Town of Orangetown:

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

JULY 22, 2008 MEETING

MEMBERS PRESENT: WILLIAM MOWERSON, NANETTE ALBANESE AND DANIEL SULLIVAN

ABSENT: JOHN DOHERTY AND PATRICIA CASTELLI

ALSO PRESENT: Dennis Michaels, Esq. Deputy Town Attorney, Kathryn LeBeau,, 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 ITEM:

MURPHY-ZBA#08-75-SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD, BUILDING HEIGHT AND

SECTION 4.5 VARIANCES, APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS; 69.14 / 2 / 22; R-15 zone

NEW ITEMS:

CLIFT-ZBA#08-76-TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED; 70.14 / 3 / 28;

R-15 zone

BURKE-ZBA#08-77-REAR YARD VARIANCE APPROVED;72.08 / 3 / 1; 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 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: Capital Management Group Site Plan, 167 East Central Avenue, Pearl River, NY 68.16/6/36; CS zone; Biondi Site Plan, Critical Environmental Area, 311 Tweed Boulevard, Upper Grandview, NY 75.05/1/13; R-22 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 8:30 P.M.

Dated: July 22, 2008

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

Deborah Arbolino; Administrative Aide

DISTRIBUTION:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

DECISION

SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD, BUILDING HEIGHT AS AMENDED, AND �� 4.52 & 4.58 and � 3.11, R-80 DISTRICT, COLUMN 2, #7 VARIANCES APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

ZBA # 08-75; Date: 7 / 22 / 08

To: Daniel and Irene Murphy; 86 Lark Street ; Pearl River, New York 10965

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

ZBA#08-75: Application of Daniel and Irene Murphy for variances from Chapter 43, R-15 District, Section 3.12, Group M, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 20' required, 18.8' proposed), 10 (Total Side yard: 50' required, 46.2' existing, 39.7' proposed), 12 (Building Height: 18'10” permitted, 20' existing and proposed) and from Section 4.52 (Single-family Conversions: 4.51: Dwelling must be owner occupied and a covenant satisfactory to the Town Attorney as to form must be filed to the effect that, if the grantor owner or his or her spouse or the survivor of them ceases to occupy the said dwelling, the dwelling automatically reverts to only one dwelling unit) 4.52: There shall be no significant exterior change and no structures built on the property within the past 10 years so as to create an additional dwelling unit); 4,58; The owner who first converts the dwelling subsequent to the effective date of this local law must have resided in said dwelling for at least 15 years); and from Section 3.11 R-80 District, Column 2, #7One additional dwelling unit clearly subordinate to the main one-family use to occupy not more than 600 sq. ft: 1122 sq. ft. proposed) for the addition of a second dwelling unit to an owner occupied residence.. The premises are located at 86 Lark Street, Pearl River, New York, and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.14, Block 2, Lot 22; R-15 zone

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at meetings held on the following Wednesday, July 16, 2008 and Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

Daniel and Irene Murphy and Joel Grossbarth, Attorney, appeared and testified.

The following documents were presented:

Architectural plans signed and sealed by Robert Murphy ( 5 pages not dated).
Revised site plan and bulk table also not dated signed and sealed by Robert Murphy, Architect.
Eight letters in support of the application.

At the July 22, 2008 meeting 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) 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. Sullivan and carried as follows: Mr. Mowerson, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Doherty and Ms. Castelli were absent.

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

At the meeting of July 16, 2008 Joel Grossbarth, Attorney testified that the Murphy's would like to add an addition to their house to accommodate their daughter and grandchild; that the proposed addition is approximately 1,000 sq. ft.; that they would not have any problem with a restrictive covenant; that the side yard is not proposed at eight feet; and that the Architect made a mistake on the plan and they would like a continuance until the next meeting.

Daniel Murphy testified that they have owned the house for 14 years; that he needs the addition in order to bring his daughter and granddaughter back from Texas; that the addition was proposed on the side of the house because the back yard is very steep with a forty five degree angle down to the Naurashaun Brook; that there is an existing 12' x 13' sunroom and a 12' deck in the rear of the house; and that they would appreciate being on the next special meeting because he really needs to bring his daughter home.

At the meeting of July 22, 2008, Joel Grossbarth, Attorney testified that he would like to thank the Board for accommodating them at this special meeting and that the revisions should clear everything up; that the proposed side yard is 18.8'; that the total side yard is 39.7'; that the roof line is going to change so that it will not exceed the existing 20' height; and that the dimensions of the rooms are marked on the plan; that the proposed apartment will be 1,122 sq. ft.; that Mr. and Mrs. Murphy have owned the house for 14 � years not the 14 years that he stated at the last meeting; and that they are willing to state in the covenant that when their daughter moves out they will remove the second kitchen.

Mrs. Murphy testified that the existing house has three bedrooms and a bathroom upstairs and a small office and � bath downstairs; and that there will be five people in the house when her daughter and granddaughter are home.

Mr. Murphy testified that he has been very nervous with his daughter out in Texas; that the living conditions are not good; that the existing garage is only 10' wide and that if they did not go out the extra 6' the apartment would be like a 10' x 25' alley; that there will be staircase to get upstairs into the two bedrooms; and that they want their daughter to have privacy for her family.

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. Mowerson made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Mr. Sullivan and carried unanimously.

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:

The requested side yard, total side yard, building height and � 4.52, � 4.58 and � 3.11, R-80 District, Column 2 #7 variances would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition does not exceed the required floor area ratio for the district and the applicant has agreed to file a restrictive covenant to be recorded in the Rockland County Clerk's Office.

The requested side yard, total side yard, building height and � 4.52, � 4.58 and � 3.11, R-80 District, Column 2 #7 variance would not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property is steeply sloped in the rear yard and this is the least intrusive place to construct the proposed addition.

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

The requested variances although substantial are not exceeding the required floor area ratio for the district and the applicant has agreed to remove the second kitchen when their daughter is no longer living in the house.

The applicant purchased the property so the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variances.

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested side yard, total side yard, building height and � 4.52, � 4.58 and � 3.11, R-80 District, Column 2 note #7 variances are APPROVED WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS that (1) the Zoning Board of Appeals is not granting a use variance for occupancy of the home as a two-family residence, but rather the Zoning Board of Appeals is granting bulk/area variances only for occupancy of the home as a single-family conversion as contemplated and governed by � 4.5 of the Orangetown Zoning Code (Chapter 43); (2) Applicants/owners shall execute a restrictive covenant to be recorded in the Rockland County Clerk's Office proscribing that the dwelling must be owner-occupied and the accessory (or second) dwelling unit must be occupied or the accessory (or second) dwelling unit ceases to be occupied by an immediate family member, and that if the dwelling ceases to be owner occupied by an immediate family member, the dwelling automatically reverts to only one dwelling unit, (i.e. a single-family residence) ; 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 variance was presented and moved by Mr. Mowerson , seconded by Mr. Sullivan, and carried as follows: Mr. Mowerson, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Ms. Castelli and Mr. Doherty were absent.

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

DATED: July 22, 2008

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

DISTRIBUTION:

DECISION

TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

ZBA # 08-76; Date: 7 / 22 / 08

To: Michael and Ann Clift; 86 McKenna Street; Blauvelt, New York 10913

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

ZBA#08-76: Application of Michael and Ann Clift for a variance from Chapter 43, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 10 (Total Side Yard: 50' required, 40.3' proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 86 McKenna Street, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.14, Block 3, Lot 28; R-15 zone.

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

Michael and Ann Clift appeared and testified.

The following documents were presented:

Architectural plan dated June 6, 2008 signed and sealed by Robert Hoene, Architect.

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) 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. Sullivan and carried as follows: Mr. Mowerson, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Doherty and Ms. Castelli were absent.

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

Ann Clift testified that they are proposing to ad a new kitchen and dining area to the house; that the addition will be to the west side of the property; that the metal shed has been removed from the property; and that they have three boys ages 9, 16 & 19.

Michael Clift testified that they have owned the house for nine years; that the existing kitchen shares a center wall with the existing small living room; that they are removing that center wall and installing a support beam so that the living room can be expanded; that the existing living room is very small; that there is an 8' x 8' shed in the corner of the property; and that the addition is 450 sq. ft..

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. Mowerson made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Mr. Sullivan and carried unanimously.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

1. The requested total side yard variance would not produce an undesirable

change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.

The requested total side yard variance would not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
The benefits sought cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant other than obtaining a variance.

The requested total side yard variance is not substantial.

The applicant purchased the property so the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.

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

(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.

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

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

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

DATED: July 22, 2008

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

DISTRIBUTION:

DECISION

REAR YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

ZBA # 08-77; Date: 7 / 22 / 08

To: James and Fiona Burke; 34 Gilbert Avenue; Pearl River, New York 10965

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

ZBA#08- 77: Application of James and Fiona Burke for variances from Chapter 43, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 11 (Rear Yard: 35' required, 25.2' existing, 13' 4 5/16” proposed) for the construction of deck at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 34 Gilbert Avenue, Pearl River, New York, and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 72.08, Block 3, Lot 1; R-15 zone.

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Tuesday, July 22, 2008 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

James Burke appeared and testified.

The following documents were presented:

Survey dated 1/6/92 by William Youngblood, L.S.
Site Plan showing the proposed deck.

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) 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. Sullivan and carried as follows: Mr. Mowerson, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Doherty and Ms. Castelli were absent.

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

James Burke testified that he would like to ad a deck off of the kitchen in the back of his house; that the proposed deck would go over an existing concrete slab and have steps going down at the south end of the deck; that he has owned the house for five years and that he and his wife have two boys.

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. Mowerson made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Mr. Sullivan and carried unanimously.

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

The requested rear yard variance would not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.

The requested rear yard variance would not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.

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

The requested rear yard variance is not substantial.

The applicant purchased the property so the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.

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

(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.

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

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

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

DATED: July 22, 2008

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

DISTRIBUTION:

Created by building. Last modified 2008-07-30 09:20:23.