12-7456
, .
TOWI'I\ SliPERVISOR
Barbara (iutzkr
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
Zoning Board of Appeals
ZONING SECRETARY
Sue Ruse X 122
Ilo\\ard Prager. Chairman
Tom Dellaeurte
ZONING ADMINSITRATOR
Barbara Ruberti X 128
AI Cas<:lla
Robert Juhnstun
Peter Galutti
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
20 MlDDLU3USH ROAD
WAI'PINCiFRS FALLS. NY 12:i')()
8~:i-2'J7-62:i6
August 1,2012
To: Christine Fulton
Town Clerk
From: Sue Rose, Secretary
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: NYC DEP Decision
Appeal No. 12-7456
Attached you will find the original Application/Decision & Order for
NYC DEP 195-209 River Road, Wappinger Falls, NY. Tax Grid No.
6056-01-288977. I would appreciate it if you would file these documents.
Attachments
cc: NYC DEP
Zoning Board
Town File
Building File
.,
~
-
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
P.O. Box 324 - 20 MIDDLEBUSH ROAD
WAPPINGERS FALLS, NY 12590
i
j
~ RECEIVED Zoning Board of Appeals
Office: 845.297.1373 N Fax: 845.297.4558
Zoning Enforcement Officer
MAR 8 Z01;9ffice: 845.297.6257
www.townofwappinger.us
WNli'JG ADMINISTRATOR
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
Application for an Area Variance
Appeal # ___~~;2 - 71S0
f
Dated: March 8. 2012
TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF WAPPINGER, NEW YORK:
I(We), Sean McAndrew residin:a. at 96-05 Horace Harding Expressway ,
Coron;::) , NY, 11368 ,718-59.5-:7195 (phone), hereby appeal
to the Zoning Board of Appeals from the decision/action of the Zoning Administrator,
dated n/a , 200_, and do hereby apply for an area varlance(s).
Premises located at 203 River Road North
Tax Grid # 6056-01-288977
Zoning District R-RO
1.
t of Environmental Conservation
a, NY, 11368
Signature: see ~A&e -3
Printed:
2. Varlance(s) Request:
Variance No.1
r(We) hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance(s) of the following
requirements of the Zoning Code.
See Attached
(Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph)
Required:
Applicant(s) can provide:
Thus requesting:
To allow:
10W022 l13l\-AA V (4-03 Roy) J or 4
.......
"'-'
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
Application for an Area Variance
Appeal No. _______
Variance No.2
l(We) hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance(s) of the following
requirements of the Zoning Code.
See Attached
----"
(Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph)
~-,_._~.----_._-----'~--
Required:
Applicant(s) can provide:
Thus requesting:
To allow:
_._-----~---_._.
3. Reason For Appeal (Please substantiate the request by answering the following questions in
detail. Use extra sheet, if necessary):
A. If your variance(s) is(are) granted, how will the character of the neighborhood or nearby
properties change? Will any of those changes be negative? Please explain your answer in detail.
See Attached
B. Please explain why you need the variance(s). Is there any way to reach the same result
without a variance(s)? Please be specific in your answer.
See Attached
C. How big is the change from the standards set out in the zoning law? Is the requested area
variance(s) substantial? If not, please explain, In detail, why it is not substantial.
See Attached
D. If your variance(s) is(are) granted, will the physical environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district be impacted? Please explain, in detail, why or why not.
See Attached
-:
Towon.ZBA-AA v (4-03 Rey) 2 or 4
~
-
T o V,) n ()f \/,/
n(J > ;~c IrHJ
lic.dtlon fDr an Area Vdfiancc
p('dl f\ic, ._"'_ ____
E. How did your neecJ for an area variance(s) come about? Is your difficulty self-created? Plea9::
explain your answer in detail,
See Attached
F, Is your property unique in the neighborhood that is needs this type of variance; Plca';e explain
your answer in detail.
See Attached
4. List of attachments (Check applicable information)
eX)
Survey Dated July 16, 2011 I Last Revised .October 17, 2011 and
Prepared by Geod Survey 8. Aerial Mapping
Plot Plan Dated November 2011
eX)
(X)
(X)
( )
Photos
Drawings Dated _Noyem.~ 2011
Letter of Communication which resulted in application to the ZBA.
(e. g./ recommendation from the Planning Board/Zoning Denial)
Letter from Dated:
Letter from Dated:
() Other (please list):
5. Signature and Verification
Please be advised that no application can be deemed complete unless signed below.
1
The applicant hereby ?W1es..lhat all information given is accurate as of the date of application.
'~/i~ ~
SIGNATURE __ _ hi !i!'--~ __-__ __ __ __u_ DATED:J! 7/1"L.__
.::;:r-'\ (fJ...ppellarlt)
S I G N A TU RE __.~~.c:E_.M<:~!!~Ee.~2....:r..E9,g!.9-m ..12 i :r:~S.tQT__---... .___'___ DATE D: ..3J.Q]j_l..L-...-
(If more than one Appellant)
IOWO"2/.LJi\-i\AV ('lei, h;v):, uf.1
.......
-'"
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
1. THE QUESTED V ARIANCE(S) ( ) WILL I ( ) WILL NOT PRODUCE AN
UNDESI LE CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
2. ( ) YES I ( 0, SUBSTANTIAL DETRIMENT WILL BE CREATED TO NEAR ~
PROPERTIES.
4. ULTY ( ) IS I ( ) IS NOT SELF-C
CONCLUSI : THEREFORE, IT WAS DETERMINED THE REQU
BE(x)GRANTED ( ) DENIED. ~
CONDITIONS/STIPULATIONS: The following conditions and/or stipulations wer~ opted
by resolution of the Board as part of the action stated above:
ILL NOT HAVE AN ADVERSE
ENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE
3. THERE ( ) IS (ARE) I IS (ARE) NO OTHER FEASIBLE METHO AVAILABLE FOR
YOU TO PURSUE TO ACHIE THE BENEFIT YOU SEEK OTHER AN THE REQUESTED
V ARIANCE(S).
4 THE REQUESTED AREA V ARIANCE(S
SUBSTANTIAL.
5. THE PROPOSED V ARIANCE(S) (
EFFECT OR IMP ACT ON THE P
NEIGHBORHOOD OR DIST
See attached Finding and Decision Statements
(x) FINDINGS & FACTS ATTACHED.
DATED: July 31, 2012
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF WAPPINGER. NEW YORK
BY: J.t1Fl"<.A t2~
, fChairman)
PRINT:. HriA//l1f~ Y12A-r; t"/(
lflii:
Environmental
Protection
~
New York City Department of Environmental
Protection
Bureau of Engineering Design and Construction
Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair Program
Zoning Board of Appeals Application:
Addendum
East Connection Site/Shaft 6B
March 8, 2012
Submitted to:
Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
-
-
2. VARIANCE(S) REQUEST:
Variance No.1
I (We) hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance(s) of the following requirements of
the Zoning Code.
~240-27.1.C
(Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph)
Required:
Applicant(s) can provide:
Thus requesting:
To allow:
One (1) construction trailer
Up to ten (10) construction trailers
Nine (9) additional construction trailers
NYCDEP requires multiple contractors on publicly-bid projects.
Each contractor must provide its own construction trailer to be
used as an office. Construction trailers would be removed from
the property at the end of the construction period.
Variance No.2
I (We) hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance(s) of the following requirements of
the Zoning Code.
~240'-~7... i .c..
(Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph)
Required:
Applicant(s) can provide:
Thus requesting:
To allow:
[]~
One (1) storage container
Up to forty-five (45) storage containers
Forty-four (44) storage containers
NYCDEP proposes to use empty storage containers (see attached
photo) stacked two-high as noise barriers during the
construction period. Storage containers would be removed from
the property at the end of the construction period.
Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair Program
Zoning Board of Appeals Application Addendum
-
Variance No.3
I (We) hereby apply
the Zoning Code.
----
the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance(s) of th
./
Required:
Applicant(s) can provide:
Thus requesting:
To allow:
s from the maximum size of the
tructi J r i1e s to used as contractor offices. NYCDEP
n t know at this time ow large each of the selected
r t r's trailers would be. N EP is requesting a variance
to ow ach of the up to ten (10 nstruction trailers to
exceed 1,200 square feet in size. Constructio ailers would be
removed from the property at the end of the construction
period.
Variance No.4
I (We) hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance(s) of the following requirements of
the Zoning Code.
~240-27.1.F
(Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph)
Required:
Applicant(s) can provide:
Thus requesting:
To allow:
D~
80-foot-side yard
40 feet
40 feet
NYCDEP requests a variance of the side yard requirement for
storage containers to allow placement of double-stacked empty
storage containers as a noise barrier along one (1) property line.
The noise barrier would be placed no closer than forty (40) feet
from the property line. This property line is adjacent to a New
York State Power Authority electrical sub-station. Only one
corner of a residential property would be located less than the
required eighty (80) feet (twice the minimum side yard of 40
feet).
Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair Program
Zoning Board of Appeals Application Addendum
~
'-'
Variance No.5
I (We) hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance(s) of the following requirements of
the Zoning Code.
~240-29.D(3)
(Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph)
Required:
Applicant(s) can provide:
Thus requesting:
To allow:
Two (2) square feet
Thirty-two (32) square feet
Thirty (30) square feet
NYCDEP requests a variance to allow one (1) 4-foot by 8-foot site
identification sign at the entrance to its property. This sign
would be removed at the end of the construction period.
Variance No.6
I (We) hereby apply to the Zoning Board of Appeals for a variance(s) of the following requirements of
the Zoning Code.
~240-37
(Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and Paragraph)
Required:
Applicant(s) can provide:
Thus requesting:
To allow:
D~
Ten (10) percent
Thirteen and four-tenths (13.4) percent
Three and four-tenths (3.4) percent
NYCDEP requests a variance to allow lot coverage on the site to
exceed ten (10) percent upon completion of the project.
NYCDEP proposes to remove all temporary construction parking
lots but to retain a paved access driveway to the location of
Shaft 6B. Construction of this driveway would result in lot
coverage in excess of the ten (10) percent permitted.
Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair Program
Zoning Board of Appeals Application Addendum
"-"
......"
3. Reason for Appeal:
(Please substantiate the request by answering the following questions in detail. Use extra sheet, if
necessary):
A. If your variance(s) is(are) granted, how will the character of the neighborhood or nearby
properties change? Will any of those changes be negative? Please explain your answer in detail.
NYCDEP's Shaft 6 property is a permitted principal use within the R-80 Zoning District. Surraunding
praperties are predominantly single-family residential. As indicated in the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (DE IS) prepared for the Praposed Project, construction activity at Shaft 6 would
likely result in adverse impacts to neighborhood character as a result of noise, construction traffic,
and light. However, these impacts are identified as temporary and would not result in long-term
disruptions of neighborhood character.
The request for variances as to number and size of construction trailers to be used on the site is
dictated by NYCDEP's requirement to have multiple contractors operating on the construction site.
These construction trailers would not be visible from most locations in the study area and would
not adversely affect neighborhood character. Upon completion of the project, these construction
trailers would be removed from the site.
The request for variances to use empty storage containers (see attached photo) as a noise barrier
and to place those storage containers within the required 80-foot side yard are intended to
minimize impacts relating to noise. The barriers would also help to minimize the spread of light
from the construction site. Upon completion of the project, these storage containers would be
removed from the site.
The request for a variance to allow one (1) construction sign of thirty-two (32) square feet in size
reflects standard practice for identification of construction sites and public infrastructure
investments. The requested sign would be removed at the end of the construction period.
The request for a variance for lot coverage is considered the minimum necessary to achieve the
purpose of maintaining access to the new Shaft 68. Location of Shaft 68 was determined by
minimum distance between the existing Shaft super-structure and Delaware Aqueduct. It is not
considered prudent to construct a new shaft to an existing aqueduct closer than 400 feet. The
proposed Shaft 68 is located 400 feet from the existing aqueduct. At the end of the construction
period the majority of the site would be restored with landscaping and ground cover. Storm water
management systems would remain and would adequately treat and release stormwater runoff
generated by the impervious surfaces remaining on the site.
[]~
Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair Program
Zoning Board of Appeals Application Addendum
----
~
B. Please explain why you need the variance(s). Is there any way to reach the same result without a
variance(s)? Please be specific in your answer.
NYCDEP has designed the Proposed Project and identified appropriate mitigation measures during
construction to minimize potential impact to the surrounding community to the maximum extent
practicable. NYCDEP does not believe that there are any feasible alternatives that would avoid the
need for the requested variances with respect to the number and size of the construction trailers or
the lot coverage.
NYCDEP has proposed the use of the empty storage containers as mitigation for potential noise
impacts during the construction period. If the variances for the number and location of these
storage containers is not granted, NYCDEP would not be able to mitigate noise levels generated
during the construction period to the extent identified in the DEIS. Other forms of noise mitigation
would not be as effective at minimizing noise impacts.
C. How big is the change from the standards set out in the zoning law? Is the requested area
variance(s) substantial? If not, please explain, in detail, why it is not substantial.
NYCDEP does not believe that the requested variances are substantial in nature. While the
absolute number of construction trailers and storage containers proposed to use is greater than
what is allowed, NYCDEP does not believe that this is substantially out of keeping with the intent of
the zoning law. NYCDEP respectfully suggests that the requirements in the zoning law are intended
for typical construction practices of a small commercial application or residential subdivision. The
Proposed Project is an atypical or unique construction project and requires certain flexibility.
NYCDEP does not believe that the requested variance for the site identification sign is substantial.
Most construction sites have a sign that is greater than two (2) square feet in size in order to
clearly identify the site for cpnstruction deliveries and to identify to the general public the nature of
the activities.
NYCDEP does not believe that the requested variance for lot coverage is substantial. NYCDEP has
designed a site restoration plan that would minimize the amount of impervious surface coverage
on the site to the maximum extent practicable while still allowing for access to the new Shaft 68.
As stated earlier, it is not possible to locate Shaft 68 closer to the existing Delaware Aqueduct.
D. If your variance(s) is(are) granted, will the physical environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district be impacted? Please explain, in detail, why or why not.
As noted above, the DEIS prepared for the Proposed Project has indicated that there would be
adverse impacts to neighborhood character as a result of the Proposed Project. However, these
impacts have been identified as temporary and would not result in long-term disruptions to
neighborhood character. NYCDEP does not believe that any of the requested variances would
~NVC Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair Program
~~ Zoning Board of Appeals Application Addendum
~
-
result in impacts to the physical environmental conditions. NYCDEP has designed a storm water
management plan for the site that would capture, treat, and release all storm water generated by
new impervious surfaces associated with the Proposed Project. Thus, the variance requested for lot
coverage would be mitigated by the storm water pollution prevention plan in such a way to avoid
any adverse impacts to the physical environmental conditions on the site or within the
neighborhood.
E. How did your need for an area variance(s) come about? Is your difficulty self-created? Please
explain your answer in detail.
NYCDEP has designed the Proposed Project and identified appropriate mitigation measures during
construction to minimize potential impact to the surrounding community to the maximum extent
practicable. While the need for each of the variances is self-created, NYCDEP does not believe that
there are any feasible alternatives that would avoid the need for the requested variances.
Please also refer to the response to Question A, above.
F. Is your property unique in the neighborhood that it needs this type of variance? Please explain
your answer in detail.
NYCDEP's Shaft 6 property is a permitted principal use within the R-BO Zoning District. Surrounding
properties are predominantly single-family residential. Construction activities at Shaft 6 are unique
in the neighborhood and NYCDEP believes that the standard provisions within the zoning code do
not allow the f'exibility required for completion of a complex construction process for an essential
piece of public infrastructure. NYCDEP respectfully suggests that the variances requested are
unique. Upon completion of the Proposed Project, the character of the Shaft 6 site will be returned
to its existing condition (prior to construction of other related Delaware Aqueduct improvements
now on-going).
[JNVC
--
...-
Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair Program
Zoning Board of Appeals Application Addendum
....
........
~
Figure 1. Storage Containers Used for Noise Abatement (DEF) Jerome
FJark Reservoir Project)
F)rolect!
Storage Containers Used for No!se Abatement (DEFJ Croton
~.,
-.-..:1, ........
.,"jt.-"'......__. '-~c~; ~ ~ ~ ~'"
',' " ~~..
: .....
<.i.. . "'1' ..' --. ':~:..:
~
!WWIN ,1ztecc:onta:m?!corYI)
n O':TGT\TAL
w 1\1 .l.i'
t:;ECEIVED
FINDINGS STATEMENT
DATE: July 31, 2012
<JeANNe/de 0 -
rOWN'(); vEPAtlTrc1ENT
VI\PPINGER
PROJECT: AREA VARIANCE FOR SHAFT 6B
DELAWARE AQUEDUCT RONDOUT-
WEST BRANCH TUNNEL REPAIR
LOCA TI 0 N : Chelsea Road, Hamlet of Chelsea
Town of Wappinger
Dutchess County, New York
FINDINGS PREPARED BY:
Involved Agency: TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Lead Agency: New York City Department of
Environmental Protection ("DEP")
SPONSOR 59-17 Junction Boulevard, Flushing, NY 11373
CONT ACT: HOWARD PRAGER, ZONING BOARD CHAIRMAN
Town Hall
20 Middlebush Road
Wappingers Falls, New York 12590
Telephone: (845) 297-1373
NYC DEP SHAFT 6B SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT
Lead Agency: Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Date: July 31,2012
FINDINGS
1
I: Name of Action
II: Project Sponsor and Lead Agency:
1
Ill: Description of Action
IV: Location
2
V: Lead Agency Jurisdiction
2
VI: Date Final Environmental Impact Statement Filed: May 18,2012
2
VII:
(A)
(B)
(C)
FACTS AND INFORMATION RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DECISION
INTRODUCTION
NEED AND BENEFIT
NO POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS FROM VARIANCES
3
3
4
4
CERTIFICATION TO APPROVE:
5
Page i
NYC DEP SHAFT 6B SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT
Lead Agency: Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Date: July 31, 2012
FINDINGS
Pursuant to Article 8 of the Environmental Conservation Law, State Environmental Quality
Review Act (hereinafter called "SEQRA") and 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Town of Wappinger Zoning
Board of Appeals, as an involved agency, makes the following findings:
!.;. Name of Action
Request for Area Variances
NYC DEP Shaft 6B
Delaware Aqueduct Rondout- West Branch Tunnel Repair
II: Project Sponsor and Lead AQencv:
New York City Department of Environmental Protection ("DEP")
59-17 Junction Boulevard, Flushing, NY 11373
III: Description of Action
The action before the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals is a part of much larger
project called Water for the Future: Delaware Aqueduct Rondout-West Branch Tunnel Repair (RWBT
Repair). The Water for the Future Project will repair leaking sections of the Delaware Aqueduct which
supplies approximately 50% of the water to the nine million people who rely on the New York City
water supply, including New York City and upstate residents.
The portion of the RWBT Repair project in the Town of Wappinger involves constructing a new
shaft on the Shaft 6 property owned by DEP on Chelsea Road to facilitate the construction of a new
bypass tunnel under the Hudson River. The new shaft will used to connect the existing Delaware
Aqueduct and the new bypass tunnel.
Construction of the bypass tunnel and shaft sites would begin with construction of the bypass
shafts, which would start in 2013 and be complete in 2015. Construction of the bypass tunnel would
begin in 2015 and be connected in 2020. It is anticipated that up to 15 months would be needed to
complete the bypass connection and to undertake the inspection and repair of the RWBT, expected to
occur sometime in 2021.
DEP has requested that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant five vanances from the strict
application of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Code:
1. Where one (1) construction trailer is allowed, the applicant is proposing up to ten (10)
temporary construction trailers to allow the NYCDEP requirement of multiple contractors on
publicly-bid projects. Each contractor to provide its own construction trailer to be used as an
office, thus requesting a variance of nine (9) temporary trailers.
2. Where one (1) storage container is allowed, the applicant is proposing up to forty- five (45)
storage containers for sound mitigation, thus requesting a variance of forty-four (44)
temporary storage containers.
Page 1
NYC DEP SHAFT 6B SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT
Lead Agency: Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Date: July 31, 2012
3. Where a side yard setback of 80 feet is required for storage containers from the property line,
the applicant is proposing a side yard setback of 40', to allow placement of double-stacked
empty storage containers as a noise barrier along one (1) property line, thus requesting a
temporary variance of 40'.
4. Where two (2) square feet is allowed for signage in a residential neighborhood, the applicant
is proposing thirty-two (32) square feet, to allow one (1) 4-foot by 8-foot site identification
sign at the entrance to its property, thus requesting a variance of for signage of thirty (30)
square feet.
5. Where ten (10) percent maximum lot coverage is allowed, the applicant can provide thirteen
and four-tenth (13.4) percent) lot coverage on the site upon completion of the project, thus
requesting a variance of three (3) and four-tenths (.4) percent additional lot coverage.
Four of the five variances are not permanent and pertain to construction activities. The fifth
variance is to allow for an increase in maximum lot coverage.
IV: Location
The project site is located on at the Delaware Aqueduct Shaft 6 site owned by the NYC DEP on
Chelsea Road in the Town of Wappinger, County of Dutchess, and State of New York. The parcel
contains approximately 19.9 acres and is identified on the Town of Wappinger Tax Map as Tax Parcel
Id No. 135689-6056-01-288977-0000. Also located on the Shaft 6 site is the Chelsea Pumping.
V: Lead AQencv Jurisdiction
The DEP is the lead agency for the project and the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
is an involved agency because it has to issue approvals for the above noted variances. As an involved
agency, the Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals participated in the Environmental Review
process along with the Town of Wappinger Planning Board which is also an involved agency as site
plan approval is required for the proposed work at the site.
As lead agency the DEP conducted a public scoping process and prepared a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. The Town of Wappinger on behalf of the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning
Board submitted comments with respect to the DEIS. Representatives of the DEP met with the Town's
consultants and worked through various environmental issues pertaining to the project. The DEP
responded to the comments of the Town of Wappinger in the FEIS which was filed on May 18,2012
VI: Date Final EnvironmentallmlJact Statement Filed: May 18,2012
Date Lead AQencv Issued FindinQs: June 28, 2012
Page 2
NYC DEP SHAFT 6B SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT
Lead Agency: Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Date: July 31, 2012
VII: FACTS AND INFORMA TION RELIED UPON TO SUPPORT THE DECISION
(A) INTRODUCTION
The Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals has reviewed the information contained in the
FEIS, including the Draft Environmental Impact Statement ("DEIS") and its Appendices which together
constitute the FEIS as it pertains to the variance at issue. The ZBA has found the FElS to be an
adequate examination of all significant potential adverse impacts which would result from the proposed
action, if implemented.
In accordance with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and 6 NYCRR Part
617 and the Town of Wappinger Code, the ZBA held a public hearing on April 10, 2012 at 7:30 p.m. in
the Town of Wappinger Town Hall at which time members of the public were present and made
comments regarding the variance application. The environmental concerns raised at the public hearing
were with respect to truck traffic through the Chelsea Hamlet. Questions were also raised regarding
supply of water to the Chelsea Hamlet which will be an ancillary benefit of the project.
The DEP has requested five variances. The variances are related to the construction activities on
the site. Variance one request that the ZBA allow for up to ten (10) construction trailers where one is
allowed under the Town Code. The scope of the proposed construction project is huge and requires a
large number of contractors from a variety of construction trades. It is appropriate that the various
contractors be allowed sufficient facilities to conduct their operations.
Variance two requests that the DEP be allowed to use forty-four (44) additional storage
containers on the site for sound mitigation purposes. Variance three requests that the storage containers
be allowed to be placed forty feet (40') from the property where a setback of eighty feet (80') is
required.
Variance two and three are required to provide sound mitigation of the site. The DEP plans to
erect a wall of containers two high around the new shaft to shield the surrounding properties from the
construction noise.
In variance 4, the DEP is requesting that it be allowed to place a thirty two square foot sign on
the property in a residential district where only a two square foot sign is allowed. The proposed sign will
convey information to the public about who to contact about noise generated from the site and other
construction related complaints, comments and concerns. The increase in the size of the sign is also in
the nature of mitigation because a complaint based Noise Mitigation Plan is being proposed to control
construction noise.
Variance five seeks an increase in the maximum lot coverage permitted on the site from ten
percent to thirteen and four-tenths of a percent. The variance is required to allow for the addition of the
new shaft on the site and for new access roads to service the new shaft. Ten percent lot coverage is a
very low percentage.
Page 3
NYC DEP SHAFT 6B SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT
Lead Agency: Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Date: July 31,2012
(B) NEED AND BENEFIT
There is a pressing need to repair the Delaware Aqueduct. The stability of the water supply
system for nine million users in the City of New York and surrounding communities is critically
important and is a tremendous benefit. Communities affected by leaks in the R WBT also benefit from
the project.
The DEP as lead agency has reviewed the alternatives and determined that the construction of a
bypass tunnel with connecting shafts is the most practicable alternative. The ZBA will defer to the
expertise of the DEP when it comes to the operation of one of the most sophisticated water supply
system in the world.
The ZBA finds that variances one through four are appropriate and are needed because they
advance mitigation measures associated with the project. Variance five is needed because the structures
that are proposed to remain on the site after completion of construction are needed to support the critical
infrastructure that is being installed on the site. The need for the variances has been demonstrated and
there is a substantial benefit to the DEP and its customers.
(C) NO POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS FROM VARIANCES
The ZBA hereby incorporates by reference the Statement of Findings for the Water for the
Future: Delaware Aqueduct Rondout-West Branch Tunnel issued by DEP on June 28, 2012. (A copy of
which is annexed hereto )(hereinafter "DEP Findings Statement").
The ZBA hereby finds that granting the proposed variances will not have a potential for
significant adverse impacts in the following areas based on the reasoning in the DEP Findings
Statement: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy; Visual Character; Historic and Archeological
Resources; Socioeconomic Conditions; Community Facilities; Natural Resources; Hazardous Materials;
Air Quality; Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Infrastructure; Solid Waste; Coastal Zone; Public
Health, and Growth Inducement.
(i) Variances One throu2:h Four
The DEP Findings Statement indicates that adverse environmental impacts will occur in the area
of the Shaft 6 site during the period of construction operations which is anticipated to last from 2013
until 2021, a period of approximately eight years. The DEP Findings Statement indicates that there will
be adverse environmental impacts associated with the Character of the Neighborhood, Construction
Noise and Construction Traffic. The adverse impacts are construction related and will cease when
construction is completed.
While the requested variances are related to the construction activities associated with the
project, it is theoretically possible for the project to take place without the granting of said variances.
Denial of the requested variances would not stop the project, but would instead minimize the mitigation
measures proposed by the DEP. Authorizing variances one through four would reduce adverse impacts
from noise and construction activities. In particular, allowing additional storage containers around the
Page 4
NYC DEP SHAFT 6B SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT
Lead Agency: Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Date: July 31, 2012
new shaft would mitigate noise. The DEP has used this technique successfully on other projects. The
containers are more substantial that noise curtains.
The ZBA finds that there will be no potential for significant adverse impacts from the granting of
variances one through four.
(ii) Variance Five
Variance five requests that the maximum lot coverage permitted on the site be increased from
10% to 13.4%. While the site contains 19.9 acres there are several buildings on the site: Shaft 6, Shaft
6B, the Chelsea Pump Station, DEP Offices, sheds and electrical substations. Parking areas and access
roads are associated with each building. Because of the grades on the site, the access road coming into
the site has a switchback which increases its length. All of the facilities are required.
Increasing the maximum lot coverage means that the impervious surface on the site will increase
which will in turn require additional stormwater facilities. As the Town of Wappinger is an MS-4
community, DEP's project will be covered under the SPDES General Construction Permit GP-0-1O-001
in accordance with the permitting requirements of the New York State Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (SPDES). A Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and Stormwater Management
Plan (SMP) will be required.
The ZBA finds that the proposed project will not significantly impact groundwater or surface
water resources due to increase in impervious surface. Potential impacts to groundwater and surface
water resources will be minimized through adherence to a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) and Storm water Management Plan (SMP) during construction and throughout project
operation.
Certification to Approve:
Having considered the draft and final Environmental Impact Statement, the DEP Findings
Statement and having considered and relied upon the written facts and conclusions set forth above, and
carefully weighed and balanced relevant environmental factors with social, economic and other essential
considerations to meet the requirements of 6 NYCRR 617.11, this Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of
Appeals certifies that:
1. The requirements of 6 NYCRR Part 617 have been met; and
2. Consistent with social, economic and other essential considerations from among the
reasonable alternatives available, the action is the one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental
impacts to the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse impacts will be avoided or minimized to
the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the decision those mitigative measures
that were identified as practicable.
3. A copy of this Findings Statement shall be filed with all involved agencies, the applicant,
and all parties requesting same, as required by law.
Page 5
NYC DEP SHAFT 6B SEQRA FINDINGS STATEMENT
Lead Agency: Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Date: July 31, 2012
T own of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals
( ': Q
IbLc7t<L/f (::..~
Signature of Responsible fficial
Howard Prager
Name of Responsible Official
Chairman
Title of Responsible Official
July 31, 2012
Date
Page 6
TOWN OF WAPPINGER
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
APPLICA TION FOR AN AREA VARIANCE
FINDINGS & DECISION
Appeal No.
Application Date:
Applicant
Premises Located at:
Tax Grid No.:
Zoning District(s):
Record Owner of Property:
Variance of Code Sections:
12-7456
March 8 , 2012
New York City DEP
195-209 River Road
6056-01-288977 -0000
R-80
City of New York
~240-27.1 Construction Trailers
~240-29(D)(1) Residential Signs
~ 240-37 (District Regulations)
Description of the Premises
The premises that are the subject of this application is the property owned by the City of
New York that contains Shaft 6 for the Delaware Aqueduct. The premises are located between
River Road and the Hudson River in the Hamlet of Chelsea.
Proposed Area Variances
DEP has requested that the Zoning Board of Appeals grant five area variances from the
strict application of the Town of Wappinger Zoning Code:
1. Where one (1) construction trailer is allowed pursuant to ~240-27.1, the applicant
is proposing up to ten (10) temporary construction trailers thus requesting a variance of nine (9)
temporary construction trailers.
2. Where one (1) storage container is allowed pursuant to ~240-27.1, the applicant is
proposing up to forty- five (45) storage containers for sound mitigation, thus requesting a
variance of forty- four (44) temporary storage containers.
3. Pursuant to ~240-27.1(F), the side yard setback for a construction trailer abutting
a residential property shall be twice the side yard setback in the residential district. In the R-80
District the side yard setback is 40 feet thus the required setback for the trailer would be 80 feet.
The applicant is requesting a variance from the strict application of ~240-27.1(F) so that shipping
containers stacked two high may be placed 40 feet from the property line to create a noise barrier
to shield the adjoining residential properties.
4. Where two (2) square feet is allowed for signage in a residential neighborhood is
permitted under ~240-29(D)(1), the applicant is proposing thirty-two (32) square feet, to allow
one (1) 4-foot by 8-foot site identification sign at the entrance to its property, thus requesting a
variance of for signage of thirty (30) square feet.
5. Where ten (10) percent maximum lot coverage is allowed under the R-80 District
Regulations, the applicant can provide thirteen and four-tenth (13.4) percent) lot coverage on the
site upon completion of the project, thus requesting a variance of three (3) and four-tenths (.4)
percent additional lot coverage.
Evidence Presented
I. Area variance application dated Mar"], R ,2012 with attached materials.
II. Site plan entitled "Rondout West Branch Site Plan Application" prepared by New
York City Environmental Protection Bureau of Engineering Design &
Construction under Drawing No. 6C-130.0 dated November 2011 last revised
.TnTII'> 1012
III. Letter from Sean McAndrew, P.E. to Mr. Howard Prager, Chairman dated March
21,2012.
IV. Water for the Future: Delaware Aqueduct Rondout-West Branch Tunnel DEIS &
FEIS.
V. Statement of Findings for the Water for the Future: Delaware Aqueduct Rondout-
West Branch Tunnel issued by DEP on June 28, 2012.
VI. Town of Wappinger Zoning Board of Appeals Findings Statement dated July 31,
2012.
Public Hearin1!
A public hearing on the application and on the EIS was held on April 10, 2012. The DEP
presented witnesses to discuss the project and comments from the public was noted and
questions from the ZBA were answered by the DEP representatives.
SEQRA
The NYC DEP was designated as Lead Agency for the coordinated SEQRA review of
this project and the ZBA is an involved agency.
Findin1!s of Fact
1) The ZBA has issued a Findings Statement that determined that, consistent with social,
economic and other essential considerations from among the reasonable alternatives
available, the action is the one that avoids or minimizes adverse environmental impacts to
2
the maximum extent practicable, and that adverse impacts will be avoided or minimized
to the maximum extent practicable by incorporating as conditions to the this decision
those mitigative measures that were identified as practicable.
2) DEP has a site plan application pending before the Town of Wappinger Planning Board
which shall consider all of the environmental impacts associated with the project not just
those associated with the instant variances. Noise mitigation, traffic impact mitigation
and stormwater control shall be addressed in site plan review.
3) The general neighborhood that is to be considered with respect to this area variance is the
area along River Road from the Chelsea Hamlet to Old State Road and adjoining streets.
4) The Delaware Aqueduct provides approximately 50% of the water supply for the New
York City water system and it is leaking.
5) The DEP as lead agency has reviewed the alternatives and determined that the
construction of a bypass tunnel with connecting shafts is the most practicable alternative.
The ZBA will defer to the expertise of the DEP when it comes to the operation of one of
the most sophisticated water supply systems in the world.
6) The ZBA finds that variances one through four are appropriate and are needed because
they advance mitigation measures associated with the project.
7) The RWBT Repair contract is a multi-billion dollar contract which requires many
construction trades and contractors.
8) Provisions in the Town of Wappinger Zoning Code relating to construction do not
contemplate a project of the scale associated with the RWBT Repair Project.
9) Variance five is needed because the structures that are proposed to remain on the site
after completion of construction are needed to support the critical infrastructure that is
being installed on the site.
10) A water supply use is allowed in an R-80 District but the bulk requirements are tailored
for single family residential projects rather than public utility projects like the operation
of the Delaware Aqueduct so variance of the provisions are appropriate.
11) DEP has invested millions of dollars of infrastructure improvements into the Shaft 6 site
and relocation of the activities to another site is not possible.
12) Variances one through three are temporary and shall cease upon completion of
construction.
13) The information that DEP needs to convey on its sign cmIDot fit on a two square foot sign
and be visible to the public at a distance.
3
14) New stormwater management practices will control runoff from the increased impervious
surfaces.
Decision on Area Variance
Standard
In making its determination whether it is appropriate to grant an area variance, the Zoning
Board of Appeals shall follow the standards created under S 240-107(B)(2)(b)(2) and S 267-b(3)
of New York Town Law which are:
(2) Area variances.
[a] In making its determination on an application for an area variance, the Board of
Appeals shall consider the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as
weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall also
consider:
[i] Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting
of the area variance.
[ii] Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method
feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance.
[iii] Whether the requested area variance is substantial in relation to the requirement.
[iv] Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
[v] Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be
relevant to the decision of the Board but shall not necessarily preclude the
granting of the area variance.
[b] The Board, in the granting of an area variance, shall grant the minimum variance that
it shall deem necessary and adequate to afford relief and at the same time preserve
and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the
community. To this end, the Board may permit a lesser variance than that applied for.
Decision
The Zoning Board of Appeals determines that the benefit to the applicant if the variances
are granted outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the general neighborhood
or community by such grant. In addition, granting of the variances provides mitigation of
construction impacts to the general neighborhood.
4
The Zoning Board of Appeals further determines that no undesirable change will be
produced in the character of the general neighborhood which has been found to be the area of
River Road and adjoining streets in the area of the site. The proposed variances serve to provide
mitigation measures for the construction activity taking place on the site, particularly the
reduction of noise. While the construction itself will affect the character of the neighborhood, the
variances will allow for additional mitigation measures that would not be allowed without the
vanances.
The Zoning Board of Appeals further determines that there will be no detriment to nearby
properties by the granting of such area variance because the variances will mitigate the
construction noise from the premises.
The Zoning Board of Appeals further determines that the benefit sought by the applicant
cannot be achieved by some other feasible method, other than the instant area variance. The new
shaft location is near the property line and noise barriers need to be placed around the
construction area. The construction project is large and trailers are required for the various
contractors. Additional parking areas and access roads are needed to support the new shaft after
construction which will increase the impervious surface.
The Zoning Board of Appeals further determines that the variances are substantial but
they should still be granted to mitigate construction noise and allow for construction of the
needed facilities.
The Zoning Board of Appeals further determines the proposed area variance will not
have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the general
neighborhood or district. The variances are sought to alleviate construction impacts.
The Zoning Board of Appeals further determines that the alleged difficulty is not self-
created because the construction is required to repair the leaking Delaware Aqueduct.
NOW THEREFORE, the Zoning Board of Appeals hereby determines that the
requested area variances are hereby GRANTED subject to the following conditions:
a)
All fees and escrows associated with this application must be paid.
b)
received.
Site Plan approval from the Planning Board for the associated application must be
c)
All taxes and other fees due and payable to the Town ofW~!'J~k must be paid.
d) Variances one, two and three shall terminate upon the completion of the RWBT
construction contract.
e) The noise mitigation shipping containers shall be of a color that shall minimize
their visual impact as recommended by the Planning Board.
5
f) After the completion of the RWBT construction DEP shall endeavor to reduce the
impervious surface on the premises when future construction is undertaken.
The foregoing is the decision of the ZBA.
6