Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS May  18, 2016

 

 

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

 

DAN  SULLIVAN PATRICIA  CASTELLI MICHAEL  BOSCO THOMAS  QUINN JOAN  SALOMON

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

ABSENT:

 

 

 

 

NONE

 

 

 

 

ALSO  PRESENT:

Dennis  Michaels,  Esq. Ann Marie Ambrose,

Cheryl  Coopersmith,

Deputy Town Attorney

Official  Stenographer

Chief Clerk

 

 

 

 

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

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

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS

 

APPLICANTS

 

 

 

GEORGE’S   AUTO  BODY

579 Route  303

Blauvelt,  NY

70.15/ 1I47;  CC zone

DECISIONS

 

 

 

• 9.34, § 13.10b(2), (4) & (11)  ZBA#l6-36
• 3.11, column? #3 (Outdoor Storage

of Vehicles), Front Yard, Land Coverage,

and Parking Space VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

 

DEMARIA

15 Salina Road

Pearl River, N.Y.

68.11I2 I 67; R-15 zone

REARY ARD VARIANCE APPROVED

ZBA#16-37

 

SALOON GENERATOR         PERFORMANCE STANDARDS PERFORMANCE STANDARDS     APPROVED WITH

49 West Central Avenue                    SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Pearl River, NY

68.16 I 1I9;  CC zone

ZBA#16-38

 

ANDREWS

FLOOR AREA RATIO (as corrected),

!”‘..’.)

ZBA#1~39 ~      ~-~!

 

62 Delo Drive

TOTAL SIDE YARD,

–.:–

 

c_         -·

 

Tappan, NY

AND REARY ARD VARIANCES

c::        zc::

,·:-;

 

77.07 I 1I10;  R-15 zone

 

PROCORE PHYSICAL THERAPY SIGN

APPROVED

 

SIGN SIZE VARIANCE APPROVED

r–                 –~-1

r.:       w

~-‘

ZBA#1;6AO-o

C’         3         C)

 

100 North Middletown Road

-rj

N·

0

-,  l

J-‘    :

I

1·’1

-i

c-,

 

Pearl River, NY

69.13 I 1I3;  CC zone

 

VESEY

25 Garrecht Lane

Pearl River, NY

69.18 /3111;r-15 zone

 

 

 

 

FRONT YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

n1      U1         ~

 

 

ZBA#16-41

 

Page 2

 

 

 

CONTINUED   ITEM:

 

BRANT  POOL

11  Renie  Lane

Blauvelt,   NY

70.13   I 2 I 19;  R-15  zone

SIDE YARD  AND REAR                   ZBA#16-33

YARD  VARIANCES   APPROVED AS MODIFIED

 

 

 

 

OTHER   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 SEQ RA Regulations   §  617 .6 (b )(3) the following  applications:   628

Route 303  Internal  Commercial  Subdivision,   628 Route  303, Blauvelt,  NY;  65.14   I 1   I 9;

LI 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  8:30   P .M.

 

Dated:   May  18,    2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS

 

/1J6?(L/

TO~ANGETOWN       •

By               (rJl!d

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN  ATTORNEY TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING    INSPECTOR    (Individual     Decisions) Rockland   County Planning

Deborah  Arbolino,  Administrative  Aide

 

 

 

 

30!:’..:!0   s·’1″1-=ilO      r1r.101

 

Iii      J   l;(

S2    T   lJd      £      Nrnn  01n.·1

 

DECISION

 

 

ZONING   CODE  §9.34  50%  EXTENSION/ENLARGEMENT         OF NON• CONFORMING USE,§   13.10 ROUTE   303 OVERLAY   VARIANCES,    OUTDOOR STORAGE          OF VEHICLES,    FRONT   YARD,  LAND  COVERAGE,    AND

PARKING   SPACE  VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:  Jay Greenwell  (George’s   Auto Body)

85 Lafayette  A venue

Suffern, New York  10901

ZBA#16-36

Date: May  18, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#  16-36: Application  of  George’s  Auto Body for  variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, CC District,  Section  9.34 (Extension/Enlargement of pre-existing  non-conforming   use: less than 50% extension/enlargement),   Section  13.lOB (2) (25′  vegetative  buffer  required:  O’ proposed); Section  13 .10 B (4) (No signs within  the 25′  vegetative  buffer:  sign over entry door

within the buffer);  Section  13.10 B(l l)  (one curb cut permitted:  3  curb cuts exist);

Section  3.11 Column  7 #2 refers to CS District  Column  7 #3 (Outdoor  Storage of Vehicles:  vehicles  delivered  for auto body work are left outside until work commences);Section    3.12,  CC District,  Column  8 (Front Yard: O’ or 45′ required, 19.7′ and 33.2′ exist from Route 303 and Erie St. respectively); Section 3.11/3.12 Notes to Use and Bulk Tables #14 (Land Coverage: (75% permitted, 90.7% existing, and 90.5% proposed) and from Section 3.11, LIDistrict, Column7, #6(b) 39 parking spaces required;

18 outdoor and 9 indoor spaces provided)  to rebuild and expand an existing auto body

business that was damaged by fire. The premises are located at 579 Route 303, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.15, Block 1, Lot

47; CC zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor and Raffe Balabanian appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Site plan for George’s Auto Body dated December 14, 2015 with the latest revision date of3/29/2016 signed and sealed by Jay A. Greenwell, L.S. and Paul Gdanski, P.E.
2. Architectural plans labeled “George’s Auto Body Rear Expansion” dated January

11, 2016 signed and sealed by Kier B. Levesque, Registered Architect. (4 pages)

3. A letter dated April 20, 2016 from the Rockland County Sewer District #1 signed by Joseph LaFiandra, Engineer II.
4. A letter dated April 29, 2016 from the Rockland County Department of Planning signed by Douglas Schuetz, Acting 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 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 r~~~··! J~m~t~oR ~~s   seconded by Ms. Castelli and

carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon,’ aytQJl\.fr. Bosco, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye;

mr’  swz

and Mr. Sullivan, aye.              52 I  l.Jd    (‘     ~                    _

• ·                             ‘             v    1

iJ i.\ J .1. ~~ ~ .:  ·.                        – ~ .. ·-‘.     .   .   .  ‘

 

….    – ‘

…. ;·.._·_:_

 

George’s  Auto Body

ZBA#16-36

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

Jay Greenwell,  Land Surveyor,  testified  that the construction  is on-going  on the site since it was destroyed  by fire; that the insurance  is paying  for the reconstruction   of the original building  but the applicant  has decided  to expand  the building  so the construction  is being done in two phases;  that they went to the Planning  Board  for phase 2 and they were told that they need multiple  variances  since the site is in the overlay  zone; that they are requesting  that the Board  override  #5 of the County’s  letter because  they need the striped area for turning  onto Route 303; that the state put this is themselves;  that in 1986 John Atzl’ s site plan shows the auto body use and it was a non-conforming   use; that the vegetative  buffer  could not exist and meet  all the requirements  because  of the location  of the building;  that the site contains  curb cuts that NYS  DOT designed  and one curb cut

will be removed;  that he hardships  are that this is a comer  lot with two front yards; that

the situation  was made worse by the improvements   made to Route 303 by the DOT and the taking of property  for those improvements;   that the existing  use of the property  has been in the same family  continuously  for many years and will continue  that way.

 

Raffe Balabanian,  owner, testified  that the building  is existing  and the situation  was made worse by the widening  of Route  303 by the state; that the general  appearance  of the site will be greatly improved  by the development   of the site; that they hold cars on the site for the police  and they have  cars waiting  for paint  and a number  of cars that are already painted.

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested §9.34 50% extension/enlargement of pre-existing non-conforming use,

• 13.10 Route 303 Overlay variances, outdoor storage of vehicles, front yard, land coverage and parking space variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. George’s Auto Body has existed at this location since 1986 and is before the Board today because there was a fire and the changes proposed will improve the look of the business and it operation.

 

 

2. This is the one time 50% extension/enlargement of pre-existing non-conforming use, pursuant to Zoning Code §9.34.

 

 

-:Iit.:I:•r-.~-r– .t  !..

~\~·-  ‘, \ r:._,-:11”’·.I  !~-‘J.~~rl. ‘· 0 -I

 

 

S2   T   lJd    8    Nnr  9ID2

 

George’s  Auto Body

ZBA#l6-36

Page  3   of  4

 

 

3. The requested §9.34  50% extension/enlargement    of pre-existing  non-conforming use,  §13.10   Route  303 Overlay  variances,  outdoor  storage  of vehicles,  front yard, land coverage  and parking  space  variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  George’s Auto Body has existed  at this location  since  1986 and is before  the Board today because  there was a fire and the changes  proposed  will improve  the look of the business  and it operation.

 

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

 

 

 

5. The requested  §9.34  50% extension/enlargement    of pre-existing  non-conforming   use,

• 13.10 Route 303 Overlay variances, outdoor  storage  of vehicles,  front yard, land coverage  and parking  space  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. George’s  Auto Body has existed  at this location  since 1986 and is before  the Board

today because  there was a fire and the changes  proposed  will improve  the look of the business  and it operation.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  §9.34 50% extension/enlargement    of pre-existing  non-conforming   use, §13.10 Route  303 Overlay variances,  outdoor  storage  of vehicles,  front yard, land coverage  and parking  space variances  are APPROVED,   and item #5 of the Rockland  County  Department  of Planning

.letter  dated April 29, 2016 signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner, is

overridden; 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.             .:J 0 J .:1  .:! ‘.I   ~; ‘ ‘ \ !    j 1 ;O)      tr /.’l 0  r

 

S2  _T  LJd    8

 

 

 

George’s  Auto Body

ZBA#16-36

Page  4 of  4

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested  §9.34    50% extension/enlargement    of pre-existing  non-conforming   use,  § 13 .10  Route 303   Overlay variances,   outdoor  storage  of vehicles,   front yard,  land  coverage  and parking  space variances,   and item#5  of the Rockland  County  Department  of Planning   letter  dated April

29,  2016 signed by Douglas  J.  Schuetz,  Acting  Commissioner,     is overridden;   was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,   seconded  by Ms.  Castelli  and carried  as follows: Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,   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.

 

DATED:    May  18,    2016

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATIORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR·R.A.0.

By~~~’….!:::..~=–=-~ Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING

Fl LE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

 

52    T   Uci    £

 

DECISION

 

 

REAR  YARD  VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

To: Michael  and Colleen  DeMaria

15 Salina Road

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA#l6-37

Date: May  18, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#l6-37:   Application  of  Michael  and Colleen  DeMaria  for a variance  from Zoning

Code (Chapter  43)  of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Group M, Section

3.12, Column  11  (Rear Yard:  35′  required,  23.7′  proposed)  for a deck  at an existing single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 15 Salina Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   68.11, Block 2, Lot 67; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  May  18, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Michael  and Colleen  DeMaria  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan with proposed  deck drawn on it and deck specifications.
2. A letter dated April 28, 2016 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

3. Five letters from neighbors  in support  of the application.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

Michael  DeMaria  testified  that due to the placement  of the basement  window  on the side of the house  this is the only place to build the deck; the proposed  deck is 14 foot wide

and the lot is oddly shaped;  that he purchased  the house  in January  and the deck will be off the living room/den;  and many  of the houses  in the neighborhood  have similar decks.

 

 

 

s2  T   Lld    s     Nnr  srnz

 

l

r’:,l ,i1′,:   ;\J”: _~     ~~  .:;    •    •     •                                 I       ”                 •  ~                 ‘    I       ,,            I

–            _..    . ..,                                                  ‘          :…_       .._’       ,·,’I’!,…,)       .. ~

 

DeMaria

ZBA#16-  37

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  rear yard variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  Similar decks have been constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

2. The requested rear yard variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  Similar decks 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  a variance.

 

4. The requested  rear yard variance,  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 decks 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.

 

 

 

sz   T   LJd   £       Nnr· srnz

 

• ···· _: ..

 

DeMaria

ZBA#16-37

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

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

3 81.:! .:! 0  S ‘:’. ~  !  ::J 18  N ?A 0 l

 

S2   1   lJd    8    Nnr  910Z

 

DeMaria

ZBA#16-37

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

DATED:   May  18,  2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRJBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  fNSPECTOR-R.A.O.

By-+-.1L..1.<0LL—=..=c..:……..::~~~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA,  PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

 

92   T   lJd    E

 

11)                                           1•     •          I

.)      –               j.    J  ••     • …·   _;_

 

DECISION

 

 

PERFORMANCE     STANDARDS    APPROVED

 

To: Donald  Brenner  (Saloon  Generator)

4 Independence  Avenue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA#16-38

Date: May 18, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#16-38:  Application  of  The Saloon for approval  as per Zoning  Code (Chapter  43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code,   CC District,  Section  4.12 Performance  Standards  for an emergency  generator  at an existing  restaurant  .  The premises  are located  at 49 West Central A venue, Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.16, Block  1, Lot 9; in the CC zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  May  18, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  Bridget  Killen,  owner,  , Robert  Lutz and John Bruni appeared and testified.

 

1. Roof plan with proposed plot plan (1 page) signed  and sealed by Barbara  Marks, Architect.
2. Generac  Standby  generator  spec sheets  (9 pages).
3. Use Subject to Performance   Standards  Resume  of Operations  and Equipment dated April 5, 2016.
4. Fire Prevention  Supplement.
5. A letter dated April 28, 2016 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

6. A letter dated April 27, 2016 from the County of Rockland  Drainage  Agency signed by Vincent  Altieri,  Executive  Director.
7. A memorandum   dated April  13, 2016 from Town  of Orangetown,  Chief Fire

Inspector,  Michael  B. Bettmann.

8. A letter dated May 6, 2016 from the Department of Environmental Management and Engineering, Town of Orangetown signed by Joseph J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner.
9. Submitted at the meeting: Technical information bulletin for Kohler Power

Systems TIB-114 Generator Set Sound Data Sheet (13 pages).

 

 

 

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

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination, based upon the testimony heard by this Board and the facts as presented in the application submissions and in the record, that since the application entails the ZBA engaging in a review to determine compliance with technical requirements the 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: Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Sullivan, aye; Mr. Quinn, aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; and Mr. Bosco, aye.

 

 

 

92    1   Wd    c   Nnr  srnz

 

Saloon Emergency  Generator  Performance   Standards

ZBA#16-38

Page 2of4

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  testified  that he would  like to submit the specs for the Kohler Power  system  generator;  that the Kohler  generator  is larger and longer in length; that the sound is the same that it is approximately   130 inches  long and the weight is a little heavier;  that the sound meets  the building  department  requirements  that he generator  will run only in times of an emergency  and since the significant  flood a few years ago it is a vital part of the business;  that it will run weekly  for testing,  probably  in the morning

when the restaurant  is not in use; and they have no objection  to the new submission  being

reviewed  by the Fire Inspector  and the DEME.

 

 

 

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  all of the documents  submitted,  the Board found  and concluded  that:

 

Based upon the information  contained  in the applicant’s   Resume  of Operations and Equipment  and the Fire Prevention  Supplement;  the report dated  May 6,

2016 from Joseph  J. Moran,  P .E., Commissioner   of the Orangetown  Department

of Environmental   Management   and Engineering  (D .E.M.E. ); the report dated

April  13, 2016 from Michael  Bettmann,  Chief Fire Inspector,  Town of

Orangetown  Bureau  of Fire Prevention  (B.F.P.);  the other documents  submitted  to the Board and the testimony  of Applicant’s   representatives,   the Board finds and concludes  that the application  conforms  with the Performance  Standards  set forth in Zoning   Code Section  4.1, subject  to compliance  with the orders, rules and regulations  of the Orangetown  Office of Building,  Zoning  & Planning Administration & Enforcement, D.E.M.E., 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 submitted, the Board RESOLVED that the Application for Performance Standards Conformance, pursuant to Zoning Code § 4.1, is APPROVED with the following SPECIFIC CONDITION: Subject to and conditioned upon Joseph J. Moran, P.E., Commissioner of D.E.M.E., and Michael B. Bettmann, Chief Fire Inspector ofB.F.P, reviewing the Kohler Power Systems Emergency Generator Specification , and reporting to John Giardiello, P.E., Director of O.B.Z.P.A.E., that there will be no changes to their respective

05/06/2016 and 04/13/2016 reports; 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.

 

 

 

92  l  LJd   8

 

Saloon Emergency Generator Performance Standards

ZBA#16-38

Page  3   of 4

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

s2  t  wd    c    Nnr  srnz

 

Saloon Emergency  Generator  Performance   Standards

ZBA#16-38

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  Resolution   to approve,  with the foregoing   Specific  Condition,   the application  for the requested  Performance   Standards  Review  was presented  and moved

by Mr.  Sullivan,   seconded  by Ms.  Castelli   and carried  as follows:  Mr.  Sullivan,   aye;  Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,   aye ;Ms.  Castelli,   aye;  Ms.  Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Bosco,   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  18,  2016

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUTLDING   !NSPECTOR-R.A.O.

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

Bya~~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

gz   t  LJd     s

 

i~i.\QL_:   J .: : ‘-. J .:.: D     ::f.\’.)1.

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR   AREA  RATIO,   TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  AND REAR  YARD  VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Jane Slavin (Andrews)

200 Erie Street East Suite  lE Blauvelt,  New York  10913

ZBA#16-39

Date: May  18, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#16-39:  Application  of Elsy Andrews  for a variance  from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43)

of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Group M, Columns  4 (Floor  Area

Ratio:  .20 permitted,  .25 proposed:  .235 approved),  10 (Total Side Yard:  50′ required,

48′  proposed)  and  11  (Rear Yard:  35′  required,   28′  proposed)    for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 62 Delo Drive, Tappan,

New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  77.07, Block  1, Lot

10; in the R-15 zoning  district.                                                                                            ·

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  May  18, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Jane Slavin, Architect,  and Bernard  Caparelli,  son-in-law,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Architectural plans dated 3/14/2016 with the latest revision date of 1/12/ 2016

signed and sealed by Jane Slavin, Architect.

2. A letter dated April 28, 2016 from the County of Rockland Department of

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

3. A letter dated April 12, 2016 from the County of Rockland Division of Environmental Health signed by Scott McKane, P.E., Senior Public Health Engineer.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

and Mr. Sullivan, aye.

 

 

 

Jane Slavin, Architect, testified that she has a correction to the proposed floor area ratio and it is .235; that the proposal is for an addition to the master bedroom suite, front entry and garage; that the lot is oddly shaped that the applicant has owned the house since 1983 and her daughter is moving in; that the designated street line is 10 feet into the lot and the

basement is above grof8~/TR ~~l’1g~~ i~ ~fjpoor  area ratio calculations.

 

92   1   LJd   c   Nnr  srnz

 

Andrews

ZBA#16-39

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  floor area ratio, total side yard and rear yard variances  will not produce an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  Similar  additions  have been  constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

2. The Architect  corrected  the requested  Floor Area Ratio from .25 to .235.

 

 

 

3. The requested floor area ratio, total side yard, and rear yard variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  Similar  additions  have been constructed  in the neighborhood.

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

 

–     t’I   l   I      1    i”‘     0  \!  ‘·-! :J 1 J \.l f~\ 01

;.:  ~1     .   =~  .:1 ~ )  «:  .    :     .‘_          .    .-4                      ‘                      •    ‘i   ••

sz   1    wd      c    Nnr srnz

 

Andrews

ZBA#16-39

Page  3   of 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing, and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested floor area ratio (corrected to .235 by architect), total side yard, and rear yard variances are APPROVED; and FURTHER RESOLVED, that such decision and the vote thereon shall become effective and be deemed rendered on the date of adoption by the Board of the minutes of which they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

sole judgment of the building department, be first complied with as contemplated

hereunder. Occupancy will not be made until, and unless, a Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the Office of Building, Zoning and Planning Administration and Enforcement

which legally permits such occupancy.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

92   1   LJd   £

 

 

….   ,…       ‘

 

: … ~         –.    :             ~      ,~:    j     •   1   ~)   – ;_

 

Andrews

ZBA#16-39

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution   to approve  the application  for the requested  floor area ratio (corrected  by Architect  to .235),  total side yard and rear yard variances   was presented and moved by Ms.  Castelli,   seconded  by Ms.  Salomon   and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,   aye;   Mr. Quinn,  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.

 

DATED:   May  18,    2016

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   LNSPECTOR-R.A.0.

By~’-..4-.4…L..IL..:.-=—“‘-‘l–Li..a..’ Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

 

.             1\

.:1:-,}11.    . ,~     (‘ ‘    .,,-··’i     ..        ·c·•  -”

 

92   1  Ud	S	ii1r1  Sl~Z
[1 i:.01::_ \…:		.          \      –

 

DECISION

 

 

SIGN AREA VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Greg Stemkowski (ProCore)

100 N. Middletown Road

Pearl River, New York 10965

ZBA#16-40

Date: May 18, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#16-40: Application of Procore Physical Therapy for a variance from Zoning Code (Chapter 43)  of the Town of Orangetown Code, CC District, Section 3.11Column5 paragraph 3  (Sign size: 40 sq. ft. permitted, 72 sq. ft. proposed) for a box light sign mounted on the exterior of the building. The premises are located at 100 North Middletown Road, Pearl River, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 69.13,  Block 1, Lot 3; in the CC zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, May 18, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Greg Stemkowski appeared and testified. The following documents were presented:

1. Computer generated pictures (2) of the proposed sign shown on the building.
2. A letter dated April 29, 2016 from the County of Rockland Department of

Planning signed by Douglas J. Schuetz, Acting 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 that the foregoing application is a Type II action exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (9), (10), (12) and/or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and

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

and Mr. Sullivan, aye.

 

 

 

Greg Stemkowski testified that he rents space from Retro Fitness; that he has his own entrance on the side of the building and also through Retro Fitness; that the public does not realize he is there without a sign; and he needs a variance for the size of the sign.

 

 

92    r  Wd    c   Nnr   9lGZ

 

Procore Physical Therapy

ZBA#16-40

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 ofNew York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

 

 

 

1. The requested sign area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar size signs exist in the shopping center and the applicant needs the sign to show the public his location.

 

 

 

2. The requested sign area variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar size signs exist in the shopping center and the applicant needs the sign to show the public his location.

 

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 sign area variance, 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 size signs

exist in the shopping center and the applicant needs the sign to show the public his location.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

9 .v,  TL

u d.       r

l!J           u

!1 \l1n;0

~  lrvi•7.:

 

Procore  Physical  Therapy

ZBA#16-40

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  sign area variance  is APPROVED,   and the Rockland  County  Department  of Planning  disapproval  letter dated April 29, 2016, signed by Douglas  J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner of Planning, is overridden; 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.

 

 

 

 

 

sz   1    LJd     c    Nnr srnz

 

Procore  Physical  Therapy

ZBA#l6-40

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  sign area variance and to override  the Rockland   County Department  of Planning  disapproval  letter dated April  29, 2016,  signed by Douglas  J. Schuetz, Acting Commissioner  of Planning,  was presented and moved by Mr. Bosco, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye;   Mr.  Quinn, 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.

 

DATED: May 18,  2016

 

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA   MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD   MEMBERS TOWN ATIORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-G.M.

By~~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of’ENYIRONMENTAL MGMT. and  ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,   PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

 

92  T   Ii.Id            Ni  n rIo

,O;H…:,._J,

 

 

rli:.01::= :”:_q’..• .     •                _:   ”   •• ‘  .:.·, ~'”‘ _l_

 

DECISION

 

 

FRONT  YARD  VARIANCE    APPROVED

 

To: Jonathan  Hodash  (Vessey)

60 South Main Street

New City, New York  10956

ZBA #16-41

Date: May 18, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#16-41:  Application  of  Thomas  Vesey  for a variance  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43)  of the Town of Orangetown  Code, R-15 District,  Group M, Section 3.12, Column  8 (Front Yard:  30′ required,  28.9′  proposed)  for  an existing  single-family  residence  that was built  1.1’ within the front yard requirement..    The premises  are located  at 25 Garrecht Lane, Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section

69.18, Block 3, 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,  May  18, 2016 at which  time the Board made the determination  hereinafter set forth.

 

Jonathan  Hodash  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. As-built  Map for Thomas  Vessey  dated April  18, 2016 signed and sealed by

Robert  E. Sorace,  Land Surveyor.

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

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

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

and Mr. Sullivan,  aye.

 

 

 

Jonathan  Hodash  testified  that the house was built  1.1 foot over the front yard

requirements  by mistake;  that this was discovered  when the as-built  survey was done; and they would  ask the Board  for their understanding   on the error; that they do not know how it happened.

 

 

 

 

92    1   LJd    c

 

Vessey

ZBA#16-41

Page2  of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Ms. Castelli   and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested  front yard variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby  properties.  The house is already built.

 

 

 

2. The requested front yard variance  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district. The house  is already built.

 

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.  The house is already built.

 

 

 

4. The requested  front yard variance  is not substantial.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

St 1   lJd     c   Nnr   grnz

 

Vessey

ZBA#16-41

Page  3   of 4

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

which are hereinbefore set forth.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

92    T   hid     £     Nnr   9lGZ

 

Vessey

ZBA#l6-41

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

DATED:   May 18,   2016

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN   BOARD   MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY    TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-G.M.

Administrative Aide

 

 

TOWN   CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA,  PB,   ACABOR

 

 

 

 

S.2   T   lJd     £     Nnr   SIOZ

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD VARIANCES APPROVED  AS MODIFIED  TO

10′ REAR YARD AND 15′ SIDE YARD

 

To: Robert Brant

11  Renie Lane

Blauvelt, New York 10913

ZBA#16-33

Date: May 4, 2016

 

 

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#16-33: Application of Robert Brant for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43)

of the Town of Orangetown Code, R-15 District, Group M, Section 3.12, Column 9 (Side

Yard: 20′ required, 10′ proposed) and from Section 5.227 (Rear Yard: 20′ requir~d, 10′ proposed) for an in-ground pool at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at 11 Renie Lane, Blauvelt, New York and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 70.13, Block 2, Lot 19; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on the following Wednesdays, May 4, 2016 and May 18, 2016 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Robert Brant appeared and testified ON May 4, 2016 and May 18, 2016. The following documents were presented:

1. Site plan with proposed pool drawn on it and pool specifications.
2. An e-mail from an abutting property owner asking that the pool be moved to northwest section of the Brandt property.
3. One 8′ x 10′ color picture offence.

 

 

 

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

 

At the May 4, 2016 meeting: on advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney, counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Ms. Castelli 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 Mr. Quinn and carried as follows: Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Quinn, aye. Ms. Salomon, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Feroldi were absent.

 

At the May 4, 2016 meeting,  Robert Brant testified that his property is wide and he is requesting a ten foot rear yard setback for the pool and a ten foot side yard setback for the pool; that on the left side of his yard is a swing set and shed and he is eventually planning to add a garage; that the pool he is proposing to install is 18′ x 36′ and ifhe moved it to

have a fifteen foot rear and side yard, the space behind the pool would be wasted yam     c:

space; and he would like a continuance because there are only three board me~–e..r. sc:nc…_     – ..– present.                                                                                                                1…~             ~               c,

I                             -,-,

 

 

At the May 18, 2016 meeting, Robert Brant testified that there are three other pools.W the :

neighborhood that have five foot set- backs from the property line; that he su~itted3a     ~—~

picture of that portion of his yard showing the six-foot fence and all of the tre~  oni-th~    +-l

neighbors’ property that block the view; that he insisted that he is respectful o~-pis N    ·                                   8

neighbors and requested a 12 foot side yard and a 10′ rear yard.                        ·               o»     :=:::

 

Brant Pool

ZBA#l6-33

Page2   of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

At the May  18, 2016 meeting  Andrew  McClosky  testified  that he has had discussions with the applicant  and the applicant  plans to add to his house  on the other portion  of the rear yard in the future.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law ofNew   York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

 

 

 

1. The requested side yard and rear yard variances, as modified to 10′ rear yard and 15′ side yard, will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties.

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard and rear yard variances, as modified to 10′ rear yard and 15′ side yard, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.

 

 

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 modified 15’side yard and 10′ rear yard variances, although somewhat

~ubstantial, 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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

92   1   lJd    £     Nnr  srnz

 

Brant Pool

ZBA#l6-33

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,  that the application  for the modified  15′ side yard and 10′ rear yard variances  are APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption  by the Board  of the minutes  of which  they are a part.

 

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

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

 

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

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

which  are hereinbefore   set forth.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

~:; 😉 !·-_·I -.·! j    (“”‘\I      :~·i 1 r.) ..U.. .·~~.~ 0 -I-

 

\…

,–                 ·-··       ‘

\                  ·  \

 

92    T   Ud     c   Nllr  9ID2

 

Brant Pool

ZBA#16-33

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve the application  for the modified  15′   side yard and

1 O’  rear yard vaiiances   was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Ferolcli,  aye;   Mr. Quinn,  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.

 

DATED:   May  18,   2016

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY   TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUlLDING    INSPECTOR-RAO.

By    ,,.’-V’t-“b”-“”-‘~~-b–<‘—lc’V Deborah  Arbolino Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY    DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

381.:!.:JJ   ~·1”]10      1./.\01

 

 

9 7(..

u            I     f 11

TI.

lJlai    r    J’1P

J

fiTfi}

.v,,