Orange planning commission keeps Roseman in‑law apartment hearing open after survey raises lot‑line questions

The Orange Town Plan and Zoning Commission held a public hearing June 2 on an application by homeowners Jason and Daniela Roseman to add an in‑law apartment at 512 Kuga Trail, but delayed final action while staff and the applicant resolve inconsistencies on the property survey.

Andrew Ortiz, a representative of Bay Brook Remodelers speaking for the Rosemans, told the commission the proposal would add a 30‑by‑36 by 25‑foot addition whose plans list the new unit at about 876 square feet, under the 900‑square‑foot cap for an elderly apartment allowed by the zoning text. Ortiz said the owners signed a statement of use and will file an annual affidavit to maintain the special‑permit requirement: “The addition meets the requirements of section 383 140,” Ortiz said.

Commissioners and staff flagged a discrepancy in the submitted survey that shows what appears to be a lot line between two contiguous parcels (504 and 512 Kuga Trail). That internal line produces two different area calculations in the record (the application references roughly 34,229 square feet for the parcel in the application, while the combined parcels would total roughly 62,000 square feet). Commissioner Azie Pari said the board needs a corrected, recorded map or deed showing the parcels merged before it can confirm compliance with bulk and ground‑coverage rules.

Kevin Cornell and zoning enforcement staff noted the current survey appears to omit items that should be counted toward ground coverage — specifically an in‑ground pool and certain decks or attached structures — and asked the applicant to have the surveyor include those features and to state the addition’s height on the zoning table. The commission cited the residential 35‑foot height limit and warned that if the lot remains recorded as the smaller parcel the project could exceed coverage limits and require a variance.

Homeowner Jason Roseman said he believed the two lots had been combined and that the surveyor used an earlier map as a base. “I think they said they went to the town or the board here and tried to merge the 504 and 512 together to make one,” Roseman said, but acknowledged the tax assessor still lists two parcels. Commissioners recommended the owner work with a surveyor and, if needed, a lawyer to prepare the deed and file a new map with the town clerk so assessor and GIS records match.

A neighbor, Karen Sim of 153 Party Manor Road, spoke in support of the Rosemans’ effort to house an elderly relative, but also raised a separate enforcement concern about another property at 143 Party Manor Road. Sim alleged that an owner there completed a large multi‑bedroom facility without following zoning procedures and called for a stop‑work order and consistent enforcement. The commission said prior town counsel had reviewed that matter and the board had not received a zoning application related to it; the comment will remain in the public record.

The commission voted to keep the public hearing open and continue the matter to its next meeting (scheduled for June 16) so the applicant can submit a corrected, recorded survey/map, any deed or lot‑merger documents, and revised coverage calculations. No final permit was issued June 2.

The commission’s staff (newly introduced zoning enforcement officer Stephen Hodkis) will work with the applicant and surveyor on the technical revisions requested, including explicit coverage calculations and building height references, before the board resumes review.