Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS April   16.2014

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

MICHAEL  BOSCO THOMAS   QUINN

DANIEL  SULLIVAN,  CHAIRMAN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,   ALTERNATE

 

 

ABSENT:                                        JOAN  SALOMON

PA TRICIA  CASTELLI

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:                    Dennis  Michaels,   Esq.

Ann Marie Ambrose,

Deborah  Arbolino

Deputy Town Attorney Official  Stenographer Administrative  Aide

 

 

This meeting  was called to order at 7:  00 P.M.   by Mr. Sullivan,    Chairman.

 

Hearings  on this meeting’s  agenda,  which  are made  a part of this meeting,  were held  as noted below:

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

PUBLISHED   ITEMS DECISIONS

 

 

 

 

CONTINUED  ITEM:   LSI SERVICES	DEFERRED DECISION	ZBA#l3-80
76.08   I l 11;     LIO zone
NEW ITEMS:
PFIZER SUBDIVISION	FLOOR AREA RATIO,  REAR	ZBA#14-25
68.081111;        LI & LIO zones	YARD, SIDE YARD,
	VARIANCES APPROVED
JOYCE 77.0813     129;   RG zone	BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#14-26
VOLTERREIGEORGE	FRONT YARD,	ZBA#14-27
75.09   111     5;   R-80  zone	AND REARY ARD
	VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

Minutes

Page 2of2

 

 

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board,   the Zoning   Board of Appeals:   RESOLVED,   to approve  the action  of the Chairman  executing  on behalf   of the Board   its  consent   to the Planning   Board  acting   as Lead Agency   for the State Environmental     Quality Review  Act (SEQRA)  coordinated  environmental     review   of actions  pursuant   to SEQRA  Regulations§    617.6   (b)(3)   the following   applications: Walgreens   Site Plan,   81Route303,    Tappan,  N.Y.  77.15I1I24;         CS zone; and

FURTHER  RESOLVED,   to request   to be notified  by the Planning   Board  of SEQ RA

proceedings,   hearings,   and determinations    with respect  to these matters.

 

 

 

THE DECISIONS    RELATED  TO THE ABOVE  HEARINGS  are inserted   herein  and made part of these minutes.

 

The verbatim  minutes,  as recorded  by the Board’s  official   stenographer  for the above hearings,   are not transcribed.

There being   no further business  to come before  the Board,  on motion  duly made, seconded  and carried,   the meeting  was adjourned  at  10:00  P.M.

 

Dated:  April   16,   2014

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN  ATTORNEY TOWN  BOARD    MEMBERS

BUILDING     INSPECTOR    (Individual     Decisions) Rockland    County Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

Bycll!~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative     Aide

 

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR AREA  RA TIO,  REAR  YARD  AND  SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:  Don McMullen  (Pfizer)

401 No. Middletown  Road

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA # 14-25

Date:  April  16, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#14-25:  Application  of Pfizer  Subdivision  Plan for variances  from Chapter  43, of the

Orangetown  Code (Zoning),  LIO District  refers to LI District,  Group  QQ, Column  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .50 permitted,  .53 proposed  for lot lA)  and 11  (Rear Yard:  50′ required,  30′  proposed  for bldg. 222, 49′  proposed  for bldg  194 for lot IA) and the following  variances  are being requested  for lot 1 B: LI District,  Group  QQ, Columns  9

(Side Yard:  50′  required,   5′ proposed  for bldg 49A; 9′ proposed  for bldg 54; 5′ proposed

for bldg 60A; 5′ proposed  for bldg 60;  20′  proposed  for 60F; 5′ proposed  for bldg 60E &

60G; and 11  (Rear Yard:  50′ required,  9″ proposed  for lot 49A; 9′ for lot 54; 5′ for lot

60A; 5′ for lot 60E; 5′ and 15′ for lot 60G;  15′ for lot 60C, 22′  for lot 60B)  for a proposed  two lot subdivision.  The property  is located  at 401 North  Middletown  Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.08, Block  1, Lot 1; in the LI & LIO zoning  districts.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  April  16, 2014 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Brian Quinn, Attorney,  Don McMullen,  Pfizer,  Kristen  Solloway,  P .E., appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Overall  Site Plan Lot 1   Subdivision  dated January  2014 labeled  CS-001 by Fuss

& 0′  Neill,  Inc.

2. Site Plan Lot 1   Subdivision  dated January  2014 labeled  CS-002 by Fuss & 0′

Neill,  Inc.

0

3. Cover Sheet Lot 1   Subdivision  dated  12116/2011 by Fuss & O’Neill,  Inc ..   -;      s  -;
4. 200′  Radius  Map Lot 1   Subdivision   dated January  2014 by Fuss & O’Neil@nc~

5.

A cover letter dated March  7, 2014 from Fuss & O’Neill.                                z      ~      z

-c        0

 

6. Short Environmental   Assessment  Form.                                                              ~
7. A letter dated February  26, 2014 from John Giardiello,  Director,  Office of  ~      co

Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement,  Town of  ~      -o

-ri

0

:.::J

 

rn

o~g~~-                                                                        0   3         0

8. Planning  Board Decision  #14-12  dated February  26, 2014.                             ~      J–A:     -1

0

9. A letter dated April  11, 2014 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of  o      co  ,            ~

Planning  signed by Thomas  Vanderbeek,  Commissioner   of Planning.           rn   CA)          z

10. A letter dated March 24, 2014 from the County of Rockland  Department  of health signed by Scott McKane,  P .E., Senior Public Health  Engineer.
11. A letter dated April 9, 2014 from the County of Rockland  Drainage  Agency signed by Vincent  Altieri.

 

 

 

Mr.  Sullivan,  Chairman,  made a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded  by Mr. Bosco  and carried unanimously.

 

Pfizer

ZBA#14-25

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

On advice of  Dennis Michaels,  Deputy  Town  Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan  moved  for a Board determination    that since the Planning  Board noticed  its intent to declare  itself Lead Agency  for this application  and distributed  its notice of intention  to all Involved  Agencies,  including  the ZBA who consented  or did not object to the Planning  board  acting as Lead Agency  for this application,  pursuant  to coordinated  review under  the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act Regulations

• 617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning Board conducted  a SEQRA review  on February  26,

2014 and  rendered  an environmental   determination   of no significant  adverse environmental   impacts  to result from the proposed  land use action (i.e.,  A “Negative Declaration”  or “Neg. Dec.”),  the ZBA is bound  by the Planning  Board’s  Neg Dec and the ZBA cannot require  further  SEQRA  review  pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations    §617.6 (b) (3). The motion  was seconded  by Mr. Bosco  and carried  as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,

aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; and Mr. Bosco,  aye. Ms. Salomon  and Ms. Castelli were absent.

 

Brian Quinn, Attorney,  testified  that the Pfizer  site has 23 acres; that they are in the process  of leasing  some of the spaces  out to manufacturing   and research  facilities;  that in order to accomplish  this they need to subdivide  some of the property  with existing buildings;  that placing  these lot lines is causing  the need for the requested  area variances; that there will be no construction  at this time; that these  changes  will not be seen from the street; that the open campus  will stay the same; that these  lot lines do not change the look of the campus;  that they are seeking  to override  #1 of the Rockland  County  Planning

letter; that there is no need  for parking  variances;  and  that there will be no changes  to the roadway.

 

Kristen  Solloway,  P .E., testified  that there are no comments  from the Dot or the Highway Department;  that there will not be any cross parking;  that he purchaser  can see the setbacks;  and that there will be easements  granted  for use of the existing  roads.

 

Don McMullen,  testified  that each building  has its own parking  lot; that some of the lots are shut down right now; that 160 was the former  Library;  that  192 is standing  power generator  for building  200; that the roadway  will be shared  and 54 & 49 will be conveyed at sale; that the old laboratory  building  is labeled  60 A,B,C,  etc.,;  that all of those side and rear yard variances  are for one building;  and that no construction  is planned.

 

Public Comment:

 

Kenneth  Cully, 21 Nanuet  Avenue,  Nanuet,  asked for clarification  regarding  the subdivision  lines; and asked if there would be more building;  stating that he had concerns regarding  bad odors.

 

The Board members  made personal  inspections  of the premises  the week before  the meeting  and found them to be properly  posted  and as generally  described  on the application.

 

A satisfactory  statement  in accordance  with the provisions  of Section  809 of the General

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

Mr. Sullivan made a motion  to close the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded  by

Mr. Bosco and carried unanimously.

 

£C   t  lJd     6     hHlJ hlOZ

-·

Nh\Ol3~NV’JO   .:1U            01

…     ~I,.

i11j\

 

Pfizer  Subdivision

ZBA#14-25

Page  3  of  4

 

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all the documents  submitted,  the Board found  and concluded  that the benefits  to the applicant  if the variance(s)  are granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health,  safety and

welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant, for the following  reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested  floor area ratio, rear yard and side yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The variances  are being  granted  on two buildings  that are at the center of a large campus  and will not be noticed  outside  of the campus.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio, rear yard and side yard variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The variances  are being  granted  on two buildings  that are at the center of a large campus  and will not be noticed  outside  of the campus.

 

 

 

 

3. The benefits sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.

 

 

 

4. The requested floor area ratio, rear yard and side yard variances,  although  somewhat substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment, if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby community.           The variances  are being granted  on two buildings  that are at the center of a large campus  and will not be noticed  outside  of the campus.

 

 

 

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject  to Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements,   so the alleged difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  of the Board of Appeals,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  th.Ji       ~      -i Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  floor area ratio, rear yardsfud  ~       0 side yard variances  are APPROVED;   and the Board resolved  to override  modificatiOft or55

condition  #1 of the Rockland  County  Planning  Department  letter dated 04/11/2014;<and  -c        0

FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effectivetO       0

and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board of the minutes  of whi@!i           .   ~2

 

th ey are a part.

UJ  :~:3       z

0

 

 

General  Conditions:

-,,                        t    .a          I         rn

-,,             r-         I         -i

0

C)

:E

z

 

 

(i) The approval  of any variance  or Special Permit  is granted by the Board in accordance with and subject to those facts shown  on the plans submitted  and, if applicable,  as amended  at or prior to this hearing,  as hereinabove  recited  or set forth.

 

Pfizer Subdivision

ZBA#l4-25

Page  4 of  4

 

(ii) Any approval  of a variance  or Special   Permit  by the Board  is limited  to the specific variance  or Special   Permit  requested  but only to the extent  such approval  is granted herein  and subject   to those conditions,   if any,  upon which  such approval  was conditioned which  are hereinbefore  set forth.

 

 

 

(iii) The Board  gives  no approval  of any building  plans,   including,   without  limitation, the  accuracy  and structural  integrity   thereof,  of the applicant,   but same  have been submitted  to the Board solely   for informational   and verification  purposes  relative   to any variances  being requested.

 

 

 

(iv)  A building  permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  within  a reasonable   period  of time following  the filing  of this decision  and prior  to undertaking any construction  contemplated   in this decision.  To the extent  any variance  or Special Permit  granted herein  is subject to any conditions,   the building   department  shall  not be

obligated  to issue  any necessary  permits   where any such condition   imposed   should,   in the sole  judgment  of the building  department,   be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will  not be made until,  and unless,   a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued  by the Office  of Building,   Zoning  and Planning  Administration    and Enforcement which  legally  permits  such  occupancy.

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing  variance  or Special   Permit  will lapse if any contemplated   construction of the project  or any use for which  the variance  or Special   Permit is granted  is  not substantially  implemented   within one year of the date of filing of this decision   or that  of any other board of the Town of Orangetown  granting  any required  final approval  to such project,   whichever  is later,  but in any event within  two years of the filing of this decision. Merely  obtaining  a Building  Permit   with  respect  to construction   or a Certificate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  “substantial    implementation”    for the

purposes  hereof.

 

The foregoing   resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested   floor area ratio, rear  yard and side  yard variances   and to override  modification    or condition  #1  of the Rockland  County Department  of Planning   letter  dated April  11, 2014,   was presented  and moved by Mr. Bosco,   seconded  by Mr. Quinn  and carried  as follows:   .  Mr. Feroldi,    aye; Mr.  Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,   aye.  Ms.  Castelli  and  Ms.  Salomon were absent.

 

The Administrative  Aide to the Board  is hereby  authorized,   directed  and empowered  to sign this decision   and file a certified  copy thereof  in the office of the Town  Clerk. DATED:    April  16,  2014

 

Arbolm

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRIBUTION:

By~DeOrahdt/~o

Administrative   Aide

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TO\VN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDlNG INSPECTOR-NA

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT.  or ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,    ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

 

301.:L:!O  SYiJ318    Nh\01

 

hS    T   lJd     6     ~HlJ  hlOZ

 

N/~Oi3~NVUO   so N/,\01

 

DECISION

 

BUILDING HEIGHT  VARIANCE  APPROVED

 

To: Dwight Joyce

2 Joyce Plaza

Stony Point, New York 10980

ZBA#  14-26

Date: April 16, 2014

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l4-26: Application of Dwight Joyce for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning) of the

Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, Group Q, RG District, Column 12 (Building Height:

13’4″ permitted, 22′ 11″ proposed)  for a new single-family residence. The premises are located at 3 Mary Street, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.08, Block 3, Lot 29; RG zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, April 16, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Dwight Joyce appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans dated 07/24/2012 with the latest revision date of 03/25/ 2014 signed and sealed by Jane Slavin, Architect.
2. Survey dated March 3, 2014 by Anthony R. Celentano, P .E ..

 

Mr.  Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Mr. Bosco and carried unanimously.

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and /or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bosco and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; and Mr. Feroldi, aye. Ms. Salomon and Ms. Castelli were absent.

 

 

 

 

Dwight Joyce testified that the building department issued him a building permit for his house after it was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board; that the inspector came out for an inspection and reviewed the plans and decided that the house would need a building height variance; that the new house was designed with a hip roof and it will be

2′ 11″ higher than is permitted by the code; that the construction is underway; that the has pictures of other houses in the area that are comparable in height; that the new house will not create an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood that most of the houses in the neighborhood are two-story houses; that the height of the house has not

changed since the building permit was issued; that it is not a substantial variance; and that he would appreciate the Board considering the 2′ 11″ height increase.

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

The Board members  made personal  inspections  of the premises  the week before  the meeting  and found them to be properly  posted  and as generally  described  on the application.

 

A satisfactory  statement  in accordance  with the provisions  of Section  809 of the General

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

Mr. Sullivan  made a motion  to close the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded  by

Mr. Bosco and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all the documents  submitted,  the Board  found and concluded  that the benefits  to the applicant  if the variance(s)  are granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health,  safety and

welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant, for the following  reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested  building  height variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  Houses  with

similar heights  have been  constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested building  height  variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  Other houses exist in the neighborhood  with similar heights.

 

 

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  a variance.

 

 

 

4. The requested  building  height variance  is not substantial.

 

 

 

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject  to Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or  improvements,   so the alleged  difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  of the Board of Appeals,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  building  height  variance  is APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board of the minutes  of which they are a part.

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

(i) The approval  of any variance  or Special  Permit  is granted  by the Board in accordance with and subject to those facts shown  on the plans  submitted  and, if applicable,  as amended  at or prior to this hearing,  as hereinabove  recited  or set forth.

 

(ii) Any approval  of a variance  or Special Permit  by the Board is limited  to the specific variance  or Special Permit  requested  but only to the extent  such approval  is granted

herein  and subject to those conditions,  if any, upon which  such approval  was conditioned which  are hereinbefore  set forth.

 

 

 

(iii) The Board  gives no approval  of any building  plans,  including,  without  limitation, the accuracy  and structural  integrity  thereof,  of the applicant,  but same have been submitted  to the Board solely for informational   and verification  purposes  relative  to any variances  being requested.

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  within  a reasonable  period  of time following  the filing of this decision  and prior to undertaking any construction  contemplated  in this decision.  To the extent  any variance  or Special Permit  granted herein is subject to any conditions,  the building  department  shall not be

obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition  imposed  should,  in the sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,  a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement which  legally permits  such occupancy.

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing  variance  or Special  Permit  will lapse if any contemplated   construction of the project  or any use for which the variance  or Special  Permit  is granted  is not substantially  implemented  within  one year of the date of filing of this decision  or that of any other board  of the Town  of Orangetown  granting  any required  final approval  to such project,  whichever  is later, but in any event within  two years of the filing of this decision. Merely  obtaining  a Building  Permit   with respect  to construction  or a Certificate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  “substantial  implementation”   for the purposes  hereof

 

 

 

The  foregoing    resolution    to approve   the  application    for  the  requested    building    height variance    was  presented    and  moved   by  Mr.  Sullivan,    seconded   by  Mr.  Bosco   and  carried as follows:     Mr.  Bosco,   aye;   Mr.  Quinn,   aye;  Mr.   Sullivan,    aye;   and  Mr.  Feroldi,    aye.

Ms.   Castelli   and   Ms.   Salomon    were  absent.

 

 

The  Administrative     Aide   to the  Board   is hereby   authorized,    directed   and  empowered    to sign  this  decision   and  file  a certified   copy  thereof   in  the  office  of the  Town   Clerk.

 

DATED:     April    16,   2014

 

ZONING    BOARD    OF  APPEALS TOWN   OF  ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

By+-‘·’,tf,,4~1.d<‘.L..LL.–~”1L…._• Deborah   Arbolino Administrative      Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT YARD AND REAR YARD VARIANCES  APPROVED

 

To: Vivian  Volterre  & Pascal  George

244 Tweed  Boulevard

Nyack,  New York  10960

ZBA # 14- 27

Date:    April  16,  2014

 

 

FROM:   ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#14-27:    Application  of  Vivian  Volterre   and Pascal  George  for  variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning)ofthe    Code of the Town  of Orangetown,   R-80  District,  Group A, Columns  8 (Front Yard:  50′  required,   44.8′   and 45′  existing)   and 11     (Rear Yard: 50′ required,  25′   & 29′  existing)  for an existing  deck at an existing  single-family  residence. The premises  are located  at 244 Tweed  Boulevard,   Nyack,  New York and are identified on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  75.09,    Block  1,   Lot 5; R-80 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   April  16, 2014   at which  time the Board made the determination   hereinafter set forth.

 

Kevin  Ramsey  and Pascal George  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. 1. Plot plan dated  1986   with the latest  revision  date of 1988   signed  and sealed  by

Charles Winter,  Architect.

 

 

Mr.   Sullivan,   Chairman,   made  a motion  to open the Public Hearing  which  motion  was seconded  by Mr. Bosco and carried  unanimously.

 

On advice  of Dennis  Michaels,   Deputy  Town Attorney,    counsel  to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved for a Board  determination   that the foregoing  application  is a Type II action exempt  from the State Enviromnental   Quality Review  Act (SEQRA), pursuant  to SEQRA Regulations    §617.5    (c)  (9),  (10),   (12) and /or (13);  which  does not require  SEQRA  environmental    review.   The motion  was seconded  by Mr. Bosco and carried  as follows:    Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye;  aye;  Mr. Sullivan,   aye;  and Mr. Feroldi,   aye.  Ms.   Salomon   and  Ms. Castelli  were absent.

 

 

Kevin  Ramsey  testified  that the house was his father’s  house  and the deck was built  30 years  ago and was part of the house  design by Charles  Winter;  that his dad sold the house and that is when he found out that there was no certificate  of occupancy  for the deck;  that at the time the deck was built  it  did not require  a variance   because  it did not go past the

set back of the existing  house; that the way the code is  interpreted  has changed  and a variance  is necessary  now and that is why he is before  the board  now;   that there will be no construction  and the requested  variances  are for an existing  structure.

 

 

Volterre/  George

ZBA#14-27

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

The Board members  made personal  inspections  of the premises  the week before  the meeting  and found them to be properly  posted  and as generally  described  on the application.

 

A satisfactory  statement  in accordance  with the provisions  of Section  809 of the General

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

Mr. Sullivan  made  a motion  to close the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded  by

Mr. Bosco and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all the documents  submitted,  the Board found  and concluded  that the benefits  to the applicant  if the variance(s)  are granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health,  safety and

welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant,  for the following  reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested front yard and rear yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties. Similar  setbacks  for structures  exist in the neighborhood.   The deck has existed  for thirty years without  incident.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested front yard and rear yard variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district. Similar  setbacks  for structures  exist in the neighborhood  ..  The deck has existed  for thirty years without  incident.

 

 

 

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining   variances.

 

 

 

4. The requested  front yard and rear yard variances  are not substantial.

 

 

 

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject  to Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements,   so the alleged difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  of the Board of Appeals,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

3 Ql.:L~O   S~·P·J31 Q  Nh\01

 

h~    1   lJd     6     AHlJ hl02

 

NA\013 D N VU  0   .:W   Nlt\01

 

Volterre/  George

ZBA#l4-27

Page  3   of  4

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  front yard and rear yard variances  are APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board of the minutes  of which they are a part.

 

General  Conditions:

 

(i) The approval  of any variance  or Special Permit  is granted  by the Board in accordance with and subject to those facts shown  on the plans  submitted  and, if applicable,  as amended  at or prior to this hearing,  as hereinabove  recited  or set forth.

 

(ii) Any approval  of a variance  or Special Permit  by the Board is limited  to the specific variance  or Special Permit  requested  but only to the extent  such approval  is granted

herein  and subject  to those conditions,  if any, upon which  such approval  was conditioned

which  are hereinbefore   set forth.

 

 

 

(iii) The Board  gives no approval  of any building  plans,  including,  without  limitation, the accuracy  and structural  integrity  thereof,  of the applicant,  but same have been submitted  to the Board solely for informational   and verification  purposes  relative  to any variances  being requested.

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  within  a reasonable  period  of time following  the filing of this decision  and prior to undertaking any construction  contemplated  in this decision.  To the extent  any variance  or Special Permit  granted herein  is subject to any conditions,  the building  department  shall not be

obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition  imposed  should,  in the sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until, and unless,  a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement which legally permits  such occupancy.

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing  variance  or Special  Permit  will lapse if any contemplated   construction of the project or any use for which the variance  or Special  Permit is granted  is not substantially  implemented  within  one year of the date of filing of this decision  or that of any other board  of the Town  of Orangetown  granting  any required  final approval  to such project,  whichever  is later, but in any event within  two years of the filing of this decision. Merely  obtaining  a Building  Permit   with respect  to construction  or a Certificate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  “substantial  implementation”   for the purposes  hereof.

 

 

 

30U :W  5;1~310 M/i\01

 

ht  1   lJd     6     hHlJ hl02

 

N h\ 013 D NV  <l 0  .:l 0  N; i\ O l

 

Volterre/George

ZBA#14-27

Page  4 of  4

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  front yard and rear yard variances   was presented  and moved  by Mr. Feroldi,   seconded  by Mr. Bosco  and carried  as follows:    Mr. Bosco, aye;  Mr. Quinn,   aye; Mr. Sullivan,   aye; and Mr. Feroldi, aye.  Ms.  Castelli  and  Ms.  Salomon  were absent.

 

The Administrative   Aide to the Board  is hereby  authorized,   directed  and empowered  to sign this decision   and file a certified   copy thereof  in the office of the Town Cleric

 

DATED:    April  16,   2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDlNG   INSPECTOR-B.vW.

By~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. mid ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR