Source: https://www.orangetown.com/document/zoning-board-of-appeals-may-17-2017/
Timestamp: 2017-09-20 11:09:36
Document Index: 703436011

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

Zoning Board of Appeals May 17, 2017 | Town of Orangetown
Zoning Board of Appeals May 17, 2017
ZBA-May-17-2017.pdf
CARR GARAGE FLOOR AREA RATIO, ZBA#17-32
77.11 / 1 / 49; R-15 zone ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
UNDERSIZED LOT APPLIES
ALBANESE FLOOR AREA RATIO, SIDE ZBA#17-33
68.15 / 3 / 41; RG zone YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD,
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE REAR
AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
DETERMINED MORE THAN 50% BELOW
GRADE IS CELLAR
LIN POSTPONED ZBA#17-34
74.17 / 1 / 36; R-22 zone
ROWAN FLOOR AREA RATIO, LOT ZBA#17-35
69.09 / 5 / 42; R-15 zone WIDTH, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD
TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING
SCHON FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT ZBA#17-36
69.06 / 1 / 10; R-15 zone YARD, SIDE YARD AND TOTAL
WILEY SIX-FOOT FENCE IN FRONT ZBA#17-37
69.18 / 1 / 28: R-15 zone YARD VARIANCE APPROVED
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: Sycamore Data Center Site Plan, Convent Road, Orangeburg, NY; 73.08 / 1 / 1, 3 & 4; RPC-OP zone; Mandell , 26 Shadyside Avenue, Upper Grandview, N.Y.; 71.05/ 1 / 8; R-22 zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED, to request to be notified by the Planning Board of SEQRA proceedings, hearings, and determinations with respect to these matters.
FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND § 5.227 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD, VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Lauren Carr ZBA #17-32
180 Washington Street Date: May 17, 2017
Tappan, New York 10983 Permit # 46206
ZBA#17-32: Application of Lauren Carr for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code,R-15 District, Group M, Section 3.12, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .329 existing, .41 proposed) (Section 5.21 C undersized lot applies) and from Section 5.227: (Accessory Building: required rear and side yards 5’; 0’ proposed for side and rear yard) for a 14 x 24’ detached one-story garage at an existing single family residence. The premises are located at 180 Washington Street, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.11, Block 1, Lot 49; in the R-15 zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 17, 2017 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Lauren Carr and her dad Aaron Carr appeared and testified.
1. Survey for Lauren Carr dated August 18, 2014 with the latest revision date of October 5, 2015 signed and sealed by Robert E. Sorace, L.S..
2. Drawings not dated by Stolzfus Structures, 5075 Lower Valley Road, Atglen, P.A.
3. A letter dated May 1, 2017 from the Rockland County Department of Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning.
4. A letter dated April 25, 2017 from the Rockland County Highway Department signed by Joseph Arena, Senior Engineering Technician.
5. A letter dated April 7, 2017 from the Rockland County Drainage Agency signed by Vincent Altieri, Executive Director.
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: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye.
Lauren Carr testified that she would like to construct a garage on the property line in the rear of the property; that the lot is undersized; that she has a vintage collector car that must be garaged or it does not qualify for insurance; that the building will match the existing house with the same siding; that the one-story garage will be large enough for the vintage car and their bicycles garbage cans recycling and a few other items; that she did speak to the neighbors closest to that portion of the property and they said they have
Carr Permit# 46206
ZBA#17-32
no problem with the structure as long as it remains one story; that the house was built in 1901 and there was no zoning code back then; that she was before the Board a few years ago and got approved for a half bath addition that they did not build because of the cost; that the proposed garage will not disturb, distract, or cause damage to any of the neighbors; that there will be no undesirable change in the neighborhood; that there is no other way for her to store her vintage car on her own property; and she really appreciates the Board’s time and consideration.
1. The requested floor area ratio, and § 5.227 side and rear yard, variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is undersized and the original house was built in 1901 before the zoning code was written; the proposed structure will be one –story, built on the property line and the proposal was discussed with the neighbor who shares that property line.
2. The requested floor area ratio, and § 5.227 side and rear yard, variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property is undersized and the original house was built in 1901 before the zoning code was written; the proposed structure will be one –story, built on the property line and the proposal was discussed with the neighbor who shares that property line.
4. The requested floor area ratio, and § 5.227 side and rear yard, variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. The property is undersized and the original house was built in 1901 before the zoning code was written; the proposed structure will be one –story, built on the property line and the proposal was discussed with the neighbor who shares that property line.
Carr Permit#46206
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 requested floor area ratio, and § 5.227 side and rear yard, variances are APPROVED with the Specific Condition that the applicant obtain a Rockland County Highway Work Permit prior to start of any excavation or construction on site; 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 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.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio, and §5.227 side and rear yard, variances was presented and moved by Mr. Quinn, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Ms. Castelli was absent for this hearing.
FLOOR AREA RATIO, SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND § 5.227 SIDE AND REAR YARD, VARIANCES APPROVED; INTERPRETATION DETERMINED IN FAVOR OF APPLICANT
To: Kenneth Albanese ZBA #17-33
92 Lincoln Avenue Date: May 17, 2017
Pearl River, New York 10965 Permit # 46172
ZBA#17-33: Application of Kenneth Albanese for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, RG District, Group Q, Section 3.12, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .30 permitted, .328 proposed), 9 (Side Yard: 10’ required, 9.7’ existing), 10 ( Total Side Yard: 30’ required, 25.7’ existing) and from Section 5.227 (Accessory structure: 5’ required for rear and side yard: 3’ existing for rear yard and .8’ and 1.2’ existing for side yard) and for an interpretation for floor area ratio for basement. The premises are located at 92 Lincoln Avenue, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.15, Block 3, Lot 41; in the RG zoning district.
Jane Slavin, Architect, and Kenneth Albanese appeared and testified.
1. Survey for Albanese dated October 12, 2016 signed and sealed by Robert R. Rahnefeld, P L.S..
2. Architectural plans dated December 15, 2017 by Jane Slavin, Registered Architect.
3. An e-mail dated April 3, 2017 from John Giardiello, P.E., Director, Orangetown Office of Building, Zoning, Planning, Administration and Enforcement.
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); since the applicant also requires an interpretation of an existing code, rule or regulation, this aspect of the application is exempt from environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act pursuant to SEQRA Regulations 617.5 (c) (31); 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. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye.
Jane Slavin, Architect, testified that they are before the Board to legalize a deck that was built in the 1980’s and an additional roofed over area that has a hot tub; that these structures were built along the existing house line, straight back into the rear yard; that the existing side yard was not changed; that there are also two sheds on the property that do not meet the setbacks for accessory structures, one in the northeast corner that 6.4 x 8.7 and the other is a small garage that is 9’ x 16’; that they are requesting an interpretation of the basement/cellar when considering floor area ratio; that the zoning code and building code do not speak to each other, that the zoning code states that if more than 50% is below grade then it is a cellar and more than 50% of this cellar is below
Albanese Permit#46172
ZBA#17-33
grade and should not count in the floor area calculation.
Kenneth Albanese testified that he purchased the house 39 years ago.
1. The requested floor area ratio, side yard, total side yard, and §5.227 accessory structure side and rear yard, variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The structures have existed since the early 1980’s without incident or complaint and the applicant has provided professionally sealed and stamped plans certifying the construction.
2. The requested floor area ratio, side yard, total side yard, and §5.227 accessory structure side and rear yard, variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The structures have existed since the early 1980’s without incident or complaint and the applicant has provided professionally sealed and stamped plans certifying the construction.
4. The requested floor area ratio, side yard, total side yard, and §5.227 accessory structure side and rear yard, variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. The structures have existed since the early 1980’s without incident or complaint and the applicant has provided professionally sealed and stamped plans certifying the construction.
6. ZBA Interpretation determination, decided in favor of Applicant, that he the ZBA found that the basement is a cellar, and, therefore, the floor area is not included in the floor area ratio calculations.
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested floor area ratio, side yard. total side yard, and §5.227 accessory structure side and rear yard variances are APPROVED; and the ZBA Interpretation determination, decided in favor of Applicant, that he the ZBA found that the basement is a cellar, and, therefore, the floor area is not included in the floor area ratio calculations; 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 floor area ratio, side yard, total side yard, and §5.227 accessory structure side and rear yard variances; and the ZBA Interpretation determination, decided in favor of Applicant, that he the ZBA found that the basement is a cellar, and, therefore, the floor area is not included in the floor area ratio calculations; was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye.
FLOOR AREA RATIO, LOT WIDTH, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED
To: John and Danielle Rowan ZBA #17-35
49 Douglas Court Date: May 17, 2017
Pearl River, New York 10965 Permit # 46286
ZBA#17-35: Application of John and Danielle Rowan for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code,R-15 District, Group M, Section 3.12, Columns 4 ( Floor Area ratio: .20 permitted, .2612 proposed), 5 (Lot Width: 100’ required, 85’ existing), 8 (Front Yard: 30’ required, 22.4’ proposed), 9 (Side Yard: 20’ required, 17’ 6” proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 50’ required, 40.5’ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 17’6” & 22’ 2” permitted, 24’6” and 25’ 3” proposed) for a renovation and addition to an existing single family residence. The premises are located at 49 Douglas Court, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.09, Block 5, Lot 42; in the R-15 zoning district.
Karl Ackerman, Architect, and John Rowan appeared and testified.
1. Architectural plans dated March 18, 2017 with the latest revision date of March 30, 2017 signed and sealed by Karl Ackermann, Registered Architect. ( 4 pages)
Karl Ackermann, Architect, testified that the house is in disrepair and has been for some time; that it was left this way for many years; that is has been purchased and the plan is to bring it back and make a great residence; that they are proposing to add a front porch will require a variance and to add a deck to the rear of the house and a complete second story; that the pre-existing non-conforming side yard and total side yard cause the building height variance; that the existing side entrance will be removed, improving the side yard slightly; and these improvements will make the neighbors very happy.
Rowan Permit#46286
ZBA#17-35
1. The requested floor area ratio, lot width, front yard, 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 lot width, side yard and total side yard variances are existing and are not changing. The existing house has sat for many years in disrepair and these plans will greatly improve the lot and be beneficial to the neighborhood.
2. The requested floor area ratio, lot width, front yard, 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 lot width, side yard and total side yard variances are existing and are not changing. The existing house has sat for many years in disrepair and these plans will greatly improve the lot and be beneficial to the neighborhood.
4. The requested floor area ratio, lot width, front yard, 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 lot width, side yard and total side yard variances are existing and are not changing. The existing house has sat for many years in disrepair and these plans will greatly improve the lot and be beneficial to the neighborhood.
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested floor area ratio, lot width, front yard, 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.
Rowan Permit #46286
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio, lot width, front yard, side yard, total side yard and building height variances was presented and moved by Mr. Bosco, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye.
FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Jane Schon ZBA #17-36
8 Hillaire Place Date: May 17, 2017
Palisades, New York 10954 Permit # 46250
ZBA#17-36: Application of Jane Schon for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code,R-15 District, Group M, Section 3.12, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .24 proposed), 8 (Front Yard: 30’ required, 24.3’ proposed), 9 (Side Yard: 20’ required, 14.5’ proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 50’ required, 41’ proposed) for a renovation and addition to an existing single family residence. The premises are located at 8 Hillaire Place, Nanuet, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.06, Block 1, Lot 10; in the R-15 zoning district.
Jane P. Schon, Jane C. Shon and Christopher Kendell appeared and testified.
1. Architectural plans dated March 6, 2017 by Kier B. Levesque, Registered Architect. (3 pages)
Jane Schon testified that she has lived in this house for last 28 years; that it is her childhood home; that her Dad passed away in 2010 and the house is a getting to be too much for her Mom, by herself; that she and Christopher are getting married in October and they all discussed it, and decided that it would be beneficial for all of them to live together; that they would like to fill in the southwest corner of the house to expand the living room downstairs and add a bedroom above it; that they are proposing a full second story, presently the second floor is a Cape style without dormers; that the rear patio would be filled in and become part of the kitchen; and they are planning to expand the existing garage widening it be five feet and making it three feet deeper; that Christopher is a mechanic and he maintains fire trucks and has many tools and tool boxes; that they plan are maintaining room in the garage for her mom’s car and for Christopher’s many tools; that they would be using upstairs as their main living area and her mom would have downstairs and thy would share the kitchen.
Schon Permit#46250
ZBA#17-36
1. The requested floor area ratio, front yard, side yard and total side yard variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed additions will make it possible for the extended family to share their family home, affording each generation some privacy.
2. The requested floor area ratio, front yard, side yard and total side yard variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed additions will make it possible for the extended family to share their family home, affording each generation some privacy.
4. The requested floor area ratio, front yard, side yard and total side yard variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. The proposed additions will make it possible for the extended family to share their family home, affording each generation some privacy.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio, front yard, side yard and total side yard variances was presented and moved by Ms. Salomon, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye.
To: Shane Wiley ZBA #17-37
499 Orangeburg Road Date: May 17, 2017
Pearl River, New York 10965 Permit # 46271
ZBA#17-37: Application of Shane Wiley for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code,R-15 District, Group M, Section 5.226 (Front Yard Fence Height: 4 ½’ permitted, 6’ proposed & existing) for an existing fence at an existing single family residence. The premises are located at 499 Orangeburg Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.18, Block 1, Lot 28; in the R-15 zoning district.
Shane and Yaixia Wiley appeared and testified.
1. Survey for Julianne Wiley dated March 10, 1980 with the area of the fence highlighted, by Albert R. Sporaco Jr.
Shane Wiley testified that he installed a six-foot fence 239 feet back from the road; that his lot is a flag lot and he did not realize that this would be considered a front yard; that he did not know that he needed a variance, until his neighbor complained and he was told by Mr. McPherson that he needed to apply for a building permit and to the Zoning Board; that is how, he ended up here.
Wiley Permit#46271
ZBA#17-37
1. The requested front yard fence height variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The six-foot fence is set back 239 feet from the road and is not easily visible from the street.
2. 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 six-foot fence is set back 239 feet from the road and is not easily visible from the street.
4. The requested front yard fence 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. The six-foot fence is set back 239 feet from the road and is not easily visible from the street.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested front yard fence height variance was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by Mr. Bosco and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye.