Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS JULY  17, 2013

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

 

MICHAEL  BOSCO JOAN  SALOMON NANETTE  ALBANESE PATRICIA  CASTELLI

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

ABSENT:

 

 

DANIEL  SULLIVAN,  CHAIRMAN

 

 

 

 

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 Ms. Castelli, Acting  Chair.

 

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

 

APPLICANTS POSTPONED   ITEM:

PUBLISHED  ITEMS DECISIONS

 

49 SUNSET  ROAD

70.09 I 2 / 23.2 R-15 zone

NEW  ITEMS: MORALES

78.18 I l 13.2; R-80 zone

 

ALGERT

78.17 I 1I62;   R-15 zone

 

 

 

STRrNGER

68.12 / 3 / 47; RG zone

 

THE  STATION

78.18 I 1I2;  R-80 zone

 

 

 

MURPHY

74.14 I 2 I 6; R-15 zone

• 5.227 ACCESSORY ZBA#l3-51

STRUCTURE  VARIANCE  APPROVED

 

 

 

 

REARY ARD                                        ZBA#l 3-55

VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

SIDE YARD  AND                                  ZBA#l 3-56

TOT AL SIDE YARD,  DRIVEWAY WIDTH  VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

ACCESSORY   STRUCTURE               ZBA#13-57

DISTANCE  VARIANCE  APPROVED

 

CHAPTER  3 lB-3  (C) (2) &  (B) (2)     ZBA#13-58

AND SIDE YARD  VARIANCES   APPROVED AS AMENDED  WITH  CONDITION

 

SIDE YARD  AND TOT AL                  ZBA#l3-59

SIDE YARD  VARIANCES   APPROVEb

 

 

§·,    —            ~

“.“:‘:J:..J…. v,t~J.‘.:ir  O   s\11r:r10 rUMU

sa z1 hid  it  lff  mz

 

N~Ol3Nfi!BO .::10  M!i01

 

Minutes

Page2

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

There being no further business  to come before  the Board,  on motion  duly made, seconded  and carried,  the meeting  was adjourned  at  8:45 P.M.

 

Dated:  JULY  17, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTOR.i’\!EY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR (Individual Decisions)

Rockland County Planning

By~~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

 

 

3~.H.:f.::W  SY.M3l:J NMOl

 

sz; 2I Md    I£ 1Hr ml

 

DECISION

 

SECTION 5.227 VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

To:                Davinder  Makan (49 Sunset) P.0.Box 979

Harriman,  New York  10926

ZBA # 13-51

Date:  July 17, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-51: Application  of 49 Sunset Road for a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown,  R-15 District,  Group M, Section 5.227 (Accessory  Building:  must be installed  in rear yard (5) five feet from the property line: hot box is on the property

line in the front yard) for a hot box to house water meter and backflow  preventer  for an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 49 Sunset Road, Blauvelt, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  70.09, Block 2, Lot

23.2; R-15 zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Tuesday,  July  17, 2013 at which  time the Board  made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

Bert Dorfman,  Attorney,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan.
2. Back.flow and Hotbox  Detail  (one page).

 

 

 

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

 

 

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board  of

Appeals,  Ms. Castelli  moved  for a Board  determination  that the foregoing  application  is a Type II action exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQ RA), pursuant  to SEQRA Regulations   §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or  (13); which  does not require  SEQRA  enviromnental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and

carried as follows:  Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Bosco,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan  was absent.

 

 

 

 

Bert Dorfinan  testified  that the applicant’s  house was built on a flag lot; that because  it was built on a flag lot, the house needed  to have sprinklers  in case of a fire; that the sprinkler  system must have a backflow  preventer;  that the applicant  installed  a backflow preventer  in the house;  that United  Water would  not accept the location  of the installed backflow  preventer  because  it was too far away from the street; that the applicant  paid to remove  it from the house  and moved  it to its present  location  at the :front of the long driveway;  that it needs to be housed  inside  a small building  because  there must be heat; that the small shed structure was built  and heated  to house the back.flow preventer  and it was accepted by Unite Water;  that the house was going forward  to closing  when the building  department  determined  that this structure  needed  a variance;  that they issued a certificate  of occupancy  for the structure,  so that the applicant  could proceed  With the closing  on  the property  and referred  the application  to this Board;  and we are requesting the necessary  variances  finish the process.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Ms. Castelli made  a motion  to close the Public  Hearing  which  motion  was seconded  by

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  §  5.227 variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The service  to the house is more  than 75 feet from the property  line and United  Water requires  the client to install  their water meters  and backflow  devices  in a heated  enclosure  at the

property  line.

 

 

2. The requested  § 5.227  variance   will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or enviromnental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.   The service to the house is more than 75 feet from the property  line and United Water  requires  the client to install  their water meters  and backflow  devices in a heated  enclosure  at the property  line.
3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue other  than by obtaining  a variance.

 

 

 

4. The requested§   5.227variance   is substantial,  however  the variance  affords  benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.    The service to the house is more than 75 feet from the property  line and United Water  requires  the client to install   their water meters  and backflow  devices  in a heated  enclosure  at the

property  line.

 

 

 

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 decis,ion of the Board  of Appeals,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

 

30tld0   ~~H310 NMOl

• i_ z1 &ld re irr  mz

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  Section 5.227 variance  is APPROVED;  and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption by the Board  of the

minutes  of which they  are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing  variance  or Special Permit  will lapse if any contemplated  construction of the project  or any use for which  the variance  or Special Penn it 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 docs not constitute  “substantial  implementation”   for the  ‘ purposes  hereof.

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  Section 5.227 variance   was presented  and moved by Mr. Feroldi, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms.  Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:  July 2, 2013

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TO\VN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILD[NG INSPECTOR-B. vW.

By~1~~~=–~~~  ,..

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

. -·    .       .  …     . ··-   …  ~·–·———•-     -~~ ·-· .·.:.    .-.

 

DECISION

 

 

REAR  YARD  VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

To:   George  and Leslie Morales

P.O. Box 64

Palisades,  New York  10964

ZBA#   13-55

Date:  July  17, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-55: Application  of  George  and Leslie Morales  for a variance  from Chapter 43 (Zoning)  Town of Orangetown,  Section  3.12, R-80 District,  Group A, Column   11  (Rear Yard:  50′  required,  47.23′  proposed  and existing)  for an existing  storage  shed at an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 227 Route 9W, Palisades, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 78.18, Block  I, Lot

3.2; R-80 zoning district.                                                                                                              I

I

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on

Tuesday,  July  17, 2013 at which  time the Board  made the determination  hereinafter  set  I

forth.                                                                                                                                               I

 

Leslie  Morales  and Daniel  Kaplowitz,  Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans  dated May 2013 signed  and sealed by Daniel  Kaplowitz, Architect  with pictures  of the existing  shed attached.
2. A letter dated July 2, 2013 from the county of Rockland  Department  of Planning signed by Thomas  Vanderbeek,  Commissioner   of Planning.

 

 

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

i On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel  to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Ms. Castelli  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. Salomon  and carried as follows:  Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Bosco,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan  was absent.

 

 

 

Daniel  Kaplowitz,  Architect,  testified  that the shed was built nine years ago without a permit;  that the house is being  sold and the shed needs to be legalized;  that it was built nine inches too close to the rear property  line and needs a variance;  that it has been reviewed  by the historic  Board  and given their approval;  and that they apologize  for building  the structure  without  a permit  and are requesting  the granting   of the variance  so that they can proceed  in the sale of the property.

 

 

 

Leslie Morales  testified  that the abutting  property  owner  is purchasing  the property;  that at the time that the shed was constructed  she was busy  caring for her son; that her ex• husband  built the shed; that it matches  the house  and it cannot be seen from the street.

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York  was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OFFACT 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 rear yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The shed has existed for nine years without incident, the variance is minor, and the shed cannot be seen from the street.

 

2. The requested rear yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The shed has existed for nine years without incident, the variance is minor, and the shed cannot be seen from the street.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested rear yard variance is not substantial.

 

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

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

 

 

 

SI Z”L ldd     I£  lit   ml

 

Um013SNVHO  .:10  NMOl

 

 

 

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

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

(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 oftime  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 occupai1cy.

 

 

 

(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.

 

 

 

• Zl hid    1£ lllr tlfiZ

 

N11013~NVBO    .:W M&101

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

DATED:   July  17, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN  ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING lNSPECTOR-B,vW.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD  AND Section  6.lc  (DRIVEWAY  WIDTH) VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

To:    Peter and Kimberly Algert

5 Iroquois Avenue

Palisades, New York 10964

ZBA # 13-56

Date: July 17, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA# 13-56: Application of Peter and Kimberly Algert for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 17.84′ proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 50′ required, 42.84′ proposed) and from Section 6.lc (Driveway Width: 18′ permitted, 23.76′ proposed) for the addition of a two• car garage and front porch at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 5 Iroquois Avenue, Palisades, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 78.17, Block 1, Lot 62; R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

Peter and Kimberly Algert and Robert Hoene, Architect, appeared and testified. TI1e following documents were presented:

1. Architectural plan dated I Oil  01 2011 signed and sealed by Robert Hone, Architect.

 

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Castelli 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. Salomon and

carried as follows: Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye.  Mr. Sullivan was absent.

 

 

 

Robert Hoene, Architect, testified that the applicants would like to add another bay to the existing one car garage to make it a two car garage; that they would like to change out the existing garage door and install two 9′ garage doors; that in order to accomplish this they will infringe on the side yard setback slightly; that they also need a variance to widen the driveway to accommodate the additional garage.

 

 

ZBA#13-56

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public comment

 

 

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

 

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew York was received.

 

 

Ms.  Castelli  made a motion  to close the Public Hearing  which motion was seconded  by

Ms. Albanese  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS   OFF ACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. 1. The requested  side yard, total side yard and§  6. l c driveway  width variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.   Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the neighborhoo

 

2. 2. The requested  side yard, total side yard and 6.1 c driveway  width variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the

neighborhood.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. 4. The requested  side yard,  total  side yard and   6. l c driveway  width variances  although somewhat  substantial,   afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any,  to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood  or nearby community.    Similar  additions  have been  constrncted in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

21 z1 Md  ts -mr me

 

NM0135N\fHO    .::10 MM.ill

 

 

ZBA#l3-56

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  side yard, total  side yard and §

6.lc  driveway  width 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 pen:nits such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

 

ZBA#13-56

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  side yard, total side yard and §  6.1 c driveway  width variances   was presented  and moved by Mr. Bosco, seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye ;Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye. Mr. Sullivan  was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:   July 17, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR~RvW.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

SECTION   5.153 ACCESSORY    STRUCTURE    DISTANCE   VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

To:   Simon Stringer

99 East Lewis A venue

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#   13-57

Date:  July  17, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l3-57:   Application  of Simon  Stringer  for a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning), Section 5.153, RG District,  (Accessory  Structure  Distance  from Principal  Building:  15′ required,  8′  existing,  l ‘2″  proposed)  for a deck at an existing  single-family  residence, The premises  are located  at 99 East Lewis Avenue,  Pearl River, New York  and identified on the Orangetown  Tax Map  as Section  68.12, Block 3, Lot 47; RG zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on

Wednesday,  July 17, 2013 at which  time the Board  made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Simon and Eileen  Stringer  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan with proposed  deck drawn  on it.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Simon Stringer testified that they applied for the deck and it was deemed to be too close to the existing garage and they were sent to the Board; that he will be building the deck himself; that he will be cutting into the existing patio for the footings for the deck; and that ifhe shortened the deck it would be awkward because of the existing stairs.

 

Stringer

ZBA#l3-57

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew  York was received.

 

 

Ms. Castelli made a motion  to close the Public Hearing  which motion  was seconded by

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT  AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested §  5.153 accessory  structure  distance  variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested §  5.153 accessory  structure  distance  variance   will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood or district.  Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested § 5.153 accessory structure distance variance, although substantial, affords benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to

the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community.

Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

 

 

 

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, hut did not, by itself, preclude the granting of the area variance.

 

 

ZBA#l3-57

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§   5.153 accessory  structure variance  is APPROVED;  and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed rendered  on the date of adoption by the Board  of the minutes  of which they  are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

ZBA#13-57

Page  4 of 4

 

 

 

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested Section 5.153 accessory structure distance variance  was presented and moved by Ms. Albanese, seconded by Mr. Bosco and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Mr, Sullivan was absent.

 

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

 

DATED: July 17, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS

SUPERVlSOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDfNG INSPECTOR-B.vW.

AdministrativeAide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGfNEERJNG FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,    ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

3m~uo  S>lB3l’O   NM.Cl

9lZ1W    1.£ ~·mtz

 

N&Ol35-N”ifUO  .:iO WA.Ol

 

DECISION

SECTIONS   31B-3  (C){2); 31B-3  {B){2) AND  SIDE  YARD  (as  amended to 20′) VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

 

 

To:  Jesse Dorfinan  (The Station)

790 Piermont  A venue

Piermont,  New York  10968

ZBA # 13-58

Date:  July 17, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-58: Application  of  “The  Station”  for  variances  from Town of Orangetown, Chapter  3 lB-3  (C) (2): (Area variance  for tables  and chairs in the side and rear yards) and Chapter  31B-3  (B)(2)( Renew Yearly)  and from Chapter  43 (Zoning),  R-80 District, Section 3.12, Column  9 (Side Yard:  30′ required,  15′ proposed)  for a storage  shed at an existing  business.  The premises  are located  at 243 Route 9W, Palisades,  New York and

are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  78.18, Block 1, Lot 2; R-80 zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on

Wednesday,  July  17, 2013 at which time the Board  made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

 

Bert Dorfinan,  Attorney,  Jesse Dorfman  and Steve Galanis   appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. Site plan labeled  “The Station”  dated  11/28/2012  last revised  05/16/2012  by

Dominick  Pilla, Architect  & P .E.

2. Architectural  plans  labeled  “Plans,  Elevations,  & Vicinity  Map” dated  11/28/

2012 with the latest revision  date of 0511612012 signed  and sealed by Dominick

Pilla, P.E.

3. Three pictures  of the proposed  shed.
4. A letter dated July 2, 2013 from the county of Rockland Department  of Planning signed by Thomas  Vanderbeek,  Commissioner   of Planning.
5. A letter dated June 28, 2013 from the State ofNew  York  Department  of

Transportation   signed by Mary Jo Russo,  P .E., Rockland  County Permit Engineer.

6. A letter dated July 15, 2013 from the Palisades  Interstate  Park Commission  signed by Karl B. Roecker,  Landscape  Architect.
7. A memorandum   dated June  12, 2013 from Michael  Bettmann,  Chief, Bureau  of

Fire Prevention,  Town of Orangetown.

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Ms. Castelli  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) (7); which  does not require  SEQRA environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried as follows: Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; and Mr.

Bosco,  aye. Mr. Sullivan  was absent.

 

Bert Dorfman,  Attorney,  testified  that they will move the proposed  shed five feet further into the property  to comply  with the letter  from the Palisades  Park Commission;  that the

establishment  is a take out service  establishment;   that there is a kitchen  and a b~.:PJO      S)!’H31D NffiOl

zr

the premises;  that the parking  calculations  have been  figured  out several  ways and they

comply with the required  parking  for the use of the space.                                       ~           hid   Tl:  lilr tl.ttl

 

1:<l.nt~V        n

lnM”i.-      -i~hlvtJO .:!O  rii\101

J..->””

 

The Station

ZBA#13-58

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Jesse  Dorfman  testified  that he parking  calculations  were first figured  out on the square footage  of the building  and then they were calculated  on the number  of seats; and the parking  required  for the number  of seats both inside and outside  of the establishment would be 22 and the number  required  based on square  footage  of the building  would be seven spaces;  that they are providing  26 spaces;  and that many of the patrons  are arriving on foot and bicycles  coming from the adjacent park.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Ms. Castelli made  a motion  to close the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded  by

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT  AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  Chapter  3 lB  §3 lB -3 (C) (2), and §3 lB-3  (B) (2) and side yard setback (as amended  to 20′)  variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The applicant  has agreed to move the proposed  shed 20′  from the property  line, which  will honor the 20 foot vegetative  buffer  along the northern  boundary  for the Palisades  Interstate  Park Commission.

 

2. The parking  calculations  were discussed  and clarified.  The applicant  has provided more than the required  parking  for the amount  of seats both inside and outside  of the establishment.

 

3. TherequestedChapter31B  §31B-3 (C) (2),  and§  31B-3 (B) (2) and side yard setback  (as amended  to 20′)  variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district. The applicant  has agreed to move the proposed  shed 20′  from the property  line, which

will honor the 20 foot vegetative  buffer  along the northern  boundary  for the Palisades

Interstate  Park Commission.

 

 

 

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

 

3~H.:W S)iH31~NMOl

 

The Station

ZBA#l3-58

Page  3   of  4

 

 

5. The requested  Chapter  3 lB§  3 lB-3  (C) (2),  and §3 IB-3  (B) (2) and side yard setback (as amended  to 20′) 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 applicant  has agreed to move  the proposed  shed 20′ from the property  line, which  will honor the 20 foot vegetative  buffer  along the northern  boundary  for the Palisades  Interstate  Park Commission.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  Chapter  3 lB  §3 lB -3 (C) (2), and §3 lB-3  (B) (2) and side yard setback  (as amended  to 20′)  variances  are APPROVED with the SPECIFIC  CONDITION  that the applicant  extend the fire alarm devices to the rear patio enclosure  as required  by Michael  Bettrnann,  Chief, Bureau  of Fire Prevention, Town of Orangetown;   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 iss1:1ed by the Offic~ of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Achni~isyati8q~~~~ifilnent

which  legally permits  such occupancy.                                  3~H.:L 0  “‘, ‘””‘-

9’. 21 Md   1£ l!T aJ2

 

 

ant•n.lli.vn~t· 3 M•..nIH-.v}W-

.:10  “1N\01

 

 

The Station

ZBA#l3-58

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve the application  for the requested  Chapter  31 B§3 l B –

3 (C) (2), and§  3 lB-3  (B) (2) and side yard setback  (as amended  to 20′)  variances   with the specific  condition  that the applicant  extend the fire alarm devices to the rear patio enclosure  as required  by Michael  Bettmann,  Chief, Bureau  of Fire Prevention,  Town of Orangetown;  was presented  and moved by Ms. Salomon,  seconded by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon,  aye. Mr. Sullivan  was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:   July 17, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR· -R.A.0.

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

:3m3.-.W S)H.!310   NlWOl

 

9Z 21 Lid  t& -.   tmZ

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE  YARD  AND TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES

 

To: John Murphy

10 Isabel Road

Orangeburg,  New York  10962

ZBA # 13-59

Date:  July  17, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#13-59:  Application  of  John Murphy  for  variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, R-15 District, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required,  7′ 9″ proposed) and 10 (Total Side Yard: 50′ required, 30′ proposed) for an existing deck at an existing single• family residence, The premises are located at 10 Isabel Road, Orangeburg, New York and identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.14, Block 2, Lot 6; R-15 zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 17, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

Donald Brenner, Attorney, and John Murphy appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Survey with proposed deck drawn on it.
2. Deck plans.

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Castelli 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. Salomon and carried as follows: Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.

 

 

 

Donald Brenner, Attorney testified that the applicant purchased the house 12 years ago; that they hired a contractor to install the deck over the existing cracked patio before they moved into the house; that they did not know that the deck was in violation until recently; that they are before the Board to rectify the situation.

 

 

 

John Murphy presented the Board with a picture of the existing deck and told the Board that they are in the process of selling the house.

 

 

 

 

3~H.:10 SlfH31J NM01

~ ~! Md   tc 11r mrz

 

&Ji0l3~Nvt!O  .:IO ~lA\’Ol

 

Murphy

ZBA#l3-59

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew   York was received.

 

 

Ms. Castelli made a motion  to dose  the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded by

Ms. Salomon  and canied  unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  side yard and total side yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The deck has existed  for twelve years without  complaint  and the lots on this block are not large.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard and total side yard variances  will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district. The deck has existed  for twelve  years without  complaint  and the lots on this block are not large.

 

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

 

 

 

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

The deck has existed  for twelve  years without  complaint  and the lots on this block  are not large.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

ZBA#l3-59

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

(ii) Any approval of a variance or Special Permit by the Board is limited to the specific variance or Special Permit requested but only to the extent such approval is granted herein and subject to those conditions, if any, upon which such approval was conditioned which are hereinbefore set forth.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

ZBA#13-59

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  side yard and total side yard variances   was presented  and moved  by Ms. Castelli,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye ;Ms.

Castelli,  aye; and Ms. Salomon,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan was absent.

 

 

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

 

DATED:   July 17, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

 

By~~~—=——-‘-‘-‘:_:        :’–b,u..e Deborah  Arbolino Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

gZf.Md   lf! inr·tmt

 

~ui· no–,1….:..1!’\J“-‘1f_..,.;’\l WHO .:10  N!iul