Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

November 4, 2009

 

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:            PATRICIA CASTELLI

WILLIAM MOWERSON

JOAN SALOMON

NANETTE ALBANESE

DANIEL SULLIVAN

 

 

ABSENT:                                 NONE

 

ALSO PRESENT:                Dennis Michaels, Esq.              Deputy Town Attorney

Ann Marie Ambrose,                Official Stenographer

Deborah Arbolino,                   Administrative Aide

 

 

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

 

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

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS

 

 

APPLICANTS                                               DECISIONS

 

 

 

NEW ITEMS:

 

SAUMA                                 8 FOOT GATE VARIANCE                                    ZBA#09-72

70.11 / 1 / 5.1; R-80 zone        APPROVED WITH A

FRONT YARD SET BACK OF 60 FEET

 

ELLIOT                                  POSTPONED                                                    ZBA#09-73

68.18 / 1 / 14; R-15 zone

 

O & R CORPORATE PARK DRIVE          FRONT YARD,                     ZBA #09-74

73.15 / 1 / 19; LIO zone                                  25’ BUILDING HEIGHT

FOR WALL AND 41’ HEIGHT FOR

LIGHTNING MAST APPROVED

 

O & R CORPORATE PARK DRIVE          APPROVED                             ZBA #09-75

PERFORMANCE STANDARDS

73.15 / 1 / 19; LIO zone

 

BONHEUR AMENDMENT                         24’ FRONT YARD                    ZBA#09-76

68.11 / 2 / 53; R-15 zone                                 AMENDMENT APPROVED

 

 

 

OTHER BUSINESS:

 

In response to requests from the Orangetown  Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals: RESOLVED, to approve the action of the 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 application: SMK Tweed Boulevard Site Plan, 7 Tweed Boulevard, Upper Grandview, NY 71.09 / 1 / 54; R-22 zone; and FURTHER RESOLVED, to request  to be notified by the Planning Board of SEQRA 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  9:30   P.M.

 

Dated: November 4, 2009

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

DECISION

 

 8’ GATE HEIGHT  VARIANCE APPROVED WITH A 60’ FRONT YARD SETBACK

 

To:       Jacques Sauma                                                 ZBA # 09-72

            1 1^st Class Marsico Court                                Date:  11 / 4 / 09

Blauvelt, New York 10913

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#09-72: Application of  Jacques Sauma for a variance from Chapter 43 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Orangetown, Section 5.226 (Maximum Fence Height: 4 ½’ permitted, 8’ gate proposed) for the installation of a gate on a driveway at an existing single-family residence. The premises are located at  1 First Class Marsico Court, Blauvelt, New York,  and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section  70.11, Block 1, Lot 5.1; R-80 zone.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on  Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Canit and Jacques Sauma appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Survey dated February 2, 2009 signed and sealed by Stephen Hoppe, L.S.
2. A letter dated November 3, 2009 from the County of Rockland Department of Highways signed by Joseph Arena, Principal Engineering Technician.
3. A letter dated October 21, 2009 from the Palisades Interstate Park Commission signed by Karl B. Roecker, Landscape Architect.

 

Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson 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; Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, aye.

 

Jacques Sauma testified that he has a five acre lot and the house is set back very far from the road; that he is proposing to install a decorative gate for security purposes; that the gate is 14’ wide and goes from 5 ½’ to 8’ in the center; that it will be attached to brick/stone columns and it would be set back about 60’; that the gate was already made for him; that he moved here from Long Island and out there you did not need permission for an automated gate on the driveway; that he had the gate designed and made in Mexico and it cost $26,000.00; that he has a building permit for the pool; that he has already planted many trees on the property and plans to add more trees on the property edge outside of the pool area.

 

 

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. Mowerson 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 8’ gate height variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The house is set back off of the road quite a distance and the gate itself will be constructed 60’ from the front property line.

 

2. The survey clearly defines a vegetative buffer in the area of the proposed pool. Although not a condition of this approval/grant, the Board suggests that the OBZPAE take note of this buffer area.

 

 

3. The requested 8’ gate height variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The house is set back off of the road quite a distance and the gate itself will be constructed 60’ from the front property line.

 

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 8’ gate height variance, although substantial, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area. The house is set back off of the road quite a distance and the gate itself will be constructed 60’ from the front property line.

 

 

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 8’ gate height variance is APPROVED with the SPECIFIC CONDITION that the gate is installed 60’ from the front property line; 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 8’ fence height variance was presented and moved by Ms. Albanese, seconded by Ms. Castelli, and carried as follows:    Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Mowerson, aye; Mr. Sullivan, 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:  November 4, 2009

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

Deborah Arbolino

                                                Administrative Aide

 

DECISION

 

 FRONT YARD AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED

 

To: Anthony Montalbano (O&R)                                            ZBA # 09-74

       67 North Main Street                                                        Date:  11/ 4 / 09

New City, New York 10965

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#09-74: Application of Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.  for  variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Orangetown, LIO District, Section 3.12, Group CC, Columns 8  (Front Yard : 100’ required, 70’ proposed), 12  (Building Height for wall: 17.5’ permitted, 25’ proposed) and/or 12 (Building Height: Lightning Mast: 41’ permitted, 51’ proposed) and/or Section 5.23 ( Interpretation for lightning mast; no height variance necessary) for a proposed electric substation located at 2000 Corporate Drive, Orangeburg, New York,  and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 73.15, Block 1, Lot 19; LIO zone.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on  Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Anthony Montalbano, Attorney, Chief McGoldrick, Chief Engineer, Chuck Utsig, CMX Engineer, Kevin Horan, Verizon Wireless Real Estate, appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Orange & Rockland Corporate Drive Substation Amended Site Plan with the latest revision date of 9/21/09 signed and sealed by W. Charles Utschig, Jr. P.E.
2. A memorandum dated September 28, 2009 from John Giardiello, Director of OBZPAE, Town of Orangetown.
3. Planning Board Decision #09-26 dated September 16, 2009 with a negative declaration for SEQRA.
4. A letter dated

Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson moved for a Board determination that since the Planning Board noticed its intent to declare itself Lead Agency and distributed that notice of intention to all involved Agencies, including the ZBA who consented or did not object to the Planning Board acting as Lead Agency for this application, pursuant to coordinated review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning Board conducted SEQRA review and on September 16, 2009, rendered an environmental determination of no significant adverse environmental impacts to result from the proposed land use action (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. Salomon and carried as follows:   Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; Mr. Sullivan; aye; and Mr. Mowerson, aye.

 
Anthony Montalbano testified that this application has been reviewed by the Planning Board three times, starting in April, again in July and received a preliminary approval and a negative declaration in September; that the preliminary approval was conditioned upon getting the required variances from the Zoning Board; that the proposed substation has been relocated on the lot to satisfy concerns of the neighbors in New Jersey; that the station has been relocated closer to the existing sewer district property; that the screening wall is being proposed at the request of the neighbors; that the wall is being proposed at 25’ with a lightning pole higher than that; that they are requesting either a height variance for the proposed lighting pole or a variance for it; that the area will be landscaped with trees at the height of 8 to 10’ and that at this location it is impossible to meet the 100’ front yard setback requirement; that meeting the setback places the substation in an area that the neighbors are opposed to; and that they would appreciate the Board considering the granting of the variances.

 

 

Peter McGoldrick, Chief Engineer, testified that these variances will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or be a detriment to nearby properties; that these variances will allow the construction of an electrical substation that will harmonize with the neighboring properties as well as protect the station; that the walls and extensive landscape screening were requested by the neighboring community at the Planning Board meeting; that the station is proposed to be located on the property owned by Verizon in the LIO zone and will be located in an area of the site that allows it to be shielded from the view of the residential properties in both New York and New Jersey; that none of the commercial property owners objected to the proposed substation; that the front yard depth variance and wall height can be eliminated by moving the station to the northeast and away from the southerly lot line; that this would push the station closer to the residential properties in Orangetown by about 30 feet; that the Planning Board and the company felt that the proposed placement of the station benefited the neighbors; that the wall height was proposed by the residential neighbors to the south to shield any views of the station; that the height of the lightning masts is dictated by engineering design to the protect the station equipment from lightning strikes; that the entire substation would have to be moved approximately 70’ to the north in order to attain the minimum 204’ from the property line fro two lightning masts that this would result in the substation being approximately 65’ closer to the neighbors in New York; that in general there is no reasonable alternative to the location of the station because of the need to be in the proximity of the Verizon complex in order to serve their growing loads; that the site has to be as close to the Verizon complex as possible to reliably serve their loads; that the original location and design met with neighbor’s objections and the present location and design was accepted by the surrounding neighbors at the Planning board meeting; that the proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; that these variances will allow O&R to construct the station to serve a critical customer, Verizon and provide for greater reliability for the surrounding area; that the station location will allow the station to be hidden from views from the adjacent residences making the requested variances having no impact on the area; and the site proposed location was carefully chosen based on where the station had to be located to provide the size and type of service required by Verizon as well as the overall ORU electric distribution service territory; that as it is located, the station, will be the main feed to Verizon Complex as well as the surrounding area to provide reliable backup for the surrounding substation that currently do not have the capacity to feed this area of the ORU system in Orangetown.

 

Chuck Utzig, EMX Engineer, testified that the existing retaining wall will be rebuilt a little higher  to avoid disturbing the existing vegetative buffer on that side; that the grade goes up and the screen wall will be built on three sides ; that the setback meets the code of 100’ setback on other sides but not the front; and that it is understood that if the reserved parking needs to be built, it would require a rear yard variance; and they would return to the Board at that time.

 

Public Comment:

 

Tom Herten, Attorney for the residents in  Old Tappan, New Jersey, testified that the residents he represents are in support of the variances; that his application before the Board is being held in abeyance until these variances are granted; that there is a consensus that this location with the wall and landscaping achieve most of the goals of the neighbors; and protects the character of the neighborhood.

 

Melody Fiore, 99 Hunt Road, testified that she has been an Orangetown resident for 40 years; that her property was rezoned LIO from residential; that she is supporting the 25’ retaining wall that will be built 500’ from her property; that she still has environmental concerns but is happy with this proposal.

 

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. Mowerson 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, and building height variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The height variance for the screening wall is necessary to screen the electric substation for the neighbors.

 

1. The applicant has not requested, in this application ZBA#09-74, that the ZBA grant variances for the encroachment by the future reserved parking area into the rear yard and side yard setbacks located in the southwestern portion of the lot, and  the ZBA has not reviewed, granted or denied such variances as part of this application. At such future time that the applicant or property owner installs, constructs or builds, or seeks a building permit to install, construct or build, this future reserved parking area, than, at such time, the applicant or property owner shall first obtain variances from the ZBA for said encroachments.

 

 

1.  The requested 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. The height variance for the screening wall is necessary to screen the electric substation for the neighbors.

 

 

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

 

1. The requested front yard and building height variances, although substantial, will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area. The height variance for the screening wall is necessary to screen the electric substation for the neighbors.

 

1. 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 and building height variances are APPROVED with the SPECIFIC CONDITION that the applicant has not requested, in this application ZBA#09-74, that the ZBA grant variances for the encroachment by the future reserved parking area into the rear yard and side yard setbacks located in the southwestern portion of the lot, and the ZBA has not reviewed, granted or denied such variances as part of this application. At such future time that the applicant or property owner installs, constructs or builds, or seeks a building permit to install, construct or build, this future reserved parking area, than, at such time, the applicant or property owner shall first obtain variances from the ZBA for said encroachments; 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  front yard and building height variances was presented and moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Ms. Salomon, and carried as follows:    Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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:  November 4, 2009

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

Deborah Arbolino

                                                Administrative Aide

 

DECISION

 

 PERFROMANCE STANDARDS VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Anthony Montalbano (O&R)                                            ZBA # 09-75

       67 North Main Street                                                        Date:  11/ 4 / 09

New City, New York 10965

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#09-75: Application of Orange & Rockland Utilities, Inc.  for  variances from Chapter 43,  LIO District, Column 4, # 4  Section 4.12 Performance Standards Review  for a proposed electric substation located at 2000 Corporate Drive, Orangeburg, New York,  and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 73.15, Block 1, Lot 19; LIO zone.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on  Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Anthony Montalbano, Attorney, appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Orange & Rockland Corporate Drive Substation Amended Site Plan with the latest revision date of 9/21/09 signed and sealed by W. Charles Utschig, Jr. P.E.
2. A memorandum dated September 28, 2009 from John Giardiello, Director of OBZPAE, Town of Orangetown.
3. Use Subject to Performance Standards Resume of Operation.
4. Fire Prevention Supplement.
5. Material Data Sheets (13 pages).
6. Analysis of Acoustical Impact prepared by John Erdreich, P.D. dated July 7, 2009 (26 pages).
7. Magnetic Field Modeling Assessment dated September 1, 2009 by Enertech Consultants (20pages).
8. Planning Board Decision #09-26 dated September 16, 2009 with a negative declaration for SEQRA.
9. A letter dated

 

Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson moved for a Board determination that the foregoing application is  exempt from the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) pursuant to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (28) engaging in a review to determine compliance with technical requirements which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows:   Mr. Mowerson, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.

 

 

 

Chuck Utsig, CMX Engineer, testified that the substation will only be manned during its construction; that once it is completed it is controlled by an operator in Spring Valley seven days a week, 24 hours a day; that maintenance crews will visit periodically; and that it can be shut down from the Spring Valley offices.

 

 

Peter McGoldrick, Chief Engineer, testified that the noise study for the tree transformers was completed and the conclusion was that the ambient noise in the area was greater than the noise form all three transformers; and that the proposed wall helped this study.

 

 

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 of New York was received.

 

Mr. Mowerson 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. Based upon the information contained in applicants’ Resume of Operations and Equipment, the Fire Prevention Supplement, the letter dated 11/5 /2009 from Michael Bettmann, Chief Fire Inspector, Bureau of Fire Prevention of the Town of Orangetown, the letter of the Director of the Orangetown Department of Environmental Management and Engineering dated  10/15/09, concluding there is no reasonable doubt as to the likelihood of applicant’s conformance, 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 the Orangetown Zoning  Code (Chapter 43) 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 Building Department 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 is APPROVED with the SPECIFIC CONDITION that the applicant adhere to all of the requirements set forth by the Bureau of Fire Prevention;   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 Performance Standards Conformance Approval  as conditioned was presented and moved by Mr. Mowerson, seconded by Ms. Salomon,  and carried as follows:  Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Mowerson, aye;  Ms. Castelli, aye;  Mr. Sullivan, 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:  November 4, 2009

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

Deborah Arbolino

                                                Administrative Aide

 

DECISION

 

 ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FRONT YARD VARIANCE APPROVED

 

To: Charles and Caroline Bonheur                                ZBA # 09-76

        211 West Crooked Hill Road                               Date:  11/ 4 / 09

Pearl River, New York 10965

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#09-76: Application of  Charles and Caroline Bonheur for an amendment to ZBA#09-54 which requested  variances from Chapter 43 (Zoning) of the Code of the Town of Orangetown Section 5.227, R-15 District (Accessory Structure Height in side or rear yard: 15’  permitted, 16’ 4” proposed)  for a two-car garage at an existing single-family residence. The premises is located at  211 West Crooked Hill Road, Pearl River,  New York,  and are identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section  68.11, Block 2, Lot  53; R-15 zone.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on  Wednesday, November 4, 2009 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Charles and Caroline Bonheur appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

 

1. Survey dated July 8, 2008 with the latest revision date of  June 30, 2009 signed and sealed by Robert R. Rahnefeld, L.S.
2. A survey dated November 21, 1986 signed and sealed by William Yuda, L.S.
3. ZBA Decision #09-54 dated September 23, 2009.
4. A letter of explanation dated October 23, 2009 from the Bonheur family.

 

 

 

Mr. Mowerson 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. Mowerson 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. Sullivan and carried as follows:   Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; Mr. Sullivan; aye; and Mr. Mowerson, aye.

 

 

Charles Bonhuer testified that he needs an amendment from his approval because he took the measurements off of an older survey; that the new survey gives him one foot less property than the original survey; that the foundation digging was done and Rick Oliver, the building inspector came to inspect and stopped the work because the measurements were off by two feet; that the structure is encroaching two more feet into the front yard; that he would like to apologize for any problems that he may have created.

 

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. Mowerson 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 amendment to the front yard placement of the accessory structure will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Similar accessory structure buildings have been constructed in the area.

 

 

1. The requested amendment to the front yard placement of the accessory structure  will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Similar accessory structure buildings have been constructed in the area.

 

 

1. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than by obtaining variances. Similar accessory structure buildings have been constructed in the area.

 

1. The requested  amendment to the front yard placement of the accessory structure is not  substantially different from the approval granted in ZBA# 09-54 and  will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the area. Similar accessory structure buildings have been constructed in the area.

 

 

1. 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 amended front yard placement of the accessory structure 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.

 

 

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested  amended front yard placement of the accessory structure was presented and moved by Ms. Salomon, seconded by Ms. Castelli, and carried as follows:    Mr. Sullivan, aye; Ms. Albanese, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and Mr. Mowerson, 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:  November 4, 2009

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

Deborah Arbolino

                                                Administrative Aide