they have  agreed to come back to the Board  for drainage review  at the time a developer  proposed  to build on the lot

 

Kathy Kopunek  testified  that she purchased  her house  in July of 2009 and was told by the owner that the property  consisted  of two separate  tax lots; that they were 75′  x 100′ lots that fronted  on Stueben  and Sterling; that she believed  the cost of the house supported

that fact; that she always thought  of the additional  property  as a safety net for her retirement;   that she is asking the Board  to approve  the subdivision  because  the subdivide lot would  conform  to other properties  in the surrounding  neighborhood;   and pointed  out that there are six lots on Stueben,  six lots on Sterling  and six lots on Summit  that are approximately   the same  size as her requested  subdivide  lots; and that she intends  to stay in her home  after the subdivision  and her house sits lower that her rear property;  and that she would  wants the person  developing  the lot to be conscious  of drainage  and that is

why a drainage review  would be conducted  at the time of any development.. Public  Comment:

Michael  Davies,  26 Stueben  Ave., Tappan  testified  that he is concerned  about the development  of the lot because  of the topography  of the lot; that it sits higher  than his lot and he does not want water running  onto his lot during and after construction.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew  York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  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,  front yard, side yard, total side yard and building height  variance  for lot #1 and the lot area and lot width variances  for lot #1 and #2 will not  produce  an undesirable   change  in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  The subject  property  was shown on a subdivision  plat filed in  1929; but, for an unknown  reason  the tax assessor  merged the lots. There  are at least  18 other lots within  three blocks  that are the same  size or smaller than the proposed  subdivision  lots, and the owner  of the new subdivided  lot, that is presently not  developed,  must return  to the Planning  Board  at the time of development  for drainage  review.                                                                                                       ;

3GU:i0  S)n1310 NMOl

sc  s  tJH   11 130  noz

 

Kopenek

ZBA#l3-68

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, front yard, side yard, total side yard and building height  variance  for lot #1 and the lot area and lot width variances  for lot #1 and #2 will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions in the neighborhood   or district.  The subject property  was shown  on a subdivision  plat filed in 1929; but, for an unknown  reason  the tax assessor merged  the lots. There are at least  18 other lots within three blocks  that are the same size or smaller than the proposed  subdivision  lots, and the owner  of the new subdivided  lot, that is presently not developed,  must return to the Planning Board  at the time of development  for drainage  review.

 

 

 

 

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,  front yard, side yard, total  side yard and building height  variance  for lot #1 and the lot area and lot width variances  for lot #1 and #2 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 subject property  was shown on a subdivision  plat filed in 1929; but,  for an unknown  reason the tax assessor merged

the lots. There are at least  18 other lots within  three blocks that are the same  size or

smaller  than the proposed  subdivision  lots, and the owner  of the new subdivided  lot, that is presently  not developed,  must return to the Planning  Board  at the time of development  for drainage  review.

 

 

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   floor area ratio, front yard, side  yard, total side yard and building  height  variance  for lot #1 and the lot area and lot width variances  for lot #1 and #2  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.                                       3013.:.W  S)liJ313 N~Ol

6£  s  wu   11  1~0 rrnz

 

NM0135NVBO  30 NMOl

 

 

ZBA#l3-68

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  floor area ratio, front  yard, side yard, total  side yard and building  height  variance  for lot #1 and the lot area and lot width variances  for lot #1 and #2  was presented  and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded  by Ms. Albanese  and carried  as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  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  25, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION;

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR~N.A.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENV!RONMENTAL

MGMT andENGINEERJNG FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

~81.:1.:lO  s;rn31!)  NMOl

 

St   6   wH   II  lGa   £U1l

 

NMOl35N\tHO  .:!O  NMOl

 

DECISION

 

 

LOT WIDTH VARIANCE FOR LOTS #3 & #4; STREET  FRONTAGE

VARIAN CE FOR LOT#  1;  AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES FOR LOTS

#1, #2, #3, & #4 APPROVED

 

To:  Donald  Brenner  (Deans  Subdivision)

4 Independence A venue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA#   13-69

Date:   September  25,  2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-69:   Application  of  Deans  Subdivision  for variances  from Chapter 43  (Zoning) Town of Orangetown,  Section  3.12,  R-15   District,  Group M, Columns  6 (Lot Width:  100′ required,  95′ proposed  for lots #3  & #4),  7 (Street Frontage:  75′  required,  66.92′

proposed  for lot #1),  and 10 (Total Side Yard:  50′ required,  45′  proposed  for lot #1,  #2,

#3 & #4) for a proposed  four lot subdivision.  The property  is located  at 30 Pine Tree lane, Tappan,  NewYork and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  77.07,

Block 2, Lot  26;  R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  25, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Jennifer  Dean,  Jay Greenwell,  Land Surveyor  and Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  appeared and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. Survey dated 08/12/2012   with the latest revision  date of 06/05/2013  signed and sealed by Jay A.  Greenwell  PLS ..
2. 2. Planning Board Decision  #13-14   dated July  10, 2013.
3. A letter dated September  12,  2013 from the County of Rockland  Department  of

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

4. 4. A letter dated September  12, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny  Lin. P .E ..

5. 5. A letter dated  September   18,   2013   from the County  of Rockland  Sewer District

No.l   signed by Joseph  la Fiandra,  Engineer  IL

6. 6. A Google  map  that shows  the widths  of other lots on Pine Tree Lane.

 

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 since the Planning  Board noticed  its intent to declare itself Lead Agency  and distributed  that notice of intention  to all Involved  Agencies,  including  the ZBA who consented  or did not object to the Planning  Board  acting as  Lead Agency  for this application,   pursuant  to coordinated review  under the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act  Regulations  §617.6   (b) (3); and since the Planning  Board conducted  a SEQ RA environmental review  for the

application,  and on July  10, 2013,  rendered  an environmental determination  ofno

significant  adverse  environmental impacts  to result from the proposed  land use action, the

ZBA is bound by the Planning  Board’s  Neg Dec and the ZBA cannot require further SEQ RA review pursuant to SEQ RA Regulations §617 .6  (b) (3).   The motion  was seconded  by Ms.  Castelli  and carried  as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye;  Ms.  Salomon,   aye; Ms. Albanese;  aye; Mr. Bosco,   aye;  and  Ms.  Castelli,  aye. ·                                                                             ·

 

 

:30l::L:i0  S’.>n!310  N!MH

 

6t  6   IJH   1I 1~0 trOZ

 

 

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  testified  that the first time this application  appeared  before the Planning  Board  it only required  one (1) variance;  that the Planning  Board  requested changes  to the plan  and it now needs several  variances  in order to accommodate  the changes  that the Planning  Board  and the Highway  and Engineering  Departments

required;  that this modified  plan is the plan that the Board  liked the best; that SEQRA has been  completed  and a “neg dee” has been issued;  that the Town  Engineer  wanted  the crumbling  retaining  wall that is in the Town right-of-way  removed  at the cost to the applicant;  that the new construction  will increase  property  values  for the neighbors  and

the environmental  review  was completed  by the Planning  Board.

 

 

Jay Greenwell,  Land  Surveyor,  testified  that the original  four lot subdivision  application required  only one variance  but one of the lots was entered by the access from Kings Highway;  that it would  have given lot #1 a long skinny driveway  and there was

discussion  that the proposed  area has water ponding  ;    that the neighbors  were not happy with the entrance  from Kings highway;  that the Highway  Department and the

Engineering  Department  wanted  the crib wall removed  because  it was built  over fifty years  ago and was in need of repair;  that the revised  four lot subdivision  plan has the black top removed  from the long skinny  driveway  and seeded; that the crib wall is being removed  along with the scrnb trees; that all four lots are accessed  off of Pine Tree Lane and these changes  are causing  the need for more  variances;  that the lot widths proposed are in keeping  with the character  of the neighborhood;   that there are lot widths between

88 to 107 feet along Pine Tree Lane; that the cost of dismantling  the retaining  wall for the

developer  has made the fourth  lot necessary;  and that the houses could be anywhere  from

3,200 sq. ft. to 3,800 sq. ft. and not require  a variance  for floor area ratio; that as a result

of this second plan there will be less impervious   surface  after the construction  of the four new house than presently  exists; that they have  added four additional  drywells  to the project and the individual  lots will come back for ACABOR  approval.

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

Paul Doctor,  56 Pine Tree  Lane, testified  that he lives on the southern  end oflot  #4; that he is concerned  about the size of the houses;  that houses  between  3,200 and  3,800 sq. ft. would  not be in keeping  with the character  of the neighborhood;   and he questioned  if his taxes  would go up because  of these  large house.

 

 

Mary  Cardenas,  66 Pine Tree Lane, testified  that she has concerns  regarding  the size of the proposed  houses;  and asked questions  regarding  the side yard variances  and asked who would maintain  the strip of property  once it is seeded.

 

Mary  Danner testified  that she is speaking  on her father’s  behalf; that her dad is Thomas Walsh and he lives at 39 Pine Tree Lane and she asked if building  three houses  would eliminate  the need for variances.

 

 

Robert  Crocus,  35 Autumn  Drive, testified  that he lives behind three of these proposed lots; that he has many drainage  concerns;  that this proposal  does not fit with the neighborhood;   that many  deer, turkeys  and fox will be displaced  and he asked the board if they visited  the property.

 

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.

Jall.:Jo C::)lt.r-r …

Mr. Sullivan  made  a motion  to close the Public  Hearing  which  motion.:J~~ ~~ed        by

rmz

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously,                             nt S    liJtJ   IT l:Jn       .

vu

NMOL:J~N°’1HO  .:IO NMOl

 

Dean  Subdivision

ZBA#l3-69

Page  3   of  5

 

 

 

 

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 lot width variances  for lot #3 & #4, Street frontage variance  for lot #1 and the total side yard variances  for lots # 1, #2, #3 & #4  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.        The proposed  lot widths  are similar to existing  lot widths  in the area. In order to  accomplish  the requests  from the Orangetown  Highway  Department  and the Orangetown  Department  of Enviromnental   Management  and Engineering  to remove the existing  c1ib wall that was built  over 50 years  ago and to remove  the access to lot

#1 from Kings Highway  these  variances  are necessary.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested lot width variances  for lot #3 & #4, Street frontage  variance  for lot #1 and the total  side yard variances  for lots #1, #2, #3 & #4  will not have  an adverse effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  .      The proposed  lot widths  are similar to existing  lot widths  in the area. In order to  accomplish  the requests  from the Orangetown  Highway  Department  and the Orangetown  Department  of Environmental   Management   and Engineering,  to remove the existing  crib wall that was built over 50 years ago and to remove  the access to lot

#1 from Kings Highway,  these variances  are necessary.

 

 

 

 

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 Planning  Board reviewed  the plans  and suggested  a change  from the original  application  which  would have requested  only one variance  because  this plans  dismantles  an existing  retaining wall that was built over 50 years ago, which  both the DEME  and Orangetown

Highway  Department  want removed  and directed  the applicant  to have access  for all

four lots on Pinc Tree Lane instead  of the original  proposal  for lot #1 to enter from

Kings Highway.

 

 

 

4. The requested   lot width  variances  for lot #3 & #4, Street frontage  variance  for lot #1 and the total side yard variances  for lots #1, #2, #3 & #4;  although  somewhat substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,

if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood  or nearby community.    The proposed  lot widths  are similar to existing  lot widths in the area. In order to  accomplish  the requests  from the Orangetown  Highway  Department,  and the Orangetown  Department  of Environmental   Management  and Engineering  to remove the existing  crib wall that was built over 50 years ago and to remove  the access to lot

#1 from Kings Highway,  these  variances  are necessary.

 

 

 

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.

 

30L:LW S)lB31G  Nrf.01 s&  s  wH     rt ljfl    unz NA\Ol3fJN’11:!0  30 NMOl

 

 

 

 

 

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

Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested   lot width variances  for lot #3

& #4,  Street frontage  variance  for lot #1  and the total side yard variances  for lots #1,  #2,

#3 & #4  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 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.:UO   S)IH310  NA\01

6£  s tJH     TT   1311 £!DZ

 

NJt\01:3~NVlW    dO  NMOl

 

 

.    ‘      .: ~··– “·

 

Deans  Subdivision

ZBA#13-69

Page  5 of  5

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  lot width variances for lot #3 & #4, Street frontage variance for lot #1 and the total side yard variances for lots #1, #2, #3 & #4 was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, 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 25, 2013

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BU1LDING lNSPECTOR~N.A.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

Bytfik/Jk-

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

• ····,.J•,

 

 

3~1.:1.:fO  S~H.31D  NMOl st s  lJfJ    II  l3U   nnz NA\Ol3eNvtio  .:rn  NMOl

 

DECISION

 

FRONT YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:    Stephen  Magee

243 Edsall Terrace

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA # 13-70

Date:   September  25, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-70: Application  of  Stephen  Magee  for a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Town  of Orangetown,  R-15 District,  Group M, Column  8 (Front Yard: 30′  required,

26.7′  proposed)  for an addition  to an existing  single-family   residence.  The premises  are

located  at 243 Edsall Terrace,  Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the

Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  69.14, Block 3, Lot 34; R-15 zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  25, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Stephen  Magee  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural plans  dated 06/13/2013  signed and sealed by Robert  J. Murphy

Architect.

 

 

 

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) and/or  (13); which  does not require  SEQ RA enviromnental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows:  Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

Stephen  Magee testified  that the existing  house has a very small foyer and they  are proposing  to bump  out in the front of the house to add a proper  entry way with  a coat closet and safer entry into the house;  and that many  houses in the neighborhood  have added similar additions.

 

 

 

3~!.:LWS)HBl~ NMOl

St s  LltJ    TT  130   rrnz

 

 

 

 

.  -~-.,           ~   .._ .._.    ,

 

Magee

ZBA#13_:70

Page 2 of 4

 

 

 

 

Public Co1mnent: No public comment.

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

 

 

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

Municipal Law of New York was received.

 

 

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 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 front yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar additions have been constmcted 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 a variance.

 

 

 

4. The requested front yard variance is not substantial.

 

 

 

5. The applicant purchased the property subject to Orangetowns 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.:L:!O  s;rn31~  NMOl st  s  wH    1! 1!ln rrnz Nh\0135NVHO  so ~ii’AOl

 

Magee

ZBA#13-70

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  front yard variance  is APPROVED;   and FURTHER  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.:HO  S)!.11310 NA\01

G£   s  itlH     1113n nnz

 

NM013~Nvtl0  so NfAOl

 

.    Magee

ZBA#l3-70

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  front yard variance was presented  and moved by Mr. Bosco,  seconded  by Ms. Albanese  and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  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  25, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPUCANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-RAO.

By~/./~• Deb~ Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

301.:UO  SY.’d31D NMOl SC   6   WH   u 1~0  E10Z NA\013fHPtHO   .:W N.MOl

 

DECISION

 

FLOORAREA RATIO AND FRONTYARD  VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

To:   Gustavo  Madera

116   Lawrence  Street

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA # 13-71

Date:  September  25,  2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA# 13- 71:   Application  of Gustavo  Madera   for variances  from Chapter  4 3  (Zoning), Section  3.12,  R-15   District,  Group M, Columns  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .20  permitted,  .242 existing,  .275 proposed)  and 8 (Front Yard:  30′  required,  26.1′    existing  and proposed)  for an extension  of an existing  front porch  at an existing  single-family  residence,  The

premises  are located  at 116 Lawrence  Street,  Tappan,  New York and identified  on the

Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  77.15,   Block 3, Lot 23;  R-15 zone.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  25, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Gustavo  Madera  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. 1. Site plan with proposed  front porch drawn on i
2. 2. Zoning  Board Decision  #12-04  dated January  4, 2012.
3. Two letters  in support  of the application  from abutting  property  owners.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Gustavo  Madera  testified  that the present  entry to the house is narrow;  that they are proposing  to extend the existing  area across the length  of the house to make the entry into the house more comfortable  and to have a front porch;  that other houses  in the area have added similar  front porches;  that the house  situated  across the street from the rails-to•

trails and it would be nice to have a sitting  area in the front of the house;  and that he has

submitted  letters  of support  from his neighbors  on both sides of him.

 

 

3~1.:!.:!0   S}!831~   NMOl

 

SC  S  hlH   11  1~0  £lil2

 

NIA0135if\f80   .:W NN.01

 

Madera

ZBA#l3-71

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. 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.   Similar  additions  have been  cons1ructed in the neighborhoo

 

 

 

 

2. 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 distric Similar  additions  have been  constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

3. 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  and front yard variances,  although  somewhat substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment, if any, to the health,  safety  and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby community.

 

 

 

5. 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.:UO   S>!H310   NA\01

st  s  WH    11 1ao ttll.2

NM0!35NV80   so N.MOl

 

 

Madera

ZBA#l3-71

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 approvalof 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 approvalof a variance or Special Permit by the Board is limited to the specific variance or Special Permit requested but only to the extent such approvalis 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 buildingplans, including, withoutlimitation, the accuracy and strnctural integrity  thereof, of the applicant, but same have been submitted to the Board solely for informational and verification purposes relative to any variancesbeing 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 Occupancyis issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administrationand 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 Pennit 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.

 

 

 

 

3013.:W   S)HE!lO   NMO!

 

st  5   l:JH   T1  1311 tlfiZ

 

 

Madera

ZBA#l3-71

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 Ms. Albanese,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried  as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  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  25, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING lNSPECTOR-B.vW.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENT   AL MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

3013.:!0 S){H31~ MMOl

6£  s  wB   n 1~n nnz

 

NM.0135NVHO .:IO  NMOl

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR AREA  RATIO   AND  TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:  Kristen  Pupo

3 8  Skyview  Oval

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA # 13-73

Date: September 25, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l3-73: Application of Kristen Pupo  for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3 .12, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .225 proposed), and 10 (Total Side Yard: 50′ required, 49.5′ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence, The premises are located at 38 Skyview Oval, Tappan, New York and identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.18, Block 1, Lot 35; R-15 zone.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, September 25, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Kristen Pupo and John Perkins, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Survey dated March 29, 2013 with the latest revision date of July 24, 2013 signed and sealed by Robert E. Sorace, Land Surveyor.
2. Architectural plans dated February 28, 2013 with latest revision dated of June 6,

2013 signed and sealed by John Perkins, Architect.

 

 

 

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 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.

 

John Perkins, Architect, testified that the proposal is to expand the existing second floor; that they are proposing to add more living area to the master bedroom; that they are also renovating the existing front porch floor; that the proposed addition is for an additional

346 square feet ofliving area; that they are going to add gables to the front porch and over the addition over the garage to add more character to the exterior of the house; that the total side yard is 49.6 feet; and that similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

 

Ob    .s  WH     n 1;io nnz

 

.NA\013~NVHO ~O NMOl

 

Pupo

ZBA#l3-73

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

Rhonda  Goldstein,  12 Wayne  Lane, testified  that she was concerned  about drainage but if there is no change to the footprint  of the building,  she has no concerns.

 

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 and total side yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The proposed  addition  is for 346 sq. ft. and is proposed  for the second floor of the existing  house. The total  side yard is existing  at 49.6 feet and is not changing.  Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested  floor area ratio  and total  side  variances  will not have an adverse effect or impact.on  the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.   The proposed  addition  is for 346 sq. ft. and is proposed  for the second floor of the existing  house.  The total side yard is existing  at 49.6 feet and is not changing. Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

3. T11e benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.  The proposed  addition  is for

346 sq. ft. and is proposed  for the second floor of the existing  house. The total  side

yard is existing  at 49.6 feet and is not changing.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

Pupo

ZBA#l3-73

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

.     3~H.:.L:W  S>lH3l() MIAO!

• –

6.L  s MtJ     tr 1;ia noz

N&Ol3f1WvHO   so ~U~Ol

 

Pupo

ZBA#l3-73

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  floor area ratio and total side yard variances   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  25, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOVVN  OF ORANGETOVVN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATIORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING lNSPECTOR-R.A.0.

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENV!RONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

• ;y

“/

.,,..

:-lY

,.-?

_y    ::f~l:HO  SJJH310  RA1AJ1