Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER   3. 2014

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

JOAN  SALOMON THOMAS  QUINN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

DANIEL  SULLIVAN,  CHAIRMAN MICHAEL  BOSCO

PA TRICIA  CASTELLI

 

 

ABSENT:                                      NONE

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:                   Dennis  Michaels,  Esq.

Ann Marie Ambrose,

Deborah  Arbolino

Deputy Town Attorney Official  Stenographer Administrative  Aide

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

PUBLISHED ITEMS DECISIONS

 

 

 

NEW ITEMS:

 

 

BRIDGES 80.06 I 1  I 11; R-40 zone	TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#14-59
MCNAUGHTON	FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD,	ZBA#14-60
69.10 I 2 I 78; R-15 zone	TOTAL SIDE YARD & ACCESSORY
	STRUCTURE VARIANCES APPROVED
LOCOCO 77.12 I 1I31;  R-15 zone	SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#14-61
SILVER 73.16 I 2 I 61; R-22 zone	FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT YARD & SIDE YARD VARIANCES	ZBA#l4-62
	APPROVED
ROONEY	SIDE YARD VARIANCE	ZBA#l 4-63

 

73.05/ 1  I 4; R-15 zone

APPROVED (UNDERSIZED LOT APPLIES)

 

 

ORANGETOWN SHOPPING    CONTINUED CENTER

74.10 I 1I61; CS zone

ZBA#14-64

 

Minutes

Page 2 of  2

 

 

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board,  the Zoning  Board of Appeals:  RESOLVED,  to approve  the action  of the Chairman,   Daniel  Sullivan,  executing on behalf  of the Board   its consent to the Planning  Board acting   as Lead Agency   for the State  Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQRA)  coordinated   environmental  review  of actions pursuant  to SEQRA Regulations§     617.6   (b)(3) the following  applications:   Jay

and Joe Construction  LLC Subdivision,    ( 2-lots)  80 South  Middletown   Road,  Pearl

River,  N.Y.  69.17   I 1I76;    RG zone;   Slcae Training  Resubdivision   Plan,  337-330

Blaisdell  Road,  Orangeburg,  NY,  76.08  I 113   & 4;  LIO zone; One Ramland  Road Interior

Commercial   Subdivision  Plan,  1   Ramland  Road,  Orangetown,  New York 73.20  I 1I24; LIO  zone; Quinn Sheetmetal   Inc. Conditional   Use Permit,  23 Rockland  Park Road, Tappan, New York,  77.16 I 1I32;     LIO zone; and FURTHER  RESOLVED,   to request   to be  notified by the Planning  Board  of SEQ RA proceedings,   hearings,  and determinations with  respect to these matters.

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

Dated:   September  3, 2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

By~~

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING   INSPECTOR   (Individual    Decisions)

Rockland   County  Planning

Administrative     Aide

 

DECISION

 

EXTENSION    OF TIME  TO  IMPLEMENT    TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:  Kurt and Kristan  Bridges

3 Prior Court

Palisades,  New York  10964

ZBA # 14-59

Date:   September  3, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l4-59:   Application  of Kurt and Kristan  Bridges  for an extension  of time to implement  a variance  that was granted  in ZBA#07-63;  for a variance  from Zoning Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, Section  3.12, R-40 District,  Group E, Column  10 (Total Side Yard:  80′ required,  66.3′  proposed)  for an addition  to an existing single family residence.  The plans have been modified  and the proposed  addition  is smaller than the previously  approved  plan.  The premises  are located  at 3 Prior Court, Palisades,  New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  80.06, Block  1, Lot 11; 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  3, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Jane Slavin, Architect,  and Kurt and Kristan  Bridges  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Plot plan dated 07/08/2014  signed  and sealed by Jane Slavin, Architect.
2. A cover letter dated June  17, 2014 from Jane Slavin, Architect.
3. A memorandum  dated 07/07/2014  from Bet VonWurmb,  Building  Inspector.
4. Zoning  Board of Appeals  Decision  #07-63  dated June 20, 2007.

 

 

 

 

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), (100,(12)  &/or (13); which does not require  SEQ RA environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows:  Ms. Castelli,  aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,

aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

Jane Slavin, Architect,  testified  that the Bridges’   got approval  in 2007 for a new garage and a bonus  room above it; that they would like to reduce the scope of the work by eliminating  the roof dormers;  that the lot is oddly shaped and restricts  where the garage  could be constructed;  that they have a revised  site plan and rotated the garage slightly;  that they would  still keep the size and location  of the garage and they would like to add an in-ground  pool to the plans; that the pool would not require  any variances  and they would need to appear in front of the Historic  Areas Board of Review  for the changes  and review  of the proposed  pool.

 

 

Bridges

ZBA#l4-59

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  total side yard variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  No significant change in circumstances  has occurred  since the prior approved  variance  was granted that would warrant Board reconsideration   of its approval.

 

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

 

3. Applicants  stated that they expect  construction  to begin in the near future.

 

 

Bridges

ZBA#14-59

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  extension  of time to implement  the previously  approved  total side 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

 

Bridges

ZBA#14-59

Page  4 of  4

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  extension   of time  to implement    the previously   approved  total  side  yard variance   was presented  and moved by Ms.  Salomon,   seconded  by Mr. Quinn  and carried  as fo11ows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;    Mr.

Quinn,  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  Cleric

 

DATED:    September  3,  2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRlBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATIORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATIORNEY 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

 

DECISION

 

FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, TOTAL  SIDE YARD, AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE  DISTANCE VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:  John McNaughton

44 Reld Drive

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#   14-60

Date:   September  3, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#14-60:  Application  of  John McNaughton  for variances   from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of  Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.12, R-15  District,  Group M, Columns  8 (Front  Yard:  30′ required,29.3′   existing);  ((Side  Yard:  15′ required,  10′ 4″ existing,  7.3′  proposed)  and 10( Total  Side Yard:  30′ required,  29.3′  existing) and from Section  5.153 (Accessory  structure  Distance:  15′ required,  5.5′  proposed)  (Section 5.21 undersized  lot applies)  for an addition  to a single-family   residence.   The premises  are located  at 44 Reid Drive,  Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.10, Block 2, Lot 78; R-15 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  3, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

John and Sheila McNaughton  and Joe Agnello  and Michael  Agnello,  contractors, appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Architectural  plans dated November  21, 2013 signed  and sealed by Harry J.

Goldstein,  Architect..

2. Zoning  Board of Appeals  Decision  #71-44  dated 05/19/1971.
3. A petition  in support  of the project  signed by six abutting property  owners.

 

 

 

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

 

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

aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

John McNaughton  testified  that they purchased  the house  four years ago; that it is a two bedroom/  one bath house;  that they are proposing  to add a master bedroom  suite; that an addition  was added to the house in the 70’s  and they are proposing  to add the master bedroom  above that space; that the 7.3′  side yard is existing;  that the garage was in its present  location  when they purchased  the house  and they were told it was a pre-existing condition;  and that they are adding  to the house  and need to legalize  everything  now.

 

Sheila McNaughton  testified  that the neighbor’s   house is on the property  line and their garage is five feet from the property  line and their house  is the smallest  house on the block.

 

Public  Comment:

 

Patrick  Hannan,  49 Reid Street, Pearl River, testified  that he lives directly  across the

street from the applicant  and he is 100% in support  of the application;  that the proposal  is very reasonable  and that he built a new house  last year.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  front yard, side yard, total side yard and accessory  structure  distance 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 front yard, side yard, total side yard and accessory  structure  distance variances   will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.

 

 

 

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, total side yard and accessory  structure  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. 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.

 

McNaughton

ZBA#14-60

Page  3   of  4

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  front yard, side yard, total side yard and accessory  structure  distance  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.

 

 

 

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

yard,  total  side yard and accessory  structure  distance   variances   was presented  and moved by Mr. Bosco,  seconded  by Ms.  Castelli   and carried  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Mr. Quinn,  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  3,  2014

 

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.

By_,.~[..aL.~&<:…’…..~l,;L.J~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

J-llGI-IWAY     DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,     PB

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR

 

 

DECISION SIDE  YARD  VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

 

 

To:   Alex Lococo

444Washington   Street

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA # 14-61

Date:  September  3, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#14-61:  Application  of Alex Lococo  for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43)

of the Town of Orangetown  Code, Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Column  9 (Side Yard:  20′ required,  10′ proposed)  for the installation  of an in-ground  pool at an existing single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 444 Washington  Street, Tappan,

New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  77.12, Block  1, Lot

31; R-15 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  3, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Alex Lococo  appeared  and testified.

 

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Survey with pool drawn on it..
2. Pool plans and filter.
3. A letter dated July 23, 2014 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Planning signed by Douglas  J. Schuetz,  Acting  Commissioner   of Planning.
4. A letter dated August  28, 2014 from the County of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..

 

 

 

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) &/or (13); which  does not require  SEQRA  environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows:  Ms. Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli,

aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

Alex Lococo testified  that he would  like to install a pool that is part in-ground  and part above ground  for his kids and himself;  that his property  is L shaped and this is the only area that the pool would  fit; that it is only 15′ wide and it is proposed  to be installed between  the concrete  patio  and exiting trees; that the property  is narrow in the rear; that the property  is fenced in; that he already  got the permit  from Rockland  County Highway; and that his neighbor  to the rear had a pool but filled it in last year when her husband passed.

 

 

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 side yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, The property is L shaped and there is no other area that would accommodate a pool.

 

2. 2. The requested side yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or The property is L shaped and there is no other area that would accommodate a pool.

 

 

 

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 side yard variance, although somewhat substantial, affords benefits to the applicants 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 L shaped and there is no other area that would accommodate a pool.

 

 

 

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.

 

Lococo

ZBA#14-61

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

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

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested  side yard variance was presented  and moved  by Ms.  Castelli,   seconded  by Ms.  Salomon    and carried   as follows:   Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr.  Quinn,   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  3,  2014

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

By~

DISTRIBUTION: Administrative Aide   APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR   TOWN CLERK HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR   TOWN BOARD MEMBERS DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL   TOWN ATIORNEY MGMT. and ENGINEERING   DEPUTY TOWN ATIORNEY fol LE,ZBA,  PB

Deborah  Arbolino

 

OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-M.M.

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT YARD, AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES

APPROVED

 

 

 

To:     Scott and Jamie  Silver

243 Betsy Ross Drive

Orangeburg,  New York  10962

ZBA # 14-62

Date:   September  3, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#14-62:  Application  of Scott and Jamie  Silver for variances  from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town  of  Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.12, R-22 District,  Group I, Columns  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .20 permitted,  .217 proposed),  8 (Front Yard: 40′  required,

32.1′  existing)   and 9 (Side Yard: 25′  required,  21.4′  proposed)  for an addition to an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 243 Betsy Ross Drive, Orangeburg,  New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 73.16, Block 2, Lot 67; R-22 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  3, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Jamie Silver and Michael  Esmay, Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan and architectural  plans  dated 09/18/ 2012 signed and sealed by Michael

Esmay, Architect.  (6 pages)

2. A letter dated July 23, 2014 from the County of Rockland  Department  of Planning signed by Douglas  J. Schuetz,  Acting  Commissioner   of Planning.
3. A letter dated August  29, 2014 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways   signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..

4. A letter dated 04/23/2014  from Doctor  Steven  Sockin.
5. A letter dated August  25, 2014 from Jamie  Silver.
6. A petition  in support  of the application  signed by  12 abutting property  owners.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Jamie  Silver testified  that they would  like to remove  the existing  deck and build a screened  in porch with a small deck outside  of it; that her husband  has a sever allergy to bees and they cannot eat outside  on the existing  deck because  the food always brings bees; that she has three small children  aged 6, 3 and 6 months;  that she is not sure if any of the kids will have her husbands’   allergy; that if she had the screened  in porch the kids

could play there and be safe; and that she took a picture  of the house up the street that has

a screened  porch and deck similar to what they are proposing.                       3~1.:1  _j o S )’ ).~  31O  N fA 01

 

Silver

ZBA#14-62

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Michael  Esmay,  Architect,  testified  that the house  fills the whole building  envelope;  that anything  that was added to the house  would require  a variance;  that this works with the house  function;  that it is a logical  extension  of the house;  that the structure  is set in a little to minimize  the variances  and the small deck allows  access to the back yard; that the lot

is undersized  and this is a reasonable  request.

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

Joe Morgan,  i29 Betsy Ross Drive, testified that he is the diagonal neighbor to the proposed addition and he is speaking in support of the application because if till enhance the neighborhood and give the applicant peace and safety from the medical problems.

 

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, front yard, and side yard 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 neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, front yard and side yard 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 neighborhood.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested floor area ratio, front yard and side 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. 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 alleg~~i!:§~~1~-l ?l Q    N f1\0l

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 varian<t;©21. LJd    91   d3S  hl02

 

 

Silver

ZBA#14-62

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, front yard and 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.

 

 

Silver

ZBA#14-62

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

;Ms.  Castelli,   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  3,  2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY DEPUTYTOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-R.A.O.

By_J_L..<q~~=-4-l.!…1..~~~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN, ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE  YARD  VARIANCE   APPROVED    UNDERSIZED    LOT  APPLIED

 

To: John Rooney

187 Ann Street

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#   14-63

Date:  September  3, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#14-63:  Application  of John Rooney  for a variance  from Zoning  Code  (Chapter 43) of the Town of  Orangetown  Code, Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M,  Column  9 (Side Yard:  15′ required,  9.3′  proposed)  (Section  5.21( c) undersized  lot applies)  for a deck at an existing  single-family   residence.  The premises  are located  at 187 Ann Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  73.05, Block  1, Lot 4; R-15 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  3, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

John Rooney  and  Julius  Georgetti,  contractor,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Survey dated August  30, 2011 signed and sealed by Robert  Sorace. PLS ..
2. Deck plans.
3. A letter dated August  12, 2014 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Planning  signed by Douglas  J. Schuetz,  Acting Commissioner.

4. A letter dated August  12, 2014 from the County  of Rockland  Sewer District No.1 signed by Joseph  LaFiandra,  Engineer  II.
5. A letter dated August  29, 2014 from the County of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin. P .E..

 

 

 

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) &/or (13); which does not require  SEQRA  environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows:  Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

John Rooney testified  that he would  like to replace  an existing  deck and build a new deck in its place; that it will be the same size but will have more footings  and a better railing built to code; that it is also going to be built from treks; and that the deck follows  the line of the existing  house and the 9 .3′ side yard is existing.

 

ZBA#14-63

Page2  of  4

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew  York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  side yard variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  The deck has existed  for many years and is being rebuilt  in the same location.

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard variance   will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental  conditions  in the neighborhood  or district. The deck has existed for many years in its present  location  and is being rebuilt  for safety reasons.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested side yard variance  although  somewhat  substantial,  affords benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.    The deck has

existed for many years in its present  location  and is being rebuilt  for safety reasons.

 

 

 

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

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

 

Rooney

ZBA#14-63

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 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.

 

 

 

ZBA#l4-63

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application   for the requested  side  yard variance was presented   and moved by Ms. Salomon,   seconded  by Ms. Castelli   and carried as follows:   Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr.  Quinn,   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  3, 2014

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-M.M.

 

By_,_~~   :_-“C..Lo”—1″~…-…

Deborah  Arbolmo

Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and ENGINEERING FILE,Z13A,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  Pl3,  ACABOR