Source: https://www.orangetown.com/document/zoning-board-september-18-2017-2/
Timestamp: 2017-11-23 12:49:45
Document Index: 615259592

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

Zoning-Board-of-Appeals-September-18-2017.pdf
MEMBERS PRESENT: PATRICIA CASTELLI, ACTING CHAIR
GRIFFIN FRONT YARD AND ZBA#17-53
27 Sunrise Lane TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES
WATERS FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, ZBA#17-64
30 Dutchess Drive TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING
Orangeburg, NY HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED
74.13 / 1 / 15; R-22 zone
U.S. INFORMATION SYSTEMS DECISION DEFERRED ZBA#17-65
6 RYERSON PLACE UNDERSIZED LOT STATUS ZBA#17-66
6 Ryerson Place APPROVED, FLOOR AREA RATIO
Tappan, NY AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES
77.14 / 1 / 9; R-15 zone APPROVED
8 RYERSON PLACE UNDERSIZED LOT STATUS ZBA#17-67
8 Ryerson Place APPROVED, FLOOR AREA RATIO
Tappan, NY AND BUILDING HEIGHTVARIANCES
77.14 / 1 / 8; R-15 zone APPROVED
10 RYERSON PLACE UNDERSIZED LOT STATUS ZBA#17-68
10 Ryerson Place APPROVED, FLOOR AREA RATIO
77.14 / 1 / 7; R-15 zone APPROVED
WADE SIDE YARD AND ZBA#17-69
31 Azalea Drive TOTAL SID EYARD VARIANCES
69.06 / 2 / 43 ; R-22 zone
There being no further business to come before the Board, on motion duly made, seconded and carried, the meeting was adjourned at 11:10 P.M.
FRONT YARD AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Steve Griffin ZBA #17-53
313 Roundhouse Road Date: September 18, 2017
Piermont, New York 10968 Permit # 46504
ZBA#17-53: Application of Steve Griffin for variances from Chapter 43, R-15 District, Section 3.12 Group M, Columns 8 (Front Yard: 30’ required, 18’ proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 50’ required, 46.7’ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The Premises are located at 27 Sunrise Lane, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.18, Block 3, Lot 43.1 in the R-15 zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Monday, September 18, 2017 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Steve Griffin and Lino Sciarretta, Attorney, appeared and testified.
Architectural plans dated January 1, 2017 by Robert Hoene, Registered Architect.
Site plan dated May 23, 2017 signed and sealed by Robert E.Sorace, P.L.S..
On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Castelli moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Ms. Castelli, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.
Lino Sciarretta, Attorney, testified that the proposal before the Board for an addition to the single family residence of a garage, front porch, and two bedrooms and a bathroom; that this lot was part of the Kreiger Subdivision and just received approval and neg dec for Seqra; that the lot is oddly shaped and the house is caddie corner on the lot; that the proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood; that 35 Sunrise and the house across the street both have similar front porches and there is another house up the street with a similar addition of the garage and porch; and the proposed deck in the rear of the house is in compliance with the zoning requirements.
Griffin Permit#46504
ZBA#17-53
The requested front 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 lot is oddly shaped, and similar additions have been constructed in the area.
The requested front 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 lot is oddly shaped and similar additions have been constructed in the area.
The requested front 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 lot is oddly shaped and 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 front yard and total 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 front yard and total side yard variances was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.
FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Christopher Waters ZBA #17-64
30 Dutchess Drive Date: September 18, 2017
Orangeburg, New York 10964 Permit # 46476
ZBA#17-64: Application of Christopher Waters for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-22 District, Group I, Section 3.12, Columns 8 (Front Yard: 40’ required. 31.25’ proposed), 9 ( Side Yard: 25’ required, 24.38’ and 24.75’ proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 60’ required, 49.13’ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 18.25’ permitted, 28.25’ proposed ) for an addition to an existing single family residence. The premises are located at 30 Dutchess Drive, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.13, Block 1, Lot 15; in the R-22 zoning district.
Christopher and Cynthia Waters appeared and testified.
Architectural plans dated March 27, 2017 by Bertram Cooper, Registered Architect.
Christopher Waters testified that they just had their third child and need a little more space; that he grew up in the house and purchased it from his parents five years ago; that his wife’s parents live in New Jersey off exit 63 and when they come up to visit, they stay with them; that with the third child coming, the guest bedroom is gone; that they are proposing to add a master bedroom, move the existing laundry room upstairs and convert the laundry room and some addition space downstairs into a guest bedroom and add a front porch to the house; that the proposed front porch will line up with the existing steps; that other houses in the area have been renovated and have similar additions.
Waters Permit#46476
ZBA#17-64
The requested 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. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.
The requested 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. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.
The requested 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. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested 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.
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested front yard, side yard, total side yard and building height variances was presented and moved by Mr. Feroldi, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.
FLOOR AREA RATIO (.242) AND BUILDING HEIGHT (27.5’ Proposed. And 20’ maximum allowed) VARIANCES APPROVED; and lot area, lot width, side yard and total side yard variances determined /interpreted by board to not be required
To: William Brodsky (6 Ryerson Place) ZBA #17-66
350 Boxberger Road Date: September 18, 2017
Valley Cottage, New York 10989 Permit # 46669
ZBA#17-66: Application of 6 Ryerson Place for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .242 proposed), 5 (Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft. required, 11.400 sq. ft. existing), 6 (Lot Width: 100’ required, 75’ existing), 9 (Side Yard: 20’ required, 15.5’ proposed), 10 ( Total Side Yard:50’ required, 31.8’ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 15.5’ permitted, 27.5’ proposed) for a new single-family residence. The property is located at 6 Ryerson Place, Tappan New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.14 Block 1 Lot 9; R-15 zone.
Plot Plan dated 06/29/2017 for “6 Ryerson Place” signed and sealed by Paul Gdanski, P.E., and Jay A. Greenwell, L.S.
Architectural plans dated June 13, 2017 by Barry Terach, Registered Architect not signed or sealed.
A letter dated September 14, 2017 from the Rockland County Department of Planning signed by Douglas AJ. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning.
A letter dated Rockland County Sewer District #1 signed by Joseph LaFiandra, Engineer II.
A letter dated August 22, 2017 from the Rockland County Health Division of Environmental Health signed by Scott McKane, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer.
William Brodsky testified that he is before the Board for two reasons; that he needs the wisdom of the Board because he does not believe that he needs all of the variances that the building department is saying he needs; that he has three applications tonight for lots that were existing in 1962; that this should qualify for review as undersized lot just because they existed in 1962; that they should also qualify because they meet two of the three criteria for section 5.21, lot area and lot width; that the building height should also be denied under Section 5.21 e for 20’ permitted; that the other item that the building department has decided in error is how it calculates the 6 6 6
6 Ryerson Place Permit#46669
ZBA#17-66
height for lot; that according to the code, building height should be calculated from the front yard designation to the street line; that Mr. Kaiser wrote John Giardiello a letter regarding this and John Giardiello changed how it is measured sometime after; that he has met with John Edwards and Dennis Michaels regarding this subject and hey agree with him; and he would appreciate clear direction from the Board because he will be returning with other undersized lots.
At this time the Board requested an Attorney/client privileged session to ask some legal questions, and left the room.
The Board returned and Dennis Michaels stated that he and John Edwards discussed this and came to the conclusion that the applicant is entitled to enjoy the loosening of bulk regulations because the lots existed prior to 1965 and they meet at least one criteria of three criteria for a substandard lot; and that the applicant is entitled to a maximum height of 20’ under Section 5.21 e; and the Board agreed that the law should be interpreted this way.
After that the Board went over the variances that were originally part of the referral and removed the side yard and total side yard requests and recognized the substandard existing conditions for lot area and lot width.
Christopher Tierney, 12 Ryerson Place, testified that he is adjacent to lot #10; that he is very concerned about water runoff; that there are significant wetlands on these lots; that the lots have sat vacant for the last twenty years and have full growth on them and the neighborhood still has water problems; that that the water table here is high; that these houses are large for the lots and that he would request that the Board ensure that the plans are reviewed for drainage ; that he does not want to have water in his back yard; and would feel some assurance if a drainage plan was submitted and approved by the Town Engineer.
David Hinricksen, 14 Ryerson Place, testified that he abuts 12 and 10 Ryerson; that he is very concerned about water and how the properties will be graded; that he will be the lowest property on that side of the culd e sac; and that he would like the Town Engineer to review a drainage plan that would protect the existing home owners during after the construction.
Steve Mattera, 18 Ryerson Place, testified that water is a major concern; that the Brook is in his backyard; and that he would like to know who would be responsible if his house is damaged because of this construction.
John Stuercke, 4 Ryerson Place, testified that he spoke to Mr. Brodsky earlier and was told about a plan to angle the backyard and put a drain in for drainage but he is concerned about maintaining a drainage pipe once Mr. Brodsky sells the houses and he would feel better if a drainage plan was submitted and approved by the Town engineer.
Cheryl Mattera, 18 Ryerson Place, questioned the board about who would be liable if these houses are built and they cause problems for the existing home owners.
Dennis Michaels stated that the Board cannot decide liability.
Pursuant to § 5.21 of the Orangetown Zoning Code (Chapter 43of the Orangetown Code), since the subject property was either owned individually and separately, and separated from any adjoining tracts of land, on July 29, 1965, and which has not subsequently become attached to other adjoining land in the same ownership, and/or has a total area, lot with OR lot frontage less than the minimum required in the Bulk Table, then the subject property benefits from the relaxed, less restrictive, bulk requirements of Zoning Code§ 5.21 (c0 and )e); and, therefore, this Application only requires area/bulk variances for Floor Area Ratio and Building Height, which maximum Building Height is 20’ as per §5.21(e).
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 floor area ratio, and Section 5.21 e ( 27.5’ proposed, and 20’ permitted) building height variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar houses have been constructed in the neighborhood.
The requested floor area ratio, and Section 5.21 e ( 27.5’ proposed, and 20’ permitted) building height variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar houses have been constructed in the neighborhood.
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue than by obtaining variances.
The requested Floor Area ratio and Building Height (27.5’) variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. Similar houses have been constructed in the neighborhood.
The approval shall be conditioned upon the site development plan being reviewed by the Town’s drainage consultant Engineer, and his finding that there will be a zero net increase in surface water runoff, and that the drainage plan is otherwise acceptable, the costs of which consultant shall be paid for by the applicant, including the remittance to OBZPAE of an escrow deposit.
6 Ryerson Place Permit# 46669
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED as follows:
The application for the requested Floor Area Ratio and Building Height (27.5’ proposed, and 20’ maximum permitted), variances are APPROVED.
The foregoing Resolution, to approve the Floor Area Ratio, and Building Height ( 27.5’ PROPOSED, 20’ maximum permitted), variances; and to determine/ interpret that the lot area, lot width side yard and total side yard variances are not required, with the Specific Condition that: the approval shall be conditioned upon the site development plan being reviewed by the Town’s drainage consultant Engineer, and his finding that there will be a zero net increase in surface water runoff, and that the drainage plan is otherwise acceptable, the costs of which consultant shall be paid for by the applicant, including the remittance to OBZPAE of an escrow deposit; was presented and moved by Mr. Bosco, seconded by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.
FLOOR AREA RATIO (.271) AND BUILDING HEIGHT (27.5’ Proposed. And 20’ maximum allowed) VARIANCES APPROVED; and lot area, lot width, side yard and total side yard variances determined /interpreted by board to not be required
To: William Brodsky (8 Ryerson Place) ZBA #17-67
Valley Cottage, New York 10989 Permit # 46668
ZBA#17-67: Application of 8 Ryerson Place for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .271 proposed), 5 (Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft. required, 10.157 sq. ft. existing), 6 (Lot Width: 100’ required, 75’ existing), 9 (Side Yard: 20’ required, 15.5’ proposed), 10 ( Total Side Yard:50’ required, 31.8’ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 15.5’ permitted, 27.5’ proposed) for a new single-family residence. The property is located at 8 Ryerson Place, Tappan New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.14 Block 1 Lot 8; R-15 zone.
William Brodsky testified that he is before the Board for two reasons; that he needs the wisdom of the Board because he does not believe that he needs all of the variances that the building department is saying he needs; that he has three applications tonight for lots that were existing in 1962; that this should qualify for review as undersized lot just because they existed in 1962; that they should also qualify because they meet two of the three criteria for section 5.21, lot area and lot width; that the building height should also be denied under Section 5.21 e for 20’ permitted; that the other item that the building department has decided in error is how it calculates the 6 6 6 8 Ryerson Place Permit#46668
ZBA#17-67
David Hinricksen, 14 Ryerson Place, testified that he abuts 12 and 10 Ryerson; that he is very concerned about water and how the properties will be graded; that he will be the lowest property on that side of the cul de sac; and that he would like the Town Engineer to review a drainage plan that would protect the existing home owners during after the construction.
8 Ryerson Place Permit#46668
8 Ryerson Place Permit# 46668
Pursuant to § 5.21 of the Orangetown Zoning Code (Chapter 43 of the Orangetown Code), since the subject property was either owned individually and separately, and separated from any adjoining tracts of land, on July 29, 1965, and which has not subsequently become attached to other adjoining land in the same ownership, and/or has a total area, lot with OR lot frontage less than the minimum required in the Bulk Table, then the subject property benefits from the relaxed, less restrictive, bulk requirements of Zoning Code§ 5.21 (c0 and )e); and, therefore, this Application only requires area/bulk variances for Floor Area Ratio and Building Height, which maximum Building Height is 20’ as per §5.21(e).
FLOOR AREA RATIO (.309) AND BUILDING HEIGHT (27.5’ Proposed. And 20’ maximum allowed) VARIANCES APPROVED; and lot area, lot width, side yard and total side yard variances determined /interpreted by board to not be required
To: William Brodsky (10 Ryerson Place) ZBA #17-68
Valley Cottage, New York 10989 Permit # 46667
ZBA#17-68: Application of 10 Ryerson Place for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .309 proposed), 5 (Lot Area: 15,000 sq. ft. required, 8,914 sq. ft. existing), 6 (Lot Width: 100’ required, 75’ existing), 9 (Side Yard: 20’ required, 15.5’ proposed), 10 ( Total Side Yard:50’ required, 31.8’ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 15.5’ permitted, 27.5’ proposed) for a new single-family residence. The property is located at 10 Ryerson Place, Tappan New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.14 Block 1 Lot 7; R-15 zone.
10 Ryerson Place Permit#46667
ZBA#17-68
10 Ryerson Place Permit# 46667
To: Karen Wade ZBA #17-69
31 Azalea Drive Date: September 18, 2017
Nanuet, New York 10954 Permit # 46696
ZBA#17-69: Application of Karen Wade for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-22 District, Group I, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 25’ required, 20.08’ proposed), 10 ( Total Side Yard: 60’ required, 49.1’ proposed) for additions/ alterations to an existing single-family residence. The property is located at 31 Azalea Drive, Nanuet, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.06 Block 2 Lot 43; R-22 zone.
Karen Wade and Michael Wade appeared and testified.
Architectural plans dated June 6, 2017 by Harry J. Goldstein, Registered Architect.
Karen Wade testified that her parents live with them and help care for their three and five year old children; that they purchased the house in July and would like to add an addition to allow her parents some privacy when they need it; that they are planning to convert half of the two car garage into living space and add out a little into the rear yard to provide them with a living room and bedroom and private bathroom; that presently they are sleeping in the spare bedroom; that they are not adding a second kitchen; that there is a space for a sink and counter that they would use if they bar-b-que outside; that he parents will be eating with them in the main section of the house and they would have a door separating their private space but it would also be part of their house; that they would like to keep one part of the garage for their car; and they are working on making the drywell larger to capture water in the yard.
Wade Permit#46696
ZBA#17-69
Don Hegadorn, 29 Azaela Drive, testified that he would like to understand the side yard variance and the Board explained it; that there is swale that runs thru their yard to his yard and that the drainage needs remediation.
The requested 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 applicant testified that her parents live with them, and part of the addition is being constructed to give them some private space, but they are not proposing a separate kitchen, that they are not installing any cooking facilities in the space that will be occupied by her parents and they do not need approval per Local Law #7 of 1981. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.
The requested 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 applicant testified that her parents live with them, and part of the addition is being constructed to give them some private space, but they are not proposing a separate kitchen, that they are not installing any cooking facilities in the space that will be occupied by her parents and they do not need approval per Local Law #7 of 1981. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.
The requested 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 applicant testified that her parents live with them, and part of the addition is being constructed to give them some private space, but they are not proposing a separate kitchen, that they are not installing any cooking facilities in the space that will be occupied by her parents and they do not need approval per Local Law #7 of 1981. 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, and total 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 total side yard variances was presented and moved by Ms. Salomon, seconded by Mr. Feroldi and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.