Source: https://www.orangetown.com/meeting/zoning-board-february-1-2012/
Timestamp: 2018-01-17 14:59:36
Document Index: 617582174

Matched Legal Cases: ['§5', '§5', '§ 5', '§ 617', '§617', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5']

Zoning Board February 1, 2012 | Town of Orangetown
Meeting - Zoning Board February 1, 2012 (View All)
02/01/2012 Zoning Board February 1, 2012 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
Scheduled: 02/01/2012 7:00 PM
Zoning Board February 1, 2012 Minutes
MORAN REAR YARD ZBA#12-06
70.18 / 1 / 32; R-15 zone VARIANCE APPROVED
LHOTAK FRONT YARD AND ZBA#12-08
75.05 / 1/ 6; R-22 zone BUILDING HEIGHT
VARIANCES APPROVED WITH
WOODS §5.227 REAR YARD:POOLS ZBA#12-09
68.11 / 2 / 68;R-15 zone AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES
DOLPHIN §5.227 REAR YARD:POOLS ZBA#12-10
74.17 / 1 / 76; R-22 zone AND SHEDS AND § 5.153 VARIANCES
In response to requests from the Orangetown Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals: RESOLVED, to approve the action of the Acting Chairperson executing on behalf of the Board its consent to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) coordinated environmental review of actions pursuant to SEQRA Regulations § 617.6 (b)(3) the following application: 28 Route 303 Auto Parking Plan, 28 Route 303, Tappan, New York, Section 77.15, Block 1, Lot 44; CS zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED, to request to be notified by the Planning Board of SEQRA proceedings, hearings, and determinations with respect to these matters.
To: Michael and Mary Moran ZBA # 12-06
29 East Road Date: February 1, 2012
ZBA#12-06: Application of Michael and Mary Moran for a variances from Chapter 43(Zoning), Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 11 (Rear Yard: 35’ required, 21.5’ existing) for a pre-existing non-conforming deck to be converted to a three season room at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 29 East Road, Blauvelt, New York, and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.18, Block 1, Lot 32; R-15 zone.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 1, 2012 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Michael and Mary Moran appeared and testified.
Copy of survey not signed or sealed by Barbour, Jost & Boswell dated August 22, 1966.
Architectural plans dated 06/29/2011 signed and sealed by Barbara Hess, Architect.
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 Mr. Sullivan and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; Mr. Warren, aye; and Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Mowerson was absent.
Mary Moran testified that she would like to replace the enclosed deck with a three season room and keep the other existing outdoor deck.
Michael Moran drew the existing deck, garage and shed onto the survey.
The requested rear yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicants’ rear yard is oddly shaped and the nearest part of the rear yard to the existing deck is 21 ½’, and the jut out in the rear yard, directly behind the deck, is an additional 23’ deep. The proposed sunroom will be constructed on the existing footprint of the deck and will not extend beyond it.
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 applicants’ rear yard is oddly shaped and the nearest part of the rear yard to the existing deck is 21 ½’, and the jut out in the rear yard, directly behind the deck, is an additional 23’ deep. The proposed sunroom will be constructed on the existing footprint of the deck and will not extend beyond it.
The requested rear yard variance, although somewhat 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. The sunroom is being constructed over the existing closed-in deck and the footprint is not being increased.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested rear yard variance was presented and moved by Mr. Warren, seconded by Ms. Albanese and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Warren, aye. Mr. Mowerson was absent.
To: Donald Brenner (Steven Lhotak) ZBA # 12-08
4 Independence Avenue Date: February 1, 2012
ZBA# 12-08: Application of Steven Lhotak for variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, Group I, Columns 8 (Front Yard: 40’ required, 25.35’ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 19’ permitted, 51’ proposed) for the construction of a new single-family residence. The premises is located at 867 Route 9W, Upper Grandview, New York an identified on the Orangetown tax Map as Section 75.05, Block 1, Lot 6; R-22 zoning district.
Donald Brenner, Attorney, Rhonda Smith, P.E., Leonard Jackson Associates, and Steven Lhotak appeared and testified.
Architectural plans dated 12/08/2011 signed and sealed by Leonard Jackson, P.E..
A memorandum dated October 12, 2011 from John Giardiello, P.E., Director, Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement, Town of Orangetown.
Planning Board Decision #11-45 dated October 12, 2011.
A letter dated February 1, 2012 from the State of New York Department of Transportation signed by Mary Jo Russo, P.E., Rockland County Permit Engineer.
A letter dated January 27, 2012 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning signed by Thomas Vanderbeek, P.E., Commissioner of Planning.
A letter undated from the Village of Grand-View –on –Hudson signed by Donald Vernon, Chairman, Planning Board.
A letter dated January 23, 2012 from the County of Rockland Sewer District No. 1, signed by Joseph LaFiandra, Engineer II.
A letter dated December 28, 2011 from the County of Rockland Department of Health signed by Scott McKane, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer.
A letter dated February 1, 2012 from the County of Rockland Department of Highways signed by Joseph Arena, Principal Engineering Technician.
Donald Brenner, Attorney, testified that this project has appeared before the Planning Board and received a preliminary approval and a negative declaration for SEQRA; that the Planning Board helped locate the house on the lot because of the steep slope of the property; that from Route 9W the house will appear to be one level; that the other levels of the house will be built into the slope of the property; that the level of the house on the street will house the garage and a stairwell, the next level will house the kitchen and below that the bedrooms and then the basement level, which will be buried in the front of the house and exposed at the rear; that the closest house in the rear is on River Road; and that the railroad right-of way is in-between.
Rhonda Smith, P.E., testified that the house needed to close to the right-of-way to avoid any disturbance to the south which is all steep slope; that the house was designed to fit the site; that the other houses have similar front yard setbacks and that this location will impact the critical environmental area the least.
1.The requested front yard and building height variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The location of the house on the lot is similar to the other houses on the street. The steep slope of the properties in this area dictate the location of the houses, and although the building height variance request is substantial, at street level the house is one story. The closest neighbor in the rear of the property is below the rails- to-trails walk and located on River Road in Grandview.
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 district. The location of the house on the lot is similar to the other houses on the street. The steep slope of the properties in this area dictate the location of the houses, and although the building height variance request is substantial, at street level the house is one story. The closest neighbor in the rear of the property is below the rails- to-trails walk and located on River Road in Grandview.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The property is located in a critical environmental area and the placement of the house was chosen to preserve the steep slope.
The requested front yard and building height 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 location of the house on the lot is similar to the other houses on the street. The steep slope of the properties in this area dictate the location of the houses, and although the building height variance request is substantial, at street level the house is one story. The closest neighbor in the rear of the property is below the rails-to-trails walk and located on River Road in Grandview.
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 with the following SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: (1) A permit must be obtained from the Village of Grand View-on-Hudson to connect to the sewer located in the Village; (2) Application is to be made to the Rockland County Department of Health for review of the stormwater management system for compliance with the County Mosquito Code; (3) Items #2 through #10 of the letter dated February 1, 2012 from the State of New York Department of Transportation, signed by Mary Jo Russo, P.E., Rockland County Permit Engineer, must be addressed; 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.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested front yard and building height variances was presented and moved by Ms. Salomon, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye;. Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Warren, aye. Mr. Mowerson was absent.
ZONING CODE SECTION 5.227 (REAR YARD: SWIMMING POOL) AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Michael Woods ZBA # 12-09
7 Salina Road Date: February 1, 2012
Pearl River, New York 10976
ZBA# 12-09: Application of Michael Woods for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, Group M, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 20’ required, 8’ proposed) and from Section 5.227 (Rear Yard for Swimming Pools: 20’ required, 13’ proposed) for the construction of an in-ground pool at an existing single-family residence. The premises is located at7 Salina Road, Pearl River, New York an identified on the Orangetown tax Map as Section 68.11, Block 2, Lot 68; R-15 zoning district.
Michael Woods and Steve Landau, pool contractor, appeared and testified.
Copy of survey with pool drawn on it.
One page pool plan.
A letter dated January 27, 2012 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning signed by Thomas Vanderbeek, Commissioner of Planning.
A letter dated January 27, 2012 from the Village of Chestnut Ridge signed by Allan Rubin, Chairman, Planning Board.
A letter dated January 23, 2012 from the County of Rockland Sewer District No.1 signed by Joseph Lafiandra, Engineer II.
Six letters in support of the application by abutting property owners.
Michael Woods testified that he would like to install an in-ground pool at his house; that he has owned the home for seventeen years; that he and his wife have three daughters aged 7 to 15; that they are all avid swimmers; that he has two front yards on his property; that the pool is not permitted in the front yard; that the existing shed and swing set are being removed; that the proposed area of the yard is the only place that the proposed pool can fit; and that the pool would not cause any drainage problems for his new neighbors in Chestnut Ridge because drainage berms were added at the time of construction of the four new houses behind him.
The requested side yard and § 5.227 (Rear Yard for swimming pool) variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is a corner lot with two front yards and the proposed location is the only area that the proposed pool would fit onto the property.
The requested side yard and § 5.227 (Rear Yard for swimming pool) variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property is oddly shaped with two front yards.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The property is oddly shaped with two front yards.
The requested side yard and § 5.227 (rear yard for swimming pool) variances, although somewhat 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. The property is a corner lot with two front yards and the proposed location is the only area that the proposed pool would fit onto the property.
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested § 5.227 (Rear Yard for swimming pools) and 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.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard and § 5.227 (Rear Yard for swimming pools) variances was presented and moved by Ms. Albanese, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Warren, aye. Mr. Mowerson was absent.
REAR YARD, ZONING CODE SECTION 5.227, AND SECTION 5.153 VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Martin and Donna Dolphin ZBA # 12-10
135 Penn Court Date: February 1, 2012
ZBA# 12-10: Application of Martin and Donna Dolphin for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, Group I, Column 11 (Rear Yard: 45’ required, 6.5’ existing) to an existing deck and from Section 5.227 (Rear Yard for Pools: 20’ required, 10’ proposed) and from Section 5.227 (Sheds: 5’ from property line required, 4.8’ and 1’ proposed) and from Section 5.153 (Distance between accessory buildings: 15’ required, 1.8’ proposed) for two sheds at an existing single-family residence. The premises is located at 135 Penn Court, Orangeburg, New York an identified on the Orangetown tax Map as Section 74.17, Block 1, Lot 76; R-22 zoning district.
Martin Dolphin appeared and testified.
Site plan dated 09/24/2011 based on survey by Gdanski Consultants, Inc., signed and sealed by Paul Gdanski, P.E..
Martin Dolphin testified that he would like to install an above ground pool in his backyard; that he is also legalizing an existing deck that was there when he purchased the house in 1997; that he also has two sheds that he would like to keep in the corner of the lot because that portion of the property is not used for anything else because of its odd shape; that there are woods behind that section of the property; and that the proposed pool is nine feet away from the deck.
The requested rear yard, §§ 5.227 (two) & 5.153 variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is situated on a cul-de-sac and is oddly pie-shaped.
The requested rear yard and §§ 5.227 (two) & 5.153 variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property is situated on a cul-de-sac and is oddly pie- shaped.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The property has a 30’ wide easement running though it for the Rockland State Hospital outfall easement, and the proposed sheds are situated in the pie shaped corner of the property that is not large enough to be used for anything else.
The requested rear yard and §§ 5.227(two) & 5.153 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 property has a 30’ wide easement running though it for the Rockland State Hospital outfall easement and the proposed sheds are situated in the pie-shaped corner of the property that is not large enough to be used for anything else.
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested rear yard and §§ 5.227 (two) & 5.153 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.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested rear yard and §§ 5.227 (two) & 5.153 variances was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Warren, aye. Mr. Mowerson was absent.