Source: https://www.orangetown.com/meeting/zoning-board-september-11-2013/
Timestamp: 2017-10-20 08:59:05
Document Index: 457157044

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

Zoning Board September 11, 2013 | Town of Orangetown
Meeting - Zoning Board September 11, 2013 (View All)
09/11/2013 Zoning Board September 11, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
Scheduled: 09/11/2013 7:00 PM
Zoning Board September 11, 2013 Minutes
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER 11, 2013
PALISA.DES PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH SIGN
78.18 I 2 I 9; R-22 zone
SIGN AND LOCATION ZBA#13-60
64 .18 I 1 I 66; R-15 zone
FLOOR AREA RATIO ZBA#13-61
68.11I2132; R-15 zone
REAR YARD ZBA#l3-62
§ 5.227 & 5.153 VARIANCES APPROVED
72.08 I 3 I 17; R-15 zone
SIDE YARD VARIANCE ZBA#13-63
APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC CONDITION
68.20 I 5 I 69; RO zone
SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE ZBA#13-64
YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED
TOLLEY FENCE
64.2011129; R-40 zone
6′ FRONT YARD FENCE ZBA#l3-65
VARIANCE APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC CONDITION
77.15 / l / 70; R-15 zone
POSTPONED ZBA#13-66
7WELLSLANE
66.17 I 1 I 25.2; R-22 zone
CONTINUED ZBA#l3-67
In response to requests from the Orangetown Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals: RESOLVED, to approve the action of the Acting Chairperson executing on behalf of the Board its consent to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) coordinated environmental review of actions pursuant to SEQRA Regulations§ 617.6 (b)(3) the following applications: School of Rock Conditional Use Permit, 135 Erie Street, Blauvelt, NY 74.14 / 4 I 36; CS zone; Dominik & White Resubdivision Plan, 110 Old Pascack Road & 21 Buchanan Street, Pearl River, NY 68.14 I 2 I 21 & 23; R-15 zone; St. Peters and St. Paul’s Church Site
Plan, 422 Western Highway, Tappan, NY, 74.18 I 3 I 27; R-15 zone; and FURTHER
RESOLVED, to request to be notified by the Planning Board of SEQRA proceedings, hearings, and determinations with respect to these matters.
seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:00 P.M.
By~[Mk
NON-RESIDENTIAL SIGN APPROVED; SIGN SETBACK VARIAN CE APPROVED
To: Bigelow Green (Palisades Presbyterian)
240 Tweed Boulevard
ZBA# 13-60
ZBA# 13-60: Application of Palisades Presbyterian Church for a variance from Chapter
43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, R-22 District, refers to R-80 District, Section 3.11, Column 5 #12 (Non-residential establishment or institution maybe permitted 1 sign not over 20 sq. ft. with permission from the Zoning Board of Appeals and it should be
located 25′ from any lot line: 2′ proposed from property line; 20 sq. ft. sign proposed) for
a sign at an existing church. The Church is located at 117 Washington Spring Road, Palisades, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 78.18,
Block 2, Lot 9; R-22 zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, September 11, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Bigelow Green appeared and testified.
Survey dated July 12. 2-13 signed and sealed by Jay A. Greenwell, Land
Part Architectural Site plan, Church Sign Plan, Elevation & Details dated August
27, 2013 signed and sealed by William E Pfaff, Architect.
Mr. Sullivan, Chair, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and catried unanimously.
William Pfaff, Architect, testified that the church is celebrating it 150th anniversary; that he congregation was looking for ways to recognize this anniversary; that the proposed new sign, lawn area, low lights and landscaping are part of the recognition; that these items would be helpful for any functions held in the evening; that the proposed sign is in keeping with the historic area and the church; that it is a one sided sign and it is fifteen
square feet and sits two feet from the property line but appears to be further back because
the property line is about eight feet in from the street line; that they have met with the Orangetown Highway Department and they are fine with the placement and size of the sign because it does not interfere with sight distances and the distance from the road is sufficient; and that the proposed sign would also make a statement that the church is thriving and active.
ZBA#l3-60
The requested sign and sign location variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The church is set back from the road and has existed in this location for 150 years; the applicant has requested a fifteen square foot one-sided size set back two feet from their property line and their property is an additional eight feet from the street. Neither the sign nor its placement will interfere with traffic.
The requested sign and sign location variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. . TI1e church is set back from the road and has existed in this location for 150 years; the applicant has requested a fifteen square foot one-sided size set back two feet from
their property line and their property is an additional eight feet from the street. Neither the sign nor its placement will interfere with traffic.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances, The church is set back from the road and has existed in this location for 150 years; the applicant has requested a fifteen square foot one-sided size set back two feet from their property line and their property is an additional eight feet from the street. Neither the sign nor its placement will interfere with traffic.
The requested sign and sign location variances although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that is not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community.
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&i area variances.
3;)i.:~..ii..::\!O.
c..,:”/’.}”{‘ )lD Nlf1
Z! Yd “i-_· z nD’ tlil
iuio1~
— …. “‘t”””}{0 ~rn tH.M.Jl
.J ~i. ~
ZBA#13-60
Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested sign and sign location
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.
(v) Any foregoing variance or Special Permit will lapse if any contemplated constrnction 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 ofthis 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 sign and sign location variances was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
By–+YIL(,,f…./L.1′.~~-b.L~~~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide
DEPT. ofENVlRONMENTAL
MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZllA, PB
FLOORAREA RATIO AND FRONT YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Keith and Donna Flynn
13 Villa Drive
N anuet, New York 10954
ZBA# 13-61
ZBA# 13-61: Application of Keith and Donna Flynn for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .246 existing, .251 proposed and 8 (Front Yard: 30′ required,
27′ 8″ existing, 19′ 4” proposed) for the addition of a front portico at an existing single•
family residence. The premises are located at 13 Villa Drive, Nanuet, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 64.18, Block 1, Lot 66; R-15 zoning district.
Keith and Donna Flynn appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Site plan and architectural plans dated October 22, 2012 signed and sealed by
David Ramirez, R.A. (11 pages).
On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQ RA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) &/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
Donna Flynn testified that they would like to add a portico to the front of the house; that presently you walk directly into the living /dining room area; that the proposed addition would be 32 sq. ft. on the interior and 40 sq. ft. from the exterior; that it would afford
them space for a foyer and closet; that they have lived in the house for 23 years; and quite a few of their neighbors have done similar additions.
ZBA#l3-61
No public comment,
The requested floor area ratio and front yard variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The additional front portico is practical and will enhance the house. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.
The requested floor area ratio and front yard variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Other houses in the area have similar front yard setbacks and the slight increase in floor area ratio will have little impact on the neighborhood.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The additional front portico is practical and will enhance the house. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.
The requested floor area ratio and front yard variances are not substantial
The applicant purchased the property subject to Orangetown’« Zoning Code (Chapter
ZBA#13-61
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio and front yard variances was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
BUILDING !NSPECTOR-B.vW.
By~Cl…!.a.LU-“-‘-‘=-..!..LL..lc.-=-~j{4·~(,l”T~
H!GHWAY DEPARTMENT
REAR YARD AND §§5.227 & 5.153 VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Robert and Erin Williams
71 Margaret Keahon Drive
ZBA# 13-62
ZBA# 13-62: Application of Robert and Erin Williams for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, R-15 District, Group M, Column 11 (Rear Yard: 35′ required, 14.4′ proposed) and from Section 5.227 (Accessory Structure side or rear yard:
5′ required, 2.6′ existing) and from Section 5.153 (Accessory structure distance from principal building: 15′ required, 5′ proposed) for the construction of a rear deck and to keep a shed in its present location at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 71 Margaret Keahon Drive, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.11, Block 2, Lot 32; R-15 zoning district.
Robert and Erin Williams appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Survey dated December 15, 2009 with the deck drawn on it signed and sealed by
Robert E. Sorace.
Deck plan dated 05/30/2013 signed and sealed by Michael R. Zrelak Jr., Architect.
Two letters of support for the application from abutting property owners.
A petition in support of the application signed by eleven neighbors.
On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) &/or (13); which docs not require SEQ RA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
Erin Williams testified that they would like to build a deck in the rear yard; that the backyard does not have an even ground; that there are existing stone stairs that lead down hilly portion of the yard and they would like to keep them and build the deck out into the rear yard rather than wide behind the house; that the shed was in its present location when they purchased the house three years ago, and they would like to keep it there because it
is one of the few flat areas of the yard; that eventually they would replace it with a nicer shed; and that they have two children aged two and four.
ZBA#13-62
The requested rear yard and accessory structure yard and distance (§§5.227 & 5.153) variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The rear property has a severe slope on one side and the driveway on the other side; the deck is being constrncted around existing
stairs that lead into the rear side yard and the shed existed in its present location
before the Williams’ purchased the property.
The requested rear yard and accessory structure yard and distance (§§5.227 & 5.153) variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The rear property has a severe slope on one side and the driveway on the other side; the deck is being constructed around existing stairs that lead into the rear side yard and the shed existed in its present location
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pmsue other than by obtaining variances.
The requested rear yard and accessory structure yard and distance (§§5.227 & 5.153) variances although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that arc not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. The rear property has a severe slope on one side and the driveway on the other side; the deck is being constructed around existing stairs that lead into the rear side yard and the shed existed in its present location before the Williams’ purchased the property.
Appeals, but did not, by itself, pre~~1~ 1fJ ~1}.a’!}!!fi@0;,-~ea variances.
8S zi Yd zz JJS snz
— · t.!’1>Qt
Ri.Ol3f>N’?’tl0 .:!O t””l’t” –
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested rear yard and accessory structure yard and distance (§§5.227 & 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.
(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 constmction 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
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested rear yard and accessory structure yard and distance (§§5.227 & 5.153) variances was presented and moved by Ms. Albanese, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
BUILDfNG lNSPECTOR-B.vW.
By—1-(‘–“””-“‘!,L-1.~c=: .:~”–“‘<-‘-•
To: William and Margaret Confrey
91 Turner Road
ZBA # 13-63
ZBA#l3-63: Application of William and Margaret Confrey for a variance from Chapter
43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required,
14′ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence, The premises are located at 91 Turner Road, Pearl River, New York and identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 72.08, Block 3, Lot 17; R-15 zone.
William and Margaret Confrey appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Architectural plans with site plan dated 04/04/2013 signed and sealed by Robert
Murphy, Architect.
A revised bulk table dated 09/06/2013 signed and sealed by Robert Murphy, Architect.
Eight computer generated pictures of the Confrey property submitted by the
Comfreys’.
A letter from Mary Schaefer, 104 Gilbert Avenue, an abutting property owner expressing concerns regarding drainage.
On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
Margaret Confrey testified that they have lived in the house for 17 years; that they do not want to move; that hey have three grandchildren and two more on the way; that they are proposing to extend the exiting deck by five feet and enclose the area to create a family room for their expanding family; that they are sensitive to nm-off issues; that they have Planted six large pine trees to help soak up some of the water; that the property is located at the bottom of the hill; that Mr. Bonder, our neighbor closest to the proposed addition has seen the plans and is supportive of the application; that this is her first time in front of the Board and she did not know to ask him to attend the meeting or supply a letter of support; that she thinks the Schaefer property is about 50 feet from the property line; that they did remove about thirty trees years ago to create a yard and they planted about 30 arborvitae to make up for the removal of the trees; and that they do not plan to direct the
gutters to:vard the Schaefer property; that they will work with the contractor to dire~t th~”B)l~ NMo01
gutter dramage to the front of the house. 3~\:l::'<O S ,. · _
g$ zt blct L2 8S tIUJ.
William Confrey testified that the house sits caddie comer on the lot.
— ‘Qt.JW>O\
~~Oi3~.~LJ ,\”.;,~’ (\ ;j • ~”‘”” –
ZBA#l3-63
Mary Schaefer, 104 Gilbert A venue, abutting property owner, stated that her concerns would be directed toward drainage; that she cannot afford to have any additional water coming into the area between her house and the Confrey house; that there is an underground cave between the properties and this area becomes like an eddy when it rains; and she does not want it to get worse because she has concerns that it may get larger and come close to her foundation.
Carol Schaefer testified that she has lived in the house for twenty three years and the pool of water has gotten larger since the neighbors added the deck and patio; that she thinks there is about thirty feet to the property line and that she is concerned that if the pool of water gets large it will effect the foundation of the house.
The requested side yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is a corner property with two front yards and the original house was built set back on the lot at an odd angle. The proposed addition is not large and the requested side yard variance is necessary in order to make the addition work with the existing house.
The applicant has agreed to direct the gutter and downspouts nm-off from the new addition away from the Schaefer property ( 104 Gilbert Avenue) to the greatest extent possible.
The requested side yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property is
a corner property with two front yards and the original house was built set back on the lot at an odd angle. The proposed addition is not large and the requested side yard variance is necessary in order to make the addition work with the existing house.
The requested side 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_co.mrµ.1i!aijy.
rn c’.J{j -‘.”‘1~ Ni]~v.
30H:!v “fl\ – •
tS ?1.. Lld LZ d3S tltt
– –.~~1;;-nJO .10 N:&Ol
fi~\Ql.:1vr’l~ u
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 with the SPECIFIC CONDITION that the applicant’s direct the gutter and downspouts nm-off from the new addition away from the (104 Gilbert Avenue) Schaefer property to the greatest extent possible; 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.
ZBA#13-63
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard variance with the specific condition that the gutter and downspouts run-off from the new addition be directed away from the Schaefer property (104 Gilbert A venue) to the rear to the greatest extent possible; was presented and moved by Ms. Salomon, seconded by Ms.
Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD, AND BUILDING HEIGHTVARIANCES
To: W aheed Gill
ZBA # 13-64
ZBA# 13-64: Application of W aheed Gill for variances from Town of Orangetown, Chapter 43 (Zoning), RO District, Group Q, Section 3.12, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 10′ required, 8.27′ proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 18.27′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 11′ permitted, 27.75′ proposed) for an addition to an existing single family residence. The premises are located at 161 Main Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.20, Block 5, Lot 69; RG zone.
W aheed and Serafin Gill appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Architectural plans dated 10/25/2011 with the latest revision date ofOl/31/2012 signed and sealed by Robert Hoene, Architect.
Planning signed by Thomas B, Vanderbeek, P.E., Commissioner of Planning.
A letter dated September 3, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of
Waheed Gill testified that he and his wife have four children and the house has three bedrooms; that the girls are getting bigger and need their own bedrooms; that they would like to extend the house in the rear to add additional bedrooms with closets; that the roof would be the same height as the existing roof; that the house sits caddy comer on the lot and that the lot is oddly shaped.
The requested side yard, total side yard and building height variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The odd shaped property is sloped in the rear and this is the best possible location for the addition because of the grading of the property. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.
The requested side yard, total 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. The odd shaped property is sloped in the rear and this is the best possible location for the addition because of the grading of the property. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.
The requested side yard, total 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.. The odd shaped property is sloped in the rear and this is the best possible location for the addition because of the grading of the property. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.
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 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.
(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;
(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 depart:tnent shall not be
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard, total side yard and building height variances was presented and moved by Ms. Albanese, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye .Ms, Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
BU!LDfNG JNSPECTOR-M.M.
DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEER£NG FILE,ZBA, PB
FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHTVARIANCE APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC CONDITION
To: David Tolley
290 Sickletown Road
ZBA # 13-65
ZBA#13-65: Application of David Tolley for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning), R-40
District, Section 5.226 (Front Yard Fence Height: 4 ‘.h’ permitted, 6′ existing & proposed) for an existing fence at an existing single-family residence, The premises are located at 290 Sickletown Road, Orangeburg, New York and identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 64.20, Block 1, Lot 29; R-40 zone.
Paul Valentine Jr., Attorney, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Survey dated January 29, 2008 by Joseph Haller, P.L.S..
A cover letter from Paul W. Valentine, Jr. Esq., Attorney for the applicant.
Two color pictures of the site with the fence and a similar fence on a neighboring property.
A letter dated September 5, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of
Two letters from the County of Rockland Department of Highways dated July 9,
2013 signed by Sonny Lin, P.E. and September 6, 2013 signed by Joseph Arena, Senior Engineering Technician.
On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), 12 and/or (13); which docs not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
Paul Valentine Jr. , Attorney, testified that the applicant purchased his property in 2007 with the existing fence; that in January 2013 the applicant was notified that the existing iron fence that borders the outside of his property along Sickletown Road and Sherwood Lane is in violation of the Orangetown Code and requires a variance; that the applicant applied for a building permit to maintain the fence and was referred to the Zoning Board; that he respectfully requests that the Board consider the following factors: the iron fence is transparent and has a very minimal impact on sight lines for the drivers turning onto
Sherwood Lane from either direction of Sicl<letownRoad; that the fence provides privacy for the applicant from the traffic along Sickletown Road; that the fence does not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and does not impair the
aesthetic value of the property; that the fence cannot be altered and/or removed without r~o1
significant expense to the applicant; and that the applicant will comply wit.9.~s~~~B310 ‘<•-·
from the Rockland County Highway Department dated September 6, 2013. -. _ .· . i “‘. r4g inll
i1ud ~(; a::
… – . ‘l.I~{)i
.::\ ~\”1’.J 0 _10 tifn ‘.
n\\’l'”‘
NA\01~ …
ZBA#l3-65
change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant has two front yards and purchased the house with the existing fence in
2007; the fence that is along two of the streets provides privacy and safety for the applicant without encroaching on any sight lines for the street.
The applicant has agreed to comply with the letter from the County Highway
Department dated September 6, 2013.
The requested front yard fence height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant has two front yards and purchased the house with the existing fence in
2007; the fence that is along two of the streets provides privacy and safety for the
applicant without encroaching on any sight lines for the street.
4_ TI1e benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining a variance. The applicant has two front yards and purchased the house with the existing fence in 2007; the fence that is along two of the streets provides privacy and safety for the applicant without encroaching
on any sight lines for the street
The requested front yard fence height variance is not substantial because it is not a solid fence.
TI1e foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested front yard fence height variance was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by Ms. Albanese and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
DATED: Septemberll,2013
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORN’.EY DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE