Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

JANUARY 4, 2012

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            WILLIAM MOWERSON

JOAN SALOMON

PATRICIA CASTELLI

DANIEL SULLIVAN

NANETTE ALBANESE

THOMAS WARREN, ALTERNATE

 

ABSENT:                                   NONE

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:                Dennis Michaels, Esq.              Deputy Town Attorney

Ann Marie Ambrose,                Official Stenographer

Deborah Arbolino,                   Administrative Aide

 

 

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

 

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

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS

 

 

APPLICANTS                                               DECISIONS

 

NEW ITEMS:

 

 

NEW ITEMS:

 

DUBIEL                                FRONT YARD VARIANCE                                   ZBA#12-01

70.14 / 3 / 18; R-15 zone                     APPROVED

 

MAC ROBBIE                       SIDE YARD VARIANCE                            ZBA#12-02

73.05 / 1 / 67; R-15 zone                     APPROVED

 

TYNAN                                  SIDE YARD VARIANCE                           ZBA#12-03

64.17 / 1 / 26; R-15 zone                     APPROVED

 

MADERA                              BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE             ZBA#12-04

77.15 / 3 / 23; R-15 zone                     APPROVED

 

PDI NICE PAK                     PERFORMANCE STANDARDS                ZBA#12-05

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS       APPROVED WITH

74.07 / 1 / 15.1; LI zone                         SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL  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 SEQRA Regulations § 617.6 (b)(3) the following application: 929 Route 9W, Upper Grandview, Tree Remediation Plan, Section 71.13, Block 1, Lot 12; R-22 zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED, to request  to be notified by the Planning Board of SEQRA 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  9:15 P.M.

 

Dated: January 4, 2012

 

 

 

DECISION

 

 FRONT YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:  Eric and Dawn Dubiel                                                    ZBA # 12-01

 97 East Erie Street                                                    Date: January 4, 2012

Blauvelt, New York 10913

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA# 12-01: Application of  Eric and Dawn Dubiel for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column  8 ( Front Yard: 30’ required, 27.4’ proposed) for the addition of a overhang for the front door of an existing single family residence. The premises are located at 97 Erie Street, Blauvelt, New York an identified on the Orangetown tax Map as Section  70.14, Block 3, Lot 18; R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on  Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

Eric Dubiel appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Site plan.
2. Three pages of hand drawn plans for the overhang.
3. A letter dated December 28, 2011 from the County of Rockland Department of Highways signed by Joseph Arena, Principal Engineering Technician.
4. A memorandum dated December 7, 2011 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning.

 

 

Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson  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. Mowerson, aye.

 

 

Eric Dubiel testified that he would like to install a slightly larger overhang over the front door to allow easier access into the house in inclement weather; that there are four members of the family; that they have owned the house for seven years; and that the larger overhang would help to prevent bringing in snow and wet shoes.

 

 

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. Mowerson 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 front yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The covered entrance will provide shelter before entering the house and aesthetically improve the look of the front façade of the house.

 

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 covered entrance will provide shelter before entering the house and aesthetically improve the look of the front façade of the house.

 

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 covered entrance will provide shelter before entering the house and aesthetically improve the look of the front façade of the house.

 

4. The requested front yard variance, is not substantial, affords 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 covered entrance will provide shelter before entering the house and aesthetically improve the look of the front façade of the house.

 

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 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.

 

 

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested front yard variance was presented and moved by Ms. Salomon, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows:  Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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:  January 4, 2012

 

 

DECISION

 

  SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:  Erik Mac Robbie                                                          ZBA # 12-02

        254 Gilbert Avenue                                          Date: January 4, 2012

Pearl River, New York 10965

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#12-02: Application of Erik Mac Robbie for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning), R-15 District, Group M, Section 5.21c applies (Side Yard: 15’ required, 13’ proposed) for the addition of a wrap around porch at an existing single-family residence.  Premises are located at 254 Gilbert Avenue, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 73.05, Block 1, Lot 67; R-15 zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on  Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

Erik and Roxanne Mac Robbie appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Survey dated April 28, 2011 from W.E. James Associates.
2. Hand drawing of the proposed covered porch.
3. A letter dated December 27, 2011 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning signed by Thomas Vanderbeek, P.E., Commissioner of Planning.
4. A letter dated December 28, 2011 from the County of Rockland Department of Highways signed by Joseph Arena, Principal Engineering Technician.
5. Picture of the existing house showing the two existing porches and their aluminum awnings.

 

 

Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson  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. Mowerson, aye.

 

 

 

Erik Mac Robbie testified that the house presently has two existing porches fiberglass coverings; that they are proposing to remove these coverings and join the two porches together under one roof to enhance the look of the house and to make the space more usable; that hey purchased the house in June; that they are not extending the  porch are but they are extending the roof over the patio a little further.

 

 

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. Mowerson 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 side yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposal is not extending the existing porch area, however it is extending the roof to cover the entire porch area. The house is not large and is situated on an undersized lot.

 

1.  The requested side yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposal is not extending the existing porch area, however it is extending the roof to cover the entire porch area and the foundation for the porch is existing. The house is not large and is situated on an undersized lot.

 

1. 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  proposal is not extending the existing porch area, however it is extending the roof to cover the entire porch area and the foundation for the porch is existing. The house is not large and is situated on an undersized lot.

 

 

1. The requested side yard variance, is not substantial, affords 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 lot is undersized and the foundation for the porch is existing, the only change is that the proposed roof will cover the existing porch.

 

1. 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 side 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.

 

 

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard variance was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows:  Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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:  January 4, 2012

 

 

DECISION

 

 SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Peter and Toni Tynan                           ZBA # 12-03

        21 Silver Birch Lane                                        Date: January 4, 2012

Pearl River, New York 10965

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA# 12-03: Application of  Peter and Toni Tynan for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning), R-15 District, Group M, Section 3.12, Column 9 ( Side Yard:  20’ required, 15.6’ proposed)  for an addition to an existing single-family residence.  The premises is located at  21 Silver Birch Lane, Pearl River, New York an identified on the Orangetown tax Map as Section 64.17, Block 1, Lot  26; R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on  Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

Peter and Toni Tynan appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Survey by Robert Jost, L.S., dated May 21, 1957
2. Architectural plans dated  8/5/2011 signed and sealed by Barbara Hess, Architect.
3. A letter in support of the application signed by four abutting property owners.
4. Three pictures of the existing kitchen.
5. Twelve pictures of houses in the neighborhood.

 

 

Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson  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. Mowerson, aye.

 

 

Peter Tynan testified that they purchased the house in 2006; that he and his wife have two children; that they are proposing to knock out a wall in the kitchen and adding a family room; that the kitchen is small and they need a little more room; that his 78 year old mother is moving up from the Bronx in September and will live with them; and that the proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

 

 

Toni Tynan presented the Board with pictures of the existing kitchen and of other houses in the area.

 

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. Mowerson 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 side yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

1. The requested side yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

 

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

 

1. The requested side yard variance, although somewhat substantial, affords 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. Similar additions have been constructed in the area.

 

1. 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 variance.

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested side 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.

 

 

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard variance was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Albanese and carried as follows:  Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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:  January 4, 2012

 

DECISION

 

 BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:  Gustavo Madera                                                           ZBA # 12-04

        116 Lawrence Street                                        Date: January 4, 2012

Tappan, New York 10983

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA# 12-04: Application of Gustavo Madera for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning), R-15 District, Section 5.21e (Building Height:  20’ permitted, 22’7” proposed) for a new roof at an existing single-family residence.  The premises are located at  116 Lawrence Street, Tappan, New York an identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.15, Block 3, Lot  23; R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on  Wednesday, January 4, 2012 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

Gustavo Madera appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Survey by Barbour, Jost & Boswell Engineers, dated July 12, 1965.
2. Architectural plans not signed or sealed.

 

 

 

Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson  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. Mowerson, aye.

 

 

 

 

Gustavo Madera testified that his house needs a new roof; that they had decided to raise the existing roof to give them more storage space and when they applied for the building permit, they were told that they needed a variance for height; that the lot is undersized and the proposed height is 2 ½ feet over the permitted height; that he did not realize that his lot was undersized because all of the front yards are about the same; that he has owned the house for twelve years and lives there with his wife and three sons.

 

 

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. Mowerson 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 building height variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The house is situated down hill from the neighbors to the rear, which makes the increased height less imposing.

 

1. The requested building height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The house is situated down hill from the neighbors to the rear, which makes the increased height less imposing.

 

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

 

 

1. The requested building height variance, although somewhat substantial, affords 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.

 

1. The applicant purchased the property subject to Orangetown’s Zoning Code (Chapter 43) and is proposing a new addition and/or improvements, so the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration was relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but did not, by itself, preclude the granting of the area variances.

 

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

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

(iii) The Board gives no approval of any building plans, including, without limitation,

the accuracy and structural integrity thereof, of the applicant, but same have been submitted to the Board solely for informational and verification purposes relative to any

variances being requested.

 

 

(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained within a reasonable period of time following the filing of this decision and prior to undertaking any construction contemplated in this decision. To the extent any variance or Special

Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall not be

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested building height variance was presented and moved by Ms. Albanese, seconded by Mr. Sullivan and carried as follows:  Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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:  January 4, 2012

 

 

DECISION

 

• 4.1 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS

 

To: PDI  Nice Pak                                                      ZBA # 12-05

      Michael Jacobs                                                   Date: January 4, 2012

Twice Nice Pak Park

Orangeburg, New York 10962

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#12-05: Application of  PDI Nice Pak  for Performance Standards Review, Chapter 43 (Zoning), LI District, Section 4.1, for the storage of master rolls of baby wipes.  The property is located at  125 Greenbush Road, Orangeburg, New York and is identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.07, Block 1, Lot 15.1;  LI zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on  Wednesday, October 5,  2011 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Michael Jacobs, Facilities Manager, Adam Lurie, Vice President of Operations, and Shawn Smith, Attorney, appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans dated 10/07/2011 labeled “ Floor Plan Existing Tenants” signed and sealed by Lawrence Haskell, R.A..
2. Chubb Insurance Letter and Certificate of Occupancy for upgrade to Sprinkler System.
3. Certificates of Analysis (Tests) for Stored Applicator.
4. Fire protection upgrade drawing .
5. Use Subject to Performance Stands Resume of Operations and Equipment  form dated October 19, 2011
6. Fire Prevention Supplement.
7. A letter dated December 28, 2011 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning signed by Thomas Vanderbeek, P.E., Commissioner of Planning.
8. A letter dated November 28, 2011 from the County of Rockland Department of Health signed by Scott McKane, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer.
9. A letter dated January 4, 2012 from Michael B. Bettmann, Chief Fire Inspector, Town of Orangetown with a letter attached dated March 30, 2011 from Douglas Sampath, Assistant Fire Inspector, Town of Orangetown.
10. A letter dated December 6, 2011 from Joseph J. Moran, P.E.,, Commissioner, Department of Environmental Management and Engineering, Town of Orangetown.

 

Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson  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) (28); 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. Mowerson, aye.

 

 

Michael Jacobs, Facilities Manager, testified that they had a fire on the premises this year and after the clean up, they have met the standards set by Chubb Insurance, which were higher than the requirements of the Orangetown Bureau of Fire Prevention; that both Douglas Sampath and Michael Bettman have made inspections and are satisfied with the results; that they have permission to store the wipes, tubs and lids; and that the original

use of the space has not changed.

 

Adam Lurie testified that no changes have taken place since they first occupied the building; and that the upgrades done surpass the requirements of the Fire Inspectors.

 

Shawn Smith, Attorney, testified that the seven gas heaters replaced the existing heaters that were lost in the fire; that all of the Fire Inspectors’ concerns have been addressed and there has not been a change to the use of the space since they first occupied the space.

 

 

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.

 

Mr. Mowerson made a motion to close 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 the

documents presented, the Board found and concluded that:

 

1. Based upon the information contained in the applicant’s Resume of Operations and Equipment, the Fire Prevention Supplement, the letter dated December 6, 2011 from Joseph J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner of the Orangetown Department of Environmental Management and Engineering concluding that  there is no reasonable doubt as to the likelihood of applicant’s conformance to the Zoning Code § 4.1 Performance Standards, the memorandum dated January 4, 2012 from Michael B. Bettmann, Chief Fire Inspector, Town of Orangetown Bureau of Fire Prevention (B.F.P.) with a letter from Douglas Sampath, Assistant Fire Inspector, Town of Orangetown (B.F.P.) dated March 30, 2011 attached, the letter dated  November 28, 2011 from Scott Mc Kane, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer, County of Rockland Department of Health, the letter dated December 28, 2011 from Thomas Vanderbeek, Commissioner of Planning, County of Rockland Department of  Planning, the other documents presented to the Board and the testimony of applicant’s representatives, the Board finds and concludes that conformance with the Performance Standards set forth in Zoning  Code Section 4.1 will result sufficient to warrant the issuance of a Building Permit and/or Certificate of Occupancy, subject to compliance with the orders, rules and regulations of the Orangetown Office of Building, Zoning & Planning Administration & Enforcement, 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 presented, the Board:  RESOLVED, that the application for  Performance Standards  Conformance, pursuant to Zoning Code § 4.1,  is APPROVED with the SPECIFIC CONDITION  that  the applicant adhere to all of the requirements set forth by the Chief Fire Inspector, Town of Orangetown (B.F.P.), letters dated March 30, 2011 & January 4, 2012 ;   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, Performance Standards Approval, 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, Performance Standards Approval, 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, performance standards approval, 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, Performance Standards Review, 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  Zoning Code § 4.1 Performance Standards was presented and moved by Mr. Mowerson, seconded by Ms. Albanese  and carried as follows:  Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; .Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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:  January 4, 2012