Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONfNG  BOARD  OF APPEALS MAY  15,2013

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

DANIEL  SULLIVAN,  CHAIRMAN JOAN  SALOMON

NANETTE  ALBANESE PATRICIA  CASTELLI MICHAEL  BOSCO

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

 

ABSENT:

NONE

 

 

 

 

ALSO  PRESENT:

Dennis  Michaels,  Esq. Ann Maxie Ambrose, Deborah  Arbolino

Deputy Town Attorney Official  Stenographer Administrative  Aide

 

 

 

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

 

 

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

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

 

NEW ITEMS: LENNOX

68.12 / l / 38; RG zone

PUBLISHED  ITEMS DECISIONS

 

 

 

FRONT  YARD,  SIDE YARD,                          ZBA#l3-29

AND BUILDING  HEIGHT  VARIANCES APPROVED  AS MODIFIED

 

 

 

WOLANSKI	SIDE YARD  AND	ZBA#13-30
68.16 I 6 I 41; CS zone	TOTAL  SIDE YARD  VARIANCES
	APPROVED
PIR/ LEVESQUE 78.l 7 / 2 I 48; R-40 zone	FLOOR  AREA  RATIO,  FRONT  YARD, AND BUILDING  HEIGHT  VARIANCES	ZBA#l3-31

APPROVED

 

 

ONE RAMLAND  ROAD          FRONT  YARD, BUILDING  HEIGHT

73.21 / 1   I 23 &  24; LIO zone              AND LOADING  BERTH

VARIANCES   APPROVED

ZBA#l3-32

 

ONE RAMLAND  ROAD                    SECTION  4.1 PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE   STANDARDS        STANDARDS   COMPLIANCE

73.21 / 1   / 23 &  24; LIO zone

ZBA#l3-33

 

 

155 CORPORATE  DRIVE                  FRONT  YARD,  BUILDlNG                  ZBA#l3-34

73.19II11  & 73.l5/l/18;     LIO zone   HEIGHT,  AND LOADING  BERTH

V ARTANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

155 CORPORATE  DRIVE                  SECTION  4.1 PERFORMANCE PERFORMANCE   STANDARDS       STANDARDS   CONPLIANCE

73.191111  & 73.15 I 1118; LIO zone

ZBA#13-35

 

]~H.dO S)UB10 N’!\tll

al 1  w eiar:mz

–

tJ&O.l!i3;NV(10  ;JO Nlttll

 

Minutes

Page 2

 

 

 

ADDITIONAL    BUSINESS:

 

 

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 Environmental   Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA)  coordinated  environmental   review of

actions  pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations§ 617.6 (b)(3) the following  applications: Henry  Kaufman  Campgrounds,   Master Plan Review., 667 Blauvelt  Road, pearl River, NY  69.14/  l/ 28; R-80 zone; Kopenek  Subdivision  Plan, 20 Steuben  Avenue,  Tappan, NY,  77.06/2/69;  R-15 zone;  School of Rock  conditional  use permit,  225 Erie Street, Blauvelt,  NY 70.14/4/33;  CS zone;  Wells Lane Site Plan, 258 South Boulevard,  Critical

Environmental   Area, 66.17/1/25.2;   R-22 zone; 30 Ramland  Road Internal  Subdivision,  30

Ramland  Road,  Orangeburg,  NY, 73.20/1/28;  LIO zone;  Hayes  Site Plan,  626 Western Highway,  Blauvelt,  NY,   70.09 I 3141.1;  R-15 zone;  and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  to request   to be notified  by the Planning  Board  of SEQ RA proceedings,  hearings,  and determinations    with respect  to these  matters.

 

 

 

 

THE DECISIONS  RELATED  TO THE ABOVE  HEARINGS   are inserted  herein  and made part of these minutes.

 

 

The verbatim  minutes,  as recorded  by the Board’s  official  stenographer  for the above hearings,  are not transcribed.

 

There being no further business  to come before  the Board,  on motion  duly made, seconded  and carried,  the meeting  was adjourned  at  11: 10 P .M.

 

Dated:   May   15, 2013

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR (Individual Decisions)

Rockland County Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

By(/)~)~

‘Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

:!{;EBO~)Hf310~~Ql

fi  t  w a1wr··mi

 

N~~~3fJNVhl0dO.NfiOl

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT   YARD,  SIDE  YARD  AND BUILDING   HEIGHT   VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:  William  Lenox

4 7 West  Carroll  Street

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#   13-29

Date:  May  15, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-29: Application  of  William  Lennox  for  variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown,  RG District,  Group  Q, Columns  8 (Front  Yard: 25′  required,  10′ and 8′ existing),  9 (Side Yard:  10′ required,  5′  existing)  and  12 (Building  height:  8’8″ permitted,   15′ proposed)  for an addition  to an existing  detached  garage at an existing

single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 47 West  Carroll  Street  Pearl River

New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.12′, Block I, Lo’ t

38; RG zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

William Lenox and Robert Hoene, Architect, appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Architectural plans dated 01/05/2012 by Robert Hoene, Architect.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

 

Robert Hoene, Architect, testified that the applicant would like to extend the existing single car garage to a two-car garage and add a room above for storage since the existing house is small; that he id not realize that there was a paper road next to the property when he drew the plans; that when they submitted for the permit, they found out that they need to meet two front yard requirements instead of a front yard and side yard; that the setback to the yards are not changing; that they plan to use part of the existing foundation and add to it in the rear and toward the existing house; that they can lower the height by making the ceiling height 7′ 5″ and it will not be habitable space; that he proposed the deck for

the second floor to add architectural interest but that can be removed; and that they will remove the slop sink.

 

William Lennox testified that the existing garage was built in 1912; that the driveway goes directly to Carroll Street; that he lives alone; that he has three cars and motorcycles; and that he has no intention of creating an apartment. 3~H.:fO ~W3lQ   1&61

01 t  Yd   Ql lllf’ ml

 

DflGamv~o ~m Nao1

 

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

Mary  Gabalski,  54 West Crooked  Hill Road, Pearl  River, testified  that she has concerns that the structure  will become  an apartment;  and that there are a lot of children in the neighborhood.

 

 

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

 

 

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

Municipal Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal observation of the property, hearing all the testimony and reviewing all the documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if the variance(s) are granted outweigh the detriment (if any) to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant, for the following reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested front yard, side yard and building height variances as modified will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant has agreed to reduce the ceiling height of the storage area to 7′ 5″, remove the deck from the second floor and replace the door with a window; and that the proposed slop sink will be removed. The height of the proposed garage will be reduced to 14′ and the front yard and side yard conditions are not changing.

 

2. The requested front yard, side yard and building height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant has agreed to reduce the ceiling height of th~ storage area to 7′ 5″, remove the deck from the second floor and replace the doci:!    ~ with a window; and that the proposed slop sink will be removed. The height of~        ~

proposed ?arage will be reduced to 14′ and the front yard and side yard conditio~ ar~    –                 ~

not changmg.                                                                                                           rn    o      ~

;o

?”<                 );>

(if).         -q      ‘Z

:::3    G’)

3. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible~     r-”   11                  ~ the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. The applicant has agree@:o,~·     ~ reduce the ceiling height of the storage area to 7′ 5″, remove the deck from the    m    ~ second floor and replace the door with a window; and that the proposed slop sink will

be removed. The height of the proposed garage will be reduced to 14′ and the-front yard and side yard conditions are not changing.

 

4. The requested front yard, side yard and building height variances as modified are not substantial.

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

 

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   (reduced from the proposed  15′ to 14′)variances   are APPROVED  with the Specific   Condition  that (1) the ceiling height  of the proposed  storage  area shall be reduced  to 7′  5″,(2) the upper deck shall be removed;   the door to the deck shall be replaced  with a window;  and (3) the slop sink in the garage shall be removed;  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 heating,  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.

 

 

 

30B.:10S’fl:!Jl~ Nl.01

. U  t  Qd   iI  1,11″ U1Z

 

1&013~Hf~BO.:!O  it:fi.01

 

 

 

 

 

Lennox

ZBA#l3-29

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  front yard,  side yard and building  height  (reduced  to 14′) variances  with the following  Specific  Conditions

that: (1)  the slop sink shall be removed;  (2) the upper deck shall be removed  and the door to the deck shall be replaced  with a window;  (3) the ceiling height  of the proposed

storage  area shall be reduced  to 7′ 5″;   was presented  and moved  by Ms. Salomon, seconded  by Ms. Albanese  and carried  as follows:   Mr. Bosco,   aye; Mr.  Feroldi,  aye;  Ms.

Albanese,  aye ;  Ms.  Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Ms.  Castelli  was absent for this hearing.

 

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:    May  15, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TO\VN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-M.M.

eborah Arbol no

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HlGHWA   Y DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

3f>Jj~O s;rH310 MM.Ql

• tt1 Qd   it  lft’iB

~    —

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE  YARD  AND TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:   Anthony  Wolanski

145 East Central  Ave.

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA # 13-30

Date:   May  15, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-30: Application  of  Anthony  Wolanski  for  variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Town of Orangetown,   Section  3.12, CS District,  Columns  9 (Side Yard: O’  or 12′

required,  11′ proposed),  and 10 (Total  Side Yard: O’or 25′  required,  21.7′  proposed)  for a covered  entry to a Bilco door at an existing  two-family residence. The premises are located at 145 East Central Avenue, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.16, Block 6, Lot 41; CS zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Anthony Wolanski and Theresa O’Rourke  appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Site plan.

 

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Anthony Wolanski testified that they purchased the house in November; that the basement had some water damage near the bilco doors; that he wanted to replace them and add a covered entryway to circumvent the water problem; that he doesn’t understand the zoning because he could build to the property line without a variance.

 

 

 

3fll:BO S’J\lr310-  tU\61

—

ti I  W illrtlll

.

 

Wolanski

ZBA#l3-30

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

 

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

Municipal  Law of New  York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  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  side yard and total  side yard variances  will not produce  an undesirable change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The requested  variances  are prompted  by the CS zone requirements  and the house is a pre• existing  two-family  residence.  The covered  entryway  into the basement  may help to prevent  any further water damage  to the basement.

 

2. The requested  side yard and total  side yard variances   will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district. The requested  variances  are prompted  by the CS zone requirements  and the house is a pre-existing  two-family  residence.  The covered  entryway  into the basement  may help to prevent  any further  water damage  to the basement.

 

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible  for the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.  The requested  variances  are prompted  by the CS zone requirements  and the house is a pre-existing  two-family residence.  The covered  entryway  into the basement  may help to prevent  any further water damage  to the basement.

 

 

 

4. The requested  side yard and total side yard variances  are not substantial.

 

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

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

 

 

 

35HJO $JfH310 N&\~ll

 

11  I  LY 11  mF 9.1i

U\tl.[35NVHO ~o r&Ol

 

Wolanski

ZBA#l3-30

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

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

 

(ii) Any approval  of a variance  or Special  Permit by the Board  is limited  to the specific variance  or Special Permit  requested  hut 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:UO   ~)OI31’D ff~Ql

• ~ y_ ya Qt.S:ml

 

&k\0.13Sif~HO &O dOl.

 

.   .  ~    ..   ..   .

 

 

 

Wolanski

ZBA#l3-30

Page  4 of  4

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  side yard and total side yard variances   was presented  and moved  by Mr. Bosco,  seconded  by Ms.  Albanese and carried as follows:   Ms.  Salomon,   aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Ms.  Castelli  was absent for this hearing.

 

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:   May  15,  2013     .

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-RAO.

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

3~l;\:l0  S’ii1!31~  iifd0!-1

1l 1  w ·lttar:•

–

.U,1ll’.a~NV’li0   ;!.0  l.~i.

 

 

• •••••••                 ··-·—····               ••

• ::..:,:;..,I>.~-··

 

DECISION

 

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO, FRONT  YARD, AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:      Shawn Levesque  and Sara Pir

14 Swan Street

Palisades,  New York  10964

ZBA#   13-31

Date:  May  15, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-31: Application  of  Shawn Levesque  and Sara Pir for  variances  from Chapter

43 (Zoning)  Town of Orangetown,   Section  3.12, R-40 District,  Group E, Columns  4

(Floor Area Ratio:  .15 permitted,  .20 proposed),  8 (Front Yard:  50′ required,  29.8′  and

37.2′  existing  & 30′ proposed),  and  12 (Building  Height:  23.25′  permitted,  24.25′ existing,  and 29.33′  proposed)  for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence.  The premises  are located  at 14 Swan Street, Palisades,  New York  and are identified  on the

Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 78.17, Block 2, Lot 48; R-40 zoning  district.

 

Heard  by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,   May  15, 2013 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Shawn Leveque  and Donald  Brenner  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural  plans  dated April  1, 2013 signed and sealed by Kier B. Levesque, Architect.

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

Shawn Levesque  testified  that he and his wife built the house  13 years  ago; that he grew up on the block; that they have two children  and would  like to expand  the kitchen  and add an office space to the rear of the house;  that they work  out of the house; that they

would  also like to extend the second  floor to add a bathroom  and walk-in  closet; that he is not related to the architect;  that the surname  “Levesque”   is a common  Canadian  name;

and that the stream on the property  is a trickling  stream that has not overflowed  for the 35 years that he has lived on the block.

 

 

 

~l:kiO   ~JitG”10 Nl\(}l

a 1.b!d   0111r mt

–

UfJ13~M’HW:JO 001

 

 

 

 

 

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 cani.ed unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  floor area ratio, front yard, 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.

 

 

 

2. The requested  floor area ratio, front 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.

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  floor area ratio, front yard 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 area.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

3~B.:I0S)HB10 Ratll

11 1  w 0.1 ..•·.mr·mz

 

Hl1MJ.1.3$N\{H0 .:IO N}!Ol

 

 

 

 

DECISION:   In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  floor area ratio, front 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

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:   May  15, 2013

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DlSTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-M.M.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

By~J~~

Deborah Arbolmo

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

351.:!30  S)HI31t)  N.401

lt  1  Yd   iJ:.l tmr”ml

 

U0133NVHO  .:IO  dOl

 

 

..    -·”‘              -··-· –      ,_     .~           ·..::_·.:_-·                          -”.

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT YARD, BUILDING HEIGHT,OUTDOOR LOADING BERTH, VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:  Donald  Brenner  (One Ramland  Road)

4 Independence  Avenue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA#   13-32

Date:   May  15, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#l3-32: Application  of One Ramland  Road  for variances  from Chapter  43 (Zoning), Section 3.12, LIO District,  CC Group,  Columns  8 (Front  Yard:  100′ required,  92.T existing),  12 (Building  Height:  23.2′  permitted,  60′  proposed);  Section 6.41 b & f: (10 loading  berths  required;  4 proposed);  and LIO District  refers to LO District  Column  7 #2 (Loading  Berths  shall be within  completely  enclosed  buildings:  4 outdoor berths  are proposed) for a Data Storage  Facility.  The premises  are located  at 1  Ramland  Road, Orangeburg,  New  York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  73.21, Block  1,  Lots 23 & 24; LIO zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard  by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  May  15, 2013 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Donald Brenner,  Attorney,  Stephen  Tepperman  Consultant,  Patrick  Hynes,  Owner, Joseph  Modafferi,  P.E., Brett Crossland,  MEP Engineer,  and Brook  Crossan, Sound Engineer,  appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Architectural plans  dated 02/15/2013  with the latest revision  date of 04/02/2013, signed and sealed by Diego A  Villareale,  P.E, (11 pages).
2. A letter dated March 13, 2013 from John Giardiello,  P.E., Director,  Office  of Building,  Zoning,  Planning  Administration   and Enforcement,  Town of Orangetown.
3. A letter  dated May 3, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Planning signed by Thomas  Vanderbeek,  P.E.,  Commissioner   of Planning.

 

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 since the Planning  board noticed  its intent to declare  itself Lead Agency  for this application  and distributed  those notices  of intention  to all Involved  Agencies,  including  the ZBA who consented  or did not object  to the Planning  board acting  as Lead Agency  for this application,  pursuant  to coordinated  review  under the State Enviromnental   Quality Review  Act Regulations

• 617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning Board conducted  SEQRA  review  on March 27,

2013, rendered  environmental   determinations   of no significant  adverse  environmental impacts  to result from the proposed  land use actions  (i.e.,  A “Negative  Declaration”   or “Neg.  Dec.”), the ZBA is bound by the Planning  Board’s Neg Dec and the ZBA cannot require  further SEQRA  review  pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations    §617.6 (b) (3). The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms.

Salomon,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  a~1i~t\~~fl(lianese,      aye.

~3B::!O 5   .             _. .

–         .         .                             .         ….. ·.                    .                       tl1l

11′   Yd   01•     ..

~     —   ….  ·o :!O  ttan1

~Ol3f1N’l”tl       ·

 

 

ZBA#13-32

Page2   of  4

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  testified  that the client received  a preliminary   approval  and a neg dee on March 23, 2013 for the application;  that they have moved the new portion  of the building  closer to the commercial  property  line and away from the residential  zone; that this is the cause for the increase  in the building  height;  and that this type  of business, a data center,  does not need as many loading  berths  as a warehouse.

 

 

 

Jay Greenwell,  L.S., testified  that the Planning  board looked  at the application  very carefully  and they have kept the buffer;  that they are planting  and screening  the retaining wall in the rear of the building  which  is housing  some  of the chillers;  that they cannot continue  the planting  along the parking  lot because  that is federal wetland  and cannot be touched;  and the existing  tree line in the buffer  area is tall and provides  screening.

 

 

 

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  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, building  height  and outdoor  loading  berth variances-\-Vil~t	cj
	produce  an undesirable   change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detr~en~	~

nearby properties.  The property  is located  in an LIO zone which  abuts with a~       ~   .

residential  zone and the applicant  has maintained  the required  buffer  and incr~seQ-.r. the height  of the building  in order to stay as far away from the residential  zon~s     0 possible.  The Board viewed  the decrease  in the required  number  of loading  bi!hs   “”U,

positively  because  there would  be less impact  on the abutting  residential  prope:r;tie~~

.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                -n      …..,..1

.,.,      –     l

 

0ljTI

• ~ ·

 

 

2. The requested front yard, building  height  and loading  berth variances   will  not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The property  is located  in an LIO zone which  abuts with a residential  zone and the applicant  has maintained  the required  buffer  and increased the height  of the building  in order to stay as far away from the residential  zone as possible.  The Board viewed  the decrease  in the required  number  of loading  berths positively  because  there would  be less impact  on the abutting  residential  properties.

 

 

 

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

 

 

ZBA#l3-32

Page 3 of  4

 

 

 

 

4. The requested  front yard, building  height,  and loading  berth variances,  although substantial,  afford  benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment, if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby community ..   The property  is located  in an LIO zone which  abuts with a residential

zone and the applicant  has maintained  the required  buffer  and increased  the height of the building  in order to stay as far away from the residential  zone as possible.  The Board viewed  the decrease  in the required  number  of loading  berths positively

because  there would be less impact on the abutting  residential  properties.

 

 

 

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject to Orangetowns 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 front yard, building  height,  and loading berth  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,  Performance   Standards  Approval,  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,  Performance   Standards  Approval,  or Special Permit  by the Board is limited  to the specific variance  or Special Permit  requested  but only to the extent  such approval  is granted  herein  and subject to those conditions,  if any, upon which such approval  was conditioned  which  are hereinbefore   set forth.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

3!l’l.:BO ~·~rn~n!J N:l’Ol

B 1 L\d   Ot llf ‘1lli

 

l~~~~N\HlO 30 fill\Ol

 

One Ramland  Road

ZBA#l3-32

Page 4 of 4

 

 

 

 

(iv) A building  permit  as well as any other necessary  permits  must be obtained  within  a reasonable  period  of time  following  the filing  of this decision  and prior to undertaking any construction  contemplated   in this decision.  To the extent  any variance,  performance standards  approval,  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  Review,  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 front yard, building  height  and loading berth  variances  was presented  and moved  by Ms.  Salomon,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:   Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; Mr. Bosco,  aye; and Ms. Albanese,  aye.

 

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

 

DATED:   May  15, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TO\VN BOA.RDMEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR -na

B   ;/)I     .    .,

Y~v-

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVJRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING FlLE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACAROR

 

 

~HJO    ~2fd310NM.01 ii  1 w tlmlrtlt till0135N’flj0  .:W NAOl

 

DECISION

 

• 4.1 PERFORMANCE STANDARDS CONFORMANCE APPROVED

 

To:  Donald  Brenner  (One Ramland  Road)

4 Independence   A venue

Tappan, New York  10983

ZBA # 13-33

Date:  May  15, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#13-33:  Application   of One Ramland  Road for review  from Chapter  43 (Zoning), Section 4.1 Performance Standards  for a Data Storage Facility  with chillers  & generators. The premises  are located  at 1   Ramland  Road,  Orangeburg,  New  York and are identified on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  73.21, Block  1, Lots 23 & 24; LIO zoning

district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  May  15, 2013 at which  time the Board  made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

 

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  Stephen  Tepperman   Consultant,  Patrick  Hynes,  Owner, Joseph Modafferi,  P .E., Brett Crossland,  MEP Engineer,  and Brook  Crossan  , Sound Engineer,  appeared  and testified.

 

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. Architectural plans dated  02/15/2013  with the latest revision  date of 04/02/2013, signed and sealed by Diego  A. Villareale,  P .E, (11 pages).
2. A letter dated March 13, 2013 from John Giardiello,  P.E., Director,  Office of Building,  Zoning,  Planning  Administration   and Enforcement,   Town of Orangetown.
3. A report dated March  22, 2013 from MACK  Associates,  LLC, signed by Brook

Crossan,  PH.D.,  P.E.. concerning  noise  study (6 pages).

4. Generator  Specifications.
5. Air cooled chiller  specifications.
6. Substation  specifications.
7. Fuel tank specifications.
8. Diesel fuel material  safety data sheets.
9. EPA Certificate  of Conformity.
10. Performance Standards Resume  of Operations  and Equipment  form dated April  1,

2013 and signed by Patrick  Hynes.

11. Fire Prevention Supplement.
12. A letter dated April 19, 2013 from Joseph  J. Moran, P.E.,  Commissioner, Department  ofEnviromnental    Management  and Engineering,   Town of Orangetown.
13. A letter dated May 3, 2013 from the County of Rockland  Department  of Planning

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

14. A memorandum dated  May  15, 2013 from Michael  Bettmann,  Chief Fire

Inspector,  Town of Orangetown.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

–

..   1  ·Lid   Qiflr   etz

 

M6135NVHO  30 MA\01

 

 

 

 

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 environmental review. The motion was

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

 

Donald Brenner, Attorney, testified that the client received a preliminary approval and a neg dee on March 23, 2013 for the application; that they have moved the new portion of the building closer to the commercial property line and away from the residential zone; that is the cause for the increase in the building height; that four generators were previously approved and they have added 13 more generators; that he is also a resident of Orangetown and appreciates the tax ratable of this business and noted that a factory could operate at this location and that would be more intrusive to the residential neighbors; that the sound attenuation walls and increase to the buffer will help with any noise from the chillers; and that the application meets the Town’s standards for noise.

 

Joe Modaferri, Engineer, testified that the site has 32.7 acres and is located on the comer of Blaisdale and Rarnland Roads; that there is no access to the site from Blaisdale Road that the existing building is 230,000 sq. ft. that they are providing 764 parking spaces; that this is an LIO District that abuts a residential zone; that they were previously approved for four generator; that they are proposing to add 13 more generators and 8 chillers; that they have designed a sound attenuation wall and the sub station is being designed by 0 & R; that they are maintaining the two to three hundred foot vegetative buffer between the residential zone and the LOI zone; that the 60′ height of the building is necessary to maximize the distance from the residential zone; that the new building will house some of the generators and the chillers will be on the roof; that there will be four 40,000 gallon subsurface tanks, two for water and two for fuel for the generators; that they will employ 20 -22 people over three shifts; that the operation is a 24 hour operation; that the emergency generators will be tested during the day; and that the loading docks have been reduced from ten to four.

 

Brook Crossan, PH.D,, P.E., Sound engineer, testified that he looked at all the resources on the site including the roof top units that exist and the proposed chillers and the 26 foot wall from the base of the ground chillers and the 8′ wall for the roof chillers and the standards for Orangetown noise has been met; that each generator is in a sound attenuation bin; and that the 41 existing air conditioning units on the original building

will be replaced with newer more efficient units.

 

Jay Greenwell, L.S., testified that the Planning board looked at the application very carefully and they have kept the buffer; that they are planting and screening the retaining wall in the rear of the building which is housing some of the chillers; that hey cannot continue the planting along the parking lot because that is federal wetland and cannot be touched; that the engineer designed the attenuation walls in multiple layers of walls and the existing tree line in the buffet area is tall and provides screening.

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

3UBJ0  ~)!’d310f,!’flt’U

111 w star•

-~~~N’t1i0    30 NlUll

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

Steve Del Salvio, 262 Trenton  Place, testified  that the generators  are not an issue; that the chillers  and the noise they  generate  are of great concern;  that the application  went from 2 to 8 and 8 on the roof; that the building  should  be redesigned  to move the chillers  away from the residential  zone; that they  should be placed  on the corporate  side of the building; that they will have to live with  a constant  humming  noise; that a data center will need to have the chillers  running  constantly;  and  16 chillers  will produce  a lot of noise; that they should be put on the Blaisdale  side; he asked that all of the chillers  be placed  on the roof; and he also requested  that the applicant  continue  the planting  of evergreens  along the entire parking  lot area.

 

Laura Del Salvio, 262 Trenton  Place, testified  that she has lived in her home for thirty years; that she enjoys the peace and quite of her yard; that she would  like to continue to enjoy it and asked the Board to consider  this is real life terms.

 

Laura Diercks,  255 Betsy  Ross Drive, testified  that last year the proposal  was for one generator;  that the community  should be made  aware of these  changes.

 

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  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 April  19; 2013 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 the Zoning Code§  4, 1  Performance   Standards,  and the memorandum   dated May  15, 2013 from  Michael  Bettmann,  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.

 

 

3~Ud0  S’i’831~ NM-01

111 w oisr·tm

 

df’.l13~NV~O .:iO NJt01

 

 

 

 

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,  are 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:

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

3~H.:!0 S1’M31~  Ni\01

u t  w  1111r··tm

 

-Gl35N”i’hl0 dO N~01

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:   May  15, 2013

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDlNG lNSPECTOR-na

Ry~~V

Deborah  Arboliifo

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FlLE.ZBA, PB

CBAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

30H.:W  S”-~310   NMnl

 

1t  1:  Md     ~1 !ltmtl

 

u.01-amfq”tiQ .:!O 11161

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

. —·  –

• ·— – ··-··-‘–·· —-‘·—··

 

DECISION

 

FRONT   YARD,  BUILDING   HEIGHT,    AND LOADING   BERTH   VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To:   Douglas  Bartels  (155 Corporate  Drive)

570 Commerce  Boulevard

Carlstadt,  New Jersey  07072

ZBA # 13-34

Date:  May  15, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  13-34:Application   of 155 Corporate  Drive for an amendment  to ZBA # 10-92: Chapter  43 (Zoning),  Section  3.12, LIO District,  CC Group,  Columns  8 (Front   Yard:

100′ required,  50′  previously  approved,  48′  proposed),   12 (Building  Height:  12′ permitted  for front yard,  33.4′  proposed;  previously   12.5′ was permitted,  38′  was approved)  [no height variances  are required  for the western  or southern  elevations because  the rear and side yards  are sufficient];  Section  6.41 b & f:  (7 loading berths required; 3 proposed) and LIO District refers to LO District Column 7 #2 (Loading Berths shall be within completely enclosed buildings: 15 outdoor loading berths were previously approved; 2 outdoor berths are proposed)  for an office/data center. The premises are located at 155 Corporate Drive, Orangeburg, New York and are identified

on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 73.19, Block 1, Lot 1  & Section 73.15, Block 1,

Lot 18; LIO Zoning District.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 15, 2013 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Andy Del Vecchio, Attorney, Edward Russo, Principal, and Douglas Bartels, P.E., appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

 

 

1. Architectural plans dated 03/16/2013 signed and sealed by Michael Buldo, Architect (4 pages).   2. Engineered plans (20 pages) signed and sealed by Douglas Bartels, P.E with the   latest revision date of 02/15/2013. 3. A letter dated April 4, 2013 from Richard Berger. 4. Exterior sound evaluation of proposed data center operations  by Lewis S.   Goodfriend & Associates (22 pages). 5. ZBA Decision #10-92 with a final date of July 20, 2011. 6. Diesel engine generator set(4 pages). -;:i     0

7. A letter dated March 27, 2013 from John Giardiello, P.E., Director, Office·~ Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement, Town of~ Orangetown. o
8. Color plans (11 pages dated may 15, 2013 not signed or sealed.  ~

;:JO

7′

€{)

:IE

z

0

“”T-l

0

::0

z

l>

-0

:3     e»

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chair, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was  ;;;    .  ~ 1            M

1

–           -i

seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.                                                 ….,,       ·               o

~   ·tia’   ~

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of

Appeals, Mr. Su11ivan moved for a Board determination that since the Planning board noticed its intent to declare itself Lead Agency for this application and distributed those notices of intention to all Involved Agencies, including the ZBA who consented or did not object to the Planning board acting as Lead Agency for this application, pursuant to coordinated review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act Regulations

• 617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning Board conducted SEQRA review on March 27,

2013, rendered environmental determinations of no significant adverse environmental impacts to result from the proposed land use actions (i. e., A “Negative Declaration” or “Neg. Dec.”), the ZBA is bound by the Planning Board’s Neg Dec and the ZBA cannot

 

155 Corporate  Drive

ZBA#l3-34

Page 2 of  4

 

 

require  further SEQRA  review  pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations    §617.6 (b) (3). The motion  was seconded  by Ms.  Castelli  and carried as follows:  Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Ms. Albanese, aye.

 

Andrew Del Vecchio, Attorney, testified that this is an amended application; that the site was previously approved for a warehouse with loading docks and the front yard setback was needed to keep the project as far away as possible from the residential neighbors in Old Tappan, New Jersey; that this project is smaller than the last proposal that was approved, by 12,000 sq. ft.; that they were previously approved for seven outdoor loading docks and would like to reduce that to only three; that they were also previously

approved for a 36′ height and would like to ask for only 33 feet; and that they will discuss the generators and chillers in the next application for performance standards.

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

documents submitted, the Board found and concluded that the benefits to the applicant if the variance(s) are granted outweigh the detriment (if any) to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant, for the following reasons:

 

 

 

1. The requested front yard, building height and loading berth variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The front yard setback request allows the proposed data center to be as far as possible away from the abutting New Jersey residential neighbors. The data center needs less loading berths and a lower height than the previously approved plans and the consensus of the Board is that these reductions are a desirable change.

 

2. The requested front yard, building height and loading berth variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The front yard setback request allows the proposed data center to be as far as possible away from the abutting New Jersey residential neighbors. The data center needs less loading berths and a lower height than the previously approved plans and the consensus of the Board is that these reductions are a desirable change.

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

3QB30 S’ja313   Ni:Ol

8 J_ Ud   aiar1m

dfil3~NV<i0   :JO d91

 

 

 

 

 

4. 4. The requested  front yard, building  height  and loading  berth 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  communit   The front yard setback request  allows the proposed  data center

to be as far as possible  away from the abutting  New Jersey residential neighbors.  The data center needs less loading  berths  and a lower height  than the previously  approved plans and the consensus  of the Board is that these reductions  are a desirable  change.

 

 

 

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  front yard, building  height  and loading berth 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.                                                                       ·

 

 

a

3~Et30 ~)fH31~ NllGYl

–   1   w u111rmz

—

 

 

 

 

 

(v) Any  foregoing  variance  or Special Permit  will lapse if any contemplated  constmction 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  front yard,  building height  and loading berth variances   was presented  and moved by Mr.  Sullivan,  seconded by Ms.  Castelli  and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye;   Ms.  Albanese,  aye ;Ms.  Castelli, aye;  Ms.  Salomon,  aye;  and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

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

 

 

DA TED:   May  15,   2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-NA

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.  of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT.  and ENGINEERING F!LE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

l$l:HO  S)ftlJlO llJ!ll

61  t  Md   a1 mr mi

NRtOJ3~HiV80 so RllGi

 

DECISION

 

 

SECTION 4.1 PERFORMANCESTANDARDS CONFORMANCE  APPROVED

 

To:   Douglas Bartels (155 Corporate Drive)

570 Commerce Boulevard

Carlstadt, New Jersey 07072

ZBA#  13-35

Date:  May 15, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l3-35:  Application of 155 Corporate Drive for review from Chapter 43 (Zoning), Section 4.1  Performance Standards for a Data Storage Facility with three water-cooled chiller plants and up to eight diesel powered generators. The premises are located at 155

Corporate Drive, Orangeburg,New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 73.19,  Block 1,  Lot 1  & Section 73.15, Block 1,  Lot 18; LIO Zoning District.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 15,   2013 at which time the Boardmade the determinationhereinafter set forth.

 

Andy Del Vecchio,Attorney, Edward Russo, Principal, and Douglas Bartels, P.E., appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. 1. Architectural plans dated 03/16/2013    signed and sealed by Michael Buldo, Architect (4 pages).
2. 2. Engineered plans (20 pages) signed and sealed by Douglas Bartels, P.E  with the

latest revision date of 02/15/2013.

3. 3. A letter dated April 4, 2013 from Richard Berger.
4. 4. Exterior sound evaluation of proposed data center operations by Lewis

Goodfriend & Associates (22 pages).

5. ZBA Decision # 10-92 with a final date of July 20, 2011.
6. 6. Diesel engine generator set(4 pages).
7. 7. A letter dated March 27, 2013  from John Giardiello, P., Director, Office of

Building,  Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement, Town of

Orangetown.

8. 8. Color plans (11   pages) dated May 15,  2013  not signed or seal
9. Performance Standards review form and fire supplement.
10. 10. A letter dated 05/15/2013 from Michael Bettmann, Chief, Bureau of Fire

Prevention, Town of Orangetown.

11. 1 A letter dated April 19, 2013 from Joseph J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner,

Department of EnvironmentalManagementand Engineering, town of

Orangetown.

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

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

13. 13. A letter dated April 10, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of Health

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

14. A letter dated May 6, 2013 from the County of Rockland Department of

Highways signed by Sonny Lin, P.E..

 

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

 

 

–

d-01.3,~t~V’dO ~O ti.&01

 

 

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 Enviromnental Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA),  pursuant  to SEQRA Regulations

• 617.5 (c) (28); which does not require  SEQRA  environmental   review.  The motion was seconded  by Ms.  Castelli  and carried  as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye; Ms.  Castelli,  aye;  Mr. Bosco,  aye; and Ms.  Albanese,  aye.

 

Edward  Russo testified  that this application  has changed,  the west side is now open; that the emergency  generators  are inside the building;  that the chillers will be installed  within cooling towers  and there will be a 26′  high wall;  that the equipment  has ultra quiet fans, that they have hospital  grade quiet silencers;  that there will be three 50,000  tanks

installed  underground;   and that there is no onsite  substation.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew  York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli  and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  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 April  16, 2013 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 the Zoning Code§   4.1   Performance   Standards,  and the memorandum dated May  15,  2013 from Michael  Bettmann,  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 ~esult 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,  are 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:

 

 

(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 ofBuilding, Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement which  legally permits  such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

3:.Jl:UO S)H:Gl~  fiM{}! ai  1 Yd   a1 ·.1mrr- ·mz N:li0133~Vhl0 JO NA\O!

 

155   Corporate  Drive

ZBA#l3-35

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

DATED:   May  15,  2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DlSTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-NA

 

By—-l!,f…¥,,t_V-J,.;.‘..14<~~~~1:.r• De  oral! Arbolino Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING

F!LE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

3’~U.:!O S’>fB3¥~   fUAG’i

al w otmtr’mi

&:~()l.35wnrn :!O  dM