Airmont ZBA approves variances for addition at 14 Overdrive, conditions approval on screening around deck

The Airmont Zoning Board of Appeals approved variances allowing an addition to a single‑family house at 14 Overdrive and required plant screening along the new deck, the board said at a village meeting. The board also declared the project a Type II action under New York State Environmental Quality Review (SEQRA) and voted to override one Rockland County planning recommendation related to missing variance records.

The application, presented by attorney Kevin Hobbs, asked for an addition bringing the house to about 7,316 square feet and nine variances in the R‑40 zoning district. Hobbs said the lot is undersized for the zone and described the application as "a construction and an addition to an existing dwelling" that keeps the house as a single‑family residence and places most new work at the rear of the property. He told the board the deck intrusion accounts for a substantial portion of the requested side‑setback relief and that screening could mitigate neighbor impacts.

Why it matters: the board approved both preexisting nonconforming conditions (lot area, lot width and a zero side yard in current conditions) and new relief (reduced side setback, increased lot coverage and floor area ratio) that will allow a larger house footprint on a substandard lot in Airmont. The board’s action legalizes existing nonconforming features of the lot and authorizes the new additions subject to the condition the board set for vegetation screening near the deck.

Key facts and board action: the application describes a 0.78‑acre parcel in the R‑40 (single‑family residential) zone. The packet noted a proposed total building size of about 7,316 square feet and nine variances: lot area (existing reported as 25,000 sq ft where 40,000 are required), lot width, front and side setbacks, total side setback (existing 49.7 feet to proposed 39.1 feet), and increases in building coverage and floor area ratio (proposed coverage reported near 25% and floor‑area ratio near 29% in the submittal). Hobbs said much of the requested side‑setback relief is for a six‑foot‑wide deck and not for habitable space.

On procedure the ZBA voted to open and close the public hearing after no members of the public signed up. The board then moved to declare the project a Type II action under SEQRA, stating no further environmental review was required. The board voted to override Rockland County Planning Department comment number 4 (which asked for records of previously granted variances) and later proceeded with a motion to approve the application and all requested variances. The final approval passed 5‑0.

Conditions and mitigation: the board required screening around the deck to address neighbor privacy and sightline concerns. During discussion board members asked about plantings; the applicant and board agreed on planting small evergreens along the side and in front of the deck (board discussion referenced 3‑ to 4‑foot nursery stock to start). The board recorded in the resolution that screening is a condition of approval and that the applicant agreed to the other agency comments in the file except for the county items being overridden.

Agency reviews and reports: the application file included comments and no‑comment letters from several agencies, including Rockland County planning and health reviewers and the town highway/DPW on drainage. The project packet noted a stormwater approach showing no net increase in runoff; board staff summarized that the drainage agency had no comments as of the record date cited in the packet. The board’s override was narrowly focused on County comment #4 about missing historical variance records; the board said the parcel’s nonconforming conditions predate the modern review records and voted it unnecessary to withhold relief for that reason.

What the board did not decide: the board’s approval legalizes the identified preexisting nonconforming conditions and authorizes the new variances for the proposed addition and deck. The board did not approve building permits, which remain subject to code compliance and any required building‑department reviews (for example, sprinkler triggers for certain vertical heights were discussed by staff). The board also recorded that additional technical review or permits outside the ZBA (building department, highway/DPW, county reports) remain necessary before construction can begin.

Next steps and recordkeeping: under New York State General Municipal Law section 239 and local procedure, the board will file its final resolution and reasoned findings with the Rockland County planning commissioner; the board recorded the fact of the override in the minutes and placed brief findings in the resolution explaining the board’s rationale (noting the age of the existing conditions, lack of neighbor objections on the hearing record, and the added screening condition). The applicant or owner will proceed with building‑department submissions and permit applications after satisfying conditions recorded in the ZBA resolution.