Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS January  8. 2014

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:                JOAN  SALOMON NANETTE  ALBANESE PATRICIA  CASTELLI DANIEL  SULLIVAN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

 

ABSENT:                                    MICHAEL  BOSCO

 

 

 

ALSO  PRESENT:                  Dennis Michaels,  Esq.

Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah  Arbolino

Deputy Town Attorney Official  Stenographer Administrative  Aide

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

PUBLISHED ITEMS DECISIONS

 

 

POSTPONED ITEM:

 

 

 

EGGERS AUTOMOTIVE                 POSTPONED                                      ZBA#13-85

68.20 I 5 I 4; CO zone

 

HAGAN-MOLLICA                         APPROVED                                         ZBA#13-91

65.12 I 1   I 3; R-80 zone

 

CONTINUED ITEM:

 

ZAPATA SIDEWA:U<DINING       CONTINUED                                      ZBA#l3-92

77.20 I 2 I 24; R-15 zone

 

 

 

NEW ITEMS:

 

 

‘

ESGATE/REICHELDERFER          APPROVED

71.13 I 1I36;  R-22 zone

ZBA#14-0l

 

 

 

 

EICHNER                                          CONTINUED

68.16 I 5 I 21 ; CC zone

ZBA#14-02

 

CATON                                             APPROVED

64.18I1149; R-15 zone

ZBA#14-03

 

CEROVENE INC.                             APPROVED PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

73.20 I 1  I 35; LIO zone

ZBA#14-04

 

 

 

301.:1.:10   S)JH310 NMOl

 

CI  I! LJH      8~  NHP   h102

 

NMOl::JDN’r/tJO  so NA\01

 

Minutes

Page 2 of2

 

 

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   applications:155

Corporate  Drive Site  Plan   Amendment;    155 Corporate  Drive,   Orangeburg,  NY;   73.15    / 1

/ 18   & 73.19/1/     l ;  LIO 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  9:30 P.M.

 

Dated:   January  8,  2014

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN  ATfORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING     INSPECTOR    (Individual    Decisions) Rockland County   Planning

By~~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative     Aide

 

301.:!.:!0    S’>!~310     NMOl

 

er   11  LJ8   82  NHr  hlOZ

 

NM013~Nv}J0     .::!O   N/AOl

 

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS January  8, 2014

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:                 JOAN  SALOMON NANETTE  ALBANESE PA TRICIA  CASTELLI DANIEL  SULLIVAN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,   ALTERNATE

 

 

ABSENT:                                    MICHAEL  BOSCO

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:                   Dennis   Michaels,   Esq.

Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah  Arbolino

Deputy Town Attorney Official   Stenographer Administrative    Aide

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

PUBLISHED  ITEMS DECISIONS

 

 

POSTPONED   ITEM:

 

 

 

EGGERS  AUTOMOTIVE                     POSTPONED                                            ZBA#l3-85

68.20  I 5 I 4;  CO zone

 

HAGAN-MOLLICA                                APPROVED                                               ZBA#l 3-91

65.12   / 1  / 3;   R-80  zone

 

 

CONTINUED   ITEM:

 

ZAPATA  SIDEWALK   DINING         CONTINUED                                           ZBA#l3-92

77.2012     I 24;  R-15 zone

 

 

 

NEW  ITEMS:

 

 

 

ESGATE/REICHELDERFER                APPROVED                                           ZBA#14-0l

71.13/1/36;         R-22 zone

 

 

 

EICHNER

68.16   / 5 / 21;   CC zone

CONTINUED                                         ZBA#l4-02

 

CATON

64.18/1/      49;  R-15 zone

APPROVED                                           ZBA#14-03

 

CEROVENE   INC.                                APPROVED PERFORMANCE   STANDARDS

73.20   / 1/35;    LIO zone

ZBA#14-04

 

 

 

 

 

301.:UO  S>ltl310    NMOl

zr  ~! LJtJ   8 2  N8r  hIOZ

 

NMOl3DrJ’iftiO    .:10  NhiOl

 

Minutes

Page 2 of2

 

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board,   the Zoning  Board  of Appeals:   RESOLVED,   to approve  the action of the Acting  Chairperson  executing  on behalf  of the Board   its  consent  to the Planning   Board  acting   as Lead Agency   for the State Environmental    Quality   Review  Act (SEQRA)  coordinated   environmental    review  of actions  pursuant  to SEQ RA Regulations   §  617  .6  (b)(3) the following   applications:   155

Corporate  Drive  Site  Plan  Amendment;  155 Corporate  Drive,  Orangeburg,  NY;   73.15 I l I 18   & 73.19    I 111;   LIO 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  9:30 P.M.

 

Dated:  January  8,  2014

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN  ATTORNEY TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING     INSPECTOR     (Individual     Decisions)

Rockland   County   Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

By~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative     Aide

 

38!.:LW   S)i~318    Nh\01

 

at   II lJH     82   N8r   hIOZ

 

DECISION

 

FRONT YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHTVARIANCES  APPROVED

 

To:  Mark Hagan/  Patti Mollica

990 Bradley  Hill Parkway

Blauvelt,   New York  10913

ZBA # 13-91

Date:  January  8, 2014

 

 

FROM:   ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#13-91:   Application  of Mark Hagan and Patti Mollica  for variances  from Chapter 43 (Zoning)  Section 3.12,    R-80 District,   Group A, Columns   8 (Front Yard: 50′  required,   1.5′ and 8′  proposed),   and 12  (Building   Height:   8″ & 12″  per foot permitted;   12′   proposed)

for a carport at an existing   single-family    residence.  The property  is  located  at 990

Bradley   Hill Parkway,  Blauvelt,   New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax

Map as  Section 65.12,  Block   1,  Lot 3;  R-80 zoning  district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held  on Wednesday,   January  8, 2014   at which time the Board made  the determination    hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Patricia  Mollica  Hagan,  Mark Hagan  and Robert  Silarski,    Architect,  appeared  and testified.

 

The following   documents  were presented:

 

 

1. Site  plan   and Architectural   plans dated   08/14/2013     with  the latest  revision   elate of

0910612013    signed   and sealed by Robert  Silarski,   Architect.   (3 pages)

2. 2. Site  plan  and Architectural   plans  dated   08/14/2013    with  the latest  revision   date of

12112/   2013 signed   and sealed   by Robert Silarski,   Architect.  (2 pages)

3. 3. A cover letter  dated December   10,  2013    from Robert  Silarski,   Architec
4. 4. A letter  dated November   18,   2013   from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

5. 5. A letter  dated November   19, 2013 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.  Salomon    and carried  unanimously.

 

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,   Deputy Town  Attorney,    counsel  to the Zoning  BoarQ:Pf  ~'””

Appeals,   Mr. Sullivan    moved for a Board determination    that the foregoing  applicatioo    isc_

a Type II action exempt  from the State Environmental    Quality  Review   Act (SEQ~            ~       0

pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations    §617.5   (c) (9),  (10),  (12)   and /or (13);    which does 1mt    N

require   SEQRA  environmental   review.   The motion  was seconded  by Ms.  Castelli   arRl1             OJ        ~

carried as follows:  Ms.   Salomon,   aye; Ms.  Albanese,   aye; Mr. Feroldi,   aye;  Ms.  Ca~Ili, :n     ~

aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,    aye. Mr. Bosco   was absent.                                                        ~      ~        g

1

“TJ       .._…         -I

0

0

rn

 

 

 

Robert  Silarski,   Architect,  testified  that the scope  of the project has been reduced;   that the request  has been changed  to a carport  with  a storage  shed attached  to it and it is  proposed to be built  on the southeast  corner of the property;  that the existing   carport was destroyed

in  Super Storm  Sandy;   that the  applicant   has two cars and  a camper;  that the additional

storage shed would house the snow blower and lawn  equipment;   that the house does not have a basement  and the storage  shed would  be used to store items that would  be in a basement  also;   that the site is  large  but  much of it has slopes   greater  than 25%  or more; that there are three buildable    areas on the site;  that the area west of the house is  relatively

 

Hagan/ Mollica

ZBA#l3-91

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

flat but the septic system is there ;  that the eastern  central area of the lot is level but has many trees and shrubs and seasonal  run-off  takes place in portion  of the property;  that the southeast  is level and the trees that are there are scrub trees and easily removable;  that the structure  has a low flat roof and is open on three sides; that the storage  shed takes up 25% of the building  and is enclosed;  that the structure  is set back from Bradley  Hill Road 25′; and that Mr. Benson  is responding  to the first set of plans that were submitted;  that these new plans are for only one building  and are set back further  from the park.

 

 

 

Mark Hagan testified  that they have owned the house  for thirteen  years; that they lost a

car in Super Storm Sandy; that they have a fiberglass  camper that has been damaged  from tree branches;  that they would like to have roof over it to protect it;

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

Benson  Blake,  982 Bradley  Parkway;  testified  that he is the owner of the next property over; that he has a long driveway;  that he has lived there since  1995; that his mother  sold property  to the Town for parkland;  that the R-80 regulations  are very important  to be upheld;  that they should be enforced  to prevent  over development;  that the setback from the road is 100′ and they are asking  for 10′; that the house  is only 30′  from the property line and 40′  from the long path; that the buildings  are inappropriate;   that two carports  and additional  living structure  are inappropriate   and ugly; that his family has a long history there; that the R-80 rules should be strictly  enforced;  and that he would not object to replacing  the carport that was damaged  from the storm, if it was replaced  on the same footprint.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested front yard and building  height  variances  will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicants’ original carport was destroyed from Super Storm Sandy. The property is large and has many slopes of 25% or more. The new proposed carport and storage shed shall be located on a level portion of the property in the southeast comer of the lot.

 

 

301.:1.:10   S)IH310  NMO!

ar rt LJH      s2  NHr   11102

 

NM013SNV’HO  .:10   NA\01

 

Hagan/Mollica

ZBA#l3-91

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

2. The requested  front yard and building  height  variance  will not have an adverse effect  or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  The applicants’   original  carport was destroyed  from Super Storm Sandy. The property  is large and has many slopes of 25% or more. The new proposed  carport  and storage  shed shall be located  on a level portion  of the property  in the southeast  comer of the  lot.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  front yard and building  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.  The applicants’   original  carport  was destroyed  from Super Storm Sandy.

The property  is large and has many slopes of 25% or more. The new proposed  carport and storage  shed shall be located  on a level portion  of the property  in the southeast comer  of the lot.

 

 

 

 

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 and building  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.                                                              3 01.:J .:f 0 S )l H 31  a NM 0I

zi: n w~  s2  NHr  hrnz

 

NM013~ifvUO so Nh\01

 

Hagan/Mollica

ZBA#13-91

Page  4 of  4

 

 

(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 elate 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 and building  height   variances   was presented  and moved  by Ms.  Castelli,   seconded  by Ms. Salomon   and carried as follows:    Ms.  Albanese,   nay;  Mr. Feroldi,    aye;  Ms. Castelli,   aye; Ms.  Salomon,   aye; and Mr. Sullivan,   aye.  Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:    January  8,  2014

 

 

DISTRJBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-RAO.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

By(()~;J~

Deborah  Arbohno

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

3Ql.:l.:l0   S)PJ31Q   Nh\01

 

21   11   LJH    82   NHr  hl02

 

NM013~NV’tl0    JO Ni:\Ol

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT  YARD  FENCE   HEIGHT   VARIANCE     APPROVED

 

To:  Pat Esgate

101 Gedney  Street Apt. EE Nyack, New York  10960

ZBA # 14-01

Date:  January  8, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#14-0l:   Application  of Pat Esgate and Brenda  Reichelderfer  for a variance  from the

Zoning  Code of the Town  of Orangetown,  Chapter  43 of Orangetown  Code, Section

5.226 (Front Yard Fence Height:  4 ~,  permitted;  6′ fence proposed)  at an existing  single• family residence.  The premises  are located  at 67 Tweed  Boulevard,  Upper Grandview, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 71.13, Block  1, Lot

36; R-22 zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  January  8, 2014 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Pat Esgate appeared  and testified.

 

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. A cover letter dated November  6, 2013 from Pat Esgate.
2. Site plan.
3. Site plan showing  placement  of new fence and existing  fences.
4. A computer  generated  picture  of proposed  black  aluminum  fence.
5. A letter dated December  16, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

6. A letter dated December  9, 2013 from the State of New York Department  of

Transportation   signed by Mary Jo Russo, P.E., Rockland County Permit Engineer.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Pat Esgate testified that  she is before the Board to request a variance for a six-foot fence in the front yard; that they are replacing an existing 4 ~’  fence that was damaged during Super Storm Sandy; that there are very specific reasons that they are requesting a higher than permitted fence; that they have an in-ground pool in the rear of the house; that when

she was seven years old, her sister fell in their backyard pool and was not found for

twenty minutes and a back yard drowning scares her to death; tl~at Tweed ~ §rn~~  S )1H310    NA~

deserted; that they travel a lot and have recently become snowbirds and are gone ror a                  01

large p~rtion of the winter; and that a. six .foot fence would better protect fraf  tJ'[Ytillf   6 2  NHn  ~I07

wandenng on to the property and fallmg mto the pool.                                  –        ·                                                                                                         1                           “‘

N/A013~NvUO  so NA\01

 

Es gate/ Reichelderfer  Fence

ZBA#14-01

Page2  of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  front yard fence height  variance  will not produce  an undesirable change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties. Similar fences  have been installed  in the area and this style fence blends  in to the area and is  transparent.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested  front yard fence height  variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district. Similar  fences  have been installed  in the area and this style fence blends  in to the area and is  transparent.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  front yard fence height  variance  is not substantial  because  the fence is transparent.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

301dd0 S)!t!310   NA\01

 

hO 0″[  lJH      6l     NHP  ‘1102

NM 0 l :3 e N ~· 8 0  d 0  NIA 0 l

 

Esgate/Reichelderfer   Fence

ZBA#14-0l

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 fence 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.

 

301.:!.:10 S~fH310  NMOl

ho or t&J      s2  NHr hrn2

 

NN\013 D N’vH  0   so NA\Ol

 

Esgate/Reichelderfer   Fence

ZBA#14-01

Page  4 of  4

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   January  8, 2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-B.vW.

r     1110

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

J-llGI-IWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA,  PB,  ACAl30R

 

 

301.f:!O   S>!H310   NftAOl hO 01  lJ8    62  NHr  hIOZ NN\Oi::i~h!vt!O     .:JO   NN10l

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR  AREA  RA TIO,  LOT  AREA  AND  FRONT  YARD  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:   Scott and Julie Caton

11    Summit  Place

Nanuet6,   New York  10954

ZBA # 14-03

Date:    January  8, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#l 4-03:   Application  of Scott and Julie  Caton for variances   from Chapter  43

(Zoning)  of the Code of the Town  of Orangetown,   Section   3. 12,  R-15   District,   Group M, Columns  4 (Floor Area Ratio:   .20  permitted,   .29  proposed),    5 (Lot Area:   15,000   sq.  ft. required;   10,777   sq.  ft.  existing)   and 8 (Front Yard:  30′  required,   21′  existing,  21.5’&   20′ proposed)  for an addition  to an existing   single-family   residence.   The premises  are located at 11    Summit  Place,  Nanuet,  New York and are identified   on the Orangetown  Tax Map

as Section  64.18,    Block  1,    Lot 49;  R-15  zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   January  8, 2014 at which  time the Board made  the determination    hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Scott  and Julie  Caton appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural   plans  dated 05/30/2013,    signed and sealed by  Harry J. Goldstein,

Architect.  ( 4 pages)

2. 2. Survey  dated March  26,  2008 by Frank   Hoens, PLS.
3. 3. A letter  signed  by five abutting  property  owners  in  support  of the applicatio

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Scott Canton  testified  that they purchased  their house   six  years ago;  that at the time they had one child and presently,   they have three children;   that the house  is a Cape Cod style house  that has two bedrooms  upstairs  with  a bathroom;   that presently   they have two children upstairs   and they and the baby are downstairs;    that the existing  kitchen  is  not large  enough  for all them to eat together;   that their goal is  to move  all of the bedrooms upstairs   and expand  the living  area downstairs;   and similar   additions   have been constructed   in the neighborhood.

 

38L::l.:l0   S>IB318    NM01

 

2! 11 LJH      82 N8P   hl02

 

NN\013  8 N\1tl0 .:l 0  Nf,\01

 

Caton

ZBA#14-03

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew   York was received.

 

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

Ms. 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  floor area ratio, lot area, and front yard variances  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.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested  floor area ratio, lot area, and front yard variances  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.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  floor area ratio, front yard and lot area variances,  although  substantial, afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community. Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

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.

 

301.:l.:lO  S)lH310 NMO!

zr rt LJH     sz  NHr   hrn2

NM013~NVHO    so N/i\01

 

Canton

ZBA#l4-03

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  floor area ratio, lot area and front yard variances  are APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board of the minutes  of which  they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained within a reasonable period of time following thefiling 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.:l~O S~~310   NMOl

 

Z! 11  lJH   82  NHr h102

 

NM013~N’VHO  .:10   N/t\01

 

Caton

ZBA#l4-03

Page 4 of 4

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   January 8,  2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-R.A.O.

By—=..o.i.Lq,..<~-=-:…:=-…….!::-f-;£….IL_~ Deborah Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

381.:L:lO    S)ltEl18   NMOl

 

2T  TI   lJ8    8Z  NHr  hto2

 

DECISION

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPROVED

 

 

 

To:   Ray Difalco   ( Cerovene)

612 Corporate  Way Suite  10

Valley Cottage,  New York  10989

ZBA#   14-04

Date:  January  8, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l4-04:  Application  ofCerovene   Inc. for Performance   Standards  Review  pursuant to Chapter 43 (Zoning)  Section 4.12 for a pharmaceutical   research  and manufacturing facility. The property  is located  at 10 Corporate  Drive, Orangeburg,  New York and is identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   73.20, Block  1, Lot  35; LIO zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  January  8, 2014 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Ray DiFalco,  President,  and Bob Schwab,  Facilities  Manager,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans labeled  “Scope  of Work Areas  Cerovene”  dated  10/03/2013

with the latest revision  date of 1112012013 , not signed or sealed by Henry

Thompson,  Architect.

2. Summary  narrative.
3. Material  Data Safety sheets  for components  used in the machines  for dry cleaning.
4. Performance  standards  resume  of operation  and equipment  form dated December

2, 2013 with supplemental  pages attached.

5. Fire prevention  supplement  form.
6. Cerovene  Inc. General  Presentation  dated December  2013 (10 pages).
7. A CD with all of the Material  Data Sheets.
8. Inspirion  Delivery  Technologies   (23 pages).
9. A letter dated  December  13, 2013 from the Town  of Orangetown,  Department  of Environmental   Management  and Engineering  signed  by Joseph  J. Moran,  P.E., Commissioner.
10. A letter dated December 23, 2013 from the Town of Orangetown,  Bureau  of Fire

Prevention  signed by Michael  B. Bettmann,  Chief Fire Inspector.

11. A memorandum dated December  10, 2013 from the County  of Rockland

Department  of Planning.

12. A letter dated December 10, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Health  signed by Scott McKane,  P .E., Senior Public  Health Engineer.

13. A letter dated Dec. 31, 2013 from the County of Rockland  Sewer District  NoJ..,      -t

signed by  Joseph  LaFiandra,  Engineer  II.                                                      ‘3   ~   ~

:E    C•

 

Z        ~

C’)

Mr. Sullivan,  Chair, made a motion  to open the Public Hearing  which motion  wa~       ~

?”

seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.                                                    ;::o

1. CJ) ::0

0

-n

0

::0

 

~  :..:-3.1

Ray DiFalco,  President,  Cerovene,  testified  that the company  is an oral drug delive.tj     ~   ‘ system developer  that has been developing  a formulation  of oxycodone  and morph~    ·      s;_; ·

utilizing  a unique  abuse deterrent  technology;  that the facility has been approved  to manufacture  RC0358843;  that they recognized  to unmet public  need to combat the escalating  epidemic  of opioid  abuse and addiction;  that the abuse deterrent  technology has the objective  of hindering  opioid misuse  and abuse, while ensuring  appropriate

 

Cerovene  Performance  Standards

ZBA#l4-04

Page2  of4

 

 

patient  access to much needed pain therapies;  that the FDA has acknowledged   that it is supportive  of accelerated  review  for both NDAs  within  six months  after filing; this leads

to commercial  manufacturing;   that all manufacturing   waste is required  to be collected  and reconciled  to 99%; that this means that any powder  from the manufacturing   operations must be collected  and accounted  for; that no pharmaceutical   waste will be disposed  of or poured  down any municipal  drain; that the only drain locations  will be in the lab and manufacturing   washroom;  that the equipment  is washed  down with a PH neutral  soap called Alconox;  that this material  is used commonly  in the pharmaceutical   industry;  that the facility will not vent any powders  or solvents;  that 90% of all operations  are water based;  that the facility will make use of dust collectors  and an oxidizer;  and that the dust collectors  will only see very small amounts  of powder  since a 99% reconciliation  must be conducted  on the batches  being manufactured.

 

On advice of  Dennis Michaels,  Deputy Town Attorney,   counsel  to the Zoning Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan  moved  for a Board determination  based upon the testimony  heard by this Board,  and the facts as presented  in the application submissions  and in the record,  since the application  entails the ZBA engaging  in a review  to determine  compliance  with technical  requirements,   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. Castelli, aye; Ms.  Albanese,  aye; and Mr. Feroldi,  aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

 

301.:!dO SYiH310  N!t\01

 

ar II lJ8    Bl NHr   M02

 

NM013~N’1t!O    .:10   Nh\01

 

Cerovene  Performance  Standards

ZBA#14-04

Page 3of4

 

 

 

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,  the Fire Prevention  Supplement,  the letter dated December  13,

2013 from Joseph  J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner   of the Orangetown  Department of Environmental   Management  and Engineering  (D.E.M.E.)  concluding  that there is no reasonable  doubt as to the likelihood  of applicant’s   conformance  to Zoning  Code § 4.1 Performance   Standards,  and the memorandum  dated December  23, 2013 from Michael  Bettmann,  Chief Fire Inspector,  Town  of

Orangetown  Bureau  of Fire Prevention  (B.F.P.);  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, DEME, 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.;  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, 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, 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.

r-o

-I        c::::>

:E

0          ~

(iii) The Board gives no approval of any building plans, including, without limitatain, 55

the accuracy and structural integrity thereof, of the applicant, but same have been ~     2

x

submitted to the Board solely for informational and verification purposes relative 1ij!anP5 variances being requested.

en      :n     z

0          ::3     G’)

-ri        f-4   I        rn

(iv) A building permit as well as any other necessary permits must be obtained wii11 ~   :       ~ reasonable period of time following the filing of this decision and prior to undertatllng W      z any construction contemplated in this decision. To the extent any variance, Performance Standards, 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.

 

Cerovene  Performance   Standards

ZBA#14-04

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing  variance,   Performance  Standards,    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,  with  aforesaid   conditions,     the application    for Zoning  Code § 4.1   Performance  Standards    Conformance  was presented  and moved  by Mr. Sullivan,   seconded   by Ms. Salomon   and carried  as follows:    Mr. Sullivan,   aye;  Ms. Castelli,   aye; Ms. Salomon,    aye; Ms.  Albanese,   aye; and  Mr.  Feroldi;   aye.  Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

 

 

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

 

DATED:    January  8, 2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTJUBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATIORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATIORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-·B.vW.

 

By~~(LJL_~~~~vv–~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENT  AL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR