Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-12/04/2003 SPEC ;~P'PEAES'B'OARD MEMBERS .¢~, Southold Town Hall Ruth D. OJiva, Chairwoman (~.~,j~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 Lydia A. Tdrtora Southold, New York 11971-0959 George ~Horffing ~,~,~.~11~ Telephone (631) 765-1809 Vincent 0rlanao ZBA Fax (63'J) 765-9064 http://southoldtown;no;thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SO,UTHOLD MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, DECEMBER' 4, 2003 ~ .: A Regular Meeting of thff SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF J~PPEALS was held at the Southold Town Hall. 53095 Main r~:l~)~d, South'old; New York 14971-079'59, On Thursday, December 4, 2003 commencing at 6:00 p.m. Present were: Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman/Member Gerard P. Goehringer, Member Lydia A. Tortora, Member Vincent Orlando, Member Lincla Kowalski, ZBA Confidential Secretary Absent, was: George Horning, Member. 6:00 p.m Chairwoman Oliva called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM I: The Board proceeded with the first item on the Agenda as follows: I. SEQRA (none- new reviews pending), II. DELIBERATIONSJDECISIONS. The Board deliberated on the following applications. The originals of each of the following "alSpliCations were decided, with the original determinations filed with the Southold Town Clerk: Approvals with Conditions: CHARLES BOCKLET #5364. CARL AND ELENA PATCHKE #5428. RICHARD and NANCY CINCOTTA#5422. WALTER TERESKO #5429 KAREN BROWN #5411 DIMITRI"AND HELEN SOGOLOFF #5426 MARION JONES #5420. DOUGLAS and LYDIA DEFEIS #5438 JOSEPH PAGANO #5434 Ai3provals {~s applied): JOHN AND KATHY CHESKA 7~k5423. JEFFREY FORCHELLI #5418 CHARLES AND BARBARA RODIN #5433. RAYMOND 'NINE #5435. Denial with Grant of Alternative Relief: LAURENCE AND BETTYANN RUBINOW #5386. HOWARD AND LISA DAVIDOFF #5424. ROBERT AND PAULINE EHRENTHAL #5427. I~g~2 -~ ~mutes ?De'c~nber ~, 2003 Special Meeting ~'$~iJ~htold '~bwn Board of Appeals ~.~i~nda Item III - (no public hearings were held). ;~andalte~'lV: ~T~R R~OLUTIONS/upDATED REVIEWS/OTHER: on'l matter. The original determination with findings of fact, as decided, is part of this set of Minutes as though fully set forth below: ~Cti~Yr;~d~t~d: ~also See r~e-c'bntSur~reme Court Rulin(~): ~M~Y ZU PA #5266. =;B~ DiSb~'~bn~: ~ Corrbspondence froYn ToWn Trustees regarding D~achun Road, 280A ~ssued under ZBA Appeal !~21r~J~)~'~(~2~0~d~. '~Jor~ber~(~o~h'H~f~i~i' ¢ohfir~ne~d tha~t helwas familiar with the access road and had done previous inspocticYn~. 'l:he Bpard* Members agre~e~l that an'i~spect on and report be prepared by Member Goehringer n rospon~'c' t~ the Tru{tees meniorandum. V.- EXECUTIVE SESSION - none. BH~f ~*e~iews of pen=ding files and general discussions by Board Members followed. , Th~ere being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time. Chairwoman O]iva declared the "~6{ing adj~uYhed. The meeting adjourned at 7:48 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Secretary, Board of Appeals :~'cisi0ns filed with Town Clerk: (16) --- ' RECEIVED 'Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman ,~ ~ .~ o ~ApproVed for Filing JAN 2004 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehriqger P.O. Box 1179 ,Lydia A. Tortora Southotd, New York 11971-0959 Geo,'ge Homing Telephone (631). 765,-'1809 ~ Vincent Orlando ZBA Fax (631)~7~65~g064~ http://southoldtown.r~orti~fork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 . Action in accordance with the November 14, 2003 Supreme Court Decision of the Honorable James Catterson, J.S.C. {Index #03-25606) regardin¢l the following: Appl. No. 5266 regarding Appeal .filed by MARY ZUPA concerning property at 580 Basin Road, Southold; 1000-81-1-16.7. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under ~..~--. consideration in this application and. determines that this review falls under the Type II category Of the Sts~e's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the I~roject is implemented as planned. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 20, 2003, June 5, 2003, July 24, 2003, and August 21, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all the testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: 1. The applicant has appealed from the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval, dated October 30.2002 and alternatively seeks a variance under Sections 100-24B and 100-32 of the Town Code to permit cons1/uction of a single family dwelling on property located at 580 Basi'n-Road (Paradise Point), parcel # 1000-81-1-16.7. 2. The application had been disapproved by the Building Department on the grounds that: (a) construction of a single family dwelling on a non-conforming 75,687 sq. ff. parcel is not permitted in the R-80 District; (b) the lot is not recognized and its use is as a marina; and (c) the construction of a single family dwelling would constitute a second use. '/~ 3. The Zoning Board files reflect that in 1995, James and Barbara Miller applied for a · %' building permit to construct a single family dwelling on this parcel. The Building Department page 2.~ D~mb~r 4-, 200,3 ZB~,AppL No, ~5~66 ,_ JVla~ Zupa CTM ~10002~i ;~6,7 a~ SduthOld ~ ~ssued a Notice of Disapproval on essentially identical grounds as was issued with respect ~--. tO the present application. 4. -[he Mil!ers appealed to the Zoning Board, seeking to overturn the Notice of Disapproval or, a~t~natively, f~ obtain variances. Yhe appeal Was denied on August 9~ 1995. No Article ~8 ~proceedlng was commenced by the Millers to review the Board's denial~ ef their up,caf'ton. 5. In their application for a building permit and again in their application to this Board, the M,i!lem sought permission to construct the single family dwelling as a second use on the p~ceL The Millers stated that. the property was;.already used asa boat'basim 6. Among the many issues presented by the current application is whether it is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel due to the Board's denial of v rtua y the identical application in 1995. 7. The applicant argues that the doctrines do not apply to this application since there has been a significant change in facts and cimumstances since the 1995 Board decision. Specifically, the applicant contends that, among other things, that the Miller application sought permission to allow the two uses, marina and residential, to co-exist, where as Ms. Zupa claims that she has demanded the removal of the marina use. The applicant asserts that the marina use is illegal and not permitted. Moreover; the applicant contends that the right asserted by the objectants to. traverse her property on pre-existing roads to access the jetty and as a turn-around have been terminated and are likewise illegal. 8. Both the applicant and the objectants acknowledge that there are two actions presently pending in the Supreme Court, County of Suffolk, that directly bear on the ongoing validity of the use of the property as a madna and as to the objectants' rights to use the interior roads on the premises. One case is Zupa et. al. v. Paradise Point Association,/nc. (Index NO. 02-25843) and the other is Paradise Point Association, Inc. v. Zupa (Index No. 02- 22401). The Board is advised that both actions are pending before Justice Catterson. 9. By Findings, Deliberations and Determination signed on September 30, 2003, this Board denied the application without prejudice to renew depending upon the resolution of the legal issues asserted in the two Supreme Court actions. 10. The applicant commenced an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the September 30, 2003 decision, which resulted in a judgment of the Supreme Court remanding the matter to this Board and directing that it make a d'btermination based upon the record before it. 11. Pursuant to the Court's direction, this Board makes the following additional findings and determinations: a. The present appeal from the Building Department denial of a building permit is barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel in. light of this Board's decision on the Miller application in 1995 which similarly sought permission to construct a single family P~age3 - December4, 2003 ZB~, AppI, No. 5266,-~Ma~j Zupa CTM 1000-81-1-1 §.7 at S~Uthold dwelling on this same property. The Zupa application was denied for essentially the same reasons as was the Miller application. The current applicant has not shown that there has · ~ ~n,y change of facts since the M er decision. The Millers conceded that the property .er s~l as a .:~nadn~ and that their proposed single family dWelling wou d create a se~3n~ ti use on the property. There is no dispute that the marina that existed at the time of ~iJter d'eclslon is still in full use. Thus, nothing has in !,a, ct .c.,,hanged since th~Miiter !~'~ ~ ~ . ~ . . . - , p kes mt~on. The use of the prope~ remain~ as s The only new cji m Ms. Zu a ma ~spect te the ,manna Is that t s "II a" and that she m~nrl~,H if~ r~m'n,,~ , , · eg -~ has de.... ...... ~o .~.,oVah ~)~ ;vet, that claim does not change the fact that the marina is presentlythere and in use. b,~ ~q,reover, the variance sought is substanfiall the same as was sou ht in t ' .... -.. , . . . ~ Y . g he M~ller a~on. I~ her su!~rn ttal~ On thee issue, of res judicaia,~ MS,,, Zupa a~emDtS~,., te diStinnaish, ~ th~ ~ ~i~ varia~hCes by identi~ing two a leged differences The Miller a 1 Cat on sou ht.a s~t~a~aqce. TheZupa apphcat[onseeks not setback variance. Theaooication. seeks o~e._p"¢~it~.d ~r~d~legsl: Use"~(page= 3 of apPllCa~'s rnemorar~dum~ on res judi' C~ata', emphas'is a's i~the:~rigidar). H~wever, the?mt distinction is of little consequence since the principal issue n the Miller va~a, ncb appl,caton was the proposed mixed use of the prOperty, which has a buitdable a~a of. som~ 70,000 square feet where 160,000 square feet would be required for the two u~es. Ms. Zupa's variance application, which she concedes: is premised on the claim that thbre is ortl~yg"One Peermitteids andnI . rl~egtePr~r~a~ioanblYant~ tthhee · single family dv~el!!ng, b~i appii d for) co tr~altoU~hh~ ~l~ee~ facts as they cuYtently exist. c. Similarly, the rights of others to traverse the property and use the jetty areas were identified in the Miller vadance application and there has been no showing of any change in factsr with respect to those factors as well, with the exception that the applicant has indicated that a fence has been erected to cut off access. The dght to do so is being litigated .in the Supreme Court actions identified above. d. The applicant has failed to produce any substantial evidence of a change in [acts that would warrant deviation from the res judicata and collateral estoppel and effect that must otherwise be afforded this Board's denial of the similar, 1995 Miller application (see Mattituck Products Co., LLC. v. Town of Southold Zoning Board of Appeals, Suffolk County Index No. 98-20985, by Seidel, J.). BOARD RESOLUTION/DETERMINATION: Now, therefore, on motion by Member Tortore, seconded by ~hairwoman Oliva, it was RESOLVED, that, based upon the foregoing, the Board is barred by the doctdne of Page 4 - December 4, 2003 ZBAA,.pp. No. 5266 - Mai7 Zupa CTM ~ 0b0~8'1-~?16,7 at S(~uthold res jud cata and co latem estoppel from reviewing this appJicat on based upon its decision onthe M~31er Apphcatfon (Appeal No. 4314), dated, August 23, 1995, Yete of the Board: Ayes:. Memeers Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer and Tortora.- -M~mber Oi~lando abstsined. Member Horningwas~is Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). Ruth D: Oliva, Chairwoman 12/5/03 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ ,~i~ . , ~ LydiaA. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Mair~'Road ~ Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 . .~ George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Olive, Chairwoman ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orkqndo Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.norttffork.net BOAI~D Ol~ APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 :Appl. No. 5433 - CHARLES AND BARBARA RODIN Property Location: 70 Strohson Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 103-10-16. :.SEQR/k DE~-ERM1NA*TION;,,~h~Zon~0g~Bpard, of Appeas has vsited the ro erty under co~s ~erat Bn.~ th~ applicat on ¢nd~deter~ nes that th~s rev ew'fal s under the T e ca e o ¢.. , ., :,,. ~ ... ~ ... ¢-,-. ......... : yp I t g ryof {he State's List of Acbons; without an ~dVeese, effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PRb~R'P¢ F~CTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 59,875 sq. ft. parcel has 169.40 ft. along the s~uth. ~ide of Strohson Road in Cutchogue. The property is improved with vadab e one-story and two-s~qry dwelling and detached garage as shown on the December 6 1988 survey, revised J.a. naa~i"'o'; 17, 2003 by Peconic Surveyors P C ;~" BA~S!,OF"APPLICAT1ON: Building Department's August 8, 2003 Notice of Disapproyal: citing '~..~ 8e¢,tl0rl;~00-30A 3, ;:. .,', . . ~. ts den a.. of a buld n. g permit app cat on concern n,g a propose~l sec no d-story a.,~d~!.,og~f~t !ess than 59 feet .from, the front eroperty ne FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 20~ 2003, at which ti:me written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection Of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a second-stow addition of which a small triangular section is located in the 50 ft. front yard setback area, leaving a 45'7" setba~;k from the front lot line facing Strohson Road. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed two-story addition is proposed a.,~¢ the northeast comer of the existing one-stow dwelling, with a setback of 45'7" from the front lot line. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area vada,nce. The addition has a greater front yard setback than the dwelling (32.6') or the garage (24.6'). To the south is an adjacent wetland area, and to the west and north are front yards. The proper~y is a corner lot with only one side yard. Page 2- December 4,, 2003 Appl. No. 5433,- C. and B. Rodin 1~)~~10~-16'at *Ch~hogue ,/.-~, 3. The relief requested is not substantial, The addition is more conforming in relation to the front setback than the 32.6' setback of the existing dwelling, ~n~,d ,.0nly a 36.1.7+- sq. ft. portion of the addition requires relief under the code ...... 4. No evidence was submitted to indicate that the grant of the relief requested will h~y¢ an ady,e, rse effect or impact ort"p~ysiCal,or erwiroqmental,conditions:;ih th:~;;neig h'bor~ood b¢~dist¢i~{~i~he:~ddlti0n ,is proPosed at,lea~t ,104.feet from th~-concrete' blOct(~nd~S~6ffe,seaWall~ ~lj~8~nt tO~tida'1 Wetlands (East creek). 5. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to ,ena, ble, tbe applicant.to enjoy the benefit 0f an addition, while preserving'and pfo;~eCting ,the Ch~r&~t~Cr of'the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. " RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balaricing test under New York. T,0wr~ Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora se,conded~ by Membei-Goehdng~r, ~nd duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on thb site ,plan prepared [Jy Robert I. Brbwn; R.A. date stamped by the ZBASeptember 9, 2003. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property ;that may violate the Zoning Cod. e. other than' such uses, setbacks and other features'as are exlSressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, and Orlando (Vice Chairman). Absent was Member Horn~.lQg. This Resolution was duly adopted {4-0). Ruth D. Oliva,-Chairwoman 12/12103 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~%%N'% Sourhold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~,~y~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing ~ Southold. New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva~ Chairwoman '~'t - ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando ~ Telephone (631) 765-1809 http:,/southoldtown.nor thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 App[ No. 5434 - JOSEPH PAGANO Property Locat on: 1345 East Gillette Drive, East Marion; Parcel 38-4-21. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under co~sideratien ir~ thiS application aged determ nes that this rev ew fa s under the Type category of he S[at~s L~st of Actions, w~thout an adverse effect on the enwronment ~f the project ~s implemented a~" planned. PRC~PERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 10,000 sq. ft. parcel '~s vacant land located on fhe east sld~e of East Gillette Drive in East Marion, shown as Lot 77 on the Map of Marion Manor. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building. Department's July 16, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing Section 100-244, in its denial of a building permit application concerning a new dwelling with a front yard setback at less than 35 feet. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 20, 2003, at which time,wrtten and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, per$0nql inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true End relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a new single-family, two- story dwelling with variable front yard set.b, acks at 34.8 feet at the south end of the dwelling and at 30 feet at the north end from the proposed 5 covered wood porch, all as shown on the survey prepared July 7, 2003 by Kenneth M. Woychuk, L.S REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed setback is reasonably consistent with others in the neighborhood. Only the porch addition will be 30 feet from the front yard, and is designed to architecturally blend into the style of the house, enhancing its appearance from the front of the house. The remainder of the house will be 34.8 feet, or greater, from the front lot line in more conformi,ty with the ceoe requirement for ~ 35 ft. setback. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. The code requires a 35-ft. front yard setback, and without a Page 2 - December 4, 2003 - Appi. No. 5434 - Joseph Pagano 38-4-21 at East Marion variance applicant would not be able to construct a porch. Also, the alternate (rear) yard location is not feasible because setback limits will conform to the code, a:r)d a reduction ~vOuld also require a variance. 3. The variance granted herein is substantial and represents a 14.30% reduction in the code's 35 ft. minimum front yard requirement, for a reduction of five feet to allow a 30 ft. limited setback area. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the addition was planned and designed without conforming to the current Town Code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to this board to suggest that this minor variance will have any adverse impact. 6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a front porch addition while preserVing and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the. balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, and duly carded, to GRANT the variance as applied for, for a 5' open, covered front porch as shown on the July 7, 2003 surVey map by Kenneth M. Woychuk, bS., SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION that the porch not be enlarged. This action does not authorize or condone any c~rrent or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than suCh uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, and Orlando. Absent was Member Homing. This ResOlution~o,~d ~ Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 12/12!03 ApprOVed for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Lyd/a A. Tortora, Chairwoman t~; ~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer ~i EO. B(>x 1179 George Homing r4 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D.'Oliv~l Chairwoman ~ ZBA FaX (63~'):765-9064 V'm~ent~O~c 'lm~do. ~ T.elephqTze (6~)~7 .~6:~. :~809 . h ttp ://s ovittilo td~70~ ~.'o ~ th fo r k. ne t BOARD OFAPPEALS ~ ~" :: ':' TOWN'~F ~OEITHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS5 AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF;DEGEMBERA, 2003: :Appli. N~o. 5zH.1 - KAREN BROWN; }Prop'ed~ EOcation:'a" 1gQ0 FoUhder~ Path, S0uthold: Parcel 64x4-3 & 6 (combined, one lot). SE©RA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under cr>rl[Sid{~-?~bh'~n this 'aPpllCafi0rl.;and determines that this review falls un,er thee Type II category of '~he:ISt~.'sf, LJst of Actions,.wi~thoutan adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as 'l~lan~ed. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 19,593 sq. ft. lot has 76.56 ft. frontage along the south side Founders Path and 75 feet along Hobart Road, and variable depth of 268.94 feet'on the north side and 253.54 feet along the south line. The properly consists of two lot numbers refe~rred to as ~u,4 and #35 on the Map of Founders'Estates, filed May 10, 1927, and' is mproved with a single-family one-story frame dwelling situated at 61.6' from the front line facing Founders Path) and with existing side yards of 10.2 feet and 22.7 feet. A detached garage is also existing behihd~the dwelling With a 4 ft. setback from the northerly (side) lot line, as shown on the June 22, ;~999sUrvey;pr, epared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's July 15, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing .Sectioh:.100-244B, in its denial of a :,-building permit application to construct an additions and alterations?to the existing dwelling at less than 10 feet on a single side yard. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board Of Appeals held a public headng on this application on November 20, 2003, at which time wdtten and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning BOard finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a proposed wraparound addition, two sections of which will be 8 ft. and 8.33 feet from the south side line of the house, at its closest point, instead or the code required 10 feet, as shown on the site plan prepared by Garret[ A. Strang, Architect, dated 7-14-03~ revised 7-17-03. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: P~ee 2 - December 4, 2003 A~)~I. Nr.~.5411 - Karen Brown CTM 1000-64-4-3 and 6 (combined) 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The neighborhood consists of single-family homes of similar size and scale, many with setbacks similar to that requested in this application. The applicant requests a reduction on the southerly side yard for a small triangular section resulting in 24" reduction from the existing setback, and the remaining areas were noted as conforming to the code setback, height, and lot coverage rec uirements. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The proposed additions are designed to architecturally blend into the existing one-stoW style of the house, and the relief requested is relative only for the southerly side of the proposed additions, respectively two small triangular sections that fall within the 10 ft. side yard limitation resulting in variable side setbacks at 8 ft. and 8.33 feel 3. The vadance granted herein is not substantial. The side yard variance is minimal and permits a reduction in the code required 10 ft. m~nimum to 8 ft. for two small portions of the additions (24" or less). 4. The difficulty was self-created when a portion of the proposed additions was planned and designed without conformity to the current Code setback requirement. 5. There is no evidence that the grant of the relief requested will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 6, Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an addition, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, and duly carried, to GRANT the vadanca as applied for, as shown on the site plan prepared by G. A. Strang, Architect, dated 7-14-03, revised 7-17-03, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: That County Tax Map #1000-64-6-6 and 3 remain combined as one lot, and the total land area not be reduced in size or subdivided. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote-of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehdnger, Tortora, and Orlando .C~,ice Chairman). Absent was Member Hor~~.~,' This R ol~t~,.._.~.v vv.~du y adopted (4-0) Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 12/t¢./03 Approved for Filing APF~EALS ~30ARD MEMBERS Southbid Town H~ll Lydia A. Tortora. Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New'York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva Chairwoman ZBA Fax (631) 765~9064 V'mcent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldto'~m.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5423- JOHN AND KATHY CHESKA ~ :Pr,o, ,p.e~y LOcafion,:~t~.0C! M!nneh.,aha ,B~u,,l~yard~ Southold;. Parcel ~7-2-;i 1. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Ei(~ard of Appeals has, visited the proper~y under gor~¢ideration in, ~t~ .'s aPP icatior) and d,e,~ip~ that this review fal s ,under the Type II category of ;~he ,~ta, te',s'Li~ (3f A~:tion~S3 without an adVerse~ffect on the environment if the,project is implemented PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 7,528 sq. ft. parcel has 72+- ft. along Minaehaha BouleVard;in Southold, lot depth of 115.40 ft. along the southerl~ property line: and ~19.1 ~20 fee~;a[ong fhe n~erly property l~ne. The lot is improved with a one-story frame ho;use and accessory frame garage? and accessory, concrete slab structure, all as confirmed on the October 4, 1985 survey, revised' January 20, 2003 by Pecon c Surveyors, P C .B~,SIS O~ APPLICATION. Bu ld~ng Department s August'6, 2003 Not ce of D~sapproval, c ting se(~tion 100,2~,4B ~ its denial of a'buOding permit appli0a;d0~ toconstruct an. addition exceeding the c~)d6 limitation of~0% coverage of this 7,528 sq. ft. lot. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this application on November 20, 2003, at Whii:ti time written and ora[ evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation~ ~ oersonal inspection Of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a 290 sq. ft. for a new additibn for a total lot coverage of 23.23%. The dwelling contains 1022 sq. ft., garage 301 sq. ft.. deck 136 sq..ft, for a total of 1459 sq. ft. The total, with the new addition, will be 1749 sq. ft., confirmed on the plan issued 8II/03 oy DA Architecture. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Many of the homes in the neighborhood are of similar size on similar small lot configurations. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant's architect indicated that due to P~ge 2 -~ December 4, 2003 AppL No. 5423 - J. and K. Cheska 87-2-11 at Southold medical problems in the family, the applicants are not able to put a second story on the existing dwelling. The only alterative to assist the family is to request an addition which will exceed the Code's 20% lot coverage limitation by 3.23% (243 sq. ft.). 3. Although the applicant's request is the minimum necessary, the relief requested is substantial, based on the size of the lot which contains only 7.528 sq ft. 4. No evidence was submitted during the headng or in the written record to indicate that the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Many of the homes in the neighborhood are of similar size on similar small lot configurations. 5. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an addition, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Chairwoman Oliva, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the 8/1/03 plan prepared by DA Architecture. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora and Odando (Vice Chairman). Absent was Member Hor, nl~. _This R,.e,sol~i(~was. duly adopted (4-0). . Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 12/12/03 Approved for Filing ~k~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS S0uthold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chainvoman ~ 53095 Main Road Gerard E Gochringer ~ P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Ot£va, Chakwoman ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Ortando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http:/fsoutholdtown.northfork, net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS~AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5435 - RAYMOND NINE. Location of Property:-855 New Suffol~ Avenue, Mattituck; part of CTM 1000~114-~ 1-22.1 Date of Public Hearing: November 20, 2003 PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicant's property consists of a total area of 68,868 sq, ft. of land area with a depth of 4'.14';78' ~t. and lot width of 202:51. ft., fronting along the north side of New Suffolk Avenue in Mattituck..,The property was conveyed to the applicant, noted as follows: ;(a) the northwest sed~ion was acquired.~en 1-23-70 by deed at Liber 6717 page 117; (b) the southeast section, imp¥oved with.'the "aPplicant's dwelling, was acquired on 1-1.2;,,63 by deed at .Uber 5295 page 73, ~nfl ~9)"th~'e ~outb~,est,section. or area,referred to as Parcel' B, was acquired On 11-24-64 by deed' at LibOr 5662 Page 227. 'BASIS OF A~PLICA~TION:. A~,.icle, Ik~Section 100-26, based on the Building Inspector's August 25, 2003 NotiCe of DisaljPr0v~a,I, a~,endedSeptember 8, 2003, which ~tated that the subject lot was as a result of a merger.under Se~0n 100-2~. APPLICANTS~ .REQUEST: Apfflic~,ht requests a Lot Waiver, to: unmerge Parcel B of 20,622 sq. ft. from Parcel A of 48,246 s~q. f~ as khowr~ on the survey dated 7-9-03, revised 9-29-03 by John C. Ehlers, L~S, FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this matter on November 20, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based on all testimony, documentation, personal observations of members of the board, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION. DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: 1 The title search, prepared by Advocate's Abstract, Inc. dated September 19, 2003, shows that Raymond Nine purchased the house lot on 1/12/63, and the remaining area (northwest portion) 1/23/70 and (southwest portion) 11/24/64. 2, The Board received testimony from the applicant and his attorney that the lots were purchasec~ with the intention of building a future home for family members. As further evidence that the applicant had not intended to merge Parcel B with the remaining area, they point to the fact that there was no use or improvements on the lot, 3. The waiver of merger for Parcel B, of 20,622 sq. ft., will recognize the odginal lot lines shown on the 11-24-64 deed recorded at Liber 5662 page 227. The remaining lot, Parcel A, will be Pa~e 2 - December 4, 2003 ZBAAppl. No. 5435- Raymond Nine 1000~114-11-22.1 (part of} conforming with 48,246 sq. ft. in area. The waiver will result ~ one lot that is larger or equivalent in size to the lots in the immediate neighborhood. - 4. The waiver of merger will allow for the ultimate construction of one additional single-family residence in the neighborhood, which will not result in a significant increase in the density. 5. The waiver will avoid an economic hardship for the applicant and his family. 6. The applicant stated that he had no indication from the Town that the lots were merged until recently planning to build a new home for his family. Also, the Town has a zoning district line that runs through the westerly half of applicant's property, the front portion as R-40 Low-Density Residential, the northerly (rear) 210004-- sf. area as Hamlet-Business (HB). The survey dated July 9, 2003, revised September 29, 2003 shows this area combined area with the applicant's residence, for a total area of 48,246 sq. ft. 7. Waiver of merger will allow for construction of one single-family dwelling on original deeded lot, which will not result in a significant increase in the density of the neighborhood. There will be no need for significant change in its contours or slopes, and no evidence was presented to suggest that the lot would require filling affecting nearby environmental or flood areas, or to suggest that its natural details, character, contours or slope would be significantly altered in any manner. RESOLUTION: On motion by Member Goehdnger, seconded by Member Tortora, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the lot waiver, as applied for. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that violates the Zoning Code, other thari such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, and Odando. (Member Homing of Fishers Island was abse~tO~his Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN 12/16/03 Approved for filing APPEJ[LS BOARD MEMBERS ~ Southold Town Hail Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New Yoxk 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman ~,'~'~'~ ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 V'mcent Orlando '~ Telephone (6~1) 765-1809 htrp:~/southoldtow~.~orthfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 AppL No. 5426 - DIMITRI AND HELEN SOGOLOFF Property Location: 1305 Soundview Avenue Extension, Southold; Parcel 50-2~18.1. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as ;)lanned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRiPTION: The applicants' parcel contains 2.3036 acres with 200 ft. f~ontage along Soundview Avenue and 248.10 ft. frontage along the mean high water mark of the kpng island Sound. The property is improved with a two-story single-family dwelling and two d~ta/ched buildings as shown on the May 31, 2002 survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., amended August 25, 2003. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's December 20, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended August 4, 2003, citing Section 100-239.4A, in its denial of a building permit application concerning proposed deck construction at less than 100 feet from the top of the Sound bluff or bank, in the same location as previously existed before its recent removal. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 20, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants wish to place a deck extending at the north (rear) of the home as shown on the construction plan dated 3/19/02 prepared by 1998 Centerbrook Architects and Planners, P.C. and with a setback 47+- feet from the top of the bank facing the Long Island Sound. Also proposed is a 14.5 x 16.3 addition at the west side of the house at 63+- feet from the top of the Sound bank. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal in'spections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. The granting of this variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or bea detriment to nearby properties. The applicant's proposal to construct a 232 sq. ft. bedroom addition 46 feet from the westerly side property line, at the west side of the house, Without an increase in the existing 63+- ft. setback from the northerly ~ank. The deck is Pag~ 2- December 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5426 - D. & H. Sogoloff 50-1-18.1 at Southold approximately 300 sq. ft. in size and will be located in the same area as previously existed, at the north side of the dwelling The deck had existed n this location for about 25 years, before removal, which~ did not create any negative impact to the neighborhood o¢ any surrounding properties in this IOcati6n. ' 2. Tl~e benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasibie for the applicant to;pursue, other' than an area variance. 3. The requested varianc.,e is nQt s~ubstantia!. The additions are small, the total lot coverage, after completier~, Will be approximately three percent of the lot size. 4. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or district. Both the proposed deck and the addition are modest in size.- lnforrnatio~ has been submitted to indicate the bluff face is in stable condition with very dense vegetation. Sod cover in the yard infiltrates runoff, and drywells will be installed by applicant to contain roof wa~er runoff. The November 14, 2003 evaluation by the Suffolk County Soil and Water ConserVafion indicates there is no evidence of erosion. 5. The difficulty is not self-created, and is due to the close proximity of the existing single, family dwelling to [he bluff overlooking the Long Island Sound. 6. The reliefloffered is the minimum determined necessary for this applicant to enjoy the benefit of a 232 sq, ft. addition and a deck, while at the same time protecting and' preserving the character of the neighborhood,, as well as the. health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for. as shown on the survey map revised August 25, 2003, prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The deck shall not be enlarged, or further ~mproved upon, other than being replaced, and shall remain open to the sky.* 2. 1'he applicant shall install drywells necessary to contain storm water roof runoff. 3. The scope of this variance is contained to the principal single family dwelling for the bedroom C ~) ~. Page 2-D~bember 4, 2003 Appl. No~ 5426 - D. & It. Sogoloff 50-1-18.1 at Southold addition and attached deck. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other fealure of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehdnger, and Tortora. Member Orlando was absent Eom the room dudng this Resolution; Member Homing of Fishers Island was also absent. This Resolution was duly adspeed (3-0). Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 12/16/03 Approved for Filing ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall ~ Lydia A. Tortora - 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehrmger P.O. Box 1179 ~'~ George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. OI2va, Chairwoman ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 V'mcent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.ner BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5364 - CHARLES BOCKLET Property Location: 1.295 Robinson Lane, Pecenic (combined CTM 98-5-2, 3 and 4). SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review fails under the Type 11 category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property consists of Lot 10 and 1 on the Map of'Pecenic Bay Oaks ~'or a combined area of 2.6169 acres, improved with two singfa-family residences, as shown on the survey map dated October 23, 1991, revi,sed November 11, 2003 by P~conic SurveyOrs, P.C. Also existing on the property is a 48.3 x 24.3 accessory garage 6.4 feet frdm the easterly property line near the circular driveway. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's April 14, 2003 Notice of Disapproval. amended Juy 1~4 2003 citing Secten 100-30A3 n ts dena of a building permit application for new const~rucbon at ~ess than 50 feet from the rear ot ne. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on August 21, 2003 and NOVember 20, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant's original request was for approval of two as- built porch areas at the east side of the dwelling, as shown on the architectural site plan (SP-1) dated 4-4-03, revised 7-16-03 by Garret[ A. Strang, R.A. at 32+- feet from the rear (easterly) property line, at its closest points. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:AMENDED RELIEF: During the August 21, 2003 public hearing, the applicant's amhitect was asked questions pertaining to whether one of the porch areas had a and which area was existing and what area of construction was proposed as new. Opposing the application was an adjacent landowner to the east who raised concerns about possible easement restrictions. In order to allow time for the information to be submitted in behalf of the applicant, the headng was adjourned to November 20, 2003. During the November 20, 2003 public headng, the record was clarified, that the enclosed porch had a Certificate of Occupancy was no longer desired by applicant in this variance request, and that only the roofed over deck area (8' x 20.8') required a setback variance 32+- ft. setback from the rear lot line, shown on the 7-16-03 revised site plan P~ge 2 - December 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5264 - Charles Bocklet 98-5-2,3,4 at Peconic prepared by Garrett Strang, R.A., and 33+- ft. from the rear lot line shown on the Peconic Surveyors, P.C. survey dated October 23, 1991, revised November 11, 2003. Also submitted for the record were title insurance reports prepared by Stewart Title Insurance Company September 17, 2003 for the applicant's property. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings; 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighbOrhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The agent for the applicant indicated that he constructed the (as built) open, roofed pomh at the east side of the main dwelling facing Groat Peconic Bay.' The porch is a balance of the open porches on both sides of this home. The applicant,s agent confirmed the porch will always remain open, except for the roof. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible i~or the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. One side of the home faces the public road which places the porch on the opposite side closer to a rear yard by code definition. The dwelling has existec~ for many years in its present location If the street were at the north side of the home, the additioh would bein a side yard. 3. The variance gran. ted herein is substantial, representing an 18+- ft. reduction from the code- required 50 feetto 32+- feet. 4. The difficulty was self-created in that the construction was done without a permit and the applicant wa~ probabty unaware of the closeness to the rear lot line. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the relief granted will have an adverse impact on the physical or enwronmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an open porch addition, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test: under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehdnger, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for on this lot with combined CTM 98-5-2,3,4, shown on the Peconic Surveyors, P.C. survey dated October 23, 1991 revised November 11, 2003, and shown on the 7-16o03 revised site plan prepared by Garrett A. Strang, R.A. P~g& 3 - December 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5264 - Charles Bocklet 98-5-2,3,4 at Peconic This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are ~xpressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, and Orlando (Vice Chairman)~ Absent was Member Hornier'ti This ResoJ~ion2t~ duly adopted (4-0). Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman I~L/04 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEIviBERS Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringm~ 53095 Main Road ( Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 · _ George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva , Chaimtoman ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 V'mcent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http:./southoldto~vn.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 AppL No. 5422 - Richard and Nancy C[~?qtta. ; Location of Properly,: 26815 Main Road, OUtchogue; Pamel '~09-2-15 REQUEST'~MADE,BY APPLIC;~T: "' This is a request for a-Sp.ecial Exception under Article III, Section 190-30A.2B and 100-3'1B, sub-sectioes 14a-d of ~he Southold Town Zoning Code (amended 2-7-9) App cants-owr~ers~, request, an Accessory Bed and Breakfast, accessory and ncdenta to the owners.occupancy n ~h~s snge-famty dwe rig, wth up to two (2) bedrooms for lodging a~t sept ng of breakfast to ,not more than~fouE (4) casual,.transient roomers. ~aiROPERTY DESCRIPTION: ,This property contains '3~ ~874,~ sq~ ft'.::,With 92 ft. frontage along the ~ 'Rba~ (S R. ~2~)~ i~ Cut~h'o~ue. The properly ~: imp~oy~ with a dwelling occupied and ma~nta ned as a stag e-fa~] y use by the owner/app ~cant. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zot)ing Board of Appe, als held a public.hearing on this application on November 20, 2003, at which time W~ittGn and o~-al e~idence ~as presented. Based upon alt testimony, documentation, fPoerSOnaI inspection of the iproperty and the area, and other evidence, the Zoning Board t:inds the Ilowing facts to be true and relevahL REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION. DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony and record before the Board and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: 1. This use as requested is reasonable in relation to the district in which it is located, adjacent use districts, and nearby and adjacent residential uses. This proposed Bed and Breakfast Accessory Use is incidental to the applicants-owners single-family residence in this building. 2. The owner's proposed Bed and Breakfast accessory use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, or propedies in adjacent use districts, or of permitted or legally established uses in this zone district or adjacent use districts. 3. The safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, order of the tGwn would not be adversely affected by the proposed Bed and Breakfast accessory use and its location. 4. The structure will be readily accessible for fire and police protection. ... 5. The proposed use will be in harmony with, and promote, the general purpose and intent of the zoning code (Chapter 100) and will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general. 6. 'The Special Exception is for approval of an accessory use (Bed and Breakfast in an existing homel and will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this property or adjacent properties. 7. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that this use will have an adverse impact on .;- ~, % Page 2 - December 4, 2003 B & B Appl, No, 5422 - R. and N. Cincotta 109-2-15 at Cutchogue physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. This accessory use is an authorized Zoning use under Section 100-31B of the Zoning Code-'subject to a Special Exception review and approval by the Board of Appeals and a Certificate for Occupancy and annual inspections from the Building Inspector for other safety and health regulations. 8. No adverse conditions were found after considering items listed under Section 100-263 and 100- 264 of the Zoning Code. BOARD ACTION/RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors, the following action was taken: On motion by Member Goehdnger, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the application for an Accessory Bed and Breakfast Use as applied for SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) A minimum of four (4) parking spaces (two for the two guest rooms and two for the single-family dwelling), a~ 2) Applicant-Owner shall occupy the dwelling as their principal residence, and shall cbt a Certificate of Occupancy or Compliance from the Building Department before occupancy of the building as a new Accessory Bed and Breakfast. 3) This Authorization by the Board of Appeals is solely for an Accessory Bed and Breakfast and does not include use of the lot and buildings for any other use or purpose. 4) The owners-applicant shall obtain a B & B permit from the Town of Southold Building Department as required by Code Section 100-31(B-14). 5) There shall be no backing out of cars onto Route 25. 6) There shall be a flexible chain ladder placed next to the bedrooms on tile second floor for emergency purposes. 7) The Board of Appeals reserves the right to visit the dwelling regarding compliance with the conditions of this approval. 8) Third floor use is limited to storage use only, without heat. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehdnger, Tortora, and Orlar~do. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). (MemDer Homing of Fishe,cC~land was absent.). Ruth D. o'¢fva, ~haii~oman 12/.,"'~03 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS } ] ' SoutholdTown Hall Lydia A, Tortora 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 R~rth, D. Oliva, Chairwoman ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.nor thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 AppL No. 5424 - HOWARD AND LISA DAVtDOFF Prope~dy Location: 1015 Kimberly Lane, Southold; CTM Parcel 70-13-20.6. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review fails under the Type II category of the Sta~[e's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as p}anned. · PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRiPTION: The applicant's 52,220 sq. ff. parcel has 153.71 ff. frontage along the east side of Kimbedy Lane in Southold and is improved with a two-story frame house with three-car garage as shown on a survey dated September 15, 1987, revised Ja~nuary 13, 1989, by Pe~:bnic S~rveyors & Engineers, P.C. The house is 146 ft. from the front lot line facing Kimberly Lane. 60+- fi. from the bulkhead at its closest point, and 131.85 feet from the rear lot line facing PeconJc Bay. The setback to the bulkhead at the southerly area of the existing deck is 77+- feet. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's June 20, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing Section 100-239.4E in its denial of a building permit ,application to construct a swimming pool at less than 75 feet from bulkhead. FINDINGS OF FAC'i- The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this application on November 20, 2003. at which time written, and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation. personal inspection'of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true,and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicants' odginal application requested a location of a proposed 16' x 32' swimming pool, perpendicular to the house, at 32 feet from the existing bulkhead and 35 feet from the southerly side property line, at its closesLpoints, as shown on the surveymap revised July 31, 2003, prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:AMENDED RELIEF: During the November 20, 2003 public hearing, the applicants were asked to increase the setbacks for a possible alternative plan that would be more conforming to the code's bulkhead setback requirement of 75 feet. On December 3 2003, a revised survey sketch was submitted by the applicants' attorney, which placed the proposed swimming pool parallel to the house, with proposed setbacks of 51 feet and 56 feet from the bulkhead, afits closest points. Pa~je 2 - December 4, 2003 \ Appl. No. 5424 - H. and L. Davidoff 70-13-20.6 at Southold REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the alternative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicants reconsidered their original request, and revised the location of the proposed pool, from a perpendicular angle, to a parallel angle with the house, leaving a distance of 12 feet from the pool to the house. The alternative granted herein increases the setback an additional 6 ft., moving the requested pool location six feet closer to the house. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, due to the siting of the house. 3. The relief requested by applicant is substantial for a reduction of 24 feet from the cede required 75 ft. setback. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the swimming pool planned in a location that does not conform to the current Town Code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest thai a variance in this community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a swimming pool, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. · RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B. motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to DENY the variance as applied for. and to GRANT alternative relief to locate a 16' X 32' swimming pool in the rear yard, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The pool shall be parallel to the house and moved six ft. closer to the house. 2. The setbacks to the bulkhead shall not be less than 57 feet at the north end of the pool and not less than 62 ft. at the southerly end of the pooh. 3. The structure shall be open to the sky. Pa*ye 3'- December 4,, 2003 Appl. No. 5424 - H. and L. Davidoff 70-13-20.6 at Southold, This action does not au~orize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, and Odando (Vice Chairman). Absent was Member Horr~:. ~ Re,~luti~ ~.as d,uly adopted (4-0). Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 1/2 )04 Approved for Filing Southold Town Hall Lydia A~ Tortora 53095 Main Road Gerard P, Goehrmger P.O, Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D, Oliva, Chairwoman ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http:/southoldtown.northfork, net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5427 - ROBERT AND PAULINE. EHRENTHAL Prope~¥Location: 1'9575 SoundviewAvenue, Sou~hold; Parcel51-4-11. SE ,DF:rFR.M?AUON: Zoning e rd of Appea s has v s ted the pro,e under cdr/$[~er~tion m this app[ica~tion and de,,termir~es that this review falls under the Typ~ Il, category of tl'/e,S~,at~'siE[~- of'ActitJns.',wJthout an adVerse,effect on the env rOnment if the p~oject s implemente~l a~pl~nni~d,' . PF~OISERTY:PACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 27,578 sq. ff. parcel has 135.12 fi, iron.ge or~gcthe nqrth side of Sound Vew Avenue n Southo d and s mproved w th a one-story frame h_,,,qs~,. 4a~;~,. ~/ce$,sqry 'garage,, as, s.[p0wn or/the June 10 1996 surve 'y revised 'August . 00 b5 2 3 y k'~,~rC SttF~e,yors, P~,C. The d~elhng ~s 24+- feet from the top of the bank, 6'4+- ,feet icom the btt[l~t~ad, and 68+- feet to the mean high water line along the Long Island Sound. ~?~.O~F~¢~?eu.~l~ar~..,~attJurng, aepertments May 13, 2003 Nor,ce of Disapproval, olin ~C-:./~'~'`,'a, ~!i'>~b 5' ~ ~ ;,, · ~ . . Sec,,?n, .,C,q,2.,,d.~., m ils den~al~ a building permit apphcabon ~regardm9 an ex,sting deck, cons!r, uc!.ed ~q.;t I-;.,ss :tho n 100 [ee[ f~dhn .the top of the bluff. Although th~ N0tice of DisappJ-ova states '.ne cock .is }~6,+- It: frcm the tq~ 'of the bank, when vis/ting ~the sitd; BOard Members found the sot:)ack (.~ tt~c c, eck'.lo be at zerO. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals he d a public hearing on this application on November 20. 2003, at which 'tirr~ Wrtten and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, persona/inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be,~rrue and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicants are requesting approval of the as-built Ioc~tiqn of the ,northerly open, unroofed deck built at a zero setback from the top of the bluff, w, hich is 47+- filet from the mean high water mark shown on the June 10 1996 survey, revised August 5, 20013 by Pec0nic Surveyors, P.C. The side setbacks of the deck are 28+- feet from the westerly side linde a~d 47+- feet from the easterly side line. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and pers0rial inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of .the alternative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood ora detriment to nearby properties. The open, unroofed deck, was built in its current location, is 40'15" wide with variable depths between 12'6" and 24'9", with a zero setback from the Page 2 - December 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5427 - R. and P. Ehrenthal 51~4-11 a[ SoUthold top of the bank, without a building permit or other approval. More than 50% of the deck is located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. An alternative smaller deck would increase the setback to the top of the bank, which setback is required under the code provision to be a minimum of 100 feet. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The house s nonconforming with its current setback of 24+- feet from the top of the bank. 3. The grant of the variance requested is substantial. The code requirement is 100 feet from the top of the bank, and the applicant requested a 100% reduction from the code requirement. The alternative allows a smaller deck, instead of the 24'9" deep originally requested and minimizes any detrimental impact adjacent to the bluff area. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the deck addition was built without a building permit and without conforming to the current code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. A report prepared by the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District on November 7, 2003 indicates that the bluff is in excellent condition and that the bulkhead at the bluff toe is 'r~ sound condition without evidence of erosion. The repor~ recommends that the landowner monitor the growth of the Phragmites australis and to adopt a control method if the phragmites begins to encroach upon the healthy stand of beach grass on the property. 6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an open, unroofed deck, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, and duty carried, to DENY the variance as applied for. and to GRANT alternative relief for an open, unroofed deck. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The deck shall be open and unroofed, and not be enclosed. 2. The setback to the top of the bank shall be increased from a zero setback to a 10 ft. setback (allowing for a deck not closer than 14'9" from the house). Page 3 - December 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5427 - R. and P. Ehrenthal 51-4-11 at Southold 3. Applicant shall obtain approvals from the Town Trustees. :This. aCtiOn does not authorize or condone any cu~ent or future use, setback or other featur~ of the ,subject prapedy that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other '~'eatures as are expressly addressed in this action. Vot,e of the Board; Ayes: Members Oli.~.va (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, and Orlando (Vice :Chairman)-. Absent was Member Horr~. 'rh.~ Re/sclu~i~n~¥v.a.s,~_duly adopted (4-0). Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 1/5/04 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ( Southold Town Hali Lydia A. Tortora. Chairwoman ~, 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer ~ P.O. Box 1179 George Homing u r,,,. Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliv~ Chairwoman ~4~ ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 V'mcent Orl~qdo ~;~ Telephone (62~1)~765-1809 ' ' ' bltp:'/~hold~n.northfork.net BOARzD~OI~, APPEALS TOWN OF 8OILrI'HOLD ~ FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5418. JEFFREY FORCHELLI Property Location: 405 Lake Drive, Southold; Parcel 80-3-16. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this applica,tion and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the proJect is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 11,630 sq. ft. parcel has 60 ft. frontage along the north side ef Lake Ddve, variable lot depth of 195.05 feet and 200.80 feet, and 59.47 ft. frontage along a basin, in Sou~old. The property is improved with a one-story frame house situated 42.5 feet from the southerly front lot line facing Lake Drive. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's April 17, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended August 4, 2003, under Sections 100-242A and 100-244B, in its denial of a building permit application concerning a proposed addition at less than 10 feet on a single side yard and lot coverage in ex',ess of code limitation of'20%. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 20, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon ali testimony, documentation, personal .inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds thefollowing facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF'REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a 234 ~q. ft. addition Oat the southwest comer of the existing house at 5 feet from the westedy side lot line, at its closest point, and with.a total lot coverage of 21. percent. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: Page 2 - December 4, 2003 AppL No. 5418 - Jeffrey Forchelli 1000-80-3-16 1. The applicant wishes to update the architectural design of the front of the summer home and to place a 234 sq. ft. extension maintaining the same side yard at 5 ft. and 5.2 ft. variables at its closest points. The height of the addition will not exceed 1¼ story height and is proposed to enlarge a bathroom and relocate a bathroom, adding 116.62 sq. ft. over the code limitation of 20%, for a total of 2450 sq. ft. for building areas. The existing lot coverage is 2216 sq. ft. After a review of the survey and elaboration of facts in the record, it was determined that the grant of the variance application would not produce an undesirable change in the character bf the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The 5 ft. addition with wrap around at the front of the house fills in the front corners, and the architectural features in the front of the home will be updated architecturally. The front addition will blend into the setbacks of the house, presently 42.5 feet from the front lot line. The new addition will conform at 44 ft. from the front lot line. 3. The variance granted herein ~s not substantial because the amount of relief is approximately 120 sq. ft. of building area for the side yard requirement and for the 1% lot coverage over the code limitation of 20%. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the addition was planned and designed without conformity to today's setback and lot coverage code requirements. 5. There is no evidence that the grant of the relief will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The lot to the west is unimproved. An addition at this southeast comer of the house will allow the easterly side yard to remain open and unobstructed for emergency purposes. 6. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an addition, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering ali of the above favors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Goehringer and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the plan May 13, 2003 survey plan prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that 'may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other feat_~res as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Otiva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, ~nd Orlando. Absent was Member Horningc'~his Resoll~ion..-~.~duly adopted (4-0). Ruth D. Oliva. Chairwoman 12/1! /03 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora ~'*i 53095 Main Road Gerard P, Goehringer ~ P.O. Box 1179 George Homing x~, ,~4,~ Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva. Chairwoman ~*~'~ ZBA Fax (631/765-9064 Xrmcent Orlando '~ Telephone (631) 765-1809 htrp:/?southold~own.nor thfork.ner BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DECISION MEETINGiOF DECEMBER 4, 2003 the west side 0f Ruch with an open Also e~tingi on the property ~ ~re~ared by Anthony W. Lewandowsk[ BASIS OF APPLiCATION:~ ~his application is based ~on the Building Department's February 2f~ 2003"Noti~e':6f-Disappi~0val for the~proposed,c6nversion of ~n-eX~i~ting cupola for at~i:esSil~l~:spa~e~ resultir~gin a third evel ~stead of 2~,~ stories. ' FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning~ Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 20, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal in?.Pection of the property .and the area~ and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds'the following facts to be t~ue and relevant.. AREA vARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Variance under Section t00-62 to allow a 144+- sq. ft., ~2x12 ft. six;sided floor area to be added inside the existing cupola:'-~. REASONS FORBOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal i~spectlons,, the Board' makes the following findings: ~ 1. Grant ~f the variance ~,ill not produce an undesirable changeJn ~he neighborhood or a detriment tO h~arby"properties. ~ The applicants in,dicated that their co~structed a 12' x 12' six2sided third-~tory cupola ili~dei- the &x~sting building permit, an~l that they are unable to applicants wish to to an accessible of windows land viewing). The joist~ Will be visible from the lower the applicants that would not achieved by some method, feasible for the pursue, the third-story restriction due to the design Page 2 - December 4, 2003 AppL No. 5420 - M. Jones 52-2-22 at Southold prepared by an engineer. During the last couple of years, similar third story variance relief has been considered, and the Board asked-applicants to bonsider a comprehensive fire sprinkler system. The applicants, in this request indicated that they are not planning to use the limited 144 sq. ft. fi. oor area for habitable or living area, and that the area will be open, without furniture. Rather than installing a comprehensive fire sprinkler system, the applicants agreed to file a deeded covenant to run with the applicant's land, restricting this cupola floor area to be used an observatory, and not to be a habitable area. 3. The variance is self.created. The cupola is already constructed. 4. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the grant of a variance, with limitations, will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicants accepted the Board's requirement that a deeded covenant be filed with the Suffolk County Clerk's Office to restrict and sterilize the use of this 12' x 12' six-sided addition. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable applicant to enjoy the benefit of a cupola with restricted, non-habitable floor area, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for and described in construction dia~rsms {labeled Sheets 1.2 and 3 ZBA#S420.M. Jones) ;)repared for the applicants, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: 1. The cupola floor area is restricted and limited as an observatory and not to be used as habitable space. 2. That applicants shall arrange for the preparation and ~ing of a Declaration of Covenants with the Board's conditions, the final wording to be accepted by the Board of Appeals or its Attorney, and that a conformed copy as recorded with the Suffolk County Clerk's Office shall be furnished to the Office of the Board of Appeals for permanent record-keeping. This action .does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject pl;operiy that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this~action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortors, a~nd Orlando. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0)./ii,ember N~rnin~.Fishers Island was absent.) Ruth D. Oliva Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ Southolc[Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora ff~'~ 53095 Main Road ~ Gerard E Goennnger ~,~ P.O. Box 1179 George Homing ~'~ Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman ~"~'~X~, 'q~O,? ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando ~ Telephone (631)~765-1809 http:/southoldtown;, nor thfork, net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMI NATION MEETING OF DECEMBER.4, 2003 Appl. No. 5428 - CARL.AND E~ENA PATCHKE Property Location: 95 Shore i~ane,~pec0~iC;~,Parcel 86~1--4.17~ SEQRA,DETERMINATI©N!:vTh,e Z°~lng; Board of Appeals, has visited the property under consideration, in this applicatiJsn and determines that [his review falls under the Type. II category of the State s List ol Actions,. w~thout an adverse effect on the enwronment ,f the project ~s ,mplemented as :planned, PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION:- ~he applicant'.s 22,972 sq. ft. parcel has frontage along two streets, ~ the s~uth 143~ feet a 0ng'Shore Lane and to the west 155 ft. along;Indian Neck Ltane in Pecon[c. The I0t ts improved with a two-story frame house with garage and decks as shown on the Jun 24, 1999'.survey, revised July 23, 2003 by Joseph A..Ingegno~L.S. ~ BASIS DF A, PPLICATIQN:.:. Buil¢ing Department's June 27, 2003 Notice of Disapprovali citing ..... SeCtion, t 00;~3~ in its .denial cfa building permit to construct a hot tub structure in an area other than a required re,ir yard. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 20, 2003,, at which time wdtten and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspect[on of.~he property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to betrue and .relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEE REQUESTED: Applicant requests approval of the location of a hot-tub structure behind the dwelling, situated along the east side of the existing rear deck. The deck is 53.6 feet from the. northerly (rear) property line, and the hot tub is a greater distance from the rear property line. There is no reduction of code-required minimum setbacks. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. The granting of this variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighbor'hOed, or be a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant has placed the hot tub directly in the back; at the~ northeast corner of the existing single-family dwelling. This area is consid~ered to be a side y..ard, since the applican[ a so has a wooden deck a~proxim~te y 14 ft x 39,4 feet situated at the rear of the dwelling. Th~s effecbvely turned a portion of the rear yard into a s~de yard, with no ~ other change to this parcet, or the neighborhood. Page 2 - December 4, 2003 AppL No. 5428 - C. and E. Patchke 86-1-4~17 at Peconic 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because the applicant needed to position the hot tub in the most logical place, which is along side the deck, directly in the back of the building. 3. The requested vadance is not substantial for the applicant's installation of a hot tub, on a concrete slab of 13.5 ft. x 16.2 ft., and utilizing a +/-210 sq. ft. area behind the dwelling. There is no roof, or walls, other than a top cover for the hot tub. The total lot coverage including the hot tub, and its surrounding enclosure, does not exceed twenty percent of this parcel. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or district, because the applicant positioned the hot tub in a location deliberately chosen, with a goal to minimize any possible damaging impact to the immediate area. 5. The difficulty for the applicaht is self-created. 6. The relief offered to this applicant is the minimum determined necessary for the benefit of a conveniently situated hot tub, while at the same time protecting and preserving the character of the neighborhood, as well as the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the survey dated June 24 1999, revised July 23, 2003, by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S., SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CO NDITION: 1. As an accessory structure, the hot tub will remain open to the sky (as built). This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tot[ora. and Orlando (Vice Chairman). Absent was Member Hor~j~ This Resolu~tion was d. qly adopted (4-0). Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 1/5/04 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOg~RD MEMBERS ~~~ Southold[Town Hall LydiaA. Tortora, Chairwoman ~ ' 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York ~1971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telepholre (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northforLnet BOARD O13' APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 AppL' No. 5433- CHARLES AND BARBARA RODIN Property Location: 70 Stmhs0n Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 103-10-16. SEQRA DETERMINATION: ~he Zoning Board of~ Appeals has visited the property under 'considerati'on hths, application and.datermir~es that this r~we~.f'alls under the Type II category of the state's List:'of A~ions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. pRoPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 59,875 sq. ft. pamel has 169.40 fi along the 'south side of Strohson Road,in Cutchogue. The property is improved with variable one-story and tWo-story dwelling and detached garage as shown on the December 6, 1988 survey, revised Jar{uar~..:17., 2003, by Peconic Surveyors P.C. BASIS'~'F[:APPLICATION: Building Department's August 8,. 2003 Notice ~f Disapproval, citing a proposed second-story S, ec..ti.'.on ?100-30A.3, in its denial of a building permit application concerning . addition:.at iess,than 50 feet from the front property line. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appea!s held a public headng on this application on November 20, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be 'true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a second-story addition, of Which a small triangular section is located in the 50 ft. front yard setback area, leaving a 45'7" setback from the front lot line facing Strohson Road. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1, Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed two-story addition is proposed at~ the northeast comer of the existing one-story dwelling, with a setback of 45'7" from the front lot line. 2, The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, The addition has a greater front yard setback than the dwelling (32,6') or the garage (24.6'). To the south is an adjacent wetland area, and to the west and north are front yards. The property ~s a corner lot with only one side yard. Page 2 - December 4, 2003 App!. No. 5433-- C. and B. RodiR 103-10-16 at Cutchogue 3. The relief requested is not substantial. The addition' is more (~onforming in relation to the front setback than the 32.6' setback of the existing dwelling, and only a 36.17+- sq.-ft, pt)dion of the addition requires relief under the code. 4. No evidence was submitted to indicate that the grant of the relief requested will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The addition is proposed at least 104 feet from the concrete block and stone seawall adjacent to tidal wetlands (East Creek). 5. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an addition, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Goehdnger, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the site plan prepared by Robert I. Brown, R.A. date stamped by the ZBA September 9, 2003. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, and Odando (Vice Chairman). Absei3t was Member Hom~s Reso_lutio~.~was~ d~ly adopted (4-0). Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 12/12/03 Approved for Filing APPEALS B~.3ARD MEMBERS ~ ~, So~[h6Id Town Hall ~Qer~d ~ Goe~inger~ 53095 M~n Road Ly~a A. %~ora P.O. Box 1179 ~' George Hom~g Sou~old, New York 11971-0959 ~ Ru~ D. Oliva~ Chai~oman ZBA F~ (631) 765-9064 [ ~meent Off.do Telephone (631) 765-1809 htr:/sou~oldtown.no~fork.net BO~ OF ~P~S TOWN OF SO--OLD FINDINGS, DELIBE~TIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMB~ 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5386- ~URENCE AND BE~ ANN RUBINOW. Brope~ Location: Munnatawket Road, Fishem Island; Pardi 1000-6L3-3: ~EQ~ D~ERMJ NATION: ~he Zopisg Boa~ of Apgeals h~ visited the pr0pe~ usder ns demtion in'this appli~tion and 8etfrmdnes that this rev[~ ~tegow of the State s L~st of Act~ens; .wRh0ut an: adveme effect on. the enwmnmenf the project is implemented as planned. PROPER~ FACTS/DESCR PTION:.The app ~nt s 23,958+- sq: ff. ~ ontage along the wes~rfy prope~ line, known as Munnatawket Read, and variable lot fepth of 73.56 feet a ong Be no~hedy lot line, and 64.30 feet a~ong the southerly ot hh~f~c~ng Foz. Avenue, at,inhere Island. The propeEy, m ~mproVed wJtha sJngJe~f~m~ly d~llihg Sho~ at 7.2 and 8 B,".Yariables f(om the front propedyIne 50~9¢~ feet fm~ the ~herl~ ot hne 40+-. feet from the easterly.mar pmpe~ hne at ~ts closest points. ~ ISOF'A~PLICATION: .Buil¢ingDepa~menFs May,19 2003 Noti~ ef DisapprOval, a~nded Ma~ 21 2003, ctn~ S~ion 100-244B, n ts denia, of~a bu dn~ petit: a~pl cab0~ (subm~ed Ma~ .~5~ ~003) to a construct proposed addibon ~o the.exmtmg d~elhng w~th front yard .setb~ at ess t~n 40'feet~ FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of ~peals held a public headng on this application. 6n September 25, 2003 and November 20, 2003, at whi~ time written and omi evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, pemonal inspection of [he properly, and Other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts t~ be true and relevant: AR~ VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wish~ to const~ct additions and aRerations to the existing single-family dwelling. The ar~ect's ~9/24/03 site plan submitted during the September 25, 2003 public hearing confirmed amendments for the proposed additions, leaving an 8 ff. front yard setback =and an 30'7'~setback from the easterly lot line. ADDITIONAL INFO~ATION:AMENDED RELIEF: During the September 25, 2003 public hearing,, the appli~nt's aEomey and architect were requeSted t0 increase setbacks and submit a. possible alternative plan that would be more con~rming to the code's front setback requirement On November 7, 20~3; the applicant's' archi~ct submitted 'an alternatve, revised plan to the Building Depa~ent, and the Building Depa~ment issued an Amended Notice of Disapproval on November' 7, 2003. After Page 2 - December 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5386 - L. and B. Rubinow CTM 1000-6-3-3 further review, the Building Inspector issued additional Amended Notices of Disapproval on November 11, 2003 and November 17, 2003. AMENDED RELIEF: On November 6, 2003, the site plan revised November 3, 2003 was submitted by applicant with elevations and modifications to the proposed additions and deck areas. The November 3, 2003 site plan prepared by Oliver Cope, Amhitect, indicates revised front yard setbacks at 35 ft. to the proposed new expansion/addition into the southerly yard and at 21 ft. to the propOsed new open porch/step area, replaCing the open step area at the northerly side of the dwelling. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. The granting of a!temafiVe relief wilt not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or be a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant has situated the proposed additions to the dwelling approximately 35-40 ft. from the public right of way known as Munnatawket Road, whereas the Original existing single- family dwelling is situated approximately 7-8 ft. from this largely unimproved, approximate 600 ft~ long, public access road. The addition will almost meet the modern setback Specified in Town Code of 40 ft. from this road. ThiS short street currently serves as an extended driveway to the appliCant and three or four neighboring residences, with little likelihood that it will be improved, or upgraded from this Iow level of use anytime in the foreseeable future. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible for the appliCant to pursue, other than an area variance, because of the irregular shape of this parcel, and the fact that the existing building has a very narrow, non- conforming front yard setback. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the.applicant is increasing the front yard setback for the new addition as much as possible. Total lot coverage, with new construction, will be:approximately nine percent. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverSe effect or impact on the Physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or district because the applicant has carefully located the proposed addition, presented in a new revised plan, Which very adequately addressed issues and concerns of this board, which were raised bY the original plot plan submitted by this appliCant. The S0uthOld BOard of Town Trustees has submitted a Letter indicating that the proposed additionS and alterations are out of the Wetland Jurisdiction under Ch~ 97 and Ch. 37 of the Town COde. Information has been furnished to indicate that the only area of freshwater wetlands is loCated southeast Of the, appliCant's property on CTM Parcel #1000-6,3,8.3, Page 3 - December 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5386 - L. and B. Rubinow CTM 1000-6-3-3 C 5. The difficulty for the applicant was not self-created, and is a direct result of the irregular shape of the parcel, and the close proximity of the existing single family , ~ dwelling to Munnatawket Road. 6. The relief offered in tl3is application is the minimum d,etermined necessary for the applicant to enjoy the benefit of additional living space, while at the same time protectiag and preserving the characte~ of the neighborhood, as well' as the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the ba!ancir)g test. under Ne~ York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Torto['a, Seconded by.Member Goehr nger, and duly carr ed, to pE'NY the .o.;riginal variance, and to GRANT ALTERNATIVE RELIEF as applied 'for, as shown on the November 3, 2003 site plan prepared by Oliver Cope, Architect. This a~ion does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other fe~tur'~f the subject property that may violat~ the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks arid other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, and Orlando (Vice Chairman). Absent )Na~ Member Homing. This Resolution was duly Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 12//[/03 Approved for Filing ;il A~/?EALS BOARD MEMBERS ' ' Southold Town Hall ~ Gerard E Goehiinge~ 53095 Main Road [~ ~. Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva , Chairwoman ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 V'mecnt Orlando Telephone (63t) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS . ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 4, 2003 Appl. No. 5429 - WALTER TERESKO Property Location: 1077 New Suffolk Road, Cutchogue; CTM Parcel 109-7-7.2 (formerly 5.2) SEOICA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under considera,fi_on in this application anrl determines that this ~eview falls under the Unlisted category of the state s List of Action~, withoht, an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented aB planne& PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The: applicant's property, referred to as CTM 5.2, is vacant Wi/h a land area o£ 1.4003 acres. Access to this property has been over the applicant's adjacent land referred to as CTM 109-7~7~ using the existing 15 ft. wide and 30 ft. wide driveways extending from the east side 6fNew Suffolk Road, in Cutchngue. BASIS OF APPEAL: After making application to the Building Deparm~ent, the applicant was issued a determination that a new.dwelling is not permitted for the reason that the lot does not have direct access on a public street in accordance with Section 100-235A(1) of the Town Code and Section 280-A of New York To~m Law. RELIEF REOUESTED: The. Applicant is requesting construction standards for base improvements for the proposed access m a site north of the greenhouse operations, as shown on a survey map darted November 20, 2001, re~sed JUne 10, 2003, prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S. The survey in~p sli?v~s: '(1) the location of 3~30 ft. wide right-of-way easement, portions of Which have a traveled~ gravel base with a 15+- ft. width, extending from New Suffolk Road a distance of 175 feet, and (2) the location ofthn, existing 15 ft. wide right-of-way easement extend/rig directly to CTM 109-7-5.2.. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 20, 2003, at which t/me written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, doenmantation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be tree and relevar~: RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, and duty carried, to Page 2 - December 4, 2003 AppL No. 5429 - W. Teresko 109-7-5.2 at Cutchogue (280-A) GRANT a v~riance under New York Town Law, Section 280-A and Zoning Code Section 100-235, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The base of the right-of-way shall be impr6¥ed to a width of 15 feet, including the following: a) regrade the driveway from New Suffolk Road approximately 200 feet in length, 15 feet wide, filling all pot holes and finishing the grade. b) install a minimum of 2" of compacted ~" stone blend over the finished grade, a width of 15 feet c) at the point where the driveway makes a turn to the north, excavate 4" to 6" of material, and install either bank nm with a 20% stone content or a sandy loam type of material for the distance of approximately 150 feet, to the beginning of the parcel d) install 2':m 4" of ~" stone blend compacted over the new bank mn/loam m/xture. 2. In any case, the atone blend can be substituted for a good grade of RCA or crashed concrete which should be doubled in depth on existing driveway and 6"to 10" in depth of the north driveway. 3. After completion and prior to a Certificate of Occupancy on a dwelling, the Board of Appeals reserves the right to inspect the improvements for acceptance. 4. Any proposal to change the configuration of this property may require mi updated 280A review for the extended access area and also require Planning Board approval. This action does not authorize or eondone any eurrent or future use, sethack or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses_ sethaek~ and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, and Orlando. (4-0,. Approved for Filing