Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Wetlands topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Homeowner seeks permit for house addition within wetlands buffer; neighbors question scope and use
Summary
Zalmen Rubin asked for a Wetlands and Stream Protection permit for an addition on Mile Road lying within the wetland buffer; neighbors objected to potential flooding and questioned interior uses noted in revised plans. The board continued the hearing to August to allow review of revised plans and DEC jurisdictional confirmation.
Zalmen Rubin appeared July 8 before the Montebello Planning Board seeking a Wetlands and Stream Protection permit for an addition to a house located within the wetlands buffer on Mile Road.
Attorney Paul Baum said a stream traverses the property and that most of the lot has been previously disturbed; he told the board the NYS DEC issued a jurisdictional letter related to the application. Baum and Rubin said the expansion would not disturb the wetlands, and Rubin said the house is intended for his father and the site plan and footprint were final, although elevations and interior layouts were still being refined. Assistant Village Attorney Alyse Terhune noted that because Mile Road lies in the Historic and Scenic Roads Overlay District a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Historic Preservation and Parks Commission is required.
Several neighbors objected. David Caponigro questioned why building in the wetlands buffer should be allowed and expressed concern the house might be used for non–single-family purposes. Allan Leeds said architectural plans show "two indoor mikvahs, two outdoor mikvahs, a 1500 square foot game room and three exterior entrances," and said those features suggested uses beyond a single-family residence. Rubin and his attorney said the footprint did not increase from the prior version, that the property is 1.5 acres and largely constrained by the stream, and that no variances were necessary for the site plan application. Terhune recorded that revised architectural plans had arrived that day and were handed to the clerk but had not yet been circulated to the board.
Member Marlo Dickman moved to adjourn the application and public hearing to the August meeting; Member Nancy Doon seconded and the board voted unanimously to continue the matter.
Next steps: the board will review the revised architectural plans, confirm the scope of DEC jurisdictional findings, and require any Certificate of Appropriateness as applicable before further action.
