Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS SEPTEMBER   17, 2014

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:

THOMAS  QUINN

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE MICHAEL  BOSCO

 

 

 

 

 

 

ABSENT:	JOAN  SALOMON PATRICIA  CASTELLI
	DAN SULLIVAN
ALSO PRESENT:	Robert  Magrino,  Esq. Ann Marie Ambrose,	Deputy Town Attorney Official  Stenographer
	Elizabeth  Decort,	Clerk Typist

 

 

This meeting  was called to order at 7: 00 P.M. by Mr. Bosco,  Acting  Chairman. Hearings  on this meeting’s  agenda,  which  are made a part of this meeting,  were held as noted below:

 

PUBLISHED ITEMS

 

APPLICANTS

 

 

 

NEW ITEMS:

DECISIONS

 

 

 

42 HEY HOE WOODS 78.17 I 2 I 2; R-40 zone	GRAVEL DRIVEWAY VARIANCE APPROVED	ZBA#l4-65
GAGLIONE	FRONT YARD	ZBA#14-66
74.10 I 2 I 3; R-22 zone	VARIANCE APPROVED
JACOB	REAR YARD AND BUILDING	ZBA#14-67
77.10 I 3 I 48; R-15 zone	HEIGHT VARIANCES APPROVED
VESEY 69.18 I 3 I 11; R-15 zone	FLOOR AREA RATIO & REAR YARD APPROVED	ZBA#14-68
	& SECTION  3.11, R-80	CONTINUED
	DISTRICT,  COLUMN 2 #1
	VARIANCES
TRAAS	SIDE YARD VARIANCE	ZBA#l4-69

 

68.15 I 2 I l; R-15 zone

APPROVED (UNDERSIZED LOT APPLIES)

 

 

Minutes

Page 2 of  2

 

 

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board, the Zoning  Board of Appeals:  RESOLVED,  to approve  the action  of the Chairman,  Daniel  Sullivan,  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:  Jay

and  Joe  Construction    LLC  Subdivision,   ( 2-lots)  80 South  Middletown     Road,  Pearl

River,  N.Y. 69.17I1I16; RG zone; Slrne Training  Rcsubdivision  Plan, 337-330

Blaisdell Road, Orangeburg,  NY, 76.08I113  & 4; LIO zone; One Ramland  Road

Interior  Commercial  Subdivision Plan, 1  Ramland  Road, Orangetown,  New York

73.20/1I24;  LIO zone; Quinn Sheetmetal  Inc. Conditional  Use Permit, 23

Rocldand  Park Road, Tappan,  New York, 77.16/1/32;  LIO 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 8:30 P.M.

 

Dated:  September 17, 2014

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING INSPECTOR (Individual Decisions) Rockland County Planning

By~~

Elizabeth Decort

Clerk-Typist

 

 

DECISION     ORANGETO,VN  ZONING CODE SECTION	6.332	GRAVEL DRIVEWAY
VARIANCE APPROVED
To:  Efrain Rodriquez   (42 Hey Hoe Woods) 668 Crescent  A venue 2nd floor		ZBA # 14-65 Date:    September  17,  2014
Bronx,  New York  10458

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#14-65:     Application   of 42 Hey Hoe Woods  Road for a variance  from Zoning  Code

(Chapter  43) of the Town of Orangetown  Code,  Section  6.332,    R-40 District, (Driveways   shall be paved,  gravel  is proposed)  for a driveway   at a new single   family residence.   The  premises   are located   at 42 Hey Hoe Woods  Road,  Palisades,  New York and is identified   on the Orangetown  Tax Map as  Section  78.17,   Block 2,  Lot 2; in  the R-

40 zoning district.

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals   of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held  on Wednesday,  September  17,  2014 at which  time  the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Efrain  Rodriquez,  Construction   Manager,   Jose Perez,  Property  Owner,  Jay Greenwell, Land Surveyor,  and Robert  Hoene,   Architect  appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. 1. Site  plan  labeled   “Plot  Plan  for Building  Permit  Mastermind  LT” Dated June

11,   2014   signed   and sealed  by Jay A. Greenwell,   PLS,  LLC.

2. A letter  dated September  5,  2014   from Eugene  Kohn,  27 Heyhoe  Woods,  an abutting  property  owner.

 

Mr. Quinn made a motion   to open the Public  Hearing   which motion  was seconded   by Mr. Bosco and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

On advice of Robert Magri no,  Deputy Town  Attorney,    counsel to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,  Mr. Quinn 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. Ferolcli  and carried  as follows:   Mr. Quinn,   aye;  and Mr. Bosco,  aye. Mr. Sullivan,    Ms.  Salomon  and Ms.  Castelli  were absent.

 

 

 

Robert Hoene  testified   that the sensor  and garage  lights  mentioned    in  abutting  property owner Eugene  Kohn’s  letter  to the board  were  addressed  during  the  September  9t11,   2014

Historic  Board Areas of Review  meeting  and will remain consistent   with  the character  of the neighborhood   as part of the approved  decision.    Jay Greenwell   testified   that the owner is  seeking  permission    to maintain  the existing   gravel  driveway  up to the demarcation  line and install  paver block  in the new portion  of the driveway.   Mr. Greenwell   also stated  the removed  portion,   as noted  on the “Plot  Plan  for Building  Permit-Mastermind     LTD” elated June  11,  2014,   will include landscaping  to complement    the property  and location    of the new house  and garage.

 

 

 

42 Hey Hoe Woods  Road

ZBA#l4-65

Page 2 of 4

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public   comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal   Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Mr. Feroldi   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  gravel driveway   variance  will not produce  an undesirable   change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment   to nearby properties.   Gravel driveways are common  in the area.

 

 

 

2. The requested gravel  driveway   variance   will not have  an adverse  effect  or impact  on the physical   or environmental    conditions    in  the neighborhood    or district.   The majority of driveways  in the area are gravel.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested   gravel  driveway  variance,   although  somewhat  substantial,    affords 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 variance.

 

42 Hey Hoe Woods  Road

ZBA#14-65

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  gravel driveway  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  Penn it 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.

 

42 Hey Hoe Woods  Road

ZBA#14-65

Page 4 of  4

 

 

 

 

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

 

DA TED:   September  17,  2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

Elizabeth  Decort

Clerk  Typist

 

 

 

DISTRrBUTION:

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING   INSPECTOR-M.M.

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING

f-lLE,ZBA,  Pl3

CHAIRMAN,   ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

FRONT  YARD  VARIAN CE APPROVED

 

 

 

To:      Joseph  and Bernadette  Gaglione

18    Ethan Allen  Court

Orangeburg,   New York  l 0962

ZBA # 14-66

Date:   September  17,  2014

 

 

FROM:   ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town of Orangetown

 

 

 

ZBA#14-66:    Application  of  Joseph  and Bernadette  Gaglione  for a variance    from Zoning

Code   (Chapter 43)  of the Town of  Orangetown  Code,   Section  3.12,   R-22  District, Group I,    Column   8  (Front  Yard:  40′  required,   24′  proposed  ) for an addition   of a deck to  a single-family   residence.   (House was built Average  Density).   The premises  are located  at 18  Ethan Allen Court,  Orangeburg,  New York and is identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  74.10,  Block  2,  Lot 3; R-22 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown   at a meeting  held  on Wednesday,   September  17,   2014 at which  time  the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Joseph  Gaglione,  property  owner  appeared  and testified. The following   documents  were presented:

1. Site  plan.
2. 2. Deck plans.

 

 

 

Mr. Feroldi,  made a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which  motion  was seconded by

Mr. Quinn  and carried  unanimously.

 

 

On advice  of Robert  Magrino,   Deputy  Town  Attorney,    counsel  to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,   Mr. Feroldi  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 I or (13);  which does not require  SEQRA  environmental  review.   The motion  was seconded  by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows:  Mr. Bosco,   aye.  Mr. Sullivan,   Ms.  Salomon   and Ms.  Castelli were absent.

 

 

 

Joseph  Gaglione,   property  owner,  testified  that he and his wife have  decided   to install a standard  frame deck with  18′   x 18′   x 18′ dimensions.    Mr. Gaglione  specified   that the property  is a corner  lot and therefore  has two front yards.   Due to the formation  of his property,   the dimensions    of the proposed  deck will extend  approximately   2.6′   to 3′   over the required  setback.  Mr. Gaglione   stated that he previously  obtained  a building  permit for the deck with different  dimensions    that fell within  the required  set back  lines  but would  have caused the railing  to encl  in the middle  of an existing   window  on the side  of the house.   Mr. Gaglione  indicated    that a new deck plan  was created to provide   a more practical   deck alignment  in accordance  with the existing   location   of windows   on the house.

 

 

Gaglione

ZBA#14-66

Page 2 of  4

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

 

No public  comment.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York was received.

 

 

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

Mr. Quinn and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT  AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  front yard variance,  although  somewhat  substantial,  affords 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.  All of the houses  in the neighborhood   were constructed  under  average  density  and similar front yards

exist in the area.

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

Gaglione

ZBA#14-66

Page  3  of  4

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

General  Conditions:

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

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

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

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Gaglione

ZBA#14-66

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  front yard variance was presented  and moved  by Mr. Bosco,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon   and carried  as follows:  Mr. Bosco,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye;  Mr. Quinn,  aye ;  and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Ms. Salomon  and Ms. Castelli  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:   September  17, 2014

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTIUBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-M.M.

ByE~~

 

Clerk-Typist

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

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

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

 

REAR  YARD  AND BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCES   APPROVED

 

To:  Babu Jacob

39 Andre  Hill Drive

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA # 14-67

Date:   September  17,  2014

 

 

FROM:   ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:    Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#14-67:    Application  of Babu  and Kunjamma  Jacob for variances   from Zoning  Code (Chapter  43)  of the Town  of Orangetown   Code,  Section  3.12,  R-15 District,   Group M, Columns   11      (Rear Yard:  35′   required,   26.7′  proposed)  and  12  (Building  Height:   26’7″ permitted,  30′  proposed)   for an addition  to an existing   single-family    residence.    The premises  are located  at 39 Andre  Hill Drive,  Tappan,   New York and are identified   on  the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   77.10,   Block  3,  Lot 48; R-15    zoning district.

 

Heard  by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals   of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held   on Wednesday,  September  17,  2014   at which  time the Board  made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Babu Jacob,   property  owner   appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

1. Site  plan.
2. 2. Addition  plans not signed   or sealed  or dated.
3. 3. Zoning  Board  of Appeals  Decision   #06-63  dated 06/07/

 

 

 

Mr. Bosco made a motion  to open the Public  Hearing   which  motion  was seconded  by Mr. Quinn and carried unanimously.

 

On advice   of Robert  Magri no,  Deputy Town Attorney,    counsel   to the Zoning  Board of Appeals,   Mr. Bosco 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 I or (13);    which  does not require  SEQRA  environmental    review.   The motion  was seconded  by Mr. Quinn  and carried  as follows:   Mr.  Feroldi,    aye.  Mr.  Sullivan,   Ms.  Castelli  and Ms.   Salomon  were absent.

 

 

Babu Jacob,  property  owner,   testified  that in 2006 he appeared  before  the Zoning  Board for the addition   of a two-car  garage  on his property.    Since that  time his  family has grown significantly,    requiring   him to convert  the garage  into a family   room as he now has 3 young grandchildren    and they need somewhere  to play.   Mr. Jacob  explained  that the boiler room  is  currently  situated  in  the middle   of the house  and as a result  the family  has to deal with  the noise   and smell that comes from the boiler.   Mr. Jacob stated the 15′   x 18

Yi‘  addition  he is  proposing  will allow him to move the boiler  room  to the rear of the

house  , provide  a washroom  as well as much needed  storage  space.   Mr. Jacob  also testified   the  second  story  of the addition   would   create a master  bedroom   with  a full bathroom  and walk in  closet. Mr. Jacob  clarified  that he has lived in  this house for thi1ieen years  and that this is  the only house he owns.   Additionally,    Mr. Jacob clarified that the use of the house  will not change  and this addition  will serve the purpose  of accommodating   his  growing  family.                                                 :3Q!.:UO SYTll8   Nt.\01-

 

Jacob

ZBA#14-67

Page 2 of3

 

 

 

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

Mr. Quinn and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

After personal  observation  of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  all the documents  submitted,  the Board found and concluded  that the benefits  to the applicant  if

the variance(s)  are granted  outweigh  the detriment  (if any) to the health,  safety and welfare  of the neighborhood   or community  by such grant, for the following  reasons:

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

2. The requested  rear yard and building  height variances   will not have an adverse effect or impact  on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood  or district.   Similar  additions  have been  constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  rear yard and building  height  variances,  although  somewhat substantial,  afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment, if any, to the health,  safety and welfare  of the surrounding  neighborhood  or nearby community.

 

 

 

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  rear yard and building  height variances  are APPROVED;   and FURTHER  RESOLVED,   that such decision  and the vote

01

thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the date of adoption  bX1the      .Ju

Board of the minutes  of which they are a part.                                         3 O L:L:l  0  S) _.    310   t .It\       –

6!    1   lJd     c   180  h102

 

N fA 013  D ;·.! ··i J J  ~ 0 ll i: O l

 

Jacob

ZBA#14-67

Page 3 of  3

 

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 Penn it 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 rear yard and building height variances were presented and moved by Mr. Quinn, seconded by Mr. Feroldi and carried as follows: Mr. Bosco, aye. Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Salomon and Ms. Castelli 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:  September 17, 2014

 

DISTRIBUTION:

APPLICANT

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

By~ddk~ Elizabeth Decort Clerk-Typist

 

TOWN  CLERK

 

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN AITORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATIORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-M.M.

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT. and ENGINEERING

FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

301:LW S)”-Ell8 N/AOl

 

St 1   lJd     8     1~0  hlU2

 

DECISION

 

FLOOR AREA RATIO AND REAR YARD VARIANCES APPROVED;  SINGLE FAMILY CONVERSION  ASPECT OF APPLICATION  CONTINUED AT REQUEST  OF APPLICANT

 

To:  Thomas  Vesey

25 Garrecht  Lane

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA # 14-68

Date:   September  17, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l4-68:   Application  of Thomas  Vesey  for variances  from Zoning  Code  (Chapter

43) of the Town of  Orangetown  Code,  Section  3.11, R-15 District,  Group M, Column  2 refers to R-80 District, Column  2, #1 (Single  family  detached  residence  permitted,  two• family residence  proposed)  and from Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Column  4 (Floor Area Ratio:  .20 permitted,  .257 proposed),  and 1 l(Rear  Yard:  35′ required,  22.4′ proposed)  for a new residence  with an additional  dwelling  unit. The premises  are located at  25 Garrecht  Lane, Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  69.18, Block 3, Lot 11; R-15 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  17, 2014 at which time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Thomas  Vesey, property  owner,  and Jonathon  Hodosh,  Architect,  appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Architectural  plans and site plan dated August  5, 2014 signed and sealed by

Jonathan  Hodosh,  Architect.  (8 pages)

2. A letter dated September  14, 2014 from Dawn Dennis,  41 Elm Street, Patricia Altomare,  32 West Nauraushaun   Avenue,  Thomas  Vesey,  31 Garrecht  Lane, Steven Bruni, 24 Sunrise  Lane, Charlie  & Marylou  Scott, 30 Sunrise  Lane, Cornelius  O’Keefe,  22 West Nauraushaun  Avenue,  Patrick Desmond,  520

Orangeburg  Road, Michael  Fahy, 33 West Nauraushaun   Avenue,  Steven DeThomas,  32 Elm Street, John Dick, 37 Garrecht  Lane, Catherine  Small, 6 Elm Street, Kristoffer  McArdle,  24 Elm Street, Dennis  Gilligan 42 Garrecht  Lane, Bernard  Gallagher,  45 West Nauraushaun  Avenue,  Louise Jeane Mocerino,  530

Orangeburg  Road, Ellinor  and Horst Tiepolt,  41 West Nauraushaun  Avenue, Michael  Dinet, 44 West Nauraushaun   Avenue,  Bob Scarf, 51 West Nauraushaun Avenue,  Maurice  O’Sullivan,   27 Garrecht  Lane, Bridgid  Roberts,  40 West Nauraushaun   Avenue,  James  MacRobbie,  552 Orangeburg  Road, Wendy MacRobbie,  552 Orangeburg  Rd, (Pearl River).

3. A letter dated  September  16, 2014 from Jonathan  Hodosh,  NCARB,  President  of

George Hodosh  Associates  -Architects,  P.C.

4. Copy of Property  Survey titled “Survey  of Property  #25 Garrecht  Lane”,  Dated

November   16, 2009 signed by Stephen  Hoppe,  L.S.

5. Two photos  of the existing  house  as it is viewed  from the street and back yard.

 

Vesey

ZBA#l4-68

Page2of4

 

 

 

Mr. Bosco  made a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which motion  was seconded  by Mr. Feroldi  and canied  unanimously.

 

 

 

On advice   of Robert Magri no,  Deputy Town  Attorney,   counsel  to the Zoning   Board of Appeals,  Mr. Bosco 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 I or (13);   which does not require  SEQRA  environmental    review.   The motion  was seconded  by Mr. Quinn  and carried as  follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye.  Mr. Sullivan,   Ms.  Castelli  and Ms.  Salomon   were absent.

 

 

 

Jonathan  Hodosh,   Architect,   testified   that the owner,   Mr. Vesey,  purchased   the property  to reside  with his wife,   daughter  and son-in-law.    Mr. Hodosh  stated that the property  is  a conforming  comer  lot,  that the house  is on Garrecht  Lane and the garage is  on Nauraushaun  Avenue.   Mr.  Hodosh  stated that the project proposed  construction

of a new house with an additional  dwel1ing  unit subordinate   to the single   family dwelling  and the application    was not,  in his opinion,  a use variance,   rather,   a single• family   conversion    pursuant  to Orangetown  Zoning  Code §4.5.   Mr. Hodosh  testified

that the house behind  25 Garrecht  Lane is  new and,  in his  opinion,    the proposal   of this

new house  would not change  the character  of the neighborhood.    Mr.  Vesey, property owner,  testified  that his  wife  recently   suffered  a stroke  and as a result they had to move  in  with  his  daughter  so that the family  could help  care for his  wife.  Mr. Vesey stated  that the house  they were sharing  with their  daughter  was too small and this  is why he purchased  the property  at 25 Garrecht  Lane.   Mr.  Vesey  testified  that he owns the property   located  at 31   Garrecht  Lane and that be has shared the architectural   plans with  the surrounding   neighbors   who offered  support  to the proposed  project  by signing  drafted  letters  (presented  and read  into the record  at hearing).   Mr. Hodosh stated that aside  from the bulk  variances,   the applicant  requests  an exception  to Section   4.5  of the Zoning  Code.   Mr. Hodosh  acknowledged    that the current  owner

has not resided  at the property  for 15   years and the proposed  application  would  create

a new structure.   Mr. Hodosh  acknowledged    the variances   would  not change the footprint  of the plans   and said  the owner  is  willing  to file a restrictive   covenant  and remove the second kitchen  should  the board deem necessary  to achieve approval.   Mr. Hodosh  and the owner,  Mr.  Vesey REQUESTED   A CONTINUATION    of the single• family   conversion    aspect (Zoning  Code §4.5)  of the application.   This  matter will be reviewed  at the OCTOBER   15,  2014   Zoning  Board of Appeals   hearing.

 

 

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. Bo~co  made  a 1~1otion  t~ close the Public  Hearing  whi~1  1;1·\otio1\,’0’~~SSl}\1f.fl   by

Mr. Qumn  and earned  unammously.                                       3 0  I .:i.::.  0  S ·                                                   ,\1              –

 

Vesey

ZBA#l4-68

Page 3  of 4

 

 

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested floor area ratio  and rear yard variances   will not produce  an undesirable change  in the character  of the neighborhood    or a detriment  to nearby properties.

 

 

 

2. 2. The requested  floor area ratio and rear yard variances  will not have an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical   or environmental    conditions    in the neighborhood    or dis

 

 

 

3. 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. 4. The requested  floor area ratio  and rear yard variances,    although  somewhat   substantial, afford benefits  to the applicant  that are not outweighed  by the detriment,    if any,  to the health,  safety  and welfare  of the  surrounding  neighborhood    or nearby community.

 

 

 

5. The applicant  purchased  the property  subject  to Ornngetown’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  floor area ratio  and  rear yard variances   are APPROVED  WITH  THE CONDITION  THAT THE FOOTPRINT  OF THE PRESENTED   PLANS  DOES  NOT CHANGE;  and that the variances  relating to the Applicant’s aspect  of the Application  seeking approval  of a single-family conversion  pursuant  to Zoning Code §4.5 are CONTINUED AT REQUEST OF

THE APPLICANT  TO BE HEARD AT THE OCTOBER  rs'”, 2014 ZONING

BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING;  it is FURTHER  RESOLVED,    that such decision

and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed  rendered  on the elate 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.             381.:l.::!O   s:1\J318   t’!t,\01

 

61  l  Lld    8     180   hlOZ

 

Vesey

ZBA#14-68

Page 4of4

 

 

 

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

 

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

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

sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first complied  with as contemplated hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,  a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning  Administration   and Enforcement which  legally permits  such occupancy.

 

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

 

 

 

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested floor area ratio and rear yard variances, with the condition that the footprint of the presented plans does not change was presented and moved by Mr. Bosco, seconded by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye. Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Salomon and Ms. Castelli 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:  September 17, 2014

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS ·

TOWN ATTORNEY DEPUTYTOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.A.O./G.M.

By~~

Elizabeth Decort

Clerk-Typist

 

 

TOWN CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT.of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

Cl-lAIRMAN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

UNDERSIZE    LOT:    SIDE  YARD  VARIANCE   APPROVED

 

To:  William  Traas

151 Highland  A venue

Pearl River, New York  10965

ZBA # 14-69

Date:  September  17, 2014

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#14-69:  Application  of William  Traas 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:  15′ required,  12′ proposed)  (Section  5.21(c)  undersized  lot applies)  for a front porch  at an existing  single-family   residence.  The premises  are located  at 151

Highland  A venue, Pearl River, New York and are identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.15, Block 2, Lot 1; R-15 zoning  district.

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  September  1 7, 2014 at which  time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

William  Traas, property  owner appeared  and testified. The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Site plan and architectural plans for the porch dated June 24, 2014 signed and sealed by Robert Paul DePippa, Architect.

 

 

 

 

Mr. Feroldi, made a motion to open the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by

Mr. Bosco and carried unanimously.

 

 

 

On advice of Robert Magrino, Deputy Town Attorney,  counsel to the Zoning Board of Appeals, Mr. Bosco 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 I or (13); which does not require SEQRA environmental review. The motion was seconded by Mr. Quinn and carried as follows: Mr. Feroldi, aye. Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Salomon and Ms. Castelli were absent.

 

 

 

William Traas, property owner, testified that he is replacing an existing porch and would like to make the porch uniform to fit the width of the front of the house. He stated that in order to do this the porch would require approximately a 2 Yi’ extension. Mr. Traas explained he is not extending the roof or porch past the property line. He also confirmed that he owns the adjacent property in Chestnut Ridge which boarders the direction of the extension.

 

Trass

ZBA#l4-69

Page2   of4

 

 

 

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 general I y 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. Feroldi made a motion to close the Public Hearing which motion was seconded by

Mr. Bosco 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 addition to the porch will be attractive because it will tun the full width of the house and the applicant owns the adjacent lot most affected by the side yard variance.

 

 

 

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 addition to the porch will be attractive because it will run the full width of the house and the applicant owns the adjacent lot most affected by the side yard variance.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested side yard variance is not substantial.

 

 

 

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

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

 

Trass

ZBA#l4-69

Page 3of4

 

 

 

 

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  Penn it 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.

 

 

Traas

ZBA#14-69

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 Mr. Bosco  and carried as follows: Mr. Quinn, aye. Mr. Sullivan, Ms. Salomon and Ms. Castelli 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:  September 17, 2014

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATIORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATIORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING INSPECTOR-R.A.0.

 

By–=.J~~~:!.B.~~ Elizabeth Decort Clerk-Typist

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR