Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS MARCH  5. 2014

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:                JOAN  SALOMON NANETTE  ALBANESE PA TRICIA  CASTELLI MICHAEL  BOSCO

DANIEL  SULLIVAN,  CHAffi.MAN

 

 

ABSENT:                                         LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

 

 

ALSO  PRESENT:                   Dennis  Michaels,  Esq., Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah  Arbo lino,

Deputy Town Attorney Official  Stenographer Administrative Aide

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

noted below:

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

PUBLISHED   ITEMS DECISIONS

 

 

 

 

CONTINlJED   ITEMS:

 

 

 

ZAPATA  SIDEWALK  DINING

77.2012 I 24; R-15 zone

ZBA#l3-92

 

 

NEW  ITEMS:

 

 

OUR LADY  OF SACRED  HEART                APPROVED EMERGENCY   GENERATOR

PERFORMANCE   STANDARDS

77.11I1I11;  R-15 zone

ZBA#14-15

 

 

 

 

 

HYUN                                                ACCESSORY STRUCTURE

78.18/2I13;  R-40 zone                       LOCATION  APPROVED

ZBA#14-16

 

 

 

TRAYNOR                                              FRONT  YARD,  SIDE YARD,

74.13 I 4133;  RG zone                      BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES   APPROVED

ZBA#14-17

 

 

 

Minutes

Page 2 of2

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board,  the Zoning  Board  of Appeals:  RESOLVED,  to approve  the action  of the Acting  Chairperson  executing  on behalf  of the Board   its consent to the Planning  Board  acting   as Lead Agency   for the State Enviromnental   Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA)  coordinated  environmental  review of actions pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   § 617.6 (b)(3) the following  applications:   Pearl River Brick Building,  20-30 North  William  Street, Pearl River, N.Y. 68.16 I 6 I 3 & 4;

CS zone; and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  to request   to be notified  by the Planning Board

of SEQ RA proceedings,  hearings,  and determinations    with respect  to these matters.

 

 

THE DECISIONS  RELATED  TO THE ABOVE  HEARJNGS  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  8:30 P.M.

 

Dated:  March  5, 2014

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR (Individual Decisions)

Rockland County Planning

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

t:}I       t)   //J#

By ‘;1Jft{!2alvw/(j/L/~

Deoofah  Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

 

 

30L·:L:W S)H:l31D  N.MOl

 

 

 

SPECIAL   PERMIT   DENIED

 

 

 

To:  Burton Dorfman  (Zapata)

450 Piermont  A venue

Piermont,  NewYork    10968

DECISION

 

 

 

 

 

 

ZBA # 13-92

Date:   December  4, 2013

March  5, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l3-92:   Application   of Zapata  Restaurant  for a Special  Permit pursuant  to Chapter

43 of the Orangetown   Code (Zoning)  Section 3.11, Column  7 #6  (All restaurants  shall be within  completely  enclosed buildings,  unless by Special permit  of the Zoning  Board  of Appeals)  for sidewalk  dining.  The property  is located  at 779 Route  340, Palisades,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  77.20, Block 2, Lot 24;

R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard  by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at meetings  held on the following  Wednesdays,   December  4, 2013 and March  5, 2014 at which  time the Board made  the determination   hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

Adolfo  Godinez,  Adolfo  J. Godinez  and Burt Dorfman,  Attorney,  appeared  and testified. TI1e following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan with the proposed  dining  area hand  drawn  on it.
2. Zoning  Board  of Appeals  Decisions  #07-38  dated  04/18/2007  and #09-85  dated

May 5, 2010.

3. A letter  dated November   14, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

4. A letter  dated November   19, 2013 from the county  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny  Lin, P .E..

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

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

6. A letter dated December  3, 2013 from the State of New York  Department  of

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

7. An e-mail dated November 24, 2013 from Celeste Bester.
8. A letter dated November 25, 2013 from Celeste Bester, 793 Route 340 Palisades,

NY.

9. Two more letters in opposition to the project.

 

 

 

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

 

Burt Dorfman, Attorney testified that they are before  the Board for an appeal or interpretation of the Building Inspector; that the application does not require a variance for the sidewalk dining; that it does require review by the Architectural Review Board only; that side walk dining is renewed yearly and every year to Building Department has the right to revoke it; that a Special Permit if forever; that they are showing 9 tables with four chairs each; that they are not proposing any landscaping; that he was told that he did not need a certified engineer or architect drawing for the application; that they are requesting the Board to reverse John Giardiello’s determination that they do not need a

 

Special Permit or if the Board determines that they do need one, they request that it be granted; that the nearest resident acc3’8o~J~i~~t>-iSt9’~ mRo’f11’tse the tables because

 

LI  r tJd    h2  Hmtl hIOl

 

 

ZBA#l3-92

Page 2 of  6

 

 

 

the sign for the restaurant  blocks  them;  that the proposed  tables  are 150′ from the next property;  that there  are hedges  on the property  along the southerly  side; that no wall or plantings  or proposed;  that this operation  would be seasonal  and limited  to I 0:00 P .M.; that every year they  would pay a fee and the Town can extend it or deny it; that the

Sidewalk  Dining regulations  are very specific;  that the first application  that was denied in

2007 was for an area behind  the restaurant  with pavers,  many tables  and a three foot wall; that the second application  also was proposed  for the rear of the restaurant  with a paved area, many tables  and a bar area; that this application  is very different;  and went through the requirements  for a Special  Permit.

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

 

Roger Bester,  793 Route  340, Palisades  testified  that he was present  for the last hearing when the applicant  presented  sound experts;  that he has a very nice restaurant  but the neighborhood   does not want outside  dining because  it will create noise; that the voices would bounce  and disturb the neighborhood.

 

Linda McErlean,  769 Route 340, Palisades,  testified  that she is against  any lights  and sound outside  that it will affect the property  values.

 

 

Celeste  Bester,  793 Route  340, Palisades,  testified  that the sidewalk  exists because  15 years  ago the neighbors  begged  for a sidewalk: after a fatal accident;  that the other place on Route 9W that got permission  for tables  outside  is not in the center  of a residential neighborhood;   that if this is permitted  everyone  will hear it.

 

Viatcheslav  Pronkin,  39 Iroquois  Ave., testified  that he cannot picture  where nine tables would  fit in the front of the restaurant;  that it would  not be safe with route 340 traffic; that this is a quality oflife  issue for himself  and his neighbors;  that there is no outdoor dining  and there should be any outdoor  dining in this residential  neighborhood.

 

Blakley  Mc Guire, 35 Iroquois  Ave., testified  that she moved  into he house two days ago; that she lives directly  above the restaurant;  that they do hear  customers  in the parking  lot and they moved  here for peace  and quiet and are against  any outdoor  dining.

 

Helen  Schuler,  10 Maroney  Ave.,  testified  that she has lived in her home  for forty years; and she would  like to know if the parking  lot is changing  and if they would  be adding pavers  or patio blocks;  and that the cliff is behind  the restaurant  and acts like a Greek Theatre  amplifying  the sound,

 

Carlos Hedaria,  785 Route 340, testified  that lives right next  door to the restaurant;  that he can hear people  talking now  as they walk to the car; that people  use the sidewalk  to walk to the bus to jersey  and that he cannot imagine  nine tables in that small  area of grass.

 

Susan Walters,  9 Yadanza  Court, testified  that her deck looks  down on the area of the restaurant;  that outdoor dining  would  take away  any pleasure  she gets from her deck because  it would be too noisy  to sit out there,

 

 

ZBA#13-92

Page 3 of  6

 

 

 

 

Joanne Pedersen,  800 Route 340, testified  that she has lived in her house  for ten years;

that she is four down and across the street  from the restaurant;  that the area is not as quiet and peaceful  as the neighbors  say; that the restaurant  is closed by 10:30′  that if there was noise  the police  could e called; that she thinks  this is a wonderful  idea and the Board should  consider  it.

 

Steve Geller,  755 Route  340, testified  that he also lives about four houses  down and he would  not have  a problem  with the application.

 

Diane Langmuir,  37 Iroquois;  testified  that she has lived in hr hose for 34 years; that the police have been  called before;  that she has called three times  for noise in the parking  lot; that the noise rises  from the site; that it is upsetting  to have to hear this application  again; that they were already  denied twice  for outdoor  dining;  and how  close to the street would these tables be?

 

Abedin  Astafa, 762 Route  340, across the street from Steve, testified  that he is new to the neighborhood;   that he is inherently  against  adding more  noise to the neighborhood;    and that the outdoor  dining would  add more noise.

 

There was discussion  between  the Board  and the Deputy  Town Attorney  regarding  the State Environmental   Quality   Review  Act and if Chapter  31 B of the Code of the Orangetown  Code would be the proper  section  of the Code to refer to and, if it is, the Zoning  Board would  need to declare  themselves  Lead Agency  and notices  would  need to be mailed  out; and at this time, the applicant  requested  a continuance  until  SEQRA  could be addressed.  It was then  announced  by the Board to all in attendance  that the Public Hearing  was being  kept open and continued  to a future meeting  for the sole purpose  of addressing  SEQRA  only.

 

At the meeting  of March  5, 2014 the discussion  regarding  SEQRA  was settled. Burt Dorfman,  Attorney,  and Aldopho  Godinez  appeared.

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

 

Dan Sullivan questioned the applicant regarding the minimum number of tables that they would find acceptable if the Board decided to grant a Special Permit for sidewalk dining and the applicant responded that five tables would be acceptable if they could come back next year to increase the number, Dan Sullivan said he was thinking of two tables of four.

 

There was no call for public comment.

 

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

 

 

ZBA#l3-92

Page 4 of  ‘6

 

 

 

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 Special Permit  is granted  do not outweigh  the detriment   to the health,  safety and welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant, for the following  reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested  special permit  for sidewalk  dining will produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   and be a detriment  to nearby properties.  The restaurant  is a pre-existing  non-conforming   use within  a residential  district,  and as such, is surrounded  by single-family   residences;  and noise  from customers  is an inherent  part of any restaurant  business.  Testimony  from at least  12 surrounding neighbors  all addressed  the existing  noise problems  coming  from the restaurant.  The addition  of 36 people  eating  and drinking  outside  will significantly  and adversely impact upon the surrounding  property  owners by devaluing  their properties  and by interfering  with  and preventing  the peaceful,  quiet enjoyment  of their properties, especially  during the warm weather,  when the neighbors  will not be able to sit outside without  being impacted  by the noise  from the proposed  outdoor  dining.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested special permit  for sidewalk  dining will have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district. The restaurant  is a pre-existing  non-conforming   use within  a residential  district,  and as such, is surrounded  by single-family  residences;  and noise  from customers  is an inherent  part of any restaurant  business.  Testimony  from at least  12 surrounding neighbors  all addressed  the existing  noise problems  coming from the restaurant.  The addition  of 36 people  eating  and drinking  outside  will significantly  and adversely impact upon the surrounding  property  owners  by devaluing  their properties  and by interfering  with  and preventing  the peaceful,  quiet enjoyment  of their properties,

especially  during the warm  weather,  when  the neighbors  will not be able to sit outside without being  :impacted by the noise  from the proposed  outdoor dining.

 

 

ZBA#13-92

Page 5 of  6

 

 

 

 

3. Although the proposed  sidewalk: dining will be appropriately  located  with respect  to transportation,   water  supply, waste  disposal,  fire and police  protection  and other public  facilities,  and will not cause undue traffic  congestion  or create a traffic hazard; the sidewalk  dining will:

(a) adversely  affect the character  of, or property  values  in, the area,

(b) create,  at any point of determination   set forth in Orangetown  Zoning  Code  §

4.16,§ 4.17 and§  4.18, the objectionable   element  of noise,  as referred  to in§ 4.11, more  than is characteristic  of the uses  expressly  permitted  as of right in the

Zoning  District  and in a manner  or amount as to adversely  affect the surrounding

area, and

(c) otherwise  impair the public health,  convenience,   comfort,  prosperity  and/or other aspects  of the general welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   and community.

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  Special Permit  for Sidewalk Dining is DENIED;  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.

 

 

ZBA#13-92

Page 6 of  6

 

 

(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 deny the application  for the requested  special permit  for sidewalk  dining  was presented  and moved by Ms. Salomon,  seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows:   Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms.  Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Sullivan,  nay; and Mr, Bosco,  nay. Mr. Feroldi  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:   March  5, 2014

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TO\VN OF ORANGETO\VN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BULLDING INSPECTOR-B.vW.

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENT  AL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

~

a 1   wJ  h2  ~ul 1iru2

 

DECISION

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS APPROVED

 

 

 

To:  Anthony DeRobertis (Our Lady Emergency Generator)          ZBA # 14-15

P.O. Box 216                                                                 Date: March 5, 2014

Blauvelt, New York 10913

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l4-15: Application of  Our Lady of Sacred Heart for a review pursuant to  Chapter

43 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Orangetown, Section 4.12 Performance Standards Review of a 20 kw natural gas emergency generator. The premises are located at 110 Kings Highway, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 77.11, Block 1, Lot 11 in the R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Richard Neely appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Copy of Site Plan with generator drawn on it.
2. Generac Guardian Series 14/l 7/ 20Kw residential standby generators air-cooled gas engine (5 pages).
3. Performance standards resume of operation and equipment form dated January

29, 2014.

4. Fire prevention supplement form,
5. A letter dated January 31, 2014 from the Town of Orangetown, Department of Environmental Management and Engineering signed by Joseph J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner.
6. A letter dated January 30, 2014 from the Town of Orangetown, Bureau of Fire

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

7. A letter dated February 24, 2014 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

 

 

 

 

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 based upon the testimony heard by this Board, and the facts as presented in the application submissions and in the record, since the application entails the ZBA engaging in a review to determine compliance with technical requirements, that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations

• 617.5 (c) (28); which does not require SEQRA enviromnental review. TI1e motion was

seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye, Mr. Feroldi was absent.

 

The Performance Standards Resume of Operations and Equipment, and the Fire

Prevention Supplement completed by the applicant were thereupon reviewed in detail.

 

 

ZBA#14-15

Page2of4

 

Anthony  DeRobertis  testified  that they  are proposing  to install  a 20 kw natural  gas emergency  generator  in the back right  comer  of the church;  that it will run at 66 decipal at 23′;  that it is approximately   30 to 3 5′ from the property  line; that it will run once a week for ten minutes  for a required  test; and that it will be screened by white pines.

 

 

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  the documents  presented,  the Board  found and concluded  that:

 

Based upon the information   contained  in the applicant’s Resume  of Operations

and Equipment,  the Fire Prevention  Supplement,  the letter dated January  31, 2014 from Joseph J. Moran,  P.E., Commissioner   of the Orangetown  Department  of Environmental   Management  and Engineering  (D.E.M.E.)  concluding  that  there is no reasonable  doubt as to the likelihood  of applicant’s   conformance  to  Zoning Code§  4.1 Performance   Standards,  and the memorandum   dated January  30, 2014 from Michael  Bettrnann,  Chief Fire Inspector,  Town of Orangetown  Bureau  of Fire Prevention  (B.F.P.);  the other documents  presented  to the Board  and the testimony  of applicant’s representatives,   the Board  finds and concludes  that

conformance  with the Performance   Standards  set forth in Zoning   Code  Section

4.1 will result  sufficient  to warrant  the issuance  of a Building  Permit  and/or Certificate  of Occupancy,   subject to compliance  with the orders, rules and regulations  of the Orangetown   Office of Building,  Zoning  & Planning Administration   & Enforcement,  DEME,  and Orangetown  B.F.P., and all other departments  having jurisdiction   of the premises.

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for  Performance   Standards   Conformance, pursuant  to Zoning  Code§   4.1, is APPROVED  with the SPECIFIC  CONDITION   that the applicant  adhere to all of the requirements   set forth by the Chief Fire Inspector,  Town of Orangetown  B.F .P .;    AND  FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that  such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board  of the minutes  of which  they are a part.

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

3~LLJ.,v

“‘  ,…,.,.~-A   ~H-..~01

::i i!tl.:l   !.J  l\in

 

(i) The approval of any variance,  Performance Standards,  or Special  Permit is granted by                        ·

the Board  in accordance  with  and subject  to those  facts shown  on the plans  s~i(ed(Jd     hZ mn.J h1HZ

and, if applicable,  as amended  at or prior to this hearing,  as hereinabove  recited  or set

forth.                                                                                                                             NM013DN~v’d030 NMOl

 

 

ZBA#l4-15

Page3   of4

 

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

 

 

 

(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,  Performance Standards,  or Special  Permit  granted herein  is subject  to any conditions,  the building department  shall not be obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition  imposed  should,  in the sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first

complied  with  as contemplated  hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,

a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office  of Building,  Zoning  and Planning

Administration   and Enforcement  which  legally  permits  such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

or a Certificate  of Occupancy  with respect  to use  does not constitute  “substantial

implementation”   for the purposes  hereof.

 

 

Emergency Generator Performance Standards

ZBA#14-15

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

TI1e 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: Febrnary  19, 2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY DEPUTYTOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING lNSPECTOR -M.M.

B ~~C-‘4.dL..LJ_.”–b-<->£_~•

eb orah Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HfGHWA Y DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FlLE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT YARD  VARIAN  CE RE-AFFIRMED  AND  ACCESSORY    STRUCTURE

VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To:  Mikyong  Hyun

42 Woods  Road

Palisades,  New York  10964

ZBA#   14-16

Date:   March  5, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l 4-16: Application   of Mikyong  Hyun  for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning)  of the Orangetown  Code,  Section 3.12, Group E, Columns  8 (Front Yard:  50′ required,

10.4′  existing  for the existing  studio  and a portion  of the new addition  will also be in the

50′  setback)  and from Section  5.153 (Accessory  Structure:  not permitted  in the front yard and  shed is 4’  from the front lot line) for an addition  to an existing  cottage  and rebuilding of existing  shed in disrepair.  The premises  are located  at 139 Washington  Spring Road, Palisades,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  78.18, Block 2, Lot  13.l;  R-40 zoning  district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown   at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  March  5, 2014 at which  time the Board made  the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Mikyong Hyun appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural plans  dated  01/30/2014  signed and sealed by John Ricotta, Architect.  (2 pages)
2. A copy of an article  about the restoration  of the house in the Palisades  newsletter.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Mikyong  Hyun testified  that she and her husband  purchased  the  property  in 2005; that it took some time to subdivide  the property;  that she has spent the last two years  and eight months  to fix the Mann House;  that during that time she has tarped  the existing  shed. Planning  to rebuild  it in kind; that the storage  shed completely  caved in during Super Storm  sandy; that she started to rebuild  it and Bert Van’Wurmb,  the building  inspector, told her that she needed  to go to the Zoning  Board  for a variance  to rebuild  the shed

because  it is in a front yard;  that if it had not collapsed  she could have fixed it because  of

its pre-existing  non-conforming   location;  that she would  like to keep it in its present location  but has shortened  it to protect  the existing  large tree close to the shed; that the shed will be used to store gardening  equipment  and will not house  a car; that  it will have landscaping  and grass  around it.

 

 

 

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 accessory  structure variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The subject

shed replaced  a shed that had existed  in this location  for many  years.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested accessory  structure variance  will not have  an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The subject  shed replaced  a shed that had existed  in this location  for many years.

 

 

 

 

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  accessory  structure variance,  although  somewhat  substantial,  affords benefits  to the applicant  that is not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health, safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.  The subject  shed replaced  a shed that had existed  in this location  for many years.

 

 

 

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  accessory  structure location variance  is APPROVED   and the change  or modification  to the front yard variance  is acknowledged   and reaffirmed;  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                                                                 ·

 

 

–

L!  t  Md     hZ  HWJ LWZ

 

Hyun

ZBA#l4-16

Page  4 of 4

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested accessory structure location variance and reaffirmation and acknowledgment of front yard variance as changed/modified           was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Feroldi 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: March 5, 2014

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN .

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE BU1LDINGINSPECTOR-B.vW.

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRt\1AN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

3::1!.:HO  S)!H31G rHAOl

–

Li  1   Yd    h2  B&Y M8Z

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT   YARD,  SIDE  YARD  AND BUILDING   HEIGHT   VARIANCES

APPROVED

 

To:  Thean Traynor

2 Gary Lane

Orangeburg, New York 10962

ZBA#  14-17

Date:  March 5, 2014

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l4-17: Application of Thean Traynor for variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) of the Orangetown Code, Section 3.12, Group I, Columns 8 (Front Yard: 25′ required,

22.12′ proposed), 9 (Side Yard: 10′ required, 8′ proposed) and 12 (Building Height: 20′

permitted, 21.6′ proposed) (Section 5.12 undersized lot applies) for an addition to an existing single family residence. The premises are located at 2 Gary Lane, Orangeburg, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.13, Block 4, Lot

33; RG zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, March 5, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Thean and Colleen Traynor and Robert Hoene, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

L   Architectural plans dated 11115/2013signed and sealed by Robert  Hoene,

Architect. (3 pages)

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

Robert Hoene, Architect, testified that the applicant would like to add a master bedroom and bathroom over the existing garage and a small front porch; and that one of the existing bedrooms would be used for the hallway to the new bedroom.

 

Thean Traynor testified that the existing shed is not on a foundation and that he would move it to be in compliance with the Zoning Code.

 

 

 

”

Ll 1   f.Jd    h 2  ifild  MU2

 

NM013fHffliO  .:HJ  NMOl

 

 

Traynor

ZBA#l4-17

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

TI1e 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  front yard,  side 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 area. The applicant  has agreed to move the existing  shed to be in compliance  with the zoning  code.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested  front yard,  side 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 area. The applicant has agreed to move the existing shed to be in compliance with the zoning code.

 

 

 

3. TI1e benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances.

 

4. The requested front yard, side 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 constrncted in the area. The applicant has

agreed to move the existing shed to be in compliance with the zoning code.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

Traynor

ZBA#14-17

• Page 3  of  4

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  front yard, side yard and building  height  variances  are APPROVED   with the specific  condition  that the applicant re-locate  the existing  storage  shed to be in compliance  with the Orangetown  Zoning

Code; 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~ng  a Building  Permit   with res~e-¥~tt’-1~9J18:.N1a~~O-Nlf~Q’..trti~cate  of

..

Occupancy  with respect  to use does not constrtn’t:’e “Suostantial implementation”   for the purposes  hereof,                                                     ~      1  tJd   h2 mrut  hllll

~

 

Traynor

ZBA#14-17

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   front yard, side yard  and building  height  variances  with the specific  condition  that the applicant  re-locate the existing  storage  shed to be in compliance  with the Orangetown  Zoning  Code;was presented   and moved  by Ms. Albanese,  seconded  by Ms.  Salomon  and carried as follows: Ms.  Castelli,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; and Ms. Albanese,  aye; and Mr.

Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Feroldi 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:   March  5, 2014

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-RAO.

 

By……..::..t.~aL.-‘.”‘–‘-‘-~-l..L~~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVlRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR