Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JUNE 4. 2014

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

JOAN SALOMON PATRICIA CASTELLI THOMAS QUINN

LEONARD FEROLDI, ALTERNATE DANIEL SULLIVAN, CHAIRMAN

 

 

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

 

 

NEW ITEMS:   FULGIONE	SIDE YARD VARIAN CE	ZBA#14-38
77.11I1I24;  R-15 zone	APPROVED
FAIR 70.17 I 3 I 36; R-15 zone	SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#l4-39
MILLS 69.06 I 1   I 54; R-15 zone	SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#14-40
BERGE 69.18 I 1I68;  R-15 zone	FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND TOTAL SIDE	ZBA#l4-41
	YARD VARIANCE APPROVED
MARA CI CH 69.17I1I53;  R-15 zone	FLOOR AREA RA TIO, SIDE YARD, TOT AL SIDE YARD,	ZBA#14-42
	AND BUILDING HEIGHT
	VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

Other Business:

Reserved decision made

 

LSI SERVICES                     LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH,                           ZBA#13-80

76.08 I 1   I 1; LIO zone           STREET FRONTAGE, SIDE YARD, TOT AL SIDE YARD, REARY ARD, BUILDING HEIGHT, DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE, § 3.11 LO DISTRICT, COLUMN 7, # 2 OUTDOOR STORAGE,

Minutes

Page 2 of  2

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning   Board,  the Zoning  Board of Appeals:    RESOLVED,    to approve  the action   of the Chairman  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:    Skae Training  Center  Conditional  Use Permit,  337-330   Blaisdell  Road,   Orangeburg,  N.Y.

76.08   I 1  I 3  & 4;  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  10:20 P.M.

 

Dated:   June 4,  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

 

Byt/}kzd)_~

ifeforah Arbolino

Administrative    Aide

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE  YARD  VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

To:  James  and Kathy Fulgione

61 Conklin  Avenue

Tappan,  New York   10983

ZBA # 14-38

Date: June 4, 2014

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#14-38: Application of James and Kathy Fulgione for a variance from Chapter

43(Zoning) of the Orangetown Code, R-15 District, Section 5.21(c) (Side Yard: 15′ required, 3′ proposed) to install a deck on an existing pool. The premises are located at

61 Conklin Avenue, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map

as Section 77.11, Block 1, Lot 24; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

James and Kathy Fulgione appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Copy of a survey showing the existing pool and the proposed deck.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

James Fuglione testified that they would like to add a deck to the left side of the existing above-ground pool; that they have a deck on the right side of the pool and would like to add a four foot deck to the left side of the pool; that the pool is set back far into the rear yard; that the deck will be constructed of the composite decking; and that it will be four feet high to meet the height of the pool; and the existing house has a two or three foot side yard.

 

Kathy Fuglione testified that the lot is long and narrow; that they have owned the house for 21 Y2 years today; that there are no residences by the pool; that the houses on either side of them have similar lots that are long and narrow; that there is a house two house away that has a pool with a deck; that the house across the street has a pool and another house at the end of the block has a pool.

 

Fuglione

ZBA#14-38

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

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 side yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is long and narrow. The existing house is two or three feet from the side property line.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property is long and narrow.

 

 

 

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 side yard variance, although somewhat substantial, affords benefits to the applicant that is not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community. The property is long and narrow.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Fuglione

ZBA#14-38

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

Fuglione

ZBA#l4-38

Page 4 of 4

 

The foregoing resolution   to approve the application  for the requested side  yard variance was presented  and moved by Ms.  Castelli,  seconded by Ms.  Salomon  and carried as follows:   Ms.  Castelli,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,   aye; Mr. Feroldi,   aye; Mr. Quinn,  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: June 4, 2014

 

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_J_…_..’-J.L…:~<L.->.«-.f–.pL..l.L.j/ Deborah Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. orENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING [‘I LE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:  Robert and Lucille Fair

68 Hoffinan Lane

Blauvelt, New York 10913

ZBA#  14-39

Date: June 4, 2014

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l 4-39: Application of Robert and Lucille Fair for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning) of the Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, Group M, Column 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 13.9′ proposed) for installation of an above-ground pool at an existing single• family residence. The premises are located at 68 Hoffinan Lane, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.17, Block 3, Lot 36; R-15

zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Robert Fair appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Site plan showing the proposed above ground pool dated 0111112014

 

 

 

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

 

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

carried as follows: Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye;

and Mr. Sullivan, aye.

 

 

 

Robert Fair testified that they have been considering installing an above-ground pool for a while and finally made the decision to do so; that the property is oddly shaped and the house is set back on the lot; that they would like to place the pool in this area because it is the best spot in the yard for it; that it is not that far from the existing deck and there are

no trees in that area; that the other side of the yard has two 50 year old trees that would

need to be removed to accommodate the pool; that the pool is 52″ deep and the deck is

56″ high; and they have owned the house for 17 years today.

 

Fair

ZBA#l4-39

Page 2 of  4

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  side yard variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  The lot is oddly shaped and the area chosen to for the installation  of the pool is flat and clear of trees.

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district. The lot is oddly shaped and the area chosen to for the installation  of the pool is flat and clear of trees.

 

 

 

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 side  yard variance,  although  somewhat  substantial,  affords benefits  to the applicant  that is not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.  The lot is oddly shaped and the area chosen to for the installation  of the pool is flat and clear of trees.

 

 

 

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.

 

Fair

ZBA#14-39

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

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition   imposed  should,   in the

sole judgment of the building  department,  be first complied  with  as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,   a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued  by the Office  of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement which legally  permits  such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

Fair

ZBA#l4-39

Page 4 of  4

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve the application  for the requested  side yard variance was presented   and moved by Mr. Feroldi,  seconded  by Ms.  Castelli and carried  as

follows:   Ms.  Castelli, aye; Ms.  Salomon,   aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Mr. Quinn, 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:   June 4,  2014

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN A’rfORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-M.M.

By…L..L”f,A..L….><.:::i.<4…J.4-~=:-::::.~ Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE YARD VARIANCE  APPROVED

 

To:  Brian Mills

145 Ablondi Road

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA # 14-40

Date: June 4, 2014

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#l4-40: Application of Brian Mills for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District, Group M, Column 9 (Side Yard: 20′ required, 12′ proposed) for the installation of an above-ground pool at an existing single• family residence. The premises are located at 145 Ablondi Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.06, Block 1, Lot 54; R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 4, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Brian Mills appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Survey dated 12/01/2006  with the proposed pool drawn on it.

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attomey,  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. Castelli, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.

 

 

 

 

Brian Mills testified that he would like to install an above ground pool in the rear yard; that the area he has chosen for the installation is flat and sunny with no trees; that the northwest side of the property slopes up; that the west side of the property is wet and wooded; that he has owned his house for 7 Y2  years; that he and his wife have two daughters; that the neighbor across the street has a pool and the neighbor to the northwest of him has a pool.

 

 

Mills

ZBA#14-40

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

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  side yard variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The lot is oddly shaped and the proposed  location  of the pool works well with the slope of the property  and location  of trees.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district. The lot is oddly shaped and the proposed  location  of the pool works well with the slope of the

property  and location  of  trees.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Mills

ZBA#14-40

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition  imposed  should, in the

sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,  a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement which legally permits  such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

Mills

ZBA#l4-40

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   June 4,  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.

B~~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO AND TOT AL SIDE YARD VARIANCES  APPROVED

 

To:  David and Kathleen  Berge

15 Lark Street

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA # 14-41

Date:  June 4, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA: 14-41: Application  of David and Kathleen  Berge  for variances   from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  of the Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Group M, Columns  4 (Floor Area ratio:

.20 permitted,  .21 proposed)  and 10 (Total  Side Yard:  50′ required,  45.7′  proposed)   for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 15 Lark Street, Pearl River, New York, and identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section

69.18, Block  1, Lot 68; R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  June 4, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

Kathleen  and David Berge  and Jane Slavin, Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural plans dated 04/07/2014 signed  and sealed by Jane Slavin, Architect.

(2 pages)

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Jane Slavin, Architect,  testified  that they would  like to add 14′ on the north side of the existing  garage to create a two car garage with an expansion  of the second floor above it; that they presently  have three small bedrooms  and would  like to expand the upstairs  to have three bedrooms  that are larger than the existing  rooms;  that they will be over the permitted  floor area ratio by 226 square  feet; that the existing  garage  is 10.8′ wide and is not large enough  to park  a car in and comfortably  get in and out of the car; that they would  expand the area by fourteen  feet and have usable  two car garage; that she has picture  of the area and this proposal  is in keeping  with the character  of the neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

Kathleen  Berge testified  that they have an eighteen  year old autistic  son that presently occupies  the 10′ x 10′ bedroom;  that he refused  to change  rooms when hi~~ ~~ter went

away to college;  and that they would  like to create th~~  !ft.tgeBfJ1edro’oin~  fO hbcommodate

 

Berge

ZBA#14-41

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

 

 

 

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.

 

Berge

ZBA#l4-41

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

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, in the

sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement which legally permits such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Berge

ZBA#14-41

Page  4 of  4

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:    June 4,  2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTIUBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUlLDING INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

B

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

I-llGI-IWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING

l’ILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO, SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED  (ZONING CODE SECTION 5.21

UNDERSIZED LOT APPLIES)

 

To: Debbie  Maracich

205 Blauvelt  Avenue

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#   14-42

Date:  June 4, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA:14-42:  Application  of Debbie  Maracich  for variances   from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  of the Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Group M, Columns  4 (Floor Area ratio:  .20 permitted, .24 proposed),  9 (Side  Yard:  15′ required,  6′ existing,  10′ proposed),  10 (Total  Side Yard:  30′ required,  15.2′  existing),  and 12 (Building Height:  20′  permitted,

24′  7 W’ proposed)  (Zoning  Code Section  5.21 Undersized  lot)  for an addition  to an

existing  single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 205 Blauvelt  Avenue,  Pearl River, New York, and identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 69.17, Block  I, Lot 53; R-15 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  June 4, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

Debbie Maracich  and Jane Slavin, Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans  dated 02/25/2014  with the latest revision  date of 04/04/ 2014 signed and sealed by Jane  Slavin, Architect.  (2 pages)
2. Plot plan dated 04/-3/2014  based on survey by Anthony  Celentano  dated May 5,

2003 signed and sealed by Jane Slavin, Architect.

3. A letter dated May  12, 2014 from Jane Slavin, Architect,  to But Von Wurmb, Building  Inspector,  Town  of Orangetown.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Jane Slavin, Architect,  testified  that they are proposing  to a partial  second floor to the existing house;  that most of the requested  variances  are for existing  conditions;  that the lot is undersized  and is only 50′  wide; that the house will be 1.843 sq. ft. when the addition  is complete;  that they set in the second  floor addition  by ten feet to lessen the

impact  of the existing  six foot side yard on the west side of the house;  that the east sidet~t\Ol the house has an existing  9.2′  side yard; that the street is sloped whi9l)t§fic&a<teS~ih~n    ~ height  variance  on the west side; that she will show the shed on the site plani}Qat Uur Mnf\ hW7

proposed  addition  is in keeping  with the character  of the neighborho.96  ~     ~6 su&Mitte~      V”‘

 

several pictures.                                                                                               ·

Maracich

ZBA#l4-42

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Debbie  Maracich  testified  that the work being  done presently  is remediation  of water issues.

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested floor area ratio, side yard, total side yard and building  height  variances (§5.21 Undersized  lot applies)  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, side yard, total side yard and building  height

variances  (§5.21 Undersized  lot applies)  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,  side yard, total side yard and building  height  variances (§5.21 Undersized  lot applies)  although  somewhat  substantial,  affords benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.

 

 

 

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.

 

Maracich

ZBA#14-42

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, side yard, total side yard, and building height variances(§  5.21 undersized lot applies) 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.

 

Maracich

ZBA#l4-42

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested  floor area ratio,  side yard,  total  side  yard,  and building   height  variances  (§  5.21   undersized   lot applies)  was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,   seconded  by Ms.  Salomon  and carried  as follows: Ms.  Castelli,   aye;  Ms.  Salomon,   aye; Mr. Feroldi,   aye; Mr. Quinn,  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:    June 4,  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.

By-JE-..,1–:Ar=–>~=—=–b.L-J.C’ Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT.of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

MINUTES

 

 

LOT  AREA,  LOT  WIDTH,   STREET   FRONTAGE,    SIDE  YARD,  TOTAL   SIDE YARD,  REAR  YARD,  BUILDING   HEIGHT,   DEVELOPMENT     COVERAGE, ACCESSORY    STORAGE   WITHIN   ENCLOSED    BUILDINGS,     § 3.11, COLUMN

6 OFF-STREET   PARKING,  AND §5.226 FENCE HEIGHT,  VARIANCES

APPROVED WITH SPECIFIC  CONDITIONS.

• 6.36 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AREA DENIED.

 

To:  Donald Brenner (LSI Services)

4 Independence Avenue

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA # 13-80

Date: November 6, 2013

April 16, 2014

June 4, 2014

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l 3-80: Application of LSI Services Inc. for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) of the Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, LIO District, CC Group, Columns 5 (Lot Area: 2 acres required, 0.424 provided), 6 (Lot Width: 300; required, 60′ provided), 7 (Street Frontage: 150′ required, 62′ provided), 9 (Side Yard: 100′ required,  8′ provided), 10 (Total Side Yard: 200′ required, 28′ provided), 11 (Rear Yard: 100′ required, 64′ provided) and 12 (Building Height: 2′ permitted, 20′ proposed)  (Development coverage

:75% permitted, 80% proposed);  from Section 6.36: All parking area shall be paved: gravel proposed) Section 3.11, LIO refers to LO district, Column 7 #2 (All accessory storage shall be within completely enclosed buildings) and Parking: 10 spaces required, 5 spaces provided) Section 5.226 Fence Height: 4 ~’  permitted in front yard: 6′ fence proposed for front yard).The property is located at 336 Blaisdell Road, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 76.08, Block 1, Lot 1; (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the “Premises”)  LIO zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at meetings held on the following Wednesdays, November 6, 2013 and April 16, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Donald Brenner, Attorney, Sara Torrens, Attorney, Dardan Bilali and Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor, appeared and testified over the course of the two meetings.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Site plan by Jay A. Greenwell, PLS,  and Paul Gdanski, P.E. with the latest revision date of 08/06/2013
2. A letter dated July 10, 2013 from John Giardiello, P.E., Director, Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement, Town of Orangetown.
3. Planning Board Decision #13-12 dated July 10, 2013.
4. A letter dated October 28, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

5. A letter dated November 4, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Joseph Arena, Senior Engineering Technician.

6. A letter dated October 7, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

7. A letter dated April 3, 2014 from H2M Architects+ Engineers signed by Bonnie Franson, AICP,PP Department Manager, Land Use/Environmental Planning, in opposition to the LSI and in support of Dobitsch.
8. Seven photographs of views from complaining party property.
9. A letter undated referring to the submission by Bonne Franson dated April 2,

2013 from Dardan Bilali LSI Services (4 pages).

10. A report dated April 2, 2013 prepared by Bonnie Franson AICP, PP with pictures

(13 pages).

11. Two portions of tax maps submitted by Mr. Brenner. 3 0 \ .:1.:\ o  S ~~ >’ 310 N f·A 01
12. A pack~t consisting ofletter of transmittal, introduction, proceduresummary,  Nnf’  hln7

appendix A,B,C,& D, tax map 1967, tax map 2002.                      SO  Z  lJd     £2       1                                v

.                                                    0  ‘>-!   ~’  0 1

NIA 013   ~1 N \~ ‘J 0  .::1′         r-. h··.    ,.l.

 

 

LSI Services

ZBA#13-80

Page 2 of  14

 

 

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

 

At the hearing  of November  6, 2013, Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  testified  that this parcel ofland  was zoned for the use intended  in 1965; that it was zoned “LOBX”  and the Town Board  did not establish  a minimum  lot size; that taxes have been paid on the lot for the last 45 years with no return  to the property  owners;  that the owner attempted  to develop the lot as a parking  lot in 2002 for use by the Church but the project never moved

forward;  that LSI Services  is a local company  that provides  landscaping  and grounds services  to the residents  of the our area; that the Board has on previous  occasions  grated area variances  to similar  companies  that have found locations  in the Town; that the applicant  cannot realize  a retum  on the property  since 2001; that this use will not alter the character  of the neighborhood;   that there is a summer  camp next to this use; that the

building  will house the equipment;  that the gravel will allow water to return back to the

land; that there will be enclosed storage with a bin area; that this is a needed service for the area; that Bob O’Donnell and Mr. Maffeta created this undersized lot when the homes were built in New Jersey; that Old Tappan has a one acre zoning and they created this problem; that this property was dormant before this use; that the applicant is paying rent; that the building could be put on the other side of the lot; that the Building Inspector determines the proper use for the lot; that this applicant must go to the Architectural Review Board after this; that the New Jersey neighbors have an illegal fence in his clients property; that there property does not meet the one acre requirement of Old Tappan because part to their property was purchased from this lot in New York; that the police have never stopped or ticketed his client for entering or existing the property; and that

they have offered evergreen screening on the other side of the fence.

 

Jay Greenwell Land Surveyor, testified that there is an en-or on the map “Vehicular Storage” must be removed; that there will be no outdoor overnight storage of motorized vehicles; that there will be outdoor bin storage of materials with low landscape; that trailers will be parked outside; that the 16′ wide travel way will be used to get into the rear of the property; and that no chemicals or gas will be stored on site.

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Tom Herten, Attorney, representing the Dobitschs’ testified that they are property owners in the Town of Orangetown, that they own Lot 76.08/1/2; that this lot abuts the subject property; that the Planning board was insistent that all vehicles be stored inside; that the number of trucks on the site will not fit into the proposed building; that the building does not need to be 20′ high; that this is like stuffing ten pounds of material into a bag meant

to hold five pounds; that a portion of the property abuts residential property in

Orangetown and Old Tappan, New Jersey; that this lot is the wrong place for this use; that Mr. Witte reported the use on the lot in 2011; that this use adversely effects his clients, is a clear overuse of the lot and he requests that the Board deny the requested variances.

 

LSI  Services

ZBA#13-80

Page  3of14

 

 

Bonnie   Franson,   Department    Manager    ,H2M    Planner;    testified    that  she  is  representing     the abutting   property    owner;    that  the  April  2013  report   shows   that  this  requires   a use

variance;    that  the  construction     equipment,    landscape     business    is  not permitted     in  this

zone;   that  in 2011   the  Orangetown     Code  Enforcement     Officer   Paul  Witte  said  it was  not  a

permitted use in this zone; that contractors  storage  yards are not allowed  in the LI District;   that this is  a self-created   condition  and the seven requested  variances  are substantial;   that the new total  would be for 13  variances;  that it  will have an adverse impact  on the residential   properties  in the area;  that have  a building  20′  high located along residential  property  in Jersey  is not in keeping  with the character  of the neighborhood;   that chemicals  being  stored on the property  should be disclosed;    that there are no architectural  and visual  impact  should  be taken into consideration;   that a bonafide office building   is  different  than this proposal;  that there should be no outdoor  storage.

 

 

 

Cornelia  Dobitsch,  2 Lawn Cedar Way,  Old Tappan,    testified  that LSI moved  in 2009; that they removed  trees bushes  and a wooden  fence that was there;  that ever since they moved in the noise starts  early in the morning;  that when there is snow they can start as early  as 4:30   in the morning;   that in the summer  they start as early  as 7:  A.M.;  that they stop traffic; that she is  not comfortable  in her own backyard;   that there is no bathroom  on the property  and she wonders  where  do they go; that she has been trying to sell her property  for seven months  and when potential   buyers  see a landscape  business   in the

backyard  they walk  away;  and that she pays property  taxes in New York too;  that there

are people  in and out of the property  all clay; that many times they are there all clay stacking  wood;  and that they still put stuff up against  bobcats.

 

 

 

Phillip Dobitsch,   2 Lawn  Cedar Way, 01cl  Tappan,  New Jersey,  testified   that most corporate  properties  are well take care of;  that LSI  bas caused a loss  of privacy for them; that a 20′  high building  eight  feet from the property  line is  an invasion  of his  privacy;  that if you allow a 20′  high building  to be constructed   eight  feet from his property  .you  will deplete his  property value;   that  it should be 80′  from his  residential   property  line;   that eight  feet takes away all of his privacy.

 

Patrick  O’Brien,   662 Pascack  Road,  Paramus,  New Jersey,  testified   that he has been the Administrator   for Old Tappan  for 22 years;  that Old  Tappan  has had a good working relationship  with  Orangetown;   that it  is not just  the use that is not compatible  but it is  an over utilization   of the property;  that he  questions  how you control  the expansion   of use by using  a building   as a buffer;  that a single story office would  be appropriate  for the lot and not so offensive  to the houses;   that this overutilization   does not fit with the zone.

 

Mike Policastro,  4 Lawn Cedar Way,  Old Tappan,  New Jersey,  testified  that he purchased  his home  10 years ago;  that he uses his yard a lot because  of the pool;  that he

is concerned  because  of gas and storing pesticides;   that he looks out his bedroom  window

and will see stuff stored  20′  high;  that he cannot  afford to plant  large enough trees to provide  screening;   that he is  uncomfortable   with  all of these variances   and that this  stops traffic on the main road.

 

John Plati,  4 Woodcliff  Avenue,  new Jersey,  testified  that he owned the lot that Rookies Sport Bar was on that his taxes were $30,000.00    and the bar was empty for 7 or 8 years; that he looked  for relief and could  not sell the property.

 

Mike  Policastro,    did not give  address,  stated that LSI has a website  with photos  and 19 trucks.

 

Riclur cl  LaP] aca,  42 G uter 1   T errace,  P ear 1  R .ver,  as I  ecl how suc::tiv.l”\!U:~l 10   ~\l~J:\.18  nt.\Ol e

i                c                                    arge··bmtdmg  can b

 

 

built  on the site.

 

 

LSI Services

ZBA#l3-80

Page 4  of  14

 

 

 

At the April  16, 2014 meeting  Donald  Brenner,  Attomey,  Dardan  Bilali,  Owner, appeared  and testified.

 

At the April  16, 2014 meeting  and 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  for this application  and distributed  those notices  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  SEQRA review  on July  10, 2013, rendered  environmental determinations   of no significant  adverse  environmental   impacts  to result from the proposed  land use actions  (i.e.,  A ”Negative  Declaration”   or “Neg. Dec.”),  the ZBA is bound by the Planning  Board’s  Neg Dec and the ZBA cannot require  further  SEQRA

review pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations    §617.6 (b) (3). The motion  was seconded  by Mr.

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

 

 

Donald  Brenner  testified  that Mr. Bialia will answer the April 2, 2013 submission  by Archer  & Greiner  and Bonnie  Franson;  that he would  like to give a little history;  that on November  6, 2013 LSI appeared  before  the Zoning  Board  for variances;  that LSI filed an application  with the Building  Department  on December  19, 2012 and appeared  before the Planning  Board on February  13, 2013; that the Planning  Board declared  themselves  lead agency  as related  to SEQRA  and on July 26, 2013 issued  a “Neg. Dec.”;   that the complaining  parties had ample time to challenge  the Board’s  decision,  as well as the environmental  ruling;  that the applicant  filed the application  for the Zoning  Board of Appeals  on September  26, 2-13; that at the November  6, 2013 meeting  the abutting New Jersey neighbors  presented  their comments  and a report prepared  by Ms. Bonnie  Franson; that the Board should be aware that the developer  of the parcel in Old Tappan,  with the cooperation  of the Borough  of Old Tappan  created  this situation;  that the Borough  of Old Tappan  permitted  the developer  to sell an undersized  lot in the community  by “tacking

on” real property  in New York, which was zoned  LIO to the residential  property  that he was developing  in Old Tappan;  that with the attachment  of this property  in New York State, the developer  could maximize  his profit and at the same time created this lot in

New York  ; that the developer  then sold the property  as a lot in March of 2001; that since

2001 the owner of the property  has been paying  non-homestead   taxes ; that the Building Department  in the Town  of Orangetown  determines  what can be developed  on this parcel of land and what variances  are required;  that the abutting  neighbors  had ample time to challenge  the decision  of the Building  Inspector  and the Planning  board; that the complaining  neighbor  has installed  a fence as well as a shed in violation  of the Orangetown  Building  Code; and the fence was installed  on his client’s  property  in an attempt  to deprive his client of his realty.

 

 

 

Dardan  Bilali testified  that his company  provides  a necessary  service;  that he has cleaned up the lot; that the lot was used as a dumping  ground before  he cleaned  it up; that there have been no complaints  about him or his business  except from this one neighbor;  that he has removed  trees for his neighbor  and welcomed  them to the lot to see what he is doing; that the proposed  building  was Oplaced on the southern  side of the lot to block the lot

from his neighbors;  that there are twenty  foot high mature  trees  in the area and when

they are in bloom  you cannot even see his lot; that they typically  work from 7:30 A.M to

5 or 6 P.M.; that there is little activity  on the lot during  the day; that the complaining neighbors  put a fence and shed on ltj~PE~~i }ana tl1AHM~ :has provided  pictures.

 

BO   Z   hld     £2   NOP hl02

 

N iA 013  D ;-.; Vt.: 0  :.1  0  MIA 0 l

 

LSI Services

ZBA#13-80

Page 5  of  14

 

 

 

Public  comment:

 

Bonnie  Franson,  H2M Planner,  testified  that he client’s  own property  in Orangetown  and Old Tappan;  that the type of variances  being requested  by LSI are not just area variances; that a use variance  for the landscape  contractor’s   yard and outdoor  storage  of materials

are necessary;  that New York  State Town  Law defines  an area variance  as the

“authorization  by the zoning  board  of appeals  for the use of land in a manner  which is not allowed by dimensional  or physical  requirements   of the applicable  zoning regulations;

that the applicant  has requested  a variance  from a provision  contained  in Column  7, additional  use regulations,  item 2, “All offices,  laboratories,  manufacturing   of prototype products,  accessory  storage  and all accessory  off-street  loading  berths  shall be within completely  enclosed  buildings”;  that allowing  outdoor  storage  is not a variance  involving dimensional  or quantitative  requirement,  it involves  the use of property  in a manner  not allowed by the applicable  zoning  code’  ;  that the applicant  should be requesting  a use variance  for outdoor  storage  of materials;  that this conclusion  is reinforced  by the

heading  of column  7 which  identifies  that the requirements   are “Additional  Use Regulations”;   that outdoor  storage of materials  is only allowed  accessory  to and in connection  with an existing  business  as a principal  use; that the application  of LSI Services,  Inc., the applicant  is seeking  approval  to use the site for outdoor  storage  for a “Business  use”, when the LUIO District  specifically  requires  that storage of materials  be conducted  within  completely  enclosed  buildings;  that at a minimum,  outdoor  storage of materials  requires  a use variance;  that the Orangetown  Code clearly requires  that when a use in the LIO zone adjoins  a property  in a residential  zoning  district,  a buffer  shall be provided;  that the required  buffer  for the LIO zone is 100 feet; that the Zoning  Code clearly defines  R District  as “An R-80, R-40, R-22, R-15 and RG District  in the Town or a corresponding  district in an adjoining  Town  or Village,  referred  to as a “group’;  that

nay development  of this site must provide  a buffer between  the residential  property  and

the nonresidential  use; that he site plan is unacceptable;   that it has been documented  that the operation  of this landscape  contractor’s   yard and the maintenance  building  will be visible  from the neighboring  residential  properties;  that the site plan demonstrates  that the applicant  has not made any attempt  to buffer  his property  and proposed  building  from the adjoining  residential  use as required  by the Town  Zoning  Code; that by having  a nominal amount  of office space in the LSI building,  the Code Enforcement  Officer had

determined  that what is in fact a landscape  contractor’s   yard and garage is now a “business/professional    office use” thereby  allowing  LSI Services’  operation  to fit within the uses permitted  by right in the LIO zoning  district;  that the “Town  Code allows business  and professional  offices as permitted  uses within  the CS zoning district; that by deeming  this a business  use the Town  is setting precedent  of allowing  contractor  yard in

the town’s  historic  and pedestrian  oriented  downtowns  by including  a nominal  amount of office space on a site; that a twenty  foot high building,  this close to a residential  property without  the 100′ buffer  is a detriment  to her clients’  property;  and  a small office building that lessens the impact  could be built there.

 

 

 

Phillip Dobitsch,  2 Lone Cedar Way, Old Tappan,  New Jersey, testified  that he has been assessed  since  1999 with $45,000.00  in property  taxes; that LSI was operating  illegally for 5 or 6 years; that LSI Landscape  services New Jersey customers;  that his business does not operate  from 7:30 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.; that during  a snow storm they could start work in the middle  of the night; that he is fighting  this because  his property  will be negatively  impacted;  that the variances  being requested  are substantial  and to place a 20′ high building  8′ from his property  line is an invasion;  that this use is not permitted  and the property  should b sold to the Church  for parking.

 

LSI Services

ZBA#13-80

Page 6  of  14

 

Michael Hom, Attorney, representing the Dobitsch’s, testified that in order to make sure that the Town remains the way it is, the Board should not permit the illegal use of this property; that the buff er to residential neighbors is important and the New Jersey

neighbors deserve equal protection; that the Board should not set bad precedents; that this

property is small and the proposal is too much for this size lot; that this is a misuse of the property; that it is not office space, and that there are snowplows entering and leaving

the property in the middle of the night.

 

Patrick O’Brien, 662 Pascack Road, Paramus, New Jersey, testified that he has been the Administrator for Old Tappan; that Old Tappan wants to be a good neighbor; that the history of the property left out that they granted right to the developer to develop property in New Jersey and this property gave the property access to New York; that they required two emergency accesses; that the owner did not get a windfall; that everyone in Old Tappan is very pleased with the Skae development; that this is not consistent; that the applicant purchased the property and should have known the obstacles; and that a small doctor’s office or real estate office would fit on this lot.

 

Mike Policastro, 4 Lone Cedar Way, Old Tappan, New Jersey, testified that this property backs up to his; that he is concerned about trucks leaking on the stone; that there are rodents on the property; that John Pollatti owns it; that he is concerned about odors from gasoline and mulch; that the appearance of the property is a concern; that if there were a medical emergency on the property it would be difficult to get to; that he has five young children and he worries about toxic waste and pesticides; and asked the Board for help.

 

 

 

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

Mr. Bosco and carried unanimously.

 

At the meeting of June 4, 2014, the following members were present: Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Salomon, Ms. Castelli, the Chairman Dan Sullivan, who read the following statement into the record:

“The  ZBA record reflects that, on April 16, 2014, the ZBA adopted a motion that, since the since the Planning Board noticed its intent to declare itself Lead Agency for this application and distributed those notices 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 Regulation §617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning Board conducted SEQRA review on July 10, 2013, and rendered an environmental determination ofno significant adverse environmental impacts to result from the proposed land use actions (i. e., a “Negative Declaration” or “Neg Dec”), the ZBA is bound by the Planning Board’s Neg Dec and the ZBA cannot require further SEQRA review pursuant to SEQRA Regulation  §617.6 (b) (3).”

The Chairman asked all the ZBA members present if any of his fellow ZBA members were not in attendance at the November 6, 2013 or the April 16, 2014, Public Hearings for this application, and if so,, have those members who were absent had access to, and actual knowledge of, the facts and issues in the case, including their review of the

Clerk/Secretary’s Minutes of the meetings and all documentary submissions mag~J?art 8ft·’ /\Ol the ZBA record, and have they fully apprised themselves of all aspectOOlthW  0,     ‘.’31     .,   ‘

 

application?

 

All members present said they were so fully apprised.

so.

.       (‘.,   Nnr hlnJ.

2   \.Jd

c o              llv

 

LSI Services

ZBA#l3-80

Page 7  of  14

 

ISSUE A

 

 

If the side and/or rear yards of the Premises  abut any lot(s) within  an “R District”,  as contemplated  by ”Note  2″ of the Notes  to Use and Bulk Tables  of the Orangetown Zoning  Code (Chapter  43 of the Code of the Town of Orangetown),  then a 100′ buffer would be required  between  the side and/or rear of the Applicant’s   proposed  building(s)

and the abutting  lot(s) located  within  such an “R District”,  which  100′ foot buffer would

be in addition  to the 100′ side and/or rear yard setback(s),  thus totaling  200′  between  the proposed  building(s)  and the abutting  lot(s) located  within  an “R District”,  i.e., a 100′

yard setback plus a 100′ buffer.  If the Premises do not abut any lot(s) located within such

and “R District”, then the 100′ buffer is not applicable, and the Applicant would only be required to adhere to the 100′ minimum rear and side yard setbacks, or obtain variances for same.

 

FINDING OF FACT #A (1):

 

Do the Premises adjoin any “R” District located in the Town of Orangetown?

Answer: No Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded by Tom Quinn and carried unanimously. FINDING OF FACT #A (2):

Is the objecting neighbors’ Philip and Cornelia Dobitsch’s abutting New York lot (Orangetown Tax Map #76.08/1/2) sited within an “R District” located in the Town of Orangetown?

Answer: No Motion by Dan Sullivan, Seconded by Joan Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

FINDING OF  FACT #A (3):

 

Which Orangetown Zoning District is the Dobitsches’ New York lot located within? Answer: LIO Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded by Tom Quinn and carried unanimously.

 

CONCLUSION OF LAW #A (1)

 

Do the New Jersey objectors reside in an “R District” as contemplated by Note “2” of the

Notes to Use and Bulk Tables of the Orangetown Zoning Code?

Answer: No Per the review, interpretation and opinion of Dennis Michaels, Deputy

Town Attorney, as set forth in his email memo to the ZBA of 411612014, the ZBA agrees with his position that the Orangetown Zoning Code regulates properties within it’s geographic border and therefore, the New Jersey objectors do not reside in an “R

District” as defined by the Orangetown Town Code; Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded by Joan Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

CONCLUSION OF LAW# A (2)

Do the New Jersey objectors have standing before the Zoning Board of Appeals pursuant to NYS General Municipal Law§ 239-nn?

Answer: No Per the review, interpretation and opinion of Dennis Michaels, Deputy

Town Attorney, as set forth in his email memo to the ZBA of 411612014, the ZBA agrees with his position that the law specifically identifies and stipulates that residents of the State of New York of adjacent municipalities may simply be “heard” and the State of

New Jersey is outside of the State of New York; Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded by

Joan Salomon and carried unanimously.    3 Q !.:U 0 s ;~~En Q    NA\ o 1

 

BO  2   lJd     £ 2  Nnr  tilOZ

 

NMOl~J e i·!\:’i.l  U   .:! 0  N1\\0l

 

LSI Services

ZBA#l3-80

Page 8   of  14

 

 

 

CONCLUSION   OF LAW#   A (3)

 

Do the New Jersey objectors  have standing  before  the ZBA, pursuant  to the Orangetown

Zoning  Code?

 

Answer:   No Per the review,  interpretation   and opinion  of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy

Town Attorney,  as set forth in his email memo  to the ZBA of 4/16/ 2014, the ZBA agrees with his position  that NYS  General  Municipal  Law §  239 refers to municipalities   and persons  in New York   State and, therefore,  does not grant any standing  to the New Jersey objectors,  and even the purported  standing  of the Borough  of Old Tappan,  New Jersey, must fail, since it is not a New York  State municipality:   Motion by Dan Sullivan,

seconded  by Joan Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION   OF LAW#   A (4)

 

 

Do the New Jersey objectors  reside  within the “zone  of interest”  protected  by Orangetown’s   Zoning Regulations,  thereby  affording  them “Aggrieved”  persons  status entitling  them to seek the ZBA’ s reversal  or modification   of the Director  of OBZP AE, John Giardiello,  P .E. ‘s determinations,   decisions  and/or interpretations,   etc., regarding this application?

 

Answer:   No Per the review,  interpretation   and opinion  of Dennis Michaels,  Deputy

Town Attorney,  as set forth in his email memo  to the ZBA of 4/16/ 2014, the ZBA agrees with his position  that the “zone of interest”  protected  by Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code is the Town of Orangetown,  and our land use regulations  have no power or authority

beyond  Orangetown’s   geographic  border  and, therefore,  the New Jersey objectors,  not

residing  within  the “zone  of interest”  protected  by Orangetown’s   zoning regulations,  are not aggrieved  persons  entitled,  and lack standing,  to appeal  an “order,  requirement, decisions,  interpretation  or determination”   of the Building  Inspector,  which “appeal” would include  their seeking  the ZBA’ s reversal  or modification   of Mr. Giardiello’ s

determinations,   decisions  and/or interpretation,   etc., regarding  this application:  Motion by

Dan Sullivan,  seconded  by Joan Salomon,  and carried unanimously.

 

ISSUE  B

 

 

 

The Director  of OBZP AE, John Giardiello,  P .E., has determined,  decided  and/or interpreted  that the Applicant’s   proposed  business  use, with accessory  outdoor  storage, requires  area/bulk  variances  only, and not a use variance.  The objecting  neighbors• including  the Dobitsches,  who own a neighboring  lot located  in the LIO Zone in Orangetown-  contend  that (i) the proscription  in Orangetown  Zoning  Code §3.11, Column  7, item #2, mandating  that “accessory  storage … shall be within completely enclosed  buildings”  is within  the Table  of General  Use Regulations  (“Use Table”);  and (ii) the Applicant  is not a Business/Professional    Office, but, rather , a Contractor’s Storage Yard, the latter which is a permissible  use in the LI Zoning  District, but not in LIO; therefore,  the objecting  neighbors  are requesting  that the ZBA reverse  Mr. Giardiello’s   said determination,   decision  and/or interpretation  and find instead,  that the Application  requires  a use variance  (in addition  to area/bulk  variances).

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION   OF LAW#   B (1)

 

;]Q.l ·PO S)’;-_131Q  N/i\01

 

Does the fact, alone, that  column 7, item #2 {Accessory Storage), 1s-\¥ithinthe Use Table

determine that the Applicant’s outdoor storage variance is a usegnnceicru~at~i2tI~iltl02 area/bulk variance?                                                                         .

.::i         i:i.        –

 

LSI Services

ZBA#13-80

Page 9  of  14

 

 

Answer:   No Per the review,  interpretation   and opinion  of Dennis Michaels,  Deputy

Town Attomey,  as set forth in his email memo to the ZBA of 4/16/ 2014, the ZBA agrees with his position  that Zoning  Code Column  7 of the LIO District’s  Use Table includes several regulations  that, if varied from, then the ZBA would be authorizing  “the use of land in a manner  which is not allowed  by the dimensional  or physical  requirements  of the applicable  zoning regulation”,  which  is the definition  of an Area  Variance,  as per NYS Town  Law§  267 (l)(b);  e.g., ‘any board havingjurisdiction    may require  adequate  fences and other safety devices  and adequate  landscaping  and screening”  (LIO Use Table,

Column  7, item #1 [refers to R-80 item #2]); Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded by Tom

Quinn and carried unanimously. · CONCLUSION OF LAW#  B (2)

 

Does the application require a use variance of only area/bulk variances?

 

Answer: Area variances,  per the review, interpretation and opinion of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, as set forth in his email memo to the ZBA of 4/16/ 2014, the ZBA agrees with his position that the use is for a Contractor’s Office, which is

interpreted as a “Business/Professional Office”. Any ambiguity of this term or words must be strictly construed against the municipality (the Town of Orangetown) and in favor of the property owner/applicant. Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded by Tom Quinn and carried unanimously.

 

ISSUE  C

 

The Applicant’s Application for Building I Demolition Permit describes its proposed use as a “Landscaping Building” and its Application Review Form-Part I states that the proposal is for an “Irrigation System Business”, and the Applicant’s SEQRA Short Environmental Assessment Form designates its use a “Landscaping Business”. Mr. Giardiello, in his 7/10/2013 report to Cheryl Coopersmith, Chief Clerk, OBZPAE, has determined, decided and/or interpreted that the Applicant’s proposal is a “business use with an office and storage”, i.e., a Business/Professional Office, which is a Use Permitted by Right in the LIO Zoning District, as per LIO Use Table, Column 2, item #1 (refers to LO [item #4]). The objecting neighbors-including the Dobitsches, who own a

neighboring lot located in the LIO Zone in Orangetown-contend that the Application is

not for a permissible Business/Professional Office, but rather, a Contractor’s Storage

Yard, the latter which is not a permissible use in LIO.

 

 

 

FINDING OF FACT# C (I):

 

Does the Orangetown Zoning Code define any of the terms, “Business”, “Professional”, or “Office”?

 

Answer: No Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded by Joan Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

FINDING OF FACT# C (2):

 

 

Does the Orangetown Zoning Code §  11.2 Definition of “Home Occupation” state, in the definition, “A profession or other occupation … (which) includes, but i~ o~~ Jjt}li’fedHa1 P.   NIA 0 l

(a) contractor’s office …?

 

 

LSI Services

ZBA#l3-80

Page  10  of  14

 

 

 

Answer:   Yes  Motion  by Dan Sullivan, seconded by Joan Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

FINDING OF FACT# C (3):

 

Are the words, or the phrase, “Business/Professional Office,” as stated in the Use Table for the LIO Zoning District (Column 2, Item #1) ambiguous?

 

Answer: Yes  Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded by Patricia Castelli, and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

 

CONCLUSION OF LAW #C (4):

 

Does a landscape contractor qualify as a “Business” or “Office”?

 

Answer: Yes Per the review, interpretation and opinion of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, as set forth in his email memo to the ZBA of 4/16/ 2014, the ZBA agrees with his position that the use is for a Contractor’s Office, which is interpreted as a “Business/Professional Office”. Any ambiguity of this term or words in the Orangetown Zoning Code must be strictly construed against the municipality(Town of Orangetown) and in favor of the property owner/ applicant.

Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded by Tom Quinn and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION OF LAW #C (5):

 

Is the applicant’s proposed use of the premises a permissible “Business/Professional Office” with accessory storage of goods and equipment, or an impermissible “Contractor’s Storage Yard”?

Answer: A permissible “Business/Professional  Office: with accessory storage of goods and equipment    Per the review, interpretation and opinion of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, as set forth in his email memo to the ZBA of 4/16/ 2014, the ZBA  agrees with his position that the use is for a Contractor’s Office, which is interpreted as a “Business/Professional Office”. Any ambiguity of this tenn or word in the Orangetown Town Code must be strictly construed against the municipality{Townof Orangetown) and in favor of the property owner/ applicant.

Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded by Tom Quinn and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

 

ISSUED

The objecting neighbors- including the Dobitsches, who own a neighboring lot located in the LIO Zone in Orangetown- contend that the Applicant’s proposed use of the Premises is subject to Orangetown Zoning Code §4.1 (Performance Standards) requiring the

ZBA’s approval of same, and are seeking the ZBA’s reversal of Mr. Giardiello’s

determination, decision and/or interpretation that the Application is not subject to

Performance Standards review.

 

 

LSI Services

ZBA#l3-80

Page  11   of  14

 

 

 

FINDING  OF FACT #D (1):

 

 

Did the Orangetown  Planning  Board’s  SEQRA Neg Dec of July 10, 2013, determine  that the applicant’s  proposed  land use action will not have a significant  adverse impact  on the environment,  including  no potential  for adverse impacts  to air quality,  surface or ground water quality,  noise levels,  existing  external  traffic patterns,  aesthetic resources  of the neighborhood,   vegetation,  fauna or wildlife,  and no adverse  impacts  to the Town’s residences?

 

Answer:   Yes  Motion by Dan Sullivan,  seconded  by Joan Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

CONCLUSION   OF LAW #D (1):

 

 

Is the applicant’s    proposed  use of the premises  subject  to Orangetown  Zoning  Code§  4.1 (Performance  Standards)  requiring  the ZBA’s  approval  of same?

 

Answer:  Yes, since the issue was brought  up during the Public Hearing  and the building will be non-residential,   the ZBA will request  the Building  Department  to review  this application  in regard to Performance   Standards,  and the ZBA suggests  that it conform  to the Performance   Standards:  Motion  by Dan Sullivan,  seconded  by Tom Quinn, and carried as follows:  Ms.  Castelli,  aye, Ms. Salomon,  nay; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Mr. Quinn, Aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

ISSUEE

 

 

The Applicant  is requesting  approval/grant  of the following  area/bulk  variances  from

Orangetown  Zoning  Code§   3.12 (“Bulk Table”),  LIO District,  CC Group:

1. Column   5 ( Lot Area:  2 acres required,  0.424 provided)
2. Column   6 (Lot  Width:  300′  required,  60′  provided)
3. Column     7 (Street  Frontage:  150′ required,  62′ provided)
4. Column    9 (Side Yard:  100′ required,   8′ provided)
5. Column  10 (Total Side Yard: 200′  required,  28′  provided)
6. Column 11  (Rear  Yard:  100′ required,  64′  provided)
7. Column 12 (Building  Height:  2′ permitted,  20′  proposed)

 

And from the following  provisions  of the Orangetown  Zoning  Code:

 

8. Notes to Use and Bulk Tables, Note 14-Development  Coverage;  maximum  of75%   is allowed,  80% is proposed.
9. Section 6.36- All parking  areas shall be paved,  and gravel is proposed.
10. Section 3.11, LIO District (refers to LO Zoning  District),  Column  7, #2-All  accessory storage shall be within  completely  enclosed  buildings.
11. Use Table, Column 6- Off-Street  Parking;  minimum  of 10 spaces required,  5 spaces provided.

12 Section  5.226-Fence  Height: maximum  of 4 Yi’ allowed  in front yard, 6′ is proposed.

 

FINDING  OF FACT #E (1):

 

 

Will an undesirable  change be produced  in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties  be created by the granting  of the area/bulk  variances?

 

 

Answer:   No Currently,  the property

• •

ts ummproved.

By erectmg

• •

a building

the

~  .t (.)   Q \!}13  l Q   N !\\ 0 l

erilptly\R>’t   ‘”‘·  ·          —

 

will be more presentable  and increase  the values  of the adjacent  Orangetown  proRwti~;   lJd    £ 2  NOr  hlOZ

Motion by Dan Sullivan,  seconded  by Tom Quinn,  and carried as follows:  LeonaWP

 

Feroldi,  aye; Patricia  Castelli,  nay; Joan Salomon,  nay; Tom Quinn,  aye; and Dan  -_.

c·. ~-i·~;·,L1        ..  ,       -10  NJ\\01

 

I~ fA 01_.:1 v t ‘i \     .    v  ….

 

Sullivan,  aye. LSI Services ZBA#13-80

Page  12  of  14

 

 

 

FINDING  OF FACT #E (2):

 

 

Can the benefit  sought by the Applicant  be achieved  by some method,  feasible  for the

Applicant  to pursue,  other than by obtaining  area/bulk  variances?

 

 

Answer:   No  The limitations  of the LIO Zone and the size of the property  would require variances  regardless  of what is built there: Motion  by Dan Sullivan,  seconded  by Tom Quinn,  and carried as follows:  Leonard  Feroldi,  aye; Tom Quinn, aye; Joan Salomon, nay; Patricia  Castelli,  nay; and Dan Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

FINDING  OF FACT #E (3):

 

 

Are the requested  area/bulk  variances  substantial?

Answer:   Yes, but  the hardship   lays  on the  size of the  lot and  the  setbacks   and restrictions                    in the LIO  Zone  where  the property  is located:     Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded  by Tom Quinn  and carried  as follows:  Leonard  Feroldi,  aye; Tom Quinn, aye; Joan Salomon,  nay; Patricia  Castelli,  nay; and Dan Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

FINDING  OF FACT #E (4):

 

 

Will the proposed  area/bulk  variances  have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental  conditions  in the neighborhood   or district?

 

Answer:   No  The Applicant  is improving  the lot which will allow them to maintain  it better.  The traffic  concern  would not be any different  if any other type of Business/Professional    Office were erected.  The building  height is not different  from that of a typical house  and would be required  for any other Business/Professional    Office. The accessory  storage will be organic  landscaping  which is not different  from what currently exists  at the site- trees, leaves, mulch.  All fertilizer  and fuel will be stored inside and in accordance  with the applicable  Codes. Motion  by Dan Sullivan,  seconded  by Tom Quinn and carried and follows:  Leonard  Feroldi,  aye; Tom Quinn,  aye; Joan Salomon,  nay; Patricia  Castelli,  nay; and Dan Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

FINDING  OF FACT #E (5):

 

 

Is the Applicant’s   alleged  difficulty  self-created,  and if so, does it preclude  the granting of the area/bulk  variances?

 

Answer:   Yes, it is self-created,   however  this  does not  preclude   the  granting   of the Area/Bulk   variances,   since  many  of the variances   arc  due  to the  location  of the lot in the LIO  zone  and  the  unusually   small  size of this  lot:   Motion by Dan Sullivan, seconded  by Tom Quinn and carried  as follows:  Leonard  Feroldi,  aye; Tom Quinn, aye; Joan Salomon,  nay; Patricia  Castelli,  nay; and Dan Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

FINDING  OF FACT #E (6):

 

Are the Area/Bulk variances the minimum variances that the ZBA deems necessary and adequate to achieve the Applicant’s benefits, and, at the same time, to preserve and

protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of]}mj .:! O    S ~:~ ~i 31 Q   NIA 01 community?

Answer: Yes  The Applicant presented a case that the size of the building is n~sid.:ld       £ 2   NCTP hlflZ

 

store trucks while maintaining an office as well, and any other use would require   ·    ·                           .. ·….  v:   ,

 

LSI Services

ZBA#13-80

Page  13   of  14

 

 

 

similar variances  due to the small size of the lot. Again,  any other Business/Professional Office would require  similar  variances:  Motion by Dan Sullivan,  seconded  by Tom Quinn,  and carried as follows:  Leonard  Feroldi,  aye; Tom Quinn, aye; Joan Salomon, nay; Patricia  Castelli,  nay; and Dan Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

CONCLUSION   OF LAW:

 

 

The ZBA has taken into consideration  the benefit  to the Applicant  if the area/bulk variances  are granted,  and weighed   the benefit  against  the detriment,  if any, to the health, safety and welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant; and hereby

Resolves  to by motion  of Chairman  Sullivan,  to

Grant/ Approve  all of  the requested  variances  (except  for the gravel driveway)  with the following  conditions:

 

1)  Flip the design to locate the building  on the north side of the property  per the neighbors’   request;

2)      Any fertilizer,  fuel or non-organic  materials  must  be stored inside the building

in accordance  with all applicable  codes;                                                      ·

3)   A 6′ privacy  fence around  the entire property  shall be installed   to prevent  seeing the contents  of the property  from the neighboring  properties;

4)    ACABOR  approval  required  to ensure  adequate  vegetative  screening;

5)   Any external  storage  of organic  materials,  that will used in the short term for projects  (such as soil, plants  etc.,) must not stand taller or pile higher than 5′ in height,  to prevent  viewing  this from neighboring  properties;  and

6)   John Giardiello,  P.E., Director  of OBZPAE,  is requested  by the ZBA to review the  application  to determine  if it’s  subject  to Performance  Standard  review  (and the ZBA suggests  that it is so subject);

 

And to

 

7)   Deny the gravel driveway;  it should be paved to ensure proper  curbs and drainage of the lot;

Which  motion  was seconded  by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows:  Leonard  Feroldi,  aye;

Tom Quinn, aye; Joan Salomon,  nay; Patricia  Castelli,  nay; and Dan Sullivan,  aye.

 

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 forth3 O l .::l .:l 0 s )l ~I j 18 N fl\ 01

 

LSI Services

ZBA#l3-80

Page  14   of  14

 

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

 

 

 

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

obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where any such condition  imposed  should,  in the

sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with  as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,  a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement which  legally permits such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

The 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:    June 4,  2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-NA

By–14~~~.::_:_-=–.1J.A’4/·…..-• Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ol’ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and  ENGINEERING Fl LE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,    ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR