Source: https://www.orangetown.com/meeting/zoning-board-june-19-2013/
Timestamp: 2017-11-25 05:38:55
Document Index: 202689658

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 617', '§5', '§617', '§5', '§5', '§5', '§5', 'art.\n3', '§5', '§617', '§617', '§617', '§617', '§617', '§617', '§4', '§4', 'art.\n3']

Zoning Board June 19, 2013 | Town of Orangetown
Meeting - Zoning Board June 19, 2013 (View All)
06/19/2013 Zoning Board June 19, 2013 Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes
Scheduled: 06/19/2013 7:00 PM
Zoning Board June 19, 2013 Minutes
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 19, 2013
PUBLISHED ITEMS APPLICANTS DECISIONS CONTINUED ITEMS:
TONKOSCHKER FLOOR AREA RATIO, ZBA#13-28
77.08 / 2 / 30; RG zone FRONT AYRD, BUILDING HEIGHT, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DISTANCE VARIANCES APPROVED
SECTION 5.223 VARIANCE WITHDRAWN
115 ROUTE 303 PARKING
77.07 I 211; LO zone
TEMPORARY STORAGE ZBA#13-21
OF VEHICLES APPROVED
FOR TWO YEARS WITH CONDITIONS
77.08 / 5 I 7; R-G & CS zones
SIDE YARD AND ZBA#13-43
CUOMO SIDE YARD VARIANCE AMENDMENT TO ZBA 311-79 APPROVED
69.16 / 1 / 59; R-15 zone
ZBA#13-44
77.05 / 3 / 21; R-15 zone
ZBA#l3-45
69.0912 I 3; R-15 zone
FLOOR AREA RATIO, ZBA#13-46
LOT AREA, FRONT YARD,
SIDE YARD,TOTAL SIDE YARD,
69.091213; R-15 zone
SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD ZBA#13-47
:Jm:l.:iO ~~H31~N1!61
-mzitM s _ w mz.
y(l133N’1ti0 .:10 NA\Ol
AP ROVED
77.15 /l /42; CS zone
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED ZBA#l3-48
74.13 / 4 / 26; RG zone
BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE ZBA#13-49
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: One Ramland Road-Resubdivision Plan, One Ramland Road. Orangeburg, NY 73.20 / 1/23
& 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.
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORi’\ffiY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
3!:11:.BO S~H310Ni!D’l sztfdJ s vmz N&0135tfr!HO :W NJA01
FLOOR AREA RAT][O, FRONT YARD, BUILDING HEIGHT,AND §5.153
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE DISTANCE VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Lana Tonkoschk:ur ZBA # 13-28
43 Bauer Street
ZBA# 13-28: Application of Lana Tonkoschkur for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio:
.30 permitted, .3154 proposed), 8 (Front Yard: 25′ required, 24.6′ existing & proposed),
and 12 (Building Height: 23.25′ permitted, 24.25′ existing, and 29.33′ proposed) and from Section 5.153 (Accessory structure distance: 15′ required, 12′ existing & proposed) and from Section 5.223 (Fire Escape may project 6′ into required yard: 9 Yz’ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 43
Bauer Street, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as
Section 77.08, Block 2, Lot 30; RG zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on the following Wednesdays, May 1, 2013 (postponed for no posting), June 5, 2013, and June 19, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
At the June 5, 2013 Meeka Asayag and Vincent Cioffi, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Architectural plans dated 4/15/2013 signed and sealed by Vincent J. Cioffi,
A memorandum dated 5/29/2013 from Michael Bettman, Fire Inspector, Town of
Orangetown, with 2 excerpts from the NYS Building Code in regard to a 3rd story
addition/ renovation.
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. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
Meeka Asayag testified that she recently divorced and moved herself and three children into her mothers’ house; that the house is small; that her mom and her aunt live in the house and that there are only three small bedrooms in the house; that they are planning to expand the existing small kitchen and add a two story addition to the side of the house and to make the existing attic space into an additional bedroom; that there will be
dormers in the rear of the house; that she is a landscape designer and she plans to plant
around the proposed fire escape to soften its effect; and that she would like to request a
continuance until the next hearing to submit the difference in prices from adding sprinklers to the attic space along with the fire escape as opposed to adding sprinklers to the whole house. 35’t:BO S)11:131~ ll!Pl
tSilW e Y~
iU!013$MV’d0 .:!O Niiill
Vincent Cioffi, Architect, testified that the existing house is 25 Yz feet wide and they are proposing a 17 foot addition to the side of the house; that the requested floor area ratio is
1 12 % over the permitted floor area ratio; that visually from the front of the house there will not be much of a change; that the existing garage is 12 feet from the house and the one story addition to the rear of the house has been angled so that it does not encroach further; that he will meet with the fire inspector to see if the fire escape can be less wide and still meet the safety requirements; and that they will provide the Board with the information regarding the sprinkler system.
At the June 19, 2013 meeting Meeka Asayag and Vincent Cioffoi, Architect, appeared. Meeka Asayag testified that at the last meeting the major concern of the Board was the
fire escape from the third floor additional living space proposed; that she has reviewed
the options and they have decided to sprinkler the entire house instead of adding the fire escape; and in place of the proposed door that would have led to the fire escape they are proposing to add three windows; that this change eliminates the need for the variance from Section 5.223.
documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if
The requested floor area ratio, front yard, building height, and §5.153 (accessory structure distance)variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.
The requested floor area ratio, front yard, building height, and §5.153 (accessory structure distance) variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
‘3~H.::f0 ~’>t’d31~ NA\lll m~!Yd 6_ w··mi NlM)l3t)NVli0 JO iUMtt
The requested floor area ratio, front yard, building height, and §5.153 (accessory structure distance)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.
Tue applicant purchased the property subject to Orangetown’s Zoning Code (Chapter
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested floor area ratio, front yard, building height, and §5.153 (accessory structure distance)variances are APPROVED with the SPECIFIC CONDITION that the fire escape, and door opening onto same, shall be removed from the pOlans and the whole house shall have a sprinkler system installed and signed and sealed revised plans shall be submitted reflecting the changes to the Building Department; 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.
3’~t:HO~)1~313 Nl\€t1 ti l:l id 6 -mr ml tt~013~NvHOso a~a1
Tonkoschkur
ZBA#l3-28
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio,
front yard, building height, and §5.153 (accessory structure distance) variances, with the specific condition that the fire escape, and door opening onto same, shall be removed
from the plans;was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
APP LT CANT
DEPUTY TOWNATIORNEY
By..Y../.UL:l~~[UX;L_~~~’~<-=-rvz~ Deborah Arbo ino Administrative Aide
3~HA.:1’0 S’)PJ310 N!MJl
as,~IIJd s vmz
~i\t113DNVBO30 N/it>:l
TEMPORARY STORAGE OF VEHICLES APPROVED FIR TWO (2) YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
To: Tom Kriz (115 Route 303)
250 Kisco A venue
ZBA# 13-21
ZBA# 13-21: Application of 115 Route 303 for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, Section 3 .11, LO District, Column 5, # 3 (Storage of goods or equipment accessory to uses permitted) for temporary storage of vehicles within existing building not accessory to business use. No sales or service of vehicles at this location.
The business is located at 115 Route 303, Tappan, New York and are identified on the
Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.07, Block 2, Lot 1; LO zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at meetings held on the following Wednesdays, April 3, 2013 and June 19, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Tom Kriz appeared and testified.
Ramunni, P.E..
A letter dated March 15, 2013 from the State of New York Department of
On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board dctcrnrination 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) (15); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Ms. Albanese, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
Tom Kriz testified that Palisades Audi needed space to park new cars and rented space in the building to store new cars in; that the new cars are unloaded at the dealer and driven over to the building; that they might move up to five cars per day; that they have met all the requirements of the Fire Inspector; that they did not know that they could not store the cars in the building without a permit; that they need a variance because they do not have an office in the building; that they would put up a partition on the level that the cars are stored and place a desk and key hanger there for the office space if that is permitted; and that they will request a continuance to get the information t£at the Board is asking for.
3~tBO S~H3″10 RllD
a~!W 6- Ymi
!i~OJ.3tJNVHO 30 N~'”Ol
Ellen McCarthy, 331 Kings highway asked if there would be trucks unloading cars in the area and when the applicant explained the operation, she had no objections.
At the June 19, 2013 meeting Tom Kriz appeared and testified. The following items were reviewed by the Board:
An e-mail dated Monday, may 20, 2013 from Mike Bettrnann, Chief Fire
A letter dated May 3, 2013 from the Department of Environmental Management and Engineering, Town of Orangetown, signed by Joseph J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner.
A letter dated May 29, 2013 from the State of New York Department of
Tom Kriz testified that he has addressed the concerns of the Board; that the trip
impact has been answered; that there will be between five and ten cars in and out each day at the most; that there will not be any additional lighting installed and the cars
will not be stored outside; that he would be fine with a two-year approval and willing to come back for renewals.
Mary Cardenas, Pine Tree Lane, testified that her main concern is regarding lights and how they would affect the neighbors.
Christine Zinna, 3 Autumn Drive, testified that she is concerned about parking outside in the parking lot and about the gas in the cars.
The requested temporary storage of vehicles not accessory to a business use on the same lot will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed interior storage of vehicles is a permitted use if the business it relates to was located on the same lot; the office space not being located on the same lot is not a detriment because this is temporary storage. The applicant must return to the Board for any continuation~’~i..f()lS!;f~gr.,il
2 years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy. – ”
:Oere sh~l be no o1:tdoor storage of vehicles and no additi~ B11fBg ~all V ·UBZ
mstalled m the parkmg lot. — ~ · ·
N!t013~N’V’HO;!0 Nk\01
ZBA#13-21
The requested temporary storage of vehicles not accessory to a business on the same lot will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed interior storage of vehicles
is a permitted use if the business it relates to was located on the same lot; the office
space not being located on the same lot is not a detriment because this is temporary storage. The applicant must return to the Board for any continuation of this use for more than 2 years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
The requested temporary storage of vehicles not accessory to a business use on the same lot, is not 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 interior storage of vehicles is a permitted use if the business it relates to was located on the same lot; the office space not being located on the same lot is not a detriment because this is temporary storage. The applicant must return to the Board for any continuation of this use for more than
2 years from the issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested temporary storage of vehicles not accessory to a business use on the same lot is APPROVED for TWO (2) YEARS from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy; with the following specific conditions: (1) cars shall be stored inside the building only; (2) No exterior lighting shall be added to the 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.
(iii) The Board gives no approval of any building plans, includin,g,:.1vitlwlJ$.Ji~~CW-ti01 the accuracy and structural integrity thereof, of the applicant, buti1fMe1t’ave’been sub_mittedto_theBoard solely for informational and verification ~~ygiat{re tW.~ variances bemg requested. – – ~
Ni\Ql3~N’if H 0 .:!O R!Aul
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested variance for temporary storage of vehicles not accessory to a business use on the same lot, with specific conditions: 1) cars shall be stored inside the building only; (2) No exterior
lighting shall be added to the site; was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by
Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Ms. Salomon, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PD, ACABOR
zs,l:J.Ljd s mz
SIDE YARD AND TOTALSIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Judy Peaks
ZBA# 13-43
ZBA# 13-43: Application of Judy Peaks for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 10′ required, 6.5′ proposed), and 10 (Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 15.2′ proposed) for a deck at an existing two-family residence. The premises are located at 11 Union Street, Sparkill, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Mapas Section 77.08, Block 5, Lot 7; RG zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 19, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Judy Peaks and Glen Peaks appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Three pages of deck plans.
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; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
Judy Peaks testified that the deck was built without a permit; that she is in the process of selling the house and found out that the deck was not legal; that she is before the Board to legitimize the deck and obtain a certificate of occupancy in order to sell the house; and that she has a certificate of occupancy to the two-family house.
3i~tl::l0 S’1B310 Nti61
m<~!lMs .. Wml
N.A\Ol3f!N\i~O .::lO rUM).L
ZBA#l3-43
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 deck does not encroach any further into the side yard than the existing house and the lot is long and narrow.
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 deck does not encroach any further into the side yard than the existing house and the lot is long and narrow.
The deck does not encroach any further into the side yard than the existing house and
the lot is long and narrow.
hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupanc)9s ‘ ~
issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforced;it co o
Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall not2f ~ -4 obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, mth~ ~ sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated ~ ~ · z
which legally permits such occupancy. ~ ~
(;,() -a z
0 :::3 G)
“TJ ~: rn
(v) Any f~regoing variance or ~pecial P~it will lapse. if any c~n:emplated .constru<io:q.: ~
of the project or any use for which the vanance or Special Permit is granted is not P:i .~ z
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.
ZBA#13-43
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 Ms.Castelli and carried as follows: Mr, Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.AO.
By-‘OLl:~~..!0.{..<“”2-¥G<:<c<:::: :
~B::JO S~H31~ NlltU
a 11fatd 6 ·~ 1llf mz
{i,i013~rfv80 :!O Ni!Ol
SIDE YARD VARIAN CE APPROVED
To: Raffaele Cuomo ZBA# 13-44
4 Truman Circle Date: June 19, 2013
ZBA# 13-44: Application of Raffaele Cuomo for an amendment to ZBA#l 1~78 which granted a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, R-15 District, Group M, Column 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 13.27′ granted and 12.7′ existing) for an addition that has been constructed at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 4 Truman Circle, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.16, Block 1, Lot 59; R-15 zoning district.
Raffaele Cuomo and Peter Cuomo appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
As built survey dated 11117 /2004 with the latest revision date of 9/18/2012 signed and sealed by Jay Greenwell, L.S ..
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; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent,
Raffaele Cuomo testified that the foundation was pre-existing; that the architect that set the house on the plot plan made an oversight; that the footings were suppose to line up according the previous ZBA Decision but upon the final as built survey being done, they did not; that he is not sure if the architect or the builder made a mistake but the foundation was left in place.
The requested side yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The as built survey changes the previously approved side yard by several inches.
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 as built survey changes the previously approved side yard by several inches.
The requested amendment to the previously approved side yard variance is not substantial.
~~H.::HO SJ\831~ fU\0’1
JlilW s lff’•ml
d0:13~N’fti0 .:H) Nll(U
Zl’IW 6 lratl
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard variance was presented and moved by Ms. Albanese, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye .Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
By–“”‘i…s.a..£¥-~’-“”‘”‘–‘-L-1-‘-.Ll….,..
Deborah Arbolino ……
ZSllMJ 6 Ymi
To: Anthony Diaz
14 Liberty Road
ZBA# 13-45
ZBA#l3-45: Application of Anthony Diaz for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 8 (Front Yard: 30′ required, 20.2′ proposed) for the installation of an in-ground pool at an existing single-family residence, The premises are located at 14 Liberty Road, Tappan, New York and identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.05, Block 3, Lot 21; R-15 zone.
Anthony Diaz, Craig Bagin and Izzy Castiglia appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Site plan labeled pool grading and SESC Plan dated 03/14/2013 signed and sealed
by Thomas W. Skrable, P .E..
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; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
Craig Bagin, B & B Pool and Spa, testified that they are proposing to install an in-ground pool with a patio and they are replacing the wood on the deck with treks; that they are proposing a shed to house the pool supplies and to fence in the property because of the pool; that they comply with the setback for side yards but this property has two front yards; that the rear property backs up to Jackson Street and creates a unique situation.
Anthony Diaz testified that there are five members of the family; that he installed a generator; that they have owned the residence for 3 Y2 years; that the construction is confined to one side of the property; that they are not bringing in any dirt; that hey have a landscape plan designed to provide screening and privacy; and that he would install a PVC type of fence that would comply with zoning.
3Ut:HO ~)HBl 0 flflllil B2i.lJJ 6 YU N·~o135NVHO .:10 NllH’ll
Joseph Kosofsky, 22 Liberty Street, Tappan, testified that he owns the lot to the south of the applicant; that he purchased his house in 1966; that his daughter owns the house now; that he has no objection to the pool but it is too close to where his bedrooms are; that
there should be a 15′ setback and the pool is too close to the property line; that the deck
should be knocked down and the pool built there.
Chairman Sullivan explained to Mr. Kosofsky that the variance is for the rear of the property (considered a front yard because of Jackson Street) and not the side yard.
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
The requested front yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is oddly shaped and the rear yard meets Jackson Street, creating two front yards according to the zoning code; however the property is clearly used a backyard.
The requested front yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property is oddly shaped and the rear yard meets Jackson Street, creating two front yards according to the zoning code; however the property is clearly used a backyard.
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 odd shaped property that fronts on two streets is the cause of the requested variance.
The requested front yard variance is although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicants that are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety
and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community.
~B.:W ~)iti31!3NM01
ii il Lid 6 1Dr ml
(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.
ii 2I l.Jd 6 1nr ·mz
N£013SNV~O.:H) ri!iul
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested front yard variance was presented and moved by Ms. Salomon, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
BUlillING INSPECTOR-M.M.
ZSl.lQd 6 YEW
No!i013tiNVUO~O N&O!
FLOOR AREA RATIO, LOT AREA, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BIDLDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Kathleen O’Sullivan
ZBA # 13-46
ZBA# 13-46: Application of Kathleen O’Sullivan for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, Section 3.11, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .32 proposed), 5 (Lot Area: 15,000 sq, ft, required, 12, 365 sq. ft. exiting), 8 (Front Yard: 30′ required, 27.5′ proposed), 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 15′ proposed) 10 (Total Side Yard: 50′ required, 45.3′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height:
15′ permitted, 27.5′ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 4 Wright Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.09, Block 3, Lot 32; R-15 zone.
Kathleen O’Sullivan appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Site plan dated 04/29/2013 signed and sealed by Paul Gdanski, P.E.
Architectural plans dated 04/21/2013signed and sealed by Paul Gdanski, P.E.
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; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
Kathleen O’Sullivan testified that she has owned the house for about 20 years; that two years ago she married and moved to Suffern with her husband; that she has been renting the house but wants to move back to Pearl River; that they are proposing to remove the existing garage and add a two car garage with a master suite above it; that her son, husband and herself would be living in the house; that her parents come to visit from Ireland several ties a year and she would like to have enough room for them to be comfortable; that the addition will allow everyone to be at home in the house; and that she has talked to her neighbors and none of them have objections to the proposal.
!iijt.:f;iO S)!.~:[31~ N~O’J.
~~!Qd s: wmz
NM.Ol3eNVBO ;!O N&Ol
ZBA#13-46
The requested floor area ratio, lot area, 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 floor area ratio, lot area, 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 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 neighborhood.
The requested floor area ratio, lot area, 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.
3’$l:l::W ~~831$ N!ifll
~·~!W 6 _ Y’al
itl\013~NV”tl0 dO ~UA01
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 area, 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.
(i) The approval of any variance or Special Permit is granted by the Board in accordance with and subject to those facts shown on the plans submitted and, if applicable, as I amended at or prior to this hearing, as hereinabove recited or set forth.
which are hereinbefore set forth. !
(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. 1
(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained withina 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 i Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall not be
sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated I hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement which legally permits such occupancy. :
(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 I Occupancy with respect to use does not constitute “substantial implementation” for thd
3”0l:BO S)H:i310 N&tll !
ZS zr fltd 6 Y SDZ
ZBA#l3-46
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio, lot area, front yard, side yard, total side yard and building height variances was presented, and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent. I
3~td:W~~lf310Ni\61
B~!ldd s ~·mt
)tfAOi3aNVBO ;iO Nli01.
To: Charlotte Swift ZBA# 13-47
30 Cara Drive Date: June 19, 2013
ZBA# 13-47: Application of Charlotte Swift for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Section 3.12, R-15District, Group M, Columns 9 (Side Yard: 15′ required, 14′ existing,
11.7′ proposed), 10 (Total Side Yard: 30′ required, 25.7′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 11.7′ permitted, 13.3′ proposed) (Section 5.21 (c) Undersized lot applies) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 30 Cara Drive, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section
69.06, Block 2, Lot 3; R-15 zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wedriesday, June 19, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Jonathan Ho dash, Architect, and Charlotte Swift appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Architectural plans dated March 6, 2013 signed and sealed by Jonathan Hodash, Architect.
Jonathan Hodash, Architect, testified that the existing single-family residence was built in
1963; that it is a Cape Cod style house with two bedrooms on the main level and two bedrooms upstairs; that Mrs. Swift is elderly and needs more accessible space on the first floor; that they are proposing to enlarge the kitchen and to add a handicap accessible bathroom; that the house is already non-conforming; that they area proposing to add a garage which would easily accommodate emergency access to the house; that the doors
on the side of the garage would permit access to the rear yard for Mrs. Swift; and that
J~i::!.:!O ~·~’e3ln NAD1
uitw s 1rmz
rUi0135 tnnw :iO tiIMJ1
ZBA#13-47
produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The lot is undersized and the handicap accessibility is needed to accommodate Mrs. Swift.
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 lot is undersized and the handicap accessibility is needed to accommodate Mrs. Swift
The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The lot is undersized and the handicap accessibility is needed to accommodate Mrs. Swift.
3~id.::!O SJl’tl31~ Kli0’1
1111Yd s wmz
Nli013~ifV’l10 .:!O N!AOl
~IOH.:10 $)iH31G 0°’1 tS,•·EIU.d 6 Y mfl Nlt013~N\1UO so Nlt\01
ZBA#l3-47
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. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
n~CJ?c
~ZIW 6 wmz
SPECIAL PERMIT GRANTED WITH CONDITIONS FOR TWO-YEARS FROM DATE OF ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCUPANCY
To: Daniel Kim (Imperial Sports)
1 University Plaza Drive Suite 118
ZBA # 13-48
ZBA#13-48: Application oflmperial Sports for a Special Permit in accordance with Chapter 43 (Zoning) Section 3.11, CS District, Column 3 # 8 (Other Retail/services: Karaoke Room and kitchen proposed) The premises are located at 64 Route 303, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.15, Block 1, Lot 42; CS zoning district.
Daniel Kim, Attorney and Adrian Lee, owner, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Site plan and building information plan, Egress Plan, Proposed plan opt A, dated
10/25/2009 by Se Hwan Kim, Architect, not signed or sealed.
A letter dated June 4, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning signed by Thomas B. Vanderbeek, P.E., Commissioner of Planning.
A letter dated may 17, 2013 from the County ofRocldand Department of
A letter dated May 20, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of Health signed by Scott McKane, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer.
A letter dated June 10, 2013 from the State of New York Department of transportation signed by Mary Jo Russo, P .E., Rockland County Permit Engineer.
pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (7); which does not require SEQRA -i S
environmental review. The motion was seconded b_y Ms. Salomon ar:d carried as f~owr:_ Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelh, aye; and ~ ?E
Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent. ~
Daniel Kim, Attorney, testified that the premises is 2,000 sq. ft.; that currently thereae ::g
5-6 pool tables in a portion of the room; that there was an issue with the roofleakin@l.at; ~” has bee:i resolved with the landlord; that they would l~e to renovate and ?ut in karaiik-e, $
booths mstead of the pool tables; that they are proposing to upgrade the kitchen to rn ·
provide refreshments; that they have a liquor license that provides beer/wine/ sake; that they are proposing the same hours of operation that they were granted for the billiards which is 12 noon to 4 A.M.; that this is a adult entertainment for the people of Tappan; that they do not expect bar type behavior; that karaoke will provide better revenue, charging for the rental of the room; that one room would be for a party of about 8 people; that the rooms would have multiple TV’s with pointers to make the person singing feel like they area star; and that they would like to renovate outside after this.
….-\
:;;Z
ZBA#13-48
Janet Wheeler, 25 Livingston Street, Tappan, testified that she is a little perplexed by the application; that she has concerns about the hours of operation; that noise spills over to the parking lot; that there is a lot of graffiti on the building and that she has reported to the code enforcement and was told that since it does not face the public street, nothing
can be done about it; that she had to go to the Board for a 4 season room that does not
face the street; that commercial eyesores should not be overlooked.
Al Murphy, 19 Convent Road, Orangeburg, testified that he frequents the establishment 2 or 3 times a week; that graffiti is not from the customers but from kids; that he has never seen a fight in the establishment and the owners run a tight a ship.
The requested Special Permit will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The special permit is being granted for two-years from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy with hours of operation limited until midnight weekdays and until 1 A.M. on the eve of holidays and Friday and Saturday nights.
The applicant must provide a parking table on the site plan and illustrate suffici~
parking is being provided for the additional uses. 0
rn eo o
:;;;::: )>
The requested Special Permit as conditioned will not have an adverse effect or €0 ~ ~
impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or distri6t; ~ 1 ~
The special permit is being granted for two-years from the date of issuance ofthc::J ~ 1 i£
certificate of occupancy with hours of operation limited until midnight weekdays.1ihd’ ti z
until 1 A.M. on the eve of holidays and Friday and Saturday nights.
4, The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining a special permit.
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 special permit.
The proposed use will be appropriately located with respect to transportation, water supply, waste disposal, fire and police protection and other public facilities.
The proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic hazard and will not create at any point of determination set forth in §§4.16, 4.17 & 4.18 any more dangerous and objectionable elements referred to in §4.11 than is characteristic of the uses expressly permitted as of right in the same district.
The proposed use will not adversely affect the character of or property values in the
area and it will not otherwise impair the public health, safety, morals, convenience, comfort, prosperity and other aspects of the general welfare of the town.
The proposed use will comply with all other regulations applicable to such use and
the drainage for the site will not be affected by the issuance of the Special Permit.
DECISION: Inview of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested Special Permit is APPROVED for TWO YEARS from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy with the Specific Conditions that (1) the hours of operation are limited to 12:00 noon to midnight weekdays, and noon till 1 :00 A.M. eves of holidays, and Friday and Saturday nights; and (2) a parking table must be provided on the site plan and illustrate sufficient parking is being provided for the additional uses; 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.
3eH.::W SJ1t!31G NR!:Ql
ti 11 Lld 6 y mi
. d013t1NV’c!O.:W N~Gl
ZBA#l3-48
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested Special Permit for TWO YEARS from the date of issuance of the certificate of occupancy with the Specific Conditions that (1) the hours of operation are limited to 12:00 noon to midnight
weekdays, and noon till 1 :00 A.M. eves of holidays, and Friday and Saturday nights; and
(2) a parking table must be provided on the site plan and illustrate sufficient parking is being provided for the additional uses; was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli,
seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye
;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
DEPUTY TOWN AITORNEY
BUILDING INSPECTOR ~R.A.O.
DEPT. ofENVIRONMENT AL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,zBA, PB
3m.:H.O 3)l’83la WlOi
~~!Md 6. v·mtz
Nl!Ol3~.Hi’tti0 3.0 N/AOl
To: Scot and Christine Michel
13 Fairview Lane
ZBA # 13-49
ZBA#13-49: Application of Scott and Christine Michel for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, RG District, Group Q, Column 12 (Building Height: 18′ permitted, 19.9′ proposed) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 13 Fairview Lane, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.13, Block 4, Lot 26; RG zone.
Christine Michel appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
Architectural plans dated August 13, 2012 signed and sealed by John Perkins, Architect.
Christine Michel testified that they would like to add a master bedroom over the existing two-car garage; that the are one foot over the permitted height; that they are not changing the existing footprint; that they would like to keep the same roof pitch and is existing;
that they have owned the house for eleven years; and that there is no opposition from neighbors.
3~H:::W S)IB31~tifdOl
es n tak\ 5 -_ w ·mz
iUAOl35NvBO ~o N!AOl
ZBA#13-49
The requested building height variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition is not higher than the existing house and similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.
The requested building height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed addition is not higher than the existing house and similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.
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 proposed addition is not higher than the existing house and similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.
3~B.:W S~’t!31Q NRtOl
miIQJS_Ymi
N!AOl3~rf~t!O JO iUAOl
ZBA#l3-49
30Hj0 S)l?j3.’l~Nlfl!l
m ,1-1 Md s – w ·mti
d~;3~NV~i0 .:W Kll91
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested building height variance was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Castelli and
carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.
By~f,4.<~.fL…-b…4:”””””‘=
MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB CHAIRMAN,ZBA,PB,ACABOR