Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS JULY  15, 2015

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

 

DAN  SULLIVAN JOAN  SALOMON

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE THOMAS  QUINN

ABSENT:

 

 

MICHAEL  BOSCO PATRICIA  CASTELLI

 

 

 

 

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:                                                                                                                             ci

:E

 

 

~

r-.:>

c::::>

-t

0

~

 

:z     Cc-::

I

z

C.!,‘>,

 

PUBLISHED   ITEMS

(…)

1. C) 0

:;J

 

 

APPLICANTS

DECISIONS

>-

-0          z

 

::3     G”)

rn

 

NEW  ITEMS:

~I            -t

I        0

 

I”)!        ~

N        z

 

DeROBERTIS

15 Sickletown  Road, Orangeburg,  NY

69.19 I 1I25.2;  R-40 zone

 

 

 

GERASIMOPOULOS

10 Robertson  Drive

Pearl River, NY

69.09 I 4 I 30; R-15 zone

NO VARIANCES REQUIRED

 

 

 

FLOOR  AREA  RATIO, AND REAR YARD VARIANCES   APPROVED

ZBA#15-61

 

 

 

ZBA#15-62

 

LUCZAJ

27 Wildwood  Drive

Pearl River, NY

69.17 I 4 I 39; R-15 zone

 

CAVANAUGH

40 Hickory  Hill Road

Tappan,NY

77.09 I 1I31.1;   R-15 zone

 

HOVESAPIAN

28 Whittier  Road

Blauvelt,  NY

65.18 I 1I10;  R-40 zone

 

SOUTH  CORNER  PLAZA

2 Route 340

Orangeburg,  NY

74.11 I 2 I 47; CC zone

CONTINUED                                         ZBA#15-63

 

 

FRONT  YARD                                      ZBA#15-64

VARIANCE  APPROVED

 

 

 

FRONT  YARD,  SIDE                          ZBA#15-65

YARD  VARIANCE  APPROVED

 

 

 

REAR YARD,§  5.224,                        ZBA#15-66

• 3.11, COLUMN 6 #9 PARKING SPACES,
• § 13.10 B (1) & B (2) OVERLAY ZONE SCREENING  & BUFFER  VARIANCES

APPROVED

 

Minutes

Page 2

 

SAFEGUARD  BIOSYSTEMS PERFORMANCE   STANDARDS

30  Rockland   Park A venue

Tappan,NY

77.16   / 1/33;      LIO zone

APPROVED                 ZBA#15-67

WITH  CONDITIONS

 

 

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 10:35   P.M.

 

Dated:   July 15,   2015

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING    INSPECTOR    (Individual     Decisions) Rockland County  Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

Deborah  Arbolino,   Administrative   Aide

 

 

30U.:l0   SYH318 NMOl

 

22   T   tJd    o s  1nr   srnz

NMOL:WNVtiO  so N/,\01

 

 

R-80, COLUMN 5 #2 VARIANCE NOT REQUIRED

 

To: Jamie DeRobertis

15 Sickletown  Road

Orangeburg,  New York  10962

ZBA #15-61

Date: July 15, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#15-61:  Application  of  Jamie  DeRobertis  for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43)  of the code of the Town  of Orangetown,  R-40 District,  Section  3.11 refers to R-80, Column  5 #2 ( except accommodations   for servants  or caretakers)  for the reconstruction of an existing  one -family  residential  cottage.  The premises  are located  at 15 Sickletown Road,  Orangeburg,  New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section

69.19, Block  1, Lot 25.2 in the R-40 zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on

Wednesday,  July  15, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Kris DeRobertis,  Barry Terach,  Architect,  and William  Bosley,  contractor,   appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

 

1. Architectural  plans labeled  ‘Proposed  New Cottage  for Jamie  and Kris

DeRobertis  dated April 28, 2015 not signed or sealed by Barry Terach,  Registered

Architect  (6 pages).

2. Zoning  Board Decision  #06-107  dated October  18, 2006.

 

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

 

Barry Terach,  Architect,  testified  that this lot was part of the Blickman  Subdivision  and that this particular  lot was granted permission  to keep two dwellings  on one lot; that the DeRobertis’   purchased  the property  because  they want to use the cottage  for Mrs. DeRobertis’   parents.

 

William  Bosley testified  that he has the decision  from the subdivision  that states that the second house was approved  to stay on the lot and asked ifhe  could go home to get it and bring it back.

 

 

 

The Zoning  Board of Appeals  Decision  #06-107  dated  10/18/2006   was reviewed  by the Deputy Town Attorney  and it was acknowledged   that the following  variances  had been granted  on October  18, 2006: front yard, rear yard, building  height,  and a variance  from definition  (d) no more than one single-family  residence  shall be permitted  on one lot; and the Board came to the conclusion  that, because  of the approvals  in ZBA Decision  #06-

107 of 10/18/2006,  no variances  were necessary  for this applicant.

 

 

 

301.:L:!O  S)!~31Q Nft\01 lZ  1  Wd   08  1nr  SlOl NM013DN\1hl0   ;10 NMOl

 

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO AND REAR YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Elias Gerasimopoulos

10 Robertson Drive

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA #15-62

Date: July 15, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#15-62: Application of Elias Gerasimopoulos for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Columns 4 (Floor Area Ratio: .20 permitted, .2143 proposed) and 11 (Rear Yard: 35′ required, 26.60′ proposed) for an addition to a single-family residence. The premises are located at 10 Robertson Drive, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.05, Block 4, Lot 30; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Elias Gerasimopoulos and Richard Bouchard, Architect,  appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of survey dated June 10, 2014 signed by William E. James, P.E., P.L.S. (1 page).
2. Architectural plans labeled “Additions & Renovations to : The Gerasimopoulos

Residence”  dated February 28, 2015 signed and sealed by Richard A. Bouchard, Registered Architect (5 pages).

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Ms. Castelli was absent.

 

 

 

Richard Bouchard, Architect testified that they are proposing to add a two car garage and mudroom onto the east side of the existing raised ranch style house; that they are adding a deck to the upper portion of the western side of the house; that they are fine on the side yard to the carport, which they need because they have three cars; that they are short in

the rear yard because the extension is keeping in line with the present house and the increase in the floor area ratio is caused by the carport.

 

Elias Gerasimopoulos testified that his parents purchased the house in 1972 and he purchased it from them in 1987; that they would like to expand to accommodate his wife and two girls; and that the downstairs of the house is used for visiting family.

 

 

 

30\~:JO s:n!310  NMOl

tl   1  \Jd    ec 1nr  SlOZ

 

N~~~:l::ltl\il.lO .:lO  Nh\01

 

 

Gerasimopoulos

ZBA#lS-62

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. 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  floor area ratio and rear 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 neighborhood.

 

 

 

2. The requested floor area ratio and rear 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 neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

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 and rear yard variances,  although  somewhat substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment, if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby community.      Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

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.:!.:!0  S~H1310  NMOl

 

CZ  1   Wd   0£  1nr  SlOZ

 

Gerasimopoulos

ZBA#lS-62

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

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  within a reasonable  period  of time following  the filing of this decision  and prior to undertaking any construction  contemplated  in this decision.  To the extent any variance  or Special Permit granted herein  is subject to any conditions,  the building  department  shall not be

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

3QL:L:!O  s~B310  N/i\01

cz  1   Wd    0£ 1nr  srnz

• –

NM O l 3~NVJO     .:lO NfAOl

 

 

Gerasimopoulos

ZBA#15-62

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   floor area ratio and rear yard variances   was presented  and moved by Mr. Feroldi,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon and canied as follows:   Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.  Ms. Castelli  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:   July  15,    2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATIORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATIORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

By~(L..LL..IL.J,,~:c.::….:….L…L../–,,L~ 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    SX8318     NM0l

 

£2   l  Wd      08    1nr    SlOZ

 

NM013  ~N\f UO  so Nf-,\Ol

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT  YARD  VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

To:  Kevin Cavanaugh

40 Hickory Hill Road

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA#lS-64

Date: July 15, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#l5-64:Application of Kevin Cavanaugh for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, R-15 District, Group M, Column  10

{Total Side Yard: 50′ required, 41.30′ proposed) change to Column 8 (Front Yard:  30′ required,  21.3′ existing) for an addition to an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 40 Hickory Hill Road, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.09, Block 1, Lot 31.1; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Kevin Cavanaugh appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of site plan (1 page).

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Ms. Castelli was absent.

 

Mr. Cavanaugh testified that he would like to add a two car garage to his house; that he honored the 20′ side yard but still needs a total side yard variance on the other side of the lot because of an existing deck; that he has two front yards because he lives on a comer lot.

 

The Board discussed the application and came to the conclusion that the applicant did not need a total side yard variance because he has two front yards; the applicant needs a front yard variance of 8.7′ from the 30′ required or 21.3′ for the existing deck.

 

 

 

’30\.:!:\0  S’At~310 Nf/\01

 

£Z  ):_ \Jd   0£  1nr  SlOZ

 

N-~013nNvUO  so N/1\0l

 

Cavanaugh

ZBA#15-64

Page2  of  4

 

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew   York was received.

 

 

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  total side yard variance  was changed  to a front yard variance  and will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The applicant  has two front yards and the existing deck does not meet the front yard requirement  of 30′.  The existing  deck is set back

21.3′  from the front yard and requires  a 8. ?’front  yard variance.  The proposed  garage meets the required  20′  side yard and similar  additions  have been constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

2. The requested f5ront yard variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or envirnmental  conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  Similar  additions have been constructed  in the area and the deck has existed  for some time in its present location.

 

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 variance  is not substantial.  The deck has existed  for some time in its present  location.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

3Dl:UO   S)PJ310    NMOl

£Z  1  lJd    0£  1nr  SlOZ

—

NMO l 3~trvBO so NM01

 

 

Cavanaugh

ZBA#15-64

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  front yard variance  8. 7′ from the required 30′ set back or (21.3′) 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.:L:!O S)P-!31~   NMOl

c-z   1  tJd    0£  1nr  srnz

• – —

Nlv\Ol3~NV’d0    .:!O  NiMDl

 

 

Cavanaugh

ZBA#15-64

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve the application  for the requested  front yard variance

8.7′   from the required  30′   set back or (21.3′)    was presented  and moved by Ms.  Salomon, seconded  by Mr. Quinn  and carried  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye;  Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Mr.  Sullivan,   aye; and Ms. Salomon,   aye.  Ms.  Castelli 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:    July 15,  2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-G.M.

By~}~ fuorah Arbolino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,    ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

 

38 U .-.W  S>l ll 318 N~\Ol

£Z    1   Lld     OS  11\P  SlGZ

 

\\in

i·~O   I…,  ~N\i’UO   .:10   \·li\\01

_;:J

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT  YARD  AND SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:  Mark Hovsepian

28 Whittier  Road

Blauvelt,  New York  10913

ZBA#15-65

Date: July 15, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#l5-   65: Application  of  Mark Hovsepian  for  variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.12,  R-40 District,  Group E,  Columns  8 (Front Yard:  50 required,  39.6′  existing),  and 10 (Side Yard:  30′  required,   15.2′  existing for a shed) for  an  addition  to an existing  single-family  residence .. The premises  are located  at 28 Whittier  Road, Blauvelt,   New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section  65.18, Block  1, Lot 10; in the  R-40 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on

Wednesday,  July  15, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Mark Hovsepian  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Copy of site plan (1 page).

 

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels,  Deputy Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board determination  that the foregoing  application  is a Type II action exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQRA), pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require  SEQ RA environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Quinn, aye;

and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Ms. Castelli was absent.

 

Mark Hovsepian testified that the house was built on a slab; that he is proposing to add an addition to the north side of the house; that the proposed addition conforms with zoning regulations but he needs variances for the existing front yard setback of the house and for the existing shed that does not conform to the side yard setback requirements; that his property was zoned commercial and he just got it changed to residential zoning.

 

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Diana Lamhut, 29 Whittier Road, testified that she is in favor of the granting of the variances; that she has lived in her house for 43 years and the shed has existed for that long; and that the addition would beautify the neighborhood.

 

 

 

3 DI.:!.:! O   S >l 1! 31Q  NIA 0 l

 

£2   1  L.Jd      0£ 1nr  s102

 

NMOL30 N’i::lO :30 N!AOl

 

 

Hovsepian

ZBA#15-65

Page2  of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew  York was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon   and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  front yard and side yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The requested  variances  are for existing  conditions.

 

 

 

2. The requested front yard and side yard variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district. The requested  variances  are for existing  conditions.

 

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  front yard and side yard variances,  although  somewhat  substantial, afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.

The requested  variances  are for existing  conditions.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

3Dl3.:to    S>!’tl310  NM61

£Z   t  \Jd   0£ 1nr  SlOl

 

NM013~N\1hl0  dO NMOl

 

Hovsepian

ZBA#lS-65

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 and side yard variances  are APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption

by the Board of the minutes  of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

herein  and subject to those conditions,  if any, upon which  such approval  was conditioned

which  are hereinbefore   set forth.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  within a reasonable  period of time following  the filing of this decision  and prior to undertaking any 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.

 

 

 

3Qt.:l.:10  S>!B31  Q  NIAOl

£6  r \Jd   0£  1nr  SlOZ

..

NM013DN\f’d0    .::!O   Nh\Ol

 

 

Hovsepian

ZBA#15-65

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing   resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   front yard and side yard  variances   was presented  and moved by Mr. Quinn, seconded  by Mr. Bosco   and carried as follows:  Mr.  Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye;   Mr. Sullivan,   aye; and Ms.  Salomon,   aye.  Ms.  Castelli  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:    July 15,  2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY    TOWN  ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-M.M.

By_L   JC!.L..JL    £’….!’.~~~~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.   and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,     PB

CHAIRMAN,      ZBA,   PB,   ACABOR

 

 

:381.:!JO   S)l  318   NMOl

82   r  tJd   o 8  1nr srnz

 

DECISION

 

 

REAR  YARD,  SECTION   5.224 OFF-STREET     PARKING;    SECTION   3.11, CC DISTRICT,    COLUMN   6 #9 PARKING:    61 SPACES   REQUIRED,    59 SPACES PROVIDED;    AND SECTION    13.10 B(l)  SCREENING    & B (2) 25′ BUFFER VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Donald Brenner (South Comer Plaza)

4 Independence Avenue

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA#15-66

Date: July 15, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l 5- 66: Application of  South Comer Plaza Site Plan  for variances from Zoning

Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, CC District, Group JJ, Section 3.12

Column 11 (Rear Yard: 25′ required, 14.8′ existing); Section 5.224 (No off-street parking shall be located within any other required yard as regulated by § 6.1); Section

6.41, paragraph c: (one outdoor loading berth required, modified to one proposed):

Section 3.11, CC District, Column 6 #9(Parking  Spaces: 61 spaces required,  59 spaces provided);  and from Section 13.10 Route 303 Overlay Non-residential areas: B (1) (shall be adequately screened to minimize visual impact to passersby on Route 303) B(2) Twenty-five foot vegetative buffer); for a site plan for a proposed shopping plaza. The premises are located at 2 Route 340, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.11, Block 2, Lot 47; in the  CC zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, July 15, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  Diane  Samini,  Owner,  and  Siavash  Hoomehr,  P.E., appeared and testified.

..-..:>          -\

 

 

The following documents were presented:

-\     §      0

o      –  ·           ~

 

~    C-   z

:z:    c=     0

1. Plans labeled ” Site Development Plans prepared for S Comer Plaza” dated  o      1          -n

~     o

03/10/2008 with the latest revision date of 06/10/2011 signed and sealed by   r       w     g

Leonard Jackson, P.E. ( 15 pages).                                                                    7’·        -o     ~

2. Three memorandums from John Giardiello, P.E., Director, Office of Building,(1) :3       G:>

Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement, Town of Orangetown,~     .    . ~             ~

dated April 6, 2009, February 24, 2010, and September 26, 2011.                    0         N:      ::e

3. Planning Board Decision #09-20 dated September 26, 2011.  rn    c..->         z
4. 4. A letter dated July 13, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of
5. A letter dated July 8, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P.E..

6. A letter dated June 26, 2015 from the County of Rockland Sewer District No.I

signed by Joseph La Fiandra, Engineer II.

7. A letter dated July 15, 2015 from the Department of Transportation signed by

Joseph Taylor, MRP.

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chairman, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Mr. Bosco  and carried unanimously.

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that since the Planning board noticed its intent to declare itself Lead Agency and distributed that notice of intention to 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 review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations §617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning Board conducted a SEQRA review and on September 26, 2011, rendered an environmental determination of no significant adverse environmental impacts to result from the proposed land use action (i.e., a “Negative Declaration” or

 

South Corner Plaza

ZBA#15-66

Page2  of  4

 

“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. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Ms. Castelli was absent.

 

Donald Brenner testified that his client purchased the property a few years ago; that it has been is disrepair for many years; that his clients are planning to clean it up and proceed with a small retail se4rvice area; that the project is taking a long time to

move forward because of the sensitivity of the Sparkill Creek; that they have received

preliminary approval and a neg dee from the Planning board and would like to move forward with the project; that they have been in business in Nanuet for 22 years and would like to own the property that they work from; that they would remove two parking spaces to accommodate a loading dock if the Board would prefer to grant a variance for less than the required parking and not the loading dock variance.

 

Diane Samini testified that she and her husband own Deans Deli in Nanuet for the last 22 years; that they are located by Costco; that they have a deli, bakery and catering business; that her husband takes care of the shopping center that they are presently located in and they purchased this property with the hope of owning their own shopping center and that

the property is like the movie “The Money Pit”.                                                      C3      S   Cj

:e   CJ”1      =I.::

:z:      §::   2:

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.

(“‘)       r•

rn

–     (…)

zx:       0

~

&)

.0,

 

The Board members made personal inspections of the premises the week before ~ meeting and found them to be properly posted and as generally described on the :2] 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

Mr. Quinn 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 rear yard; Section 5 .224-off-street parking; Section 3 .11, CC District, Column 6, #9 (Parking: 61 spaces required, 59 spaces proposed); and Section 13 .10

B(l)-screening and B(2) -25′ buffer, variances will not produce an undesirable

change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant has agreed to provide a loading berth at the request of the Zoning Board and the Board has agreed to grant a variance for less than the required parking spaces.

 

 

 

2. The requested rear yard; Section 5.224-off-street parking; Section 3.11, CC District, Column 6, #9 (Parking: 61 spaces required, 59 spaces proposed); and Section 13.10

B(l)-screening and B(2) -25′ buffer, variances  will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant has agreed to provide a loading berth at the request of the Zoning

Board and the Board has agreed to grant a variance for less than the required parking spaces.

 

 

South Corner Plaza

ZBA#15-66

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

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  rear yard; Section  5.224-off-street   parking;  Section  3.11, CC District, Column  6, #9 (Parking:  61 spaces required,  59 spaces proposed);  and Section  13.10

B(l)-screening    and B(2) -25′  buffer,  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  has agreed to provide  a loading  berth  at the request  of the Zoning

Board and the Board has agreed to grant a variance  for less than the required  parking spaces.

 

 

 

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   rear yard; Section  5.224- off-street  parking;  Section  3 .11, CC District,  Column  6, #9 (Parking:  61 spaces required,  59 spaces proposed);  and Section  13.10 B(l)-screening    and B(2) -25′

buffer,  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.

 

 

 

30l.:l.:!© ~)-nr.11() NM01

E:Z  }_ \Jd     oc 1nr sm

 

N-~Ol3DNVBO    .:!O  N/,\01

 

South  Corner Plaza

ZBA#l5-66

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 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  rear yard;  Section

5.224-off-street   parking;   Section  3.11,     CC District,   Column  6,  #9 (Parking:   61  spaces required,   59  spaces proposed);   and Section  13.10 B(l)-screening    and B(2) -25′   buffer, variances    was presented  and moved  by Mr. Bosco,   seconded  by Ms.  Salomon   and carried as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye; Mr.  Feroldi,  aye;   Mr. Quinn,  aye ;Mr.  Sullivan,   aye; and Ms.   Salomon,   aye.  Ms.  Castelli  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:    July 15,   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~~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

381.:!.::\0    S:i~318    NMOl

£2   T   lJd    cc  1nr  srnz

 

NM013fJNi:HJO      .:!O NMOl

 

DECISION

 

 

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CONFORM

 

To:  George Aaron (Safeguard  Biosystems)

52 Brayton  Street

Englewood,  New Jersey,  07631

ZBA#15-67

Date: July 15, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA# 15-67 :Application  of Safeguard  Biosystems   for review  of the Performance Standards  as per  Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, LIO District,  Section 4.12  for laboratory  space located  at  37A Rockland  Park Avenue, Tappan,  New York and  identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  77.16,  Block

1, Lot 32; in the LIO zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on

Wednesday,  July  15, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

1.     Space plan (1 page). –i 0 :e ~ ~ c.; -i C) ~ 2. Equipment  brochures  (16 pages). ~ f=   0 3. Lab Prep MiRNA  Serum/Plasma   Kit Handbook  (6 pages). ~ w ., 4. Safety Data Sheets  ( 5 pages). ::u 0 ~

George Aaron  and Nick  Smit appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

:;::r-.:                     z>

5. Performance  Standards  Resume  of Operations  and Equipment.                     ~      ,,       z
6. Fire Prevention  Supplement.                                                                                ~      3       ~

1

7. A letter dated  July 8, 2015 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of P.mnn~1   ~

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

8. A letter dated July 3, 2015 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny  Lin, P .E ..

9. A letter dated June 30, 2015 from the County of Rockland  Drainage  Agency signed by Vincent  Altieri,  Executive  Director.
10. A letter dated June 18, 2015 from the Department of Environmental   Management

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

11. A memorandum  dated 07/14/2015  from Michael  B. Bettmann,  OTC-1.

 

 

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

 

On advice of  Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy Town  Attorney,   counsel  to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan moved  for a Board determination,   based upon the testimony  heard by this Board  and the facts as presented  in the application  submissions  and in the record, that since the application  entails the ZBA engaging  in a review  to determine  compliance with technical  requirements   the application  is a Type  II action exempt  from the 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 Mr. Bosco and carried  as follows:   Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr.

Feroldi,  aye; Mr. Quinn,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,   aye. Ms. Castelli  was absent.

 

George Aaron testified  that there was a mistake  on the address but it was corrected  on the web site and the posters  were changed;  that they are closely tied to a company  that operates  out of Rockleigh  New Jersey;  that they have all medical  waste removed  by Stericycle  and they will supply the names  of the other waste pick up companies  and they will satisfy all of the concerns  from Michael  Bettmann,  Chief Fire Inspector  for the Town of Orangetown.

 

Safeguard  Biosystems  Performance   Standards

ZBA#lS-67

Page2  of  4

 

Nick  Smit, Chieff  echnical  Officer,  testified  that the company  performs  molecular diagnostics  by taking patient  samples  such as common  bacteria,  staph infections,  blood, urine and they validate  and intergrate  samples using  genetic  sequencing  to get results within hours instead of the four days that it would take to get results  in a hospital.

 

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. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all of the documents  submitted,  the Board  found and concluded  that:

 

Based upon the information  contained  in the applicant’s   Resume  of Operations and Equipment  and the Fire Prevention  Supplement;  the report dated June  18,

2015 from Joseph  J. Moran,  P.E., Commissioner   of the Town of Orangetown Department  of Environmental   Management  and Engineering  (D.E.M.E. ); the applicant  shall satisfy all the conditions  and requirements  that may be required  by Michael  Bettmann,  Chief Fire Inspector,  Town  of Orangetown  Bureau  of Fire Prevention  (B.F.P.);  the other documents  submitted  to the Board and the

testimony  of Applicant’s   representatives,   the Board  finds and concludes  that the application  conforms  with the Performance   Standards  set forth in Zoning   Code Section  4.1, subject to compliance  with the orders, rules and regulations  of the Orangetown  Office of Building,  Zoning  & Planning Administration & Enforcement, D.E.M.E., and B.F.P., and all other departments havingjurisdiction of the premises.

 

 

 

3{)\..:BO  ~nnBlDNMOl cz }_ \Jd     nc  1nr  sinz N·~Ol30N\/’d0   so N/’i\01

 

 

Safeguard  Biosystems  Performance  Standards

ZBA#lS-67

Page  3   of  4

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  submitted,  the Board RESOLVED  that the Application  for  Performance   Standards   Conformance, pursuant  to Zoning  Code  §  4.1, is APPROVED  with the following  SPECIFIC CONDITIONS:   (1)  the Applicant  shall adhere to all of the requirements  and/or conditions  that may be required   by Chief Fire Inspector  Bettmann,  B.F.P.;  and  (2)  the Applicant  shall adhere to all of the requirements  set forth by the report dated June  18,

2015 from Joseph J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner,   DEME;  and (3) supply the clerk with all  of the solid waste & medical waste contractor information; 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.

 

 

 

381.:!.:!0 ~>P3318 Nh\61 hZ 1 LJd 08 1nr srnz NM013DN\/hl0      .:JO   NMOl

 

 

Safeguard  Biosystems  Performance  Standards

ZBA#15-67

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  reso1ution   to approve  the application  for Conformance  to Zoning  Code

• 4.1 Performance Standards  Review  with the Specific  Conditions   (a) that the App1icant adhere to all of the requirementsand/or   conditions  that may be required   by Chief Fire Inspector  Bettmann,   B.F.P.;(b)    the App1icant shall  adhere to al1 of the requirements  set forth by the report dated June  18,   2015 from Joseph J. Moran,  P.E.,   Commissioner, DEME;  and (c) supp1y  the c1erk  with  all  of the solid waste  & medica1   waste contractor information;  was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,   seconded  by Ms.  Salomon   and carried as follows:  Mr. Fero1di,   aye;   Mr. Bosco,  aye; Ms.  Sa1omon,   aye; Mr. Sul1ivan, aye;  and Mr.  Quinn,   aye.  Ms.  Caste1li  was absent.

 

The Administrative    Aide to the Board is hereby  authorized,   directed  and empowered  to sign this decision   and fi1e  a certified  copy thereof  in the office of the Town  Clerk.

 

DATED:   Ju1y  15,    2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

 

By~~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

I-IIGI-IWAY  DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. or ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR