Meeting Overview

MINUTES

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS December  4, 2013

 

MEMBERS  PRESENT:                DANIEL  SULLIVAN JOAN  SALOMON PATRICIA  CASTELLI NANETTE  ALBANESE

LEONARD  FEROLDI,  ALTERNATE

 

ABSENT:                                       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:

 

 

 

APPLICANTS

PUBLISHED   ITEMS DECISIONS

 

 

NEW  ITEMS:

 

 

HA YES                                      STREET  RONTAGE  VARIAN CE

70.09 I 3 I 41.l;  R-15 zone                   APPROVED

ZBA#l3-87

 

 

 

 

DOMINIK-WHITE   SUBDIVISION      LOT AREA

68.14 I 2 I 21 & 23; R-15 zone            FOR LOT #1 APPROVED

ZBA#13-88

 

 

 

 

A.V.D.  CLEANERS                               § 4.12 APPROVED PERFORMANCE      STANDARDS

68.20 I 5 I 72; CC zone

ZBA#l3-89

 

 

 

 

EDWARDS

68.19/  1  I 13; R-15 zone

FRONT  YARD  VARIAN CE APPROVED

ZBA#13-90

 

 

 

 

HAGAN-MOLLICA

65.12 I 1I3;   R-80 zone

POSTPONED                                             ZBA#l3-91

 

 

 

 

ZAPATA  SIDEWALK  DINING

77.20 I 2 I 24; R-15 zone

CONTINUED                                          ZBA#13-92

 

Minutes

Page 2 of2

 

 

ADDITIONAL    BUSINESS:

 

 

In response  to requests  from the Orangetown   Planning  Board, the Zoning  Board of Appeals:  RESOLVED,  to approve  the action of the Acting  Chairperson  executing  on behalf  of the Board   its consent to the Planning  Board  acting   as Lead Agency   for the State Environmental   Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA)  coordinated  environmental  review  of actions pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §  617 .6 (b )(3) the following  applications:  31

Tweed  Blvd. tree remediation  plan,  31 Tweed  Blvd, Nyack,  , NY; 71.09 / l I 43; R-22

zone; Cerovene Inc. Plans: conditional use permit, 10 Corporate Drive, Orangeburg, NY

73.20 / 1  / 35; LIO zone; Dominik & White Site Plan, 21 Buchanan Street and 100 Old

Pascack Road, Pearl River, NY  68.14 t 2/ 21 & 23; R-15 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 canied, the meeting was adjourned at  11:15 P.M.

 

Dated:  December 4, 2013

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION: APPLICANT

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

BUILDING !NSPECTOR(lndividual  Decisions) Rockland County Planning

By\~~

Deborah Arbolino

Administrative Aide

 

 

 

sou,c S)l831D NMOl

 

DECISION

 

STREET  FRONTAGE  VARIANCE  APPROVED

 

To:  Donald  Brenner  (Hayes)

4 Independence   Avenue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA # 13-87

Date:   December  4, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

ZBA#l3-87:   Application  of William  Hayes   for a variance  from Chapter 43 (Zoning), R-15 District,   Section  3.12,  Group  M, Column  7  (Street Frontage:  75′  required,  20′ proposed)  for a new house.  The premises  are located  at 626 Western  Highway,  Blauvelt, New York and identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section   70.09,  Block 3, Lot

41.1; R-15 zone.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Boa.rd of Appeals  of the town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  December  4, 2013 at which  time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  Sarah Torrens,  Attorney  and William  Hayes Jr. appeared  and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Plot plan for William J. Hayes Jr. dated 07/10/2013  signed  and sealed  by Paul

Gdanski.  P.E.   and Robert  Sorace,  PLS.

2. 2. A letter  dated November  20, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin. P .E.

3. 3. A letter dated November 12,  2013 from the County  of Rockland  Sewer District

No. I signed by Joseph  LaFiandra,  Engineer  II.

4. 4. A letter dated November   18;  2013 from the County of Rockland  Department of

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

5. 5. A letter  dated December  3,  2013 (received  by e-mail after 5:00  p.m,  on December

4,  2013)   from the County  of Rockland  Drainage  Agency  signed by Vincent

Altieri.

 

 

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chair, made  a motion  to open the Public  Hearing  which  motion  was

seconded  by Ms.  Salomon  and carried unanimously.                                                                  ~

~      ~

 

On advice  of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Boar~f    ~

 

dn

Appeals,  Mr.  Sullivan  moved  for a Board determination  that the foregoing  applicati ~O is.

–…    o

.         “”‘ll

 

a Type  II action exempt  from the State Environmental Quality  Review  Act (SEQRA:&;     N         0

pursuant  to SEQRA  Regulations   §617.5    (c) (9), (10),  (12)   and /or (13);  which does n~       -u

require  SEQ RA environmental review. TI1e motion  was seconded  by Ms.  Castelli  anc6      ~

carried as follows:   Ms.  Salomon,  aye; Ms.  Albanese,   aye;  Mr.  Feroldi,  aye;  Ms. Cast~li,  ~   i       ~ aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco  was absent.                                                            o    .    m     ~ m  w  z

 

 

 

 

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney  testified  that this application  was before  the Board before to merge  a small strip of property  on Burrows  Lane to make one lot; that they have been before  the Planning  Board and the Planning  Board  sent them to the Zoning  board for the street frontage  variance;  that they have  a 20′  wide strip on Burrows  Lane; that emergency vehicles  require 18′  for access;  that Mr. DeCicco  has appeared each time the applicant was before  the Planning  Board;  that Orangetown  did not give his client any property;  that the applicant  cannot discharge  water onto surrounding properties;  that any new

 

Hayes

ZBA#l3-87

Page 2 of  4

 

construction  must have zero net increase;  that the proposed  floor area ratio of the new house is .15 and .20 permitted;  that no floor area ratio variance  is needed;  and that the County  Highway  Department  did not want the applicant  to enter from Western  highway; and the client does not own that strip of land.

 

 

 

 

Public  Comment:

 

Frank DeCicco,  40 Burrows  Lane, testified  that he has not seen any surveyor  stakes; that there is a serious  water problem  in the area; that he does not understand  how the Town can give away that much property;  that ever since the ball fields were built, there has

been a water problem;  that there are underground   springs;  that any more building  is a serious  problem;  that he has lost about  $50,000.00  worth of concrete  that has washed away; and that he has a petition  that has signatures  from the residents  on Burrow  Lane and would like to know  who to give it to.

 

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

 

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

Municipal  Law of New York  was received.

 

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

Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OFF ACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

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

 

 

 

1. The requested street frontage  variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  There are other lots in the immediate  area with  similar street frontage.

 

 

 

 

2. The street frontage variance  will not have  an adverse  effect or impact  on the physical, or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district,  There are other lots in~

:immediate area with  similar street frontage.                                                                      ~

1e'”=’-V        -1

–

~       0

~

ti:’              ;z

 

 

0

r-

m

::u

3. The benefits  sought by the applicant  cannot be achieved  by other means  feasible fo&;

::;:J::)

2::       0

-ii

N        C)

::.u

;t-,,..

z

 

the applicant  to pursue  other than by obtaining  a variance.                                            0          ~

Ci)

 

‘,1.,

~   I              rtJ

N   l        -l

 

 

4. The requested  street frontage  variance  is not substantial.

0

.rtl

0 t1′.1    ~ CD      z

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Hayes  Jr. ZBA#l3-87

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 street frontage  variance  is APPROVED  with the Specific  Condition  that the applicant  submit  a  survey  certified to the Town of Orangetown,   signed and sealed by a NYS licensed  land surveyor;  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.

 

 

Hayes

ZBA#13-87

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested  street frontage variance   with the specific condition  that the applicant  submit a survey  certified to the Town of Orangetown  signed  and sealed by NYS licensed  land  surveyor;  was presented and moved by Ms. Albanese,  seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried as follows:   Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco  was 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:   December  4, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS

TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDlNG INSPECTOR-NA

Deborah  Arbolino

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

DECISION

 

 

LOT AREA  VARIAN  CE   APPROVED

 

To: Donald  Brenner  (Dominik  & White)

4 Independence   A venue

Tappan,  New York  10983

ZBA#   13-88

Date:  December  4, 2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l3-88: Application  of  Dominik  and White  Subdivision  for a variance  from Chapter

43 (Zoning)  Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Column  5 (Lot Area:  15,000 sq. ft. required,  14,808 sq. ft. proposed  for lot #1)  for a subdivision.  The property  is located  at

110 Old Pascack  Road  and 21 Buchanan  Street, Pearl River, New York  and are identified on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68 .14, Block 2, Lots 21 & 23; R-15 zoning district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  December  4, 2013 at which time the Board made  the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

Donald  Brenner,  Attorney,  Sarah Torrens,  attorney  and Wojcieck  Dominik  appeared  and testified.                                                                                              ·

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

1. Minor Subdivision  for Dominik  & White  dated June 28, 2013 with the latest revision  date of October  2, 2013 signed  and sealed by Robert  Sorace,  L.S ..
2. A letter from the County  of Rockland  Sewer District No.  1   signed by Joseph

LaFiandra,  Engineer  IL

3. A letter  dated November   14, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

4. A letter dated November   18, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..

5. A letter  dated November  22, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Highways  signed by Sonny Lin, P .E..                                                                       ·~

 

 

-1

r–o

S      0

 

z

6. A letter dated December  3, 2013 (e-mailed  Dec. 4, 2013 after 5:00 p.m.) from tf!e ;::    ~

2

 

County  of Rockland  Drainage  Agency  signed by Vincent  Altieri.

0         z::;;z;;;

0

‘”Tl

0

::n

 

 

Mr. Sullivan,  Chair, made  a motion  to open the Public Hearing  which motion  was

;;>;:;

(J)

>

l:J        z

 

seconded by Ms. Salomon  and carried unanimously.

0          ::3      C)

,,           ~1            m

=n     ~·i           6

 

On advice of Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning  Boardif   ·    O’t

Appeals,  Mr. Sullivan   moved  for a Board  determination  that since the Planning  board       u:>

noticed  its intent to declare itself Lead Agency  and distributed  that notice  of intention  to all Involved  Agencies,  including  the ZBA who consented  or did not object  to the Planning  Board  acting as lead Agency  for this application,  pursuant  to coordinated

review under  State Environmental   Quality Review  Act Regulation  §617.6 (b) (3); and since the Planning  Board  conducted  a SEQRA  review  and, on September  18, 2013, rendered  an enviromnental   determination   ofno   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  Regulation   §617.6 (b) (3).  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried  as follows:  Ms. Albanese,  aye; Ms.

Salomon,  aye;  Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco was

absent.

 

 

ZBA#I3-88

Page 2 of  4

 

 

 

Donald  Brenner  testified  that two oversized  lots were cut up into three lots and one of the lots is short of the lot requirement  by 192 sq. ft.’ that it is the lot on Buchanan  Street with the existing  house  that requires  this variance;  that it is not a large variance;  that the lot must  come back before  the Planning  Board  at the time that a house is proposed  for the lot to have  drainage  approved;  and that the applicant  has no problem  granting  an easement

for Rockland  County Highway  Department.

 

 

 

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  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 varianceis)   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. TI1e requested  lot area variance  will not produce  an undesirable  change  in the character  of the neighborhood   or a detriment  to nearby properties.  TI1e request  is minor  and variances  for side yards were previously  granted  on the lot.

 

 

 

 

2. The requested lot area variance  will not have  an adverse  effect or impact on the physical  or environmental   conditions  in the neighborhood   or district.  The request  is minor  and variances  for side yards were previously  granted  on the lot.

 

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  lot area 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.

 

 

 

 

 

o:n:  “~’1:… 1w3d   2

 

 

ZBA#l3-88

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 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.

 

 

ZBA#13-88

Page  4 of 4

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing resolution to approve the application for the requested lot area variance was presented and moved by Ms. Castelli, seconded by Ms. Salomon and carried as follows: Ms. Albanese, aye; Mr. Feroldi, aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; Ms. Salomon, aye; and Mr. Sullivan, aye. Mr. Bosco was 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: December 4, 2013

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:		Administrative Aide
APPLICANT	.	TOWN  CLERK
ZBA  MEMBERS		HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT
SUPERVISOR TOWN BOARD MEMBERS		ASSESSOR DEPT. of ENVIRONMENTAL
TOWN ATTORNEY		MGMT. and ENGINEERING
DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY		F[LE,ZBA, PB
OBZPAE		CHA1Rl\1AN, ZBA, PB, ACABOR

BU1LDING  INSPECTOR –

 

 

NM0135NV’UO .:10  NMOl

 

DECISION

PERFORNIANCESTANDARDSAPPROVED

 

 

 

To:    Antoinette  DePierro  (A.V.D.   Cleaners)

9 Rheinlander  Lane

New  City, New York  10956

ZBA # 13-89

Date:   December  4,  2013

 

 

FROM:  ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:   Town  of Orangetown

 

 

 

 

ZBA#l3-89:   Application  of  A.V.D.   Cleaners  for Performance   Standards  Review

pursuant  to Chapter 43 (Zoning),  Section  4.12,   for a dry cleaning  facility.  The property  is located  at 136 North Route 304, Pearl River, New York  and is identified  on the Orangetown  Tax Map as Section  68.20,  Block  5,  Lot 72; CC zoning  district.

 

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board of Appeals  of the Town  of Orangetown  at a meeting  held on Wednesday,  December  4,  2013 at which  time the Board made  the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

Antoinette  DiPierro,   Donald  Nemcik, Attorney,  Allen Spielvogel,  Director  Technical Services National  Drycleaners  Association,   and Stephen  Cummings,  Architect,  appeared and testified.

 

The following  documents  were presented:

 

 

1. 1. Architectural plans  labeled  “Proposed  Alteration  for Touch of Elegance  Dry Cleaners”  with site plan dated  10/24/2013    signed and sealed by Jon Fellgraff, Architec
2. 2. Specification  sheets for Dry-clean  Press GMX-42,  Fulton packaged  automatic

fuel fired steam boilers,  HCS N2 Hydrocarbon Dry-cleaning  system.

3. Material  Data Safety sheets for components  used in the machines  for dry cleaning.
4. 4. Performance  standards  resume  of operation  and equipment  form dated October

25, 2013.

5. Fire prevention  supplement form.
6. A letter dated November   13,  2013 from the Town  of Orangetown,  Department  of Environmental Management  and Engineering  signed  by Joseph  J.  Moran, P.E., Commissioner.
7. 7. A letter dated December  2, 2013 from the Town  of Orangetown,  Bureau  of Fire

Prevention  signed by Michael  B.  Bettmann,  Chief Fire Inspector.

8. 8. A letter dated  November   19,  2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

9. A letter  dated November  4,  2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

Health  signed by Scott Mcf.ane,  P .E.,  Senior Public Health  Engineer.

10. 10. A letter dated January 3,  2013 (typo meant  Dec 3)  from the State of New York Department of Transportation   signed by Mary Jo Russo, E..  Rockland  County Permit  Engineer.
11. 11. A letter dated Dec.  4, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Drainage  Agency  (e

mailed  after 5:00  p.m.) signed by Vincent  Altieri.

 

 

 

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

 

A.V.D.  Cleaners  Performance Standards

ZBA#l3-89

Page 2of4

 

 

 

 

On advice of  Dennis  Michaels,  Deputy  Town Attorney,   counsel to the Zoning Board  of Appeals, Mr.  Sullivan  moved  for a Board  determination based upon the testimony  heard by this Board,  and the facts as presented  in the application submissions  and in the record,  since the application  entails the ZBA engaging  in a

review to determine  compliance  with technical  requirements,  that the foregoing

application  is a Type II action  exempt  from the State Environmental Quality

Review  Act (SEQRA),  pursuant  to SEQRA Regulations §617.5 (c) (28); which does not require  SEQRA  environmental review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli  and carried  as follows:  Mr. Sullivan,  aye;  Ms. Salomon,  aye; Ms.  Castelli, aye; Ms.  Albanese,  aye; and r, Feroldi,  aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

Donald  Nemcik,  Attorney, testified  that Antoinette  has been in the dry-cleaning business  in Montvale  for 30 years;  that she does not use perk or solvents; that she uses a green machine  that has no admission  at all; that she would  like to relocate  to the building  on Route  304 in Pearl River; that the establishment would have all new equipment,  racks  tables pressers;  that she is the third generation  in the business  and has never had a violation.

 

Allen Spielvogel,  Director  Technical Services  National  Dry Cleaning  Association, testified  that the proposed  dry cleaning  establishment meets  all of the federal environmental requirements;  that the solvent used is hydrocarbon solvent that does not cause air pollution  and is not hazardous;  that the green machine  is self-contained

with its own fire suppression  system;  that goes to a pan and it has a refrigeration unit;

that the solvent is contained within  the machine;  that there is valve injection suppresses  any ignition;  that the MDS  sheets  are always 011 the premises;  that the boiler would be a gas boiler;  that the solid waste is disposed  by a private  carter; and that the dry cleaning machine is not vented that the venting in the building  is for air circulation only.

 

Stephen  Cummings, Architect, testified  that he has been preparing plans for drycleaners for 30 years; that the building  will hold all of the equipment; that the racks will be supported from the ceiling,  which will be improved; that the building did have  some defects which  are all be addressed and corrected;  that they are installing  a bathroom;  that the public  entrance  will be in the front of the building and there will be  a rear entrance  also;   and that there is plenty  of parking.

 

Antoinette testified  that the building  is not in the flood zone and that she had wanted

to own her own building  for a long time.	….-i	~
The Performance Standards  Resume  of Operations  and Equipment, and the Fire	0 ~	;is: ·     fu

Prevention Supplement  completed  by the applicant were thereupon reviewed  in <let~.     z

 

:m::0

r-0

.

::::0

 

Public  Comment:

 

No public comment.

:;;><;:                                              ;::,.

(/”)      -u     2

0          .::3       (;’)

-ri        ~      J        fTi

-ri        Ni    4

0

C’)        .     .$”)         :lE

 

The Board members  made personal  inspections  of the premises  the week before  th~   ·          ea>       z

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.

 

A.V.D.  Cleaners Performance   Standards

ZBA#13-89

Page 3  of 4

 

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

After personal-observation   of the property,  hearing  all the testimony  and reviewing  the documents  presented,  the Board  found and concluded  that:

 

Based upon the information  contained  in the applicant’s Resume  of Operations and Equipment,  the Fire Prevention  Supplement,  the letter dated November  13,

2013 from Joseph J. Moran, P .E., Commissioner   of the Orangetown  Department

of Environmental   Management  and Engineering  (D.E.M.E.)  concluding  that there is no reasonable  doubt  as to the likelihood  of applicant’s  conformance  to Zoning  Code§  4.1 Performance   Standards,  and the memorandum  dated December  2, 2013 from Michael  Bettmann,  Chief Fire Inspector,  Town of

Orangetown  Bureau  of Fire Prevention  (B.F.P.);  the other documents  presented  to

the Board  and the testimony  of applicant’s  representatives,   the Board  finds and concludes  that conformance  with the Performance   Standards  set forth in Zoning Code Section  4.1 will result sufficient  to warrant  the issuance  of a Building Permit  and/or Certificate  of Occupancy,  subject  to compliance  with the orders, rules and regulations  of the Orangetown  Office  of Building,  Zoning  & Planning Administration   & Enforcement,   DEME; and Orangetown  B.F.P.,  and all other departments  having jurisdiction   of the premises.

 

 

 

DECISION:  In view of the foregoing  and the testimony  and documents  presented,  the Board:  RESOLVED,   that the application  for  Performance   Standards   Conformance, pursuant  to Zoning  Code  § 4.1, is APPROVED  with the SPECIFIC  CONDITION   that the  applicant  adhere to all of the requirements   set forth by the Chief Fire Inspector,  Town of Orangetown  B.F.P.;    AND FURTHER  RESOLVED,  that  such decision  and the vote thereon  shall become  effective  and be deemed rendered  on the date of adoption by the Board  of the minutes  of which  they ate a part.

 

General  Conditions:

 

(i) The approval  of any variance,  Performance   Standards,  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.

~  I=”‘.:)                   -l

 

0         ~

(ii) Any approval  of a variance,  performance   Standards,  or Special Permit by the B~d    i~•

limited  to the specific variance  or Special Permit  requested  but only to the extent su@     2

approval  is granted herein  and subject  to those  conditions,  if any, upon which  such  ~      N

approval  was conditioned  which  are hereinbefore   set forth.                                           ~

o»     -0

0

:E

z

0

“‘TJ

 

rn

0         :::3

-.:          ……   I          –i

(iii) The Board  gives no approval  of any building  plans, including,  without  limitati6ll,    !;:’\) 1              o

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,  Performance Standards,  or Special  Permit  granted herein  is subject  to any conditions,  the building department  shall not be obligated  to issue any necessary  permits  where  any such condition  imposed  should, in the sole judgment  of the building  department,  be first

complied  with as contemplated  hereunder.  Occupancy  will not be made until,  and unless,

a Certificate  of Occupancy  is issued by the Office of Building,  Zoning  and Planning

Administration   and Enforcement  which  legally permits  such occupancy.

 

A.V.D.  Cleaners  Performance   Standards

ZBA#13-89

Page  4 of  4

 

 

 

 

(v) Any foregoing  variance,  Performance   Standards,  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,  with  aforesaid  conditions,   the application  for Zoning  Code  § 4.1   Performance   Standards  Conformance  was presented  and moved by Mr. Sullivan,  seconded  by Ms. Salomon  and carried  as follows:    Mr. Sullivan,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms.  Salomon,  aye;  Ms. Albanese,  aye;  and  Mr. Feroldi;  aye. Mr. Bosco was 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:    December  4,  2013

 

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD  MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING    INSPECTOR-MM    ..

TOWN  CLERK

HIGHWAY   DEPARTMENT ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT. and ENGINEERING FILE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,     ZBA, PB,  ACABOR

 

 

u.Jd

c:’f”  7T   l-”    •     -:i

U.::i  £>,~                  (I

 

N!li013~NVBO   .:W NlfiOl

 

DECISION

 

FRONT YARD VARIANCE  APPROVED

 

To:  Michael  Edwards

22 Washington  Place

Pearl  River, New York  10965

ZBA#   13-90

Date:  December  4, 2013

 

 

FROM: ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS:  Town  of Orangetown

 

 

ZBA#l3-90: Application  of Michael  Edwards  for a variance  from Chapter  43 (Zoning) Section  3.12, R-15 District,  Group M, Column  8 (Front Yard:  30′ required,  26.3′ proposed)  for an addition  to an existing  single-family  residence. The property  is located at 22 Washington  Place,  Pearl River, New York  and are identified  on the Orangetown Tax Map as Section 68.19, Block  1, Lot  13; R-15 zoning  district.

 

 

 

Heard by the Zoning  Board  of Appeals  of the Town of Orangetown   at a meeting  held  on Wednesday,  December  4, 2013 at which  time the Board made the determination hereinafter  set forth.

 

 

 

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

1. Architectural plans  dated  10/23/2012  with the latest revision  date of 07/24/ 2013 signed and sealed by Jonathan  Hodash,  Architect.  (8 pages)
2. A letter dated November   19, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of

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

3. A letter dated November  20, 2013 from the County  of Rockland  Department  of highways  signed by Sonny Lin, P .E ..

 

 

 

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

 

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), (IO), (12) and /or (13); which  does not require  SEQ RA environmental   review.  The motion  was seconded  by Ms. Castelli and carried as follows:  Ms. Salomon,  aye; Ms. Albanese,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli, aye; and  Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco was absent.

 

 

 

Jonathan  Hodash  testified  that they were hired to do some work on the existing  house; that they have  a permit  for the work  that is being  done and the applicant  has added a small portico  over the front entrance;  that they  are before  the Board because  this small

covering  prompts  the need for a minor front yard variance;  that he did not know that there was a shed on the property  but he will add it to the site plan.

 

Edwards

ZBA#13-90

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.  Salomon  and carried unanimously.

 

 

FINDINGS  OF FACT AND  CONCLUSIONS:

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

 

 

 

1. 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 additions have been constructed  in the ar

 

 

 

 

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 additions  have been  constructed  in the area.

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

4. The requested  front yard variance  is not substantiaL

 

 

 

5. The applicant  pm-chased 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 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The foregoing  resolution  to approve  the application  for the requested   front yard variance was presented  and moved by Mr. Feroldi,  seconded  by Ms.  Salomon  and carried as follows:   Ms. Albanese,  aye; Mr. Feroldi,  aye; Ms. Castelli,  aye; Ms. Salomon,  aye; and Mr. Sullivan,  aye. Mr. Bosco  was 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:   December  4, 2013

 

ZONING  BOARD  OF APPEALS TOWN  OF ORANGETOWN

 

 

 

 

DISTRIBUTION:

 

APPLICANT

ZBA  MEMBERS

SUPERVISOR

TOWN BOARD MEMBERS TOWN ATTORNEY

DEPUTY  TOWN ATTORNEY OBZPAE

BUILDING lNSPECTOR-B.vW.

 

Administrative   Aide

 

 

TOWN  CLERK

HlGHWA Y DEPARTMENT

ASSESSOR

DEPT. ofENVIRONMENTAL

MGMT, and ENGINEERING F!LE,ZBA, PB

CHAIRMAN,  ZBA, PB, ACABOR

 

 

 

30tUO  S)H:l31D  NMOl

 

80  l  Md   2   tfiltn WZ