Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS JUNE  5, 2013

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

 

DANIEL  SULLIVAN,   CHAJRMAN JOAN  SALOMON

NANETTE  ALBANESE

PA TRICIA  CASTELLI

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

ABSENT:

 

 

MICHAEL  BOSCO

 

 

 

 

ALSO  PRESENT:

Dennis  Michaels,  Esq. Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah  Arbolino

Deputy  Town Attorney Official  Stenographer Administrative   Aide

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

APPLICANTS POSTPONED ITEM:

TONKOSCHKER

77.08 /2 I 30; RG zone

 

NEW ITEMS:

 

 

DESCHERER

68.12 I 1I38;  RG zone

PUBLISHED ITEMS DECISIONS

 

 

 

 

CONTINUED                        ZBA#l3-28

 

 

 

 

 

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT YARD,     ZBA#l3-36

SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD,

BUILDING HEIGHT, § 5.227 VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

WALTHER SUBDIVISION	LOT WIDTH, FOR LOT #1 & 2,	ZBA#13-37
78.17 /2 /20;  R-40 zone	FRONTYARD,  SIDE YARD, TOTAL SIDE YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT

FOR LOT #1; STREET FRONTAGE FOR LOT #2;

AND § 6.332 GRAVEL DRIVEWAY VARIANCES APPROVED

 

CAMPANELLI

71.09 / 1 I 4; R-22 zone

 

 

 

 

BEITAL’S AQUARIUM

68.19 / 4 / 16; CO zone

• 3.11, R-80 DUSTRICT, COLUMN 2 #7 ZBA#l3-38

LOCAL LAW #7 VARIAN CE APPROVED APPROVED

 

 

• 3.11,CO DISTRICT, COLUMN 5 #6, ZBA#l3-39

AND§  4.22  (c) &  (c)

VARIANCES APPROVED AS MODIFIED

 

ALL COUNTY PROPERTIES

74.07 I I 129; LI zone

LOT AREA, STREET FRONTAGE,  ZBA#13-40

SIDE YARD. FRONT YARD, BUILDING HEIGHT,§  6.36 GRAVEL PARKING,§  3.11, LI DISTRICT, COLUMN 2 (CARETAKER

RESIDENCE) AND COLUMN 7 #5 (OUTDOOR

STO~(Y~]1o;~ROVED

–

Zl o Y1    l&W·mt

WiV138NVUO  so  N.MCU

 

Minutes

Page2

 

 

 

 

ARRIFLEX  INC.                      §3.11, COLUMN  5, #11

65.19/111;   R-40 & LO zone     SIGN SIZE VARIANCE APPROVED

ZBA#l3-41

 

 

 

 

ORGANIC RECYCLING      § 3.11, COLUMN 7 #5 (OUTDOOR             ZBA#l3-42

74.19 / 1/ 3; LI zone                STORAGE) AND§  6.36 (GRAVEL PARKING)

VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

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  11: 10 P.M.

 

Dated:  JUNE 5, 2013

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS BUILDCNGINSPECTOR (Individual Decisions) Rockland County Planning

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

:D:ebo~rah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

35H.:W~)fH310IM31

D  o  lttl  iz fir- ·mtz

 

il.OL35NYt.!O .:fO  NfiOl

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR AREA  RATIO, FRONT YARD,  SIDE  YARD,  TOTAL SIDE  YARD, BUILDING HEIGHT,  AND ACCESSORY  STRUCTURE  SETBACK

VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:     William  Bosley

10 Sugarhill  Road

Nyack,  New York  10960

ZBA#   13-36

Date:   June 5, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#  13-36: Application  of Richard  Descherer   for  variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown,  R-22 District,  Group  I, Columns  4 ( Floor Area Ratio:  .20 permitted,  .47 proposed),  8 (Front Yard:  40′  required,  27.86′  existing,  27.36′  proposed),

9 (Side Yard: 25′  required,  15′ & 20.25′  existing),  10 (Total  Side Yard:  60′ required,

35.25′  existing)  and  12 (Building  Height:  20.9′  permitted  on north  side, 24.58′  proposed;

11.25′  permitted  on east side, 27.98′  proposed;  15.19′  permitted  on west side, 27.98 proposed)  and from Section  5.227 (Accessory  Structure:  5′ from property  required,  4.29 existing)  for an existing  house to be raised  out of flood  zone and for an existing  pool house  at an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 1  Washington Spring Road,  Palisades,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  78.19, Block  1, Lot 5; R-22 zoning district.

 

Heard  by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   June  5, 2013 at which time the Board  made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

William  Bosley,  contractor,  Richard  and Jennie  Descherer,    Gregory  Biesiadecki,  P.E., John Murray,  Architect,  and Matt Warner,  Architect,  appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1.	Site Modification  Plot boundary  & Topographic   survey dated 01127/2013 with the
	latest revision  date of 04/25/20013   signed and sealed by Steven J. Collazuol,  P.E..
2.	Architectural  plans  dated  04/12/2013  with the latest revision  date of 04/25/2013 signed  and sealed by John Burnside  Murray,  Architect.                                   -i         ·~	-t

3. A cover letter  dated May  16, 2013 from Richard  and Jennie  DeScherer  (2p&es)~       ~
4. A mem.orandum  dated April  30: 2013 from Langan  Engineering  Environm~tal,~.      ~ Surveymg  and Landscape  Architecture,   D.P.C.  (4 pages).                               ~      N   “Tl rn    -.J        o

:;u                   :::0

~             >

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

tTl

seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.                                                      ~      ~   ,    -4

0

 

QI·~<

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Bodrfi of’O

Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board  determination   that the foregoing  application  is a Type Il action  exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA), pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (120 and/or  (13); which  does not require  SEQRA  environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms.  Salomon  and carried  as follows:  Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

 

 

John Murray,  Architect  testified  that super storm sandy caused the Hudson  River to rise 8

Yz   feet above sea level; that the entire first floor of the house  was under water;  that all of the furniture,  pictures,  walls  were destroyed;  that they hired  Mr. Bosley to dry everything out but they do not want to live through  this again;  that they decided to come up with a comprehensive   plan to avoid this in the future; that they were waiting  for months  for FEMA to set the flood plain levels but they still have not done so for this area; that they

::e·

:z

 

 

ZBA#l3-36

Pagel   of  4

 

 

have  checked  with other  areas in New  Jersey  and have  come to the conclusion  that if the house  is raised  15.10′  above sea level they  should meet the flood requirements   for insurance  and avoid this problem  from occurring  again;  that they have  contacted  expert house movers  that can lift the house  and place it on piers  and then they will construct break  away walls  to match  the house that would  fall away in case of another  extreme storm; that the area below  the house  would be considered  part of the floor area ratio for the house  and there would  be a bathroom  built  in this section  of the house that would be used in conjunction  with the pool; that any items  stored in the area would be items that

would  not get ruined by water,  such as outdoor  furniture;  and that this is not a self created hardship.

 

Bill Bosley,  contractor,  testified  that the shed is existing  and that they are legitimizing  it while they are before  the Board; that the studio  structure  will also be lifted  and steel will be put beneath  it; that the existing  stone wall may have to be built  out 6′ further encroaching  into the front yard.

 

Richard  Descherer  testified  that they own the property  behind  this house  and to the side where  the shed is located;  that they love this house  and wants to raise it and keep the integrity  of the house  at the same time;  and that they do not want to have to go through another  storm like this one.

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York  was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT 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, front yard, side yard, total side yard, building height and accessory structure setback variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The floor area ratio is being increased because of raising the house to place it on piers (which results in non floor area cellar space becoming floor area included in the F.A.R. calculation) and enclosing the piers to keep the integrity of the house; however the new enclosed portion of the house will be used for storage of materials that will not be ruined if another storm surge occurs. The height variance is necessary to lift the house out of the flood plain and to make it an insurable property. The front yard is being changed slightly to accommodate the lifting of the stone structure and the side yard, total side

yard and accessory structure v~~~1’o~~~

–

zt s ss  izmr.tm

 

U0135NVHO  =10  N~01

 

Descherer

ZBA#13-36

Page  3  of  4

 

 

 

 

2. The requested  floor area ratio,  front yard,  side yard, total side yard, building  height and accessory  structure  setback  variances   will not have  an adverse  effect or impact

on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.   The floor area ratio is being  increased  because  ofraising the house to place  it on piers (which results  in non floor area cellar space becoming  floor area included  in the F.A.R. calculation)  and enclosing  the piers to keep the integrity  of the house; however  the

new enclosed portion  of the house will be used  for storage  of materials  that will not

be ruined  if another  storm surge occurs.  The height  variance  is necessary  to lift the house  out of the flood plain and to make  it an insurable  property.  The front yard is being  changed  slightly to accommodate  the lifting  of the stone  structure  and the side yard, total side yard and accessory  structure  variances  are not changing.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested   floor area ratio,  front yard, side yard, total side yard, building  height and accessory  structure  setback variances,   although  substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.     The floor area ratio is being  increased  because  of raising the house to place it on piers  (which results  in non floor area cellar  space becoming  floor  area included  in the F.A.R.  calculation)

and enclosing  the piers to keep the integrity  of the house;  however  the new enclosed

portion  of the house will be used for storage  of materials  that will not be ruined  if another  storm surge occurs.  The height  variance  is necessary  to lift the house out of the flood plain and to make  it an insurable  property.  The front yard is being  changed slightly to accommodate  the lifting  of the stone structure  and the side yard, total  side yard and accessory  structure  variances  are not changing.

 

 

 

 

5. The applicant  is proposing  to lift the house  out of the flood plain after  damage  from Super Storm Sandy, which  the applicant  had no control  of, and is complying  with Federal  Flood Insurance  regulations  and/or guidelines;  and this difficulty  was not self-created.                ~

~

:·

c:..:..:.

~                ~

.                                                     .                                               .                                                                                                    m  ~  o

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presente~e              ~

~oard:  RESOL ~ED,  that th~ a~plica~ion for the requested  floor area ratio, fr?nt  ~d,    ~       ~

side yard, total side yard, building  height  and accessory  structure  setback  vananc~are          rri APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereIDi si.Mh’  6 become  effective  and be deemed rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board  oilie   D ‘   ~

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.

 

 

ZBA#13-36

Page  4 of  4

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   June 5, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

B/yJ;~J~.Z1

ff~i//“J.

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

Deborah  Arbolin’6′

Administrative   Aide

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUI’Y TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR ~B.vW.

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

±ftlB.:fO  ~Jf~:J:n~ ~Afll

~   ~·   MB     L! .fir· mt

 

DECISION

 

LOT  WIDTH   FOR  LOT  #1 & #2, FRONT YARD, SIDE YARD, TOTAL  SIDE YARD, BUILDING HEIGHT FOR LOT #1, STREET  FRONTAGE  FOR LOT #2, AND SECTION  6.332 FOR LOT #1 & #2 VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Donald Brenner (Walther Subdivision)

4 Independence Avenue

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA#  13-37

Date: June 5, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l3-37:  Application of Walther Subdivision for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, R-40 District, Group E, Columns 6 (Lot width for lot #1 & 2:

150′ required, 135′ existing), 8 (Front Yard: 50′ required, 39.2′ existing for lot #1), 9

(Side Yard: 30′ required, 8.5′ existing for lot #1) 10 (Total Side Yard: 80′ required,

52.9′ existing for lot #1) and 12 (Building Height: 5.7′ permitted, 15.3’existing for lot

#1) and from Column 7(Street Frontage for lot #2 110′ required, 20.17′ proposed); also a variance from Section 6.332 for lots #1 & #2(  Asphalt driveways required, gravel existing for lot #1 and proposed for lot #2) for a two lot subdivision located at 694 Oak Tree Road, Palisades, New York and identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section

78.17, Block 2, Lot 20; R-40 zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Bill and Sue Walthers, Donald Brenner, Attorney, and Jay Greenwell, L.S., appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Subdivision of Property for Walther dated 12/21/2012 with the latest revision date of 01/23/2013 signed and sealed by Jay Greenwell, L.S..
2. A six page packet labeled “Proposal for Flag Lot Subdivision of 694 Oak Tree

Road, Palisades” submitted by Sue and Bill Walther.

3. A letter dated May 6, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning signed by Thomas Vandebeek, P.E. ,Commissioner of Planning.
4. A letter dated June 3, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..

5. A letter dated may 7, 2013 from the State of New York Department of

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

Engineer.                                                                                                                    ~         -i

 

rej

~-  “””-

 

 

:16.·.             .  •.

e.,

:z::lE

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chair, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was    ~     ~   .        0

seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.                                                     r-       ~    ·                 -q

rn    -..l         o

;o                    ::::0

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Boarifiof ::o    ~

Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that since the Planning boai@    :::3     ~ noticed its intent to declare itself Lead Agency for this application and distributed th~e  ·       ca ‘   ci notices of intention to all Involved Agencies, including the ZBA who consented or dlj  ‘ ti’ t:           ~

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 March 27,

2013, rendered environmental determinations 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 Regulations  §617.6 (b) (3). The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; and Ms. Albanese, aye. Mr. Bosco was

absent.

 

Walthers

ZBA#l3-37

Page 2 of  5

 

 

Bill Walthers  testified  that he and his family have lived in at 694 Oak Tree Road for thirty  years; that there property  is located  on the north  side of the road,  contiguous  to property  owned by South Orangetown   School District  to the west  and north; that it abuts two residential  properties  on the east; that the one in the front is used to operate the Palisades  Country  Store and across the street  are the Palisades  Library  and a residential  property;  that the home is circa 1780 with four bedrooms;  that as they grow  older  and nearing  retirement,  they realize  that the property  will inevitably become  a financial  burden;  that there son Christopher  and his wife Hannah  have suggested  a plan that would  enable them to raise their family in Palisades  and allow

us to be very close by, that they are proposing  to subdivide  the property  to accomplish  both  goals; that the proposed  subdivision  would  create two lots on the existing  67,010  sq. ft. parcel;  the result  is a flag lot with  a gross  area of 43,951  sq. ft. at the rear of the property  and a 22,503 sq. ft. lot at the front; that access to the new

lot would be accomplished  through  an extension  of the present  driveway,  maintaining the existing  curb cut on Oak Tree Road; that the majority  of the properties  in this area of oak Tree Road  and Closter  Road were built on lots originally  conforming  to R-22 zoning;  that in the 1990’s  the zoning overlay  was changed  to R-40; that of the 42 existing  lots surveyed,  31 are less, and in some cases  substantially  less, than the R-40 zoning requirements;   that only one home  in four (11of42)  is on a lot that falls within the R-40 zoning parameters;  that our existing  house,  like the majority  of the smaller

lot homes mentioned  before,  was built  in close proximity  to the road;  that it can fit comfortably  on a lot significantly   smaller than it does today  with no impact  on the existing  streetscape  or character  of Oak Tree Road; that the proposed  new house will be set back  on the larger lot in a manner  consistent  with the R-40 zoned homes  and will be well screened  form the road;  and the new structure will be modest  and its design  and construction  will conform  with the Historic  District.

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  testified  that the charts that Bill submitted  show that the plan does fit into the area well;   and that the applicant  received  a preliminary  approval and a neg dee from the Planning  Board.

 

Jay Greenwell,  L.S., testified  that the gross  are of the rear lot is 43,900 sq. ft. and that over the years the school filled their property  and trapped  water in this rear yard

which reduces  the gross  area calculated  for building;  and that the shared driveway

provides  street frontage  for the rear lot. Public  Comment:

Dale Prusinowski,   11  Closter  Road, Palisades,  testified  that he has lived in Palisades   f-….)         …..,.. since  1981 and was attracted  to the area because  of the way it looks;  that he is a~d     tl.j      o creating  undersized  lots with set a precedent.                                                               ~      e.,       ~

%   cz:::      0

Larry Bucciarelli,  700 Oak Tree Road, Palisades,  testified  that he has the imme~e       f’i’.’>       ~

neighbor  to Bill and Sue for thirty  years; that he has been invited  to participate  in~e     ·-a      ;o

 

 

subdivision  process;  that part of him agrees with  Mr. Prusinowski;  but he

zs

understwds

thre

lzl>.–

 

needs of the Walthers;  that he would  request  that the evergreen  screening  betweerrais   ::3     ~

property  and Bill’s  be made  a part of any decision  rendered.                                      ~    ·co•    ci

p     ,~,        ~

f,;11           CG      Z

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,

 

Walther

ZBA#l3-37

Page   3   of  5

 

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT 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 lot width  for lots #1 & #2,  front yard, side yard, total  side yard and building  height  for lot #1, and Section  6.332 (gravel  driveway  for lot lots #1 & #2) variances  will not produce  an undesirable   change  in the character  of the neighborhood or a detriment  to nearby  properties.   The lot width is an existing  condition;  the front yard, side yard, total  side yard, building  height  and gravel  driveway  already  exist for lot #1. The gravel  driveway  and street frontage  for proposed  lot #2 are new variances requested  for the proposed  two-lot  subdivision.

 

 

 

2. The requested lot width  for lots #1 & #2,  front yard, side yard, total  side yard and building  height  for lot #1, and Section  6.332 (gravel  driveway  for lot lots #1 & #2) variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The lot width is an existing  condition;  the front yard, side yard, total side yard, building  height  and gravel  driveway  already exist for lot #1. The gravel  driveway  and street frontage  for proposed  lot #2 are new variances  requested  for the proposed  two-lot  subdivision.

 

 

 

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  lot width  for lots #1 & #2,  front yard,  side yard, total side yard and building  height  for lot #1, and Section  6.332 (gravel  driveway  for lot lots #1 & #2) variances  although  somewhat  substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.    The lot width is an existing condition;  the front yard,  side yard, total side yard, building  height  and gravel driveway  already  exist for lot #1. The gravel  driveway  and street frontage  for proposed  lot #2 are new variances  requested  for the proposed  two-lot  subdivision.

 

 

 

 

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject to Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements,   so the alleged difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  of the Board  of Appeals,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  lot width  for lots #1 & #2, front yard,  side yard, total  side yard and building  height  for lot #1, and Section  6.332 (gravel  driveway  for lot lots #1 & #2) 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.                                                             3~B:l0~~~· ~.  ·.   Nllf1.1.

ii~~   ia.•mi

~       –    .             ·.                       .   .                                       0 U.~01

N!!013filN’/liO :l     .

 

Walther

ZBA#l3-37

Page  4  of  5

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

–

U S W  l.Rtmr  mtz

 

N:l..Ol35N1HO.:W  K~Ol

 

Walther

ZBA#13-37

Page  5 of  5

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  lot width  for lots #1

& #2,  front yard, side yard, total side yard and building height for lot# 1, and Section

6.332 (gravel driveway for lot lots #1 & #2) variances was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms.

Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

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

 

DATED: June 5, 2013

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR ~N.A

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

ErZf.:HO  SJiH3tn RllD.i

 

• SI.  S ·tJa    Li llr  ml

 

• NllG13~ffV’HO.:IQ NiAOl

 

DECISION

 

SECTION 3.11, R-80 DISTRICT,COLUMN 2, #7 & SECTION 4.5 (SINGLE• FAMILY CONVERSION) APPROVED

 

To: Veronica Campanelli

1095 Route 9W

Upper Grandview, New York

ZBA # 13-38

Date:  June 5, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA# 13-38: Application of Veronica Campanelli for a variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown, Section 3.11, R-22 District, refers to Section 3.11, R-80, Column 2 #7  (600 sq. ft. permitted, 738.5 sq. ft. existing) for an existing apartment at an existing owner occupied two-family residence (Local Law #7 Section 4.5). The premises are located at 1095 Route 9W, Upper Grandview, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 71.09, Block 1, Lot 4; R-22 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Veronica Campanelli appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Drawing of the existing apartment.
2. A Certificate of Occupancy for a restricted two family dwelling (local Law #7)

dated 11110/1986with a restrictive covenant.

3. A Certificate of Occupancy for renewal of restricted two family Local Law #7

1981 Owner Occupied Dwelling, dated 03/20. 2002 with a restrictive covenant.

4. A restrictive covenant dated August 11, 2006 filed by Veronica Campanelli for

1095 Route 9W, Upper Grandview.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Veronica Campanelli testified that she purchased the house on July 28, 2006 and filed a covenant to  continue Local Law #7 on August 11, 2006; that two previous owners of the house were able to continue the Local Law #7; that she has been denied and sent to this Board because when the building Inspector came out to inspect the house, he measured

11i~f

the existing apartment and found that it is 738.5 sq. ft.; that the maximum size of the dwelling is 600 sq. ft.; that she did not change anything in the house, that the apartment was built over sized and it was not noticed previously; that she would like to get a

certificate of occupancy for the apartment because it \Vou~d b~fJ§1′?)       to rent it

and supplement her monthly payments.                    3-:ll:L 0 S ··

o

~              11′>-        HP         Fl     t.tm’l    f’TftJ

~»-        mti    “‘~  . t’mi _           &WiT

 

M.fi013~HfWHO  ;iO NNWl

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew  York  was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT  ANO 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  Section 3.11, R-80 District,  Column  2, (Local  Law #7 §4.5) variance will not produce  an undesirable   change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The apartment  has existed  since  1986 at its present size without  incident.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested Section  3.11, R-80 District,  Column  2, (Local  Law #7§4.5)  variance will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions in the neighborhood   or district.   The apartment  has  existed  since  1986 at its present size without  incident.

 

 

 

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   Section  3.11, R-80 District,  Column  2, (Local Law #7§4.5)  variance  is not substantial.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

a–     s w u··mr

• ··£Ill

 

Campanelli

ZBA#13-38

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   Inview of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested Section 3.11, R-80 District, Column 2, (Local Law #7§4.5) 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.

 

 

 

3′.~f3~0 SXH313 fltl~i

 

~  ~  MY     lZJBrmz

 

filii013fJNVtW .:W NalOl

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested    Section 3.11,  R-80

District,  Column  2, (Local Law #7§4.5)  variance   was presented  and moved by Ms. Castelli,  seconded  by Ms.  Salomon  and carried as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye .Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:   June 5, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDllifG  llifSPECTOR-M.M.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPAR1MENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGllifEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

30t.:l.:W $’XH310′  ll:01

u a  w a .lilf’ mz

 

DECISION

 

 

SECTION 3.11, CO DISTRICT, COLUMN  5 #6 AND  SECTION 4.22 (c) & (e)

APPROVED AS MODIFIED

 

To:  Signarama  (Beital’s Aquariums)

27 North Middletown  Road

Nanuet,  New York  10954

ZBA#   13-39

Date:  June  5, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#  13-39: Application  of  Beital’s  Aquariums  for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Section 3.11, CO District,  Column  5 #6 ( 12 sq. fr. non-illuminated   sign permitted;

109.33 sq. ft. illuminated  sign proposed)  and from Section  4.22 (c) light interferes  with, competes  for attention  with  or may be mistaken  for a traffic  signal and  (e) light visible through  a transparent  panel;  for  proposed  signs on a building  at 73 Route 304, Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.19, Block

4, Lot 16; CO zoning  district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown   at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   June 5, 2013  at which  time the Board made  the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Site plan  dated  02/14/2013  by Jay Greenwell,  L.S.
2. Four pages  of the proposed  signs and the placement  of those  signs on the building.
3. Three pages  of pictures  of other  signs in the immediate  area.
4. A letter dated June 3, 2013 from the State of New  York Department  of

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

5. A letter dated May 21, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board  determination  that the foregoing  application  is a Type  II action  exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQ RA), pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617 .5 (c) (7); which  does not require  SEQ RA environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows: Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco  was absent.

 

George  Hanken,Signarama,   testified  that the proposed  for Beital’ s are very  similar to those  that were presented  for Arriflex;  that they are metal  acrylic letters  that are lit from the front; that he took pictures  of other signs in the area and would  like to submit them; that the KFC has signs on all sides of their building;  that USIS  and Vision  Sports  Club signs are close by; that the sign on the building  is far enough  away from the traffic  signal that will not cause any confusion;  and that the sign on the side of the building  could be reduced  from  17 W’ to 15′ letters.                                                         ..

 

 

~l:Ho    ~nn131:)  001

~  ·~  WJ    &Z••Mtr  mz

 

 

Beital’s  Aquariums  Sign

ZBA#13-39

Page2   of  4

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  Section  3.11. CO District,  Column  5, #6 and Section 4.22 (c) & (e) variances  will not produce  an undesirable   change  in the character  of the neighborhood or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The letter dated June  3, 2013 from the State of New York  Department  of transportation   states that the proposed  variance  would have no significant  impact  on the state transportation   system;  clearly eliminating  the concern  that the sign could interfere  with the traffic  signal. The applicant  has agreed

to reduce the sign on the south side of the building  from  1 7 W’ letters  to 15″ letters.

 

2. The requested Section  3.11, CO District,  Column5,  #6 and Section 4.22 (c) & (e) variances   will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.   The letter  dated June 3, 2013 from the State of New York  Department  of transportation   states that the proposed  variance would have no significant  impact  on the state transportation   system;  clearly eliminating  the concern  that the sign could interfere  with the traffic  signal.  The applicant  has agreed to reduce the sign on the south  side of the building  from  171h” letters  to 15″ letters.

~

3. The Board  chose to override  the letter  dated May 21, 2013 from County  ofRoc151an~

Department  of Planning  because  the applicant  modified  the sign on the south  ofJfue c,._ building  and the Department  of Transportation   letter  dated June 3, 2013 found t~t     ~   ·           ~ the granting  of the variance  would  not negatively  impact  the State highway.        ~      ~   ·                    0

;o                    ;:o

:;:;i;;                       >

g . rn ‘”ti .   Eli.)  ‘ -ai.

4. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasiblesfor  ~       ~

the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.

 

z

5. Although  the requested   Section  3.11. CO District,  Column  5, #6 and Section  4.4(~~      1          ~

& (e)  variances  are substantial,  they afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.    The letter dated June 3, 2013 from the State of New York  Department  of transportation   states that the proposed  variance would  have no significant  impact  on the state transportation   system;  clearly

eliminating  the concern  that the sign could interfere  with the traffic  signal. The applicant  has agreed to reduce the sign on the south side of the building  from  17 1h” letters to 15″ letters.

 

Beital’ s Aquariums  Sign

ZBA#13-39

Page  3  of  4

 

 

 

 

6. The applicant purchased  the property  subject  to Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code  (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements,   so the alleged  difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  of the Board  of Appeals,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances .

 

 

 

 

.  DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested    Section 3.11. CO District, Column  5, #6 and Section  4.22 (c) & (e)  variances  are APPROVED   as Modified  (1) the sign on the south side of the building  has been reduced  from  17 W’ letters to  15″ letters which  reduces  the length  of the sign from  139″ to 120″; 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  obtai~g   a Building  Permit  with resi:ect  to construction   or~  ~~;9.cate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constitute  ~tflll~~ij}1~fion”                  for the

purposes  hereof.                                                       –             9, i}  W  [i;  Sif -Sil

 

tl     ,.,       n

N-!\Ol35’N•”irl··o JO MfAOl

 

Beital’s  Aquariums  Sign

ZBA#13-39

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  Section  3.11. CO District,  Column  5, #6 and Section4.22   (c) & (e)  variances as modified (sign on the south side of the building shall be 15″ x 120″ and to override the letter from the County of Rockland Department of Planning dated May 21, 2013 was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows:  Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye ;Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

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

 

DATED: June 5, 2013

 

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.

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAJRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

3′.~B.:W S)fH31;J N~~€1l

fi s QU   a ·mr ··mt

 

lli013f>NVHO   ::!O  NA\Oi

 

DECISION

 

 

LOT  AREA,  STREET   FRONTAGE,    FRONT   YARD,  SIDE  YARD,  BillLDING HEIGHT,    SECTION   6.36 (GRAVEL   PARKING   AREA),  SECTION   3.11, LI DISTRICT,    COLUMS   2 (CARETAKER     RESIDENCE)    AND  7 #5 (OUTDOOR

STORAGE)VARIANCESAPPROVED

 

To: Jay Greenwell  (All County  Properties)

85 Lafayette  A venue

Suffern, New York  10901

ZBA#   13-40

Date:  June 5, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l3-40:   Application  of All County  Properties   for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  Section  3.12,  Group QQ, Columns  5 (Lot  Area: 2 acres required,  1.4477 existing,  1.4373 proposed),  7 (Street Frontage:   150′ required,  102.79′  existing,  113.08′ proposed),  8 (Front Yard:  50′  required,  24.7′  existing,  16.2′ proposed  to new building),  9 (Side Yard: 25′ required, 16′ proposed), and 12 (Building Height: 8.1′ permitted, 25′ existing, 16′ proposed to new building); from Section 6.36 :  Paved parking areas

required; gravel parking area proposed); from Section 3.11, LI District Column 2 (Uses

permitted by right: variance requested for mixed use allowing tenant on upper floor with

office below (acting  as “caretaker” to provide some yard security)[ residential use is pre• existing non-conforming condition] and from column 7 #5 (All  Storage shall be within completely enclosed buildings: outdoor storage of vehicles, landscape trailers, mowing equipment, macadam paving equipment, gardening tools and implements requested)Note: the net lot area, and front yard is being reduced due to gratuitous road widening

dedication ; the frontage is increased due to road widening. The premises are located at

11 Old School Lane, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax

Map as Section 74.07, Block 1, Lot 29; LI zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, June 5, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Jay Greenwell, L.S., Jane Slavin, Architect, and Robert Chiapperino, owner, appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Site plan dated 11/26/2012 with the latest revision date of 04/10/2013 signed and sealed by Jay Greenwell, L.S..
2. A memorandum dated March 13, 2013 from John Giardiello, P.E., Director,

Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement, Town

of Orangetown.

3. A letter dated May 23, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

4. A letter dated June 3, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P.E ..

5. A letter dated May 29, 2013 from the County of Rockland Sewer District No.1

signed by Joseph LaFiandra, Engineer IL

6. A letter dated May 7, 2013 from the State of New York Department of

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

 

 

 

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

 

3’Slt:JO  SxH31~  R”/iUU

 

a:..

s m  iimrmz

 

~£0133N\ff::Wso tilttU

 

 

All County Properties

ZBA#l3-40

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

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) (7); which  does not require  SEQRA environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried  as follows: Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

Jay Greenwell,  L.S., testified  that they also requested  a side yard variance;  that they  are planning  to convert the first story of the structure to an office for the contracts;  that the entire house is presently  being used  as a residence;  that this use is a pre-existing  non• conforming  use; that the proposed  office space for the first floor is conforming  with the zoning  for the property;  that they would  like to be able to continue  a portion  of the pre• exiting non-conforming   use to. permit  an apartment  upstairs  to be occupied  by someone that would  act as a security  person  for the business;  that they  are proposing  a 5,000 sq. ft. addition  and adding a second floor to the existing  garage;  that they originally  proposed  an all gravel driveway;  that the Planning  board was not in favor of all gravel  and they have since provided  an extensive  drainage  plan and some pavement;  that there was road widening  which  increased  the front yard; that the building  height  is diminished  in the

rear; that this use is consistent  with the neighborhood;   and that even the request  to keep

the apartment  upstairs  is consistent  because  there are both commercial  and residential uses in the area.

 

Robert  Chiapperino  testified  that he has approximately   ten trucks  that would  be stored outside;  that O’Connolly Landscaping  would  also be renting  space and storing his trailers outside.

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York  was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT  AND  CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing alli1e    6

documents  submitted,  the Board  found  and concluded  that the benefits  to the app~antJ!       ~ the variance(s)  are granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health,  safety and!     §i.   S welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant, for the following  reasorf?:     ~         ·’

[Tl          ….J      ~

;o                   -;p.

~         :;:p      z

1. The requested  lot area, street frontage,  front yard,  side yard, building  height,  SeBiorP      ~

6.36 (gravel parking  area), Section  3.11, LI District,  Columns  2 (caretaker  resi~c~’           ci

and 7 #5 (outdoor  storage)   variances  will not produce  an undesirable   change in~e.   ~    ‘   ~

character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  This neighboRtooct’ is a mixture  of pre-existing  non-conforming   residences  and large commercial

buildings;  and this lot is located  at the very  end of a dead end street.

 

All County  Properties

ZBA#13-40

Page  3   of  4

 

 

2. The Board  found that Section  9.32 of the Zoning  Code   applies to this application  and that the application  satisfies  § 9 .32: “Any nonconforming   use may be changed  to any conforming  use or, on application  to and with the approval  of the Board  of Appeals,

to any use which the Board  of Appeals  deems  to be more  in character  with the uses

permitted  in the district in which  the said change  of use is proposed”.

 

 

3. The requested  lot area, street frontage,  front yard,  side yard, building  height,  Section

6.36 (gravel parking  area), Section  3.11, LI District,  Columns  2 (caretaker  residence) and 7 #5 (outdoor  storage)   variances   will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  This neighborhood   is a mixture  of pre-existing   non-conforming   residences  and large commercial  buildings;  and this lot is located  at the very  end of a dead end street.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

5. The requested   lot area, street frontage,  front yard,  side yard, building  height,  Section

6.36 (gravel  parking  area), Section 3.11, LI District,  Columns  2 (caretaker  residence) and 7 #5 (outdoor  storage)   variances,   although  somewhat  substantial,  afford benefits to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.

 

 

 

6. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject to Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements,   so the alleged  difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  of the Board  of Appeals,  but did not, by itself,  preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested   lot area, street frontage,  side yard,   front yard, building  height,  Section  6.36 (gravel parking  area),  Section  3.11, LI District,  Columns  2 (caretaker  residence)  and 7 #5 (outdoor  storage)   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:

fS

z     0

~

1. C) -ii

I~

0

 

(i) The approval  of any variance  or Special Permit  is granted  by the Board in acccYJlan~

with and subject  to those  facts shown on the plans  submitted  and, if applicable,  a~        ::p

amended  at or prior to this hearing,  as hereinabove  recited  or set forth.                    o      3

~        <!:a·’

(ii) Any  approval  of a variance  or Special Permit  by the Board is limited  to the s~ifi~.’

;o

)>

z

<;:)

ro

–1

0

:E

 

 

variance  or Special  Permit requested  but only to the extent  such approval  is

m     Gi!)       z

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.

 

All County Properties

ZBA#13-40

Page  4 of  4

 

 

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   lot area, street frontage,  front yard, side yard, building  height,  Section  6.36 (gravel  parking  area), Section  3.11, LI District,  Columns  2 (caretaker  residence)  and 7 #5 (outdoor  storage) variances   was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and

carried  as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye ;Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,

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

 

 

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

 

DATED:   June 5, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPlJIY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-RAO.

Administrative  Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

3:Dl~:;jO ~~t131D R~fJl

tl 5  tW   LJB’*mfl

 

&~0~3~NvHO :Hl NtlOl

 

DECISION

 

SECTION 3.11. COLUMN 5 #11 (SIZE OF SIGN) VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:   Brian  O’Connor  (Arriflex  Sign)

419 Route 59

Nanuet,  New York  10954

ZBA # 13-41

Date:   June 5, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#13-41:   Application  of Arri.flex Inc. for a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning), Section 3.11, Column  5, #11 (Sign:    60 sq. ft. permitted,  76.24 sq. ft. proposed)  for a wall sign. The premises  are located  at 617 Route  303, Blauvelt,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  65.19, Block  1, Lot  l; LO & R-40 zoning  districts.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown   at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   June  5, 2013 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

Brian O’Connor,   Frohling  Signs, appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Google  earth picture  of the building.
2. A sign plan dated  September  2012 by Frohling  Sign Company.
3. A letter  dated June  3, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..

4. A letter  dated May 7, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Planning signed by Thomas  Vanderbeek,  P .E., Commissioner   of Planning.
5. A letter dated May 7, 2013 from the State of New York  Department  of

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

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board  determination  that the foregoing  application  is a Type  II action  exempt  from the State Environmental   Quality Review  Act (SEQRA), pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.5 (c) (7); which  does not require  SEQRA enviromnental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows: Ms. Salomon,  aye; Ms. Albanese,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; and  .Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco  was absent.

 

 

 

Brian  O’Connor,   Frohling  Sign, testified  that Arriflex  is located  across the street from the new Fed Ex building;  that they have a  4′ x 6′ double sided  sign on the street; that the town doubles  that measurement  because  it is double  sided and that sign equals  48 sq. ft.; that they are not changing  that sign; that the company  has recently  re-done  the interior  of the building;  that this company  makes motion  picture  cameras  and digital  equipment;  that themajority of movies  that you see are filmed on this companies  cameras;  that the

building  is located  off to the side when  you enter the site; that they would  like to install the building  sign with back lights  on the building  near the entrance  door; that this wall is

195 feet from Route 303; that the proposed  letters  are 36″ high and the entire building sign is only 28 sq. ft.; that they need to identify  the entrance  to the offices because  they

have had a lot more people  visiting  the site lately;  ari.j thatd11fi:i1Jing  over the door has

been removed.                                                ]I~B.:!0 ~R  ‘tl31

fi, s m  asmi

 

&~013~NV’BO .:!O N.fi\01

 

Arriflex  Sign

ZBA#l3-41

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   Section  3 .11, Column  5 # 11  (sign size) variance  will not produce  an undesirable   change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The existing  sign on Route 303 is not changing  and the additional  signage of28  sq. ft. will be near the entrance  of the building,  which  is set back  195 feet from Route 303. The building  contains  offices and work  space, and the building  sign will be placed  near the office entrance,  to clearly direct  customers  to the proper  entrance.

 

2. The Board  found that the letter from Rockland  County  Planning  Department  dated May 7, 2013 did not take into consideration  that the street sign was not changing  and the additional   28 sq. ft. of signage that was proposed  would be placed  on a building that is 195 feet from Route  303.

 

 

 

 

3. The requested Section  3.11, Column  5 #11 (sign size) variance   will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The existing  sign on Route 303 is not changing  and the additional  signage  of 28 sq. ft  will be near the entrance  of the building,  which  is set back  195 feet from Route  303. The building  contains  offices  and work  space,  and the building  sign will be placed  near the office entrance,  to clearly direct customers  to the proper  entrance.

 

 

 

4. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  a variance.  The existing  sign on Route

303 is not changing  and the additional  signage of 28 sq. ft. will be near the entrance of the building,  which  is set back  195 feet from Route  303. The building  contains offices and work  space,  and the building  sign will be placed  near the office entrance, to clearly  direct customers  to the proper  entrance.

 

s

5. The requested  Section 3.11, Colum…n. ·.·.5 #.                     J.   1.Lsi.·IDmL.s..·ize.)… · :.i..111. iance is not substantial.

331’d’30  5tfill’1N’~tll:

 

Arriflex  sign

ZBA#l3-41

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

6. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject  to Orangetown’s   Zoning  Code  (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements,   so the alleged  difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  of the Board  of Appeals,  but did not, by itself, preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  Section  3 .1, Column5,  #11 (sign size) variance  is APPROVED,   and resolved  to override  the 05/07/2013  letter  from

the County  of Rockland  Department  of Planning  letter; 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 ofthis   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 ofthis   decision.

Merely  obtai~ng   a Building  Permit   with r~f2~tf.   §QfJ!M~~ma      Certi~cate  of

ai      ya

Occupancy  with respect  to use does not coriS’dtnfe ‘substantial  implementation”   for the purposes  hereof.                                                       5          Li 11r ·tm

–

Nil013~i’f~~O.10  N&.Ol

 

Aniflex Sign

ZBA#l3-41

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  Section  3.11, Column5,  #11 (sign size) variance  and to override  the letter dated May 7, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Planning  was presented  and moved  by Ms. Albanese, seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried  as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:   June 5, 2013

 

 

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.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA,PB,ACABOR

 

 

• l!~cHO S-~}::1310  MJDl B .~   W   L~ fir i’JZ Nllt0!.3~NV};t0 10 NNIOl

 

DECISION

SECTION 3.11. COLUMN 7, #5 (OUTDOOR STORAGE) AND SECTION 6.36 (GRAVEL PARKING AREA)  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

To:  Donald  Brenner  (Organic  Recycling)

4 Independence  A venue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA#   13-42

Date:  June 5, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-42: Application  of Organic  Recycling  for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Section  3.11, Column  7 #5 (Storage  shall be within  completely  enclosed buildings: overnight  storage  of vehicles  proposed)  and from Section  6.36 (All parking  areas shall be paved:  gravel parking  area proposed)  for parking  lots for area contractors.  The site is located  at 117A Route 303, Tappan,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  74.19, Block  1, Lot 3  in the LI zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   June 5, 2013  at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  Jay Greenwell,  Land  Surveyor  and Cassandra  Lim, Owner, appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Site plan dated 11/30/ 2012 with the latest revision  date of 03/29/2013  signed and sealed by Jay A. Greenwell,  L.S.
2. Two memorandums   dated July 18, 2012 and March  13, 2013 from John Giardiello,  P.E., Director,  Office  of Building,  Zoning  and Planning Administration   and Enforcement,  Town  of Orangetown.
3. Planning  Board Decision  #12-35  dated March  27, 2013 with  a “Neg. Dec.”

attached.

4. A letter dated May 6, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Planning signed by Thomas  B. Vanderbeek,  P.E.,  Commissioner   of Planning.
5. A letter dated June 3, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin,P .E..

6. A letter  dated May 23, 2013 from the Palisades  Interstate  Park Commission signed by Karl B. Roecker,  Landscape  Architect,  with three pictures  attached.
7. A five point list of Notice  to All Parking Area Renters  that shall be supplied  to anyone renting  space at Organic  Recycling.

 

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

seconded  by Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.                                                  8   ~   ~

~          ¢.._      z

On advice of  Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning~oai@>f   0

Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan  moved  for a Board  determination  that since the Planningjoar~        -ri

noticed  its intent to declare  itself Lead Agency  and distributed  that notice  of int~tiotrib     ~ all Involved  Agencies,  including  the ZBA who  consented  or did not object  to th~      !.l:)         ~ Planning  Board  acting  as Lead Agency  for this application,   pursuant  to coordinesed  ::a    ~ review under the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act  Regulations   §617.6 EQ)  (~’     cj and since the Planning  Board  conducted  a SEQRA  environmental   review  for th@    , ,~’      ~ application,  and on March  27, 2013 rendered  an environmental   determination   ofiio   :.£t     z: significant  adverse  environmental   impacts  to result  from the proposed  land use action,  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 Ms. Castelli,  and carried as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; Ms. Albanese,  aye; Mr. Ferolcli, aye; and Ms. Castelli,  aye. Mr. Bosco  was absent.

 

 

ZBA#l3-42

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  testified  that this is the only green industry  in Rockland County; that the proposal is correct for the LI zone; that the Li zone is the only zone that permits lawn/landscaping use in Orangetown; that Organic Recycling has a million dollar pollution insurance policy; that the ground can be left gravel because any spill can localized and be cleaned up quickly; that the Planning board overrode

the County’s comment concerning the 20′ buffer; that there is no need for a landscape plan and the repair to the fence will be done.

 

Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor, testified that installing a 20′ buffer would cause a traffic problem; that the Planning Board found that a ten foot buffer would be sufficient; that new findings have held that a minor spill filtered in soil is less damaging than blacktop; that a gully filled with river stone improves water quality; and the applicant must meet strict standards to maintain the pollution insurance.

 

Cassandra Lim, Owner, testified that they have worked hand in hand with the Highway Department for the last 27 years; that they have a Rockland County Solid Waste Permit and are renewed for their Special Permit every five years.

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.

 

 

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

 

 

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

Municipal Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OFFACT 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:

 

 

 

ot

1. The ~equestedSe~tion 3.1_1, Column 7 #5 (outdoo~ storage) and _section ~6  ~av~ parkmg area) vanances will not produce an undesirable change m the ch~ct~ftlie neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property owners lm:s;e 1jj. clear guidelines for all renters of space which include the following guid~egl)      -ri when using the parking lot please ensure that your vehicle does not leak@}’   -.J       ~

contaminant. No maintenance or any for of repair may be done on the P~gbs>t;     ~ (2) All your equipment must be kept in closed trailer;(3) You should hav~iU::i3.t o~

your truck;(4) If your vehicle is found to be leaking you are required to c~ainrdie 3 _

spill immediately. If you are not present to do so, we will do so at your co~  (~y      ~   ·

vehicle that is leaking may not be parked at the facility and may not be retafned’fu th~

parking area until it is shown that the leak is fixed. The applicant also carries a million dollar pollution insurance policy.

 

2. The requested Section 3.11, Column 7 #5 (outdoor storage) and Section 6.36 (gravel parking area) variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property owners have laid out clear guidelines for all renters of space which include the following guidelines: (1 )When using he parking lot please ensure that your vehicle does not

 

 

Organic   Recycling
ZBA#13-42 Page    3  of   4
leak  any.contaminant.	No  maintenance	or any  for  of repair   may  be done  on the  Parking

Lot;  (2) All  your  equipment    must  be kept  in  closed   trailer;(3)    You  should   have  spill  kit  on

your  truck;(  4) If your vehicle  is found to be leaking  you are required to contain  the spill immediately.   If you are not present  to do so, we will do so at your cost; (5) Any vehicle that is leaking  may not be parked  at the facility  and may not be returned to the parking area until it is shown that the leak is fixed. The applicant  also carries a million  dollar pollution insurance  policy.

 

 

 

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 Board overrode  the  Rockland  County  Department  of Planning letter dated May

6, 2013 concerning  a 20′  buffer  because  the Planning  Board  found that a I 0′ buffer would  be sufficient.

 

 

5. The requested  Section  3.11, Column  7 #5 (outdoor  storage)  and Section 6.36 (gravel parking area) variances  are not substantial.

 

6. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject to Orangetown’s Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) and is proposing  a new addition  and/or improvements,   so the alleged  difficulty was self-created,  which  consideration  was relevant  to the decision  of the Board  of Appeals,  but did not, by itself,  preclude  the granting  of the area variances.

 

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  Section 3.11, Column  7 #5 (outdoor  storage)  and Section  6.36 (gravel parking area) variances  are APPROVED,   and resolved to override  the 05/06/2013  letter from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Planning;  with the Specific  Condition  that the applicant  replant the ten foot buffer  and fix the parkway boundary  Fencing;  and FURTHER  RESOLVED,   that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become effective  and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption by the Board  of the minutes  of which  they  are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

3~EBO 15.,.M::Il~  N!!iil

tit1  s m  1.-a.  mr nDZ

 

fti\O.L3~NVBO.:W  NllOl

 

 

ZBA#13-42

Page  4 of  4

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  Section  3.11, Column  7 #5 (outdoor  storage)  and Section  6.36 (gravel parking  area) variances;   with the Specific  Condition  that the applicant  replant the ten foot buffer  and fix the parkway boundary  Fencing;  and to override  the Rockland  County Department  of Planning  letter dated May 6, 2013 was presented  and moved by Ms. Salomon,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye ;Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco  was absent.

 

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

 

DATED:   June  5, 2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRJBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPU1Y TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-NA

 

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of b’NVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERJNG FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR