Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OCTOBER 15, 2014

 

 

 

MEMBERS PRESENT:

PATRICIA CASTELLI JOAN SALOMON DAN SULLIVAN

LEONARD FEROLDI, ALTERNATE

 

 

ABSENT:

 

 

 

 

THOMAS QUINN MICHAEL BOSCO

 

 

 

ALSO PRESENT:

Dennis Michaels, Esq. Ann Marie Ambrose, Deborah Arbolino,

Deputy Town Attorney Official Stenographer Administrative Aide

 

 

 

 

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

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

noted below:

 

 

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS

 

 

 

 

APPLICANTS	DECISIONS
NEW ITEMS:
GALASSO 70.13 I 3 I 36; R-15 zone	SIDE YARD VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#I4-73
ALLSTATE SIGN 77.07 I I I 3; R-15 zone	SIGN AREA VARIANCE APPROVED AS MODIFIED	ZBA#I4-74

SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVED

 

O’SULLIVAN

65.17 I I I 8; R-40 zone

SIDE YARD AND TOT AL              ZBA#l 4- 75

SIDE YARD VARIANCES APPROVED

 

 

 

LISNABOY LLC

SIGN AREA VARIANCE

o

~

ZBA#14-7’S

~       ….

 

 

68.20 I I  I 6; CS zone

 

:f:T:1c CD o :::0 VESEY POSTPONED ZBA#l 4-6~ -a l> 69.18 I 3 I I I; R-I5 zone 0 3 ~

CONTINUED ITEM:

APPROVED

~µ  ‘~  .,,

 

 

 

ORANGETOWN SHOPPING CENTER

74.10 I 1  I 67; CS zone

~ t-a: ~ FRONT YARD, SIGN AREA,          ZBA#14-6ii   I-CI          :e OFF-STREET PARKING, AND SECTION 4.2’31 c  ca    z

& 4.24 VARIANCES APPROVED

 

Minutes

Page 2of2

 

 

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board,  the Zoning  Board of Appeals:   RESOLVED,   to approve  the action  of the Acting  Chairman,    Patricia   Castelli, executing  on behalf   of the Board  its consent to the Planning  Board  acting   as Lead Agency   for the State  Environmental    Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA)  coordinated environmental   review of  actions  pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations§    617.6   (b)(3) the following  applications:    23 Rockland  Park Road,   Conditional   Use Permit,   23  Rockland Park Road,  Tappan,  NY 77.16 I 1   I 32;  LIO zone; and 50 Ramland   Road,  Wireless  Edge Towers,  50 Ramland  Road,  Orangeburg,   New York   73.20   / l / 30;  LIO 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 8:45  P.M.

 

Dated:   October  15,   2014

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN  ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN  ATTORNEY TOWN  BOARD  MEMBERS

BUILDING     INSPECTOR    (Individual    Decisions) Rockland   County Planning

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

By~~

 

Deborah  Arbolino,   Administrative    Aide

 

30\.:L:!O  S’>!‘H310    NMO!.

‘Qh. 1  tJd  9 ·_  f\ON  hml

 

N~;;3DNVbi0   ;JO    NMOl

 

DECISION

 

 

SIDE  YARD  VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

To:     Anthony  and Henrietta  Galasso

4 Ashwood  Drive

Blauvelt,  New York  10913

ZBA#   14-73

Date:   October   15, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l 4- 73: Application  of  Anthony  and Henrietta  Galasso  for a variance  from Zoning Code  (Chapter  43) of the Town of  Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.12, R-15 District, Group M,  Column  9 (Side Yard: 20′  required,  17.07′  proposed)  to extend a sunporch and enclose basement  stairs at an existing  single-family  residence.   The premises  are located  at 4 Ashwood  Drive, Blauvelt,  New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section  70.13, Block 3, Lot 36; R-15 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  October   15, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Henrietta  Galasso  and  Toni Farr, appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan.
2. Hand drawing of the proposed sunroom expansion.

 

 

 

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

 

 

Henrietta Galasso testified that she would like to extend her sunporch to make it all one level because her husband is in a wheel chair and it would make the porch more accessible; that she also wants to put a roof over the existing basement steps because they are dangerous in bad weather and it would stop water from getting into the basement.; that they have owned the house for twenty four years and she has two shed in the rear yard.

 

 

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.

 

Galasso

ZBA#14-73

Page2 of 4

 

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

 

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

Municipal Law of New York was received.

 

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

Ms. Castelli and carried unanimously.

 

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested side yard variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The roof over the existing basement steps are beneficial for safety and storm- water concerns and the encroachment into the side yard is minimal.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested side yard variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. .  The roof over the existing basement steps are beneficial for safety and storm-water concerns and the encroachment into the side yard is minimal.

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested side yard 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.  The roof over the existing basement steps are beneficial for safety and storm- water concerns and the encroachment into the side yard is minimal.

 

 

 

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

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

 

3,l:l!IO S~H310NMOl

—

th t  GIGI     9     BORJIJZ

–

NIAl13S,NVlJO :J8 N/M).L

 

Galasso

ZBA#14-73

Page  3   of  4

 

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board: RESOLVED,  that the application  for the requested  side yard 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.

 

Galasso

ZBA#14-73

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:    October   15,   2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN A’llORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-.M.M.

By_,_i.=…:=_u.~~~bL·~ Deborah  Arbolino Administrative    Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

‘3~H.:L:!0  S‘>IB310    NMOl

Tu 1 . £Jd   s ·_ ~UN hlffl

 

N~~;3~NVBO    .:10  NM0l

 

DECISION

 

 

 

SIGN AREA VARIANCE APPROVED  AS MODIFIED  TO 21 SQUARE FEET; SIGN SETBACK VARIANCE APPROVED AT 10′

 

To:  Timothy Fay (Allstate sign)

100 Route 303

Tappan, New York 10983

ZBA # 14-74

Date:  October  15, 2014

 

 

FROM: ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS: Town of Orangetown

 

ZBA#14-74: Application of Timothy Fay for variances from Zoning Code (Chapter 43) of the Town of Orangetown Code, Section 3.11, Column 5 #12 (Sign Area limited to 20 sq. ft.; 39 sq. ft. proposed) and the setback from intersection must be 35′ and 1 O’ is proposed; for an Allstate sign at an existing mixed used building.. The premises are located at 100 Route 303, Tappan, New York and are identified on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section 77.07, Block 1, Lot 3; in the R-15 zoning district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Orangetown at a meeting held on Wednesday, October  15, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter set forth.

 

Timothy Fay appeared and testified.

 

The following documents were presented:

 

1. Site plan.
2. Sign Plan revised for the Zoning Board.
3. A letter dated October 15, 2014 from the Rockland County Highway Department signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..
4. A letter dated October 15, 2014 from the New York State Department of

Transportation signed by Joseph Taylor, Permit Engineer.

5. A letter from Claire Sheridan, 242 Kings Highway.

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chair, 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) (7); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.

 

Timothy Fay testified that he has revised the sign to meet the Historic Areas Board of Review concerns; that he purchased the business and wants to stay in this location for the next 30 years and would like to be a good neighbor; that he has reduced the size

of the signs to 18 sq. ft. for the standing sign and 3 square feet for the sign on the building with hours of operation and services offered; that he has already hired two local residents and hopes to be hiring two more people next year; and that he cannot meet the thirty- five foot setback from the street because the house is set back less than thirty five feet.

 

Public Comment:

 

No public comment.                                     331=1:10  S’>l~310 NIAOl

‘Uh  ! .Lfd  9 ·_        nuN btllZ

 

N~013.9NV~O  =10  NMOl

 

Fay Allstate  sign

ZBA#l4-74

Page 2 of  4

 

 

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  as modified  down to 21 sq. ft. and the sign setback of 1 O’  variance   will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood  or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The proposed  sign as modified  will be large enough to identify  the business  without  interfering  with the flow of traffic.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested  sign area variance  as modified  down to 21 sq. ft. and the sign setback of 1 O’  variance   will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental  conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.  The proposed  sign as modified  will be large enough to identify  the business  without  interfering  with the flow of traffic.

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested   sign area variance  as modified  down to 21 sq. ft.  and the sign setback of 1 O’   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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

39U;JO S)\~31~ NMOl

..  _1 lifd    t)_  ftait,•

 

.;,.0!36NV~O :JO NA\01

 

Fay Allstate sign

ZBA#14-74

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 as modified down to 21 sq. ft. and the sign setback of 10′ variance 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.

 

 

nmu•

3~1:UO S~\!31‘0  MMOl

• J_ lltd 9 ·_

_p.13.:>N’i\lO AO KMOJ.

 

 

Fay Allstate  Sign

ZBA#l4-74

Page  4 of  4

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   sign area variance as modified  down  to 21  sq. ft. and the sign setback  of 1 O’  variance  was presented  and moved by Ms.  Salomon,   seconded  by Ms. Castelli   and carried  as follows:    Mr. Feroldi, aye ;  Ms. Castelli,   aye;  Mr. Sullivan,  aye; and Ms.  Salomon,   aye.  Mr. Bosco  and Mr. Quinn  were absent.

 

 

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

 

DATED:    October   15,  2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMl3ERS TOWN ATIORNEY DEPUTYTOWN ATIORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-B.vW.

By–L-“”–4.L–=–~..!o<‘.–t,….~ Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA,  PB,  ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

LOT  WIDTll,  SIDE  YARD  AND TOTAL   SIDE  YARD  VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

To:   Jane Slavin (O’  Sullivan)

200 Erie Street East

Suite  lE

Blauvelt,  New York  10901

ZBA#   14-75

Date:  October   15, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#14-75:  Application  of  James  O’Sullivan    for variances  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town  of Orangetown  Code, Section  3.12, R-40 District,  Group E, Columns  6 (Lot Width:  150′ required,  110′ existing),  9 (Side yard: 20′  required,  18.3′  existing  & proposed)  and 10 (Total  Side yard:  80′ required,  47.3′  proposed)  for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence.    The premises  are located  at 865 Western  Highway, Blauvelt,  New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  65.17, Block  1, Lot 8; in the R-40 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  October   15, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Jane Slavin, Architect,  and James  O’Sullivan    appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site plan dated 5/21/2014 signed and sealed by Jane Slavin, Architect.
2. Architectural plans dated 5/20/ 2014 with the latest revision date of 9/5/2014 signed and sealed by Jane Slavin, Architect.
3. Three pictures of the existing house.
4. A letter dated October 15, 2014 from the County of Rockland Department of highways signed by Sonny Lin, P.E..

 

Mr. Sullivan, Chair, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by Ms. 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: Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.

=ca

-t       a:l   -4

0       0

Jane Slavin, Architect, testified that this is an existing single-family residence; th~    ’25    ~

they are proposing to expand the first floor from front to back; and build a new   (‘)    c:     ~

second floor; that they designed the addition to meet the setbacks for an undersiz~    cm    o

lot; th~t they thought they would qualify und_er Section 5.21 because the lot is on~–     ·_·_.       ~

80  wide but they were told they do not qualify because the lot is too large; that t~y    ~      ~

had set the second floor in to meet the side yard and total side yard of the undersized ~   1               ~ lot but that does not apply; that the lot is 83,000 square feet and cannot be subdivlfed   .            1           Q because of its deficient width; and that they are doing an addition to a single-famffY 1;:’            ~

residence and using the building as a single-family residence.

 

James O’Sullivan testified that he purchased the lot in 2003; that it has been vacant for the last year and that he wants to improve it because he has three daughters and they may live there.

 

O’Sullivan

ZBA#14-75

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 lot width, side yard and total side yard variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested lot width, side yard and total side yard variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The lot is large but oddly shaped and the second floor addition is stepped back to give the illusion of a wider lot.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested lot width, side yard and total side 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.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

O’Sullivan

ZBA#l4-75

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

 

 

 

 

General Conditions:

 

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

 

(ii) Any approval of a variance or Special Permit by the Board is limited to the specific variance or Special Permit requested 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 deparbnent 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.

 

 

9~–

39t~d0 S)t\1310 Nlt\01

 

~!-

NJAG!3~NVl:fO .:10 NMOi

 

O’Sullivan

ZBA#14-75

Page  4 of  4

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:    October   15,  2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-RAO.

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY  DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

93l:L:!O  S)IH31~  NMOl

 

~    ‘U    tild    S    nllN lt1UZ

~-·-:-                                      –          .

 

N.JMU3~NV~0  ~G   NMOl

 

DECISION

 

 

SIGN  AREA  VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

To:    Donald  Brenner  (Linsaboy)

4 Independence  A venue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA#   14-76

Date:  October   15, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#14-76:  Application  of  Lisnaboy  LLC for a variance  from Zoning  Code (Chapter

43) of the Town of Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.11, Column  5 #6a (Sign Area: 40 sq. ft. permitted. 82.78 sq. ft. proposed)  for a building  sign.  The premises  are located  at 36-38

Main Street, Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as

Section 68.20, Block  1, Lot 6; in the CS zoning  district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  October   15, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  Sara Torrens,  Attorney  and Cornelius  O’Sullivan   appeared and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. Survey dated February 17, 2004 with the latest revision  date of March 2, 2004 signed and sealed by Robert  R. Rahnefeld,  P .L.S ..
2. A picture  of the proposed  sign with measurements.
3. A letter dated October  15, 2014 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..

4. A computer  generated  color picture  of the proposed  sign on the building.

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chair, 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) (7); which  does not require  SEQRA environmental  review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Quinn and Mr. Bosco were absent.

 

 

 

Donald  Brenner  testified   that Cornelius  O’Sullivan   has owned the building  for many years; that he has an accounting  office in the building;  that the building  is divided up into suites for law offices,  accounting,  appraisals  and electrical  services;  that he sign is very attractive  and in keeping  with the character  of the neighborhood;   and that it is large enough to identify  the businesses  within  tl1~ building ..

 

Linsaboy

ZBA#14-76

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 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.  The sign size and design is in keeping  with the character  of the neighborhood.

 

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.   The sign size and design  is in keeping  with the character  of the neighborhood.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  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.

 

 

 

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.

 

!3t.:!.:IO ~)tlt31~  Nlt\01

.i. l  “‘   9·_  111:•

.ff~;~3SNV~O .:10  N/601

 

Linsaboy

ZBA#14-76

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 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.

 

 

 

~ot~l.:!0 S)1l:l310 NMOl

~· l•    ,._  llntt•

 

• NMG.La9NV.~0 .::10 N/Mll

 

Linsaboy

ZBA#14-76

Page  4 of  4

 

 

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

 

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

 

DATED:    October   15,  2014

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR-M.M.

B~

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative     Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,   Zl3A,  PB, ACABOR

 

30l.:L:l0   S‘>IH3i0    NMOl

lb _t_ lJd   9 ·.      ftflt:lhIOZ

NJM>l3~NV’!l0    so NMOl

 

DECISION

FRONT  YARD,  SIGN  AREA;  OFF-STREET  PARKING,   FREESTANDING     SIGN SETBACK   AND SECTION   4.24 VARIANCES    APPROVED

 

 

 

To:   Jolm Cannon  (Orangetown  Shopping  Center)

321 Railroad  Avenue

Greenwich,  Connecticut  06830

ZBA # 14-64

Date:  September  3, 2014

October  15, 2014

 

 

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#14-64:  Application  of  Orangetown  Shopping  Center  Site Plan  for variances  from Zoning  Code  (Chapter  43) of the Town of  Orangetown  Code, Section  3.12, CS District, Group FF,  Column  8 (Front Yard: 45′  or O’ required,  14′ 6″ proposed),  12 (Building Height:  22′  permitted,  25′  proposed)  ;  from Section  3 .11, Column  2 ( uses permitted  by right: fast food restaurant  not permitted);  Column  5 #6a (Maximum  sign area: 1,520 sq.

4. permitted; 1,628 sq. ft. proposed), and Column  6 #4, #5 & # 8( Off-street  parking:  500 spaces required,  34 7 spaces proposed);  from Section 4.23 c (Freestanding  sign setback:

75′  required,  7’6″  proposed);  Section  4.24 (Any sign over 2 sq. ft. within  500′  of the

Palisades  Parkway  must have permission  from the Palisades  Interstate  park Commission) and from Section  8. l 3A (No fast food restaurant  shall be located  within 300′  of any lot line of a school;  114’4″  existing  to South Orangetown  CSD).  The site is  located on the south side of Orangeburg  Road, abutting  Oak Street and Dutch Hill Road, Orangeburg, New York and is identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  74.10, Block  1, Lot

67; CS zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at meetings  held on the following  Wednesdays,   September  3, 2014 and October  15, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination  hereinafter  set forth.

 

Stephen  Honan, Attorney,  Bernard  Adler,  P .E., Transportation   Planning  & ‘Traffic Engineering,  Douglas  Rich, Landscape  Architect,  and Paul Tepfer,  Architect,  NDA, Architects,  appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Site plan labeled “Orangetown   Shopping  Center”  dated  12/07/2011  with the latest revision  date of 02/24/2012  signed  and sealed by Jack Shoemaker,  LLS.
2. Plans  dated August  1, 2014 with the latest revision  date of 04/25/2014  labeled ” Overall  Layout Plan”  signed  and sealed by James  E. Quill, P.E. (4 pages).
3. Orangetown  Shopping  Center Pylon  Structural  Details  dated  11102/2013 with the latest revision  date of 01/24/2014  by JC Awning  Sign Design.(3  pages).
4. A cover letter dated July 30, 2014 from Stephen  M. Honan,  Ferrick Lynch Mac

Cartney,  Attorneys  at Law.

5. Parking  Analyses  dated July 23, 2014 from Adler  Consulting.
6. Planning  board Decision  #14-26  dated June 25, 2014.
7. A letter dated August  6, 2014 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of Health signed by Scott McKane,  P .E., Senior Public  Health Engineer.
8. A letter dated August  13, 2014 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Planning  signed by Douglas  J. Schuetz,  Acting  Commissioner.

9. A letter dated September  3, 2014 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..

 

 

 

ers

Mr. Sullivan,  Chair, made a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimousl~'””~i·I!\   NrA01

3tl:I ;!     }I a ;a    ~        ..

1. l L11   s    &mtt·•

–   —                  ..      01

NM&l3SN’4’d0  ~G ·NM   .

 

 

 

Orangetown Shopping Center

ZBA#14-64

Page 2 of  6

 

 

 

 

On advice of Dennis Michaels, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Sullivan moved for a Board determination that since the Planning Board conducted a SEQRA review and, on June 25, 2014, 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  §617.5 (b) (3); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows: Mr. Quinn, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Mr. Bosco, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye.

 

Stephen Honan, Attorney, testified that his client purchased the shopping center two years ago; that they have been making improvements on the center since; that they have been before the Planning Board for the new entry; that they are making changes to the interior plaza; that they would like to see what he Board thinks about a fast food use in the proposed new space; that they are not prepared to make a case for the use variance presently but wanted to know how the Board felt about such use before they go further with preparation; that the area variances are a separate issue from the use variance; that the building is going to be built with a drive-thru even if it is not used for a fast food restaurant; that it may be a bank; that the entry/exit on Oak Street is going to be eliminated; that the use would be bring jobs for the youth in the area; that it would bring construction  jobs and support the tax base; that they are not prepared to go forward with the use case but will go forward for the area variances or ask for a continuance until the October 1, 2014 meeting.

 

Dan Sullivan, stated that as one Board member he would like to review the whole hog at one time; that he is an accountant and cannot see how the applicant would be able to produce a case for a use variance that the applicant cannot realize a return for his money without a fast food restaurant in the shopping center.

 

Patricia Castelli stated that she has a hard time entertaining the application for area variances without considering the use at the same time and a case for a use variance is not being presented.

 

Joan Salomon stated that this application is like putting the cart before the horse; and that she agrees with Patricia Castelli.

 

Tom Quinn stated that the CS District does not allow for fast food; that the space could be used for other retail use; that he is not against fast food but this is not the space for it.

 

 

 

~

Public Comment:                                                                                                    C:

“””‘     -4

o

 

~     :~-~

Walter Stemouchow, 7 Oak Street, Orangeburg, New York, testified that he Iivesand c::    ~

:a

works here; that no fast food should be built so close to a school; that the traffic ~ul<Ca  ‘     o increase; that it would cause odors and riffraff  and he is against it.                      ~      .·                            ~

 

fr)

~    z

G)

 

Noelia Lopez, 9 Oak Street, testified that she lives right on the comer of Oak Str~   a~   1           ~

the driveway; that there are enough restaurants in the shopping center; that garbai   is  .          :.  1             o

already dumped on the road; that a fast food restaurant across the street from the iJIJigi.fi •        ~ School and two colleges is a bad idea and the road is too busy.                            ·

 

 

Orangetown  Shopping  Center

ZBA#l4-64

Page  3   of  6

 

Rinaldo  Lopez, 9 Oak Street, Orangeburg,  testified  that he has been a teacher  for twenty five years; that a fast food establishment  that close to the school is too tempting;  that it is hard enough to keep kids in school;  that the lure is too great and it would also be a safety concern with such a busy road; and it would bring  negative  smells and hours of operation.

 

Helen Ucker,  7 Oak Street, Orangeburg,  testified  that fast food does not benefit the community  and suggested  that safety concerns  and traffic be considered  and that the applicant  should  consider using the proposed  area for a community  garden with fountains to attract people  to enjoy nature; that this would be pleasurable  for the community.

 

 

 

October   15, 2014

 

ZBA#l4-64:   Application  of  Orangetown  Shopping  Center  Site Plan  for variances  from Zoning  Code  (Chapter  43) of the Town of  Orangetown  Code, Section  3.12, CS District, Group FF,  Column  8 (Front Yard: 45′  or O’ required, 14′ 6″ proposed); Column 5 #6a (Maximum sign area: 1,520 sq. ft. permitted; 1,628 sq. ft. proposed), and Column 6 #4,

#5 & # 8( Off-street parking: 500 spaces required, 347 spaces proposed); from Section

4.23 c (Freestanding sign setback: 75′ required, 7’6″ proposed); Section 4.24 (Any sign over 2 sq. ft. within 500′ of the Palisades Parkway must have permission from the Palisades Interstate park Commission). The site is located on the south side of Orangeburg Road, abutting Oak Street and Dutch Hill Road, Orangeburg, New York and is identified on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 74.10, Block 1, Lot 67; CS zoning district.

 

The request for a fast food restaurant was withdrawn  and the building height variance was not necessary.

Members present: Daniel Sullivan

Patricia Castelli

Joan Salomon

Leonard Feroldi

 

Stephan Honan, Attorney, Douglas Rich, Engineer, Paul Tepfer, Architect, and Michael

O’Rourke, Traffic Engineer appeared.

 

Stephan Honan, Attorney, testified that they last appeared at the September 3, 2014

Zoning Board meeting and they have withdrawn the request for a fast food restaurant;

that they have gotten clarification for the height variance and they do not need a·hei~       gJ  4

variance; that the free s~andingsign need a variance for setback but is under the pen’ftedr.E;    ~

square footage of lettering; that the town code allows 300 sq. ft. and they are proposesg  .i$ ·               z

291 sq. ft.; that the measurement on the referral must be referring to the total signag~f  ·          c:::   ~

the shopping center; that they are still asking for the most intense parking calculatioJ;form ·           o the new building; that they presently have 340 parking spaces and they will have 3 7~               ~ spaces when all the improvements are done; that the requested restaurant use for the 8ew ~      ~ building is the most intense use for parking and they would like to stay with that reqmst;.,.. 1               ~

that if they cannot get a tenant for the space as a restaurant they may rent it out to a ~k;        1           o

1

 

~

and that the topography of the lot is dictating the placement of the new pylon sign tcfff

degree, because they cannot afford for it to be clocked by the new proposed building.

 

There was a long discussion with the traffic engineers and the Board on the new flow of traffic under the new proposed plan.

• ¢i1

 

 

Orangetown  Shopping  Center

ZBA#14-64

Page  4  of  6

 

Public comment:

 

Walter  Stremouchow,  7 Oak Street, thanked  the applicant  for listening  to the concerns  of the neighborhood   and not proceeding  with a fast food restaurant;  that economically  the shopping  center is viable  and there is no need to make it a commercial  hub.

 

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  front yard, sign area, off-street  parking,  freestanding  sign setback,  and Section 4.24 variances  will not produce  an undesirable  change in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  The proposed  improvements  to the existing  shopping  center are beneficial  to the surrounding  area. The withdrawal  of the request  for a fast food restaurant,  and the proposed  improvements   to the entrance  and the traffic flow will improve  safety for the shopping  center.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested front yard, sign area, off-street  parking,  freestanding  sign setback,  and Section 4.24 variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental  conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.   The proposed

improvements  to the existing  shopping  center are beneficial  to the surrounding  area. The withdrawal  of the request  for a fast food restaurant,  and the proposed improvements  to the entrance  and the traffic  flow will improve  safety for the shopping  center.

 

I

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means feasiii    fo~   .       i

the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  variances.                                     :z   .

C’)

~    ..

 

 

4. The requested   front yard, sign area, off-street  parking,  freestanding  sign setba~:;XJ

an-Pc,

 

Section 4.24 variances,  although  somewhat  substantial,  afford benefits  to the    0         :a

applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,  if any, to the health,  safety ~      …- ~

 

1

welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood   or nearby  community.    The proposed(;

…m ,

 

improvements  to the existing  shopping  center are beneficial  to the surrounding  !Pea. PO

The withdrawal  of the request  for a fast food restaurant,  and the proposed improvements  to the entrance  and the traffic  flow will improve  safety for the shopping  center.

 

Orangetown Shopping Center

ZBA#14-64

Page  5  of  6

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

DECISION: In view of the foregoing and the testimony and documents presented, the Board: RESOLVED, that the application for the requested front yard, sign area, off street parking, freestanding sign setback and Section 4.24 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 constitutes”Sllbs1ffit\f)i0l’lementation” for the

purposes hereof.                                      3$1:1.:10   )IH.:3              .

—

air t ,flM  s ·               ntnt~•

–                     –

tB\Gi3SNVHO· ::lG NA\Ol

 

Orangetown  Shopping    Center

ZBA#14-64

Page  6 of  6

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  front yard,  sign area,  off-street  parking,  freestanding   sign setback  and Section  4.24  variances   was presented   and moved by Mr. Sullivan,   seconded  by Mr. Feroldi    and carried  as follows: Ms.  Castelli,   aye; Mr. Feroldi,   aye;  Ms.  Salomon,   aye; and Mr.  Sullivan,   aye.  Mr. Quinn and Mr.  Bosco were absent.

 

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

 

DATED:    October  15,  2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY DEPUTYTOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING  INSPECTOR -N.J\.

 

By~-“”6>-4£-<.:.=.!”–~-e.–~~ Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. orENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING l’ILE,ZBA,  PB

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA,  PB, ACABOR