Source: https://www.orangetown.com/meeting/zoning-board-july-1-2015/
Timestamp: 2017-12-16 03:34:42
Document Index: 310881753

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 4', '§ 617', '§617', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§617', 'art.\n301', 'arty\n18', '§617', '§617', 'art.\n301', '§617', '§ 617']

Zoning Board July 1, 2015 | Town of Orangetown
Meeting - Zoning Board July 1, 2015 (View All)
07/01/2015 Zoning Board July 1, 2015 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
Scheduled: 07/01/2015 7:00 PM
Zoning Board July 1, 2015 Minutes
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 1. 2015
LEONARD FEROLDI, ALTERNATE PATRICIA CASTELLI
Deborah Arbolino,
PUBLISHED ITEMS APPLICANTS DECISIONS
15 Lt. Crawford Court, Blauvelt, NY
69.16 I 3 I 1.5; R-40 zone
3.11, COLUMN 2 #7, TOTAL SIDE YARD,
§ 4.51 TWO FRONT DOORS
AND 4.52 NO EXTERIOR CHANGE FOR LOCAL LAW #7 VARIANCES APPROVED WITH COVENANT
ZBA#15-54
9 Summit Place
Nanuet, NY APPROVED
64.18 I 1 I 48; R-15 zone
ZBA#15-55
69.09 I 1I7; R-15 zone
96 Lenape Road
ZBA#15-56
73.05 I 1I33; R-15 zone
12 Green Hedges Lane
REARY ARD VARIANCE APPROVED
ZBA#15-57
70.09 I 3 I 9; R-14 zone
126 E. Washington Avenue
68.16 I 6 I 23; RO zone
SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE
YARD AND BUILDING
HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED ZBA#15-58
28 Liberty Road
Tappan,NY
77.05 I 3 I 23; R-15 zone
POOL WAS MOVED
20′ SIDE YARD
20′ REAR YARD
NOV ARIANCE REQUIRED
ZBA#15-59
BNM PROPERTIES
3 7 Ramland Road
BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE APPROVED
ZBA#IS-60
76.08 I 1 I 6; LIO zone
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 Enviromnental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) coordinated enviromnental review of actions pursuant to SEQRA Regulations§ 617.6 (b)(3) the following applications:
One Ramland Road Site Plan Amendment -Generator, 1 Ramland Road, Orangeburg, NY; 73.20 I 1 I 24; LIO zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED, to request to be notified by the Planning Board of SEQRA proceedings, hearings, and determinations with respect to these matters.
There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion duly made, seconded and canied, the meeting was adjourned at 10:30 P.M.
By~~
:JOl.:1.::JO S~J~EJlO NMOl
8~ IJ w8 or 1nr sraz
Nlt\Ol3VNv(JO 30 NltiOl
SECTION 3.11, R-80 COLUMN 2 #7 VARIAN CE; TOT AL SIDE YARD, SECTIONS 4.51 & 4.52 VARIANCES APPROVED
ZBA#lS-28
ZBA#lS-28: Application of Barry Berson for variances from Chapter 43, R-40 District, Group E, Column 10 (Total Side Yard: 80′ required, 76.4′ proposed); Section 3.11 refers to R-80 District, Column 2 #7 (Conversion of a detached, owner-occupied, single-family dwelling so as to add 1 additional dwelling unit clearly subordinate to the main 1-family use to occupy not more than 600 square feet of floor area: 844 sq. ft. proposed) and from Sections 4.51 (there shall be only one front door: two doors proposed) and 4.52 (there shall be no significant exterior change and no new structures built on the property within
the past 1 O years so as to create an additional dwelling unit; and addition is proposed) for
Local Law #7 owner occupied for 2°d dwelling unit for in-laws. The premises are located at 15 Lt. Crawford Court, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.16, Block 3, Lot 1.5 in the R-40 zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 1, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Barry and Marsha Berson and Donald Brenner, Attorney, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Copy of site plan (1 page).
Architectural plans labeled Berson dated April 7, 2014 with the latest revision
date of May 8, 2015 signed and sealed by Jonathan Hodash, Registered Architect
Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was ·
seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.
On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.
Barry Berson testified that he and his wife have owned the house for 18 years; that they would like to use one of the existing garages and some space inside of the house to accommodate his mother-in-law; that he would like to add the additional garage onto the house because he has three cars and has always had the three car garage that his mother – on-law is 79 years old and cannot go up and down the stairs and this space would accommodate her and an aide; that they will file a covenant and that they have no problem removing the second kitchen when his mother -in-law no longer needs it.
/ ~01.:l.:!O SY.H310 NM©l
B~ !!WH or 1nr 5IOZ
NMOl3~NVCJO .:10 Nlt\Ol
ZBA#15-28
Donald Brenner, Attorney, testified that the neighbors do not have any objections to the addition; that there will be two front doors but one will not be visible from the street; that the proposed apartment will be 831 sq. ft. and the Bersons’ have no problem filing the covenant.
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:
The requested Section 3.11, Column 2 #7, Total Side Yard and Sections 4.51 and
4.52 variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the applicant has agreed to remove the stove when Marilyn Seitles is no longer using it.
4.52 variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the applicant has agreed to remove the stove when Marilyn Seitles is no longer using it.
-I ~ -I
C> …….. 0
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means fealiblelQr ~
the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. ~ ~
r- …..,.
::::::-:
.0,,
The requested Section 3 .11, Column 2 #7, Total Side Yard and Sections 4.~ ando ~
4.52 variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the appli~t@, ~ are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfamof~ · ~ surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. The proposed addition ~in ..c: · ::E keeping with the character of the neighborhood and the applicant has agreed to co :z remove the stove when Marilyn Seitles is no longer using it.
43) and is proposing a new addition and/or improvements, so the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration was relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but did not, by itself, preclude the granting of the area variances. ·
ZBA#l5-28
Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested Section 3.11, Column 2
#7, Total Side Yard and Sections 4.51 and 4.52 variances are APPROVED with the Specific Condition that the property owners must execute and record a covenant required by Zoning Code § 4.51 to be prepared by the Town Attorney with County Clerk recording fees to be paid by the applicants; the 831 sq. ft. dwelling is to be occupied only by the applicant’s mother-in-law Marilyn S. Seitles (DOB-
08/25/1935); 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.
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
(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:I 0 S)!tl310 NM©l
Bh 11 w~ 01 1nr s102
NA\013 e NV’ci 0 .:IO Ni~Ol
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested Section 3 .11, Column 2 #7, Total Side Yard and Sections 4.51 and 4.52 variances was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Castelli with the following specific conditions: and carried as follows: (1) that the property owners must execute and record a covenant required by Zoning Code§ 4.51 to be prepared by the Town Attorney with County Clerk recording fees to be paid by the applicants; (2) the 831 sq. ft. dwelling is to be occupied only by the applicant’s mother-in-law Marilyn S. Seitles (DOB-08/25/1935); (3) the stove shall be removed when the applicant’s mother-in-law no longer resides in the space; and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon,
nay; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
By….,,…._,~.i<…..:…~ ;~,.!..><:l~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide
DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERJNG FILE,ZBA, PB
301.:J.:JO S)!~310 NMOl
8~ II wH o I 1nr srnz
NMOlJvrH’JO .:10 Nl<\Ol
FLOOR AREA RA TIO AND FRONT YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
To: William and Lois Young
ZBA#15-54: Application of William and Lois Young 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, .245 proposed) and 8 ( Front Yard: 30′ required, 20′ proposed) for a front porch addition at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 9 Summit Place, Nanuet, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 64.18, Block 1, Lot 48; in the R-15 zoning district.
William Young appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Plans labeled” Proposed 60 sq. ft. Exterior Portico Addition for 9 Summit Place, Nanuet, NY. (10 pages).
A letter dated June 26, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of
A letter dated June 30, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of
A letter dated June 18, 2015 from the County of Rockland Sewer District No. 1 signed by Joseph LaFiandra, Engineer II.
On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
William Young testified that he would like to add a front porch to the house; that it totals approximately 60 sq. ft.; that his existing floor area ratio is .239 and it will be .245 with the addition of the porch; that he also need a front yard variance because the existing house does not have a 30′ front yard and with the porch the front yard will be 20′ instead of the required 30′; and that the house across the street has a front porch and 11 and 13
Villa Drive both have similar front porches.
301.:l.:JO SYH31~ N!t\01
Sh n WI:! o I 1nr srnz
NA\Ol3~NVLIO jQ NMOl
ZBA#IS-54
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. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.
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. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.
The requested floor area ratio and front yard variances are not. substantial.
43) and is proposing a new addition and/or improvements, so the alleged difficulty
301:1.:IO S)f H3la NMOl
8~ ~!lJI:! or 1nr sruz
NMOl3fJN’VLJO .:JO NA10l
ZBA#lS-54
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested floor area ratio and front 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.
301.:J.:JO S)!H310 NMOl
Sh 1 r WH or 1nr srn2
NM0!3DN’v’ci0 .:IQ Nh\01
ZBA#l5-54
The foregoing Resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio and front yard variances was presented and moved by Mr. Quinn, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
By+–4’~~: ==–=-_……~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide
301.:J.:!O S\iH310 NMOl
6~ ~! !J8 01 1nr SIOZ
NM 013 D i~ v lJ 0 .:! 0 N iii 01
To: Cliff and Kathy Carty
18 Lombardi Drive
ZBA#15-55: Application of Cliff and Kathy Carty for a variance 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, .218 proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 18 Lombardi Drive, Pearl River,
New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.09, Block 1, and
Lot 7; in the R-15 zoning district.
Cliff Carty appeared and testified.
A hand drawing of the proposed addition.
Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was . seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.
Cliff Carty testified that they would like to enclose the existing deck for a sunroom; that the sunroom will be flush with the house and not wrap around; that there will be a small landing and steps down into the rear yard; and that they do not need a side yard variance.
301.:1.dO S)nJ31~ NMOl
Sh I 1 w~ o ! 1nr s102
NM013DNVUO ~O N/i\01
ZBA#lS-55
The requested floor area ratio 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.
The requested floor area ratio 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.
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
301.:L:!O S>!H310 NMO!
Sh n Wl:! o 1 1nr s102
Nlt\013 ~HJVU 0 .:W Nh\01
(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~d0 S)PBlQ NM01
6.h tr w~ or 1nr s102
NN\013 o Nvd 0 .:I 0 Nh\Ol
The foregoing Resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio variance was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by Ms. Salomon and canied as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TO\IVN ATTORNEY
By~[}_~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide
301.:l.:lO s;rn::i10 NMOl
6h 11 lJ!j o I 1nr srnz
To: Jonathan Hodash (Neubauer)
ZBA#lS-56
ZBA#l 5-56:Application of Ray and Regina Neubauer for a variance 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, .22 proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 96 Lenape Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 73.05, Block 1, Lot 33; in the R-15 zoning district.
Samantha Moscardelli from Jonathan Hodash Associates, and Ray Neubauer appeared and testified.
Architectural plans labeled “The Neubauer Residence” dated March 21, 2015 with the latest revision date of March 26, 2015 signed and sealed by Jonathan Hodash, Registered Architect (7 pages).
Two letters in support of the application.
Ray Neubauer testified that they are proposing to add a second floor over the existing garage for a master bedroom and bath; and that they are expanding in the rear of the house to make the kitchen larger and they are moving the front door over and adding a portico over it; that there was a previous addition built for his dad because his dad has Alzheimer’s and they need to watch over him; that there are several similar additions in the area, one on Ellis and two more on Lenape and five or six houses have pushed out in the back.
301,j.::10 S>!H310 NMOl
s~ !!WH 01 1nr s102
NM013DNVuO so N/rtOl
The requested floor area ratio 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
The requested floor area ratio variance is not substantial. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.
301.:L::JO S>!H310 NMOl
6h Ir Wl:l OI 1nr 5102
Nh\0!3DNY’CJO .:W NA\Ol
30l=l=IO S){H310 N/t\01
Sb rt w~ o I 1nr s102
NM0!3~NVUO so Nh\01
The foregoing Resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio variance was presented and moved by Ms. Salomon, seconded by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
30l.:J.:JO S~.JtJ3lO NMOl
6~ !I lJt! 0 I 1nr SIOZ
NMOl30Nvi:iO .::JO NMOl
To: Anthony and Tracey Albanese
ZBA#lS-57
ZBA#lS- 57: Application of Anthony and Tracey Albanese for a variance from (Chapter
43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-40 District, Group E, Column 11
(Rear Yard: 50′ required, 39′ proposed) for a deck at an existing single-family residence.. The premises are located at 12 Green Hedges Lane, Blauvelt, New York and
are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.09, Block 3, Lot 9; in the R-40
Anthony Albanese appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Survey plan with deck drawn on it. (1 page).
Deck plans (6 pages).
Four letters from abutting property owners in support of the application.
On advice of De1U1is Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
Anthony Albanese testified that he would like to build a deck off the rear of his house; that the house was built in 1968 and the existing patio and concrete steps are rotting away; that he would like to replace them with a deck that would go out to the existing pool; that the deck is 14′ wide at the jog out and 16′ wide after that; that it will run the width of the house; that the house is zoned R-40 but he has paper work showing that it was R-22 and was changed to R-40 in 1967; that the lot is very undersized for the R-40 zone; that the Erie Railroad is behind the house; and that the property is pie shaped.
301.:l.:!O S~Hf 310 NMOl
6~ I! (Jf:! 0 I lnr 5IOZ
NMOl3DNvtlO .:HJ Nfr\Ol
ZBA#l5-57
The requested rear yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The lot is undersized and oddly shaped.
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 lot is undersized and oddly shaped.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining a variance. The lot is undersized and oddly shaped.
The requested rear yard variance is not substantial.
301.:1.:10 S~!H31a NMOl
6~ ~-~ lJH or 1nr srnz
NMOl3~NV’;;;JO .:IO Nh\Ol
301.:ldO S~HJ31~ NMO!
6h II (J~ 0 I· lnr 5102
NM0!3~NVt!O .:!O Ni1\0l
The foregoing Resolution to approve the application for the requested rear yard variance was presented and moved by Mr. Feroldi, seconded by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.0.A.
By~f}d~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide
381.:UO ~L~~318 NMOl
Sh 11 wt! 01 1nr srn2
NM 0 l 3 D N v ti 0 .:l 0 r-U:i0 l
SIDE YARD, TOT AL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES
To: Terri Andreozzi
126 East Washington Avenue
ZBA#15-58
Date: July l, 2015
ZBA#15- 58: Application of Terri Andreozzi for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter
43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 10′ required, 7.9′ proposed) 10 {Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 19.4′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 10.5′ permitted, 21′ proposed) for an addition to an
existing single-family residence.. The premises are located at 126 East Washington
Avenue, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as
Section 68.16, Block 6, Lot 23; in the RG zoning district.
Terri Andreozzi and Andy McKeon, Contractor, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Architectural plans labeled 126 E. Washington Ave, Pearl River, NY dated May
8, 2015 signed and sealed by Clifford A. Herbst, P.E.. (2 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 (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; and Mr.
Quinn, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
Terri Andreozzi testified that the house is a small cottage that was built in 1938 and
hasn’t had any updates since then; that she had one child when she moved in and now she
has two children; that they are proposing to bump out the dormer in the second floor and
add two bedrooms and a bathroom; that the rest of the house would be updated at the same time; that the lot is undersized because it is only 50′ wide and should be 75′ wide; and that the lot is long and narrow.
301:1.:tO S>!H310 NMOl
Sh tt tJ\:! o 1 1nr s102
NM013 CW1t!O .:10 Nf1\0l
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. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.
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. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.
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.
30f:l:JO S~H310 NMOl
s~ ~! LJH or 1nr srn2
NM013DNV”b0 .:10 NhWl
ZBA#lS-58
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.
301.:HO S)~H310NMOl
6~ ~! WH 0 r 1nr 5IUZ
NA\013DN\1~.W :10 NMOl
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. Castelli, 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.
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 Cleric
By-“-“”‘bA’=-==::..=…–‘-“–+,,.<~=><.
Deborah Arbo ino
301.:J.:IO S.!lJ3lO NMOl
6~ ~I L.H:J DI 1nr 5102
N Arn l J D NV li O .:1 O N Iv\ ol
APPLICANT MOVED POOL -NO VARIANCE REQUIRED
To: Kathleen Donohue
ZBA#l5-59
ZBA#l 5-59:Application of Kathleen Donohue for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 1 O’ proposed) for the installation of an above• ground pool at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 28 Liberty Road, Tappan,, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section
77.05, Block 3, Lot 23; in the R-15 zoning district.
Kathleen Donohue and her son Sean Donohue appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Copy of site plan with pool drawn on it. (1 page)
Kathleen Donohue testified that she has five kids and would like to install the pool for their pleasure; that the property is hilly and she has a small deck 3′ x 5′ on her side entrance and would like to install the pool there; that her neighbor doesn’t want the pool there; that the pool would be too expensive to install in the rear yard because of the slope of the property; that she would like to go home and measure to make sure that it would fit in that comer without too much digging because the kids are paying for the pool; that she and her son measured and it could move it into the comer of the property and meet the
20′ side yard requirement and 20′ rear yard.
301:1:10 S~H310 NMOl
Sh II Wl:l OI 1nr SI02
NMOl3~HJvbO .:10 Nh\Ol
Mr. Joseph Kosofsky testified that he has lived in his house for 46 years; that the objects
to the pool being placed 1 O’ from his side yard because it is intrusive; that it forces him to give up his privacy; that his bedroom is above his garage which is on that side of the property; that the building department file did not have certificate of occupancy for the sliding door or the deck; and that he would not object if the pool was moved into the rear yard with a twenty foot side yard.
Donald Brenner testified that he is representing Mr. Kosofsky, the abutting property owner and is objecting to the location of the pool in the side yard; that it should be installed in the rear of the house; that the Building Inspector should be asked to check if this can be done differently; and that his client has no objection to the new proposed location with the 20′ side yard.
The requested side yard variance will not be necessary because the applicant is relocating the pool to the rear side yard and it will be located with a 20′ side yard and a 20′ rear yard; therefore no variance is necessary. ·
There was discussion with the Deputy Town Attorney regarding the required rear yard for an above-ground pool, and he advised that a 20′ rear yard was the regulation for an in-ground pool only; and since this is an above-ground pool, he suggested that the Board grant a rear yard variance, if they so choose.
30ldd0 S)HJ310 NM©!
Sh 11 w~ ct 1nr s102
NM013~HNUOso N/i\01
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested side yard variance was withdrawn when the pool was relocated to a 20′ side yard and, 20′ rear yard, and,. as advised, the Board acknowledged a 20’setback (which may or may not require a variance), and APPROVED it for the proposed above-ground pool; 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.
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
301.:L:!O S>!~31a NM01
Bh 11 WH 01 1nr s102
NM013DifiUO so Nh\Ol
The foregoing Resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard variance was withdrawn and the requested 20′ rear yard setback and related variance (if required) was presented and moved by Mr. Quinn, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
The Administrative Aide to the Beard is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this decision and file a certified copy thereof in the office of the Town Clerk.
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TO\VN ATTORNEY
DEPUTY TO\VN ATTORNEY OBZPAE
BUILDING TNSPECTOR-G.M.
By(d~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide
301.:J.:10 S)1~310 NMOl
s~ !! w8 or 1nr srnz
NM013~N\iu0 JO ~Ui\Ol
BUILDING HEIGHT VARIAN CE APPROVED
To: Jane Slavin (BNM Properties)
200 Erie Street
ZBA#15-60
ZBA#l 5-60:Application of BNM Properties for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter
43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, LIO District, Group BB, Column 12 (Building Height: 22′ permitted, 50′ 4″ proposed) for an amendment to ZBA#l4-56.
The premises are located at 37 Ramland Road, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 76.08, Block 1, Lot 6; in the LIO zoning district.
Jane Slavin, Architect and John Piccininni appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Copy of site plan ( 1 page) signed and sealed by Jane Slavin, Architect.
Architectural plans not dated signed and sealed by Jane Slavin, Registered
Architect (1 page).
Zoning Board of Appeals Decision #14-56 dated July 16, 2014.
A memorandum from Jane Slavin explaining the need for the extra height.
On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that since the 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 Planning board acting as Lead Agency for this application, pursuant to coordinated review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning board conducted a SEQRA
review and, on June 11, 2014, rendered an environmental determination ofno significant
adverse environmental impacts to result from the proposed land use (i.e., a ”Negative Declaration” or ”Neg, Dec.”), the ZBA is bound by the Planning Board’s Neg. Dec. and the ZBA cannot require further SEQRA review pursuant to SEQRA Regulation§ 617.6
(b)(3). The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. C~tel~ ~
(“) .,,
aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, ay~r.c:…. ~ Bosco was absent. :z: p 0
r ._,.
~ C) ~
Jane Slavin, Architect, testified that John Piccininni came before the Board pre~~:ms~for~
variances on July 14, 2014; that since then they realized that the structure that tke ~
previously designed addition’s slab was below the existing slab of the building ~d tSt ‘. ~
the previous design did not take into account the existing building floor elevati~or tlle· =::
structural requirements for the proposed addition; that the existing proposed floor c.o z
elevation is at 92′-0″ the previously approved is at 88′-0″, a four foot difference; that the previous floor to ceiling height was 24′ and the applicant requires a 30′ floor to ceiling clear height, a difference of six feet; that he previous design had a 1′ structure for 2nd floor and roof framing and the actual design requires a 4’6″ structural system for the 2nd
floor, which means a three foot six inch difference; that the structural system for the roof
framing is 3′ 6″, which means a two feet six inch difference; these differences total 16′
ZBA#lS-60
difference due to the previous design deficiencies; and the they have reworked the grading to provide a gradual slope that helped to reduce the difference from 16′ to 14
10″ with minimal impact on the site and reducing the extent of the required exterior stairs; and that the dedication of the road reduces the side yard from 82′ 6″ to 17’ 6″.
The requested building height variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Other buildings in the area are of a similar height.
The requested building height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Other buildings in the area are of a similar height.
The requested building height 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.
30f.:L:f0 S)P:f 310 NMOl Sh tr w~ or 1nr srnz NM013DNVUO so Niv\01
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested building height 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.
(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 deparbnent shall not be
(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:f O S>PBlO NMOl
OS II lJH 01 1nr 5102
NM013DNV~l0 .:W NMOl
The foregoing Resolution to approve the application for the requested building height variance was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
BUILDING TNSPECTOR-R.O.
BY,,,<4.o<….l….:..W:….:::’-=’–=-f~~