Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1309 TOV~N OF ~OUTHOLD, NEW YORK ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appeal No. 1309 Dated December 8, 1969 ACTION OF THE ZONING BOARD O~ APPEALS OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD James J. Treuchtlinger To , 60 East End Avenue Hicksville, New York DATE F~u~.y 19, 1970 Appellant at a meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals on Pebruary 19, ,was considered and the action indicated below was taken on your ( ) Request for variance due to lack of access to property ( ) Request for a special exception under the Zoning Ordinance (X) Request for a variance to the Zoning ~)rdinance ( ) 1970 the appeal 1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolution of the Board it was determined that a special exception ( ) be granted (.) be denied pursuant to Article .................... Section .................... Subsection .............. ~ .....paragraph .................... of the Zoning Ordinance and the decision of the Building Inspector ( ) be reversed ( ) be confirmed because 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.)~ upon application of James J. Treuchtlinger, 60 East End Avenue, Hicksville, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,, Section 304, for permission to bllild new one family dwelling with less than required front yard setback. Location of property: north side of North Parish Drive, Southold, New York, bounded north by the Bay, east by Matthewsm south by North Parish Drive, west by'G; Vankleeck. 2. VARIANCE. By resolution of the Board it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce hardship because SEE REVERSE practical difficulties (b) The hardship created (is) (is not) unique and (would) (would not) be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district because SEE REVERSE (c) The variance (does) (does not) observ6 the spirit of the Ordinance and (would) (would not) change the character of the district because SEE REVERSE and therefore, it was further determined that the requested variance ( ) be granted ( ) be denied and that the previo.us decisions of the Building Inspector ( ) be confirmed ( ) be reversed. FORM ZB4 SEE RE~KSE APPROVED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS After investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant is the owner of an i~regularly shaped lot of adequate size measuring 115 feet on N/S North Parish Drive at a point 225' westerly of the intersection of North Parish Drive and Northfield Lane in Southold. .Approximate average width of the lot is 123' while the depth average is 178' to mean high water of Peconic Bay. The applicant has constructed a hom9 on the property at a distance of 34.8 feet from the street line a/c to a survey of Nov. 26, 1969. The adjoiningMatthews residence to the east was constructed at a distance of 35'6", thus establishing'the required front yard setback applicable to Treuchtlinger. The part of the Matthews house which is located at 35'6" is a two car garage. The two adjacent lots to the west of Treuchtlinger are vacant. Otheri~ouses on the north side of North Parish Drive and further to the west vary in setback from35' to a distance approximately 60'. The Ordinance.sets forth a minimum of 35', unless a lesser or greater average setback has been established by previous construction. As of the date of the application the Treuchtlinger house was more than 50% complete at a cost of over $15,000. To move the house to comply with the 35'6" setback would involve considerable economic loss. The applicant's attorney holds that area variances may be granted on the grounds of practical difficulties alone without a ~h~Owing of unnecessary hardship. (McInroy vs. 9mugewald 218 N.Y.S, 2~'1i6~ also'Siegel vs. Lassiter 177 N.Y.S. 2d 894,~!n which, "T~,at no showing of hardship is requi~ed since the Board of Appeals has discretionary power to grant a variance in harmony With the general purposes and intent of the Zoning ordinance. Mor~ over hardship need not be show~ when. see~i~g an area variance. Consequently, the self- imposgd hardship rule does not app%y'in such CaSes.,, The Court of Appeals held in Fulling vs. Palumb6 286 N.Y.S. 2d :249, "Where the property owner will suffer significan~ economic ~njury by application of area standard zoning ordinance; that standard can be justified only by showing that public health, safety, and welfare will be served by upholding the application of the standard and denying the variance." The area variance requested in the Palumbo case is considerably greater than the area variance required by Treuchtlinger. In addition the Board finds that the applicant may have been misled about the strictness of the setback requirement when applying for a building permit. The Board ~nds that strict application of the Ordinance would produce practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; the hardship created is unique and would not be shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in the same use district; and the variance will not change the character of the district; and will observe the spirit of the Ordinance. THEREFORE,.IT WAS RESOLVED James J. Treuchtlinger, 60 East End Avenue, Hicksvillet New York, be GRANTED permission to build new one family ~elling with less thanrequired front yard setback on property located at north side of North Parish Drive, Southold, New York, subject to the following condition: The setback of the Treuchtlinger house as established in this variance may not be used in computing the average setback of houses which may be constructed in the future on North Parish Drive. Vote of the Board: Ayes:- Messrs: Gillispie, Bergen, Hulse, ~ of Heorings ~ to Section 267 of the ~Mrf~k Cmmty, New York,.public huarings will be held by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Sonthold~ at the Town Office, Main Road, Scuthold, New York, on January 8, 1970 on the following appeals: 7:30 P.~M. (E.S.?.), upon ap- *plication o~f Hank and. Lynn Riececker, Schoolhouse Road, _Cu~t~chogue~ New York, for a vari- Zoning Ordinance, Article IH, build new one faimily dwelling with reduced front yard setback. Lceation of prope~y: west side of Eastwood Drive Extension, Cutchng~e, New York, Map of Eastwond Estates, ~*ction II, Lot No, 25: 8:00 P.M. (E.S.T.), upon ap- plication of James J. Treucht- linger, 6O East End Avenue, Hicksville, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article !II,' SecUon 304, for permission to build new one family dwelling with less than required front yard setback. Location of property: Sonthold, New York, bon~ded. north by the Bay, east by Mat- thews, south bY No~'th. Parish Drive, west by G. Yanldeeck. tien of Vail Bros.,. Inc;, Main 'Road & Pceonic Lane,_Peconic, New Ym,'k, for a special exeeption in accordance with the Zoning Ordinanee, Article IV, Section 4~, Subsection (b), for per- mission ta re-lceate existing wail Pceonie Lane, Peconic, New 'York, bounded north by L. Gozelski, east by L. Gozeiski, south by Main Road, west by Pceonic Lane. . , on the above applications should appear at the time and place TIlE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS COUI~/TY OF SUFFOLK, 1 r STATE OF NEW YORK, } ss: says that ....~.. · is Printer and Publisher of the SUFFOLK WEEKLY TIMES, a newsier pub~sh~ at Greenport, in ~d county: and ~at the noti~, of which the ~e~ is u print~ ~py, ~s been published in the ~id Suf~lk Week~ Times once in each week, for ......... ~7 ............. week~ suc~ssiv~ly ~mmencing on ~e . .~!'~ ........... Swam to ~fore me this., .0.~/... 1 d~ · ../, ;~.. ,19~. J F. LANGTON CORWIN ~otarv ~uhlic, State c New yo~ Suffolk Co. Of fit?al 50. ~-~7p~t~ NOTICE OF HEAItINGS Pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and the provisions of the amended Building Zone Or- dinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, ~w York, public hearin~gs will be held by the Zon- ing Board of Appeals of the Town of Southold, at the Town Office, Main Road, Southo~d, New York, on January 8, 19~0 on the following appeals: ?:30 P. M. (EST), upon appli- cation of Hank and Lynn Rie- necker, Schoolhouse Road, Cut- chogue, New York, for a variance in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, Article 2H, Section 305, for permission to build new one family dwelling with reduced front yard setback. Location of property: west side of Eastwood Bay, e~st by Matthews, south by ed north by L. Oozelski, east by place specified. COUNTY OF SUFFOLI( t STATE OF NEW YORKl ss: C. Whitney Booth, Jr., being duly sworn, soys that he is the Editor, of THE LONG ISLAND TRAVELER - MATTITUCK WATCHMAN, a public news- paper printed at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that the notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been published in said Long Island Traveler-Mattituck Watch- man once each week for ....~.~Z~.~.~....~../(~.... week~ successively, commencing on the .............. ~,~.. ........... .......................... ...... Sworn to before me this ....... ~.?~.. day of ....... ~.~ ....... , 19. ~'~WN OF $O~TXOL~ Applicmion No Date ............................................................. 19 ............ INSTRUCTIONS o This application must be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted in duplicate to the Building ~nspector. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adioin[ng premises or public streets or ~reas, and giving a detailed description of layout of property must be drawn on the diagram which is part of this application. c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Buiiding Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building inspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such permit shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the progress of the work. e. No building shal! be occupied or used in who!e or in part for any purpose whatever until a Certificate of Occupancy shall hove been granted by the Building Inspector. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of $outhold, Suffo!k County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordin~:nces or Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions or aiterations, or for removal or demolition, as herein described. The applicant ~grees to comply with ali applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, .................. ......... .................................... (Signa[~re of ~policont, or nome, f o corporation) .................. ,...':~) ....... :.f ............ ~C ~: ...... ~:~-: :~ :~....5~' (Address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, eneineer~ general contractor, electrician, plumber or bu ~dec. ................................................................. ::,., ...... ,:...-:'~,::...'.~ ................................................................................................... Name of owner of premises ........................................................................... :?. ..... :...:.: ........... : .......... : ............ :t .......... ~ ........ if applicant is a corporate, signature of duly authorized officer. (Name and title of corporate officer) ]. Location of land on which proposed work will be done. Mop No.: ........................................Lot No.: .......--~. ................ 4// ,:,-T ~'/ /:'/ /~ ~ ~',/-/ 7", ~ Street ~nd Number ' . .... '~' '~ ~' z 2. State existing use and occupancy of premises and intended use and occup~d~ of proposed construction: 5- "~lf dw~l}ing, number of dweihng ........ .~' ...... .~.i .......... ........................ ....... A !% ............................................................................................ if garage, number of c~rs nature and extent of each type o{ use ............................ 6. i{ business, commerciai or mixed occupancy, specify Depth ................... Rear ................................ 7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front ............................ Mumber of Stories ............................................................. ht .... Ke ............................ He.g ......... . .... Fr ¢~p.t ........................... O mens OhS of same structure w,th alterahons or add'~;~:be f Stories '- ¢ '~' f} Depth ~( '~ .... Depth .; .............................. Height ............................ ' 8.Dimensions of entire' new construction: Front ................. ~ ............... Rear ........... ' .............. Height / ...... of ............. ................................................................................. ~ '/ ~ b /~,~N~me of Former Owne ..... ~.:., ~0, Dote of Purchase .................... .. . . /' -.~?~..~.h.~..&~..Zz.j.m~.~ ............................... Zone ~r use district n which premises are s~ua~ea . ~'~ ~ ~ .......... 3 .,. ........................................ ~ ~' ~roposed construction violate any zomng iow, ordinance or ragulot~onP Does 12. / ~" *- ¢~ ;-,,'aZ( 7 ~..':Ad~¢s% ..... ~O.~,~.~....&.~&,..Z... 13. Nome of Owner of premises %~-.-.~ ................ ' ........ ~ r ¢:, va c( ~, ~'Y Phone No. ~ ~ ¢ ~- . .~?.z].~:.~. ....... Add'ess .......... ¢.~-¢ ~'~ .................. Nome of Architect ...................... ~o ~c, ,~¢'~ ' ' - Phone ~o~ ...... ,.. Nome o~ Controctor ~] OJA.%~ ...,C.~ ¢ .... ~' L .:.~:..[ ....... Address -)-{~'"'~'"~'Y2 ...... ,'] ............ ;-~r~: ~4 PLOT DtAG~,~ proposed, ~nd indicate ¢11 set*b~ck dimensions ~rom Locate cleerty end di¢inct~y oll buildings, whether existing or ~ deed ~n show street homes rind indicate ~roDeRy lines. Give street and blOCk number or descdBtion 9 whether interior or corner lot. r ~ ~igTATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF .................................. · r ,~ ~t hz /~/- ) I ~-/- t{ T f .... being duly sworn, deposes and says that he is' t~e ¢ppiicdnt '~bove :med He is the · · t(, . ' ....... rformed the said work and to make and file '¢ ........ ~ s duly authorized to pertorr~ or now U= *- ~ kest of his knowledge and belief; and df sa~d owner or ow~u~ (~ s oppiicat on; that au statements com.u .... ~ ~he a J cation filed therewith ' -- rk wi ~ be performed in the manner set for,h ' PP  ¢9]~2 TOWN O~: SOUTHOLD, NEW YORK APPEAL FROM DECISION OF BUILDING INSPECTOR APPEAL NO. /40F TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, N. Y. 1, (We)...~.~..~.'.....~..~..~.~...~..~..~.~.,.~.~ ........... of ...6..0....~.s..t.-.~.~.~..;..~.~.e..,~.e. ............................ i.. Name of Appellant Street add ~umbe[ ..~.l..q.~.~.y,.%..1..1..e..~ .................................................................. .~..e..,~.....~..9..r.~ ........ HEREBY APPEAL TO Municipality State THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING ~N.SPE~G¥OR ON declarin a violation o£ the ~ening Ordinance ,, / / ~ APPLICATIO~-i FOR PERMIT NO ................... , ............... :7 DATED ................ !.~;~..~,>~:(].~...~ ............ WHEREBY THE U"PING INSPECTOR DENIED TO Name of Applicant for permit of Street and Number Municipality State ( ) PERMIT TO USE ( ) PERMIT FOR OCCUPANC~ z~ ]. LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY ...~A..~.~.~..~.~.~.,....~.~.~ ............ ~ ........... Street Use District on Zoning Mop Mop No. Lot No. 2. PROVISION (S) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPEALED (Indicate the Article Section, Sub- section.and Paragraph of the Zoning Ordinance by number. Do not quote the Ordi,nance.) ArticleLlll Section 804 3. TYPE OF APPEAL Appeal is made herewith for (-~) A VARIANCE to the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map ( ) A VARIANCE due to lack of access (State of New York Town Law Chap. 62 Cons. Laws Art. 16 Sec. 280A Subsection 3 4. PREVIOUS APPEAL A previous appeal ~ (has not) begn made with res~pect, tb this decision of the Bu~ilding Inspector or with respect to this property. Such ~ppeal was ( ) request for a special permit ( ) request for a variance and was made in Appeal No ................................. Dated ...................................................................... REASON FOR APPEAL ( ) A Variance to Section 280A Subsection 3 :(~ ) A variance to the Zoning Ordinance ( ) is Fbquested for the reason that the building under construction on the said premises is approximately two (~) inches short o£ the required 35 foot set back from the street line. Form ZB1 (Continue on other side) REASON FOR APPEAL Continued 1. STRICT APPLICATION OF THE ORDINANCE would produce practical difficulties or unneces- san HARDSHIP because the error was not discovered until about weeks after construction was commenced. ~ see survey redated November 26~ 1969 by ~obert Ac J~art)annexed herete and made a part hereof) The structure is now about 50 % completed at an approximate cost of ever $15,000o00o · e correct the error at this ti~e wouid pro~uee prac~ieal difficulties and undue hardship by imposin~ an e×cessive an~ -~reasonable financial b~rden upon the owner. 2. The hardship created is UNIQUE and is not shared by all properties alike in the immediate vicinity of this property and in this use district becouse 3. The Variance would observe the spirit of the O~inance and WOULD NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT because a¢cor~,~to the aforementioned survey the average difference of the required dist~ce is approx- imately 1~8 inches or .4 of 1% ~ This difference is not visable te the naked eye. tt w~s only discovered by the mse of engineering instrmments. It, therefore, womld not in any way change the char- acter of the surrounding area; nor adversely affect the safety~ health or welfare of the adjoining property owners, k~e completed str~eture, even with the slight variation of the set back, will comply with the spirit cf the ordinance and conformwith and enhance the aesthetic character of the neighborhood. It is therefore.felt that the interest of jmstioe will Be served by granting this variance° COUNTY OF ) Sworn to this ... 3rd ................... day of .... ~/ Notary Public . W[LMAM J. ChAR~ .~of~ry P~?fic, ~tate of New YOF~ ~'~o. 3u-5712500 Oual~ied in Suffo~R County Yerm Expires ~y~ 30,. !970 POEM NO. $ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE SOUTHOLD. N. Y. ORDF. R TO RF..~EDY VIOLATION Date ............... ~).e.q .....3 ........ 19.69. TO Wm,..~.,..C.$a~k,../~ktorney. Age..~es Treuchtlinger & ~qife (owner or auth~ized agent of owner) ..... ~v~..~n~ ,...~.~ ~.~.. ~,~...... (address of owner or authorized agent of owner) PLEASE T~ NOTICE there exists a violation of: ~ing Ordinance Art I~..$~.c.$ip~. ~O~..&. 30~ Other Applicable Laws, Ordi~nces or Regulations .................... at premiss herein~ter described in that .... Dwe&ling. baa..been, a~egted .w&th ..... (state character of violation) le.~ $..than. ~.quire~. se.tb~ck .... (mi~m~. 3.5f ~. in. on. houz~, to. e~s t.) .... (State section or paragraph of applicable law, ~din~ce or regulation) YOU ~ T~R~ORE DI~T~ ~D ORD~ to comply w~th the law and to rem~y the conditions above mentioned forthwi~ in or before the ...... ~.3 ............... day of ....... D.e~be.~ ........... 19..$~. ~e premises to which this ORD~ TO R~EDY ~OLATION refe~ are situated at ~/~. ~h. ~.~.~. ~r.~..$O~$kQl~.~...County of S~folk, New York. Failure to remedy the conditions aforesaid .and to comply with the applicable provisio~s of law may constitute an offense punishable by fine or imprisonment or both. ATTORNEY AT LAW LOVE LAN£ January 13, 1970. Mr. ~obert ~. Gillespie Zoning ~oard of Appeals ~ain ~oad ~outhold, Eew York Re= Matter of J~mes J. Hearing January 8, Treuchtlin§E 1970 Dear ~r. ~illespie: In support of the appeal of the above captioned, I call your attention to the following: A denial of the variance would-cause an unreasonable financial burden on the owners and inconvenience them no end, as they are now living in temporary quarters having sold their permanent home in ~icksville. The coar~have repeatedly held that area variances may be granted on the grounds of practical difficulties alone without a showing of u-necessary hardship (~Inroy v. ~runewald 21@ ~.Y.$. 2d ll6} In the matter of Siegel~-. Lassiter l?? ~.Y.~.2d 894 it was held "That no showing of hardship is required since the Board of ~ppeals has discretionary power to grant a variance in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the zoning ordinance. ~ore over, hard- ship need not be shown when seeking an area variance. Consequently, the self imposed hardship rule does not apply in such cases." It is evident that here we are dealing with practical difficulties. ~side from the financial burden, the layout of the property is such that if the house were set back in strict compliance with the zoning ordinance, the location of the cesspools would not comply with the Department of Health requirements. The Court of Appeals held in Fulling v. Palumbo 286 N.Y.S.2d 249 "~here property owner will suffer significant economic injury by application of area standard zoning ordinance; that standard can be justified only by showing that public health, safety, and welfare will be served by upholding the application of the standard and denying the variance" Certainly the granting of the variance will in no way adversely effect the public health, safety or welfare. Its denia~ WIT,T,I&M J. CT, A~ ATTORNEY AT LAW LOVE LANE MA'r~ITIJCK, NEW YORK 2 however, will cause economic injury. The cost o£ moving the structure at this time will impose an unreasonable financial burden on the owners. 'Your attention is also called to the matter of Thomas ~ongello Appeal ~o.611 October 24, 1963; wherein the ~oard of Appeals granted relief under circumstances similar to the instan$ case. It is, therefore, urged that the ~oard of Appeals exercise its discretionary powers and grant the relief sought in Hr. Treuchtlinger's application dated December 3, 1969. WJC:MC Respectfully yours, ~illium J. Clark ATTORNEY AT LAW December 3, 1969. Zonin~ ~oard of ~ppeals Town of Southold, New York JAMES J. Premises TREUCHTLINGER North Parish Dr. Southold , N. Yo Gentlemen: I am enclosln~ herewith Appeal From ~eci- sion of Buildin~ Inspector, together with check in the sum of ~5o00. Consideration of this appeal at the next meeting of the ~oard will be appreciated, ~nolse Very t. ruly yours, ~illl~ J° Cl~rk O APPEAL # 1309 Dec 8 1969 to Board Of Appeals..Southold Applicant: James J Treuchlin~er 60 East End Ave,Hicksville NY By investigation and inspection the Board finds that the applicant is the owner of an irregularly I~haped lot of adequate size measuring ~V ~ee~ on orth Parish Drive at a point 225' westerly of the in Southold.Approxlmate average width of the lot is 123' while th~ aaDth avatars is 178' to mean hi_~h water of Peconic Bay. The applicant has mmlm~mm~mt constructed home on the property at a distance of 34.8 feet from the street line a/c %o a survey of Nov 26 i969. The adjoining Matthews residence to the east was constructed front yard set-back applicable to Treuchtlinser. The part of the M~tth~wa Bo, aa which is located at 35' 6" i8 a two car garage. The two adjacent lot8 to thetwest of Treuchlinger are vacant.Other houses on the north side of N Parish Drive and X~Art~er to the west var2 ia set back from 35' to a distance of approximately 60'. lesser or ~eater average set hack has been established As of the date ~f the application the Treuchtli_n~er house was more than ~O% complete at a cost of over $~,000. To move the house to comply with the 3~6" set bec4 involve considerable economic loss.The applicant's !~rounds of practical difficulties alone without a showing of 'm~ge*am"~y ha~ahlp.(McInroY v Grunewald 218 N.Y.S. 2d 116) also Siegel v Lassiter 177 N.Y.S. 2d 89~,in which, "~,.t no showin~_ of hardship is required since the Board of Appeals has discretionary power to grant a variance ~n-~~i~h the .g~eneral_pur~ses~_~ inte~_~__R~__t~h~ Zoning Ordinance. More over hardship need not be shown =hen s~ek!,g -- a~oa variance,Oonseq~uently,the self imposed hardship rule does not apply in such cases". The Court of Appeals held in Fulling v Palumbo 286 N.Y.S. 2d 24~: "Where property owner wIAA suffer significant economic inJur~ by application of area standar, d z~ni~n~_ ordinance; that 8tandal~X ~ can be jusLifi~ ~ u~ showing that public health,safety,and welfare will be the standard and denying the ~ variance".The area vo~i~nee p~,~aata~ in the Palumbo case is conaiderabl~ ~reater than the area variance required by Treuchlinger. In addition the Board finds that the applicant may have been misled about the strictness of the ueb b~uk ~-~q~i~Bt when applying for a building permit. to grant this variance. ~o&o° , / / ,_~ -%~ / ~ 1 ~:' ~.~ ~. I/ / SURVEY FO~ / JA~ES ~ EiRWEN TREUCHTL~NGER ~ / B~YVJE~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD / / SUFFOLK COU~T% ~ ~ 6u~¢ ~o: LAHD SU~VEYO~ NOTE: "=~O~U~ENT ~VE~HEAD, ~. Y.