Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS MARCH  18, 2015

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:           DAN  SULLIVAN JOAN  SALOMON

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE PATRICIA  CASTELLI

 

ABSENT:                               MICHAEL  BOSCO THOMAS  QUINN

 

 

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:                     Dennis  Michaels,  Esq.

Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah  Arbolino,

Deputy Town Attorney Official  Stenographer Administrative   Aide

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

PUBLISHED   ITEMS APPLICANTS                                        DECISIONS

 

CONTINUED   ITEM:

 

WYNNE                                                  R-22, COLUMN  5 #1                           ZBA#l5-14

40 Bogert Avenue,  Pearl River, NY   VARIANCE  APPROVED

68.16 I 3 I 6; RG zone                        (4 DOGS) WITH SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

 

NEW ITEMS:   ROCKLAND CENTER FOR	POSTPONED	ZBA#lS-22
SPIRITUAL LIVING SIGN 30 Old Tappan Road, Tappan,NY
77.10 I 2 I 15; R-15 zone
GALLAGHER 43 West Lewis Avenue, Pearl River, NY 68.12 I 1  I 43; RG zone	SIDE YARD, REARY ARD, AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED	ZBA#lS-23
WALGREENS 81 Route 303, Tappan,NY	62 PARKING SPACES; 13.10B(2) VEGETATION LESS THAN 6′ HIGH; AND	ZBA#lS-24

 

77.15 I 1I24;  CS zone

206.59 SQ. FT. OF SIGNAGE APPROVED

13.lOB (4) NOT REQUIRED; SECTION 4.2 (2) WITHDRAWN

 

301dd0 S)Hl310  Nh\91

 

hQ     1:   lJd     8     HdY S102

 

NMQ!33NVMQ  .:IQ  MIAO!

 

 

Minutes

Page 2 of2

 

 

 

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 10:30   P.M.

 

Dated: March  18,  2015

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORJ>JEY

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING    INSPECTOR   (Individual    Decisions)

Rockland County Planning

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

Deborah  Arbolino,  Administrative   Aide

 

 

 

301.:l:J(J   S)Hl318    NM(H

 

hQ    T   LJd    8     Hdtl  5102

 

NMOl::lDNV’tjQ     JO NMOl

 

DECISION

SECTION   3.11, R-22,  COLUMN   5 #1  VARIANCE   APPRO~D    WITH   SPECIFIC CONDITIONS

 

 

 

To:   Robert Wynne

40 Bogert A venue

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA #15-14

Date:  February  18, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l5-14:   Application  of  Robert  Wynne  for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43)

of the Town of Orangetown  Code, Section  3.11, RG District,  Group  Q, Column  5 refers to R-22 Column  5 #1  (No more than 3 dogs over 6 mos. shall be kept) at a single-family residence.  The premises  are located  at  40 Bogert  Avenue,  Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.16, Block 3, Lot 6; RG zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at meetings  held on the following  Wednesdays,   February  18, 2015 and March  18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

Robert  Wynne  appeared  and testified  at both hearings. The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. A copy of a survey for Wynne   dated  September  22,  1980  by Thomas  Donovan, PLS. showing  the fenced  in yard.
2. Dog License  renewal  for five dogs dated  11/24/2014
3. Three letters in opposition  to the application.
4. A petition  in support  of the application  signed by six neighbors.
5. A handwritten  note of explanation  from Mr. Wynne.

 

 

 

Ms. Castelli,  Acting Chair, made a motion  to open the Public Hearing  on February  18,

2015, which motion  was seconded  by Ms. Salomon   and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

At the March  18, 2015 meeting,  on advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy Town  Attorney, counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board determination that the foregoing  application  is a Type II action exempt  from the State Environmental Quality Review  Act (SEQRA),  pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations  §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require  SEQRA  environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried  as follows:  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.

 

 

301:1.:!0  S~~310  NMO!

 

hO   t  Wd     B     ~dY   SID2

 

.NMOl3flNVHO   .:10   NM-01

 

 

Wynne

ZBA#lS-14

Page2  of  5

 

 

 

Robert  Wynne  testified  that his family moved  to 40 Bogert Avenue in Pearl River in

1980; that they brought  with them two Irish Terrier  dogs; that Irish Terriers  area medium sized dog weighing  between  25 and 30 pounds  and standing  about  18″ tall; that since he moved here, it has been his hobby to show and breed  Irish Terriers;  that all of the dogs since the original  two have been born there; that all of the dogs are licensed  and he has never had a problem  doing so; that in the last few years he has renewed  all of the licenses at the same time; that up until two years ago the dog warden  lived up the street; that he had no idea that there was any regulation  governing  the number  of dogs that one is allowed to have; that he found out this information  on November  23, 2014  and since

then he found a home for the youngest  dog; that he has been trying to find a way to

comply  and is having  a difficult  time placing   another  dog; that he is asking to be allowed to keep four dogs until one passes  away; that he does not intend to keep adding to their numbers;  that the back half of the property  is fenced;  that he has not been allowing  the dogs out before  9 A.M.  and they have been in by 8 P.M.; that he has been letting them

out for about  15 minutes  at a time; that he has ordered bark stopping  collars and he will try them when they come in, but he does not know if they work; that he would sign an affidavit; and that he would like a continuance until the March 18, 2015 meeting.

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

Peter Mc Donald, 34 Bogert Avenue, testified that his eight year old daughter cannot play

in the yard without getting harassed by Mr. Wynnes’ dogs; that he approached Mr. Wynne to split the cost of a privacy fence with him and he was waved away; that the stench from the dog poop in the yard is disgusting; that he has a Cape Cod style house and he cannot sit on his deck without the stench or barking; that he has been the anonymous complainant; that he walks dogs, that he does not want to see the dogs banned but he wants to be able to use the property that he pays taxes on; that ifhe walks

out into his own rear yard the dogs follow him along the chain-link fence going crazy and

barking; that he cannot allow his daughter out the back yard by herself; and that there has been no conversation and no cooperation to fix the problem.

 

Kathleen Mc Gaurdy, 47 Hunt Avenue, testified that she would not want to see anything happen to the dogs; that the barking should be taken care of; and the dogs should not be euthanized.

 

Patrick Finnegan, 26 Brightwood Avenue, testified that he knows both Pete and Bobby and he hopes the Board allows him to live out the time with the dogs that he loves.

 

Michael Mc Gaurdy, 47 Hunt Avenue, testified that he does not see a big difference between three and four dogs; that sometimes his own dog fires the neighbors dogs up; that he has sympathy and the applicant is stuck between a rock and a hard place.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

301.:1.:10   S)f>J310 NMO!

 

hO   1   Wd    8     Hdl:I   5102

 

NM013~NV~O  .:10  Nlt\01

 

Wynne

ZBA#l5-14

Page  3   of  5

 

 

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

 

At the March  18, 2015 meeting  Mr. Wynne  testified  that nothing  substantial  has changed; that he still has four dogs; that he only allowing  them out for fifteen minutes  at a time and that he is cleaning  up after them.

 

There was no public  comment  at the March  18, 2015 meeting.

 

 

 

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, R-22 District,  Column  5 #1 variance  to allow four dogs (three are permitted)  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The applicant  testified  that he already found a home for one of his dogs and cannot place the last dog because  of its age and is requesting  a variance  to keep the dog until it expires,  after which  the applicant  will not have more than the three remaining  dogs.

 

2. The Zoning  Board of Appeals  acknowledged   the fact that several neighbors  find the dogs’  barking  objectionable   as well as the odor of the feces remaining  in Mr. Wynne’s  yard. In order to minimize  these objectionable   aspects, Mr. Wynne  has

agreed to bring the dogs indoors  as soon as they begin barking  and will clean up after them on a daily basis.

 

 

 

 

3. The requested  Section  3.11, R-22 District,  Column  5 #1 variance   to allow four dogs (three are permitted)  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental  conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  The applicant  testified  that he already  found a home for one of his dogs and cannot place the last dog because  of its age and is requesting  a variance  to keep the dog until it expires,  after which the applicant  will not have more than the three remaining  dogs. Mr. Wynne  has agreed to

bring the dogs indoors  as soon as they begin barking  and will clean up after them on a daily basis.

 

 

 

4. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.  Mr. Wynne  has tried to find a home for two of the dogs but was only able to place one of them, leaving him with four dogs.

s

.-….:»

-t

5. The requested  Section 3.11, R-22 District, Column 5 #1 variance, although   ~     ;g somewhat substantial, affords benefits to the applicant that are not outweighed-by fHC ·   ~   detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighboiPo<lc2f · o   nearby community. Mr. Wynne has agreed to bring the dogs inside if they are ~rking ~ and to clean up their feces daily to minimize the objections from the neighbors? ~ ~ 0 ..,, …_.1 JTI –i -,, .           I 0 o rn ·O• -C =E z:

co    ~

 

 

 

Wynne

ZBA#15-14

Page  4  of  5

 

 

 

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

43) and is proposing  to keep four dogs, 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, R-22 District, Column  5 #1 variance  is APPROVED  with the Specific  Condition  that (1) Upon the death or giving  away or selling of any of the four dogs identified  on Mr. Wynne’s   four dog license renewals,  issued by the Town  Clerk on November  24, 2014, respectively numbered  1185 (Bronte),  1186 (Darci),  1187 (Arwen)  and 1188 (Dalton),  the applicant may only keep a maximum  of three dogs more than six months  old; (2) approval  is further contingent  upon the representation   of the applicant  that the dog described  in dog

license renewal  numbered  1184 (Sheila)  has been given away and is no longer being kept

at Mr. Wynne’s  home;  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    r-.:»    -t Permit granted herein is subject to any conditions, the building department shall ngt bes       o obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed shoul~in f5;    ~

sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated :z:      ;g   o

hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate ofOccuprui  is        ~

issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and EnforcemenF    :::o

which legally permits such occupancy.                                                                     ~     -o     ~

c:

0   ::3      ~

~   r–:

o    .    O•      :.E

Pl       ..c    :z:

 

 

Wynne

ZBA#15-14

Page   5  of  5

 

 

 

(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,    R-22

District   ,Column   5 #1  variance  with the Specific  Condition  that (1) Upon the death or giving away or selling  of any of the four dogs identified  on Mr. Wynne’s  four dog license renewals,   issued by the Town  Clerk  on November  24,  2014,   respectively  numbered  1185 (Bronte),   1186   (Darci),  1187 (Arwen),  and 1188   (Dalton),   the applicant  may only  keep a maximum  of three dogs more than six month  old;  (2) approval  is further contingent  upon the representation   of the applicant  that the dog described  in dog license  renewal

numbered  1184  (Sheila)  has been given away and is no longer being kept Mr. Wynne’s home;  was presented  and moved by Ms. Salomon,    seconded  by Ms. Castelli   and carried as follows:   Ms.  Salomon,   aye; Mr. Feroldi,   aye;  Ms.  Castelli,   aye; and Mr. Sullivan,   aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco  were absent.

 

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

 

DATED:    March  18, 2015

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD  MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.A.O.

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENT  AL

MGMT. and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

SO    T    LJd     B      HdY 5102

 

NM013t”JN’i/tl0     .:W  NMOl

 

DECISION

SIDE  YARD,  REAR  YARD  AND BUILDING   HEIGHT   VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Brendan  and Ava Gallagher

43 W. Lewis Avenue

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#15-23

Date:  March  18, 2015

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#15-23:Application    of  Brendan  Gallagher  for  variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.12, RG District,  Group  Q, Columns  9 (Side Yard:  10′ required,  7.2′  proposed),   11  (Rear Yard: 25′  required,  19.8′ proposed)  and 12 (Building  Height:  9.6′  permitted,   15.67′  proposed)   for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 43 West Lewis Avenue, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.12, Block  I, Lot 43; in the RO zoning  district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  March  18, 2015 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Brendan  Gallagher  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Copy of site plan and bulk table not dated. (1  page).
2. Architectural  elevation  drawings  dated 3/5/2013  revised  10/08/2014  by Robert

Hoene, Architect.

3. A letter dated February  18, 2015 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

4. A letter dated March  6, 2015 from the County  of Rockland  Departmetn  of

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

5. A letter dated February  23, 2015 from the County  of Rockland  Sewer District

No.1 signed by Joseph  LaFiandra,  Engineer  II.

 

 

 

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. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.

 

 

 

 

Brendan  Gallagher  testified  that they are proposing  to add a living room and dining room with storage area above it; that they have owned  the house  for ten years; that they have four children  ages 18,13, 6 and 3; that they need more living space; that similar additions have been constructed  in the area; and that the proposed  addition  is in keeping  with the character  of the neighborhood.

 

 

3{)1.:1.:10 S~bf 310 NMO!

 

SO   1   LJd    8     Hdl:J  5102

 

N.MOl3~N’flH)    .:JO   N.lt\01

 

 

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, rear yard and building height variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard, rear yard and building height variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar additions have been constructed in the neighborhood.

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

301.:1.:10  S~H310  NMB! SO    1    Wd     B     Hdl:I 510Z Nh\0!3DNV~O .:10  NJA.f)l

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

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

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

which are hereinbefore set forth.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

obligated to issue any necessary permits where any such condition imposed should, in the sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated

hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is

issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement which legally permits such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

301.:L:lO  S)tH310 NM9!

 

SD    1   hid      B     8dl:J  SI02

 

.NM013{)NVHO  .:I@   Nlt\-01

 

Gallagher

ZBA#lS-23

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   March  18,   2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRJBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN  ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING     INSPECTOR-G.M.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY     DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.   of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.   and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,    PB

CHAIRMAN,       ZBA,   PB,  ACABOR

 

301.:L:.W S)!”831G    NMOl

SO   T   u d    8    Hdl:J  SIOZ

 

NM013  ~NV”clO    30 NHr01

 

DECISION

• 3.11, COLUMN 5 #6A: SIGN SIZE APPROVED AS MODIFED (206.59 SQ. FT.)
• 3.11, COLUMN 6: PARKING SPACES APPROVED
• 13.10 B (2): VEGETATION LESS THAN 6′ HIGH APPROVED
• 13.lOB (4): SIGN LOCATION OVERLAY DISTRICT NOT NECESSARY;
• 4.2(2): SIGN ILLUMINATION VARIANCE WITHDRAWN

 

To:   Antimo Del Vecchio, Esq. (Walgreens)

c/o Beattie Padovano, LLC

50 Chestnut Ridge Road Suite 208 . Montvale, New Jersey 07645

ZBA#15-24

Date: March 18, 2015

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#15- 24: Application of Walgreen Site Plan for variances from the Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.11, CS District, Columns 5 #6 a (Signage: 40 sq. ft. permitted, 257.4 sq. ft. proposed); 6 (Parking Spaces: 66 required,

62 proposed); and from the Route 303 Overlay Zone Section 13.lOB (4) (No signage is permitted within the 25′ vegetative buffer: signage is 20′ from the right-of-way line); Section 13.lOB (2) Vegetation less than 6′ high; and from Section 4.2 (2) (An illuminated sign visible through a transparent panel is prohibited). The premises shall be located at 81

Route 303, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section

77.15, Block 1, Lot 24; in the CS Zoning District.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, March 18, 2015 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Antimo Del Vecchio, Esq., Dan Dougherty,Chuck Dietz and Richard Preiss appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Copy of site plan dated February 5, 2015 by Dynamic Engineering (15 pages).
2. Floor Plans prepared by The Dietz Partnership dated January 28, 2015 (2 pages).
3. Drainage Report for A Landmark Tappan, LLC prepared by Dynamic

Engineering dated January 2015.

4. Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan prepared by Dynamic Engineering last revised January 2015.
5. A letter dated March 11, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning (2 pages).
6. A letter dated March 17, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..

7. A letter dated February 18, 2015 from the County of Rockland Department of

Health signed by Scott Mc Kane, P .E ..

 

 

 

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 since the Planning Board noticed its intent to declare itself Lead Agency and distributed that notice of intention to

all Involved Agencies, including the ZBA who consented or did not object to the            ……,        -i Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this application, pursuant to coordinated~     ~      o review under t State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations §617 .6 (b) (3)~d    ::0     ~

since the Planning Board conducted a SEQRA review and on February 11, 2015,   o      ;g   ..,,

rendered an environmental determination of  no significant adverse environmental ::;;       co     0

impacts to result from the proposed land use action (i.e., a ”Negative Declaration”~             ~

”Neg. Dec”), the ZBA is bound by the Planning Board’s Neg Dec and the ZBA canfil>t   -o     ~

0          ::3      w ….

