Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/23/2003~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS · ~ ~ Lydia A. Tortora~ Chairwoman Sonthold53(195 Ma~nT°WnRoadHall ~ Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold. New York 11971-0959 ..... Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephor~e (63:1) 765-1809 htrp:f/sout/aoldtown.nor thfork, z;et BOARD O~' APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELI~ERAT!ONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF:JANUARY 23, 2003 Appl. No. 52'37 -Vassilios & Maureen~p~leo~es. PropertvLocation: 115 SoimdDrive, Greenp~rt;Parcel 1000-33-4-60. ,SEQRA DETERMINATION;~ The ~oning Board of AppeaLs has visited the property under eonsider~tfi°n in this applicati6n and d~tcrm~es that this review falls under thc Type !I category Of the state's List of Actions. withokit an adverse effect on the enviroment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPT[OI~: Applicants' property is a 24,884 sq. ft. lot wi~ frontage along three Strects: 173.21 feet along the east side of Sunset Lane, ~36.83; fcer along the south side of Sound Drive, and 49.21 feet along the west side of Sound Drive. The lot is improved with a one-stor~ dwelling and accessory swimming pool as shown on thc survey dated September 9, :2002 prepa;ed)ay Peconic Surveyors, BASIS OF APPLICATION: Buitdirlg Department's August 7, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, conc~ining two i~roposed deck additions, on~ with front ~?ard at less than 40 feet and the other with a rear yard at less'than 50 feet. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on~ this application on January 16, 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 tree and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REOUESTED: A Variance is requested under Section 100-244B for pcrrmss~on to reduce the northerly front yard setback a~ 33.6 feet for a deck addition, and a rear >~rd setback at 30.3 feet for a second proposed deck. The northerly front deck is 6' x 29.8 in size: the rear deck is 12' x 28' in size, as shown on the site survey, prepared by Peconic Surveyors dated September 9, 2002. Ji REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION[ On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, thc Board makes the following findings: I Grant of the variance will not producc an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The neighborhood is primarily de,loped with older homes on small non-conforming lots, many with setbacks that do not meet today's code requirements. The applicant has a non-conforming lot of 21,780 square feet and two front yards. Page 2 - January 23.20~,,~ ' Appl. No. 52237 - V. Speleotes 33-4-60 at Greenport 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variancel The property is comprised of 21,780 square foot comer lot. Applicant's single family dwelling has an existing front yard setback of 39.6 feet and a rear yard setback of 37.2 feet. Without a variance the applicant would not be able to construct a two story deck on the front of the house or a deck on the rear of the house. 3. The variance granted is substantial in relation to the code requirement. However, it is not substantial in relation to the existing setbacks of other single- family dwellings in the neighborhood. The proposed front deck will be 33.6 feet from Sound Drive and the rear deck will be 30.3 feet from the rear yard line. The proposed decks will not be an obstruction to other dwellings in the neighborhood. 4. The alleged difficulty has been self- created because the applicant was aware of the nonr conforming lot when he purchased the property. 5. No evidence has been submitted to sUggest that the relief granted will have an adverse impact on physical of environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a addition front two,story deck and a rear yard deck addition to his dwelling while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering al! of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member eliva, seconded by Chairwoman Tortom, and duly carded to GRANT the variance as applied for, and shown on the September 9, 2002 survey plan prepared by Peconie Surveyors, P.C. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, Orlando and Oliva. (Member Homing of Fishers Island was absenk) ~ Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). f [4r~dia A, Tortora, Chairwoman 2/./././././././././~q/03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Soutbold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora. Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (63 ~) 765-1809 http: southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIIBEP~:.TIOblS AND DETERMINATION MEETING o"F JANUARY 23. 2003 Appl No. 5-258 - William Lois Properly Location: 58105 North Road Green 3ort Puree D/f44-2-9 SEQRA, DE~ERMINATIoNi The Z.o~.ing Board of Appeals has, visited' ~he property under C~ nsidera!io, n.in thi~application and d~termines that this review falls under the Type II category of the S;tates,List'0f Actions, witl~out an adverse effect on the'environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the worth side of ~lrOrtt~ Road (C.R., 48) in Southold, v~ith frontage along the Long Island Sound. The property onts-along fl~e LOng Island Sound and has a ct wdth of 200.36 It. along C.R. 48 and depth along the east side line of 92.43 feet. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's October 28, 2002 Notice of Disapproval denying a permit.to erect fences ata height over the code's height limitation of four feet when located along a front yard as required under code Section 100-231. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Br)ard of Appeals held a ipublic hearing on this application on January 16, 2003, at which time written:and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentat on personal ir{spect on of the property, and other ev dence, the Zoning Board fihds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to erect a, fence 200.36 ft. in length along the south property line (front yard area) at five (5) feet in height and a cng the east (side) lot line facing c.R. 48 of 92.43 ft. at six (6) ft. in height. REAsONs FOR BOARD ACTION: O~l"lhe basis of testimony presented materials submitted and persofial ihspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1 The granting of this variance will ~qot produce an undesirable change in the character of the ne~ghboi:hood, or be a d~trimen[ to nJearby properties, because the applicant seeks to install a wooden fence along the roadside b.ofindary of this waterfront property The sty e and type of fencing proposed is characteristicall¢ found in other areas within the Town and does not adversely affect neighborhoods. 2. The benefit sought by the applicagt cannot be ach eved by some other method, leas b e for the applicant,to pui-sue,'other than ~.n area variance, because the owner of this waterfront property seeks to install a fence that w~ll meet code requirements for swimming pool enclosures. Page 2 Jmmary 23.20(13 Appl. No 5258- William Lois 44-2-9 at Arshmnomaque, Southold 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the proposed fence has heights ranging from 6 feet to 4 feet 6 inches, with an approximate average height of 5 feet. The type of fencing specifically allowed for in the granting of this variance, and as proposed by the applicant, insures that front yard visibility will be maintained. 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 fence will be erected along the inland portion of this waterfront property, and will be approximately 200 feet away from the top of the bank. The proposed fence will not adversely affect visibility along the front yard. 5. The difficulty for the applicant is self-created. 6. The relief offered is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a fence, 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 Tortora, seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carded to GRANT the Variance as applied for and shown on the highlighted copy of the May 18, 1998 survey, with the CONDITION that the fencing design and materials shall be used are limited to only those mentiOned in the applicant's submitted plan (see photocopies of Classic Victorian Scalloped design proposed along the front lot tine and Tongue and Groove with straight Classic Victorian top proposed along the side lot line). 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 Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehdnger, Oliva, and Odando. (Member Homing of Fishers Island Was absent.) This ~n~~_~_~ . APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SouthoId q'ovcn Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer ~ P.O. Box 1_179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D, Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-I809 http ://sout h01dfowmncn~chfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN Ob' SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DEL BERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JANUARY 23, 2003 Appl. No. 5215 - RONALD CASSA~~, Property Location: 30185 Cabot ¥ lo?ds Roa~, Peconic; 1000-73.~4-1. SEQ~A DETERMINATION: Th~, ~n~in'gjBoard.o[Appeal~has visited the property under conslderation id..tt~i~ aEPli~tior~ nd determ~ines] tha~ [his review falls under the Type II category:6f th'e State's E st ~f A(~i ~nS, withofit an ~dVerse effect~on,the env ronment f the project s mplemented:as planne` is located on a ] ~Side of Middle ROad ode-story frame, house as shown c n the oajthe June 29, 2000 and (b) a new a yard..- ,, ~ FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on December 12, 2002 and January 16, 2003, which time wdtten a~d oral evidence were presented. Based upon .... a test mony documentat'on, persona .nspect°n' of the property anc~ other ev dence, the Zon ng Board f nds the follow ng facts to be true and relevant AREg VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The original plan prepared by Samuels & Steelman revised 8/21/02 proposed: Q) new ~dditions and alterations to the existing dwelling at 14 nodh at the top of the bluff and 24'~1 east to the top of the bluff, and (2) to demolish an~ build a~new accessory ~arage (20 x 24) building at 6 7" from the side property/in~.' ~At the December 12, 2002 hea~ing, the applicant through his architect Offered ,inc~ased set,backs for' both st[uctures,] and on Jan~Jary 15, 2003, applicants' arch tect sub ,mitred a rev seds te p an Oropos n~ the fo owing rev s OhS (a) a norther y setback, at 40 feet from the top of th(~/bluff for~ a new two-story frame residence w th basement, a~d wood' porch, after der~ohsh~ng~the ex~stmg residence and fllhng the founda~tion arid Ib) a new 20' x 2~' accessory bL~i ding at 8 ft. from the, s de propert~ I ne southwest, of [he dwelling Page 2 - January 23, 2003 ~- Appl. No. 5215- Ronald Cassera 73~4-1 at Peconic ©, ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: Information was submittedby letter on December !2, 2002 from the Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation Distdct confirming the bluff face is very heavily vegetated overall, and although there are some glacial erratics and cobbles at the toe of the bluff, there is protection at the toe. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of alternative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The setbacks of the dwelling will be increased from the present setback of 14' to a minimum of 40 feet. The garage setback is also increased from its present nonconforming location to a new location at 20 f-t. in conformity with the code for a side yard setback line. Visually, the garage is in front of the dwelling and not in a side yard. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. 3. The relief requested is substantial, but the grant of altemative relief reduces the amount of relief necessary to utilize the existing ground areas that have been disturbed due to existence of the existing dwelling construction and established landscaped areas. 4. The difficulty has been self-created, since the applicants became aware of the conditions of the buildings, site and cedes when the property was purchased. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the alternative relief noted below will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Applicants are proposing several drywells for adequate containment of roof runoff, and will maintain good ground cover necessary to prevent erosion or drainage toward bluff areas. The applicant has obtained Trustees Coastal Zone Management Permit #5602 dated July I 24, 2002. 6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new home and garage, 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 Tortora, seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carried to Page 3 - January 23, 2003 Appl. No. 521'5 - Ronald Cassera 73-4-t at Peconic GRANT the relief requested as applied for regarding the location of the. new dwelling construction as ShOWn on the site plan prepared by Samuels & Steelman revised 1115103; and to GR,~NT alt.emative relief to locate a new garage a minimum of 20 feet from the side property line, and in the yard area shown 3n the site plan revised 1115103. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate ;he Zoning Code~ other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly adc ressed in this action. Vote of the Beard: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Oliva, and Orlando. (Membe? Horn ng of Fishers Island wasrabsent.) This. Res~ duly adop_~ted (4-0). Lydia A. Todora, Chairwoman - Approved for F~ling ~ / ~ /03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS .~, S~u~hold %wn Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Ooehringer ~ P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New YOrk 11971-0959 Ruth D, Oliva ZBA Fax (632[) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone i631~ 765-1809 http ://southo[dtown,nor thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS ,~ND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JANU/~RY 23 2003 Appb, No. 5263- John and Laurel Kirmish. Property ~_ocation: 15955 Main Road Matt/tuck: barce11000-115-1-6. SEQRA~'DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board o-' 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 prOje~ fs,imple~ented as Planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 30,250 sq. ft. parcel is located on the north S~de of Main Read (S.R. 25) in Matt/tuck, and is improved with a 1-1/2 story frame house with wooden deck. and accessory swimming pool in the rear yard. as shown on the survey dated.July 3, 1990, updated June 21, 2002, prepared by John Metzger, LS. BASIS OF~APPLtCATION:i Cpde ,Section 100-244B, based on.the Building. Department's Oct0b.eri24~ 2002 ~otice b~iDisa~)proval denying a permit to construct additions to an ex(sting single fa~i!y ~wellifig at less than 15 fee: on a single side yard setback, and less than 35' feet` fo~ total` side Setbacks. FINDINGS OF =ACT The Zon~in~,'~oa~,d;of Appea!s held a public hearing on this application on January 16, 2~03~/~fi~{i~{~d qra! evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, d~Cb~h{~i0n:~f~b~:~l in'~ec~t on of the proper-y, and other evidence, the Zon ng Board ~inds the fd owing'facts to be tr~e andre event: AREA VARIANCE.. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants proposed a 8'x12' one-story a~dd[t[~, ~!,6p~n;l~'ch addit on~ and 8'x14' one-story addition as shown on the plot plan prepared b~ Dona d G. Fe er Arch tact dated 10/18/02 The proposed setbacks of the new co~trBct~o_n are shOwr~ at 11.7 from the wes; s~de and 20.7 from the east side, at the c beast pol~.t~ ;~ ' . REA$ONS~,FO~ARD ~C~ ON.~ On the bass of testimony presented, materials s~bmi~ :1A~. ~n~in,S~Pect'on~, the Beard makes:the fol ow ng findings: 3, ,,, , · 1) 'G~- : ~;~:~; i~!i~e wilt,n0t produce ar undesirable Chan~e in the character of thee ne tb~ho~d~;~a'~etH~ent td'~nearby properties. The applicant s house is in an area of~.or ~ that ,are,.larger two-story houses along State Highway Route 25. The existing 11 6"'i ~5qt.) ~;ide.yard setback on the west s de w rem~ n the same and the east side Page 2 - January 23, 2003 Appl. No. 5263 - John Kirmisch 115-t-6 at Mattituck will be setback at a minimum of 20.7 ft. The additions are minor in nature without producing a visual impact to nearby properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other tnan an area variance. The ot ~s particularly narrow and long, which leaves the side yards without room for expansion unless this variance is granted. 3. The vadance granted herein is not substantial. The proposed setbacks of the additions is minimal with a reduction of 2'11' from the code required 35 ft. side yard total. 4. The difficulty was self-created because the property was purchased with the limited side yard areas. 5. There is no evidence that the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The west side will require a modest variance, and the proposed addition will not extend beyond the existing driveway. The adjacent property also has a ddveway separation between the two bull ~dings 6. Grant of the requested variance is the m~nimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of additions, 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 Orlando, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried to GRANT the Variance as applied for and shown on the plan prepared by Donald G. Feller, Architect, dated 10-18-02. 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 Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Oliva, and Odando (Member Horning of Fishers Island was absent.) Th~s R_es~adopted (4-0). Lyd' A rtora. Cha' oman - Approved'fOr Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ' {, - ' Sonthold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora. Chairwoman 53095 Main Road  Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631} 765-1809 http: 'southoldtown.nor th fork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS DELIBERATIONS'.~.~D DETERMINATION MEETING:OF JA~UAI~Y 23 2003 Appl. No. 5257 - William Lois Properly Location: 57875 Nodh Road. Greenpod Parcel ID ¢f~4-2-8 SEQRA DETERMI,,N<ATION: ~The Zor~ing Board of ,Appeals has visited the properly under Consid~rati01i ~n, th~sz~pp ication and determines.ffiai t~s review falls under the, Type II category of the'State'S List' of :'~c~i(~ns, without an adversb effect on the environment if the' project is implemented as planned PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's ~arcel is located on the north side of North Read (.C.R:.,48) il3 Southold and is improved with a 111/2 story frame dwelling as'shown on the survey preparedby John T. Metzger, L.S~ dated ;8/30(00, updated 7-10-02. The property fronts along the Long Island Sound and has a lot width along C.R. 48 of 100.18 ff. and depth along the east side line of 247.11 feet and the west side line~ of 244.52 feet. BASIS OF.~ APPLICATION: Building Department's 0ctob,e.r 28, 2002 Notice of Disapproval denying' a permit to erect fences at a height ovei' the code s height limitation of four feet when oca[ed along a front yardas required under code Section 100-231. , ~ FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning I~o~rd of ,~ppeals held a pablic head,ng o 1 this application on January 16, 2003, at which time wrillen and ora~ evidence wore presented. ~ased upon all testimony, documentation, porsonal inspeclion of tim propody, and other evidel ce. the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true- and '~eleVant: AREA v~ARIA~I~E RELIEF REQUESTED: Applidant ~ vishes to erect a fence 155+~ ,ft. in length [IonB the We~! side l:front yard areaI at six (6) feet i height, and along the front lot line facing .R~,48?f 100~-~. a,t ~ive (5} ft, in height. REASONs~I~iBO~RD ACTION: Og the basis, df te ~mony presented, materials submitted and pers~o.a~!'iti~,p~ b,~ the Board make~ the; followidg fir dings: 1 The grant ng of Ih s variance wJl not pm,duce ~an undes rab e change n the character of the nelghbortloo~, or be,a~ detriment to nearby propert~es,I because the applicant seeks to install a woeden~iYenc~ albng' the r(~adside boundary of th s waterfront property. The style and type of fenpm, g p~'oposed ~ charactensbcal y found m 'othe~r areas within the Town and does not adverse[Y~affe~ct ~mgfiborhoods, 2 The b~n~f[t squght by tile app cant ca,not be achieved by some other method leas b e for the apRl~,a~ to pursue, ot,lier than ~n area variance, because the owner of th~s waterfront prope~;see~ i~S~al a fence that wtl meet.code req{J rements for sw mm ng pod enc osures Page 2 - Januap. 23. 2003 Appl. No 5257 - William Lois 44-2-8 at Arshamomaque, Southold 3. The requested vadance is not substantial because the proposed fence has heights ranging from 6 feet to 4 feet 6 inches, with an approximate average height of 5 feet. The type of fencing specifically allowed for in the granting of this variance, and as proposed by the applicant, insures that front yard visibility will be maintained. 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 fence will be erected along the inland portion of this waterfront property, and will De approximately 200 feet away from the top of the bank. The proposed fence will not adversely effect visibility along the front yard. 5. The difficulty for the applicant is self-created. 6. The relief offered is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a fence, 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 Tortom, seconded by Member Oliva. and duly carried to GRANT the Vadance as applied for and shown on the highlighted copy of the May 18, 1998 survey, with the CONDITION that the fencing design and materials shall be used are limited to only those mentioned in the applicant's submitted plan (see photocopies of Classic Victorian Scalloped design proposed along the front lot line and Tongue and Groove with straight Classic Victorian top proposed along the side lot line). 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 Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehdnger, Oliva, and Orlando. (Member Homing of Fishers Island was absent.) This Resolution w~(4-0). Lydi . ' APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~~ Southold Town Hail Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 '~"~ Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS PfND DETERMINATION MEETING QF JANU/~RY 23, 2003 Appl. NO. 5242- Gary and Letizia Bloecker. Property Location: 1145 Gillette Drive, East Marion: Parcel 1000-38-3-4 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board o-' Appeals has visited the property under don~ide, Fatipn in, this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II ca~e~g~)T~t..o[; the-,State's.,List iof ActiOns, without an adverse effect~on the environment if the pr0j~ct is ir~plemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants' 13,788 sq. ft. parcel is located on the east Side of Gillette Drh/e in East Marion and is improved with a, one-story wood frame dwelling.:with attached garage and deck, all as shown on the July 22, 2002 survey preparedby John C~ Ehlers~ L.S. BAS~S OF APPLICATION: Building Department's September 30, 2002 Notice of Dl~provak,;~enylng~,~permlt. under Code Section 100-244B~ ,f0r the, reason that the sefb;abk of proposed additions to the existing dwe ling is less:than 35 feet. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public~hea[ring on this application on January '16, 2003, which time written 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 true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE REUEF REQUESTED: Applic, gnts wish to construct additions approx. 62' in length, at one-story height including a roofed-over porch, at the front of the existing dwelling, as shOwn on the site plan prepared by Garrett A. Strang, Architect dated 9-26-02 (Plan SP-1).. The redu,ction of the front yard area under consideration is 5 ff., for a 30 ff. front yard instead of the existing 35 ff. 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 variar~ce ~ill not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhc~od or 'a d(~tdment to nearby ,pro 3erties. The neighborhood is primarily developed with hordes;on small non-conforming lots, many with front yard setbacks that do not' mee[to,day's code requirements. Dwellings to the south and north have a front yard' Setback o1' 38 feet but in the whole subdivision,the front yarc[ setbacks are vanai~le. Page 2 - January 23, 2003 Appl. No. 5242-G. and L. Bloecker 38~3-4 at East Marion 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a variance~ The property is a small 13,788 square foot lot. The applicant proposes to build an addition to his dwelling that would be 30 feet from the northwest corner of the property instead of the required 35 feet. Without a variance the applicant would not be able to construct an addition to his dwelling. 3. The vadance granted hereih is not substantial in relation to the code requirement beca'use all the lots are undersized. 4. The alleged difficulty had been self-~created because the applicant was aware of the non-conforming lot when it was purchased. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the relief granted will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable .the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an addition to his dwelling 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 Oliva, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the plan ~i~ by Garrett A, Strang, R.A. dated 9-26-02. 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 Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Oliva and Orlando. (Member Horning of Fishers Island was absent.) This Resolution~..w.a~s_d~adopted (4-0). Lydia~~~~-for Filing .~ I /-/ /03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ ' ' Southold TownHall dia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Mai2 Road Gerard P. Gochringer P.O. Bo~ 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971--0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) '/65-9064 Vincem Orlando Telephone (63~) 765-1809 http://southoldtownmorthforlcnet BOARD OF,'APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS A~D DETERMINATION REGULAR MEETING, OF JANUARY 23, 2003 Appl No 5244- EILEEN GALLAGHER Street & Locality 1575 Minnehaha Botilevard; SduthoId 1000-87-3-51 Date of Public Hearing: January 16, 2003. ~EQ~. ~E'FERMIN~TION: Th~ Zonip,g Board r.of Appeals .has t//sited the property under consioerat[o,n. Jn this ~lbplica~on and determines that this'review fa Is under the:Type ! ~ategory of ;the states List of/~,ctions; without an adverse effect on the environment f the project is imi~l~rn~hted as plan~d~ - ' The Zoning Board of Appea s he d a public headng Dp this application, on January 16 2003, at Wt~ich' 'tm~. wriiten' ~nd dml evidence were presented. Based upon all teSt mo~y, documerita, ti~t, persona[ inspection of the property, aOd other evidence, the Zoning Boa~'d finds the following facts to be true and relevant: : REQUEST MADE BY APP~LICANT: The Applicant-Owner s requesting 'a Special ?x~eption 'pursuan~ tO; Article Ill section 100-3~B, sub-section 13 of the Zoning Code, to e~tal~Jish an Acces$o,ryApar[ment within the existing pdnc pal bui c rig, the app cant's dwelling Thee e~.xisting s ng e-fa~ii~, dwelling has a Certificate of Occupancy of record noted as #Z-22267 d~i~e~t 4-16- 93 for preexisting construction prior to April 9, 1957. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: This property s 14,682 sq. ft in area with 100 95 ft. frontage along M hnehaha Boalevard. and lot depth of 150 ft. along the south property line. The property is irnprpved with ~ one-story, single-family dwellina owned and occupied by the applicant, Eile~n G~llaghe~ as~ her residence. New constructi~r~ is under way for additions and a seconi:bfloor alterations, and three-car garage, referenced in the Building Permit issued Novemb,e,r 1', 2~001 u0der#27859-z. The December 1~, 2001 survey shows the dwelling ~at 39.5 feet fro~ ~e ~n[ ~.~operty li.h~. 13 feet from the nortl-~ side line. 17;5 feet from the south; line. FINDINGS OF F~,CT In considering this application, the Board has reviewe¢ the code requirements set forth pursuant to Article III, Section 100-31B(13) to establish an Accessory Apartment and finds that the applicant complies with the requirements for the reasons noted below: 1. The Accessory Apartment is proposed with a livable area of 726 sq. ft. in the principal building, over the garage. The Apartment unit will not exceed 40% of the existing dwelling livable floor area. 2. Eileen Gallagher. the applicant herein, is shown as the owner in a Deed dated 11/12199 at Liber 12012 page 535. Ms. Gallagher will continue to occupy the dwelling as her principal Page 2 - January 23. 2003 SE #5244 - Eileen Gallagher Accessory Apartment J1000-87-3-51 residence. 3. The applicant's plans comply with the on-site parking requirements and provide for a total of three (3) parking spaces, two for the principal use and one for the Accessory Apartment, utilizing the garage and existing driveway areas. 4. The applicant complies with the requirements of a dwelling unit as defined in Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code, The existing livable first floor is 1225 sq, ff., and 1982 sq. ft. on the second floor (garage and decks not included). The apartment will be 725 sq. ft. 5. The plans indicate that extedor entry to the Accessory Apartment of the existing one-family dwelling will retain the existing appearance of a one-family dwelling. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony, documentation, and other evidence, the Zoning Board determined the following Findings of Fact to be true and relevant: 1) The Accessory Apartment, as applied for, is reasonable in relation to the District in which is located, adjacent use districts, and nearby and adjacent residential uses. 2) The Special Exception use is accessory to the principal use and will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties, 3) This accessory use will not prevent orderly and reasonable uses Proposed or existing in adjacent use districts. 4) No evidence has been submitted to show that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, order of the Town would be adversely affected. 5) This zoning use is authorized by the Zoning Code through the Board of Appeals, as noted herein, and a Certificate for Occupancy from the Building Inspector is a code requirement before an Accessory Apartment may be occupied. 6) No adverse conditions were found after considering items listed under Section 100-263 and 100-264 of the Zoning Code. 7) A Certificate of Compliance or similar document will be necessary for issuance by the Building Inspector certifying that the premises conforms to Ch. 100 of Zoning for an Accessory Apartment use. RESOLUTION: On motion by Member Goehringer, seconded by Member Orlando, it was Page 3 - January 23, 2003 SE #5244 - Eileen Gallagher Accessory Apartmenf/1000-87-3-51 RESOLVED, to GRA_N_T the Special Exception application for a one-bedroom Accessory Apartment, to be used only in conjunction with applicant-owner's residence, as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1, The owner shall occupy the dwelling as her principal residence. 2. There shall be no packing out of vehicles Onto Minnehaha Boulevard. 3. There shall be a-flexible chain ladder propedy installed for the upper livable floor area. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy or written;compliance document sha be obtained from the Building Department before occupancy of lhe Accessory Apartment. VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Members ToAora (Cl~i~voman), Goehringer, Tortora, and Orlando. (Member Homing of Fishers Island was absent.) q'his~!Resolution was dully ADOPTED (4-0). ]2f'DIA A. TORTORA, CHAIRWOMAN P~¢3 ~3 0 e 0 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chai:nvornan 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 ~k[~ };~B George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 ~,~ Ruth D. Oliva 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 JANUARY 23, 2003 AppL NO, 5265 - NORTH FORK BANK and SUt=FO~K. COUNTY DEVELOPMENT AG[~NGY p~:Op~rty. Location: 9025 and 8885 Main Road, Mattituck 1000-122-6-22.1 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of,~ppeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determ nes that th s rev ew falls under the lyPe ti category of the State's I_ist of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the pi'oject is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicant's property consists of a combined area of-7.467 with 512.54 ft. of frontage facing the Main Road (NYS Route 25) in Mattituck. 1o tho north iS the Long Island Railroad; to the west and east, existing residences, and ttie Main Road tO the south, lhe property is impi0ved with Bank office Facilities and is situated in the I~General Business Zone District. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's October 22, 2002 Notice of Disapproval: based on elevation plan prepared by East End Draftino and Design dated 9-28-02 anct sanitary site plan dated 7-18-02 (before revisions furnished to the Zoning Board of Appeals in ,January.) The reasons stated in the Notice of Disapproval is that the proposed additions and alterations are to an existing nonconforming building, and the proposed total linear frontage following the proposed construction will be 3~0+- lineal {eet_ The zoning code limits the frontage ota single structure to not more than 60 linear~ ieet of frontage on one (1) street. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on January 16, 2003. at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, r)ersonal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Variances are requested under Section 100- ~03C based on the October 22, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for a 60 ft. wide extension; Later, the sanitary design map was modified by[ Joseph Fischetti, P.E. to show 385 linear frontage (total) for a 60 ft. wide extension. Later, by letter dated January 6. 2003, the applicant's request was modified for an increase from the original proposal of 60 ft. extension to a proposed 64 ft. extensioe resulting in a clnange of the total linear footage to 388'4". instead of 385 I.f Page 2 - January. 23, 2003 ' AppL No. 5265 - No~th Fork Bank C 1000-122-6-22.1 at Matfitt]ck REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the fol owing findings: 1~ Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties The bu dng has existed for many years with a nonconforming building frontage at least 300 ft. wide. This 64' extension is in line with the existing building, and the existing setbacks are at least 300 feet from the front lot line facing the Main: Road and meets or exceeds the side yard and rear yard setbacks of the Code. 2 The benefit sought by the applicant canno, t be rachieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area v~ariance~ The property is uti zed for busifiess, park ng and re ated Purposes, and tl~ese areas have been established for many years by the bank, as well as,former retail businesses. 3. The requested variance is substantia, however the westery yard area w be screened w th add t onat landscaping, and all other yard areas w comply ~th the code. 4. No evidence has been submitted to sugg~est that this vadance will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Additional landscaping [sa condition of this approval, ,and all other yard setbacks will remain the same, as existed for many years. 5. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum 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, sa :ety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors, and applying the balancing test under New York Towh Law. motion was offered by Member Orlando. seconded by Member ©liva. and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, ].With revisions confirmed in a letter from Joseph Fischetti, P.E. dated Ja~nuary 6, 2003, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITION: A landscaped area consisting of a minimum 8-12' high evergreens, staggered, shall be maintained within the west yard area, along the proposed 122 ft. addition, for a total length of 170 feet. The purpose of this condition is to screen the residential area to the west and north from the bank's commercial facilities. Page 3 - January ,2 k~.J 23 009 Appl NO. 5265 - North F0~k Bank i000-i2'2-6,22.1 at Mattihtck This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that violates the LZoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and othe~ features as are expressly~addmssed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman) Goehdnger O va and of Fishers s and was abse~.) This Resolution was duly Odar~do, (Member Homing ' ~ ' ' Ly. dra A. Tortora, Chairwoman 2//I/03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Lydia A. qbrtora. Chairwoman ~} 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer ~ P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (63 l) 765-9064 Vincent OrIando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http:/southoldtown.nonhfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING'OF JANUARY 23, 2003 Ap~L No. 5233 - JOSEPH J. SNELLENBURG ?roperty Location: i935 Old Woods'Path, Sout~old Parcel 1000-87-2-21. ;EQ. RA"DETERMiNATiON;. . . The Z°nitlg Bo~ 0flAppeals has visited the property u~der-.~, ;C-~n,~derati~m in tl~s~applib~tion and d~terr~ihes tthat this review falls under the Type II category of the: State's List of Actions. withG~t ah adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The property is a described parcel located on a private road referred.{o as Old Wbods Path 'SoUthold. The lot is. improved with a two- ~Bj~!ory ,frame. house' and a'bcessory building; an~ contains an area of 15,540 sq. ft. C~h~ to"the developed ;3rea of Nunnakoma Waters, as shown on the survey mapped d~tec~ Nb~ember 8, 2002 prepared by Peconic Sdrveyors, L.S. BASIS. OE~!~,'PE~EICATIOI% The applicant has filed an amendment to Building Permit #2863Z-z'fO~ t~ pr,opose~nsta at'on of a (part'a) bathroom The Bu' d'ng Department In0t~ September' 2~, ~0P2 ~ot~ce? of D~sapw'OVat c ~sallowed ~e bathroom for the reason tt~at~ ri~garag~-ib!~l~li~r~ cohstitbtes a second dwelling; a use that is not permitted unde~ Sec~t~n ~100-3~. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of'Appeals held a public hearing on this application on January 16, 2003. at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all tes~meny,'doC~mehtafion, personal inspection oflthe property, and other evidence, the Zoniricj Board finds the following facts to be true a~nd relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF EEC[JESTED: A Variance is requested under Section 100- 31A fdr installation of a bathroom facility, confining~ a toilet and a sink, in a new accessory garage ~building. This garage/barn is Under construction and referred to in a recent Buitdin~ Permit. (#28632-z), and for which 'an amendment is being requested by the Building Department. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presenteC,, materials submitted and ~ersonal insoections, the Board m~kes the following findings: 1. Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant's builder-agent confirmed that the owner is in need of a storage building with a lavatory ~nd sink, and with climate-controlled Page 2- January 23, 2003 ¢ Appl. No. 5223 - Joseph J. Snellenburg 1000-87-2-2t at Southold cooling-heating, in order to propedy store the files, books and other library material. There is no undesirable change because the use of the building shall be as an accessory .use and ~s not proposed as a dwelhng or sleeping unit. 2. The be~3efit sough~by the applicant cannot be achievedbys~)me method feasible for the apphcan~ to pursue, other titan an area ~adanc~.' Th~ ap~hcant ,s a ret,red Fam,ly Court Judge ;aq~l~ a.tto[neY-at-law ~31anning to properly, store I~is files and law books~;in a build ng'idbt~cl~e~d ~i:om ~the homb. The accessory building is located with setbacks 'greater t~h.a.n .30. f~et from al property nes n~the code requ r~d rear yard 3. The r. equested variance is not substantial because the, requestis fora non-habitable, detached~ storage bu Id ng n the rear of h s dwe ing~ 4: ~cut " "e n e~s - Seca ': ld n s ad u er · The:~;o' i y ~has me' lf-crea[eo use the. o~' c0n,s, tru~qo an~ ~he bu ld~ng permit has been ~topped pending:thIs:appeal procedure. 5. No evidence has been'submitted to suggest that tbs minor variance will have an adverse impact on physical 9~ envirofimental conditions,in,the ~eighborhood ~.- 6 The act on set fo~h bel ~c~y~js tham n mum necessary a0~;the samet me preserves and~pmtect$ th~h~:ractgr,q~ the neighborhood ;an(j ,thebe~.~h~safetyand welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION OF THE BOARD: In considering allot the above factors, and applying the ~3alancing test under New York Town Law motion was offered by Member Goehr nger, seconded by Member Or ando, and du y carded, to G~ANT the variance, asLapplied for. and shown on the plans prepared bv Environmental~ East dated September 18. 2002. and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1 .. The. new struc[ure sha.be used for storage acce,ssory purposes on y 2.~ '~he.. r~ew;stru~iq~e isfor non-habitable use only. 3.,~-Any= utilities asso, ciatedl,~' wth th s structure are for the purpose of preserv ng files stored in th s structure, and not for any other purpose This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property tha: violates the Zoning Code. other than such u§es. P~age 3 - Janua~J 23, 2003 Appl. No. 5223 - Joseph J. Snellenburg ~ 000-87-2-21 at Southold setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed.in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Merdbers Tortora (Cha ~/oman) Goehringer, O iva and Orlando. (Member Horning of F~shers s and was absent.) Th~s Resout~on was duly adopted, (4-0):