Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS APRIL  20, 20 I 6

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

DAN  SULLIVAN THOMAS  QUINN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE PATRICIA  CASTELLI

JOAN  SALOMON MICHAEL  BOSCO

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:

 

 

 

PUBLISHED   ITEMS

 

APPLICANTS

 

 

DEFERRED  ITEM:

DECISIONS

 

 

YONDERHILL   INTERPRETATION               DENIED                                     ZBA#I6-05

I Closter  Road

Palisades,  NY

78.18 I I I 52; R-40 zone

 

 

NEW  ITEMS:   OLIVER	FLOOR AREA RATIO,	ZBA#I6-24
134 Prospect Place Pearl River, NY 68.20/ 2 I 4 l; RG zone	SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD, REARYARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED
BOWMAN BUILDERS I 74 So.Middletown Road Pearl River, N.Y. 73.05 I 1  I I; R-I5 zone	FLOOR AREA RATIO, LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED	ZBA#I6-25

 

THE CLUB AT PEARL RIVER	§ 3.I  I, LO DISTRICT, COLUMN	ZBA#l6-26
6 TEMPORARY SIGNS	5, PARA.I I, AND§ 4.26 (a) & (c),
662 West Blue Hill Road	§ 4.28 (f) APPROVED
Pearl River, NY
73.10 I 1I4;  OP & PAC zone
THE CLUB AT PEARL RIVER DIRECTIONAL SIGNS	DIRECTIONAL SIGNS APPROVED	ZBA#I6-27
662 West Blue Hill Road
Pearl River, NY
73.10 I 1I4;  OP & PAC zone

 

>..11·r1·1r–,·~·.        ··            ·1    .!i”1    :·:·rJi

• ·~ r\\) …..  .:::.  ….:t;    ,.   -‘v    _.  .;   ··”’         –

 

Page2

 

THE CLUB AT PEARL  RIVER MOUMENT  SIGN

662 West Blue Hill Road

Pearl  River,  NY

73.101114;        OP & PAC zone

SIGN SIZE AND ILLUMINATION  APPROVED

ZBA#l6-28

 

 

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  applications: Advances  Distribution  Systems  Inc.  Site  Plan reclassification   of two existing   storage

sheds from temporary  to permanent,  614   Route 303, Blauvelt,   NY; 70.06  / 1/2;    LIO

zone;  J & M N01ih Corp.  Site Plan,  327 North Middletown   Road,  Pearl River, NY;  68.08

/ 1/  4;  CO zone;  Highland  Mews  Internal Commercial  Subdivision   Plan,  65  Main  Street, Sparkill,   NY;  77.08/   5/ 49.3;  CS zone;  Lee Garage /Studio  Addition  Site Plan,  910 Route

9W, Upper  Grandview,   NY; 71.17 /1 / 24; R-22 zone;  New York City Football  Club Site

Plan,  200 Old Orangeburg  Road (Convent  Road,  Pearl River, NY; 73.12/  1/3.2;     RPC-R 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 canied,  the meeting  was adjourned  at  10:30 P.M.

 

Dated: April 20,  2016

 

 

 

 

DISTRLBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING    INSPECTOR   (Individual   Decisions) Rockland  County   Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

By~~

 

Deborah  Arbolino,  Administrative   Aide

 

 

 

 

J2!.::IJ’J    S””JlJ      ~!/.\01

 

 

l’lC(..’   T’

‘w’d

s    r~8lJ  9IDZ

 

DECISION

 

INTERPRETATION   APPLICATION  DENIED

 

 

To:  Ernest  Quick (Yonderhill)

3  Closter  Road

Palisades,  New York  10964

 

 

ZBA#16-05

Date: January  20, 2016

February  3, 2016

April 6, 2016

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#16-05:  Application  of  Yonderhill  for  an interpretation   as to whether  the proposed business  use on the property  is a lawful nonconforming   use and as to whether  the new proposed  use on the property  can be considered  a continuation  of such use. (This will be a second separate  use: application  requires  a commercial  subdivision  approval  from the Planning  Board).   The premises  are located  at 1   Closter  Road, Palisades,  New York  and

are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  78.18, Block  1, Lot 52; in the R-40

zoning district.

 

The applicant  did not properly  post for the January  20, 2016 meeting  and the hearing  was postponed  until February  3, 2016.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meetings  held on the following  Wednesdays,  February  3, 2016 and April 6, 2016  at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

Steven Lonsdale,  Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Copy of site plan with partial west plan & elevation  by Richard  Bloch, Architect, not signed or sealed.  (1 page).
2. Architectural  plans labeled  “First Floor Construction  Plan”  not dated,   signed and

sealed by Richard  Bloch,  Registered  Architect  (1 page).

3. Zoning  Board of Appeals  Decision  #04-55  and #04-117.
4. 16 letters in support  of application.
5. Cover letter dated January  18, 2016 from Burton  Dorfinan,  P.C. (3pages)  with exhibit A: Certificate  of Occupancy  issued to Lessee: Jodie Tassello  and Bianca Beldini;  Exhibit  B: Nine 3″ x 5″ color photographs  of the staircases  and parking lot and one 8″ x 1 O” computer  generated  picture  of the parking  area.

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chairman,  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 since the foregoing     .             “-‘     -f application  requests  your interpretation  of an existing  code, rule or regulation,  thitP     ~       ?•

application  is exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA¥      ;3      ;:~

pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations  §617.5 (c) (31); which  does not require  SEQRAo       =g     ~

 

environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried  as ~lovtfi Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Me  Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent on February  3, 2016.                                                       ~~·     ~

C.. ,>

—-·-‘

 

.-:._

c»

 

• I r:1

Donald  Brenner  testified  that the Zoning board  granted  a commercial  use for thtS       r–a  i         c!

Yonderhill  building  in ZBA# 04-117;  that the building  was a Church until  1930’rthat~:      S:

since then it has been retail office space, auction  house with independent  appraisers;  that

the owners  want to rent the lower portion  of the building  to Sotheby’ s; that they are allowed  to have more than one tenant but they need a commercial  subdivision  now; that the Building  Department  started requiring  commercial  subdivisions  in 2012; that a subdivision  was not required  in 2004; that this Board allowed  a commercial  use for the building  and they are before  the Board for recertification   of the 2004 ZBA Decision#04-

1l7;  that the testimony  in that decision  shows that the building  always had multiple  uses;

that this is a continuance  of the pre-existing  non-conforming   use; that the new tenant

 

Y onderhill  Interpretation

ZBA#l6-05

Page2  of   13

 

would be continuing  the non-conforming   use not increasing  it; that the building  always has multiple  uses connected  to the antique business  such as auction,  appraiser  and carpenter;  that separate businesses  ran out of the building  and the building  always had multiple  uses; that in 04 they had one tenant  with multiple  uses and since then the owner rented to a medical  use and now wants to rent the lower part for  real estate use; that the internal  operation  of the building  will be determined  by the Building  Department  and the Fire Inspector;  that the existing  tenant will not be deprived  of entrance  to the building;

that the 2004 variance  showed multiple  uses and this proposed  use is less impact than the

prior tenant; that one person  went away and they can rent the building  to two people with the uses that W eleda had; and how did the building  department  determine  that the

medical  use upstairs  was ok; and asked for a continuance  to see if a deal could be

reached.

 

 

 

 

Steven Lonsdale  testified  that Sotheby’s  will have one full time employee  and four or five  agents and possibly  two more people  per hour; that Weleda  Pharmacy  had shipping, retail  sales, office space and at least  14 employees;  that they were rigid with parking;  that they worked  9-5 and had no problems  with parking.  Steven  Lonsdale  showed  a picture  on his phone  of a dump truck and county truck parked  across the street, where  Joan Salomon stated the triangle  was to stay forever  wild.  Steven Lonsdale  testified  that they have

always rented the red barn carriage  house;  that  Jodie Tassello  lied when she said they offered to rent the whole the building;  and testified  that there was an agreement  with the upstairs  tenant that they would use the front staircase  and not the staircase  within the building  that they presently  use.

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

Burt Dorfinan,  Attorney,  representing  Sundala,  the tenants;  testified  that his clients practice  acupuncture  and therapy  and have some very ill patients, some with cancer; that they are not against Sotheby’ s, however they do need to protect the business that they have spent the last few years establishing; that they would love to see the outside of the building preserved; that he would like the Board to understand that the interior of the building is designed for one use; that you walk through the building to the stairs to get up to Sundala treatment rooms; that the 2004 decision granted a continuance of a pre• existing non-conforming use for one tenant; that Mr. Quick testified “that he has tried very hard to find the appropriate tenant for the building, that it had to be a business that was large enough for the building but small enough for the parking lot”; that the parking plan referred to the Zoning Board was never implemented; that Sotheby’ s has 15 brokers

listed for Prominent Properties; that they will have a secretary, a manage, clients and        r-.» possible 15 brokers and there is not enough parking; that the parking needs to be plamibd;~ that elderly patients need to continue to use the main stairs that is located on the first;?     3 floor in the main area; that he would like to know if there is a certificate of occupancy.for.::g the red barn; that it is currently listed for rent; that the pre-existing non-conforming ~e

that was allowed to continue in the Zoning Board Decision #04-117 was for one use~and en

he is concerned a~out access to the upstairs treatment ro~ms because his.clients hav~~:·    ~

 

 

 

-I

0

 

 

.  :..:._

 

already been denied access through the first floor a few times; and he objects to the-:;               ;::~

“-‘      i

 

request for a continuance.

c2:!‘

• i           -1

 

r=.~          c.~.

C:>

:§

 

Mark Willis, 72 Franklin Street, Manhattan, testified that he has known Ernie, Richard           “‘”‘- and Steven for many years; that he has rented space in the building for many years; that

he is in the country for six months at a time; that Weleda took over the entire building but there were three offices in that space and this is easily a multifaceted building; that Ernie had his office in the building and he stored things in the building and still does; and his

business is coming up with and developing ideas for other companies; and he didn’t have a certificate of occupancy.

 

Y onderhill  Interpretation

ZBA#16-05

Page 3 of   13

 

 

 

Victor Polee,  16 Winding  Creek Way, Old Tappan,  New Jersey, testified  that he was the Mayor  of Old Tappan;  that he compliments  the Board for their hard work and dedication; that he will not be managing  the office in Palisades;  that there will be an Administrative Assistant  in the building  and a maximum  of four agents  at a time; that the business

upstairs  operates  three or four days per week;  that Sotheby’ s operates  seven days a week;

that the Yonder  Hill building  is Iconic and Sotheby’ s will help to keep it that way; that the three individuals  that own Yonder  Hill cannot afford the mortgage  without  this lease; that the people upstairs  think they have control over the whole building  that they are depriving  a livelihood  from the owners  of the building;  that it is a travesty  and the Iconic building  deserves  an Iconic company  in it.

 

Jodie Tassello,  2 Aldane  Lane, Nyack  testified  that she has been leasing in the building for over two years; that she loves being in the building;  that they have been ramping  up their business  in Palisades  and they pay $5,400.00  a month  in rent and 80% of the utilities;  that in January  of2015   they offered  an additional  $4,200.00  a month  in rent to

take over the first floor and they were told that it wasn’t  enough;  that at the time they had

Red Cord European  Therapy  that wanted  to have  Sundala   as their north east representation;   that they are open four days a week presently  because  they still have part of their practice  in Manhattan;  that they started off upstairs  and were told by the landlord that they could add local wellness  practitioners  and take over the whole building;  that they did have a local physical  therapist  working  in the space for a short time and one of his patients  told him that she was a Board member  and that it was illegal for him to sublet; that after hearing  this, she went to the Building  Department  and was told that she could have wellness  practitioners  work in the building  if, and only if, they worked under

the umbrella  of “Sundala”  as its employee;  that independent  wellness  practitioners  are not

interested  in operating  that way; that it over a year to get Red Cord and then they were told that almost $10,000.00  a month  was not enough rent.

 

 

 

Lynn Sandhouse,  201 Route 9W, Palisades,  testified  that she and her husband  have been friends with Ernie and Richard  for years; that they are close friends and elegant involved neighbors;  that Yonder  Hill Antiques  existed  for many years before  W eleda; that there were many antique dealers  operating  in the building;  that Weleda  had facials,  massages, pharmaceutical,   administrative   and retail uses; that they had twelve  employees  and the parking  lot easily holds between  12 and 14 cars; that she has never noticed  the parking  lot full; that the owners  care about the building  that they have the right to earn a living; that this building  should be sustained  and provide  an income  and she cannot think of a better tenants than Victor  and Jean.

 

Albert Alexander,  81 Noise  Street, Pearl River, NY testified  that if this is a legal issue, all these public  comments  don’t  mean anything;  that they do not change the legal issue.

 

 

 

Natalie  Schutter,  73 Buckingham  Court, Pomona,  testified  that she is a patient  at Sundala and she works in the area; that the only safe way to enter Sundala  is through  the building downstairs;  that she would not be able to continue  treatments  that she needs if she was

not allowed  access through  the main stairs; that the interior building  is not set up for two separate  companies;  that the windows  run from the first floor through  the second floor; that the health  center is good for the area and the building  would need soundproofing  and she does not see how it could be safely divided  and the Board  should see the interior of the building.

 

 

 

 

 

hC   1   LJd     S      AUlJ  9IDZ

 

Y onderhill  Interpretation

ZBA#16-05

Page 4 of   13

 

 

 

Seta Tunnell,  657 Oak Tree Road, Palisades,  testified  that she has live on Oak Tree for ~ 6 years and recently joined  Prominent  Properties,  Sotheby’s  and she passes th~ Yonder  Hill building  all the time and hardly  ever sees cars there; that she does not work m the office; that she works on her laptop;  that there will not be more than a few agents in the office at a time; that Sotheby’s  is a great addition  to the neighborhood;  that she does not see ~y

bad impacts;  and that the health  care business  use to be located  over a real estate busmess

with a narrow  staircase  for entry.

 

Lisa Comito,  7 Yadanza  Court, Palisades,  testified  that she recently joined  Sotheby’s Prominent  Properties;  that she uses her home  and her laptop for business  and she never sees more than four cars in the lot; and wants to know why the parking  lot would be good enough for them to expand  their business  but not big enough for Sotheby’ s.

 

Gabor Reichter,  13 Closter Road, testified  that she is a neighbor  four houses  away; that 5-

6 years ago antiques were sold out of the building;  that there were always  separate concessions  for the antique dealers;  that there have been multiple  owners in the building for all long as she can remember;  that when Weleda  was coming to the building  the corporate  members  had a meeting  with the neighborhood   and they answered  concerns about parking  and with  12 employees  at W eleda they managed  the parking  without problems;  that they managed  to fit in tons of parking.

 

Larry Bucciarelli,  700 Oak Tree Road, Palisades,  testified  that he needs to rebut the last statement;  that he went to the meeting  and there were problems  with parking  when Weleda  leased the space; that there has been  gravel added to the triangle  area that it is supposed  to be forever  wild and not used for parking;  and parking  for Weleda  did at times go past the Reichter  house  and there were verbal  confrontations  regarding  parking; that the triangle  should not be used for parking  and parking  is an issue.

 

 

 

Louis Tharp,  515 North Midland  Avenue,  Nyack,  NY; testified  that he and his husband Jim have been friends with Ernie, Richard  and Steven  for years; that they are active in the community;  that they helped  to rebuild  the church  and library; that Ernie writes for the Hook Magazine;  that they are very concerned  with preservation  and that is why they took over the Yonder  hill building;  that their first thought  I always  about preservation  of property  and community  and antiques;  that he lived in Sneden’ s Landing  for years and they are great custodians  of Yonder  Hill; that they have thought  about parking,  foot

traffic and commercial  advantage  and preserving  the building.

 

0

-~

Ernest Quick, 3  Closter  Road, owner of Yonder  Hill, testified  that he has had Parkinson’s Disease  for 30 years; that Yonder  Hill is not easy to rent; that he turned down a Korean  :—.., Church,  Spin Class and a restaurant;  that a Hair Design  wanted  to move into the spaae   ~ and Jodie said it would not be compatible  because  some of the dyes are toxic; that Ji_e       ::3

cares and he lives next door; that he needs to rent two floors; that this is a hardshii;:thaR    0

he wants to ~e~p the building ~d. rejoice in it every da~; that it !ak.es money to he~it  ~        ;;; that Sotheby s is a perfect prestigious company that sutts the building and he thought they    ·-   ·     · could add an office like Weleda and they really care.                                             ~-~     ~

CJ

 

Jean Shields, 136 Winding Creek Way, Old Tappan, testified that Sotheby’s willi~ve,._ f     ~

low impact in the area; that only eight of their agents are planning on working inrr1   :g ·                     ~

Palisades; that the rest of the agents are staying in Alpine, although they are licensed for

both New Jersey and New York; that there will be one adman in front and no manager;

the manger from Alpine will monitor both offices.

 

At this time the Board went into a private session with the Deputy Town Attorney and when they returned Mr. Brenner asked for a continuance to see if Sotheby’ s and Sundala could come to an agreement, and he stated that they would order the transcript to bring zoning board members that were absent up to date with the progress of the application.

 

Y onderhill  Interpretation

ZBA#16-05

Page 5 of   13

 

April6,2016

 

New Items submitted  for review:

 

1. Transcript from the hearing of February 3, 2016.
2. A submission from Burt Dorfinan dated March 28, 2016 (representing tenants

Bianca Beldini and Jodie Tassello) with a copy of a letter from Nicholas Cichanowski , Dominick R. Pilla Associates inspection labeled “Building Code Issues”.

3. A memorandum dated March l, 2016 on Mr. Brenner’s letterhead to Mr. Quick

regarding a meeting at Mr. Dorfinan’ s office in Piermont with the existing tenants.(1 page)

4. A letter dated April 6, 2016 from Robert Knoebel, Jr. Attorney, representing

Eugene Kohn in opposition to the application with six (6) real estate listings for

renting the property.

5. A petition with 101 unverified signatures against the approval of a non•

conforming use especially to a franchise business at Yonderhill building located

at 1  Closter Road, Palisades. (9 pages)

6. A business print out for Sotheby’ s International Realty Franchise.
7. A letter from Joan Lehman and Jerome Lieberman not signed. ( 1 page)
8. Two pages of comments read to the Board by Nancy Bucciarelli, 700 Oak Tree

Road, Palisades.

9. Three pages of comments read to the Board by Susan Nemesday, 19 Lawrence

Lane, Palisades.

10. Five color photographs submitted by Burt Dorfman, Attorney, representing

Bianca Beldini and Jodie Tassello.

11. Two business cards submitted by Donald Brenner for Steven A. Lonsdale,

Yonderhill Associates and Ernest S. Quick, Phoenix at Yonderhill.

12. A cover letter dated July 4, 2004 from Donald Brenner with 12 affidavits and 23

statements attached that had been submitted for the September 13, 2004 Zoning

Board of Appeals meeting.

 

Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, asked Tom Quinn, Zoning Board member, if he read the 85 page transcript from the February 3, 2016 Zoning Board meeting and ifhe went over everything that was submitted for the record. Tom Quinn answered in the affirmative and stated that he was fully apprised and could participate in the continuation of the hearing.

 

At the April 6, 2016 hearing Donald Brenner, Attorney and Steven Lonsdale appeared C!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

f’-;)

c:,-,

………..

 

-~

0

O?              :

 

and testified.                                                                                                                     ~

:3

:::0

,-;._…

 

0

Donald Brenner, Attorney, testified that they had previously asked for a continuance itt-;

an attempt to work out an arrangement with the tenant renting the upper floor; that the9’·.

-c:       (:)

• ·1

(J1           (°’)

:  .)

 

made several proposals including the construction of an elevator in the entrance area of”    -u

-· –

 

 

the building to resolve the access problem; constructing a walkway from the entrance~; area through a side room on the western side of the building and constructing a glass ~11 permitting natural light into the lower area from the side entrance to the existing stairway and sound proof the ceiling or have the existing tenant move to the first floor, thereby reducing the stress on their patients and sound proof the ceiling or terminating the

existing lease with a buyout agreement; that all of these were turned down and their Attorney inferred that they, and only they, had the right to use the entire building for their commercial venture; that he would like to put into the record that in 2004 there were 25

applicants supporting the commercial use of the building and statements that it was used

as a commercial building since 1935; that prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy there were multiple users and there were two C of 0′ s issued for the building one on August 1, 2000 and one on October 31, 2000; that they continue with a lawful prior use because the owners never intended to abandon the multiple users; that they never

:3       C)

l       -I

…… I             [i1

(.._~

w     ~

.s:     z

 

Y onderhill Interpretation

ZBA#16-05

Page 6 of   13

 

abandoned this right; that they had a realty office in the building and other purposes; that they sold antiques in the carriage house and other functions that were never intended to be abandoned this right; that they went to the building department and were never told only one user; that they always had the intent for multiple users; that they are trying to

work this out with people; that renting the space to the realty company is a lesser use than

Weleda; that legally they are entitled to multiple uses; that they were sent here improperly; that they always had multiple uses accepted by the neighborhood; that the old historic building had been verified as a commercial building; that it can be used by multiple tenants and they always had a realty office in the building; and some packaging; that this building was established as a multiple use; that this properly fits into the neighborhood and it is a handicap to the owners not to rent it to Sotheby’s; and he gave the Board two business cards, one from Ernest Quick, Phoenix Antiques at Y onderhill and one from Steven Lonsdale, Y onderhill Associates; that the Board agreed in its decision that this building has a commercial use building and not to one person because the history shows it was a multiple use building; that the testimony from the audience is misleading information; that Knoebel’ s listings prove that they were trying to rent the space; that they turned down a cleaners and a restaurant because it would not fit into the community; that Mrs. Bucciarelli is wrong saying that this is a zone change, it is not a

zone change; that the use is a pre-existing non-conforming use and not a franchise this is a beautiful building and it needs to be rented to make sure the owners can take of it; that the franchise concept belongs to all realtors, like Joyce and Sotheby’s and the franchise issue is just a scare tactic; that it is a mis service; that the owners have done things properly, they got permission from the Historic Board before they painted the building; that they will go the Planning board for subdivision and the Historic Board for any exterior changes; that all these boards are for checks and balances; that Ms. Dowling is right when she says there will be less traffic and the building will be improved; that Mr.

Little is wrong when he says money doesn’t mean anything’ that it is the board’s decision to consider the money situation; that Mr. Dorfinan stating that they pay 80% of the real estate taxes but didn’t tell the full offer; that no offer was put on the table; that the

pictures are unbelievable; that his clients offered to soundproof; that the appearance would not change in any way that the building department would determine code and safety but they cannot get there unless you permit us to get there; that the building department, Planning Board, Historic Board do all the checks and balances; that this is not a zone change; that his client pays 20% of the electric and he put the extension cord there for a water pipe; that this is conforming to the neighborhood; that the community

has all the checks and balances; and that his client needs to rent the building; and that his client told him that Mr. Cornell has multiple leases for the building if the Board wants them.

 

Steven Lonsdale testified that he has done a lot of work to the building and it needs more work; that he was friends with the previous owner; that he wanted them to have the

building because they would take care of it; that they have tried to make it better, that    :–…~

:?-      ~

~               c::;;>

Sotheby’ s and Jodie and Bianca could fit into the community; that he is very

compassionate about the building and does not want to see it deteriorate and the pi~s    ~

r-

were going to burst.                                                                                                   o       -c

!:i    C.11

 

 

 

 

–i

0

 

 

C)

 

0

 

Public Comment:

;;.::

::J

 

c,·.•                     ..:.. >

1. C) C)

2!    “-‘  1                      f&1

Robert Knoebel, Attorney, testified that he is representing Eugene Kohn, a Palisa.Ei_ks   ·            ‘      CJ

residence, who cannot appear and asked him to provide the Board with some inf0Hnat1’ii’  ~

concerning the application; that Mr. Kohn is concerned about commercial use of the first floor of the property; that he has reviewed the prior decision as well as recent information about the property and concluded that any non-conforming use of the first floor of the building has been discontinued; that after reviewing the facts, they are requesting the

Board to deny the requested interpretation; that is the applicant wished to establish a commercial use of the first floor , it should require a use variance or a zone change; that

according to the public notice, the application seeks an interpretation as to whether the

 

Y onderhill  Interpretation

ZBA#16-05

Page 7  of   13

 

 

 

proposed  business  use on the property  is a lawful nonconforming   use and as to whether the new proposed  use on the property  can be considered  a continuation  of such use; that in the notice the Building  Inspector  has determined  that in any event this is  a second,

separate  use on the property  and that the application  also requires  commercial  subdivision

approval  from the Planning  board;  that a review  of the file indicates  that he Building Department  has recognized  that only the second floor of the building  is occupied  and that is the only active use associated  with the property;  that Article IX of the Zoning

Ordinance  addresses  nonconforming   uses; that Section  9.33 specifically  addresses

discontinuation   of a nonconforming   use as ” Cessation  of use. If active operations  are not carried on with respect  to nonconforming   use during  a continuous  period  of one year, the building  or land where  such non-conforming   use previously  existed  shall thereafter  be occupied  and use only for conforming  use. Intent to resume  active operations  shall not affect the foregoing.”  And further testified  that the clear purpose  of this section  is to gradually  phase out uses that are not permitted  in certain zoning districts,  such as residential  zones’  that the zoning  ordinance  also provides  that the nonconforming  use cannot be changes  to another use unless  such use is specifically  permitted  in the zoning district;  that the subject property  is located  in an R-40 zoning  district which  does not permit  commercial  office and retail uses; that he would  like to provide  the Board with documentary  evidence  that after Weleda  vacated  the space in April 2012, it was listed for rent and remained  vacant  through  the present;  and submitted  six separate multiple  listings demonstrating  that the first floor was vacant  as of April 2012 and has remained  listed and continuously  vacant through  the present;  that his client is also concerned  by the overutilization  of the site and the lack of adequate  parking  facilities;  that even if this property  were located  in a commercial  district,  if it fails to meet most  of the analogous requirements   for commercial  uses; that a proposed  real estate office would need to

comply with the requirements  of one required  parking  space per 200 square  feet; that this

building  is approximately  7,000 sq. ft. and would require  35 parking  spaces;  that the parking  shown  for the site is woefully  inadequate  and will encourage  people  to pull off the road on to private property  or back out on to Closter  Road,  creating hazardous condition  and effecting  the local residents;  and that he appreciates  the consideration  of

the this information  by the Board.

 

Nancy  Bucciarelli,  700 Oak Tree Road, started her testimony  by stating that this application  is not about the character  of Ernie, Richard  or Stephen;  that it has nothing to do with that; that these gentlemen  are an asset to Palisades  and we all applaud  their efforts in keeping  the Y onderhill  building  an attractive  and prominent  historical  treasure

in the community;  that she and her husband  Larry have been their neighbors  quite happily for over thirty years and hope that continues  to be the case; that this application  is all about a zoning  change  that will remain  in the Town  of Orangetown  as a precedent

forever,  a precedent  that can be used dis favorably  to alter the nature of and the

neighborhoods   we call home; that it would  allow multiple  businesses  and franchises  to conduct  themselves  in a residential  zoning  district;   that the case against the issuance  of dual use variance  for Y onderhill  must be looked  at from a construction  perspectiveHthe~~ construction  of the building  dates to the mid  1800’s;  that a dual commercial  use w~ld   ~ require the applicant  to bring the structure  up to current  construction  codes as wa1dnted5

by the Town of Orangetown  Building  Codes; that there would be required  a mini~m   Of

a one and one-half  hour fire separation  between  floors;  that this would require th3he    en

 

 

…. –

— ….:

-p—~-,,.

 

 

C)

 

stairwell  and doors on top and bottom  be fire rated,  as they are the only means  of~gre~       ~-~ provided  to the upstairs  tenant;  that a sprinkler  system may or may not be required-as  ~        c::> the judgment  of John Giardiello,  head of the Building  Department;  that Y onderhtll  is ;.-a  1                  ~

listed on the National  Registry  of Historic  Buildings,  This designation  places th~-.;    w ‘.                 9

stewardship  of the historic  nature of the building  in the hands of the local governing   .s: ·                            ~

bodies;  that decisions  made by the local governing  bodies  should take this National designation  into account;  that it is also important  to know that this building  lies within the Historic  District  of Palisades;  that when the building  was constructed  many years ago a significant  gap in the floor structure between  the first and second  floors occurs  at the intersection  of the large windows  that run nearly the entire vertical  height  of the sides of

 

Y onderhill  Interpretation

ZBA#16-05

Page 8   of    13

 

 

 

 

the building;  that here are six large windows  in the main area of the building  and an additional  two in the end portion  for a total of eight; and that this is a most prominent architectural  detail; that to make this building  fire code compliant  this gap, the large windows  would have to be removed  and replaced  with a widow  that would provide  a separation  between  the floors to permit  the fire stopping  at thi.s junction;  t~at from a historical  point, the removal  of these windows  would be considered  undesirable;  that she does not believe  that Ernie and Richard  and Stephen  would want to alter the character

and appearance  of the building  in this fashion;  that it is also debatable  whether  the historic  board would  even approve  such a visible  change to the building;  that the costs involved  to bring this building  into fire code compliance  on ceilings,  stairs, doors with closures  and most importantly  windows  are substantial;  that a significant  reason  to grant

a variance  application  concerns  itself with hardship  and to retro fit the building  for a dual use commercial  space, these costs cannot be ignored;  and that she does not know whether Ernie, Richard  and Stephen have considered  these costs or if they are eve aware of the need for all these changes  to the building  as we know  it but it is a very real consideration

that cannot be ignored.

 

 

 

Susan Nemesdy,  19 Lawrence  Lane, testified  that she would like to start by saying that the  last thing anybody  want is hurt Ernie or cause him distress  in any way, that the is a respected  and beloved  member  of the community;  .that however this issue is about zoning changes that effect all of Palisades, our community and its character and once changed, there’s no going back; that the first proposal for the dual usage variance on the 6,000 sq. ft. historic building brings up the constant problem of parking; that this building sits on a small quarter acre lot; that it should have 30 parking spaces for this us and only has 2 fifteen spaces; that two different businesses cannot limit themselves to 7 or 8 cars each; that parking on Closter Road, 9W and the public triangle is not an option and has for

many years caused problems; that according to the December issue of 10964 “may agents will be taken from the Alpine and Hillsdale offices”; that this historic building would also

have to meet the current codes; that Sotheby’ s is a franchise; that palisades has three commercial properties within its residential zoning; that allowing a franchise to occupy any of these three commercial properties opens the door to all franchises- Starbucks, Dunkin Donuts or even a seven Eleven; that if this variance is approved the precedence will be set and just as Sotheby’s is looking for the smallest detail in a previously granted C of 0 to justify its move, so will Dunkin Donuts; that a franchise of any kind would destroy the character of this community as they do everywhere- look what happened to Nyack when Starbucks moved in; that a few days ago a petition was started and there are over 100 signatures asking the ZBA to deny both the dual usage and nonconforming variance requests and especially the franchise request for fear of the precedence they will set for Palisades; that she would also like to address the aggressive manner in which Sotheby’s Prominent Properties has been forcing their way onto Palisades as not only offensive but unwelcome; that Prominent Properties has been publicly advertising for over 4 months their “new office” in Palisades, desperately waiting to expand their network to a luxury marketplace with water; that she thinks that about 95% of Palisades would agree that a “Luxury marketplace with water” is not what we want for our hamlet; that this company’s  claims of honesty, integrity and knowledge ofreal estate very questionable when they sign a lease back  in October on an occupied building zoned for single commercial use; that Prominent Properties either does not know zoning laws or

does not care; that they are not even in Palisades yet and this is the arrogance and C!     El

disrespect they show towards the community they want to do business in; that Pali:$ade;

and Tappan have historic districts and she would be wary of what Prominent Pro~ie.ig would tell clients they bring to Orangetown; that their lack of knowledge about Q\ij’ zoning and historic codes are frightening; that they are asking to Board to make ;:~·     c.n

 

 

• -f

0

 

 

–,~,

‘l

 

decision tonight and not allow another continuation, there is no hardship on the owne~      ;:.:

that his historic building would lose its character if subdivided and a franchise WQ>uld1″e     cs

devastating to the future of Palisades; and she would like to submit papers shoWi~gtlmt}  ~

0         0

tvt        C.V  ·                         ~

-t:         :z

 

Y onderhill  Interpretation

ZBA#l6-05

Page 9  of   13

 

 

 

 

Sotheby’ s is a franchise  and to submit the petition  that reads ” With regard to the Yonderhill  building  located  at 1   Closter  Road in Palisades,  NY, we the undersigned  are against the approval  of the requested  variance,  to allow for two completely  differ~nt businesses  to operate in this building  that is zoned singe use and ask that the Zonmg Board of Appeals  deny this request.  Among  the many problems  what dividing  the building  will create, one important  issue is that it will set a precedent  for the other businesses  in the hamlet  of Palisades  to divide, which  we know has had a significant  and detrimental  effect on the quality of life and value of real estate in other towns including the Town of Ramapo.  We are also asking that the Zoning  Board of Appeals  uphold the established  zoning code, which  clearly stats what businesses  are permitted  in Palisades. These regulations  of  the use of the building  were set to protect  our community.  We are against the approval  of a non-conforming   use especially  to a franchise  business  which

will also set a precedent  for other businesses  in Palisades.  It would significantly change

the character of our community. We ask that the Zoning Board of Appeals make a swift decision and not accept a continuation because it would prolong the agony and

divisiveness that the community is experiencing.” And this petition has 101 unverified

signatures.

 

Allan Townsley, 7 Closter Road, Palisades, testified that he lives 50 yards away from the building; that he has lived there for 23 years; that the building has had multiple uses forever; that he has no issue with cars in the driveway and Weleda left for larger premises; that the owners require full usage of the building or it will fall into disrepair and this is an opportunity for the owner of the building.

 

Fred Little, 71 Woods Road, Palisades, testified that he would like to get bac to Mr. Brenner’s words that this building had a pre-existing nonconforming use that was continuously in effect except when it wasn’t; that they always had the intention to continue the pre-existing nonconforming use; that this a capitalistic society and sometimes your investments pay off and sometimes they do not; that an additional use in the building is not a benefit to the neighborhood and the attitude is toxic and cavalier and he would urge the Board to deny the expansion.

 

Burt Dorfinan, Attorney for Jodie Tassello and Bianca Beldini, testified that he had submitted a letter from an engineer at Dominic Pilla’s office showing that the building would be almost impossible to retrofit for multiple uses; that the 23 letters from the last hearing are not relevant; that in September 2004 the Board granted a single use for the building based on the testimony from Ernest Quick which was ” that he has tried very hard to find the appropriate tenant for the building; that it had to be a business that large enough for the building but small enough for the parking lot” and Weleda was approved; that the owners have not provided any leases proving multiple tenants; that a card is not intention of use; that they met with Mr. Brenner and Keith Cornell and they have an engineer report stating what would need to be done to have two businesses in the building; that as an alternative Prominent Properties could get out of the lease and his clients offered to pay all the taxes for the building and to rent the entire building; that his clients are not looking to hurt the landlords but they have a current lease; that the recent Palisades 10964 paper published a newsletter that he read into the record that Prominent Properties will keep the building as original but that won’t be possible; and he submitted pictures showing that the landlord is running extension cords for electricity to the barn,

that his clients pay 80% of the utilities for the building and that the windows do not touch the existing second story floor boards; and that his clients are in court trying to hold onto their lease.

 

., “‘\ ~’ ~I O    s ;p \ J 18  M 1\\ 0 l

😉  .J   -·-

 

h£  }  

!Jd    s   li~lil 9lfil

 

N ;i\013 o H ..; ·I.~    0  .::l 0  ~·l ;, .\ 0 l

 

Y onderhill Interpretation

ZBA#16-05

Page 10  of   13

 

 

 

 

Joan Lehman, 43 Woods Road, testified that the proposed zoning changes to the property at 1   Closter Road are not welcome by many residents in this community and might realistically open up inappropriate commercial zoning precedents which might impact negatively on this entire neighborhood in years to come; that this are where Route 9W, Oak tree Road and Closter meet now is surprisingly still rural, which is one reason why it is so special; that it remains almost commercial free, despite the “Filling Station” and “Market” restaurant further up on Route 9W, which are relatively discrete; that there are important and intelligent reasons why our zoning are in effect as they are now, and a

large part of that has to do with protecting quality of life for residents, and retaining unusual characteristics of neighborhoods; that one question is wo would this proposed zoning change benefit; that certainly not the residents living here now; that it might very well open a gate to future zoning changes which would create a miserable repetition of everything we see in so many other areas of the county, which have created a boring and predictable series of real estate signs, Starbucks and 7-1 l”s. that the residents do not want that; that another issue comes to mind such as parking and traffic; that those who live

here already know that finding a parking spot at the post office and library can be problematic and opening the door to this type of zoning change could have a most negative impact on the hamlet of Palisades.

 

Carol Baxter, 34 Lawrence Lane, Palisades, testified that this is very emotional for the entire community; that they love Ernie and are against the dividing of the building; that this has pitted neighbor against neighbor; that they have yearly meetings and invite state, county and local representatives to these meetings and the last one talked about zoning issues and how community response can make sure the community is protected against negative changes; that the community needs to watch zoning carefully and not allow things to be subdivide to change neighborhoods and divide neighborhoods.

 

Lisa Comito, 7 Gadanza Court, Palisades, testified that she is a local resident and a realtor for Prominent Properties, that Charlie Opler has integrity and he shows New Jersey Association of Realtors also; that there will not be an increase in traffic; that there are usually not more than two agents in the office at a time; that the franchise concern is ridiculous; that they are not Starbucks; that she is also an attorney and there are no other commercial properties in Palisades and the Board should read the letters of support from

July 14, 2004.

 

 

Fred Little, 71  Woods Road, Palisades, testified that he has an issue with statements made  by Mr. Brenner; concerning what he said about money; that the language in the Board  decision 2004 stated that a single use would take place by Weleda; that the Board has an affirmative obligation to make that clear; that multiple uses did not continue ;  that the residents have seen increasingly aggressive realtors pressuring to sell properties; that the community needs stability, not aggressive flipping of properties and the Board should read the testimony from ZBA#04-117.

 

 

The Board members made personal inspections of the premises the week before each of the meetings 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.

3DL:!.:!  o  S’Pl:.!18   NA\01

 

 

h£  }  

lJd    s     ~mJ srnz

 

 

~,,101-:i’)’lJ\.’:.·o  .:o  l,~;.-.oi

l’iffl      ·                                           _,v       ·’      –

 

Y onderhill  Interpretation

ZBA#l6-05

Page  11   of    13

 

 

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

 

After personal  site inspections  of the premises  by members  of the ZBA;

 

 

after hearing  and considering  all the testimony  from the Applicant,  the Applicant’s representatives,   from the public  and representatives   of the public,  as summarized  above; and

 

after reviewing  and considering  all the documentation,   reports,  materials, communications   and correspondence   submitted  to the ZBA, as inventoried  above;

 

the ZBA considered  the Applicant’s   interpretation  request  for the ZBA to reverse  the determination  of John Giardiello,  P .E., Director  of the Orangetown  Office of Building, Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and enforcement  (“OBZP AE”), who determined that  the Applicant’s   proposal,  to occupy the Premises  with two, separate,  commercial

establishments  operated  by different  businesses,  was not a lawful continuation  of the pre•

existing  non-conforming   use and requires  internal  subdivision  approval by the

Orangetown  Planning  board,  and the ZBA found and concluded  that:

 

1. ZBA Decision  #04-117,  dated 09/13/2004,  approved,  by way of the ZBA’ s interpretation   , the use of the building  at the Premises  for a commercial retail/office  operator  to be an extension  of the pre-existing  non-conforming commercial  use of the Premises.
2. ZBA Decision  #04-117,  dated 09/13/2004,  resulted  in OBZPAE’s   issuance  of

Certificate  of Occupancy  (“CO”)  #35113,  dated  11/07/2005,  which  C0#35113 made explicit  reference  to ZBA Decision  #04-11 7, dated 09/03/2004,  and which Decision  #04-117  and C0#3 5113 established  the legal use and occupancy  of the Premises  at that time, and abrogated  all prior pre-existing  non-conforming   uses, whatever  they may have been.

3. The current use per CO # 3 5113 and Decision#04-117   is for retail/commercial operations  related  to a spa.
4. The Town of Orangetown  Local Law that prescribes  Subdivision  approval by the

Planning  Board for “internal  subdivisions,”   such as the circumstances  proposed by the Applicant’s   request  to use and occupancy  the Premises  with two, separate businesses  operated  by different  tenants,  was enacted  long before 2004, and certainly  prior to the subject Application.  See, e.g..Orangetown   Code§  21-8 definition  of “Subdivision:””    The division  of any parcel of land into two or

more …  sites or other division  ofland   .. for the purpose  ….  of…  building development,  and shall include  resubdivision   and the division  of a commercial structure  or parcel  into two or more units or areas for … rental purposes.” Consequently,  and furthermore,  even if the Applicant’s   evidentiary  documents and testimony  demonstrated  that two or more businesses  were operating  at the same time, prior and during this Application,  any such pre-existing  non•

conforming  use is abrogated  by the new, previously  absent, never before  obtained land use of an internal  Subdivision.

 

 

 

 

 

ht    J_ lJd     s    ~HlJ  9102

 

 

M {A 0 l::- J _~,,…,  )  •; T       •.      ,’       ‘       •         °”‘\

1

!   ,f”\     ~

:.

• ..  ,          .-l   :

 

l   .        …    .:

h    •. I  ••      -‘    ….

 

Y onderhill  Interpretation

ZBA#16-05

Page  12  of   13

 

 

 

 

DECISION:  On the basis   of the foregoing  Findings  of Fact and Conclusions,  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  ZBA Chairman,  Daniel  Sullivan,  hereby moves that the interpretation  Application  be DENIED   ,   which Motion  was seconded  by

Joan Solomon,  and carried as follows:  Leonard  Feroldi,  aye; Patricia  Castelli,  aye;

Tom Quinn, nay, Mike Bosco,  aye (vote does not count due to absence  from April 6,

2016 Public Hearing),  Joan Salomon,  aye; and Daniel  Sullivan,  aye; and FURTHER RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board of the minutes  of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

which are hereinbefore set forth.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

3 ~ l.:Lj 0  SY ‘-! 118 N A\ 0 l

 

h£   1   LJd      S      ~HLJ  9102

 

Y onderhill  Interpretation

ZBA#l6-05

Page   13  of  13

 

 

 

 

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  20, 2016

 

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—,{4l.,fb..o~~~~l,…L~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

 

hS    1   lJd     S     ~8lJ  9lOZ

 

DECISION

 

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

 

To: Rick and Elizabeth  Oliver

134 Prospect  Place

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA #16-24

Date: April 20, 2016

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#  16-24: Application  of Rick and Elizabeth  Oliver for  variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, Section  3.12, RG District,  Group Q, Column  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .30 permitted,   .31  proposed),  9 (Side Yard:  1 O’ required, l.8’existing   & proposed) 10 (Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 23.l’  proposed), 11 (Rear Yard: 25′ required, 3′ existing, 9″ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 1 ‘ permitted, 14’ proposed) for an addition to an existing garage that will make it an attached garage at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 134 Prospect Place, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.20, Block

2, Lot 41; RG zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, April 20, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Rick Oliver appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Survey dated June 16, 1996 by William Youngblood Associates.
2. Survey dated June 16, 1996 by William Youngblood Associates with the proposed improvements drawn on it.
3. Two computer generated pictures of the proposed addition/connection.
4. Drawings of the proposed inside of the cabana and entryway.
5. Drawing of the existing lower yard.
6. Drawing of the right elevation and front elevation.

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, 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) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and

carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye;

and Mr. Sullivan, aye.

 

Rick Oliver testified that he got variances from the Board to build the cabana onto the existing garage but circumstances have changed since that time; that he is changing his proposal to make the cabana attached to the house by a walkway and lowering the roof from the last plan because he needs to have his mom come and stay with them; that he

and his wife have been in the house for about twenty years; that the grade of the garage is at least 3 Yi feet lower than the house; that he would like to install a wet bar and refrigerator, but no cooking facilities; that he would also like to have an open living area

and a private bathroom and he would like to add a window over the sink in the bathroom for air and light.                               3 ~H.:! .:lo  s :n1Jl8   MM 01

h£    1   Wd    s   ~mJ srnz

.. ,  ~.,   ·..  ·    ·.    “‘        •.~   \:.   ‘·     r’: I

 

I,,J!t3,(\\lv .1.

,.,    …;  ,     ~  ‘.I       -.1…..    •I’·•’-‘-. .

 

.:.i  v   i ‘

‘-‘ –

 

Oliver

ZBA#16-24

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 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  floor area ratio, side yard, total side yard, rear yard and building  height variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  The proposal  to connect the existing  garage/ proposed  cabana to the existing  house  is tastefully  designed  and, because  of the existing  grade of the property,  will not be noticeable  from the street. There  are no significant  changes  in requested  variances  from the last submission,  and allowing  the connection  to the main house provides  a space for the applicant’s   mother  to stay.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, side yard, total side yard, rear yard and building  height variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  The proposal  to connect the existing

garage/ proposed  cabana to the existing  house is tastefully  designed  and, because  of

the existing  grade of the property,  will not be noticeable  from the street. There are no significant  changes  in requested  variances  from the last submission,  and allowing  the connection  to the main house provides  a space for the applicant’s  mother  to stay.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  floor area ratio,  side yard, total side yard, rear yard and building  height variances,  although  somewhat  substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.    The proposal  to connect  the existing  garage/ proposed  cabana to the existing  house is tastefully  designed  and, because  of the existing  grade of the property,  will not be noticeable  from the street. There are no significant  changes  in requested  variances  from the last submission,  and

allowing  the connection  to the main house provides  a space for the applicant’s  m~er      -··i

 

to stay.

-l        ,_…..          c-)

 

–,~

0

…_,

en          –:

3

 

..:::….               :::::::i

-c          c,

0                             .,

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject  to Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code ~ha~r         :·-.,

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements,   so the alleged dif~bulty

was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  of the Board of~        G-)

Appeals,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.      ~         .                         ;              r.:

-,·1        r.-a  .’    -I

C)

w:     :::::

U1

 

Oliver

ZBA#16-24

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

St:    1   Wd    S     bHlJ 9lUZ

 

 

~ l ‘ •.     r-.   I  _,,…!    ….. ‘               ~I

………       ·1:·n1

…..

 

_, –      !      .

..  ;J     I •  I Ii  v

 

[‘  li’1’J..J……l  ‘-‘  !•. -· –  –

 

Oliver

ZBA#16-24

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  floor area ratio,   side yard,  total  side  yard,  rear yard and building  height  variances   was presented  and moved

by Mr. Sullivan,   seconded  by Mr. Bosco   and carried  as follows:   Ms. Castelli,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Quinn,  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:   April  20,  2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-G.M.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN    CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

38!.:’..:lO   ~\”i318   N/.\OJ.

 

SS   T   lJd     S     ~HlJ  9lOZ

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR   AREA  RATIO,   LOT  AREA.  LOT  WIDTH,   FRONT   YARD,  SIDE  YARD AND BUILDING   HEIGHT   VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To: Jane Slavin (Bowman  Builders)

200 Erie Street

Blauvelt,  New York  10913

ZBA #16-25

Date: April 20, 2016

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#16-25:  Application  of Bowman  Builders  for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43)  of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Group M, Section 3.12, Columns  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .20 permitted,  .217 proposed),  5 (Lot Area:  15,000 sq. ft. required,

11,284 sq. ft. existing  non-conforming   and 10,871 sq. ft. proposed),  6 (Lot Width:  100′ required,  58.68′  existing  non-conforming),   8 (Front Yard:  30′ required,  17 .2′ proposed),

9 (Side Yard:  20′ required,  10.9′ proposed)  and 12 (Building  Height:  10.9′ permitted,

23. l’ proposed) for a new single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 174 South

Middletown  Road, Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax

Map as Section   73.05, Block  1, Lot l; in the R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  April 20, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Jane Slavin, Architect,  Bryan Bowman  and Robert  Bowman  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Survey dated December 7, 2015 signed and sealed by James E. Drumm, L.S..
2. Architectural plans dated January 15, 2016 with the latest revision date of

February 8, 2016 signed and sealed by Jane Slavin, Architect.

3. A letter dated March 31, 2016 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

4. A letter dated March 15, 2016 from Rockland County Division of Environmental

Health signed by Scott McKane, P .E., Senior Public Health Engineer.

5. A letter dated March 31, 2016 from Rockland County Sewer District #1 signed by

Joseph LaFiandra, Engineer II.

6. A letter dated April 20, 2016from Ann Traitor, abutting property owner.
7. A letter not dated from Mary Jo Wilde, abutting property owner.
8. Rockland Base Map.
9. Two google map pictures of houses in the area.
10. Planting plan with color pictures of proposed plants.

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, 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), r–._, pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which doefiiot ~ require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelliiand ~

 

 

 

 

– -I

C)

 

carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Qufr!n,~;      c   .,

and Mr. Sullivan, aye.                                                                                             :.;

(J1

 

Jane Slavin, Architect, testified that the lot is significantly undersized at 10,871 iq~ ft.LJ

compared to the required 15,000 sq. ft.; that the measurement for the property is l;t;omifi~ ;·:~

designated street line; that it is 20% undersized; that the proposed house is 2,360CSq.  ft:’;    ~!

which is 103 feet over what is permitted; that the lot width is what it is; that the hQus~      ;;

pushed back more than the existing house that the undersized lot requires a 15′ side yard and they are asking for a 10.9′ side yard, which is only a 4.3′ variance; that they are

permitted a 20′ height for an undersized lot and they are asking for 2.17′ above that; that

 

Bowman  Builders

ZBA#16-25

Page2  of  5

 

the grade of the street should be taken into consideration  also; that they have the smallest lot in the area and she submitted  a map that shows the size of the lots and the multi•

family house  in the neighborhood;   that the houses behind  this one, on Highview  are quite

large; that the proposed  house will not create an undesirable  change in the character  of

the neighborhood;  that it is in scale with the houses  in the area; that the width of the lot is undersized;  that the lot is undersized  by 28%; that the letters from the county were not negative;  that they will reduce the height by one foot; and that most of the variances

being requested  are for existing  conditions.

 

 

Mr. Bowman  testified  that he is purchasing  the lot from Mr. Ferriello’s  brother. Public  Comment:

John Perriello,  128 South Middletown  Road, Pearl River, testified  that this house is a few houses  away from his; that it has been an eyesore  for quite a while and anything  put there will be an improvement  over the boarded  up house with holes in the roof.

 

Mary Jo Wilde,  189 South Middletown  Road, Pearl River, testified  that she agrees the house is an eyesore now, because  the latest owner of the property  allowed  the fire department  to use the house  for a drill, when he found out the sills were rotted,  and just left it that way; that he finally boarded  it up after complaints  about kids entering  the house  and its dangerous;  that the latest owner  also chopped  down trees and left the property  a mess; that community  is shared space; that shoehorning  a large single-family residence  into a building  lot intended  for a smaller  structure  leaves minimal  space for property  enhancing  shrubs/ trees and lawn; that it shows lack of respect  for both the land

as well as an important  harmonizing  with the surrounding  established  homes;  that she has lived at 189 South Middletown  for almost 40 years; that her house  was built in 1912 and is directly opposite  the proposed  structure;  that she would welcome  a single family dwelling  that fits the confines  of the given lot size and is in keeping  with the houses  in

the close neighborhood;   that comparisons  to houses  in the area, but not visible,  seems not

valid evidence  of the suitability  of the particulars  of this specific  structure;  that she would like to suggest the size of the footprint  be reduced  by eliminating  one of the garages or make the garage free standing;  that the number  of bedrooms  could be reduced  from 5 to

3; that the height should be reduced  to keep in line with the existing  houses  in the neighborhood;  that this application  by Mr. Perriello  is clearly a business  venture  and not for a case of an expanding  family  in need; that the existing  lot and width are too small, while the front and side yard required  footage  each are being halved  to fit his proposed plan; that the requested  variance  for increased  building  height is double the permitted height according  to code; and the onus should no fall on the Board for his ambitious business  venture;  that it is also worth mentioning  that the spacious  lawn opposite  said lot on the north side was bought  years ago be a resident  on Highview  A venue, Mr. Traitor (deceased)  for the express  purpose  to give enjoyment  to this neighbors;  that children sleigh ride on it and play ball and others just  have their mood lifted in its uncluttered  and well maintained  space; and his generosity  to share this bit of greenery  is in stark contrast to the profit driven motive  of the recent buyer  of 174 to re-sell his holding  at a large profit;  and this taints his request  for said variances  and she submitted  photos  of the immediate  neighboring  area.

 

Tom Kilkenny,  208 Ann Street, Pearl River, testified  that he passes this house often; that it is an eyesore the way it is; that it was used for training  purposes  and was left a mess

and raises health  concerns;  that the town should have done something;  that he would like to see a raise of hands  from the Board members  about who would object to living next to this and who thinks it is an eyesore;  and stated that something  needs to be done; and

permitting  the variances  allows  something  nice to be built.

 

.:: “J!‘‘~   .:.;‘”·~1

C·-  :.··~””l-‘ :_JI -1″\.)

~I .1:  I i••\o — I

 

 

sc  1   lJd    s     6HlJ    grnz

 

Bowman  Builders

ZBA#16-25

Page  3   of  5

 

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 floor area ratio, lot area, lot width,  front yard, side yard and building height (as modified  lower to 21.17′)  variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The lot area and lot width are not changing  and the applicant  has lowered the building  height by one foot. The neighborhood   is a mixture  of modest  size older houses  on South Middletown  Road and larger houses  on Highview  A venue and this house  will blend with the existing  houses.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, lot area, lot width,  front yard, side yard and building height ( as modified  lower to 21.17′)  variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district. The lot area and lot width  are not changing  and the applicant  has lowered  the building height by one foot. The neighborhood   is a mixture  of modest  size older houses  on South Middletown  Road and larger houses  on Highview  A venue  and this house will blend with the existing  houses.

 

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, lot area, lot width,  front yard, side yard and building height  (as modified  lower to 21.17′)  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.

The lot area and lot width are not changing  and the applicant  has lowered  the building height by one foot. The neighborhood   is a mixture  of modest  size older houses on South Middletown  Road and larger houses  on Highview  A venue and this house will blend with the existing  houses.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

3 8 Ll .:l 0  S ; ‘.    ‘ 1    318 r ~    f:\ 0 l

SC   1   lJd     s   AHlJ srn2

 

rt’J h”\QI_ ,,..,, ·:  …..   ~

.:1′(I·….

‘!.”nJ

,.i —

 

j   J i

,   _.  \)

I ; 1    , •  ·

 

Bowman  Builders

ZBA#16-25

Page  4  of   5

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  floor area ratio, lot area, lot width,  front yard, side yard and building  height  (as modified  lower to 21.17′) 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.

 

 

 

 

sc   1    lJd      s    AHlJ srnz

 

Bowman  Builders

ZBA#16-25

Page  5 of  5

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application   for the requested  floor area ratio,  lot area,  lot width,  front yard,  side  yard and building  height  (as modified  lower to 21.17′) variances  was presented  and moved  by Mr. Quinn,  seconded  by Mr. Bosco   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:    April  20,  2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-G.M.

Byr–v.’-64~~=t;~,,cu~ Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

sc   T    LJd     s    ~mJ   srnz

–    ‘  ……            ~   …  ,…,    ‘

.  .J     :..  ‘-)     1.   1.l     J .L

 

DECISION

 

ALL REQUESTED  VARIANCES APPROVED  (SEE  BELOW)

 

To: Donald  Brenner  (Club signs)

4 Independence  A venue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA #16-26,  ZBA#16-27

ZBA#16-28

Date: April 20, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#16-26:  Application  of the Club at Pearl River for  variances  from  Zoning  Code

(Chapter  43)  of the Town of Orangetown  Code, Section  3.11, OP Column  5, paragraph

3, referred  to LO District,  Column  5, paragraph  11: one(l)  Business  sign permitted;   10 signs proposed   Section  4.26 (a) one (1) advertising  sign at entrance  permitted,  2 sq. ft. maxi 10 signs & 224 sq. ft. proposed;  Section  4.26  (c) 4 directional  advertising  signs allowed/  proposed  and Section 4.28  (t) one (1) temporary  advertising  sign allowed  4 sq. ft.; 10 signs and 224 sq. ft. proposed  for temporary  leasing  signs. The premises  are located  at 662 West Blue Hill Road, Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the

Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  73.10, Block  1, Lot 4; in the OP & PAC zoning  district.

 

 

ZBA#16-27:  Application  of the Club at Pearl River for  variances  from  Zoning  Code

(Chapter  43)  of the Town of Orangetown  Code,,   Section  3.11, OP Column  5, paragraph

3, referred  to LO District,  Column  5, paragraph  11: one(l)  Business  sign allowed/  15

Directional  signs proposed  and Section  11.2: Definitions:  (2 sq. ft. per directional  sign permitted;  4 sq. ft. and 4.66 sq. ft. proposed)   for one business  sign and 15 directional signs. The premises  are located  at 662 West Blue Hill Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  73.10, Block  1, Lot 4; in the OP & PAC zoning  district.

 

ZBA#16-28:  Application  of the Club at Pearl River for  variances  from  Zoning  Code

(Chapter  43)  of the Town of Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.11, OP Column  5, paragraph

3, referred  to LO District,  Column  5, paragraph  11: one(l)  Business  sign 60 sq. ft. permitted;  103.8 sq. ft. proposed  and Section 4.26 (b) Subdivision  signs to be non• illuminated/  illumination  proposed)   for  a monument  sign. The premises  are located  at

662 West Blue Hill Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown

Tax Map as Section  73.10, Block  1, Lot 4; in the OP & PAC zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  April 20, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  Al Savencki,  Project  Manager  and Sarah Torrens,  Attorney, appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

County of Rockland  Highway  Department  signed by Sonny Lin, P .E.

 

1. Packet  of Temporary  Leasing  Signs (7 pages)  ZBA#16-26   2. Packet of Directional  Signs (13 pages).  ZBA#16-27 3. Packet of Monument  Sign ( 2 pages).  ZBA#  16-28 4. Three letters dated April  11, 2016 from the County  of Rockland  Departmetn  of   Planning  signed by Arlene  Miller for Douglas  J. Schuetz,  Deputy Commissioner   of Planning.  (1. Temporary  Leasing  Signs, 2. Directional  Signs and 3. Monument   Sign)                                                                                                                           -; S -r 5. A letter dated April  13, 2016 received  in office on April 20, 2016 from the  ~   CT”)

-·

.c::..

C)

 

5-=5>

 

r-

(‘”) -c: Mr. Sullivan,   Chairman,  made a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which motion  ~as  ui seconded  by Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.                                                        Z·;    -o

C”)           3

C>

=,  ,

 

.        ]

.-_~-,_-·

C)

 

-;;                 r.1

 

– ·i

rn

0

t–&      !

.   i

c–~)’

 

W:      ~

U1

 

The Club at Pearl River  Signs

ZBA#16-26,  & ZBA #16-27  & ZBA #16-28

Page2  of   5

 

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  applications (ZBA#16-26,  ZBA#  16-27 & ZBA#  16-28) seek to construct  or expand  a primary,  or accessory  or appurtenant  non-residential   structure  or facility  involving  less than 4,000 square feet of gross floor area, and not involving  a change  in zoning or a use variance  and consistent  with local land use controls,  these  applications  are exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQ RA), pursuant  to SEQ RA Regulations  §617 .5

(c) (7). The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:   Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

Donald  Brenner  testified  that the application  has received  preliminary  approval  from the Planning  Board; that the Planning  Board  also granted  the temporary  signs tow years and if they need to stay longer the applicant  would  go back to the Planning  Board to extend the time; that the property  is large and they expect about 3 50 people  living in the complex;  that the directional  signs are necessary  to keep people moving  in the proper direction;  that the temporary  leasing  signs will be necessary  until the facility is full; and the entrance  monument  sign is not in the right of way and is completely  located  on the private  property  of the complex  and will not interfere  with sight lines, easement  or designated  street lines; the monument  sign is not internally  lit; that there will be

spotlights  on the sign; that the property  to the east is wooded   residential  and to the west is 11  acres of property  that belongs  to the development  that will not be developed;  to the south is the water company  property  and to the north is the road and reservoir.

 

 

 

 

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  temporary  lease signs, directional  signs and monument  sign variances will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  The temporary  leasing  signs are necessary  for

potential  renters to know who to contact  for information  regarding  the rentals  and the Planning  Board permitted  these signs for up to two years. The directional  signs are all located  on the interior  of the property  and since there could potentially  be 350 people living in the complex,  giving clear directions  will permit  safe ingress/egress.   The monument  sign is located  inside the property  line and will not affect the sight line,

easement  line or designated  street line.     3 0 ! :J .::!  0  S \I’·’  J l :J   ~l l~\ 0 l

 

SC    T   LJd    S     WlJ   9IUZ

 

The Club at Pearl River  Signs

ZBA#16-26,  & ZBA #16-27 & ZBA #16-28

Page3 of   5

 

2. The requested temporary lease signs, directional signs and monument sign variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The temporary leasing signs are necessary for potential renters to know who to contact for information regarding the rentals and the

Planning Board permitted these signs for up to two years. The directional signs are all

located on the interior of the property and since there could potentially be 350 people living in the complex, giving clear directions will permit safe ingress/egress. The monument sign is located inside the property line and will not affect the sight line, easement line or designated street line.

 

3. The Board acknowledged that the proposed monument sign will be constructed on the property of the development, and away from the designated street line and inside the easement line and its location will not affect the sight lines. It is also surrounded be woods to the west, residential undeveloped land to the east, water company property

to the south and the road and reservoir to the north; therefore the spotlights on the

sign will not negatively impact anyone and the Board chose to override the comments from the Rockland County Planning Department letter dated April 11, 2016 signed by Arlene Miller for Douglas J. Schuetz, Deputy Commissioner of Planning.

 

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

 

 

 

5. The requested temporary lease signs, directional signs and monument sign 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.  The temporary leasing signs are necessary for potential renters to know who to contact for information regarding the rentals and the Planning Board permitted these signs for up to two years. The directional signs are all located on the interior of the property and since there could potentially be 350 people living in the complex, giving clear directions will permit safe ingress/egress. The monument sign is located inside the property line and will

not affect the sight line, easement line or designated street line.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

SS    1    lJd     S     ~UlJ 9ID2

 

The Club at Pearl River  Signs

ZBA#16-26,  & ZBA #16-27  & ZBA #16-28

Page4of    5

 

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  temporary  leasing  signs ( which shall comply with the time limit set forth by the Planning  Board of two years,

or they shall return to the Planning  Bard for an extension  of time), directional  signs and monument  sign 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.

 

 

 

 

SC   1   LJd      S      ~UlJ   9102

 

The Club  at Pearl River  Signs

ZBA#16-26,     & ZBA #16-27   & ZBA #16-28

Page 5 of   5

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application   for the requested  temporary  leasing sign variances,   which shall comply with the time limit set forth by the Planning  Board of two years, or they shall return to the Planning   Board for an extension   of time;  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 foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  directional  sign variances,  which will promote  safe travel within  the development   to the 350 people  that shall reside there; 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 foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  monument  sign variance,   and override  the Rockland  County letter dated April  11,   2016 signed  by Arlene Miller  for Douglas  J. Schuetz,  Deputy  Commissioner   of Planning;   was presented  and moved by Ms.  Salomon,   seconded  by Ms.  Castelli   and canied 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:    April  20,  2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-G.M.

 

0

Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA,  PB, ACABOR