Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER   2, 2015

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

JOAN  SALOMON

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE THOMAS  QUINN

MICHAEL  BOSCO

PATRICIA  CASTELLI

 

 

ABSENT:

 

 

 

 

DAN  SULLIVAN

 

 

 

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:

 

 

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS

 

APPLICANTS CONTINUED   ITEM:

LUCZAJ

27 Wildwood  Drive

Pearl River, NY

69.17 I 4 I 39; R-15 zone

 

NEW ITEMS: DRUM

1  JayPlace,

Pearl River, NY

69.14 I 2 I 33; R-15 zone

 

 

 

APRILE

79 Walnut Street

Blauvelt, NY

70.15 I 1I31;  R-15 zone

 

DOORLEY

49 Secor Boulevard

Pearl River, NY

69.05 I 2 I 30; R-15 zone

 

CELTIC SHEETMETAL

1  Corporate Drive

Orangeburg, , NY

73.20 I 1I32;  LIO zone

DECISIONS

 

 

SIDE YARD AND                 ZBA#l 5-63

TOTAL SIDE YARD APPROVED AS MODIFIED

 

 

 

SIDE YARD APPROVED                ZBA#15-68

 

 

 

 

FRONT YARD AND                        ZBA#l 5-69

BUILDING HEIGHT APPROVED

 

 

 

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT      ZBA#l5-70

YARD, SIDE YARD, BUILDING HEIGHT

VARIANCES APPROVED UNDERSIZED LOT APPLIES

 

SIDE YARD, REARY ARD,            ZBA#l 5-71

BUILDING HEIGHT, LOADING BERTH

VARL¥8fr}0~fffi’QE1ft1′”l

 

!~ _T_  Lld     h2   d3S  5102

 

NMOl3fJNV~O    .:10  NliHU

 

Minutes

Page 2

 

 

 

FARLEY

121 Lester Drive

Tappan,  NY

77.06 I 1  I 50;  R-15  zone

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE           ZBA#l 5- 72

FRONT YARD LOCATION APPROVED

 

 

 

 

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 10:35  P.M.

 

Dated:  September 2,  2015

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING     INSPECTOR   (Individual     Decisions) Rockland  County   Planning

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

By()JJUr;~

 

Deborah Arbolino, Administrative Aide

 

 

 

301.:!.:!0    ~)I  J310   N/~01

tz 1   lJd     h2   d3S  S102

 

N fA013 ~Nii’~ 0 .:l 0 t1  /.\01

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE  YARD  AND TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:  Mario Luczaj

27 Wildwood  Drive

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA #15-63

Date: July  15, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#15-63:  Application  of  Mariusz  Luczaj for  variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M,  Column   4 (Floor  Area Ratio:  .20 permitted,  .247 proposed),  9 (Side Yard: 20′  required,  13.30 proposed)  10( Total Side Yard:  50′  required,  38.80′  proposed)  and 12 (Building  Height:

13.30′  permitted,  17.50 proposed)  for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence. The premises  are located  at 27 Wildwood  Drive, Pearl River,  New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  69.17,  Block 4, Lot 39; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at meetings  held on the following  Wednesdays,  July  15, 2015 and September  2, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

Mario  Luczaj and Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans dated March 5, 2013 with the latest revision date of May 29,

2015 signed and sealed by Robert Hoene, Registered Architect (3 pages).

2. Three letters in opposition to the granting of the side yard variance and one letter has three google maps attached.

 

Mr. Sullivan recused himself because his brother lives in this neighborhood.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Mario Luczaj testified that they moved into the house 9 months ago; that this is a great street and neighborhood; that the house lacks storage space; that they would like to add aR

garage, increase the kitchen size and dining area; that he lives in the house with his ~fe,  ~ three kids and mother-in-law; that the existing kitchen is an 8’x 8′ room; that the exf§tin~ garage is only nine feet wide; that his wife drives a minivan and you cannot open th~      N door in the garage; that he would also like to be able to store stuff in the garage; thafthe  _c is requesting a 7′ variance for the addition; that it is hard to find a house in Pearl Ri~r     -u

 

 

 

z

-.,

 

 

J>

 

with this great location; that he made a decision to buy the house within two hours amt    3    .            g

did not really think much about the garage space at the time; that now that he is livi~in   J… ;    ci ~                           :¬ the space he realizes that he needs more storage; that he could reduce the width oft~        N garage by three feet and only need a four foot variance; that this is the only logical place N to expand the garage; and that he would like a continuance to the September 2nd meeting.   :z

A

 

Luczaj

ZBA#lS-63

Page2   of  5

 

Donald  Brenner  testified  that these houses  were built many years ago; that newer houses  are being constructed  with at least two car garages;  that the size of the existing garage is not big enough  for many of the vehicles  that people  drive today; that the proposal  is for a garage that would not have any windows  and it would still be a reasonable  distance  from the neighbor;  that the granting  of this variance  would not set a precedent;  that the Board knows  that each project  stands on its own; that there is a house  across the street that has a two car garage; that there are six people  in the house and the extra space is needed;  that the applicant  is willing  to install planting  along the property  line; that there is no need for the floor area ratio variance,  that this was a miscalculation;   that the applicant  needs a side yard variance  and a height  variance;

and they would like to request  a continuance  to meet with the architect  about the reduction  in side yard.

 

Public Comment:

 

Kevin Meehan,  11  Wildwood  Drive, testified  that he is opposed  to the side yard variance; that the proposal  is for a 35% reduction  in the required  side yard; that no one else  in the area has swayed  from the 20′  side yard requirement.

 

Dolan Cassidy,  19 Wildwood  Drive, testified  that he lives right next door; that he bought the house because  of the R-15 zoning  district;  that the neighbors  all honor the 20 foot side yard requirement  and it has made the neighborhood  more valuable;  that he has live in his house for 21 years and would  like to see the 20′  side yard kept.

 

William  Maloney,  35 Wildwood  Drive, testified  that he would not mind the expansion into the rear yard but the 20 foot side yard should be honored.

 

James  Schlag,  589 Wildwood  Drive,  testified  that he purchased  his house in 1975; that he raised two kids in the house  and at one time had five cars in the driveway;  that the

distance  between  the houses  is part of what makes  the block so desirable;  that he came to Pearl River from Hartsdale  that permits  50 foot wide lots and he loves his block;  that one of his children purchased  a house on the block  and that is a testimony  to the block.

 

Kathy Cassidy,  19 Wildwood  Drive,  testified  that she appreciates  the efforts that the applicant  has made on the house  and does not object to an expansion  as long as it doesn’t require  a side yard variance.

 

Sherman  Baker, 67 Wildwood  Drive, testified  that he purchased  his house twenty  years ago because  he appreciated  the neighborhood;   that it is a single street in and out; that they know what they have , a quiet beautiful  place to live and they don’t  need more garages

facing the street; and that he is against this.                                                                   ;;:!     ~

=E                    :’,~

 

September   2, 2015

New Submission:

2          Cl)         :z:

n-i

1. C) -0

mr-      N

 

::r.:-           -C        0

1. Revised Architectural plans with the latest revision date of 08/17/2015; s~wing,a  ~ side yard of 17′ and total side yard of 42.5′; which would also decrease ~       :3      ~ requested floor area ratio and increase the permitted height; however the:12.ulkf.–A:   -;

~

table was not updated.                                                                                ~     N   :        C>

2. Two letters in opposition to the variances.  N        z

 

Donald Brenner, Attorney and Mario Luczaj appeared.

 

Mario Luczaj testified that he brought his family with him to the meeting tonight; that he did not buy this house to flip it; that he would like to live in the house and raise his kids; that the house lacks space in some areas; that he would like to tum it into his family dream house; that it needs to be expanded to become 100% functional; that he had his architect redo the plans to ask for a three foot side yard and not a full two car garage; that

 

Luczaj

ZBA#l5-63

Page  3   of  5

 

he does care about the neighbors  and that is why he has reduced  what he originally  asked for.

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  testified  that the requested  variance  is nominal;  that the Board has granted  a similar variance  at 34 Hawk  Street; that the granting  of the variances  will not decrease  property  values;  that his client originally  asked for a 7′ variance  and has reduced  his request  to 3 ‘; and that the floor area ratio and building  height variance

requests  have been withdrawn. Public  Comment:

Kathy Sherry Cassidy,  19 Wildwood  Drive, Pearl River, testified  that she looked  at the plans on the 31st and the l”  and she read into the record  a letter regarding  the bulk table and the side yard and total side yard requirements   and questioned  the floor area ratio; and that she is not opposed  to an expansion  but that the expansion  should be within the %-15 setbacks;  that she would  like to see the neighborhood  preserved  and the expansion  done without  a variance.

 

James  Schlag Jr., 59 Wildwood  Drive, testified  that he has been a resident  since  1975; that they moved  to Pearl River from Westchester,  where they had a 50′  x 100’ lot; that they thought  they had moved  into a mansion  on a very large lot because  of the distance between  the houses;  that this distance  should be preserved.

 

Dolan  Cassidy,  19 Wildwood  Drive, testified  that he is not against  the family expanding the house;  that Mario is a builder  and could figure out a way to expand  and still keep the spaces between  the houses  the way they have been for the last 60 years.

 

The Board members  made personal  inspections  of the premises  the weeks before 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.

 

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  side yard and total side yard variances,  as reduced  to 17′ side yard and

42.5′  total side yard, will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the   ~ neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The floor area ratio and hei~         ~ variances  were withdrawn  by the applicant  and no longer requested by applica~ an~ consequently, not reviewed by the Board.                                                           0          -o

r-n     _””c

~··~

7:

2. The requested side yard, total side yard variances, as reduced to 17′ side yard and   ~

42.5′ total side yard, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical~

environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The floor area ratio a~ height variances were withdrawn by the applicant and no longer requested by  ~ applicant, and, consequently, not reviewed by the Board.

 

Luczaj

ZBA#lS-63

Page  4  of  5

 

 

 

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.  The Board noted that the applicant’s   existing house  did not meet the 50′ total side yard requirement  and existed with a 45.5′  total side yard.

 

 

 

4. The requested  side yard and total side yard, as reduced  to 17′ side yard and 42.5′  total side yard, are not substantial.  The floor area ratio and height variances  were

withdrawn  by the applicant  and no longer requested by applicant, and, consequently,

not reviewed by the Board.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

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

Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the amended 17′ side yard and 42.5′ total side yard variances are APPROVED with the Specific Condition that the Bulk Table must be corrected to reflect the latest revisions of the plans that depict the

removal of the Floor Area Ratio and Height variances, and the modified side yard and total side yard variances; 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 limit~on~

the accuracy and structural integrity thereof, of the applicant, but same have bee~       en submitted to the Board solely for informational and verification purposes relativebo ~ variances being requested.                                                                                       r        N

rn      ..c:

;.~

,,…                         ~>

(J.•          -0          :z.:

(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained withinY    ~

reasonable period of time following the filing of this decision and prior to undertaltlngl-‘ :          ci

any construction contemplated in this decision. To the extent any variance or SpePRil N    ~                    :E

Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall not beN     :z

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.

 

Luczaj

ZBA#l5-63

Page  5   of   5

 

 

 

 

 

 

(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 modified  17′ side  yard 42.5′ total  side  yard variances,  with the  Specific  Condition  that the Bulk  Table  must be corrected  to reflect  the latest revisions   of the plans  that depict  the removal  of the Floor Area Ratio and Height  variances,  and the modified  side yard and total   side yard variances;  was presented  and moved by Mr. Bosco,   seconded  by Ms.  Salomon    and

carried as follows:   Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,   aye ;  Ms.  Castelli,   aye; and Ms.  Salomon,   aye. Mr. Sullivan   was absent but had recused  himself  at the prior hearing.

 

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

 

DATED:   September  2, 2015

 

 

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~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

22   t  Lld    h2   d3S  Sl02

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE  YARD  VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

To: Edward  and Carrie Drum

1  JayPlace

Pearl River, NY  10965

ZBA #15-68

Date: September  2, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#l5-68:   Application  of  Edward  and Carrie Drum  for a variance  from Zoning  Code Chapter  43 of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Section  3.12,Group  M, Column  9 ( Side Yard: 20′  required,  16′ proposed)  for an addition  to an existing  one• family residence.  The premises  are located  at 1   Jay Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  69.14, Block 2, Lot 33 in the R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  2, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Edward  Drum  appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

 

1. Architectural  plans  labeled   Drum Residence  dated September  11, 2014 with the latest revision  date of May 27, 2015 signed  and sealed by Robert Hoene, Registered  Architect  (2 pages).

 

 

 

Ms. Castelli,  Acting  Chairperson,  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. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Quinn, aye;

and Mr. Feroldi,  aye. Mr. Sullivan  was absent.

 

 

 

Edward  Drum testified  that he would like to add a family room and rearrange  the kitchen in his house;  that he is following  the existing  line of the house  into the rear yard; that the existing  house does not meet the side yard requirements;   that he purchased  the house

from his parents  and have lived in the house  for 46 years; that he presently  lives in the house with his family of four; and that he does have an 8′ x 10′ shed in the rear yard.

 

 

 

 

381.:L:lO  s~rn318 N/MH

 

ZZ   1   lJd     h Z  d3S   5102

 

N h\ 013  D NV iJ 0   .:1 0  l~ i\\ G l

 

Drum

ZBA#15-68

Page2  of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew   York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  .  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  side yard variance  is not substantial  and continues  the line of the existing house.   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,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

 

2Z   ! Wd    hZ   d3S  5102

 

NA\013 D NVU 0  .:IO  lUi\Ol

 

Drum

ZBA#lS-68

Page 3  of 4

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

301.:L:l® S)!\f 310 NM@l

 

ZZ   t  Wd     h 2  d3S  SIOZ

 

 

 

Drum

ZBA#15-68

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   side yard  variance was presented  and moved  by Ms.  Castelli,   seconded  by Ms.  Salomon    and canied  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Mr. Feroldi,   aye;  Mr. Quinn,   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:   September  2, 2015

 

 

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 f’ILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

381~.:!0    S” 1318    NMOl

 

22    T   Wd    h 2  d3S  SIOZ

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT  YARD  AND BUILDING   HEIGHT   VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

To: James  and Diane Aprile

79 Walnut  Street

Blauvelt,  New York  10913

ZBA#15-69

Date:  September  2, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#lS-69:   Application  of  James  and Diane Aprile  for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Columns  8 (Front Yard:  30′  required,  8′ proposed)  and 12 (Building  Height:  8′ permitted,  12′ proposed)  for an entry deck addition  to a single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 79 Walnut  Street, Blauvelt,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   70.15, Block  1, Lot 31; in the R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  2, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

James and Diane Aprile  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Copy of site plan (1  page).
2. Hand drawn plan for the proposed  entry deck with a roof. (2 pages)

 

 

Ms. Castelli,   Acting  Chairperson,  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,  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. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Quinn, aye;

and Mr. Feroldi,  aye. Mr. Sullivan  was absent.

 

 

Diane Aprile testified  that they would like to add deck parallel  to the existing  front deck to widen the entrance  and add a covered  porch  area to the house;  that they are not going any further into the front yard; that they rented  the house  for ten years before purchasing it five years ago.

 

-301.:!d~  S>lhl31Q  NM©!

 

Z~  _T_  Wd      h 2  d3S  5102

 

NA-\0130NV~O :J 0  NlM)l

 

Aprile

ZBA#15-69

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  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  front yard and building   height  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. 2. The requested  front yard and building   height  variances   will not have an adverse effect or impact   on the physical  or environmental   conditions    in the neighborhood  or distric   Similar  additions   have been constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. 4. The requested  front 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 front yard setback has existed  at eight  feet for years and is just being

extended  to make the entryway  more accessible.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

3 Cl l.:L-.JO   S \J   U l Cl    N. AW l

22    1   Wd   h 2  d3S  srnz

 

Aprile

ZBA#lS-69

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

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

 

 

301.dd©  S~hl310 NM8l

ZZ   r  Wd   hZ  d3S 5102

 

Aprile

ZBA#15-69

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing   resolution  to approve  the application   for the requested   front yard and building  height  variances   was presented  and moved  by Mr.  Feroldi,  seconded  by Mr. Quinn and canied  as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,  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:   September  2, 2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPUCANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

By  .~.£>L.~=–=–16-L-=-/l/L/~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY     DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENT   AL

MGMT.  and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

301~.:lO      s;~~310  NMOl

 

22   T   lJd    h 2  d3S  Sl02

 

NMOl::JON’IUO     JO   NMOl

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR   AREA  RA TIO,  FRONT   YARD,  SIDE  YARD  AND BUILDING   HEIGHT VARIANCES    APPROVED    SECTION   5.21c & e UNDERSIZED    LOT  APPLIES

 

To: Aiden  and Evelyn Doorley

49 Secor Boulevard

Pearl River, NY  10965

ZBA#l5-70

Date: September  2, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#15-70:Application  of  Aiden and Evelyn  Doorley  for  variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Columns  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .20 permitted,  .26 proposed),  8 (Front Yard: 30′  required,

22.6′  proposed)  Section  5.21 (c) (Undersized  lot applies),  9  (Side Yard:  15′ required,

11.7′ proposed),  and 5.21 (e):  (Building  Height:  20′  permitted,  24′  proposed)   for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 49 Secor Boulevard,  Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  69.05, Block 2, Lot 30; in the R-15 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  2, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Evelyn Doorley  and Douglas  Siebenaler,  Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Survey dated May  15, 2015  signed and sealed by Robert E. Sorace, PLS. (1 page).
2. Architectural  plans labeled   ” Proposed  Addition  to the Doorley  Residence”  not dated, not signed or sealed by Paul Douglas  Siebenaler  , Registered  Architect  ( 1 page).
3. Four letters in support of the application.
4. Six 8″ x 1 O” computer generated pictures of the existing house.

 

Ms. Castelli, Acting Chairperson, 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. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye;

and Mr. Feroldi, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.

 

Douglas Siebenaler, Architect, testified that the plan is to add a full second story to the existing structure; that the existing house is a small cape cod style house and it is in need of repair; that they are shoring up the existing foundation; removing the existing Bilco doors from the back of the house; that they are removing some old floor joists and adding a new staircase; that they are also adding a front portico to the house and they are planning to save the beautiful tree in the back yard.

 

Evelyn Doorley testified that there are three people living in the house presently.

 

 

 

 

301.:I.:l~ s~nEnO NM©l

 

ZZ  1   lJd    h~  d3S 5102

 

Nh\013DN\1hl0  .:IQ  N/MH

 

Doorley

ZBA#lS-70

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.

 

 

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  floor area ratio, front yard, side yard and building  height  variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood  or a

detriment  to nearby properties.  Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  floor area ratio, front yard, side 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.  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,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

 

 

381.:L:J©  SY~318      NA\t91

• z~ _t_ Wd  h Z  d3S   SI02

 

Nh\Ol30ifv:d0   _jQ NA\91

 

Doorley

ZBA#lS-70

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

3 G l.:L:!  e  S )! H 31 0  N h\ 61

 

2Z   t  Wd     h 2  d3S 5102

 

NM0130NV:Jo  :JG  Nh\01

 

 

 

Doorley

ZBA#15-70

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested   floor area ratio, front yard,  side yard and building   height  variances    was presented  and move by Mr. Quinn,  seconded  by Mr.  Bosco   and carried as follows:   Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Mr. Quinn,  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:   September  2, 2015

 

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~”-4”-“‘–“””-<–=-b.L–=’-“– Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and ENGINEERING

FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,    ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

381.:1.:!0    s;’})318   NMOl

 

22   l  lJd    h 2  d3S  SIOZ

 

NM013  Otl’:’i.i  0 .:l 0 ~~f,\Ol

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE  YARD,  REAR  YARD,  BUILDING   HEIGHT,  SECTION   6.4 NUMBER   OF LOADING   BERTHS   AND SECTION   3,11, LIO  DISTRICT    REFERS   TO  LO DISTRICT    COLUMN   7  #2 OUTDOOR   LOADING   BERTHS   VARIANCES

APPROVED

 

To:  Steve Grogg P .E. (Celtic  Sheet Metal) McLauren  Engineering

100 Snake Hill Road

West Nyack,  New York  10994

ZBA#15-71

Date: September  2, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#15-  71: Application  of  Celtic  Sheet Metal  Inc. for  variances  from the Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.12,  LIO District,  Group CC, Columns  9 (Side Yard:  100′ required,  42.91′  proposed),   11  (Rear Yard:  100′ required,

50.4′  proposed)   and 12 (Building  Height:  10.73′  permitted,  30′ proposed)  and from

Section  6.4 Item F:

(7 loading berths  required,  6 loading berths provided)   and from Section 3.11 LIO District refers to LO District,  Column  7 Item #2 ( All loading  berths  shall be within  enclosed buildings:  6 outdoor  loading berths proposed);  for a 55,000  square foot expansion  to an existing  commercial  building.   The premises  are located  at 1   Corporate  Drive,

Orangeburg,   New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  73.20, Block  1, Lot 32; in the  LIO zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  2, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Michael  Cunney,  Owner,  Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,   and  Steve  Grogg,  P .E.,  and  Erin

Wenzler,  Real Estate Agent,   appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Overall  Site Plan “Celtic  Sheet Metal”  dated 06/17/2015  signed and sealed by

Steven L. Grogg.,  P.E. ( 2 pages).

2. Planning  Board decision  #15-27  dated May 27, 2015.
3. A memorandum  dated May 27, 2015 from John  Giardiello,  P.E., Director,  Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement,  Town of Orangetown,

 

Ms. Castelli,  Acting  Chairperson,  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 since the Planning  board noticed  its intent to declare itself Lead Agency  and distributed  that notice of intention  to

all Involved  Agencies,  including  the ZBA who consented  or did not object to the         r-o        -t

Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this application, pursuant to coordinatib    ~      o

review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations §617.6 ~3)m            :E

and since the Planning Board conducted a SEQRA review and on May 27, 20150          ~

rendered an environmental determination of no significant adverse environmentjf     ~

impacts to result from the proposed land use action (i.e., a “Negative Declarationf’or           £,:

”Neg. Dec”), the ZBA is bound by the Planning Board’s Neg Dec and the ZBA ciihno~    ~

require further SEQRA review pursuant to SEQRA Regulation§ 617,6 (b)(3). ~              1                     rri

motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Quinn, aye; ~        >-‘ 1                ~

Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Ms. Castelli, aye. Mr. Sull~     RiS  ~

absent.

 

Celtic  Sheet Metal

ZBA#lS-71

Page2   of  5

 

 

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  testified  that the applicant  has appeared  before  the Planning Board  and received  a preliminary  approval  and a neg dee on May 27, 2015; that the company just  got a contract  for larger  equipment  than they have previously  fabricated; that the Olympus  building  has been empty for the last ten years; that Celtic Sheetmatal fabricates  air handling  equipment;  that they need to expand  the building  because  they need the extra height to accommodate  the larger  equipment;  that they will be using part of the building  for offices  and the auditorium  will be used for classes on how to use the equipment;  that they will be doubling  the size of the building;  that there is 138′ of property  bordering  New Jersey; that the rest of the property  borders  businesses  in New York; that the property  has been zoned  LIO since  1952 and was changed  to LI;  that this is a good tax ratable  for Pearl River  Schools;  that they do have to come back for a performance  standards  review;  and that all of the lighting  outside  the building  is down lighting  and that lighting  will be continued  to the addition.

 

 

 

 

Michael  Cunney  testified  that he is a sheet metal  contractor  that fabricates  ventilated systems;  that last year they got a contract  to fabricate  products  for Johnson  Controls  on the eastern seaboard;  that they will have  several trucks  a day to the city and they need the

26′  height;  that he never  said he would  operate 2 shifts for six days a week; that they typically  don’t  work on Saturdays;   that these are steel products;  that they do not

galvanize  on site; that the chemical  work is done in NYC;  that they will use a water based sealant;  and that they have a :filtration system  and no exhaust  or smoke goes outside.

 

 

 

 

Steven Grogg. P .E., testified  that the road around  the back of the building  for fire access will remove  some of the trees but there will  remain  6-8 trees in rows; that there is a sewer  easement  and no it will not be touched;  that the area was previously  excavated  and is ready for expansion;  and that some of the residential  property  in New Jersey that

borders  this property  is a tennis court. Public  Comment:

Mike Poliscastro,  4 Lone Cedar, Old Tappan  New Jersey;  testified  that he is the

residential  neighbor  directly behind  I 00’  of woods  in the rear and the landscaper  and this property  is at the comer  of his; that he is concerned  about odors, pollutants,  noises lighting,  hours  of operation;  that before  it was  18,000 sq. ft. of warehouse  and now it will be 107 thousand  sq. ft.; that he heard  at the Planning  board meeting  that they would operate  six days a week from 6 A.M. to 10 P .M.; that he is concerned  about the noises, odors dramatic  chemicals,  welding,  grinding  noises;  that HV AC systems  are metal manufacturing;   that the noise will bounce  between  his home and the building;  that this operation  should be further  away from residences;  that the large trucks with their fumes

in an alley way and lights at night will all be extremely  offensive;  that he hopes the Board

will consider how detrimental  this will be to his family.

C)

–f       s Howard Plotkin, 81 Greenwoods Road, Old Tappan, New Jersey, testified that he    ~     c.n purchased the house directly in the rear of this property; that he is concerned about Jrealtlq issues; that this will have adverse effects with chemicals, noise and lights; that the   ~     N

business will grow and everything gets larger and the impact on the environment ge~      ..c      g

worse; with more trucks and noise and traffic; and that he would ask the board to do~     -o     ~

study on related health issues.                                                                                     ce     ::3      o

~

6

11       ~I            rn

-n          I

Michele Albergo, 81 Greenwoods Road, Old Tappan, New Jersey, testified that he ~c<h:):    :E

addressed most of her concerns but she would like to add that already early in the           w     :z:

morning it is very noisy; that it will get worse with a 30′ high building in the backyard;

that she is a cancer survivor and she knew Olympus was there but this is more than

 

Celtic Sheet Metal

ZBA#lS-71

Page  3   of  5

 

 

 

doubling  the size; and it is a monster  in their backyard  and she is concerned  about property  values.

 

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  side yard, rear yard, building  height,  Section  6.4 Item F (number  of loading berths  and Section  3.11/ LIO District  refers to LO District,  Column  7 #2 (Outdoor  loading berths)  variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby  properties.   The proposed addition  needed to be located  in its proposed  location  in order to work with the existing  interior  of the building.

 

2. The applicant  shall return to the Board for review  of their Performance  Standards,  as per Orangetown  Zoning  Code Section  4.1.

 

 

 

3. The requested  side yard, rear yard, building  height,  Section  6.4 Item F (number  of loading berths  and Section  3 .11 I LIO District  refers to LO District,  Column  7 #2 (Outdoor  loading berths)  variances   will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  The proposed addition  needed  to be located  in its proposed  location  in order to work with the existing  interior  of the building.

 

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    side yard, rear yard, building  height,  Section  6.4 Item F (number  of loading berths  and Section  3.11/ LIO District  refers to LO District,  Column  7 #2 (Outdoor  loading berths)  variances,  although  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 proposed     r-o addition  needed to be located  in its proposed  location  in order to work with t~       ~

 

existing  interior  of the building.

z:e

,C..l,),

 

 

0 -0 0 I f”\) -,,           43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements,   so the alleged diftieultE ~   was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  of the Bo~    or-=’ ~ Appeals,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.     ~      P–A:       C: o       ro·   :e rn     w’     :z:

6. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject  to Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code ~hapfer    g

 

Celtic  Sheet Metal

ZBA#IS-71

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   side yard, rear yard, building  height,  Section  6.4 Item F (number  ofloading   berths  and Section  3.11/ LIO District  refers to LO District,  Column  7 #2 (Outdoor  loading berths)  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.

 

 

 

301.:1.:l© S)!H310 NIMH EZ  I  Wd  hZ dJS 5IDZ NM013DNVlJO =10   NAHH

 

 

 

Celtic  Sheet Metal

ZBA#l 5-71

Page  5 of  5

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested   side yard,  rear yard,  building  height,   Section  6.4 Item F (number  ofloading   berths  and Section  3.11   I LIO District  refers to LO District,   Column   7 #2 (Outdoor  loading  berths)  variances   was presented  and moved by Mr. Bosco,   seconded  by Mr. Quinn  and canied  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye; Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,   aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   abstained;    and Ms.  Salomon, nay.  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:   September  2, 2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN AlTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN AlTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-N.A.

Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

381.:l.:lG    S’I  !318   NMOl

 

82   t  lJd    h2  d3S Sl02

 

DECISION

 

SECTION   5.153 (ACCESSORY    STRUCTURE    IN FRONT   YARD)  VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:  Thomas  and Marie Farley

121 Lester Drive

Tappan,  NY  10983

ZBA#15-72

Date:  September  2, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#l5-   72: Application  of Thomas  Farley for a variance  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Group M, Section  5.153 (Accessory   Structure  shall not be located  in the front yard: above ground pool proposed location  front  yard); applicant  has two front yards. The premises  are located  at 121 Lester Drive,  Tappan,  New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section

77.06, Block  1, Lot 50; in the R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  2, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Thomas,  Marie and Jamie Farley  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Copy of site plan with proposed pool drawn on it. (1 page)
2. A petition in support of the application with nine signatures of neighbors.

 

MS Castelli, Acting Chairperson, 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. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Feroldi, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.

 

 

 

Jamie Farley testified that they house is built on a comer lot and has two front yards; that the side facing Knutson Knolls is the best place for a pool and she has two children, aged

7 and 4 ~  that are anxious to get a pool; that they are here because they have two front

yards and there is nowhere else to construct the above-ground pool; that they purchased the house as an owner occupied local law #7; and the fence existed when they purchased the house; and they plan to have a pool alarm.

 

 

 

301.:L:IO S)P·!310   N!AOl

 

£2   1   lJd     hZ  d3S Sl02

 

NJ~\013 D Nv’J 0 ;l Q   N/AOl

 

Farley

ZBA#lS-72

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. 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  in the front yard variance  will not produce an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The applicant  has two front yards and a relatively  small rear yard.

 

 

 

2. The requested §5.153 Accessory  structure  in the front yard variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested   §  5.153 Accessory  structure  in the front yard variance,  although somewhat  substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood  or nearby community.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

301.:L:!O s:nn10  NM01

 

£Z   t  lJd    h 2  d38  5102

 

NM013~NVLlO   dQ fU.\01

 

Farley

ZBA#IS-72

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  in the front yard variance  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.

 

 

 

3Ql.:L:H)    S)\~310 N/t\61

£Z   t  lJd    h Z  d38   Sl02

 

Nh\Ol3~llV”‘d0  d 0  N/AOl

 

 

Farley

ZBA#l5-72

Page  4 of  4

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested§    5.153 Accessory structure  in  the front yard variance   was presented  and moved  by Mr. Bosco,   seconded  by Ms.  Quinn   and carried as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye; Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,   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:    September  2, 2015

 

 

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.

 

By-¥-i~~~L..&<.:–1..Lf7-L~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY     DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,     PB

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR