Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS FEBRUARY   18. 2015

 

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:           JOAN  SALOMON MICHAEL  BOSCO THOMAS  QUINN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE PATRICIA  CASTELLI

 

ABSENT:                                  DAN  SULLIVAN

 

 

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 Ms. Castelli,  Acting  Chair.

• ~ –t

co    s    :E

 

Hearings  on this meeting’s  agenda, which  are made  a part of this meeting,  were held aa

noted below:                                                                                                                             :e

:z:

C)

r-

m

c:::>       0

~

Z9     z

0

-n

~       0

t…A       :::0

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS

 

APPLICANTS                                   DECISIONS

;o

l>

(/)          -0          z

:3      G’)

rri

 

~

…… ~

….

-i

0

:z:

 

NEW ITEMS:

I   pt      :E

 

 

 

SAMBROTTO SUBDIVISION 34 Clausland Mountain Road, Blauvelt, NY 70.15 I 2 I 11; R-40 zone	LOT AREA VARIANCES FOR LOT #1 $ #2; FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD FOR LOT #1	ZBA#IS-11
MOSCATO	FRONT YARD VARIANCE	ZBA#lS-12
9 Eimer Street, Tappan, NY	APPROVED
77.08 I 1  I 49; RG zone
GARRECHT	FRONT YARD VARIANCE	ZBA#lS-13
107 Pine Tree Lane, Tappan, NY	APPROVED
77.07 I 2 I 48; R-15 zone
WYNNE	CONTINUED	ZBA#lS-14
40 Bogert Avenue, Pearl River, NY
68.16 I 3 I 6; RG zone
CANZONERI	LOCALLAW#7	ZBA#lS-15
16 Sparkill Avenue, Tappan, NY	SECTION 4.54 AND 3.11,
77.08 I 3 I 84; R-15 zone	COLUMN 2 VARIANCES
	APPROVED
NAVAC BUILDERS STORAGE PERFORMANCE STANDARDS	PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPROVED	ZBA#lS-16

11 Highview Avenue, Orangeburg, NY

74.11 I 1  I 24; LI zone

 

Minutes

Page 2 of2

 

 

OTHER BUSINESS:

 

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board,   the Zoning Board of Appeals:  RESOLVED,   to approve the action of the Acting  Chairperson  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 SEQ RA Regulations   §  617.6   (b )(3) the following  applications:   929

Route  9W(repair  retaining  wall),  Upper  Grandview,   NY;  71.13 I 1I12;     R-22 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 9:45 P.M.

 

Dated: February  18,  2015

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING    INSPECTOR   (Individual     Decisions)

Rockland  County Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

By~2/U4v/-

 

Deborah  Arbolino,  Administrative    Aide

 

3.01.:L:lO  S>I  tj 310   NMOl

 

1~  _I_ LJd     tr HHLJ  SI02

 

NMOl30N\icW      so   NMOl

 

DECISION

LOT AREA VARIANCES FOR LOTS #1 & #2 AND  FRONT YARD AND SIDE YARD VARIANCES FOR LOT #1  APPROVED

 

To:  Jay Greenwell, PLS (Sambrotto)

85 Lafayette Avenue

Suffern, New York 10901

ZBA #15-11

Date: February 18, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA# 15-11: Application of  Sambrotto Subdivision for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-40 District, Group E, Columns 5 (Lot Area: 40,000 sq. ft. required, 35, 691 proposed for lot #1; 35,283 sq. ft. for lot #2), 8 (Front Yard: 50′ required, 9.3′ existing to the existing garage on lot #1), and 9 (Side Yard: 30′ required, 11′ existing to existing garage on lot #1) for a proposed two- lot residential subdivision. The premises are located at 34 Clausland Mountain Road, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section

70.15, Block 2, Lot 11; in the R-40 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Jay Greenwell and Ray Sambrotto appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

 

1. Subdivision    plan labeled “Subdivision of property for Sambrotto” dated

9/12/2014 with the latest revision date of 01/13 /2015  signed and sealed by Jay A. Greenwell, PLS, Robert E. Sorace, PLS (pg. 1) and Edward A Maikish, P .E. and Jay A. Greenwell, PLS (pg. 2).

2. A letter dated February 5, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning.

3. A letter dated February 18, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..

 

Ms. Castelli, Acting Chair, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

:=:

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of r-..:.     -t Appeals, Ms. Castelli moved for a Board determination that since the Planning boara::   ~      ~ noticed its intent to declare itself Lead Agency and distributed that notice of intenticl to ~   .                            z all Involved Agencies, including the ZBA who consented or did not object to the    o      ::a      ~ Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this application, pursuant to coordinated::;:;           o review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations §617.6 (b) (~               ~ and since the Planning Board conducted a SEQ RA review and on December 10, 2014,   ~      ~ rendered an environmental determination of no significant adverse environmental  ~     .,_. 1               ~ impacts to result from the proposed land use action (i.e., a “Negative Declaration” o~    ,   …..,.  :     ~

”Neg. Dec”), the ZBA is bound by the Planning Board’s Neg Dec and the ZBA cam.mt p.       z

require further SEQRA review pursuant to SEQRA Regulation§ 617,6 (b)(3). The motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.

 

 

 

Jay Greenwell testified that Ray hired him to work with Bob Sorace; that Bob doesn’t like to do the meetings; that they will stipulate to all of the comments in the letters from the County Health, Planning and highway Departments; that the lots become slightly undersized when the steep slope reduction is taken into consideration; that the existing

 

 

garage is already non-conforming for the front yard and the new lot line will create a need for a side yard variance also; that they are installing French drains, a culvert under the new proposed driveway and drywells; that the house is on proposed lot #1; that the driveway will be paved; and that they will meet the 0% net run-off requirement.

 

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.

 

Ms. Castelli made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by

Ms. Salomon 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 lot area variances for lot #1 and Lot #2, and the front yard and side yard variances for lot #1, will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The reduction for steep slope requirements are causing the lot area variances, not the actual size of the lots, and the front yard and side yard requests are for an existing structure.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested lot area variances for lot #1 and #2, and the front yard and side yard variances for lot #1, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The reduction for steep slope requirements are causing the lot area variances, not the actual size of the lots, and the front yard and side yard requests are for an existing structure.

 

 

-t

~

c:::>

t;;i     0:z:

:::9   :z

::::c       -n

:::>      0

…….

 

3. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible ~

the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The reduction for steep~

I-”

0

;.o

>

 

 

slope requirements are causing the lot area variances, not the actual size of the lot~

-0          :z:

::3      Ci”)

rn

 

and the front yard and side yard requests are for an existing structure.

.,,,

……  I       -l

 

-C!D

lZ’I

4. TI1e requested lot area variances for lot #1 and #2 are not substantial. The requested front yard and side yard variances for lot # 1, 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.

I        0

::z

.   ….,.a..c     :E

 

 

 

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 lot area variances for lot #1 and #2, and the front yard and side yard variances for lot #1, 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

 

 

 

 

aeuse S)n1310  NM01

at t  Wd    tt  HULi  SIOZ

 

NMQ13nNVCJO    :JO  NMOl

 

Sambrotto

ZBA#lS-11

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  lot area variances

for lot #1  and #2,  and the front yard and side yard variances  for lot #1,    was presented  and moved by Mr. Quinn,   seconded  by Mr. Bosco  and carried  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;

Mr. Feroldi,  aye;   Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   aye; and Ms.  Salomon,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan was  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:   February  18,  2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:   APPLICANT     TOWN   CLERK   ZBA  MEMBERS HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS ASSESSOR DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL TOWN ATTORNEY MGMT and ENGINEERING DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY FILE,ZBA,    PB .

By-..;L-~~…J£.L.a.=._,_,q_…..,~~h<V’-“‘_..-.-L~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

 

OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-NA

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

3:01.:l.:!O   S)Hl310     NM©l

zt  t  L.ld     n HH!J Sl02

 

NM0130NVtlO      .:!O    Nh\01

 

DECISION FRONT YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Douglas Moscato

2 West Lawrence Park Drive

Unit #8

Piermont, New York 10968

ZBA #15-12

Date: February 18, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l5-12: Application of Douglas Moscato for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, Group Q, RG District, Column 8

(Front Yard: 25′ required, 19. l’ proposed) for an existing porch at an existing single•

family residence. The premises are located at 9 Eimer Street, Tappan New York and are

identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.08, Block 1, Lot 49; in the RG

zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Douglas and Christine Moscato appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copies  of architectural plans and site plan dated July 15, 2002 signed and sealed by Robert Hoene, Architect. (1 page)

 

 

 

Ms. Castelli, Acting Chair, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Castelli 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 Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.

 

 

 

Douglas Moscato testified that they purchased the house in 2004 with the existing front porch; that the title came back with “no violation”; that they refinanced the house and there was “no violation”; that they are selling the house and the title search crune back with a violation because the previous owner built the existing front porch without a permit; that the porch was not shown on the original survey that they used when they purchased the house; and that they have a certificate of occupancy for the deck that they built and it is not the same deck that is shown on the architectural plans for the porch.

 

 

–

JSl.:1.:10 S)tH31 o  NM01

2-I  t  Wd    re UBI.I  SIOZ

 

NM013DNVHO  .:10  NMO!

 

 

ZBA#lS-12

Page2 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 ofNew York was received.

 

Ms. Castelli made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by

Ms. Salomon 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 variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The porch was built by a previous owner without a variance and the present owners are correcting the error.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested front yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The porch was built by a previous owner without a variance and the present owners are correcting the error.

 

 

 

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. The porch was built by a previous owner without a variance and the present owners are correcting the error.

 

 

 

4. The requested front yard 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.

 

 

351:1.:H>  S)tH310  NM(ll

zt t Wd    t t uura  sinz

–   —

NM013DNVHO  .:!O  NMOl

 

 

ZBA#l5-12

Page  3   of 4

 

 

 

DECISION: Inview of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested front yard 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.

 

 

 

 

3~1.:!:JO  S)IH310 NMt>l

zi ‘t  hld  n HULi  5102

NM0!3~NVHQ so NMO!

 

 

ZBA#lS-12

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing   resolution    to approve  the application   for the requested  front yard variance was presented  and moved  by Mr. Feroldi,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli   and carried  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   aye; and Ms. Salomon,   aye.  Mr. Sullivan   was 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:   February  18,    2015

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING     INSPECTOR-G.M.

By~~~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY     DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and ENGfNEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

301.:1.:10   §)HJ310    NM01

zr 1   lJd    TT  BHIJ   5102

 

NMOl3~N\ftJO    .:10  NMOl

 

DECISION FRONT YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: George and Jessica Garrecht

107 Pine Tree Lane

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA#15-13

Date: February 18, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l5-13: Application of George and Jessica Garrecht for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 8 (Front Yard: 30′ required, 28′ proposed)for a front porch addition to a single-family residence. The premises are located at 107 Pine Tree Lane, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.07, Block 2, Lot 48; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

George and Jessica Garrecht appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

 

1. A copy of a survey for Old Mill Park Estates dated August 8, 1957 by William C.

Yuda, PLS. with the proposed front porch drawn on it.

2. A letter dated February 3, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning.

3. A letter dated February 11, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..

 

Ms. Castelli, Acting Chair, 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, Ms. Castelli 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 Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco,

aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.

 

 

 

George Garrecht testified that they purchased their house in 2010; that the steps to enter the house were constructed with wood, that the wood is not in very good shape; that they would 18ike to create a new entrance to the house with a 8′ by 24′ front porch that would tie into the existing roof; that they have two young girls that they could watch playing in the yard from the porch; that the front porch would help to distinguish the house from the others on the block because they all look very similar; and that they saw the porch built

on to a house similar to their house on Old Mill Road.

 

3~l:BO S)!H310 NMOl

zi t  Wd    rt HUtd s1oz

 

NM0!3DNV~O .::10   NMO!

 

 

Garrecht

ZBA#l5-13

Page2 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.

 

Ms. Castelli made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by

Ms. Salomon 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 variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Other properties in the area have similar front porches.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested front yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar porches have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

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. Other properties in the area have similar front porches.

 

4. The requested front yard 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.

 

3,Sl.:i.:10  S)lH310 NM81

Ji }_ lild    tl  UYld  !itOl

NM013~N\ftl0 so Nh\01

 

 

ZBA#lS-13

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 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.

 

 

301.d.::W  S)IH310 NMOl

‘I  r  lJd   n BULi   SIOZ

 

Nh\Ol3~NVHO  .:10   NMO!

 

 

ZBA#15-13

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested  front yard variance was presented  and moved  by Mr. Bosco,  seconded  by Ms.  Salomon   and carried  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye; Mr. Feroldi,   aye;  Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms.   Castelli,  aye; and Ms. Salomon,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan   was 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:   February  18,  2015

 

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–‘–\~~=<><~~=-==~ De  orah Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

1-IIGHWAY     DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of’ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.   and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

3~1.:UO   S)ltl31~    NMOl

 

ZI 1   LJd   1!     HHlJ 5102

 

NM013~N\l’~:W    .:JO     NMOl

 

DECISION SECTIONS    4.5 & 4.54 VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Leo and Theresa Canzoneri

16 Sparkill Avenue

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA #15-15

Date: February 18, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#lS-15: Application of Leo and Theresa Canzoneri for a variance from Zoning

Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.11, R-15 refers to R-80

District (Part I) Column 2 #7 (Conversion of a detached, owner occupied, single-family dwelling so as to add 1  additional dwelling unit clearly subordinate to the main 1-family use to occupy not more than 600 sq. ft. of floor area; 645.75 sq. ft. existing: subject to Section 4.5 a/k/a Local Law #7(of1981)) and from Section 4.54 (There shall be only a single front entrance to the dwelling: two doors exist) for an owner occupied single• family conversion at an existing single-family dwelling with an existing Section 4.5 accessory apartment (Local Law #7f1981). The premises are located at 16 Sparkill Avenue, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section

77.08, Block 3, Lot 84; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Guy Massa, brother of Theresa, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of site plan dated October 26, 1966. (1 page).
2. A hand drawing of the proposed space for the subordinate dwelling unit.
3. Quote report for Andersen windows.
4. A certificate of occupancy for the installation of an entry door at the lower level of a one family dwelling dated December 3, 1992.
5. A restrictive covenant dated 11/14/2014 Instrument Number-2014-00030790 filed with the Rocldand County Clerk by Theresa and Leo J Canzoneri, 16

Sparkill Avenue, Tappan, New York.

6. A letter dated February 4, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning.

7. A letter dated February 18, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..

8. A letter dated January 20, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Health signed by Scott Mc Kane, P.E..

9. A letter dated January 28, 2015 from the County of Rockland Sewer District No.1 signed by Joseph La Fiandra, Engineer II.

 

Ms. Castelli, Acting Chair, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Castelli 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 Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.

 

 

3-~ld:JO  S)IH310 NMOl

&I   I  IJd    n UULI  SIDZ

 

Nlt\013~NV~Q    .:10   NMOl

 

Canzoneri

ZBA#l5-15

Page 2 of 4

 

Guy Massa testified that his sister and brother-in-law have owned the house since 1966;

that they have a certificate of occupancy for the second front door; that the apartment is

45.75 sq. ft. bigger than is permitted; that it would be difficult to make the apartment the right size, without wasting that 45 sq. ft.; that they have installed the proper size window

for egress code; that the electric has been inspected; and the covenant has been filed with

the County Clerk.

 

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli 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 local law #7 (of 1981) variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment  to nearby properties. The applicant has had two front doors since 1992 and the request for an additional 45.75 sq. ft. in the apartment is a minor request. The required covenant for Local Law #7 (of 1981) has been filed at the Rockland County Clerk’s office instrument number

2014-00030790   dated 11114/2014.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested local law #7 variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant has had two front doors since 1992 and the request for an additional 45.75
3. ft. in the apartment is a minor request. The required covenant for Local Law #7(of

1981) has been filed at the Rockland County Clerk’s office instrument number 2014-

00030790  dated 11114/2014.

 

 

 

3. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The applicant has had two front doors since 1992 and the request for an additional 45.75 sq. ft. in the apartment is a minor request. The required covenant for Local Law # 7 (of 1981) has been filed at the Rockland County Clerk’s office instrument number 2014-00030790  dated

11/14/2014.

 

;lti)\.:!.:!O 13)1\1310   Nfl<IU

4. The requested local law #7 (of 1981) variances are not substantial”  -,    .        .                                                                                                                 1:”t  \\\\\il )1.\\1,

Qi  l  ‘1\d

–   —     “”ftlO .:10  N~Ol

N~Ol3~”

 

 

ZBA#lS-15

Page  3  of  4

 

 

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  Local Law #7( of 1981) variances  are APPROVED  with the acknowledgement   that; (1) The required  covenant for Local Law#  7(of 1981) has been filed at the Rockland  County  Clerk’s  office as instrument  number  2014-00030790   dated  11/14/2014;  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 &  ci

sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated~   ;       ~ hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occuparley is~      o issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforc~en\-A   ~ which legally permits such occupancy.                                                                     ~     ..,_.      ;o

):>

~        -0        z

GI>         ::3     0

.c;

0        (Tl

(v) Any foregoing variance or Special Permit will lapse if any contemplated cons~io~      ~

of the project or any use for which the variance or Special Permit is granted is not  0   .  ,_,. ‘     ~

substantially implemented within one year of the date of filing of this decision or th~ of c;;:>

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

 

 

ZBA#15-15

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  Local Law #7 (of

1981) variances,   with the acknowledgement    that the required  covenant  for Local Law #

7(of 1981)  has been filed at the Rockland   County  Clerk’s   office  as instrument  number

2014-00030790     dated  11/14/2014;      was presented  and moved by Ms.  Castelli,   seconded by Ms.  Salomon   and carried  as follows:  Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye;   Mr. Quinn, aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   aye; and Ms.  Salomon,  aye. Mr.  Sullivan  was 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:   February  18, 2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLlCANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-R.A.O.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TO’v\lN   CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.   and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

301.:l.:!O   9>1’d318    NMOl

tt 1:   lJd      11 HHLJ   SlOZ

 

NM013~N‘VBO     .:!0   NMOl

 

DECISION

PERFORMANCE     STANDARDS   APPROVED    WITH   CONDTIONS

 

To:  Killian Hunt (Navac  Builders)

25 So. Greenbush  Road

Orangeburg,  New York  10962

ZBA #15-16

Date:  February  18, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#15-16:  Application  ofNavac   Builders  Storage  for Performance  Standards  Review from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, Section 4.12 for storage and fabrication  of reclaimed  lumber,  plywood  and other wood products  that will be assembled  at various  project  sites. The building  is located  at 11  Highview  Avenue, Orangeburg,  New York  and is identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  74.11, Block  1, Lot 24; in the LI zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  February  18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Killian Hunt  appeared  and testified.

 

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Building  plan layout  for Navac  Builders  Inc. by Triad Design  Collaborative, Inc.(1 page)
2. A copy of a survey map for Midtown  Holding  Inc.  dated January  20, 2004  by

Robert R. Rahnefeld,  PLS ..

3. Performance  standards  resume  of operations  and equipment  dated January  14,

2015.

4. Fire Prevention  Supplement.
5. A letter dated February  5, 2015 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Planning  signed by Douglas  J. Schuetz,  Acting  Commissioner  of Planning.

6. A letter dated January  28, 2015 from the County of Rockland  Drainage  Agency signed by Vincent  Altieri.
7. A letter dated January  22, 2015 from the Department  of Environmental

Management  and Engineering  signed by Joseph  J. Moran, P .E., Town of

Orangetown.

8. A memorandum  dated February  5, 2015 from Michael  B. Bettmann,  Chief Fire

Inspector,  Town of Orangetown.

 

 

Ms. Castelli,  Acting  Chair, 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,  Ms. Castelli  moved  for a Board determination,  based upon the testimony  heard by this Board  and the facts as presented  in the application  submissions  and in the record, that since the application  entails the ZBA engaging  in a review  to determine  compliance

with technical  requirements   the application  is a Type II action exempt from the Sta~       ag    –1

Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §61~5   tn    ~

(c) (28); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was     z     ~      z

;;o

seconded by Ms. Salom?n and carried as follow~: Ms. Salomo~, aye; Ms. Castelli, ~e;  ~      ~ Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Feroldi , aye. Mr. Sullivan was absent.      rn      t..A ·                   0

::xJ

 

~         -0         ~

 

Killian Hunt testified that he is a general contractor and he has offices at 25 South

0

::3      o

 

Greenbush; and would like to use 11 Highview for storage and fabrication; that the  …,     .,_. ;      ~

building is a big metal shed without heat; that they would be using it to store reclaimW  .   t.a  .         ~ wood and tools and for fabrication when it is warmer; that the drivers will be at the  &a;1           ~             z building every morning to load to tools and supplies and every evening to unload; that

they will use the building to put together modular storefronts and then they will be taken apart loaded up and shipped.

 

Navac Building Storage

ZBA#l5-16

Page 2 of 4

 

The Performance Standards Resume of Operations and Equipment, and the Fire

Prevention Supplement completed by the applicant were thereupon reviewed in detail.

 

 

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.

 

Ms.  Castelli made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded  by

Mr. Quinn and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all of

the documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that:

 

Based upon the information contained in the applicant’s Resume of Operations and Equipment and the Fire Prevention Supplement; the report dated January 22,

2015 from Joseph J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner of the Orangetown Department of Environmental Management and Engineering (D.E.M.E.); the report dated February 5, 2015 from Michael Bettmann, Chief Fire Inspector, Town of Orangetown Bureau of Fire Prevention (B.F .P. ); the other documents submitted to the Board and the testimony of Applicant’s representatives, the Board finds and concludes that the application conforms with the Performance Standards set forth in Zoning Code Section 4.1, subject to compliance with the orders, rules and regulations of the Orangetown Office of Building, Zoning & Planning Administration & Enforcement, D.E.M.E., and Orangetown B.F.P., and all other departments having jurisdiction of the premises.

 

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents submitted, the Board: RESOLVED, that the Application for Performance Standards Conformance, pursuant to Zoning Code § 4.1, is APPROVED with the following SPECIFIC CONDITIONS: (1) that the Applicant adhere to all of the requirements set forth in the report by Chief Fire Inspector Bettmann, Town of Orangetown B.F.P., dated February 5,

2015; and (2) that the Applicant adhere to all of the requirements set forth by the report dated January 22, 2015 from Joseph J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner, Department of Environmental Management and Engineering, Town of Orangetown; 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.

 

 

 

 

3~1.:.f.:10 S)IH310 NM6l

£~  _t_ Wd    tr mna sroz

 

NM013~NVHO  :JO  NMOl

 

Navac Building Storage

ZBA#15-16

Page 3   of 4

 

 

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.

 

3:>Bd0 S)fH310 NM61

–

Qi  r  tJd   rt UULl   51UZ

 

NM013DNV~O .:10  NMOl

 

Navac  Building   Storage

ZBA#15-16

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  Resolution  to approve,  with the foregoing  conditions,   the application  for the requested  Performance   Standards  Review  was presented  and moved by Ms.  Castelli, seconded  by Ms.  Salomon    and carried  as follows:  Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   aye;  and Ms.  Salomon,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan   was 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:    February  18,  2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRIBUTION:

By~~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

APPLlCANT                                                                  TOWN  CLERK

ZBA  MEMBERS                                                           HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR                                                                    ASSESSOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS                                                  DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

TOWN ATTORNEY                                                      MGMT. and ENGINEERING

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY                                      FILE,ZBA,    PB

OBZPAE                                                                         CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-B.vW.      reassign  to Mike   Manzare