Meeting Overview

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS FEBRUARY   20, 2013

 

DANIEL  SULLIVAN

 

 

I’>

-f       Q;:)

 

0          a::;    0

 

JOAN  SALOMON

PATRICIA   CASTELLI

E

~

::z:      ~

:IE

-f

z

 

NANETTE  ALBANESE

0          c::::p        0

“‘Tl

 

 

 

ABSENT:

MICHAEL  BOSCO,

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

NONE

r-

-‘l

m               0

;;o              :::;o

l>

;ii;;

o»     “‘”ti      z

.,,

0         ~        CD “”Tl       ~l            tr:\

 

0

–  ~   }   -f

<:::>    ;  ::m‘   ~z

i::J

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:

Dennis  Michaels,  Esq. Ann Marie Ambrose, Elizabeth  Decort,

Deputy  Town Attorney Official  Stenographer Clerk Typist

 

 

 

 

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:

 

PUBLISHED   ITEMS

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

 

 

 

 

NEW  ITEMS:

 

 

 

 

FITZPATRICK

73.05 / 1I83;   R-15 zone

 

 

 

 

TRUIANO

69.0915124;  R-15 zone

 

 

 

TOBIN

69.16 / 3 I 7; R-40 zone

DECISIONS

 

 

 

BUILDING  HEIGHT  AND                              ZBA#13-13

ACCESSORY   STRUCTURE

DISTANCE  VARIANCES   APPROVED AS MODIFIED

 

FLOOR  AREA RATIO                                     ZBA#13-14

AND TOTAL  SIDE YARD VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

ACCESSORY   STRUCTURE                           ZBA#l3-15

SIDE & REARY ARD VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

ORANGEBURG   COMMOMS    SIGN SET-BACK  VARIANCE PYLON  SIGN                                        APPROVED

74.15 I 1   I 21; LI zone

 

 

 

OTHER  BUSINESS:

ZBA#l3-16

 

 

 

 

ZBA#  13-11: Application  of  Washington  Dental  Associates  for  variances  from Chapter

43 (Zoning),  Section  3.12, CS District,  Column  5 Paragraph  6 (a) (Total  Sign Area: 40

269. ft. permitted, 269.6 sq. ft. proposed), and from paragraph  6 (b) (2)  (Signs  not attached to building  shall be 20′  from property  line; O’ proposed)  for five signs at a new dentist office. The premises  are located  at 140 Oak Tree Road, Tappan, New  York  and are identified on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   77.15, Block 2, Lot 47; CS zoning district.  The above item was reviewed  on February  6, 2013 and was approved  as

 

Minutes

Page 2 of  2

 

 

modified  to two (2) 3′ x 6′ light box building  signs and one 27 sq.  ft. monument sign to be placed  at the property  line.  Since that hearing, the applicant  changed  the wording  on the sign. The size, dimension and location  have not changed,  and the Board has no objection  to the change  in verbiage  on the sign.  The Board  directed  the clerk to sign the revised  plans.

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL   BUSINESS:

 

Inresponse  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:

LSI Services  Inc. Site Plan Review, 336 Blaisdell  Road,  Orangeburg, New  York, 76.08  I

1   / l; LIO zone; All County  Properties,  LLC Site Plan Review, 11   Old School Lane, Orangeburg, New  York,  74.07 / 1  / 29; LI 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  9:00 P.M.

 

Dated:  February  20,  2013

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

Ry(Jk;u~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY

ASSESSOR

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING   INSPECTOR (Individual Decisions)

DEPT.  ofENVIRONMENTAL MGMT.  and ENGINEERING

Rockland County Planning

 

 

 

• .

 

DECISION

 

 

BUILDING HEIGHT  AND ACCESSORY  STRUCTURE  DISTANCE VANIANCES APPROVED AS MODIFIED

 

Teresa Fitzpatrick     ZBA#   13-13 216 Gilbert  Avenue   Date:  February  20, 2013 Pearl River, New  York 10965

To:

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l3-13:   Application  of  Teresa Fitzpatrick  for a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning)

of the Code of the Town of Orangetown  R-15 District,  Section 5.21 (e) (Building  Height:

20′  permitted,   24′  7″ proposed)  and from Section  5.153 (Accessory  structure  distance from principal  building:  15′ required,  7′ proposed)   for an addition  to an existing  single• family residence.  The premises  are located  at 216 Gilbert  Avenue,  Pearl River, New

York,  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 73.05, Block  I, Lot 83;

R-15 zone.

 

 

Heard  by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   February  20, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

Jonathan  Villani,  Design  Contractor  and  Teresa Fitzpatrick  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans  dated  8/21/2012  with the latest revision  date of 10/31/2012 by

Annunziata  and Villani  Design  Consultants  not signed or sealed.  (11 pages)

2. A letter dated February  1, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Sewer District No. l signed by Joseph  LaFiandra,  Engineer  IL
3. A letter dated February  5, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Planning  signed by Thomas  Vanderbeek,  P .E., Commissioner   of Planning.

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chairman,  made a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which  motion  was seconded  by Ms. Albanese  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 SEQ RA Regulations   §617 .5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and /or (13); which  does not require  SEQRA  environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms.Castelli  and carried as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Bosco,  aye.

 

Jonathan  Villani testified  that the lot is a very odd shape; that it does not allow for any expansion  without  the need for variances;  that there is a 20′  height  restriction  on the lot and the proposed  second  story would  be 24 ‘7″;  that this is an undersized  lot for the R-15 district;  that the design  does not call for a flat roof; that the aesthetics  would be severely compromised  with a flat roof; that the attic would  be used for storage,  air ducts  and air handler,  and is not habitable;  that the greater the pitch of the roof, the better the runoff; that they are still below  the floor area ratio requirements;   that they could change the pitch of the to 10 and bring the height  down to 22’  7″; that the distance  between  the house and the garage is seven feet and is not changing.

 

Teresa  Fitzpatrick  testified  that they have owned the ho~1.s<?  :Ifr ten years.

OOt:!~O s·~rn31~ N~O

 

~  ~!W   Li 111·tm

 

N~Oi3~NVti0  .:!O  NX\01

 

 

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.

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT 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 variancets)  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  and accessory  structure  distance  variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  Tue constraints  of the lot make it difficult  to make any alterations

to the building.  The applicant  has reduced  the pitch of the roof to reduce the requested building  height to 22′  7″.

 

2. 2. The requested  building  height  and accessory  structure  distance  variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or distr   The constraints  of the lot make it difficult  to make any alterations  to the building.  The applicant  has reduced  the pitch of the roof to reduce the requested  building  height to 22′  7″.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. 4. The requested  building  height  and accessory  structure  distance  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.

 

5. 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,’3H’:t0 S)lH310  NH1

 

~,J[Jld   ‘&i’&\tni

 

-~aNVtiO     ;JO NflOl

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED.  that the application  for the requested  building  height  and accessory structure  distance  variances  are APPROVED   as MODIFIED  by reducing  the pitch of the roof to a 10 over  12;  the building  height has been reduced  to 22′  7″; 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.

 

 

Fitzpatrick

ZBA#l3-13

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  building  height, as modified  to 22’  7″, and accessory  structure  distance  variances  was presented  and moved by Ms.  Albanese,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows:  Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye;  Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and  Ms. Castelli, aye.

 

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

 

DATED: February 20, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS

TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR   -M.M.

By-#-!-.~~~=-~++-=-~ Deborah Arbolino

AdministrativeAide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and ENGJNEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOORAREA RATIO AND TOTAL SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Andrew and Sandra Troiano

15 Meadows Street

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA#  13-14

Date: February 20, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#l3-14: Application of Andrew and Sandra Truiano for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 required,  .23 existing, .30 proposed) and 10 (Total Side Yard: 50′ required, 32.3′ proposed)  for an addition to an existing single-family residence. Premises are located at

15 Meadows Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax

Map as Section 69.09, Block 5, Lot 24; R-15 zone.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, February 20, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Donald Brenner, Attorney,  and Sandra Troiano appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

L   Survey dated September 2, 2012 signed (not sealed) by Edward G. Mihalczo, L.S.

2. Architectural plans dated 10/19/2012 signed and sealed by Rudolph Dupuy, Architect.

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, 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, 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 Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye.

 

 

 

Donald Brenner, Attorney, testified that the Truianos have three children; that they recently purchased this house which is in need of some work; that they are proposing to keep an existing deck that requires a variance and that they arc reconstructing a two car garage, half of which will be used for storage of bicycles and equipment; that they require a side yard and a floor area ratio variance in order to complete this work.

 

Truiano

ZBA#l3-14

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

Barbara  Paone,  7 Meadows  Street,  testified that the previous  owner had a permit  for the deck in its current  location;  that perhaps  there was mistake  in issuing that permit without a variance.

 

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. 1. The requested  floor area ratio and total side yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby propertie  The proposed  addition!  alteration  are being  constructed  on an existing foundation.

 

2. The requested floor area ratio and total  side yard variances   will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.   The proposed  addition/  alteration are being  constructed  on an existing foundation.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. 4. The requested  floor area ratio and total side yard variances,  although  somewhat substantial,   afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment, if <my, to the health,  safety and welfare of the surrounding  neighborhood  or nearby communi  The deck is existing and the garage is being reconstructed on an existing foundation.

 

5. 5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject to Ornngetown’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  floor area ratio and total side 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.

——–

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  floor area ratio and total side yard variances  was presented  and moved by Ms. Castelli,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried  as follows:   Mr. Sullivan,  aye;  Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Ms.  Albanese,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; and  Ms.  Castelli,  aye.

 

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  20, 2013

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLlCANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERV1SOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNBY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR   -R.A.O.

By…….:;…=t…=-~,-;:-_…-=-1-+c=v

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT .. of ENVJRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGrNEERING FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

ACCESSORY STRUCTURE: SIDE YARD AND REARYARD  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:       Patricia  Tobin

187 Van Wyck Road

Blauvelt,  New York  10913

ZBA#   13-15

Date:  February  20, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-15: Application  of Patricia  Tobin for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning),  R-40

District,  Section  5.227 (Accessory  Structure  over  100 sq. ft. must meet side yard  and rear yard  setbacks  of the zone)  Section 3.12,  Columns  9 (Side Yard: 30′ required,  12′

proposed)  and  11  (Rear Yard: 50′  required,  15′ proposed)  for replacement  of a shed at an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 187 Van Wyck Road, Blauvelt,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   69 .16, Block 3, Lot 7; R-40 zoning district.

 

Heard  by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   February  20, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

Patricia  Tobin appeared  and testified.

 

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Copy of survey with block foundation  shown, dated March  7, 2012 by William

James,  P.L.S.

2. Computer  generated  picture  of proposed  shed.
3. Zoning  Board  of Appeals  Decision  #12-79  dated November  21, 2012.

 

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chairman,  made  a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which  motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  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 Ms. Castelli and carried as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye.

 

Patricia  Tobin testified  that she purchased  the house  less than  a year ago; that there was an existing  sheet metal shed on the property  that was falling  apart; that she asked that the previous  owner remove  it before  the closing  and they  did; that the previous  owner was a member  of the Zoning  Board;  that the concrete  slab for the shed is existing; that she thought  that she would  be able to get a permit  and put the new shed in the same location; that when she applied  for the permit,  she found out that the shed needed  a variance;  that she would  like to install the shed on the existing  concrete  pad because  it makes  sense to use it and this is most logical location  for the shed on the property;  that she does not have the certificate  of occupancy  for the pool yet because  she has not installed  the fence that she got a variance  for yet; and that she would  like to install the shed first because  it

comes be assembled  and will not fit through  the gate of the new fence.

 

Tobin

ZBA#l3-15

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 ofNew  York was received.

 

 

Mr. Sullivan  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 accessory  structure  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 applicant  is replacing  a shed that existed  for many years  in the proposed  location.  The concrete  foundation  for the shed is existing  and moving the shed to another location  would  be very  costly.

 

2. The requested  accessory  structure  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 applicant  is replacing  a shed that existed  for many

years  in the proposed  location.  The concrete  foundation  for the shed is existing  and

moving the shed to another  location  would  be very  costly.

 

 

 

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  accessory  structure  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 concrete  pad for the shed is existing  and it would be very costly to remove  this pad and install  a new one.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

3GH~O S’;\~310R1l6’1

• /4!W UtBJfi!

 

d013:~rPHiO so NM.01

 

Tobin

ZBA#l3-15

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  accessory  structure  rear yard and side 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 constrnction  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

 

 

 

~:i~   S)f~31,’~ Nti0.1

 

~~Id   t:t:tBJ’,mz

“””‘”-

 

Tobin

ZBA#13-15

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  accessory  structure rear yard and side yard variances  was presented  and moved  by Ms.  Salomon,  seconded by Ms. Castelli  and carried  as follows:   Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Ms. Castelli, aye.

 

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 20, 2013

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATIORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-B.vW.

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

By4~~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING F!LE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

PYLON SIGN LOCATION  VARIANCE APPROVED

 

 

 

To:   Geraldine  Tortorella  (Orangeburg   Commons  sign) One North  Broadway  Suite 701

White Plains,  New York  10601-2319

ZBA#   13-16

Date:  February  20, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#  13-16:   Application  of  Orangeburg  Commons  for a variance  from Chapter 43 (Zoning),  Section 3.11,  LI District,  Column  5 # 8 (c)  (All signs shall be set back 30′ from front lot line: 20′  proposed)  for a pylon sign. The property  is located  at the intersection  of Stevens  Way and Route 303,   Orangeburg,  New  York  and is identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   74.15,  Block  1,   Lot 21; LI zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting held on Wednesday,    February  20, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

Geraldine  Tortorella,   Attorney,   James  Ambrose,  Alfred Rossi,  and Susan Sasson, appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1.	Pylon sign plan dated  1/4/2013 prepared  by Leonard  Jackson  Associates.
2.	Site plan dated  9/14/   2012 by Leonard  Jackson Associates.
3.	Photograph  of existing  condition  of previously  approved  signs on Route 303.
4.	Letter dated January  10,  2013   from Geraldine  Tortorella,  Attorney.
5.	Planning  Board decisions  #12-07   and #12-28.
6.	A letter dated  February  5,  2013 from the County of Rockland  Department  of
	Planning  signed by Thomas  B.  Vanderbeek,  P.E.; Commissioner   of P~~	~
7.	A letter  dated January  18, 2013 from the State of New York DepartmdBt o~	::e

Transportation   signed by Mary Jo Russo,  P .E.,  Rockland  County Pe~      Erfi1eef:=

r  ~  o

8. 8. A partial site plan with the stream colored  in and the location  of the sign .                          ··      ~

fT1      -.a   ::0

s

~                ~

‘?”      ~          z

 

• ~ ~·1

1,

Mr. Sullivan,   Chairman,  made  a m~tion to ~pen the Public  Hearing  which motii    ~~         ~

seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and earned  unanimously,                                                tn     .:.J:t      z

 

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) (7); which  does not require  SEQRA environmental  review.  The motion was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan,  aye;  Ms.  Salomon,  aye;  Ms.  Albanese,  aye; Ms.  Castelli aye; and Mr.

Bosco,  aye.

 

Geraldine  Tortorella,  Attorney,  testified  that the site plan received  approval  in 2011   and again in 2012;  that there are 15.77   acres on the site;  that it is located  in the LI zone; that the present  proposal  is for a supermarket,  two hotels,  a restaurant,  and a bank; that the original  site plan had separate  retail building  that has been combined  to form the Stop & Shop;  that the proposed  pylon sign was previously  approved  by the Planning  Board  and Architectural  Review  Board at the required  30′  set back from Route 303 and Steven’s Way; that the amended  site plan approval  also provided for the elimination of a

substantial  retaining  wall on the east side of the Orangeburg  Commons  parking  field;  that

 

 

ZBA#l3-16

Page 2 of  4

 

 

in order to accommodate  that change,   a change in grading  for relocation  of the stream in the northeast  comer  of the Orangeburg  Commons  project   made a provision  for a level

area abutting  the stream  bed on which the sign structure  was to be constructed;  that due to field conditions,   the level area on which the pylon  sign structure  was to be constructed could not be accommodated   and the grading  of the banks of the stream resulted  in a

sloped embankment  where the sign was to have been built;  that it would not be practical to try to locate the sign  on a rip-rap  covered  clopping  stream embankment  on the north side of the stream;  that construction  and maintenance  of the sign structure  and sign face requires  use of a cherry picker  and other large equipment  and vehicles;   that there is not a sufficiently  level are setback  30  feet from Route  303 and Stevens way; that there is the right topography  located  20′  from Stevens  Way and 30′  from Route  303;   and that they are requesting   this  location  for the sign.

 

 

Public Comment: None

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 dose  the Public Hearing  which motion was seconded  by

Ms.  Albanese  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. 1. The requested  pylon  sign location  variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.   The proposed location  has been restricted  because  of the change  to the existing  stream  bed.

 

2. 2. The requested  sign  area variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or dis   The proposed location  has been restricted  because  of the change  to the existing  stream  bed.

 

 

 

3. 3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue otherthan by obtaininga variance.

 

 

 

 

; . – — –  .~   .  ..:-  ·._,.–

 

 

 

~B:!O S)f~31·0Ml&tf! lit:ttiu    ti~ m~··mt N~;~3$N’1~0 .:!O Nh\01

 

 

ZBA#13-16

Page  3   of  4

 

 

4. 4. The requested  sign area variance,  although  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 proposed location  has been restricted  because  of the change  to the existing  stream be

 

5. 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  sign location  variance  is APPROVED  with  the Specific  Condition  that the applicant  comply  with the letter dated January  18, 2013 from the State ofNew York Department of Transportation signed by Mary Jo Russo,  P.E.,  Rockland  County  Permit Engineer:   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 o-f 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,  withoutlimita~n,  ~       ~

 

the accuracy  and structural  integrity  thereof, of the applicant,  but same have been  ~     .     ~   ·                 z submitted  to the Board solely for informational  and verification  purposes  relative  t~yg    ~

0

variances  being requested.                                                                                       ·                              ~     ·      ~

rn    –a   ;o

:::0                  1>

~         ~           :2:

(iv) A building permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  withm a ~1      ;

reasonable  pe:iod  of time follo”:’ing_the   fi~i~g  of this decision  and pri?r to undert~iI;      .it1,     ~

any construction  contemplated in this decision,   To the extent any vanance  or Special~     •  &’i    :z:

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.

 

Orangeburg  Commons  Pylon  Sign

ZBA#l3-16

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  pylon  sign location variance  with the Specific  Condition  that all concerns  stated in  the letter dated January

18, 2013  from Mary Jo Russo,  P.E.,  Rockland  County Permit  Engineer,  NYSDOT  are addressed;  was presented and moved by Mr. Bosco,  seconded  by Ms.  Castelli and carried as follows:   Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Mr.  Bosco,  aye;   Ms.  Albanese,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; and Ms.  Castelli,  aye.

 

 

 

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  20,  2013

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDrNG !NSPECTOR-B.vW.

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

.:

By  1.·                   0

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HlGHWA Y DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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