Meeting - Zoning Board January 7, 2015 (View All)
Date | Name | Group(s) | Type | Approved | File |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
01/07/2015 | Zoning Board January 7, 2015 | Zoning Board of Appeals | Minutes |
Meeting Members
Meeting Support
Meeting Overview
Scheduled: | 01/07/2015 7:00 PM |
Group(s): | Zoning Board of Appeals |
Location: |
Documents | Type | File |
---|---|---|
Zoning Board January 7, 2015 | Minutes |
MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JANUARY 7. 2015
MEMBERS PRESENT: JOAN SALOMON DAN SULLIVAN
LEONARD FEROLDI, ALTERNATE PA TRICIA CASTELLI
ABSENT: MICHAEL BOSCO THOMAS QUINN
ALSO PRESENT: Dennis Michaels, Esq.
Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah Arbolino,
Deputy Town Attorney Official Stenographer Administrative Aide
This meeting was called to order at 7: 00 P.M. by Mr. Sullivan, Chairman.
Hearings on this meeting’s agenda, which are made a part of this meeting, were held as noted below:
PUBLISHED ITEMS APPLICANTS DECISIONS
NEW ITEMS:
SKAE TRAINING CENTER |
PRE-EXISTING STRUCTURE |
ZBA#lS-01 |
337-339 Blaisdell Road, | LOCATION APPROVED | |
Orangeburg, NY
76.08 I 1 I 3 & 4; LIO zone |
TO BE USED AS PERMITTED
BY THE LIO ZONING DISTRICT |
|
SKAE/COLUMCILLE |
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS |
ZBA#15-02 |
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC
15 Corporate Drive, Orangeburg, NY CONDITIONS
70.06 I 1 I 1.113; LO zone
TREANOR
16 Meadows Street, Pearl River, NY
69.09 I 5 I 25; R-15 zone
SIDE YARD AND REAR ZBA#15-03
YARD VARIANCES APPROVED
MCMULLEN
2 Garber Hill Road, Blauvelt, NY
70.10 I 2 I 10; R-15 zone
FRONT YARD,§ 5.153 AND ZBA#15-04
- 5.226 VARIANCES APPROVED
FOUR FRIENDS L.L.C. BUILDING HEIGHT
102 Center Street, Pearl River, NY VARIANCE APPROVED
68.15 I 3 I 72; RG zone
ZBA#15-05
301.:1.:10 S)fH310 NMO!
to r lJd 6Z NHr 5102
NM0!3f.lNVHO .:10 NMO!
Minutes
Page 2of2
OTHER BUSINESS:
ZBA#l3-92A: ZAPATA OUTDOOR DINING/SIDEWALK CAFE, 779 Route 340, Palisades, NY; 77.20 I 2124; R-15 zone
By order of Honorable Robert M. Berliner, Justice ofNYS Supreme Court, Rockland County, the Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Orangetown, answered the question that was not clearly answered in ZBA Decision #13-92 dated 03/05/2014: The Zoning Board has determined that John Giardiello, P.E., Director, Town of Orangetown Office of Building, Zoning, Planning, Administration & Enforcement, was correct when he determined that the application could not be viewed as a Sidewalk Cafe and Vending under Chapter 31 B of the Code of the Town of Orangetown.
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 (SEQ RA) coordinated environmental review of actions pursuant to SEQRA Regulations§ 617.6 (b)(3) the following applications: Retro Fitness Pearl River Commercial Interior Subdivision Plan, 100 North Middletown Road, Pearl River,, NY 69.13 / I I 3; CC 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: January 7, 2015
DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT
TOWN ATIORNEY
DEPUTY TOWN A TIORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
BUILDING INSPECTOR (Individual Decisions) Rockland County Planning
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN
By~~
Deborah Arbolino, Administrative Aide
3Cll.:.UO S’>!H31CJ NMOl
to 1 lJd 62 NHr 5102
N.M 013 ~ N ‘I/ H 0 J G NM 0 l
DECISION
PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE APPROVED TO REMAIN ON PROPERTY WITH THE SPECIFIC CONDITION THAT THE STRUCTURE’S USE SHALL BE CONFORMING WITH THE LIO DISTRICT
To: Donald Brenner (Skae Training Center)
4 Independence A venue
Tappan, New York 10983
ZBA #15-01
Date: January 7, 2015
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
ZBA#15-0l: Application of Skae Training Center for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.11, LIO District, Column 2, refers to LO District, Column 2 (Uses permitted by right: does not permit residential use): Pre-existing non-conforming residential structure exists: applicant would like to
continue pre-existing non-conforming use of residential structure; the Planning Board has directed the applicant to remove the structure or proceed to the Zoning Board for a variance. The property is located at 337-339 Blaisdell Road, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 76.08, Block 1, Lots 3 & 4; in the LIO zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Donald Brenner, Attorney, Sara Torrens, Attorney and Peter Skae, appeared and testified.
The following documents were presented:
- Site plan labeled “Overall Final As built for Skae Training ” dated Sept. 12, 2014 with the last revision date of 10/22/2014 signed and sealed by William D. Youngblood L.S ..
- Planning Board decision #14-40 dated October 22, 2014.
- Zoning Board of Appeals decision #14-20 dated March 19, 2014.
- A letter dated December 29, 2014 from the County of Rockland Department of
Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner.
- A letter dated December 4, 2014 from the County of Rockland Department of
Health signed by Scott Mc Kane, P .E., Senior Public Health Engineer.
- A letter dated December 31, 2014 from the County of Rockland Department of
Highways, signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..
Mr. Sullivan, Chair, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.
.-….:> -I
|
.._. c:::t 0
0 t;;\
On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Boar~f §:; :z Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that since the Planning boards z . ~ noticed its intent to declare itself Lead Agency and distributed that notice of intentiorfdo · ~ o all Involved Agencies, including the ZBA who consented or did not object to the ~ ~
‘Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this application, pursuant to coordinated en ~ ~
review under t State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations §617.6 (b) (3); a~ ,_.. ~ ~
since the Planning Board conducted a SEQRA review and. On October 22, 2014, ~ . 0 t ~
rendered an environmental determination of no significant adverse environmental Pl ,_,. :z:
: impacts to result from the proposed land use action (i.e., a “Negative Declaration” or
“Neg. Dec”), the ZBA is bound by the Planning Board’s Neg Dec and the ZBA cannot
.require further SEQRA review pursuant to SEQRA Regulation§ 617,6 (b)(3). The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.
Skae Training Center
ZBA#l5-0l
Page 2 of 4
Donald Brenner, Attorney, testified that the building was before the Board for the exercise center; that they have merged two properties; that the property with the house
was known as the “Limmer house”; that it was used as a residence but has not been in use for a while; that they are proposing to keep the building in its present location and to eventually rehab it and use it for a commercial use; that they would like the three comments from the County to be overridden because they do not make sense for this request; and that nothing is changing.
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:
- The requested Section 3 .11, LO District, Column 2 variance to keep the pre-existing non-conforming residence, as a residence, was withdrawn.The request to keep the pre-existing non-conforming building in its present location will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant has agreed that the building will be used for a use permitted in the LIO District and not as a residence.
- The Zoning Board of Appeals overrode the conditions from the County of Rockland
Department of Planning’s letter dated December 29, 2014.
- The requested Section 3.11, LO District, Column 2 variance to keep the pre-existing non-conforming residence, as a residence, was withdrawn.The request to keep thg pre-existing non-conforming building in its present location will not have an advecst effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant has agreed that the building will be used for a use permittedari
the LIO District and not as a residence. ~
~
~
C-
~
‘c“o”
-4
0
=:z=:
0…,,
0
:::0
)>
?e“n -o
0 ::a
:z
C)
fT.l
- The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for–:r!i!
…. ~ -I
|
|
the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. ~ · ::a 1 :E
- The requested variance, although 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 applicant has agreed that the building will be used for a use permitted in the LIO District and not as a residence.
Skae Training Center
ZBA#15-01
Page 3 of 4
- 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 to keep the pre-existing non-conforming building in its present location is APPROVED with the Specific Condition that the building’s use conform with the permitted uses in the LIO Zoning District as prescribed in the Orangetown Zoning Code; 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.
30’l~~O S)1H310 NMO!
to 1 bld . 6G NBr 510Z
NA\013DNVHO :JO NMOl
Skae Training Center
ZBA#l5-01
Page 4 of 4
The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the request to keep the pre•
existing non-conforming building in its present location with the Specific Condition that the buildings use conform to the uses permitted in the LIO Zoning District as prescribed in the Orangetown Zoning Code; was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded
by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.
The Administrative Aide to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this decision and file a certified copy thereof in the office of the Town Clerk.
DATED: January 7, 2015
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN
DISTRIBUTION:
APPLICANT
ZBA MEMBERS
SUPERVISOR
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
TOWN ATTORNEY
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE
BUILDING INSPECTOR-N.A.
By~~;.4£’…{Ll.4″‘~~~ Deborah Arbolino
Administrative Aide
TOWN CLERK
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR
DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL
MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB
CHAIRMAN. ZBA, PB, ACABOR
381.:UO <5’>1’tl318 NMOl
if\ ~– tJd 6-a N~r srnz
N~Ol3~N’fcl0 30 NMOl
DECISION
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS REVIEW APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS
To: Donald Brenner (Skae/Columcille)
4 Independence A venue
Tappan, New York 10983
ZBA # 15-02
Date: January 7, 2015
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
. ZBA#l 5-02: Application of Skae/Columcille Properties for Performance Standards
‘ Review as per Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 4.12 for installation of four generators and three chillers. The building is located at 15
Corporate Drive, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map
. as Section 73.20, Block 1, Lot 34; in the LIO zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Donald Brenner, Attorney, Sara Torrens, Attorney and Peter Skae appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
- Site Development Plan for Generators/Chillers at Columcille Properties LLC
signed and sealed by Jay A. Greenwell, LLC dated 10/15/14.
- Use Subject to Performance Standards Resume of Operation and Equipment.
- Fire Prevention Supplement.
- Hess Safety Data Sheet (10 pages).
- A letter dated December 29, 2014 from the County of Rockland Department of
Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning.
- A memorandum dated January 7, 2015 from Michael B. Bettmann, Chief Fire
Inspector, Town of Orangetown.
- A memorandum dated December 24, 2014 from Joseph J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner, Department of Environmental Management and Engineering, Town of Orangetown.
- A memorandum dated December 11, 2014 from Bruce Peters, P.E., Engineer III, Department of Environmental Management and Engineering, Town of Orangetown.
- A memorandum dated December 11, 2014 from Ken Skibinski, Chief Plant Operator, Department of Environmental Management and Engineering, Town of Orangetown.
Mr. Sullivan, Chair, 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 based upon the testimony heard by this Board, and the facts presented in the application submissions and in the record, since the application ZBA#l 5-02 (Applicant, Skae/Columcille Properties) entails the ZBA engaging in a review to determine compliance with technical requirements, this
application is exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA),
1
pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (28). The motion was seconded by Ms.
Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye;
and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.
301.:1.:10 S)tH310 NMO!
ao r lJd az NBr sio2
NMQ13~NVHO .:10 NMOl
Skae/Columcille Performance Standards
ZBA#15-02
Page2 of 5
Donald Brenner, Attorney, testified that they have filled out the full performance standards form; that they have the data for noise; that these are only emergency generator; that the units meet the fire standards; that they can provide additional data if the Board wants them to; and that some of the items in the memorandum from Bruce Peters are items that the Planning Board would inquire about for site plan approval.
Peter Skae testified that the Orangetown sound attenuation is from the 1950’s and so out of date; that no one measures sound that way today.
Public Comment:
No public comment.
The Performance Standards Resume of Operations and Equipment, and the Fire
Prevention Supplement completed by the applicant were thereupon reviewed in detail.
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 the documents presented, 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 letter dated December
24, 2014 from Joseph J. Moran, P .E., Commissioner of the Orangetown
Department of Environmental Management and Engineering (D.E.M.E.); a memorandum dated December 11, 2014 from Bruce Peters, P .E., Engineer (DEME); the memorandum dated January 7, 2015 from Michael Bettmann, Chief Fire Inspector, Town of Orangetown Bureau of Fire Prevention (B.F.P.);
Rockland County Department of Planning letter dated December 29, 2014 signed
by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning; and 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 Orangeto~ tE Office of Building, Zoning & Planning Administration & Enforcement, DE:Mi §:>
and Orangetown B.F.P., and all other departments havingjurisdiction of the o ::z: · ~
premises.
~ ~ 0
::0 ::0
~ :>
|
GI’) -:0:a :z
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, th~ ….,. 1 ~
Board: RESOLVED, that the application for Performance Standards Conformance,~ . G11 ~ pursuant to Zoning Code § 4.1, is APPROVED with the SPECIFIC CONDITIONS tlffi N z the applicant adhere to all of the requirements set forth by the Chief Fire Inspector, Town
of Orangetown B.F.P.; and all of the requirements set forth by the Department of Environmental Management and Engineering; and County of Rockland Department of Planning; including, but not necessarily limited to , the following:
Skae/Columcille Performance Standards’ ZBA#lS-02
Page 3 of 5
- When the building is converted to a Data Center the applicant must (a) update the Fire Sprinkler system to protect the Data Center;(b) Upgrade the Fire Alarm system, submit proposed Fire Alarm drawings to the Chief Fire Inspector, Town of Orangetown, for approval before the work begins, ( c) Connect to Rockland County 44-Control in Contact ID format; (d) Install Portable “Fire Extinguishers
as per NFPA 1 O; (e) Install key box; (f) Apply for and maintain a Certificate of
Compliance with the “Fire Inspector; and (g) Show Fire Zone/No Parking on final approved site plan.
- Applicant must submit a noise attenuation study performed by an acoustical
engineer.
- Applicant must address to the satisfaction of the DEME the following comments: (A) How will the generators and chillers be installed/services/refiled? There is no
apparent access to them from the existing parking lot.
(B) Soil erosion and sediment control plans and details shall be submitted to the
DEME for review and approval.
(C) The total area of disturbance shall be listed on the plans, including all temporary and permanent access road(s), land clearing and grubbing for chiller/generator location, etc.
(D)The generators shall be housed in sound attenuating enclosures due to their proximity to the neighboring property. Also, the applicant should submit specifications for the generators which include the noise levels at various distances from the generators.
(E) There does not appear to be any measures shown to prevent any possible leaks
or spills of diesel fuel (from the generators) from flowing down into the stream along the southern property line, this shall be addressed on the plans.
(F) The site plan shall show all proposed regarding.
(G) Do the generators/chillers need to be fenced in for safety/security purposes? (H)A detail for the gravel base for the chillers/generators shall be added to the
plans.
- The applicant must obtain any necessary permits from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation’s division of Air Resources for the proposed generators
- Noise attenuation designs should be incorporated into the site plan to help buffer the sound to the adjacent residential area to the south.
- Additional landscaping may be warranted to help shield any visual impacts to the adjacent neighbors to the south.
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.
|
3oH.:!0 S’>tH310 NMOl
t lJd S& Nllr 510Z
– —
NM013~NV~O .:!O NMOl
Skae/Columcille Performance Standards
ZBA#lS-02
Page 4 of 5
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~.:iO S)l~310 NMOl
zo t ldd 6i NHr. 5lllZ
– —
tiM013~N\1~0 .:iO NMO!
Skae/Columcille Performance Standards
ZBA#lS-02
Page 5 of 5
The foregoing Resolution to approve the application for the requested Performance Standards review with the Specific Conditions set forth above, was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco and Mr. Quinn were absent.
The Administrative Aide to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this decision and file a certified copy thereof in the office of the Town Clerk.
DATED: January 7, 2015
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO\VN OF ORANGETO\VN
DISTRIBUTION:
APPLICANT
ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
TOWN ATTORNEY DEPUTYTOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE
BUILDING INSPECTOR-RAO.
By~~
Deborah Arbolino
Administrative Aide
TOWN CLERK
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR
DEPT. orENVIRONMENTAL
MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE.ZBA, PB
CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR
381.:UO ‘3’>!B31Q NMOl
ia }_ Wd sz l’mr srn2
N~Ol3~NV’BO ::!O NMOl
DECISION
SIDE YARD AND ZONING CODE §2.227 VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Michael and Eileen Treanor
16 Meadows Street
Pearl River, New York 10965
ZBA #15-03
Date: January 7, 2015
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
, ZBA#15-03: Application of Michael and Eileen Treanor for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 8′ proposed) and from Section 2.227(Rear yard for swimming pool: 20′ required,8′ proposed) for the installation of an in-ground pool at a single-family residence. The premises are located at 16 Meadows Street, Pearl River,
New York and is identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.09, Block 5. Lot
25; in the R-15 zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Michael Treanor and Armando Insignares, Cool Pool, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
- Partial copy of site plan not dated or signed or sealed.
- A computer drawing of the proposed location of the pool not signed or sealed.
- Two computer generated pictures of the proposed pool, spa and patio.
Mr. Sullivan, Chair, 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. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.
Michael Treanor testified that he would like to install an in-ground pool in his backyard; that he has an undersized lot; that if he moved the pool to the center of the rear yard he would have no lawn area at all; that he would like to have a diving pool; that a diving pool must be at least eight feet deep; that the house behind him has a Yi acre of property and is set far away from him; that the houses on either side of him are set back about
1 equal with his house and they do not have pools; and that the house across the street has a
pool.
Armando Insignares, Cool Pool, that the pool is18′ wide and 41′ long; that it has interior steps in the low end of the pool; and that in order to accommodate the eight foot depth and the interior steps, the pool must be 41 ‘ long.
301:1.:W S)1H310 Nlt\01
- t Lld SB NUf’ sinz
– —
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:
- The requested side yard and Section 2.227 (rear yard for a pool) variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar pools exist in the neighborhood.
- The requested side yard and Section 2.227 (rear yard for a pool) variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar pools exist in the neighborhood.
- The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances.
- The requested side yard and Section 2.227 (rear yard for a pool) 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 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.
30\d.:10 S)t~310 NM01
|
ao\ t Kld 64 NBr SiDZ
- ..
NA\013SNVHO .:10 NM()!
DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested side yard and Section 2.227 (rear yard for pool) 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 ·
301.:1.:W S’>l~310 NMOl
|
ao t Lld sa NHr 5102
NM013~NVHO .:10 NMO!
The foregoing Resolution to approve the application for the requested side yard and section 2.227 (rear yard for pool) variances was presented and moved by Mr. Feroldi, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco and Mr. Quinn were absent.
The Administrative Aide to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this decision and file a certified copy thereof in the office of the Town Clerk.
DATED: January 7, 2015
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN
DISTRfBUTION:
APPLICANT
ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS
TOWN ATIORNEY
DEPUTY TOWN i\ TIORNEY OBZPAE
BUILDING INSPECTOR-M.M.
By_Lft.’?(f;~~~~~vvu
Deborah Arbolino
Administrative Aide
TOWN CLERK
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR
DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB
CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR
:301:.UO ~)lH310 NMOl
ze i: lJd sa NHr srnz
NM013~N\O:l0 .:JO NMOl
DECISION
FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, §5.153 (STRUCTURE IN FRONT YARD), AND
- 5.226 (FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT) VARIANCES APPROVED
To: Jason and Tracy Mc Mullen
2 Garber Hill Road
Blauvelt, New York 10913
ZBA #15-04
Date: January 7, 2015
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
ZBA#l 5-04: Application of Jason and Tracy McMullen for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 8 (Front Yard: 30′ required, 10′ proposed); 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 10.8′ proposed); from Section 5.153 (No structure shall be located in a front yard: applicant has two front yards); and from Section 5.226 (Front Yard Fence Height: 4 Vl’ permitted;
6′ proposed) for the installation of an in-ground pool and fence at a single-family residence. The premises are located at 2 Garber Hill Road, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.10, Block 2, Lot 1 O; R-15 zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Jason and Tracy McMullen appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
- Survey of property with pool dated October 14, 2014 signed and sealed by Robert
- Sorace, P.L.S ..
- A letter dated 03/27/2014 from Edward McPherson, Code Enforcement Officer to
Mr. McMullen regarding the damage to his existing six-foot fence.
- A letter dated December 23, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of
Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning.
- A letter dated January 6, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of
Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..
- A letter dated December 4, 2014 from the County of Rockland Department of
Health signed by Scott McKane, P .E., Senior Public Health Engineer.
Mr. Sullivan, Chair, 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 r..:. -4 require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli afl9 ~ ~ carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. :E c_ · z Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent. ~ ~ · ~
r- pio· 0
fTl CD :;;o
;o )>
~ -tJ %
Jason McMullen testified that he would like to replace an above-ground pool with a~- ::3 1 ~ ground pool; that he has a comer property with two front yards; that the existing fencds …,. 1 ~ approximately five feet from the property line; that the fence was there when they ~ · ~’ :z: purchased the house; that they got a letter from the building department stating that they
were in violation of the property maintenance codes because the fence was damaged during super storm sandy and that they had five days to fix it or answer the summons;
1 that they installed a new fence; that the lot is oddly shaped; that this is the only are that would accommodate the pool to work with the interior layout of the house; and that no matter where they placed the pool, they would need a variance.
McMullen
ZBA#lS-04
Page 2 of 4
Public Comment:
No public comment.
The Board members made personal inspections of the premises the week before the meeting and found them to be properly posted and as generally described on the application. ·
A satisfactory statement in accordance with the provisions of Section 809 of the General
Municipal Law of New York was received.
Mr. Sullivan made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by
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:
- The requested front yard, side yard, and § 5.153 (structure in front yard) and § 5.226 (front yard fence height) variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicants’ property is a corner lot with two front yards and the lot is oddly shaped. Because of the corner lot and the odd shape of the property, the pool would require variances in any location on the property.
- The requested front yard, side yard and § 5.153 (structure in front yard) and§ 5.226 (front yard fence height)variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicants’ property is a corner lot with two front yards and the lot is oddly shaped. Because of the corner lot and the odd shape of the property, the pool would require variances in any location on the property.
- The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances.
- The requested front yard, side yard and§ 5.153 (structure in front yard) and§ 5.226 (front yard fence height) 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. Because of the corner lot and the odd shape of the property, the pool would require variances in any location on the property.
- 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.
301.:1.:10 S)IH310 NMOl
w t Wd sa mtr SIOZ
NMOl3~NVcW .:10 NMO!
McMullen
ZBA#lS-04
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, side yard and §
5.153 (structure in front yard) and § 5.226 (front yard fence height) 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
1 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.:J.:JO S)fH310 NMOl
20 t lJd 62 NUr .5102
Nh\Ol3~NVHO dO NMO!
Mc Mullen
ZBA#l5-04
Page 4 of 4
The foregoing Resolution to approve the application for the requested front yard, side yard and § 5.153 (structure in front yard) and § 5.226 (front yard fence height) variances was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.
The Administrative Aide to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this decision and file a certified copy thereof in the office of the Town Clerk.
DATED: January7,2015
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN
DISTRIBUTION:
APPLICANT
ZBA MEMBERS
SUPERVISOR
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY
DEPUTY TOWN ATI”ORNEY OBZPAE
BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.A.0.
By…L….:.~~~~~~~
Deborah Arbolino
Administrative Aide
TOWN CLERK
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
ASSESSOR
DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL
MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB
CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR
DECISION
UNDERSIZED LOT BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE APPROVED
To: Jay Singer (Four Friends LLC)
275 Treetop Circle
Nanuet, New York 10954
ZBA #15-05
Date: January 7, 2015
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown
ZBA#l5-05: Application of Four Friends L.L.C. for a variance from Zoning Code
, (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 5.21(e), RG District, Group Q,
1 (Undersized lot building height: 20′ permitted, 23.75′ proposed) for an addition to a single-family residence. The premises are located at 102 Center Street, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.15, Block 3, Lot 72; in the RG zoning district.
Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, January 7, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.
Jay Singer and John Ceglia appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:
- Architectural plans and site plan dated November 4, 2014, with the latest revision date of November 25, 2014 signed and sealed by Margaret L. Fowler, Architect. (5 pages)
- Four computer generated pictures of the house and the surrounding houses.
Mr. Sullivan, Chair, 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. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.
Jay Singer testified that they are proposing to remove the dormers and make the second story a full height second story ; that presently with the slanted ceilings, the rooms are small; that the additional ceiling height will allow for full size bedrooms and a bath; that they will be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood because similar additions have been constructed in the area; and he submitted pictures of houses on both sides of the applicants house.
Four Friends LLC ZBA#lS-05
Page2 of 4
Public Comment:
1No
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:
- The requested building height variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, There are other
two-story residences in the area.
- The requested building height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There are other two-story residences in the area.
- 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 requested building height variance is not substantial.
- 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.
Four Friends L.L.C. ZBA#15-05
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 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.
I
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
1
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.
Four Friends LLC ZBA#15-05
Page 4 of 4
(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. Salomon, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Ferolcli, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.
The Administrative Aide to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this decision and file a certified copy thereof in the office of the Town Clerk.
DATED: January 7, 2015
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN
DISTRTB UTION:
APPLICANT
ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR
TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE
BUILDING INSPECTOR B.vW.
By~~~n.Lj~~~vv• Deborah Arbolino Administrative Aide
TOWN CLERK
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR
DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL
MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA. Pl3
CHAIRMAN, ZBA, Pl3, ACABOR
DECISION
To: Burton Dorfman, Esq. (Zapata)
450 Piermont A venue
Piermont, New York 10968
ZBA #13-92A Date: January 7, 2015
FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Town of Orangetown ZBA #13-92A: ZAPATA MEXICAN RESTAURANT OUTDOOR DINING/SIDEWALK CAFE (779 Route 340, Palisades 77.20/2/24; R-15 zone): Re• Deliberations by the Zoning Board of Appeals (hereinafter “ZBA” or “Board”) of its
Decision ZBA #13-92, decided on 03/05/2014, as per the Decision & Order of Hon.
1Robert M. Berliner, Justice ofNYS Supreme Court, County of Rockland, dated
11/20/2014. The Public Hearing was closed on 03/05/2014; NO further documentary submissions, correspondence, communications, reports or testimony will be accepted or heard by the ZBA; however, the public and applicant may attend the meeting, but will NOT be permitted to address the ZBA or submit any documents.
The following documents were presented:
- Decision & Order ofNYS Supreme Court, County of Rockland, in the case of Zapata Brothers Corp. d/b/a Zapata Mexican Restaurant and Godinez v. Town of Orangetown Zoning Board of Appeals (Index No. 684/14), dated 11/20/2014, signed by Justice Robert M. Berliner (hereinafter “Court Decision & Order”).
- ZBA Decision #13-92 dated March 5, 2014.
- Chapter 31B of the Code of the Town of Orangetown (“Orangetown Code”) -• “Sidewalk Cafes and Vending.”
- Official ZBA court reporter’s/stenographer’s transcripts of the verbatim minutes for
Zapata Sidewalk Dining ZBA#13-92 dated March 5, 2014 and December 4, 2013.
In addition, the contents of the previous submissions were available for the Board to review:
- Site plan with the proposed dining area hand-drawn on it.
- ZBA Decisions #07-38 dated 04/18/2007 and #09-85 dated May 5, 2010.
- A letter dated November 14, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of
Planning signed by Thomas B. Vanderbeek, P.E., Commissioner of Planning.
- A letter dated November 19, 2013 from the county of Rockland Department of
Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P.E.
- A letter dated November 5, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of Health signed by Scott McKane, P .E., Senior Public Health Engineer.
- A letter dated December 3, 2013 from the State ofNew York Department of
1 Transportation signed by Mary Jo Russo, P.E., Rockland County Permit Engineer.
- An e-mail dated November 24, 2013 from Celeste Bester.
- A letter dated November 25, 2013 from Celeste Bester, 793 Route 340 Palisades, NY.
- Two more letters in opposition to the project.
After the ZBA’s counsel, Deputy Town Attorney Dennis D. Michaels, summarized and recited from portions of the Court Decision & Order, the Board discussed its previous Decision (ZBA #13-92) and its deficiency (according to the Court Decision & Order) regarding a direct answer to the request for Sidewalk Cafe Permit, as per Orangetown Code Section 31 B-1, 31 B-2 & 31 B-3; the Board discussed the Purpose section of
Zapata ZBA#l3-92A Page 2of4
Orangetown Code Chapter 31 B, and quoted that this Section specifically states that “The sidewalk cafe and vending regulations as established in this chapter are designed to allow sidewalk cafes and vending on public property, in locations where they are determined to be appropriate by the Director of the Office of Zoning, Planning, Administration and Enforcement (Director) and to promote and protect the public health, safety and general welfare.” The Board members focused on said Purpose of Chapter 3 IB that the Sidewalk Cafe was not appropriate in this location because the restaurant exists in a residential
Zoning District. The restaurant is a pre-existing 11011-confonning use for the area and a
I
Sidewalk Cafe or outdoor dining would be detrimental to the surrounding residential
neighborhood. The Board members stated several times that a Sidewalk Cafe in this location would not promote and protect public health, safety and general welfare.
Another section of the Orangetown Code that was quoted from by the Board was Section
3 IB-3(B) & (K) “Rules and Regulations. The Director is hereby authorized to grant revocable permits for the use of the sidewalks for sidewalk cafes and vending upon the following terms and conditions: … K. Operations of a sidewalk cafe or vending shall not adversely impact on adjacent or nearby residential, religious, educational or commercial properties and shall be in accordance with all applicable codes and regulations.”
The Board members pointed out, several times, that the restaurant use is a pre-existing non-conforming use that the applicant is entitled to continue, however, it exists in a residential Zoning District and John Giardiello, P.E., was correct in determining that it does not meet the criteria for a Sidewalk Cafe because it would adversely impact the adjacent and nearby residential properties.
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
1application.
;A satisfactory statement in accordance with the provisions of Section 809 of the General
Municipal Law of New York was received.
Zapata ZBA#13-92A Page 3of4
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
After personal observation of the property, reviewing all the documents submitted during the Public Hearing held on December 4, 2013 and March 5, 2014, and the Court Decision
& Order, the Board found and concluded that:
- John Giardiello, P .E., Director of the Office of Building, Zoning, Planning, Administration and Enforcement (“OBZP AE”), Town of Orangetown, was
correct in his determination that the Applicant did not meet the qualifications for Sidewalk Cafes and Vending as specified in Orangetown Code Chapter 31 B, for the following reasons:
(a) The Director of OBZPAE is the person who determines the locations that are
appropriate for a Sidewalk Cafe as per Orangetown Code Chapter 31 B, which Chapter is very specific that the proposed location should promote and protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the area for the proposal (see
31 B-1: “Purpose”).
(b) Orangetown Code Section 31 B-1 (D) states: “To preserve and enhance the character of the neighborhoods through the town and to protect adjacent residential areas.” The Applicant’s restaurant is located in a residential Zoning District and permitting outdoor service of any kind will adversely impact the residences in the surrounding residential neighborhood.
(c) Orangetown Code Section 31B-3 (K) states: “Operations of a sidewalk cafe or vending shall not adversely impact on adjacent or nearby residential, religious, educational or commercial properties and shall be in accordance with all applicable codes and regulations.”
(d) The Board cited the foregoing Sections of Chapter 31 B of the Orangetown Code for Sidewalk Cafe and Vending, because they agreed with the Director of OBZP AE that this Application does not qualify for a Sidewalk Cafe because it conflicts with the these Sections .
Zapata ZBA#13-92A Page 4 of 4
For all of the reasons set forth above, Daniel Sullivan made a motion to affirm the determination of John Giardiello, P.E., Director of OBZPAE, that the Application should be treated as a Special Permit for outdoor dining as per Orangetown Zoning Code
(Chapter 43) §3.11, Table of General Use Regulations, Column 7, Note #6 (“All restaurants or food-serving facilities shall be within completely enclosed buildings,
unless by special permit of the [ZBA ]”), and not as an Orangetown Code Chapter 31 B application for a Sidewalk Cafe (as per); which motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco and Mr. Quinn were absent.
The Administrative Aide to the Board is hereby authorized, directed and empowered to sign this amendment to the decision and file a certified copy thereof in the office of the Town Clerk.
DATED: January 7, 2015
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN
DISTRIBUTION:
APPLICANT
ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR
TdWN BOARD MEMl3ERS TOWN ATTORNEY
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE
BUILDING INSPECTOR-11.v\V.
By-L\;.-…~~~’–b~• Deborah Arbolino
Administrative Aide
TOWN CLERK
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR
DEPT. or ENVIRONMENTAL
MGMT. and ENGINEERING
171 LE,ZBA, PB
CHAIRMAN, ZBA. PB, i\CABOR