MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

April 16, 2008 Meeting

MEMBERS PRESENT: WILLIAM MOWERSON, NANETTE ALBANESE, DANIEL SULLIVAN AND JOHN DOHERTY

ABSENT: PATRICIA CASTELLI

ALSO PRESENT: Dennis Michaels, Esq . Deputy Town Attorney, Anne Marie Ambrose, Official Stenographer and Deborah Arbolino, Administrative Aide

This meeting was called to order at 7: 00 P.M. by Chairperson William Mowerson.

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

PUBLISHED ITEMS - APPLICANT'S DECISIONS

CONTINUED ITEMS:

SML RELD-ZBA#08-12-FLOOR AREA RATIO-VARIANCE APPROVED;69.10 / 2 / 71;

R-15 zone

STUDENT BUS COMPANY- ZBA#08-29-OUTDOOR STORAGE-VARIANCE APPROVED;

74.07 / 1 / 15; LI zone

NEW ITEMS:

FARRY- ZBA#08-32-BUILDING HEIGHT- VARIANCE APPROVED ;77.08 / 3 / 32; RG zone

RYAN- ZBA#08-33-SIDE YARD AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED;

68.15 / 3 / 19; RG zone

DORIGUZZI- ZBA#08-34-FRONT YARD, REAR YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED; 68.15 / 5 / 43; RG zone

ZACCARO/BOURMATNOV- ZBA#08-35-FLOOR AREA RATIO AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED; 69.20 / 1 / 74; R-15 zone

QUELCH- ZBA#08-36-SIDE YARD AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED AS MODIFIED ; 72.08 / 1 / 50; RG zone

STEINMETZ- ZBA#08-37-STREET FRONTAGE, REAR YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED; 71.09 / 1 / 32; R-22 zone

FAILING- ZBA#08-38-STREET FRONTAGE TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED; 69.19 / 1 / 31; R-15 zone

OTHER BUSINESS:

In response to requests from the Orangetown Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals: RESOLVED, to approve the action of the Acting Chairperson executing on behalf of the Board its consent to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) coordinated environmental review of actions pursuant to SEQRA Regulations � 617.6 (b)(3) the following application: Wyeth Site Plan two detention basins Middletown Road, Pearl River, New York 68.08/1/1; LI zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED, to request to be notified by the Planning Board of SEQRA proceedings, hearings, and determinations with respect to these matters.

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

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

There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M.

Dated: April 16, 2008

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

Deborah Arbolino

DISTRIBUTION: Administrative Aide

DECISION

FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE APPROVED

To: Jay Greenwell (SMK Reld) ZBA # 08-12

85 Lafayette Avenue Date: 4/16/ 08

Suffern, New York 10901

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

ZBA#08-12: Application of SMK Reld for a variance from Chapter 43, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .22 proposed) for the construction of a new single-family residence. The premises are located at 98 South Reld Drive, Pearl River, New York, and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.10, Block 2, Lot 71; R-15 zone.

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at meetings held on Wednesday, February 6, 2008 and April 16, 2008 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

Sean Keenan, Robert Hoene, Architect, Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor, Bert Dorfman and Kevin Conway, Attorneys appeared and testified.

The following documents were presented:

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

At the meeting of February 6, 2008 Robert Hoene, Architect testified that the new house would be a two-story house with a single garage; that there is a small porch for aesthetics and a dining room, family room, kitchen and powder room on the first floor and four bedrooms and two baths upstairs; that the roof is a hip roof so that it won't tower over the other houses; that there is a full walk out basement in the back; that 2,250 sq. ft. are permitted on this property and the proposal is 225 sq. ft. above that; that the this is the minimum size house a potential buyer would be interested in; that there are several houses in the area that have done additions; that the mean height of the proposal is 24.6'; that the garage could not be reversed because of the intersection and the grade of the property; and that they will take another look at the height.

Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor, testified that this is an undersized lot for the R-15 District; that the property is located at the steep portion of Reld Drive and they are proposing to use the existing driveway on the west side; that if the Board looks at the

aerial view of the properties they will see how the proposed house footprint relates to other houses in the area; that the lot drops off from west to east and lends itself to a higher elevation on the east side; that there are one story houses right next door; and that they would like a continuance to see if the pitch of the roof could be lowered.

Sean Keenan testified that he purchased the lot a couple of months ago.

Bert Dorfman, Attorney, testified that this is a pre-existing non-conforming lot; that a two-story structure is permitted; that the requested height variance is not substantial; that constructing a two-story structure on this lot would not be out of character for the neighborhood; that this is a mixed neighborhood as evidenced by the pictures submitted; and that they would like a continuance.

Public Comment:

John Murphy 92 S. Reld Drive, testified that the height, scale and size of the proposed house compared to the existing one story house son the block is too much; that #'s 50,51, 57, 65, and 76 are all single-story house; that from the rear this is a three story structure; that the house measures 37' from the door sill on the back of the house to the peak.

John Sceene, 63 Champ Street, testified that this house is too big for this modest neighborhood.

Mr. Moscatt, 57 Champ Street, testified that he is an adjacent neighbor to the rear of the proposal; that the height is too much and it is imposing over his house; that he hopes the Board takes that into consideration.

At the meeting of April 16, 2008 Robert Hoene, Architect, Kevin Conway, Attorney and Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor testified.

Kevin Conway, Attorney testified that the applicant listened to the neighbors at the last meeting and revised the house plan, lowering the height; that the height variance request has been eliminated; that the only variance being sought is for floor area ratio; that .20 is permitted and .22 is being requested; that this is not a large request and should not alter the character of the neighborhood; that all of the lots are undersized; that it is a trend in Pearl River to put up new houses similar to this proposal; that it will increase the value of the properties in the area; that immediately on Cara Drive there are 7 newer homes; and that the market is not such that ranch and cape cod style houses are being built anymore.

Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor, testified that they went back to the drawing board and eliminated the height variance; that he would like to address the comment from the neighbor who is concerned about drainage; that the site now is steep and the property is pitched west to east toward this neighbors house; that after this house is built the water is going to be directed into the existing swale to the southeast of the property and a swale is going to be installed to direct run-off directly to the street; that this will improve the existing conditions for the neighbor to the east; that the contours that exist now direct the water to the east and some to the south; that they are not subject to the zero net increase rule because this is not considered new construction; that they are replacing a house with a house; that the threshold in town is up to 600 sq. ft. of additional impervious area requires no mitigation; and that they have mitigated a problem that is pre-existing.

Robert Hoene, Architect, testified that the worked on the roof lines and cut and turned for a hip style that would not be bulky; that it worked and no height variance is being sought; that the rooms in the house are relatively small by today's standards; that the living room is 11' x 14' that there are four modest bedrooms with 5'x8' bathrooms; that the house is 2,475 sq. ft. and includes a one car garage and small covered porch; that they are 225 sq.

ft. over the permitted sq. footage; that he lot is narrow and the redesigned house has been reviewed by the Building Inspector; that from the front of the house it now appears like a story and a half instead of a two-story structure.

Public Comment:

None

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.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing the documents presented, 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:

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

General Conditions:

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

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

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

(iii) The Board gives no approval of any building plans, including, without limitation,

the accuracy and structural integrity thereof, of the applicant, but same have been submitted to the Board solely for informational and verification purposes relative to any

variances being requested.

(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained within a reasonable period of time following the filing of this decision and prior to undertaking any construction contemplated in this decision. To the extent any variance or Special

Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall not be

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

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

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio variance was presented and moved by Mr. Doherty, seconded by Mr. Sullivan, and carried as follows: Mr. Mowerson, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Doherty, aye; and Ms. Albanese, aye. Ms. Castelli was absent.

The Administrative Aide to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this decision and file a certified copy thereof in the office of the Town Clerk.

DATED: April 16, 2008

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

DISTRIBUTION:

DECISION

OUTDOOR STORAGE VARIANCE APPROVED FOR TERM OF PRESENT LEASE WITH CONDITIONS

To: Donald Brenner (Student Bus Company) ZBA # 08-29

4 Independence Avenue Date: 4 / 16 / 08

Tappan, New York 10983

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

ZBA#08- 29: Application of Student Bus Company for variances from Chapter 43, Section 3.11 LI zone, Col 7 Regulation #5 (Storage of School buses not in an enclosed building: outdoor storage proposed) for the storage of school buses in an existing parking lot located on the east side of Greenbush Road at the intersection of Mountainview Avenue, Orangeburg, New York, and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.07, Block 1, Lot 15; LI zone.

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at meetings held on Wednesday, April 2, 2008 and April 16, 2008 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

Donald Brenner appeared and testified.

The following documents were presented:

1.Proposed parking lot modifications for Student Bus Company Lot-1 Orangeburg Salisbury Corp. dated 11/20/07 revised 12/11/07 signed and sealed by Jay Greenwell. Land Surveyor.

2 .Planning Board Decision #07-55 dated January 23, 2008.

3. Three memorandums from John Giardiello, Director Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement dated Oct. 24, 2007, Sept. 26, 2007 and Jan. 23, 2008.

4. A letter dated March 31, 2008 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning signed by Salvatore Corallo, Commissioner of Planning.

5. A letter dated March 18, 2008 from the County of Rockland Department of Highways signed by Joseph Arena, Principal Engineering Technician.

At the April 2, 2008 meeting Ms. Catelli recused herself because the bus company has a contract with the school district that employs her.

Mr. Brenner, Attorney requested a continuance until the next meeting when there would be enough board members to override the County Planning letter.

At the April 16, 2008 meeting Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor and Donald Brenner, Attorney appeared and testified.

Donald Brenner, Attorney, testified that at the prior meeting there were four members present but one member had to recused herself because she is employed by the school district; that the Planning Board overrode the Rockland County Planning Board letter because there is no construction taking place; that the application needs four members to override the county letter; that the bus company has a lese for three years and have been operating in the space since September; that if the building becomes occupied they would have to appear before the Boards anyway; that there is no maintenance being done on this site; that all repairs are done in Spring Valley or Hillburn; and that a small office space is being rented.

Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor, testified that they have requested 30 spaces for buses to park but there are only 27 buses being parked on site presently; that there are traffic cones and stripping in the middle that can park three cars or six buses; that the buses enter and exit at the far easterly point; that there are an additional 134 parking spaces in the front of the property; and the bus spaces are shown on page #2.

On August 28, 2007 the Zoning Board of Appeals consented to the Orangetown Planning board acting as Lead Agency for the SEQRA review process for this project. The Planning Board issued a Negative Declaration on January 23, 2008 (PB#07-55).

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.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing the documents presented, 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:

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested outdoor storage variance is APPROVED with the FOLLOWING SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: (1) Outdoor storage is limited to thirty school buses; (2) No maintenance shall be performed on the buses at this location; (3) approval is for the life of the present lease (3 years); (4) the area of the building to be used to serve the subject property shall be disclosed; 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.

Mr. Mowerson made a motion to override #2 and 3 of the County of Rockland Department of Planning letter dated March 31, 2008; which motion was seconded by Mr. Sullivan and carried unanimously.

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested outdoor bus storage variance was presented and moved by Mr. Mowerson , seconded by Mr. Sullivan, and carried as follows: Mr. Doherty, aye; Mr. Mowerson, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; and Ms. Albanese, aye. Ms. Castelli was absent.

The Administrative Aide to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this decision and file a certified copy thereof in the office of the Town Clerk.

DATED: April 16, 2008

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

DISTRIBUTION:

DECISION

BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE APPROVED

To: John Farry ZBA # 08-32

21 Mary Street Date: 4 / 16 / 08

Tappan, New York 10983

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

ZBA#08-32: Application of John Farry for a variance from Chapter 43, Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Column 12 (Building Height: 13.47' permitted, 20.67 proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. Premises are commonly known as 21 Mary Street, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.08, Block 3, Lot 32; RG zone.

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, April 16, 2008 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

John Farry and Jane Slavin, Architect, appeared and testified.

The following documents were presented: