City Council

Village of South Blooming Grove Zoning Board of Appeals Minutes of November 10, 2022 Meeting A mee ng of the Village of South Blooming Grove Zoning Board of Appeals on November 10, 2022 in the Village Hall was called to order by Chairman Yehoshua Bi man at 8:01 PM. Chairman Bi man led a Pledge of Allegiance by all who a ended. Chairman Bi man also introduced new Thomas J. Shepstone of Shepstone Management Company, Inc., which is now providing planning services to the Village. Shepstone very brie y explained his new role as with the Board of Appeals, including func oning as the Ac ng Secretary of the board. Shepstone proceeded to do a roll call of the board. Board Members Yehoshua Bi man, Chaim Goldstein, Sholem Leiberman and Shmaya Spitzer were present for the mee ng. Absent was Board member Pete Piampiano. Also present were Board A orney Tad Barone as well as Isaac Eckstein and Joel Sterner on behalf of the Village. A quorum being present, the mee ng was opened for regular business. Shepstone also further ar culates his role as support sta for the ZBA to assist with mee ng conduct, applica on reviews and recommenda ons, minutes and the like. He also made certain procedural policy recommenda ons including the following: • All applica ons should be submi ed 3 weeks prior to mee ngs and in digital as well as hard copy formats. • Sign-up sheets should be employed for all public mee ngs. • Public comments should be limited to 3 minutes oral with only wri en accepted during hearing con nua ons. Bi man moved and Leiberman seconded a mo on to approve the procedural policies proposed by Shepstone. The mo on was unanimously carried. Chairman Bi man indicated the minutes of the September 1, 2022 were not yet complete and, therefore, ac on on them would need to be deferred for the me being. 379 Lake Shore Drive Chairman Bi man indicated the public hearing on this applica on remained open and requested recommenda ons from Shepstone. The la er noted that, although the new policy will only allow wri en comments during hearing con nua ons, this hearing was con nued prior, so the Board should entertain any oral comments wished to be o ered. The hearing was then resumed at 8:10 PM. Simon Schwartz, represen ng the applicant provided a brief overview of the applica on for those present. A public comment was o ered sugges ng the size and proximity of the proposed synagogue was not in keeping with character of the neighborhood. A orney Barone noted that, under the provisions of the Religious Land Use and Ins tu onalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), the burden is on the Village to prove such a case, as religious land uses are Page 1 of 5 ti ti ti tt ti tt ti ti ti ti ti ti ti tt ff tt ti ti ff ti tt ti ti ti tt ti tt ti ti ff ti ti ti ti ti tt tt tt tt ti ti ti ti tt tt tt fl  accorded special treatment under this Federal law. Shepstone noted no wri en comments had been received for the public hearing and recommended it be closed. Chairman Bi man made a mo on to close the public hearing on the 379 Lake Shore Drive applica on. It was seconded by Spitzer and unanimously carried, formally closing the hearing at 8:13 PM. Shepstone proceeded to note he had examined the record and o ered his recommenda ons as follows, also informing the board of the proper classi ca on of the variance requests under SEQRA: The applicant, located in a RR District, has requested two area variances. One is a reduc on of the 40 feet front yard requirement to 10 feet, 2 inches, which is a SEQRA § 617.5(c)(16) Type II ac on and the other is a SEQRA Unlisted Ac on to increase the maximum building height from to 35 to 44 feet, although it appears 40 feet, 10.75 inches will be adequate. The front yard variance is warranted based on the fact the lot adjoins a body of water in the rear where building condi ons are restricted by the proximity to water and soil condi ons. This restricts the ability to prac cally use what is a rela vely small lot unless the front yard is signi cantly reduced. The following ndings with respect to the requirements of § 7-712-B of the New York State Village Law are warranted in the case of the requested front yard variance: 1. This variance will not produce undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby proper es. It is a proposed religious use that is appropriate to the area. It is, in fact, a permi ed use, by Village Board Special Permit in all Village of South Blooming Grove zoning districts, indica ng it has been determined to be in general harmony with all other uses. 2. The bene t sought by the applicant in this case cannot be achieved by some other feasible method because the shape, size and proximity to water totally and unreasonably restricts the building area unless the front yard can be reduced. The lot has a rear lot line of only 69 feet, as compared to 215 feet for the front lot line, which forces the building to the front. 3. While the requested variance when viewed as a percentage of what is allowed under the code may be considered to be substan al, the shape of this lot and a 100-year ood zone force building toward the front and, e ec vely, only reverses the front and rear yards. The exis ng building on the building also already encroaches on the front yard. Therefore, the variance, considered in context of condi ons very speci c to the parcel is not substan al. 4. The variance will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community with a use (a small shul) that will only periodically generate usage and then only produce pedestrian tra c at its busiest. As such, the variance will not cause any adverse impacts. 5. The alleged di culty was not self-created as the lot was always restricted by the short distance between road and water and its small size as well as the 100-year ood zone. 6. The Village Board regulates religious uses and is obligated to apply the standards of the U.S. Page 2 of 5 ti ti ti ti ti fi ti ti fl fl ff ti fi fi ti ffi ti ti ti ff ti ti ti tt ti ti ffi ti tt fi fi tt  Religious Land Use And Ins tu onalized Persons Act, which ensures the interests of jus ce will be served by allowing the variance. The variance requested will simply establish, for the record and enforcement purposes, the standard that will be applicable. It will also have no impact on popula on density and generate no signi cant tra c or other adverse impacts. The height variance is de minimis in nature. Indeed, § 235-20.B of the Zoning Law already allows “Parapet walls or cornices which do not exceed the maximum height requirement for the district in which they are located by more than four feet.” The addi onal height of the building itself in this instance would be merely 5 feet, 1¾ inches, while a parapet wall could nearly as high. Therefore, the prac cal a ect on appearances is minimal. Moreover; 1. This variance will not produce undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby proper es. It is a proposed religious use that is appropriate to the area. It is, in fact, a permi ed use, by Village Board Special Permit in all Village of South Blooming Grove zoning districts, indica ng it has been determined to be in general harmony with all other uses. 2. The bene t sought by the applicant in this case cannot be achieved by some other feasible method because economic use of the small lot, given its other speci c limita ons, including an unusual shape and a 100-year ood zone, requires going higher. 3. The variance is not substan al, amoun ng to less than a 15% adjustment and the request has already been reduced to the minimum needed. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse e ect or impact on the physical or environmental condi ons in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged di culty was not self-created as the lot was always restricted by the short distance between road and water and its small size as well as the 100-year ood zone. 6. The Village Board regulates religious uses and is obligated to apply the standards of the U.S. Religious Land Use And Ins tu onalized Persons Act, which ensures the interests of jus ce will be served by allowing the variance. The variance requested will simply establish, for the record and enforcement purposes, the standard that will be applicable. It will also have no impact on popula on density and generate no signi cant tra c or other adverse impacts. Shepstone also reviewed Part 2 of Short Form EAF in detail with Board including his reasoning suppor ng the responses to Part 2 ques ons, no ng the various factors stated above and the fact there are no or only small impacts rela ng to land use plans, zoning, intensity of land use, cri cal environmental areas, tra c, infrastructure, energy use, sewage services, water supply, cultural resources, natural resources, ooding, storm drainage or human hazards. Chairman Bi man proceeded to make a mo on to classify the requested front yard variance as a Type II SEQRA Ac on, classify the requested height variance as an Unlisted Ac on and to declare the la er would have no signi cant nega ve environment impacts. The mo on was seconded by Spitzer and unanimously carried, the Nega ve Declara on adopted being a ached hereto. Chairman Bi man then made a mo on to adopt the speci c ndings suggested by Shepstone and detailed above and to grant the following variances: Page 3 of 5 ti tt fi fl ti ti fi fi ti ff ffi ffi ti ti ti fi fi ti ti ti ti ti ti fl ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti fi ffi tt fi tt tt ff ti ti ti ti ti ffi fl ti tt ti ti  1. Front Yard (§ 235-14 Table of Bulk of Bulk Requirements): Reduce from 40 feet to 10 feet, 2 inches. 2. Maximum Building Height (§ 235-14 Table of Bulk of Bulk Requirements): Increase from 35 feet to 40 feet, 10.75 inches. This was seconded by Spitzer and unanimously carried, the Resolu on adopted thereby being a ached hereto. 585 Clove Road Chairman Bi man indicated the public hearing on this applica on also remained open and requested recommenda ons from Shepstone. The la er again noted that, although the new policy will only allow wri en comments during hearing con nua ons, this hearing was con nued prior, so the Board should entertain any oral comments wished to be o ered. The hearing was then resumed at 8:22 PM. Members of the public present expressed concern as to whether there would be stream rerou ng and were told the stream would not be touched. Other concerns raised related to possible impacts on Clove Road trees and building height (whether or not 4-stories were necessary). Shepstone noted no wri en comments had been received for the public hearing and recommended it be closed. Chairman Bi man made a mo on to close the public hearing on the 585 Clove Road applica on. It was seconded by Leiberman and unanimously carried, formally closing the hearing at 8:28 PM. Shepstone proceeded to note he had examined the record and o ered his recommenda ons as follows: The applicant, located in the RC-1 District, has requested a variance for a SEQRA Unlisted Ac on to increase the maximum building height from 40 feet to 46 feet. This height variance is warranted based on the fact the lot is sloping and di cult to work with unless there is a more height possible. The following ndings with respect to the requirements of § 7-712-B of the New York State Village Law are warranted in the case of the requested front yard variance: 1. This variance will not produce undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby proper es. The RC-1 District encourages mixed-use development. 2. The bene t sought by the applicant in this case cannot be achieved by some other feasible method because the slope, and size of the parcel restrict the building area. 3. The variance is not substan al being only 15% above the standard. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse e ect or impact on the physical or environmental condi ons in the neighborhood or district. The alleged di culty was not self- created as the lot was always restricted by size and slope. Visual representa ons of the proposed building have been produced to document this. 5. The requested area variance is the minimum variance deemed necessary and adequate while, at Page 4 of 5 tt ti ti ti ti ti ffi ti ti ff ti ff ff ti tt ffi ti ti ti ti tt ti fi fi ti tt tt tt  the same me, preserving and protec ng the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community and will allow the type of development an cipated for the District. 6. The Village Board regulates religious uses and is obligated to apply the standards of the U.S. Religious Land Use And Ins tu onalized Persons Act, which ensures the interests of jus ce will be served by allowing the variance. The variance requested will simply establish, for the record and enforcement purposes, the standard that will be applicable. It will also have no impact on popula on density and generate no signi cant tra c or other adverse impacts. Shepstone also reviewed Part 2 of Short Form EAF in detail with Board a er informing the board the proposed was properly classi ed as an Unlisted Ac on. Shepstone furthered reviewed his reasoning suppor ng the responses to Part 2 ques ons, no ng the various factors stated above and the fact there are no or only small impacts rela ng to land use plans, zoning, intensity of land use, cri cal environmental areas, tra c, infrastructure, energy use, sewage services, water supply, cultural resources, natural resources, ooding, storm drainage or human hazards. Following brief discussion, Chairman Bi man made a mo on to table this ma er un l such me as Board Members had an opportunity to view the site. This mo on was seconded by Goldstein and unanimously carried. Chairman Bi man then made a mo on to adjourn the mee ng, there being no further business to be considered. This mo on was seconded by Goldstein and unanimously carried and the mee ng was formally adjourned at 8:35 PM. Thomas J. Shepstone Ac ng Recording Secretary Page 5 of 5 ti ti ti ti ti tt ft ti ti ti ti ffi ti fi ti tt ti ti ti ti fl fi ti ffi ti tt ti ti ti ti ti  Village of South Blooming Grove Zoning Board of Appeals Resolu on - November 10, 2022 NAME OF APPLICANT: RABBI ZVI BRIZEL SITE ADDRESS: 379 LAKE SHORE DRIVE ZONING DISTRICT: RR RURAL RESIDENTIAL SECTION-BLOCK-LOT: 205-4-18 VARIANCES REQUESTED: 1. FRONT YARD: Reduce from 40 feet to 10 feet, 2 inches. 2. MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT: Increase from 35 feet to 44 feet. WHEREAS, an applica on was submi ed to the Zoning Board of Appeals (ZBA) by the above iden ed Applicant for the variances indicated above; and WHEREAS, the variances sought to replace the an exis ng residen al structure with a shul, as shown on a site plan prepared by its engineer was reviewed by Fusco Engineering as well as by its planning consultant, Shepstone Management Company; and WHEREAS, the ZBA determined the applica on was reasonably complete and, following public no ce, held a public hearing thereon on September 1, 2022, at 8:00 pm, which mee ng was open to the public via remote means; and WHEREAS, the hearing was con nued to November 10, 2022, and closed on the same date a er allowing members of the public to address the board and speak in connec on with the applica on; and WHEREAS, during the public hearing, the Applicant modi ed its height variance request to indicate it was now reques ng the maximum building height be increased to 40 feet, 10.75 inches, not 44 feet; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has duly considered public comments received; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has determined, for the purpose of review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), that gran ng a front yard variance is a "Type II" ac on requiring no further review thereunder, and WHEREAS, the ZBA has determined, for the purpose of review under SEQRA, that gran ng a building height variance is an “Unlisted” ac on thereunder; and WHEREAS, the ZBA has, of this same date and as Lead Agency, declared that gran ng of the requested height variance will not have a signi cant adverse environmental impact on the environment, and WHEREAS, in considering whether to grant or deny each of the requested variances, the ZBA engaged in a balancing test, weighing the proposed bene t to the Applicant against the possible detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community, as well as consider the ve statutory factors enumerated in the applicable law; and Page 1 of 6 ti fi fi ti ti ti fi ti tt ti ti ti fi ti ti ti ti ft ti ti ti fi ti ti  Village of South Blooming Grove Zoning Board of Appeals Resolu on - November 10, 2022 WHEREAS, the ZBA herein has addressed the requisite statutory factors in approving the each proposed variance a er a review of the recommenda on and advice of its planning and engineering consultants, the ZBA members’ knowledge of the loca on of the site and the relevant surrounding areas and also such material and relevant public input as received; and WHEREAS, the ZBA considered whether the requested Variance were substan al when compared to the nearby buildings, would improve the physical and environmental condi on and character of the neighborhood, and whether the requested variance was the minimum variance required to promote the legi mate interests of the Applicant in due regard to the interests of the general public; and WHEREAS, the ZBA believes the substan al evidence in the record supports the ra onale for the ZBA's determina on to grant the requested Variance; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the ZBA of the Village of South Blooming Grove nds the Applicant has submi ed all required materials, and met all applicable requirements as set forth in the Zoning Code and applicable law for the gran ng of each requested variance, subject to condi ons set forth herein and/or limita ons imposed by applicable law, based upon the following ndings and determina ons: FRONT YARD VARIANCE 1. Whether undesirable change would be produced in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby proper es: Determina on: No Reason: This is a proposed religious use that is appropriate to the area. It is, in fact, a permi ed use, by Village Board Special Permit, in all Village of South Blooming Grove zoning districts, indica ng it has been determined to be in general harmony with all other uses. 2. Whether bene t sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alterna ve to the variance: Determina on: No Reason: The shape, size and proximity of the lot involved to water totally and unreasonably restricts the building area unless the front yard can be reduced. The lot has a rear lot line of only 69 feet, as compared to 215 feet for the front lot line, which forces the building to the front. The exis ng building on the building also already encroaches on the front yard. Page 2 of 6 ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti tt ti ti ti ft ti fi ti ti ti fi tt ti ti fi ti ti  Village of South Blooming Grove Zoning Board of Appeals Resolu on - November 10, 2022 3. Whether the requested variance is substan al: Determina on: No Reason: While the requested variance when viewed as a percentage of what is allowed under the code may be considered to be substan al, the shape of this lot and a 100-year ood zone force building toward the front and, e ec vely, only reverses the front and rear yards. The exis ng building on the building also already encroaches on the front yard. Therefore, the variance, considered in context of condi ons very speci c to the parcel is not substan al. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental condi ons in the neighborhood: Determina on: No Reason: The variance will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community with a use (a small shul) that will only periodically generate usage and then only produce pedestrian tra c at its busiest. As such , the variance will not cause any adverse impacts. 5. Whether the alleged di culty was self-created: Determina on: No Reason: The requested area variance merely switches front and rear yards as a prac cal ma er for a use permi ed in all zoning districts. 6. Whether the variance will comply with other Village variance criteria. Determina on: Yes Reason: The Village Board regulates religious uses and is obligated to apply the standards of the U.S. Religious Land Use And Ins tu onalized Persons Act, which ensures the interests of jus ce will be served by allowing the variance. The variance requested will simply establish, for the record and enforcement purposes, the standard that will be applicable. It will also have no impact on popula on density and generate no signi cant tra c or other adverse impacts. BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE 1. Whether undesirable change would be produced in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby proper es: Page 3 of 6 ffi ti ti ff ti ti ti ti ti ti tt ffi ti ffi ti fi fi fl ti ti ti ti tt ti ti ti ti  Village of South Blooming Grove Zoning Board of Appeals Resolu on - November 10, 2022 Determina on: No Reason: This variance will not produce undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby proper es. It is a proposed religious use that is appropriate to the area. It is, in fact, a permi ed use, by Village Board Special Permit in all Village of South Blooming Grove zoning districts, indica ng it has been determined to be in general harmony with all other uses. 2. Whether bene t sought by applicant can be achieved by a feasible alterna ve to the variance: Determina on: No Reason: The bene t sought by the applicant in this case cannot be achieved by some other feasible method because economic use of the small lot, given its other speci c limita ons, including an unusual shape and a 100-year ood zone, requires going higher. 3. Whether the requested variance is substan al: Determina on: No Reason: The variance is not substan al, amoun ng to less than a 15% adjustment and the request has already been reduced to the minimum needed. 4. Would the variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental condi ons in the neighborhood: Determina on: No Reason: The variance will preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community with a use (a small shul) that will only periodically generate usage and then only produce pedestrian tra c at its busiest. As such, the variance will not cause any adverse impacts. 5. Whether the alleged di culty was self-created: Determina on: No Reason: The alleged di culty was not self-created as the lot was always restricted by the short distance between road and water and its small size as well as the 100- year ood zone. Page 4 of 6 ti ffi ti fl ti ti tt ti ti ffi ffi fi fi ti ti ti ti ti ti ti ti fi fl  Village of South Blooming Grove Zoning Board of Appeals Resolu on - November 10, 2022 6. Whether the variance will comply with other Village variance criteria. Determina on: Yes Reason: The Village Board regulates religious uses and is obligated to apply the standards of the U.S. Religious Land Use And Ins tu onalized Persons Act, which ensures the interests of jus ce will be served by allowing the variance. The variance requested will simply establish, for the record and enforcement purposes, the standard that will be applicable. It will also have no impact on popula on density and generate no signi cant tra c or other adverse impacts. DETERMINATION OF ZBA BASED ON THE ABOVE FACTORS: Upon the foregoing reasons and evidence in the record of the proceedings before the ZBA, the ZBA further nds that the foregoing variances are the minimum variance that should be granted to preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. The ZBA, therefore, hereby makes the following ndings in connec on with its gran ng the variances set forth above: (a) That the variances are not substan al in rela on to the requirement and to other factors set forth herein and otherwise made applicable by relevant law. (b) That the e ect of any increased popula on density which may thus be produced upon available services and facili es is not signi cant. (c) That a substan al change in the character of the neighborhood or a substan al detriment to adjoining proper es will not be created. (d) That the di cul es cannot be alleviated by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than variances or that lesser variances cannot alleviate the di culty. (e) That, in view of the manner in which the di cul es arose and considering all of the above factors, the interests of jus ce will be served by allowing the variances. (f) That the variances will not cause adverse aesthe c, environmental or ecological impacts on the property or on surrounding areas and will not harm the general health, safety or welfare. (g) The di culty addressed by the variances are not self-created, Page 5 of 6 ti ti fi fi ti ti ti ti ti ti ffi ti ti ti ti ffi ti ffi fi ti ti ffi ti ff fi ffi ti ti ti  Village of South Blooming Grove Zoning Board of Appeals Resolu on - November 10, 2022 The ZBA did not iden fy any detriment that would result to the neighborhood or community by reason of allowing the land to be developed with the variances requested. Moreover, the ZBA, taking into considera on the above factors, nds that the bene t to the Applicant outweighs any poten al detriment to the neighborhood or community, and, therefore the requested variances are hereby granted. Nonetheless, the gran ng of the requested variances shall not relieve the Applicant from obtaining any other necessary approvals, permits, etc. for the use and development of the site. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED On a mo on by Chairman Bi man, seconded by Member Spitzer and carried by a vote of 4 Ayes, 0 Naes, with one member being absent, that the Zoning Board of Appeals makes the foregoing ndings and determina ons, and it hereby grants the above-stated variances, which are subject to any condi ons stated herein, and the within does not relieve the Applicant from obtaining any other permit, approval, and/or license required in connec on with the proposed use of the site. Dated: November 10, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals Village of South Blooming Grove ______________________________________ Hon. Yehoshua Bi man, Chairman The original of this resolu on was led with the Village Clerk on __________________, 2022 A copy of this resolu on was led with: (a) the Village Building Dept. on __________________, 2022 (b) the Village Planning Board on __________________, 2022 A copy of this resolu on was mailed to the Applicant on _____________________, 2022 Page 6 of 6 ti fi tt ti fi tt fi ti fi ti ti ti ti ti ti ti fi ti ti