 

-n    ~I

rrt

-i

 

-.,                I       0

~    ·0e1n   ~z

 

 

ZBA#15-24

Page2 of  6

 

 

 

 

require further SEQRA review pursuant to SEQRA Regulation § 617,6 (b)(3). The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and  Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.

 

 

Antimo Del Vecchio, Attorney, testified that the project has been before the Planning Board for some time; that they have completed several traffic studies; that they recently received a preliminary approval and a neg dee and were given permission to proceed to the Zoning Board; that they differ on a few of the variances that are required; the sign setback in the Route 303 Overlay for example; that the sign setback is dimensioned at 20′ from Oak Tree Road and is not part of the Route 303 buffer because it is 35′ away from Route 303; that he has several people with him that will testify to parking requirements, architecture and planning analysis.

 

 

 

Dan Dougherty will speak to the parking requirements; he testified that the Institute of Transportation Engineers parking requirements for pharmacies are lower than the local municipalities requirements; that he has worked on several Walgreen sites and for the proposed building, 40 to 50 parking stalls would be more than sufficient for customers; that the Town requires 66 spaces and the site is providing 62 spaces; that there will be no need for customers to park off site; that according to the Institute studies 2.39 spaces would be needed for 1,000 sq. ft.,; that the 62 spaces provided are well over what the instate studies show are needed; that the buffer required along Route 303 adds to the aesthetics of the site and the area will be benned up 2 to 3  feet and planting 2 to 3 feet in height will be planted on the berm; that the ADA requires a sidewalk connection that complies with the handicap accessibility and the sidewalk will comply; that the grading

in the Route 303 overlay will have the ADA sidewalk in it and the proposed berm with plantings will not cause a site distance problem.

 

Chuck Dietz, Architect, testified that he has designed 40 Walgreens; that the company has certain design criteria that they want for all of their stores; that they want a comer location with a signal at the comer; that they want to have entrances on two roads; that they have a tower element to the building design which designates the entrances to the store; that they like the parking to face along those sides of the store that have the entrances; that they have nationally recognized logos and script for their “W” and “Walgreens Pharmacy” that these stores are not only pharmacies but also sell food, photo, makeup, and other gods; that Walgreens buildings are constructed of maintenance free material such as stone or brick in earth tones that will hold up maintenance free for

fifty years; that the lettering on the building is proportionate to the building; that the west elevation is a major roadway and needs more than one identifying sign; that without the building sign, the entrance might be missed, depending only on the pylon sign; that there are also two directional signs for the drive thru; and that the lettering on the building can be made smaller but not too small that it would change the font.

 

Richard Preiss, Professional Planner, Master Urban Planning in New York and New

Jersey for both developers and municipal planners; testified that he has done an analysis

1fb

of the requested variances for the site; that the number of parking spaces being re~esfe!     -1 to be waived are only four spaces and the 25′ vegetative buffer with less than 6′          S     ~ plantings, that is being bermed to two or three feet with at least two feet planting~re   ~      z both minimal requests; the ITE parking generation data states that at the peak of basin~       ~ no more than 43 spaces would be used and the applicant is providing 62 spaces; ~t   ·          ex>  ·                               o

adding an additional four space that would not be used does not benefit the site; ~    less      ~ impervious surface is better; that the berm with the less than six foot height planti~s  i~       ~ much more substantial than the buffers of adjoining lots in New York and nearby New)-‘  1                    ~

1,

Jersey; that the berm and its plantings meet the intent and purpose of the law; that~e~b      ~

has been substantial testimony regarding the signage; that proportionality analysis’\Vasc.n   z

 

 

done for comparative  properties;  that the area has several  shopping  plazas  with multiple stores, which are all permitted  40 sq. ft. of signage  each; that the Tappan  Plaza has  13 stores plus Wendy’s   and the large restaurant  space; that the Stateline  Plaza has nine stores and Stateline  Plaza II has six stores; that comparatively  they have much more signage per sq. ft. than is permitted  for Walgreens;  that the proposed  Walgreens  Store is 14,000 sq. ft. and they are only permitted  40 sq. ft.  of signage;  that if the comparison  were done by square footage, Walgreens  would be permitted  about 200 sq. ft. of signage;  that the store is a new anchor  and gateway  into the area; that the Dentist  Office across the street is

2,020 sq. ft. building  compared  to 14,000 sq. ft. building  for Walgreens;  and that the

development  is a re-investment   in the area for economic  strength.

 

 

After the testimony  from all of the Walgreens’   experts,  Mr. Del Vecchio  offered  to poll the Board for a consensus  of where they stood on the application,  knowing  that he had a negative  letter from Rockland  County Planning  and would need all four members  present  to vote in favor of the application.   After polling  the Board,  and considering  a continuation;  the following  reductions  were discussed:  (1) the reader section of the pylon sign would be removed,  reducing  that sign to 21 sq.; (2) the west elevation  or Route 303 side of the building  would remain  as proposed:  Walgreens script  65.03 sq. ft., Pharmacy  13.20 sq. ft. and the “W”  would be 30.54 sq. ft.;(3) the drive thru directional   signs are removed  from the calculations  because  they are directional  signs without  a logo; (4) the north elevation  of the building  or Oak Tree Road side is reduced  as follows:  Walgreens  script: 38.98 sq. ft.; Pharmacy  7.3 sq. ft.; and the “W” remains  at 30.54;  (5) for a total signage  of 206.59  sq. ft..

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

John Quevedo,  33 Lexington  Road, Tappan  testified  that he has two objections  to Walgreens;  safety and quality  of life on Lexington;  that the delivery  by box trucks in and out converts  a residential  neighborhood  to Times  Square; that this is the only spot in Tappan  that has a shopping  center emptying  into a residential  neighborhood;   that all the signs should face Route 303, not the residences;  that the illuminating  lights should be shining into residences;  that you would not allow explosives  next to a school and this should not be put in his backyard;  that there will be 3,000 cars a day on Lexington;  one car every 30 seconds  during rush hour;  another  type of store should be built there; would you like this in your backyard?

 

Eileen  Larkin,  15 Home  Tooke Road, Palisades,  testified  that the Board should take direction  from the Rockland  County  letter; that they clearly  state your responsibilities; that the pylon  sign that is twenty  feet in the air has to go; that you would have to be visually  impaired  not to see the signs on the building;  that she sat on the comprehensive

plan and the applicant  needs to show a hardship  to get variances  and Walgreens  does not

have hardship;  that this application  changes  Orangetown,  it is 24 hour 7 day a week business  that sells beer; that Oak Tree Road is a Historic  Road that meets both historic districts  in the Town; that the berm will create a site problem  for people  pulling  out of the parking  lot; that this is an important  issue for us; that you need a majority  plus one to pass this; that since I moved her in 1971 the Zacharachis  property  was a vital busy shopping center’  that we do not need these people putting  a spin on things’  they need to meet

today’s  zoning  standards.

 

The Board members  made personal  inspections  of the premises  the week before  the -t       ~        -t

 

meeting  and found them to be properly  posted  and as generally  described  on the       =0:

t;:;

:0e·

 

application.                                                                                                                   z      ~      z C’)                                            :::c   Ci> r- .                                  -n

A satisfactory  statement  in accordance  with the provisions  of Section  809 of the Ger@”al co     ~

Municipal  Law of New York was received.                                                                        ~      -o     ~ Mr. Sullivan made a motion  to close the Public  Hearing  which motion  was secondedjiy    ::3      cn Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.                                                                                 ~      ,_. :         ~

~     ·O•        =:

0

….        (.J:l       z

 

 

 

 

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:  §3.11, Column 5 #6a sign size, as modified to 206.59 sq. ft.;

• 13.1 OB (2) Overlay District vegetation less than 6′ high; § 3.11, Column 6- parking spaces (62); variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or

environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant has reduced the requested signage on the north side of the building facing the Residential District, and removed the “reader” section from the proposed pylon sign, i.e., the electronic illuminated message board has been eliminated.

 

2. The Board determined that § 13 .1OB(4)sign location Overlay District variance was not applicable and the applicant withdrew the request for a variance from § 4.2(2) sign illumination.

 

3. The requested: §3.11, Column 5 #6a sign size, as modified to 206.59 sq. ft.;

• 13.lOB (2) Overlay District vegetation less than 6′ high;§ 3.11, Column 6- parking spaces (62) variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant has reduced the requested signage on the north side of the building facing the Residential District and removed the reader section from the proposed pylon sign, i.e., the electronic illuminated message board has been eliminated.

 

 

 

4. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances.. The applicant has reduced the requested signage on the north side of the building facing the residential district and removed the reader section from the proposed pylon sign.

 

5. 5. The requested: 3.11, Column 5 #6a sign size, as modified to 206.59 sq. ft.;§  13.lOB (2) Overlay District vegetation less than 6′ high;§  3.11, Column 6- parking spaces (62) variances, although somewhat substantial, afford benefits to the applicant that

are not outweighed by the detriment, if any, to the health, safety and welfare of the surrounding neighborhood or nearby community.  The applicant has reduced the

requested signage on the north side of the building facing the Residential District and removed the reader section from the proposed pylon sign, , i.e., the electronic illuminated message board has been eliminated.

 

 

 

 

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  variances,  namely:  §3.11, Column  5 #6a sign size as modified  to 206.59  sq. ft. as follows:  (1) the reader  section

( the electronic  illuminated  message  board)of  the pylon  sign would be removed,

reducing  that sign to 21 sq. ft.;  (2) the west elevation  or Route 303 side of the building  shall  remain  as proposed,  Walgreens  script  65.03 sq. ft., Pharmacy  13.20 sq. ft., and the “W”  shall be 30.54 sq. ft.;(3) the drive-thru  directional   signs are removed  from the calculations  because  they are directional  signs without  a logo; (4) the signage  on the north elevation  of the building  (or Oak Tree Road side) is reduced as follows:  Walgreens  script, 38.98 sq. ft.; Pharmacy  ,7.3 sq. ft., and the “W”  remains at 30.54 sq. ft.; (5) for a total signage  of 206.59  sq. ft.; §  13.10B(2)  Overlay  District vegetation  less than 6′ high ;  §  3 .11, Column  6- parking  spaces  ( 62) ;   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..:.    -4 any other board of the Town of Orangetown granting any required final approval t~uc~         ~ project, whichever is later, but in any event within two years of the filing of this d~sio;g        z Merely obtaining a Building Permit  with respect to construction or a Certificate of0          :::o     ~ Occupancy with respect to use does not constitute “substantial implementation” f01~}1e· co ·                                     o

purposes hereof                                                                                                           ~              ~

(:f)          -0        ::z:

0          ::3      ~

-rt       ~I            -I

-rt       .          I       0

(“)    .    C>.      :E

rT1        (Jl          %

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested   variances,   namely:

• 3.11, Column   5 #6a sign  size  as modified  to 206.59   sq.  ft. as follows:  (1)  the reader section   ( the electronic  illuminated   message  board)of  the pylon  sign would be removed, reducing  that sign  to 21  sq.  ft.;  (2) the west elevation   or Route 303  side of the building shall  remain  as proposed,   Walgreens  script  65.03 sq. ft.,  Pharmacy  13.20 sq. ft.,  and the “W”  shall  be 30.54  sq.  ft.;(3) the drive-thru  directional    signs  are removed  from the calculations  because  they are directional   signs  without  a logo;  (4) the signage  on the

north elevation   of the building  (or Oak Tree Road side) is reduced  as follows:   Walgreens

script,  38.98   sq.  ft.; Pharmacy  ,7.3   sq. ft.,  and the “W” remains  at 30.54  sq.  ft.; (5) for a total signage  of206.59   sq.  ft.;§   13.10B(2)    Overlay  District  vegetation  less than 6′ high;

• 3.11, Column  6-  parking  spaces (62);      and override  the letter  from the County of

Rockland  Department  of Planning  dated March  11,  2015;   was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,   seconded  by Ms.  Castelli  and canied  as follows:  Mr. Feroldi,   aye; Mr. Sullivan,  aye;  Ms.  Castelli,  aye; and Ms.  Salomon,   aye.  Mr. Bosco and Mr.  Quinn were absent.

 

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

 

 

DATED:    March  18,  2015

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-NA

 

B

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHArRMAN, ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR