VOTE:

In favor (aye): 6
Opposed (nay): 0

Mr. Smith: The variances are granted. Please see the building department.

Theodore Capozzoli: Request for a variance of 249-19-D (side yard reduction) from 100ft to 78ft; Property located at 276 Derby Road (SEC 21 BLOCK 1 LOT 41.21); Designated RA.

Mrs. Thompson: The mailings were filed by the Board and filed by the Secretary. The Public Hearing Notice was read at 9:09 pm.

Mr. Smith: I Move to open the Public Hearing at 9:10 pm.

Theadore Capozzoli: I am looking to put 36 x 18 addition to existing home.

Mr. Smith: Any comments from the Board?

Mrs. Thompson: You are going to a 30 foot side yard?

Mr. Capozzoli: Yes.

Mr. Owen: Why on the side?

Mr. Capozzoli: Septic, A/C unit and deck is back there which I just had redone. I would not like to have to tear it down if it is not necessary.

Mrs. Thompson: How far back is septic?

Mr. Capozzoli: 25 feet off corner of the house.

Mr. Smith: Any questions from the Public? (no)

Mr. Smith: Any comments from the Board? (no)

Mr. Smith: I am having a problem with it too close to the side line and must be a way to reconfigure and 30 feet from the stone wall and next door is currently vacant.

Mr. Capozzoli: I have tried to buy it and have not spoken with him in the last 6 months. But I did try to buy it.

Mr. Smith: It is more rural and has 150 and 100 foot wide lots as it is.

Mr. Capozzoli: I can’t see how he can even build on that lot.

Mr. Smith: Probably have to come in for variances, too.

Mr. Capozzoli: It would not affect my integrity can’t see it in front of the lot.

Mr. Smith: Any further comment from the Board?

Mr. Oster: You want to put the new addition to the side and there is so much in the back.

Mr. Capozzoli: So costly to go back.

Mr. Oster: 150 feet and have depth forever and expand on narrow side. Understand what you are talking about and its all back there but that is there.

Mr. Smith: I thing the variance is too great, myself. I think you can accomplish with less of an impact or variance. I don’t know exactly where the septic is and so on.

Mr. Capozzoli: 25 feet off the house in that range, no more than 25 or less than 20.

Mr. Smith: You can still stick that in there - I don’t know.

Mr. Oster; No chance in the front?

Mr. Capozzoli: With the way it is set up there are 3 tress.

Mr. Smith: I Move to close the Public Hearing at 9:15 pm; Seconded; All in favor; Motion carried.

Mr. Smith: I Move to grant the following variance: 249-19-D (side yard reduction) from 100ft to 78ft; Second.

DISCUSSION:

Mrs. Thompson: You don’t have to put addition across the whole back.

Mr. Capozzoli: The driveway is on one side and I removed the tie wall and put in stone wall there and I put in a lot of money.

VOTE:

In favor (aye): 2
Opposed (nay): 4

DECISION:

Mr. Smith: The variance is denied.

Mr. Smith: You can look at this again but the way it is you are running to close to the side yard.

Mr. Smith: I can only speak for myself.

Mr. Owen: You can resubmit.

Mr. Capazzoli: If I buy more property?

Mr. Oster: If the widths are there, no.

MGD Development Group (Clubside Investors, LLC): Request for the following variances and interpretations for a gated condominiums containing 217 residential units:

1. Variance of yard setback requirements:
a) Variance of 50 foot rear yard setback of section 249-22(7)(i) and 249-22(8)(k) to allow placement of wooden fence along an approximately 1,225 foot length of the property line facing Interstate 84 which fence will vary in height from approximately 8 feet to approximately 14 feet in height.
b) An interpretation that the front yard setback requirement of 249-22(7)(i) and 249-229(8)(k) does not apply to a proposed retaining wall and associated earth fill supporting an interior road, and located within 50 feet of the front property line along Golf Links Road, and, if the Zoning Board finds that the yard requirements apply, a variance to permit such retaining wall, approximately 430 foot long, and varying in height and distance from the property line, with maximum height of 8 feet and minimum distance of 1 foot from the front property line.
c) A variance of the 50 foot require rear yard setback for detached single-family condominiums under section 249-22(8) to allow the rear decks of 11 single-family condominiums along the easterly border and 1 single-family condominium along the westerly border to encroach into such setback to the following extent:

UNIT VARIANCE UNIT VARIANCE
SF 7 16 feet SF 45 15.8 feet
SF 33 11.8 feet SF 46 16 feet
SF 34 14.1 feet SF 47 16 feet
SF 35 15.9 feet SF 48 16 feet
SF 36 3.5 feet SF 49 16 feet
SF 44 8.9 feet SF 50 15.1 feet

2. Variance of height requirements:

A variance of the height requirements of 35 feet and 2 ½ stories required for single-family detached (249-22(8)(k)) and attached (249-22(7)(i)) condominiums to permit the following heights

BUILDINGS REQUESTED HEIGHT VARIANCE
12 uphill detached units
(SF1-SF6, SF13-SF18) 41 feet 6 feet
4 downhill duplexes
(D4, D6, D8, D10) 39 feet 4 feet
18 downhill townhouse buildings
(T1-T12, T15-T17,
T20-T22) 39 feet 4 feet
10 uphill duplex buildings
(D1-D3, D11-17) 47 feet 12 feet
6 uphill townhouse buildings
(T13, T14, T18, T19, T23, T24) 47 feet 12 feet
2 garden condominium buildings
(C1, C2) 45 feet
(3 story) 10 feet
(1/2 story)

3. Variance of distance between facing elevations of attached housing buildings.

An interpretation that the required minimum separation between facing elevations of principal buildings of attached housing under Section 249-22(7)(g) applies only to the separations between front elevations and variances to permit 7 townhouse buildings on High Ridge Road to be separated from each other by 79 feet where 94 feet is required and to permit 4 townhouse buildings on Putter’s Way to be separated from each other by 87 feet where 94 feet is required. But if the Board interprets section 249-22(7)(g) to require such separations between all elevations of principal buildings of attached housing, then the applicant also seeks variances to permit a minimum separation of 30 feet between buildings, so as to permit the site layout as shown on the plans on file with the Zoning Board.

4. Cluster groupings of detached condominiums

a) An interpretation that the detached single-family condominiums are not arranged in ‘cluster groupings’ as set forth in zoning law 249-22(8)(h)(i) and (j); in the alternative:

b) An interpretation to define the limits of said ‘cluster groupings’ and to grant a variance of 35 feet of the required 50 foot separation between such groupings as required by Section 249-22(8)(h), thus permitting separations of 15 feet.

c) An interpretation that no such ‘cluster grouping’ exceeds 10 units; and, for any grouping found to exceed 10 units, a variance of Section249-22(8)(i) to permit the excess number found, and,

d) An interpretation that no such ‘cluster grouping’ contains more than five houses ‘in any one continuous row’ and, for any grouping found to contain more than five houses ‘in any one continuous row’ a variance of Section 249-22(8)(i) to permit the excess number found, and,

e) An interpretation that each ‘cluster grouping’ provides the means on ingress and egress provided in Section 249-22(j), or, for any such grouping which does not, a variance to permit the methods of ingress and egress provided on the plans.

Property located on Golf Links Road Rt 50
(SECTION 73 BLOCK 1 LOT 31.2, 33.2, 33.3)
Designated R-1.

Mrs. Thompson: The mailings were reviewed by the Board and filed by the Secretary. The Public Hearing Notice was read at 9:21 pm.

Mr. Smith: I Move to open the Public Hearing at 9:25 pm.

Jennifer Van Tuyl, Cuddy & Feder, LLP
Jack O’Connell, Robert O’Donnell and Robert Adamo, Ginsberg Dev. LLC.

J. Van Tuyl: I am here representing the applicant. With the Board’s permission and the people who are here from the golf course, to summarize and give information on the project.

Jack O’Connell of Ginsburg Develompent / MGD: They are national developers and this is the first project in New York and they have built other such developments.

Over view – worked with the topo to not disturb wetlands or slope as least as possible. Across street the land was dedicated to the Town to protect the Town’s wells. Thoughts of putting housing there but decided not to. There are boulevard entrances: one in the main in the back; it is green with a water feature with rock waterfall. Once into this area (drawing) there are up- and down-hill town homes. In here (drawing) garden condo buildings on either side of club house, sports court and in the club house amenities for business center, fitness, game and social room.

Duplexes (side by side ) up hill and down hill units. As you go here (left of a drawing) this is on a ridge and are single family homes. We have maintained side walks on one side of the street so it is pedestrian - friendly. And go up boulevard with single family with view of golf course and duplex across the street and up down here. Fence here to mitigate the sound although national standards don’t require it.

Concept of entrance plan – stone wall in front, double lane entrance with water feature in back ground (reference on big map).

This is a down hill condo one of 3 along golf course (map) like to work with high ridge roof line and mix product type.

Up hill single family homes – notice you enter from basement and walk to 1st and 2nd floor and high roof line and down hill walk down to basement and back you walk on 1st leve. Along golf course walk out basement.

Another up-hill unit single family and pull in garage and like to mix the houses and pull in and make left into the drive to break up street scape so not using the same house.

This is duplex units – down-hill duplex and topo walk out to the basement and these are located in 7 locations – (map) and high roof line to compliment area and more living space in loft.

Up-hill duplex unit and are in 3 locations (map) and across street and enter basement level and walk out in back yard on 1st floor level.

These are down-hill town home product and (map) again 4 unit building double garage units and 2 units with single unit garages and parking for 4 or 2 per unit. We have additional parking through out side all along to accommodate for guest parking.

There are up-hill town home units and 4 unit building and vary building strip in units and number to vary street scape and 3 to 6 unit buildings. Only 2 six-unit buildings. Topo shows you they come in basement and walk up to entrance.

Garden condo building – think of braking it up mentally – 4 flat HC units and above them 30 feet wide – 2 duplex double floor units (map) and this was sort of building was requested by PB.

J. Van Tuyl: The one point to mention is that we are here from the PB for variances and have been working with them for some time. Only one purpose for variances is for better site plan. Not trying to put 50 pounds of development in 40 pound lot. Keep development in positive way with varied street scape with islands and largest building in center of site. From the golf course next door nothing to reveal variances were granted.

1st: Yard variance for wooden fence which is along the property line on I-84. Only people to see it are those on highway as there is quite a bit of land between fence and road. The purpose to block site line and tenuiate noise.

2nd: Road circulates to front of side (along here (map)) far from the bed of the road within the yard because of grading to construct road and need interpretation of building retaining wall does not fall within the yard set back. We need a variance if you think it does. Across the street is open land to dedicated to Town for well protection.

3rd : Relating to the yards is variance to build 11-decks on single family homes above golf course and on east side and one single family (map). So on both we asking for variance shown clearly in larger drawing which you each received in reduced form. Something he mentioned is that the variance is due to topo of the site. The code exempts patios and terrace and in usual case build patio outside lowest level are not required and a fine to place in yard. But as he said the topo on this side falls away so if patio – it is lowest level and asking for permission for decks in the same place put patios. Tried to show architecture of what it look like in rear of houses. Tried to designed arch without adverse impact. This shows rear elevation.

Mr. Owen: One house needs patio on the one side?

Jack O’Connell: Only one needing it.