The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-07/10/2003 SPEC APPEALS BOARD MEMBER Southold Town Hall ¢~-., Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road ~ Gerard P. Goehnnger P.O. Box 1179 Ceo rge Homing ~ -,,,,~, ~t'~ Sou thold. New Yo rkl1971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 V'mcent Orlando ~ Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown, nor~hfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD R~CEI~D SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 10, 2003 A Special Meeting of the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS was held at the Southold Town Hal, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, at 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 10, 2003. Present were: Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer, Member (until 6:55 p.m.) Ruth D. Oliva, Member Vincent OrlanOo, Member Paula Quintied, Clerk Absent was: George Horning, Member 6:00 p.m. Mrs. Tortora called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM I: SEQRA: The Board proceeded with the agenda items, as follows: STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT: None declared at this time: pending inspections and reviews regarding new applications. AGENDA ITEM h DELIBERATION/DECISION MATTERS: The Board deliberated on the following applications. The originals of each of the following determinations were filed with the Town Clerk's Office, and cop~es are attached to this set of Minutes: Approved as applied for: Appl. No. 5337 - Leonard and Helen Costa Appl. No. 5316 - Robert Reilly Appl. No. 5335 - Bluepoints Co., Inc, Appl. No. 5327 - Donna and Leonard Schlegel Appl. No. 5339 - David Page and Shinn Vineyard Appl. No. 5330 - Edgewater II, LLC Appl. No. 5343 - Ernest Schneider Appl. No. 5341 - Peter Boger Appl. No. 5338 - Robert Samolewski ~ ' ~ge, 2 - Minutes J~y 10, 2003 -Special Med~g SOuthold Town Board of App~ea[s Denied/Alternate Relief Granted: Appl, No. 5282 - Kenneth Cerreta Appl, No. 5328 - John and Mar[ha Tuthill Appl, No. 5326 - Gary and Debora Stroud AppL No. 5336 - John and Patricia Clark Denied without preiudice: Appl. No, 5369 (A & B) - Tad¢ Mahmod Baig and Riffat Minhas Member .Goehringer left at 6:55 p.m. AGENDA ITEM Ill: PUBLIC HEARINGS: The Chairwoman opened each of the following hearings to the audience for discussion. For full details on discussions, please see written Transcript, prepared separately and filed with the Town Clerk for reference. 7:09 p.m. Appl. No. 5381 - MICHAEL PISACANO. Location of Property: 1457 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-113-07-19.11. This is an Appeal requesting a Reversal of the Building Inspector's amended November 8, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, based on Section 100-24(A) for construction of a single family dwelling. The basis of the Notice of Disapproval is that this 73,616 sq. ft. area is not permitted in the R-80 District because it is not a recognized lot by any of the following four code standards: 1) The identical lot shall be created by deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's office on or before 6-30-83, and the lot conformed to the minimum lot requirements set forth in Bulk Schedule; or 2) Lot was approved by the Southold Town Planning Board, or 3) Lot is shown on a subdivision map approved by the Southold Town Board prior to 6-30-83, or 4) Lot is approved/recognized by formal action of the Board of Appeals prior to 6~30-83. Patricia C. Moore, Esq. appeared on behalf of the applicant, Michael Pisacano, who was also present and gave testimony. Appearing in opposition were neighbors, Mr. Wells and Mrs. Hillaker A motion was offered by Chairwoman Tortora, seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carried to close the hearing. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0), (Member Goehringer was absent). A short recess was taken from 8:10 to 8:25 p.m. 8:25 p.m. Motion was offered by Chairwoman, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried to reconvene. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0), (Member Goehringer was absent). Page 3 - Minutes 3u~y 10. 2003 - Soecial Me,ting So~tho[d Town Board of Appeals Public hearings continued: 8:25 p,m. Appl. No. 5323 - VIRGINIA and CHRISTOPHER COYNE (continued from 6/19103) Request for Variances under Sections 100-31A and 100-33, based on the Building Department's February 11, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, for approval of: (a) living space n a non-habitable accessory building, with a proposed addition; (b) proposed additions/alterations to a non-habitable accessory building, and (c) "as built" accessory shed located ~n an area other than the code required rear yard. Location of Property: 8310 Soundview Avenue, Seuthold; CTM 59-7-29.6. Patdcia C. Moore, Esq~ appeared on beh~f of the applicant. Hearing no opposition, the Chairwoman made a motion conduding~ the hearing, seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carded. Thfs Resolution was dul~f adopted (3-0), Member Goehdnger was absent End of public hearings. AGENDA Iii: RESOLUTIONS/UPDATES/OTHER: 1. Chairwoman Tortora offered a motion to approve Minutes for May 1, 2003 Special Meeting for filing, seconded by Member Oliva and duly carried. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0), (Member Goehringer was absent). AGENDA IV: EXECUTIVE SESSION (none held). There being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time, the Chairwoman declared the Meeting adjourned The Meeting was adjourned at 9:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, . Paula Quintieri 8 - 7 - 03 (Please also see 14 Dec±s±or~s Fi;led Previously with Towr 61erk) Approved ),,PPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ Southold T6wn Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Ma{n Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Horning Southold. New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent 'Orlando Telephone rE31) 765-1809 http://sout]bordtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION o2¢,2.0 Property L. qcati~)n: 470, (new #5d 0) LocusLkarfe. Sauibbld; ~' So CTI~162-3-30.1 (29 and 30 combined as one). ~, ' ' SEQRA DETEBMINATION:-The. Zoning Board of Appeals haS.visited the property under ~cons,idezatjen in ,this?appli'_cation aod determines that this review falls under the Typ,e 11 ,category of the ,State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environmerff if the proj.ect is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRiPTION: The applicant's 15,033 sq. ft parce showd as~Ebt 53 and. 54 on, the Map of Founders Estates in Southold. The property is a comer lot with ,tW.0,fron, t yardsi 138.46, fe~et along Kern Road and ,102:40 feet along~oc, u~t kane,., ~The properb] is,improved' w ,th '¢ ,lrl/Zstqry'.frame dwel ipg ,presently,24 fe~t from th~ fren~10t ~line and'13 6, feet from ;the side proP~rty I ne, as shown On the FebrS~ry 5;, 2000 rev ;ed Fei;ruary 1~0 200~; by, J~seph A. ngegno LS.,' '~ ' ' ,BASIS, OF',,.APPLICATION: Bui!dir~g De9art~ent's Jaugary 24~; 2093 'Disapproval, citing se¢on .100-244B, in its deni~[ of a building pe~it tO icp.,~sstrucf¢,~n additions and aiterations in a location at less than 35 feet from two front p?operty lines_ FINDINGS OF FACT , ~'~k'; * The Zoning Board of Appeals held a,public hearing, on this applicatio~ on June ,19, 2003, at Which time written ~nd oral evidence were p~esented,, based ,upon,all tcsti,rno~y, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and Other e~i~ence, the, Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA MARIANCE RELIEFREQUESTED: Applic, ant wishes,te const, ruct additions and alterations to the existing dwelling. An 26'4" two-~'iory addition is proposed at the north side of the house leaving a setback of 32 feet from the front tine facing Kern Road, and 28 feet from the front lot line facing Locust Lane, i~, Southold. Details of the construction are, show~ on :ithe plans ,prepared by. Penny Lu~ber dated 2/3/02 and 3/4103, and on appiicant s; han,?drawn sk. etch on a copy of a sun ey. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials SUbmitted and Personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: Page 2- July 10, 2003 ' z % AppL No, 5316 - Robert Reilly 62-3-30.1 at Southold t. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant's property is a small 15,033 sq. ft. lot on a corner with two street frontages. Other premises in the area are similar. The easterly front yard setback for the addition also is greater than the applicant's existing dwelling setback of 23 feet and greater than the adjacent dwelling which is closer than 23 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 applicant wishes to make a garage/master bedroom addition to this well-maintained home. The addition will span over both 53 and 54, lots shown on the Map of Founders Estates) having been merged by applicant as one lot and officially identifying the property as a single tax map lot (from CTM 29 and 30 to 30.1). 3; The variance is not substantial. The 26'4" x 50 ft. addition will have a front setback from Locust Lane of 28 feet per the sketched-in survey map and a front yard setback from Kern ROad of +,32 feet: The lot coverage of the property will be minimum at +-6 percent of the lot size. The variance is minimum because it Permits a 3 ft: reduction in the code required 35 ft. minimum from Kern Road. The front yard from Locust Lane will exceed the existing front yard setback of this house and the immediate adjacent hoUSe to the south. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant designed an addition which did not conform to the current Town Code requirements. 5. NO evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this small beach 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 garage/master bedroom addition, while presef'ving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering ail of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York ToWn Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried, to Page 3 -Jul) 10. 2003 ~'~% Appl. No. 5316 - Robert Reilly 62-3-30.1 at Sou[hold GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the plans prepared by Penny Lumber dated 2/3/02 and 3/4/03, and on applicant's hand-drawn sketch on a copy of a survey. 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 thaF such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora I{Chairwoman), Goehringer, Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent was Member Horning.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). Lydia Chairwoman - Approved for Filing 7/,~/¢'¢03 ' APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SouthOld l%wh I-Iall.' Lydia A. Tortora. Chairwoman 53095 Main Road ' ,~-~- Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold. Now York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765~9064 V'mcent OrLando Telephone (631) 765-t809 http://southoldtown.northfork.rtet BOARD OF APPEALS RECEIVED ¢' ~ TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ,,~: d.o t-ti4 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION ' MEETING 'OF JULY ~0, 2003 .d J,L 2 9 2003, '~ppL ~N;. ~¢336 - JOHN AND PATRICIA CLARK Property Location: 600 AIbo Drive, Mattituck; C'I'M #126-3-9· : ' as- v s ted the property under cons deration n th s under the Type II category of the State:s List of. Actions ~without ar~, adverse effect on the environmer project ~s ~mplemented as planned. ::PROPERTY FACTS/DESC'RIPT[ON: The applicant's 17,4.34.74 sq, fl. parcel has 126.08ft~. frontage along the * of Albo Drive in Mattituck. The a one-story frame house with sunroom and · fi: swimming pool, and 1.06 sqi ft. declL. An accessory shed on the survey prepared by 3es0ph A. ingpgno, L.S dated Io~. coverage of building areas is confirmed on the survey at aguary 9~ 20p3v amen~ded denial of a building permit to construct, ~ddltions and exc. e~d~ng the,'code limi~tlati0n..~ 20%:..of~ lot area2 FtNDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 19~ 2003, at which time wdtten ,and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evider~ce, the. Zoning Board finds the fo lo~ving facts to be true and relevant:.: ,AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wisheS to construct a full front porch as shown on the ~a!rfc,~h !,0, :2003-survfey revised by Joseph A, ln~egno, encoropassing the existing front entrance' and 13.5 ft. x 6 ft. open deck addition. Also proposed is a new wooden deck at the side of the dwelling, 20.6' x 14' 'n size (288~40 sq. ft.), after removal of the existing 14' x 14' wooden deck (196 sq. ft.) in the same side yard. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony~ presented, materials submitted ~and personal inspections· the Board makes the followi!~g findings: .,1 Grant, ,. of,the a terat ve re ef~,w., not produce, , an undes rab e, change n the character, of the. ne ghborhood or .a detnmen'c to nearby pr,opertes. The ot coverage of 22 5% w encompass the exst n~ front entry area ~roposed as a new porch plus, open 13.5' x 6' deck along the side of the porch and will encompass the area proposed for a new wood deck after removing the existing open deck at the side of the dwelling: The setback 9f thee r~ew side; yard deck!Is proposed at 13 feet from the s~de hne, m conformity w~th the code required side ~.~vard min mum, and the setback of th~frOnt porch w th open deck w be w th n the ex st ng footp~' nt A so the ~ew front deck will have a, greater,front setback (57.8 feet) than the ex st ng 53 5 ft front yard setback of the x~--~l~ouse. Page 2 - July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5336 -J. and P. Clark 126-3~9 at Mattituck 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 lot contains 17.434.74 sq. ft., and the maximum coverage of the lot for new building area would be limited to 3,487 sq. ft. The existing lot coverage is 3,850 which is greater than the code required 20%. 3. The alternative relief granted herein is substantial because the coverage of the lot by building area is limited under the Code at 3,487 sq. ft., and the variance results in a total building area of 22.5%, or 3,923 sq. ft. This percentage results in 436 sq ft. over the code's 20% allowed limitation. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the design of the deck and porch areas were planned without conformity to the Town Code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to show that the grant of the alternative relief will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of new construction for porch and deck areas, while preserving and protecting the character of 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 Goehdnger, and duly carried, to DENY the variance requested, and to GRANT Alternative Relief, as noted below and subject to the following CONDITIONS: 1) The new 21' x 8.4' front porch and proposed 13.5' x 6' deck extension shall not exceed the size shown on the December 3, 2003 survey prepared by Joseph A. ingegno, L.S., revised March 10, 2OO3; 2) The proposed 13.5 x 6' ex[ension is permitted for a new deck, open to the sky. 3) The lot coverage shall not exceed 22.5% of the lot for all building areas. 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, Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent was Member Horning.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). Lydia A..T/oC[ora, Chairwom~n -Approved for Filing 7/~.¢¢'/03 APPEA~S 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 (6311 765-9064 V'mcent Orlando Telephono (63~_) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.norttffork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING O'F jULY ~10, 2003 AppL No. ~339 ~,SHINN VINEYARD, INCJDAVID PAGE 1~00-190-4-3 ST,,RI~ET ~ L~TION: ,,200? .Oregon.Road, Mattituck FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIP~'RON: The apptican~s~pr0perty has 142.98 ff. frontage along the south side of Oregon Road in Maftitu¢l~,/and is Sh~ as 1.319 acres, or 53,078 sq. ft. on the survey prepared by John C Ehlers, L.S. dated 6-16-03. The property is ~mproved with a dwelling and farm buildings, and to the west and south are other lands of the applicants consisting of 20+ acres within a Town of Southotd Development Right E~sement area. OF APPLICATION: Building Inspector's ~ebruary 28 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended March 5, 2003, for the reason that apphcants w~sh to demolish an existing BASIS nonconforming accessory 18' x ..31 buiJding.and construct a new accessory 24' x 36' equipment storage budd ng ,w~th a 12 ft. s~Cfe yard ,setback mste~ad of the mm~mum 20 feet required under Code Section 100-31A(2-(~}. AREA VARIANC15 ~RELIEF REQ~IESTED: Applicants ~Nere disapproved in their permit application to ~he Building Department for,a ,oew 24' x 36' accessory building in the rear yard, south of the two- story frame dwel lng and with a ~tback of 12 feet from the easterly side Iot line. The new building is. an acc~. ssory ~truct,ure f0r storage of applicants' equipment and items related to the dwelling and agricultural uses of ~he property, and will be plac~d in the same yard area as an existing nonconforming building located 0.7 feet from the side line. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: Based on the testimony and record before the Board and personal inspectio~ the Board makes the following findings: (1) The grant of an area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighbori~ood or a detriment to nearby propert es. The proposed new construct on' measures 24 feet by 36 feet and is a result of a demolition of the existing accessory building, presently 0.7 feet from this easterly side property line. The new construction will be an increase of the 0.7 ft. setback to 12fe~ to the side line. The property adjacent to this property is a cultivated farm field. (2) The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. This is reconstruction of an existing nonconforming agricultural building which will result in an increase of conformity. Also, access to the building will be from the south end of the building, in order to avoid removal of vines and nearby landscaped areas. (3) The requested area vadance is substantial and represents an eight-foot reduction in the minimum 20 ff, code req uirement. I ~'~e 2 - July 10, 2003 ZBA Appl. No. 5339 - Shinn Vineyard/D. Page Parcel 100-4-3 at Mattituck (4) The difficulty was self-created when the app cant chose to build a new building with access on the south side of the building. (5) No evidence was presented to suggest that the variance granted will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions. Another accessory building eXists further south with setbacks at 10 feet and 13 feet from the easterly side lot line. (6) The action set forth below is the minimum necessary and adequate to enable applicants to remove the existing nonconforming bUilding and build a new accessory building, While preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Goehdnger, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the variance as applied for. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Oliva, and Qrlando. (Absent was Member Horning of Fishers Island.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). Approved for Filing 7- ~03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~~% : '~ S6utho[dT6wn 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 htrp ://so~tholdtgw~_ ~ nor thfork.net RECEIVEI~/~_._~ BOARD OF APPEALS 02: TOWN OF SOUTHOLD DELIB~,,~.P~;IONS~AND DETERMINATION~,,,,.~.y,~ .,,~ FINDINGS, MEET,NG OF JUt-Y?,0 2003 Appt. No. 5343 - IERNEST SCHNE]DBR,, % '", , ~., , ,, Property:.Locebon ~015andg~5,Lake:sld~13n~e,$~suthold ,CTM~g0-4~artdgg~ SEQRA DETER[dLNc~T.ION: Tho Zo, Cdg BCa'r,. of Ao~;:~ls. ~as ¢is~:t~tge p[¢lS~rty t~nder ,~consderation n t s a ....lo~ a~d , r .r ..-, t , . .-, e ~Ta s u'nd~i*~h~ .~ ~YP category cf the Sta:... s L~st oi: A,.uons ,atnout an :a..verso ,efie,.~.on~.the eo~nment 'the pr0jecl[ is implcmontod as p'.ancott; ,.,:. i :,*. ~ ~ ' ~IPBOPF-R, TY FACTS/DESCRIRTtON: The appliCaht's:prop,ertJes cqnsist:b[ t~o lots: (a) 000~0-4~5.("¢'~M,5'~. of 3,5,933.*.Sd~4~q 'ft. and'59[fe~t~ a 0~'§;Izake~ Be Ddgi~; ;:(b) ~1000- 90-4,6. ~ C, TM~,of?57613:447. .~_ . sq., E~; and +~109 ~et aong l!akeslde Drve CTM 6 s fni]~roved with.a sif~gle-famiiy dwellfng~ ~ . ~;:~ BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's March 11, 2003 Notice of ,D'~approval, ciOOg,.Sectieo 100-30A3,' 'm'ts'den'a"of the ot'~'zeS 'n'th's ot-ine change proposed by applicant. The Bui ding: Departmem' states that the o(s'dO not meet the requirements of:[he code for a minimum of 40,000 ~q. ft. and mf~irrlum lot width of 150 ft. Th~:propertyio IO~ed;~:[he R240'Residential Zoq~e'District ' ,;;.i,.;, :,~ FINDINGS OF FACT The Zon ng Board of Appea s. he d a Dub e hear n~bn:tb s,app catiorl on June 19, 2003 at whch tme. wrtten, andora evide~lce were.,pr~eSente~d Based;upon a testmony documentation persor~al inspection of the propel/y, and other ewdence the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: /Applicant reqiJests area .variances for a change n the ot" w dth of 9 20: ;fee! rest} (kg. n an ncrease: of the ex sting nonconforming w~dth of (CTM 5 from 9'0.02 feet to 99.22 feet. and decrease of the e.~isting 0onconform ng lot w dth.of 49;00-'¢0-4.:§ ( (;T~ ,6'_) ~from 100.79'fest,to 91.50 feet along Lakeside Dfv,e CTM 6 's:;~re~enty;87 61~k3'.447 ~'q .'ft, and 'w' be reduced to conform to the cod,es 40,000 sq. ft ~inimum requirement with 43 956.378 s_q,. ft. CTM 5 is,~preserltly 35,933~804 S¢l., ft. and,;,.~iiI be.increased to conform to the code s minimum 4¢,0(}0 Sq'. ,fL[eqbirdmefi~ ~with 43.1~,,sq; .f(... -,1~ ~ - - REASONS FOR BOARD ACTIQN: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and persona[ inspections, the Board makes the following findings: Page 2 - July ! 0, 2003 ? Appl. No. 5343 - Ernest Schneider 90-4-5, 6 at Southold 1. Grant of the re ef requested wi not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicant proposes that the lot area for the existing house, lot #1 (CTM 6), be reduced from 57,613 sq. ft. to 43,956 sq. ft., and that the vacant lot #2 (CTM 5), of 35,933 sq. ft. be increased to 49,590 sq. ft., or 1.138 acres. The purpose of the lot line change is to provide a greater upland area to CTM 5, which contains wetlands and a limited building envelope for new construction. The lot area for both lots will meet the code required minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. in this R- 40 Low Density Residential Zone District. The relief granted herein is for the width, or road frontage, of each lot along Lakeview Drive, and would eliminate the nonconforming lot area of CTM 5, and allow for two conforming lots with a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. 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 purpose of the lot line change is to bring the tots into conformity with the code's minimum 40,000 sq. ft. requirement, and without a variance for lot width, CTM 5 would be substandard in size in this R-40 Zone District. 3. The difficulty is self-created in that applicant desires to change the size of the lots with more conformities. 4. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed lot line change will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhoo& 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a lot line change, 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 Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT 'the Variance as applied for and shown on the survey dated May 7, 2001, revised January 31, 2003, prepared by Stanley J. Isaksen, Jr., 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, Page 3 - dul~, 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5343 - Ernest Schneider 90-4-5.6 at Southold setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. 'Cote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Cha?woman), Goehringer, Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent was Member Horning.) This Resol.~tion was duly adopted (4-0)1 Lydia A. T'~)~3r'~a, (~hairw~m&n -¢~'Approved for Filing 7/-~¢'/03 -- ;APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ' · Southold:~0wn Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095' Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D· OIiva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephon6 (631'} 765-1809 http://southoldtown.nortlagork.net BOARD OF APPEALS EEC~IVI~D TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS DELIBERATIONS ANDDETERMINATION JUL 2-9 2003 MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 AppL Nr~,5341 - PETER, BOGER ~ -- '.~ P[operty Lgcati0n: 717 Pdvate'Road~g,12, 8outhold; 'CTM:-B7-4~4. 8EQ'P, ADETERMINATION: The 7.on!n~ Board'of .,~pp~ealS :h~lsMgitett th;e prop6Yty bnder conside/'at on in this application arid determ nos that th s review fa Is under the ~yp¢ 11 9ateggry {5f¢,thle St:ate s List, of Acbon,,;~wlthout an adverse effect, on the environment thepr0j,ect3gJmpternented~a~pl~iri-ned~, L,; t, :~ . ? PROPERIY~ FA6TS/DESCRtFrI'ION: The applicant's parcel is located at the:eoi~theriy end of Windy Point Lane and contains a total area of. 13,:153 sq, ft. The property is improved ~ith a dwelling and shall frame shed as shown on the Apdl 8 2002 survey ,pre?~red,, by:-Jghn, T~'?le~tz~ger,~S: ':Also shown on the, survey Is a 10 ft. wide ri~ht-of- waY-ext~en,d.j,n~ th£0ggh the aplSlicant's, tot t0the adjacent property now O¢~foriTii~rly of Robert B. 'B0~er aria Susan L. Johnson, and wetlands adjacent to the Coref'lCreek shot:elf ne. ~',~OF~-~APPLICA'~ION,: .Building Department!s'February 11, 2003 Notice of Dis~p~p~0,.val~ ~tting Sect on 10!3-33C '(ref. 100~244B) tn ~ts 'denra of a permit to demolish a~ aXis:ting ac~ssory shed and to construct a new accessory shed building at le?s than 3~;,f~,. ~,,fr~n the front tot line: ~ ' FINDINGS OF FACT ' The4 Zoning Board of Appeals helda public hearing on this application on June 19, 2003, at whfch 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 demolish the existing 8-'1'~ x 6'6" shed. located 1 ·5 feet from the northeast prolberty line and build a new 8' x 12' ,sh¢~hree__ (3) feet from the no,beast property line and at least 10 ft. from the northwest prol2Efty, line. ;l'he height of the shed is proposed at +-12 feet from the peak of the roof. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials sud~i~t~ed;en~ persona inspections, the Board makes the following findings: · ~:~nt of the area vadance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the~neighb.grhood ora detriment to nearby properties. The property is a small waterfront area su~.Ot~nded by other properties of the same square footage. Page 2 -July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5341 -Peter Boger 87--4-4 at Southold 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 wishes to build a new shed to replace the old shed, which was even closer to the private right-of-way than proposed. The applicant has a small lot of 13,153 sq. ft., which includes the area ora 10 ft. right-of-way and saltwater marsh area to the south of the house. There is no other room in the front yard to place the new shed. 3. The requested area variance is not substantial In fact, the new 12' x 8' accessory shed is +-22 feet from the front yard line and about 10 feet from the right-of-way. 4. The difficulty was self-created at the time of purchase and when a new Shed was planned and designed by the applicant. 5. There is no evidence to suggest that the grant of the setback variance for a small storage shed will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 6. Grant of the variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new shed, 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 tinder New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on hand-drawn sketch on the map of John T. Metzger, L.S. and applicant's sketch with shed dimensions dated 3-24-03. This action' does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zonin§ Code. other than such uses. setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoma~), Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent were Member Goehdnger and Member Homing.) This Resolution w~s dulyadopted (3-0). Lydia A. 'Tg~ora, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS O ~ O Southold 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 htt p://southoldtowa.nor t hfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONSAND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 JUL 2 9; 2003 AppDNo. 5338- ROBERT SAMOLEWSKI Property Location:'-7,800 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue; CT:M 101-1-19.3. i, ~.~ B'gn~lerk":~ SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited th? p[o.,~ ~der consideration imthis application and d~termir~es that this revery fells ~category of the State's List of A~ons, without an ~d~rse effect the project is in~plemented as plant'ed ~ ';PROPERTY FACTStDESGRIPTION:,The applicant's '80,005.89 sq. ft. parcel is a corner lot with frontage of 141.14'ft. ~lbrr, g Alvahs Lane and, 411.61 feet along Middte~Rdad. This lot is vacant land and is shown as Lot 3 on the Minor Subdivision Map of, Stantey SimchiCk: '- · ASIS OF APPLICA~ION.~ .B~ill:lng Department's~ March 14, 2003.Noficei of Disapproval, citng Section 100-33, in its denial of a building permit to construct an acoesse~ garage m an area oth'er {ban the code reqmr, ed rear yard. FINDINGS OF FACT ' The Zoning Board of Appeals held. a public hearing on this application on June 19, 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 construct a 24' x 26' accessory garage n a front yard area 90 feet from the property line along Middle Road and 115 feet from the property line along Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue. 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 alterative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is on the corner of County Route 48 a~d-Alvahs Lane. The properties along Alvahs Lane are residential, and the properties to the east are vacant. To the south is a major highway intersection 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 lot contains two front yards Page 2 - July 10, 2003 ~ AppL No. 5338 - Robert Samolewski 101-1-19.3 at Cutchogue and the proposed garage will be partially located in a froot and side yard location. Also, the septic tank and cesspool system are proposed in a location south of the house. 3. The relief requested is not substantial. The applicant is placing the garage as far from the highway and street as possible for noise reduction. The setbacks far exceed the principal setbacks from both Alvahs Lane and C.R. 48. 4. The difficulty is self-created. The applicants became aware of the requirements of the Code when the property was purchased and a house was designed with a garage location which will not conform to the current Town Code yard requirements. 5. There is no evidence that the grant of the vadance will have a~ adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 6. Grant of the relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an accessory 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 Member Oliva, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora. and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. dated December 12, 2002, revised February 3, 2003 and rendition for an accessory two-car garage building. 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), Orlando and Oliva. (Absent were Members Goehdnger and Horning.) This Resolution. ~,as ¢~y,~:~. Lydia A. T~-o?a, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing 7/~,¢'/03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS - ~6mhold ~6Wn Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road r~-~., Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 George Homing ZBA Fax (631'~ 765-9064 ..... Ruth D. Oliva Telepl~one (631) 765-1809 Vincent Orlando http:l tsoutllold~/'l~gg.r t.~f_orLnet BOARD OF APPEALS c~Y;olo ~t TOWN OF ~SOUTHOLD 2003 ~: MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 $oathold ~ownr Cler~ i:l~" 'Appl. No. 5328 -JOHNAND MARTHA TUTHILL ' ~ ': Property Location: 1060 Navy Street (alk/a Orient St.), Orient~! CTM #1000~25'~4f3i SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has vi?ted the propert7 under consideration in. this application and determinbs that this renew fails t~hdef the:IYPe !1 category of {he ;State'~ List-or,Actions, with0t~t an' 'adveese effect 0n' th~ the project' is implemented as planiied. · ' PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's t 3,164 sq. ft. parce! is ~mp[oved with a 1-1/2 stor~ frame dwelling with garage. The dwelifig is shown at 39:5 fee~ at i:s closest point to the front properly line (exclusive of:stoop), and 16.8~fee~ f¢om thee northerly side property line, as shown-on the June 22, 1991 survey prepare, d by Stanley J. Isaksen, Jr., L.S. '~"'~ 'B,ASIS OF APPLIC,~TION: Building Department's February 5; 20:03 Notice "'~ Dsapproval, citing Sect6n 100-244B, in ts denial of a building permit to construct[a debk addition at,less.than 35 feet from the front properly ine ': ~' ' FINDINGS OF FACT The Zon n Board of A~peals held a publ c hear ng on this appllcat on on June 19, 2003 g . . , O!I at Which t me written and oral ev dence were presented. Based upon all,test~m py, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other 'evidence, the Zonihg Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: ~ AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants applied for a 12'x 30' front porrch addition to the existing dwelling, which would leave a +-27 ft. front yard setback (after removal of the existing front stoop). REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony preseated, materials submitted and personal inspections; the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the alterative retief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. During the June 19, 2003 public h~aring, the board noted that the proposed front yard setback would be forward of the 31 ft.. average setback of other dwellings on the same side of the street: Applicant indicated that several houses in the area have porches. Although the applicant agreed to reduce the proposed front porch to 10' x 30' with a 29 ft. front yard, the board believes 'Page 2 - July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5328 - J. and M. Tuthill 25-4-3 at Orient the applicants can enjoy the benefits of a smaller 8' x 30' porch, which would not be forward of the 31 ft. average setback of other dwellings. 2. The alternative relief set forth below will not have an adverse effect or impact on the character of the neighborhood or surrounding properties, and is in keeping with the front yard setbacks of nearby dwellings. 3. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for [he applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because applicants' dwelling has a front yard setback of 39.4 feet, and without a variance the porch could only be 4.4 feet forward of the house. 4. The difficulty is self-created in that the home was built in a location that did not provide for a front porch to conform to the Code's 35 ft. minimum setback requirement. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the alternative relief granted will have an adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. 6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a 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 alt of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Member Orlando. and duly carried, to DENY the variance requested, and to GRANT Alternative Relief for a new 8 ft. x 30 ft. front porch, 31.7 feet at its closest point to the front property 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 Iortora (Ghairwoman), Goehdnger, Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent was Member Homing.) This Resolution ~as duly .adopt~ Lydia A:/T//zCrtora,,C,hair~,oman -Approved for Filing APPI~AL~ OARD MEMBERS "71) ' Sorehead Town Hail Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard,p. Goehringer P.O. Box 11'/9 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Rt~th D- Oliva ZBA Fax ~ 631) 765-9064 Vincent OrLando Telephone (63I) 765-1809 ttttp://sotttho[4t own.~aor thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF $OUTHOLD RECEIVED P~e~ FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION ~, MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 4[IL ~ 9 2003 . AppL NO, 5330- EDGEWATERII. LLG '~ d¢~ '~ Property Location: 63735 C.R, 48, Greenport; CTM 40-1-20.2. $outhokj Town, ~[erl~ ,SEQRg&~ETEP~INATION~ ~.T, he Zonit~g Board of Appeals has ,visited ~the p~op~r~under .cons der~¢,.~on~.nths,,, ,. c, ) , t ~l, '. ,~ .. th s rewew fal[eunder the T' ' ypetl ca~ego., . ry of th,e~States .Dst qf ~-.(:,~ovs. '.,¢;ir'ost :.,' [:(!'.,ers,,; effect on the environment if. th~ .projeCt is ~l~3P, Ehr~:., FA~CTS/BE~SGBJ'pTION: The applicant's prope.rty is a vacant lot in Greenpgrt W~h' '1,28;, feet~0T[~fr;,°.ntage: on the North Road and 150 feet along the Long ,Isiand: $0unld' a:et deptl~; ~tt 97,7.~ feet (east line)and 919 feet (west line). The ~ppro×!mate ~}~;Jan.ce fr6~i t¢e prdI~erty line along the North Road o the opo fhe S~uml bluff [S 8~0 fee,(eaSt I~e) and 725 feet {west line). ' BASIS .,OF APPLIC//~TiOgl. Build!rig Department'~s March 11, 2003 Notice of Disappt~oy}a!, cA!rig Se~iio~.100-32, in its denial of a t~uilding permit to construct a new ~ dweliB~ ~iih a/hird stpr~, [15stead of the cede limitatiqn of 2-1/2,stories and/or exceeding Building Permit #27980~Z was voided by thk Building '~ep~~' ~,ba~ea ~;n a ..vant dwe ~ ngldes gn and construct on deta Is ) FINDINGS OF FACT The Z~ning Board of Appeals held a public hearin§ oh this application on June 19, 2003, at wh~c~ time Written. and. oral evidence, were presented. Based up n all testimony, docu~tatbt~ p~rs6nal jnspecti°n'of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Bb~a/'d finds th¥~ f~liowing fac{s to b4 true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE BELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant has. revised the construction desigrFof the;propOsed single-family ~weliing as shown on the 'Job No. 209902' Plan, Sheets A2-1 and A2-2, prepared by Ira Haspel, Architect, P.C. The third level design was revised, by applicant;~o 1138 s~. ft. for the third-floor bedroom suite, instead of the prevous req0~st of ~i90 s;~ ft REASONS FOR .BOARD ACTION: On the basis oI testimony presented, materials ,submitted, an~l,personakinspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant,pr ~e area' variance w~ll not produce an undesirable change m the character of the n~lghbgthood el a detriment to nearby properties. The architectural plans show a thir0-fto~o~'dad*0bm Suite of 1,138 sq ft The ground foot footpr nts 3,458 sq. fi, and the secondrfloor covers 2,041 sq. ft. The presence of a third floor does not affect the Page 2 - July 10. 2003 J' AppL No, 5330 - Edgewater Il, LLC 40-1-20.2 at Greenpor[ compliance of the roofline with the 35-ft. limit. Applicants state that the third floor was designed to comply with the Code definition of a half story, bu! presented no measurements to support the half story. The Board will treat the matter of the third story as a request for a variance, 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 house has an rrregular roofline made up of various sloping elements with numerous angles. As read from the plans, the maximum roofline is about 38 feet, while the median height of the structure is 35 feet, within the 35-ft. limit of the Code. The square footage of the third floor bedroom is less than 35 percent of the ground floor footprint, and the presence of the third floor does not affect the compliance of the roofline with the 35-ft. limit. 3. The requested area variance is substantial since 35 percent of the house is based on a vadance to complete the third floor. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant designed the house with a third I'loor which did not conform to Code requirements 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 proposed house is set back approximately 520 feet from County Route 48 ant has all required side yard setbacks. Based on the foregoing factors, the Board concludes that granting of the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 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 Orlando, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the revised plans ('Job No. 209902' Plan, Sheets A2-1 and A2-2) prepared by Ira Haspel, Architect, P.C. 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 Tot[ora (Chairwoman), Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent were Member Goehringer and Member Homing.) This Resolgtion~wa,,~d~3~0).. 7/,¢¢/03 _/~PPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chainvoman 53095,Mfiin Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Oxlando Telephone (63~) 765-1809 http:I/soulholdtowa.northfork.net BOAm or A PEA S Town OF SO J OLDtm FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION JUL 2 9 2003 MEETING Of JUlY 10, 2003 Property Location: 1480 Westphalia Road, Mattituck: CTM #114-7-13.1. SEQRA DETERMINATION Th~ Zon'ing Board~o[App~ s has vis ted the property ~ndar cons deration m th~s apo cat on and determines ti~at th s rewew fa ls under the Type ca.te~ory o th~ Stat,es ,Lis~ of Actmns, w~tho~j;~tan adverse effect on the environment ~f th~ project is implemented a~ pt~nned. ~ ' PROPEI~TY. FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants',.residence is located on. a two-acre pai-cel; adjacent to this property. This tot is approximately one acre in size and is vacant W~[h 270 ff. frbntage a ong Westphalia Road in Mattituck. BASI~'~OFr'.~PpLICATIoN: Building Department's January 27, 2003 Notice of Disappr, oval; ~rting Section 100-2,31, inr, its denial of a building permit to construct a fence exb~:~ding tfi~ Code limitation of four f~et when located in th~ front yard. FINDINGS OF FACT Th~ .Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this application on June 19, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentatiop, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds 'the fbllowing facts to be true and relevant! AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants wish to construct a six ft. high gate, 14 feet in length, with four stone pillars, two at a height of 6.5 feet and two at a height of 4.5 feet in the front yard area (see applicant's sketched location on a survey prepared in 1976 by Otto W. VanTuyl & Son, amended November 9, 1992. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the followin~ findings: 1~; Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed front yard fence will be constructed to replicate a white picket style fence, which g~ves a translucent appearance, unlike a solid style fence. Eighty (80%) percent of the fence is at the code required four feet in height. Two stone piers support the gate and measure 6.5 feet in height, and the other two piers, ocated along the front property line, measure 4.5 feet in height~ The taliest part of the wrought iron gate is about six feet in height and swales doyen to about five ft. height. Page 2 - July 10, 2003' Appl. No. 5327 - D. Schlegel 114-7-13.1 at Mattituck 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. To achieve the impact of a beautiful fence as designed in this application, a small vadance is required. 3. The requested area variance is minimal since only a small portion of the entire fence and piers exceed the code height limitation of four feet, resulting in a length of +-14 feet. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant designed the fence with piers exceeding the code height limitation Of four feet. 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. 6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the aPplicant to enjoy the benefit of a specially designed fence with pillars, 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 GOehdnger, and duly carded, to GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on applicant'S hand-drawn sketch. 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, Orlando, and Oliva. (AbSent was Member Homing:! This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). LYdia A..'T,,C~"ora, Chairwoman - Approved o[ i ing 7/~'/03~' APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ 'Southold ToWn Hall 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora, Cham,voman P.O. Box 1179 (~ Gemrd.P. Goehringer Southold, New York 11971-0959 George Homing ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Ruth D. Oliva Telephone (63I) 765-1809 V'mcent Orlando ht~://southoldtownmorthfork-net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF sOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION Ap~)l: NO. 5369 - TAR1Q MAHMOD BA~lG~,arfd RI.~FAT,M~NHAS. '.~, Proib~rty LocatiOn: 6'125 County Rd. 48, Mattituck;,GTM,#1000-139~3~49- E ERMINAT ON' The Zon ng Board of Appears has visited the property ~nde SEQRAD T . '. ' - . - ,' ': ':" * ' "' '~r consideration i,n this apph~on an~ ~ ,~r~.,~es that t. he.¢[¢.~a yarr,a'n~,r~e~.~ t~?TWe il ca:~r~ of th~' State~, L~t ;of Actions; without an adv:.erse:.~e~ect"on, me environment if the project ~s Implemente~d as planned. ' : ' ..... % ' '~ t's ro err is vacant;" o'cated, n the PROPERTY FACTSIDESCRIPTI~':.¢T~e., applkca?: p p Y .... R~40 Lo_w;,~D~,sity ResideAti,a!.Zpn~l~la0c[ Contains a?~area O.rf ~,,9~2~,..S..~' 100 23 fe~t alon tile north ~i'de o~id~ie'~oad,(a/Ida COtJn~ Road 48)? :~atti~ucK- ~ BASIS OF APPblCATION: citing ' dwelling ~1 stated yard for a new dwelling; is FINDINGS CE FACT The Zon ng Board of Appeals held a public heafi~g on this application o~ June 19, 2003, atwhich time written and oral eviderice W8re',presented. Based ~upon all testimony, documentat(on, -gersonal inspection 6f the p¢operty, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: REQUEST OF THE APPLICANTS: Applicants wish to construct a new three-bedroom, two-stoW residence with a three-bedroom accessory apartment on the second floor, and have applied for: (a) Special Exception under Section 100-31B fdr use.with a second dwe I"ing oc,cupancy, or two-family dwel lng, on.a vacant lot, and' .,~b) Area Variances under the Sb(~tion 1'00-244, Bulk §chedu e for the new dwel lng Ioca/Qon Wth a front yard setback of less than 35 feet, a rear yard setback at less than 3,5 feet, and a second dwelling unit, on a' lot with less than 80,000 square feet in this R240 R~sidential Zone District- ,* ~'~;' ": Page2 -July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5369 - T. Baig and M. Rittat 139-3-49 at Mattituck On the April 29, 2003 survey prepared by Stanley J. Isaksen, Jr., LS. submitted May 8, 2003, the applicants show a proposed two-story building with the following dimensions: 70.7 feet wide by 38.4 feet deep on the west side and 18 feet deep on the east side. The setbacks are proposed at 10 feet on the west side and 15 feet on the east side, and 30 feet on both the front and rear setbacks, at its closest points. Both dwelling units are proposed within this building area. CODE PROVISIONS: The following provisions of the Southold Town Zoning Code are noted which apply to this R..40 Residential Zone District: § 100-30A.1. Purpose. The purpose of the Low-Density Residential R-40 District is to provide areas for residential development where existing neighborhood characteristics, water supply and environmental conditions permit full development densities of approximately one (1) dwelling per acre and where open space and agricultural preservation are not predominate objectives. ~i 100-30A.2. Use re.qulations. In an R-40 District. no buildin~ or premises shall be used and no buildino or Dart of a buildino shall be erected or altered which is arranoed. intended or desioeed to be used. in whole or in part, for any uses except the following: A. Permitted uses: (1) Same as § 100-31A of the Agricultural-Conservation District, except that wineries are excluded. [Amended 11-29-1994 by L.L No. 26-1994] § 100-30A.3. Bulk. area and parking regulations, No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the Low-Density Residential R-40 District unless the same conforms to the requirements of the Bulk Schedule and of the Parking Schedule. EN with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein in full, § 100-31. Use regulations. In A-C, R~80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Disthcts, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or ~n part, for any uses except the following: A. Permitted uses. (:1) One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot, B. Usespe~itted by special exception of the Board of Appeals. The following uses are permitted as a si:'~¢~l~xception by the Board of Appeals, as hereinafter provded, and · subject to site plan appro-~a]by~',h~.Planning Board: (1) Same as § 100-3lB of the Agricul[ural-Conserv,a?-(~_~.ct,__except that a children's recreation camp, farm labor camp and veterinarian s office and permitted and bed-and-breakfast uses do not require site plan approval. Page 3 - July 10, 2003 App[. No. 5369 -T. Baig and M. Ri[tat 139-3-49 at Mattituck 100-31B. Uses permitted by special exception by the Board of Appeals. The following uses are permitted as special exception by the Board of Appeals. as hereinafter provided, and, except fbr, two-~amlly dwellings and' the uses set forth in Subsection B(14) hereof; are subject to site plan approval by the Planning Board: (~[) Two-famUy dwelli~,gs not to exceed one (~) s h~;w . uc elling on each lot, 'or,' '~ (~3) O~ (1);apcess?ry, apart~en~ re'an existing: o~e-fam~ly dwelJ~lg~subject to the ~otlowJng requirements. . ........ (a)~ The ~accessory apartment shall be located in the principal building, (~)'-I'he;gWrrer of '[he~is,tigg:-dwelli~9' shall oc9, upy c~ne (1) of the dweiting units as the ~.owee~"s prin¢ipa rf~s d~nce: ~ The;, ~her: dwe fig ,un~t~ sha I. be leased for year-roudd ::o,ccupancy; ~aqde,,nced:~y a ~dE~e~, lease fo~- a term,of o~e (1) or more years, ,~(c) The.ex s( 0g ~n~-famil¥ dwe [ng shai contain ~ot es~ than one thousand S, ix hundred (1,600) square feet of,hvable floor area. ' ' (d) The accessory apartmen~ shall c°r/tain not less than four hundred fifty (450) square feet bi livable floor are~ (e)" .~e accessory~ ~j~aitrn~!, shall r)ot e~cee~~ ~or~ p~rcent (40 ~) of the hvable floor ~f~'r A ~i~im? of three~I~) ~'~e~ p,~kihg sp~ces~hall,be'provJde& .: .(g) Notmorethan, o~(~l)ac~s~Fpartme~ti~bal bf~.permittedonalot. ~ 0~) Yhe accesso~al~a~mer~a~l~6~ ~ [~lu~re~n{s~ofa dwelhng unit as defined n §,100~-~13 h~reof[ (~'~ Th,~ oxterin¢ eq.'.r'.~to thc acc?,,~s~,~., ap::r[m0n[ sbalr [¢)~the maximum extent possible, retain the o::!siimJ ~.:xt.";ri~,r 'q:.;;.i'.;J.,.r~;nc:;.ot '~'~ ~;%~-','~.mi?; ¢l../:~l.iq9. ~ (.,.1 die {,xi$,illg Io,i;,¢,a.i~,n.. (:' ,'.ne~ :?asia,'..j Io :~(::;,~F:, P',~,~ ¢1) ~),' ibc d~',el;![~g unit,,~ as Lb..': ~);vv~.r's prinCpal~ residence, in uq;u a ,,,~,~ (;.,,re, ,~1 ::,1~ o:,(,Ul?;.[tlO I.),J;~.n:,~.:~o, .l'~.d';.'¢,.h;lL: r)r e;lo {J) year fi.om ,date of said (...,m ,,b....t ,,,3.. ,.,r..3.~,. I'. ,~, .< ,~,r. t.-,n..~ .......... /- ,- .......... L.~. Ne..-,993] (11~/VI c',,,,n,.er,'~iun,~ sh~,l! I:.~ SLI:.j~;c[ ;o ,J r~ irl~..'prs~;Ije'l ')i :1':~; 15:iild=n:'i h~spector and renewa ofithe {m) The.budding which ~s con{erred to permit an accessory apartment~sha~ll b,e m existence · ..~, . ,: .. . . ! , ~ and have a vahd ce'~flcate of occupancy ~ssued pr or to January ~, '1984; or proofl~of occupancy peer to that date. ~,cne~:do,.! u-2.:1- [L,~,:.) b., L.~. N:). (1!) I!;e, cx;$[~ri: [:;J!ld'R,: .. to,:~{.l~:.r ':/. h : ~ ~ '~,<,~ ~)r'.,' ~il)~.ll'C '~[. $ :.'.!Il COl~3|y, ~1~'ith 'al! other :nc J'mme'..J)fC ~p~erl ,. u :;e"r 'qC;~.~. mu I'o','~notSn;][~uld. ,'I ' (o) N~;L,~,hs,a.,'~mg lee :~re'.'~,~ x s o ~ 1 u-3 ~ ;roe ~ ~ s a ~ cn p~ov~l by the P arming (,~1 A,;pr:>,,,:~i by .l:'.:;~'.~[,'nlk'Cl~u~'.Li I')cr;~irlmec[ ,~," Het:lti~ Si.r',.icus ..'~1 In(': ','.'~r sL~pl~t~' ~nU se'~e ~,~[~.Nob:;:J-cnr!-;.eak[;s[~c u.s .-: h rzc v§ )C.- 1L~1,; ~a' of, shal bepermtted nor ['!l' .~,.¢. 1 is(.,,, ,o,~?;':'t cllt;~l~l. :.!el::i?,S~l/;'. ~."hner, ;s ;!Ll.,hor ~1;¢1 ~)r 3X~S~S. [Added 3-14-1989 by~.L. Page4 -July 10, 2003 ,? Appl. No. 5369 - T, BaJg and M. Rittat 139-3-49 at Mattituck 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 applicants' requested variances will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and detriment to nearby properties. The property is zoned R-40 Low-Density Residential. The lot is 8,982.43 square feet, which meets only 11% of the 80,000 sq. ft. requirement of the code for establishment of a two-family building in this R-40 Residential Zone. The setbacks are a reduction of 15% for a single- family dwelling from the code requirements pertaining to front and rear yards (35 ft. minimum). 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicants to pursue, other than area variances. This 8,982 sq. ft. lot is vacant, and a r~ew (single-family) dwelling can be designed with a s~ze to meet the code requirements for a new dwelling, without a vanance, as an alternative To the vanances requested. 3. The relief requested with regard to the front and rear setbacks is substantial because the code requires 35 feet as a minimum. Applicants are requesting an 11% reduction, or five ft. closer to the property lines than permitted by code. The relief requested with regard to lot size for a two-family use is very substantial because the requirement is 80,000 sq. ft., and applicants are requesting an 88.77% reduction. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicants designed a plan for a new dwelling and second dwelling unit, which do not conform to the current Town Code req uirements, 5, The relief requested will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property has frontage along the rum lane of County Highway Route 48. There is insufficient area on this very small lot to accommodate additional parking and vehicles for safe access and egress onto Highway Route 48. The variances requested will create a traffic hazard to both the property owner and tenants as well as the residents in the district. SPECIAL EXCEPTION CONSIDERATION: The Board has considered the Zoning Code standards under § 100-263 pertaining to the applicants' request for a special exception and finds that approval may not be granted for the following reasons, in addition to the reasons noted above: A. Substantial was presented to show that the proposed two-family use will prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use Page 5- July 1,0; 2003 Appl. N0. 5369 - T. Baig and M, Rittat 139~3-49 at Mattituck districts. The substandard size of the lot and its Iocation along the.turn lane of County Highway Route 4~8 does not provide sufficient area to safely accommodate additional ~arking and' vehicle ingress and egress require for a two,family dwelling. The 9reposed two-family use on this 8.982 sq. ft. lot will create an unsafe traffic hazard. B. Sub~t~antial evidence wa,s presented to show that the propOSed two-family u~e wB prevent the orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the dis~ct wh,erein the proposed use:is to be located or Of permitted or legally established ~Se~?iri ~djacent use dts~r 8tS:.,' ' - .... C Substa,~tiat e¥~de, r~ce, was, presented to*show that the safetY the hea th the we fare the, comfort, the convenience, et the order of the town wil be adverse y affected by the propose(] tWo~fam y,use and its ocat on,, The substandard s za of the Ot and ts ocat on along, ~,,he turn lane! of~ County- H!'ghway' Ro~ 4~ does not provide sufficient area to safel~,acc0mmodate additionat parking and~v~hjble ingress and egress require for a two- family,dwelling:.. The proposed ~wo-~,mfly 6se on this 8,982 S~l, ft. lot will create an unsafe traffic hazard. D, ~p' inf~ormation w.'.~s presented by applicants to show that the proposed two-family use ~l:b~iO_ harmony with and .promole,:t~e genera purposes and intent of this chapter. E. No inf. orq~a~on 9( e,cider~c~ wasp[e,sented by applicants to show that the proposed two-family use will be compa,tible wit~E !ts surroundings and with the character of the ~eigtiborheod and of the community i~enebal, Particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overal~ appearani;e, The neighborhood consists mainly of single-family dwelling uses. F. An accessory apartment may not be granted since it does not meet the requirements of Zoning Code sectibn 100-31B(13), Subsection 'm' requires: "The buildin(~ which is converted to perm/t, an accessory ap'artment shall be in existence and have a valid certificate of occupancy issued prior to January ~. 1984, or proof of occupancv prior to that date." The property is and has, been vacant, and therefore not eligible for an accessory apartmeat use under Section 100-31B. G. Without a variance, a two-family dwelling use may not be granted since it does not meet the requirements of the Zoning Code Bulk Area and Parking Schedule. The Bulk Schedule requires a minimum of 80,000 sq. ff. of land area. 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 Oliva. and duly carried, to Page 6 -July 10, 2003 *~ AppL No. 5369 - T. Baig and M. Rittat 139~3-49 at Matti[uck DENY the applicants' requests for Special Exception and vadance approvals, as applied for and shown on the November 14, 2002 survey, updated April 29, 2003, prepared by Stanley J. Isaksen, Jr., LS. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent were Members Goehringer and Horning.} This Resolution wasdul~ ~~ Lyoia A. T/Ctora, Chairwoman - ,~ppro o "g ~, / jr~/03 P ECEi% D AND FILED BiZ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS : rr~, . ~ ~ Soixth61d Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman - ;' 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York t1971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 V'mcent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-I809 http://southold~own.no~dffork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERA~ONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 . Appl. No. 5339- SHINNVINEYARD. INC./DAVID PAGE 1000-100-4~3 STREET & LOCATION: 2000 Oreg6n Read, Mattituck FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DEscRIPTION: The applicant, s property has 142.9~ ft: fEontage along the south side of Oregdn Road in Mattituck, and is shc~wn a~ 1.~.19 acres, ~or 531,078, sq. ft. on the : survey prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S. dated 6-16-03. The property is improved with a dwelling and farm buildings, and to the west and south are other lands of the applicants consisting of 20+ acres within a Town of Southold Development R~ht Easement area. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building InspectoCs February 28, 2003 Notice o~ Disapproval, amended March 5, 2003, for the reason that applicants wish to demolish an existing noncorrfgm~ing accesso~ 18' x 31' buiding and construct a new accesso~ 24' x 36' equipment stdrage building, ,wtb a 12 ft. s~de yard setback, instead of the m~mmu.m 20 feet required under Code Section 100-31A(2-c). ' AREA VARIANOI~ REbI~F REQUESTED: Applicants were disapproved in their permit application to the Building DCpartmeht for a new 24' x 36' accessory building in the rear yard, south of the two- story frame dwe ling, an~wthas~tbackof12feetfromtheeasterysde ct ne Thenewbu dng ~s an accessory structure for storage of appl cants equ pment and tems re ated to the dwe ng and agricultural uses ot~ th'e property, and will be placed in the same yard area as an existing nonconforming I~uilding, located 0 7 feet from the s de ne REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: Based on the testimony and record before the Board and personal nspectiian, the Board makes the following findings: (1) The grant of an area vadance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood er a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed new construction measures 24 feet by 36 feet and is a result of a demolition of the existing accessory building, presently 0.7 feet from this easterly side property line. The new construction will be an increase of the 0.7 ff. setback to 12 feet to the side line. The property adjacent to this property is a cultivated farm field. (2) The ben¢it sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. This is reconstruction of an existing nonconforming agricultural building which will result in an increase of conformity. Aisc, access to the building will' be from the south end of the building, in order to avoid removal of vines and nearby landscaped areas. (3) The requested area variance is substantial and represents an eight-foot reduction in the minimum 20 ft. code requirement. ~'~ge 2 - July 10, 2003 ZBA Appl. No, 5339 - Shinn Vineyard/D. Page Parcel 100-4-3 at Ma~tituck (4) The difficulty was self-created when the applicant chose to build a new building with access on the south side of the building. (5) No evidence was presented to suggest that the variance granted will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions. Another accessory building exists further south with setbacks at 10 feet and 13 feet from the easterly side lot line. (6) The action set forth below is the minimum necessary and adequate to enable applicants to remove the existing nonconforming building and build a new accessory building, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Goehringer, it was REsoLVED, to GRANT the variance as applied for. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Oilva, and Orlando. (Absent was Member Homing of Fishers Island.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0), Approved for Filing 7- -03 ' . ~;~S BOARD MEMB£RS SoUthold Town H~ll Lydia A. To.ora, Chai~oman 53095 Mah Road Gerard P. Goe~ger P.O. Box 1179 George Hom~g Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ru~ D. Oliva ZBA F~ (63!) 765-9064 ~n~nt Orlando Telephone (63I) 765,1809 http://southoldm~ao~ork.net BO~ O~ ~PE~S TO~ OF SOU~OLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 AppL No. 5316 - ROBERT REILLY Property Location: 470 (new'lO) Locust Lane, Southold; CTM 62-3,30.1 (29 and 30 combined as one). 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 i~mplemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 15,033 sq. ft. parcel, shown as Lot 53 and 54 on the Map of Founders Estates in Southold. The property is a corner lot with two front Yards, 138.46 feet along KOrn Road and 102.40 feet along Locust Lane. The property is imProved with a !-i/2 story frame dwelling presently 24 feet from the front lot line and 1~6 feet from the side property line, as shown on the February 5, 2000 survey, revised February 10, 2000, by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's January 24, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing Sectior~ 100-244B, in its denial of a building permit to construct an additions and alterations in a location at less than 35 feet from two front property lines. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 19, 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 additions and alterations to the existing dwelling. An 26'4" two-story addition is proposed at the north side of the house leaving a setback of 32 feet from the front line facing Korn Road, and 28 feet from the front lot line facing Locust Lane, in Southold. Details of the construction are shown onthe plans prepared by Penny Lumber dated 2/3/02 and 3/4/03, and on applicant's hand-drawn sketch on a copy of a survey. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspeCtions, the Board makes the following findings: Page 2 - July 10. 2003 Appl. No. 5316 - Robert Reilly 62-3-30.1 at Southold 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighbor.hood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant's prope~,f is a small 15,033 sq. ft..lot on a corner with two street frontages. Other premises in the area are similar. The eastedy front yard setback for the addition also is greater than the applicant's existing dwelling setback of 23 feet and greater than the adjacent dwelling which is closer than 23 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 applicant wishes to make a garage/master bedroom addition to this well-maintained home, The addition will span o~r both 53 and 54, lots shown on the Map of Founders Estares) having been merged by ..applicant as one lot and officially identifying the property as a single tax map lot (from C-TM 29 and 30 to 30.1). 34 The variance i~ not substantial. The 26'4" x 50 ff. addition will have a front setback from Locust La,.ne of 28 feet per the sketched-in survey map and a front yard setback from'Korn Road of +-32 feet. The lot coverage of the property will be minimum at +-6 pement of the lot size. The variance is minimum because it permits a 3 ft. reduction in the code required 35 ff~ minimum from Korn Road. The front yard from Locust Lane will ~ed the exfsti~g front yard setback of this house and the immediate adjacent house e south. 4, ~e difficulty was self-created when the applicant designed an addition which did not conform to'the current Town Code requirements. 5. Nc~ evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this small beach comm[~nity will have an adverse impact on the physical or enwronmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Gra~t or the alternative relief is the minimum-action necessary and adequate to enable, the' applicant to enjoy the benefit of a garage/master bedroom addition, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and weltare or the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing lest under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Olive seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried, to Page 3 - July 10; 2003 Appt. No. 5316 - Robert Reiliy 62-3-30.1 at Southold GRANT the vadance as applied for and shown on the plans prepared by Penny Lumber dated 2t3/02 and 3/4/03, and:on applicant's hand-drawn sketch on a copy ora survey. This actiondo~ not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject~ properbj ~atmay violate the Zoning Code. other than such uses, setbacks and other features asare expreSsly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board; Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehdnger, Orlando, and Qtiva. (AbSent was Member HOming.) This ResolUtionWas duly~ adopted_C4-0). Lyd.~~~" for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~BI . · ~%~~' ~'~' '" Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman 53095 Main l~oad Gerard P. Goehringer ~.r~l~ . P.O. Box 1179 ,~ George Homing ~'~.~,~ Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva 'sk'~//Ot'~ -,t,,t ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando 'q~l Telephone (6Jl) 765-1809 · ~ htrp://southoldtowmnorthfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 AI5¢. N~, 5336 - JOHN AND PATRICIA CLARK Property Location.' 800 Albo Drive, Mattituck; CTM #126~3-9. property under consideration in this under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, effect on project is implemented as planned. ~!'- PROPEI~T,Y .FACTS/DESCRiPT. ION: The applicant's 17 434.74 sq. ft. parce has 126 08 fi: frontage aong the I! ,west ~ide ,of~AIb0 Drive In Mattituck~ The property is improved with a one-story frame house with sunroom and ~t~,ched~ arage~o ling 3,006~q ff~ a~'648 ~ . ft swmm n oo and 196 s ft deck An accesso shed ~ , .~. ~ !fa ,.~ q . .gp q. . . ry t~tructur~'Overa=s the side re ert~ lin~aSsh.0wn,onthesurve ~e aredb Jose hA n ~ ' · p, -,. P~p,, ~, .:/~, .:n~,.~ ' yp p y p . gegno, L.~aa~ea ,. December 3, 2002, revised M~i~h 20, 2003. The et coverage of building areas is confirmed o~ the survey at :i, 3.850 sq., ft.-..or 22.08% of tneqo~ :are~:~ &'. ,. .i '"',BASIS OF APP. L ,.,AT ON B~[d~lg i~t'~a~ent's Not ce, of Disapproval dated January 9, 2003 amended 'January 21, 2003. c~t~ng Sect~or~ 1'OgS~4/~B, m ~ts demal of a budding permit to construct addtions and alferat~o~ t~5 ~ Cwelh,.q.g,wh,g.h r6s. ult ~d:,a lot coverage e×~eed~ng the code limitation of 20%~of the 10t area. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 19, 2003, at which time wdtten and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and et.her evidence~ the.Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and rele,ant: ~,,AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Appicant wshes to construct afu front porch as shown on the i iMarcb 10, 200g, survey revi,~d bY'Joseph A. Ih~egno encompassing the existing front entrance and 13.5 ft. x t 6 ft. open deck addition. Also proposed s a new wooden deck at the s de of the dwe lng, 20.6 x 14 in size (288.40 sq. ft.), after removal~of the existing 14' x 14' wooden deck (196 sq ft.) in the same side yard. ~ REASONS FOR BOARD ACTIQIq On the bas s of test mony presented materials submitted and personal inspections the Board mak~ the~.f0 owing find ngs 1. Grant of the alterative relief wj.ll not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or ; a detrimen~ to pearby prep¢ie~..~ '~l'h~/lot coverage of 22.5% will encompass the existing front entry area propose~ as a new ~porch, pi? ope~ 13.5' x 6' deck along the side of the porch and will encompass the area proposed for a new wood dedk, ~ftei- removing the existing open deck, at the Side of the dwelling. The setback of the new ,side yar~ dec~ 'i~s-}proposed at 13 feet from the side line, in conformity with the code requ red s de yard minimum, hnd the sei:lJ~k ~tbe fro,nt porch with open deck will be within the existing footprint. Also, the ,.~.new front deck will have a gr~a~[ f,('ont ~etback (57.8 feet) than the exist ng 53 5 fl front yard setback of the Page 2 - July 10, 2003 Appl, No. 5336 - J. and P. Clark 126-3-9 at Mattituck 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 lot contains 17,434.74 sq. ft., and the maximum coverage of the lot for new building area would be limited to 3.487 sq. ft. The existing lot coverage is 3,850 which is greater than the code required 20%. 3. The alternative relief granted herein is substantial because the coverage of the lot by building area is limited under the Code at 3,487 sq. ft., and the vadance results in a total building area of 22.5%, or 3,923 sq. ft. This percentage results in 436 sq. ft. over the code's 20% allowed limitation. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the design of the deck and porch areas were planned without conformity to the Town Code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to show that the grant of the alternative relief will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of new construction for porch and deck areas, 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 DENY the variance requested, and to GRANT Alternative Relief. as noted below and subject to the following CONDITIONS: 1) The new 21' x 8.4' front porch and proposed 13.5' x 6' deck extension shall not exceed the size shown on the December 3, 2003 survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S., revised March 10, 2003; 2) The proposed 13.5 x 6' extension is permitted for a new deck, open to the sky. 3) The lot coverage shall not exceed 22.5% of the lot for ali building areas. 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, Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent was Member Homing.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0)~ ~ Lydia A. 1~ora, ChairwomAn - Approve~for Filing 7/,~/¢'/03' APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~ Southold 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 Xrmcent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.norrhfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF. JULY 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5341 - PETER BOGER~ ~ PropertyEocation.:'.~71'7 Private Road#12, Southold'; ¢TM87-4-4. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has, visited the prope~under con~iderati0n in fhis application and determines that this` review` falls under the ~YPe 11 category of the Sta.~,~.L ,s;~f ~ction~, Wi{bout 'an ~d'Cer~e~ effect-dh, tb~ envirdfir~er~t f the p~oject ~ mp e~nte~l ~S.plartded .' ~ ~ ~ . ~ [ r~ PROPERTY FA~S~SCRtPTION: The applicant,s parcel .is located at the southerly end~ of ¥;~]indy .Point L~e a~d contains a total area of 1.3~153 sq. fit. 'The property is irhpi~oved', With a dWel[ilhg a~d shall frame shed as shown on the April 8, 2~02 survey pm. Pai-ejd:~,b~y '~h~ ti,M~izg~[, 1:8. Also shown on the sui'vey S a 10 ft Wide dght-of- way, extan,d!n~/~hr, o~gb, the,?applicant s lot to the adjacen~ property now or formerly of Robert B. Boger and Susan, L Johnson. and wetland~ adjabent to 'the Corey Creek shoreline. BASIS: ~OF APPLICATION: Building Department's February 11, 2003 Notice of Disa. p,p~al,, citing Section ,100-33C (ref 100-244B) n its den a of a perm t to demo lsh an 9×',Bt;i~g,accessory shed and to construct a new accessory shed budding at less than 35,f~etf~m the front ot ne . ' EINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 19, 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: ~A VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant Wishes to demol sh the existin.g, 8'1' x 6'6" shed located 1.5 feet from the northeast property line 8nd build a new 8' ~12 shed three (3) feet from the northeast property line and at least 10 ft. from the northwest property line. The hei9 qt of the sh~d is proposed at +-12 feet from the peak of the roof. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and pers(~nal inspections, the Board makes the followirtg findings: 1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, The property is a small waterfront area surrounded by other properties of the same square footage. Page 2 - July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5341 - Peter Boger 87-4-4 at Southold 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 wishes to build a new shed to replace the old shed, which was even closer to the private right-of-way than proposed. The applicant has a small lot of 13,153 sq. ft., which includes the area of a 10 ft. right-of-way and saltwater marsh area to the south of the house. There is no other room in the front yard to place the new shed. 3. The requested area variance is not substantial. In fact, the new 12' x 8' accessory shed is +-22 feet from the front yard line and about 10 feet from the right-of-way. 4. The difficulty was self-created at the time of purchase and when a new shed was planned and designed by the applicant. 5. There is no evidence to suggest that the grant of the setback variance for a small storage shed will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 6. Grant of the variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new shed, 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 Chairwoman Tortora, and duty carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on hand-drawn sketch on the map of John T. Metzger, L.S. and applicant's sketch with shed dimensions dated 3-24-03. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject proper~y that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Beard: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent were Member Goehringer and Member Homing.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). Lydia A. ~T,,Ct'ora, Chairwoman -Approved for Filing 7/~¢/'/03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ Southold 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 V~mcent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://~outholdtown.northfork, ner BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5338 - ROBERT SAMOLEWSKI Property Location: 78130 Alvah's Lane, Cutchogue; CTM 101-1~1'9.3. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this app cati0n~.and determ nes that th s review fails under the Type I category of the, State's List'of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESORIPTION: The applicant's 80,005.89 gq. ft: parcel is a corner lot with frontage of 141.14 ft. ,along Alvahs Lane and 411.61 feet along Middle Road This lot is vacant land and is shown as Lot 3 on the Minor Subdivision Map of Stanley Simchick. BASIS OE.APRI:ICATION: Building Department's March 14, 2003 [qottce of Disapproval, citing Section 100-33, in its denial of a building permit to construct an acoessorygarage in an area other than the code required rear yard. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 19, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal ,inspection of the property, and othe~ evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be tree and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants wish to construct a 24' x 26' accessory garage in a front yard area 90 feet from the property line along Middle Road and 115 feet from the property line along Alvah's Lane in Cutchogue. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspect ons the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the alterative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is on the corner of County Route 48 and Alvahs Lane. The properties along Alvahs Lane are residential, and the properties to the east are vacant. To the south is a major highway intersection. 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 lot contains two front yards L Page 2 - July 10, 2003 ' Appl. No. 5338 - Robert Samolewski 101-I-19.3 at Cutchogue and the proposed garage will be partially located in a front and side yard location. Also, the septic tank and cesspool system are proposed in a location south of the house. 3. The relief requested is not substantial The applicant is placing the garage as far from the highway and street as possible for noise reduction. The setbacks far exceed the principal setbacks from both Alvahs Lane and C.R. 48. 4. The difficulty is self-created. The applicants became aware of the requirements of the Code when the property was purchased and a house was designed with a garage location which will not conform to the current Town Code yard requirements. 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. 6. Grant of the relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an accessory 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 Member Oliva, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. dated December 12, 2002, revised February 3, 2003 and rendition for an accessory two-car garage building. 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), Orlando and Oliva. (Absent were Members Goehringer and Horning.) This Res. olutioQ was ~' Lydia A. T~J~ra, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~O~. Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tcntora, Chairwoman ~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer EO. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephrme (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtewn.northfork, net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS.~AND DETERMINATION MEET NG oF)~I~ ld, 2003 Appl. No~ 5330 - EDGEWATER [[ LLC Property Location: 63735 C.R. 48. Greenport; CTM 40-1-20.2. ~ 8EQRA DETERMtN/~TIoI~ .The Zoning Board o/[ Appeaks has v!sited the property uqder · .epns[demt ~oo.m thl~.app,l[catlgn ,and'dete[~ nes that this rev ew fa Is,upder the Type I category of tithe ~S{ates List oi' Actions, With0~a{ an adverse effect.on the environment if the project is m~plemented as p~anned. RROPEETY ACTSI~ESCR[PTION:' The apphcan~ts property GrffenpoA Wj{h 12~ fe~t 6f'front~ge on the North Rbad and 150¥eet along the Lgng Island Sound~ a. I'o~ d.,epfh, of ,977 feet (east line) and 9~19 feet {west line). The a'p~b~mat~}r)~sfaoc~ ~6~ lhb~?i}roperty; line along 'the North Rd,ad to the t,oI~, of the SOUnd bluff [s~8~'O feet (east line) and 725 feet (west line). E~"/~!S'~.'OF~,iAP~L[OA~TION: Bm[ding Department's March 11 2003 Notice of Dfsa~lSrdval citing S~t0fi 1~2 m lts denial of abuilding perm~ to ~nstruct a new ~elt~ng ~th a ~ ~d s~,dnstead of the ~de hm~tat~on of 2~l/2,stones and/o[ exceeding ~ ff.-m~um, he[~h{~; ~ote; T~uddl~ Permit ~27980-Z was v0~ded bY the Building '~epa~ ~ase~ ~n(:dweiling design and ~nstruction details.) ' ~ -: :~'~ ;,' ~ '' ~'~ ' ' :': FINDINGS OF FACT The Zqn~q9 BOa~ ~ ~peals held a public hearing on this a~pl cation on June 1,9, 2003, d~t~[n',~g ~A.(frh:: ~15 ~h:3~ qn.;~toc~ on of 'the properly, and oX~er evdence,, the :~Zoning Board.f'~dg' [h~ " ...... followu u lacrs to be tree and relevant: A~A V~IANCE ~EE.~EQUES~ED: Applimnt has revised the constmct~o~ deslgn~ ~he ~.e~ ~rhg~-,amdv dwellm as shown on the Job No. 209902 Plan, Sb~ts~,~ .r d A2 2 ~. i,, r~d b, ra Haspe, Arch tect P C The th rd eve des g was ~.:~,ig~eO bY [:~:~mic~rfr tb 1138 sq. Tt. for the third-floor bedroom suite, instead of the REASO~I'~OE' BO~E~;ACT ON: On the basis of testimony presented, materials subm~e~a~nd,.p~rso~a~g~eo[,ons, the Board makes the following: findings: ,. -~ : · , ,~,,,, 1 .Granfor [I,e a~u~ va~a"ace wdl not produce an undesirable change m the character of . , ~ .,~L~..;.,/~,. ~.3" , ',, , " · ' ,n~., .e~G,.f~or.~o(,,, or ~.~..r ,q,~n...) nearby proped~es. The architectural plans show a Ih,rc I.~,~ b. dro,~.q ~.~ o ,.1..8 s,,,. ff. The ground floor foo~nnt ~s 3,458 sq. ff., and ti,,,," sec~:d ',lo,,r,~ ~'~', ...... ,~r.~2~-" .... ~,t- sc.' IL The presence of a third floor does not affect the Page 2 - July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5330 - Edgewater II, LLC 40-1-20.2 at Greenport compliance of the roofline with the 35-ft. limit. Applicants state that the third floor was designed to comply with the Code definition of a half story, but presented no measurements to support the half story. The Board will treat the matter of the third story as a request for a variance. 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 house has an irregular roofline made up of various sloping elements with numerous angles. As read from the plans, the maximum roofline is about 38 feet, while the median height of the structure is 35 feet, within the 35-ft. limit of the Code. The square footage of the third floor bedroom is less than 35 percent of the ground floor footprint, and the presence of the third floor does not affect the compliance of the roofline with the 35-ff. limit. 3. The requested area vadance is substantial since 35 percent of the house is based on a variance to complete the third floor. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant designed the house with a third floor which did not conform to Code requirements. 5. There ~s no evidence that the grant of the vadanca will have an adverse effect or ~mpact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed house is set back approximately 520 feet from County Route 48 and has all required side yard setbacks. Based on the foregoing factors, the Board concludes that granting of the requested variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. 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 offere(~ by Member Orlando, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carded, to GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the revised plans ('Job No. 209902' Plan, Sheets A2-1 and A2-2) prepared by Ira Haspel, Architect, P.C. 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 Tontora (Chairwoman), Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent were Member Goehringer and Member Horning.) Thins Resolution ~wa.s/d~3-0). Lydia A~T"ortora, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing 7/ ?/03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~. Southold 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 htrp:~/southoldtown.northfork,ner BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5335 - BLUEPOINTS CO. INC. Property Location: 1240 Love Lane, Mattituck; 140-1-23.1. 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 planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 39,498 sq. ft. parcel has 214.24 ft. frontage alohg the easI side of Love .Lane at Mattituck Creek, in Mattituck, andi is improved' with a residence and 21.5 x 26 accessory garage as shown on the Youn~ & Young, L.S. survey dated July 9; 1993. Subsequently, the 13.1' x 25.5 shed structure at the side of the accessory garage was removed. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's January 21, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended March 10, 2003, citing Section 100-71C.1 in its denial of a building permit for demolition and reconstruction of an accessory garage, "as built" iri a location less than five feet from the rear lot line. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 19, 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 requests an area variance for the location of a rehabilitated garage located 1.3 feet from the rear lot line. The reconstruction and habilitation was performed during 2003, by the removal agd replacement of wooden walls and roofing with cinderblock walls and a new wooden rogf, over the exist ng foundat on a concrete s ab, and foundation walls.. The garage building is 21.5' x 26' x 16 high, which ex sted as a preexist rig, nonconforming structure referred to in the Certificate of Occupancy #Z-13921 dated 10/10/85. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: After discussions at the June 19, 2003 public headr~g regarding pdor ZBA determinations for similar preexisting nonconforming setbacks, the nterpretation request was withdrawn by applicant's attorney. Page 2- July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5335 - Bluepoints Co., Inc. 1,~0-1-~ 23.1 at Matti~uck 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 area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detdrnent to nearby properties. The reconstruction and rehabilitation of the garage, as an accessory structure in the existing nonconforming location was necessary for storage uses related to the existing dwelling. The property ~s located in the Marine-II.Zone District. The t.3 ft. setback fror~ the rear line is maintained in a preexisting footprint. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the app icant to pursue, other than an area var ance The ct contains 38,498 sq. ft. to a tie line ak)ag the' high~ water line of Mattituck Creek. The building is existed for many year~ in this location with a 1.3 ft. rear setback at its closest point. 3, The variance requested is not substantial, resulting in a 3.7 ft. reduction of the code requirement. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the property was purchased in 1994 with a garage in a location which did not conform to the current Town Code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the grant of the requested variance wilt have an adverse effect or ~mpact 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 garage reconstruction, 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 offere~ by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Goehdnger, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the plan prepared by Chorno Associates dated 12/20/02 and survey prepared by Young & Young dated July 8, 1993. 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 Coda, other than such uses, setbacks and other Page 3 - July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5335 - Bluepoints Co., Inc. 140-1-23.1 at Mattituck features as are expressly addressed in this action, Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehdnger, Orlando, and Oliva. (Absenl was Member Homing.) This Resolutio, was du~__,~?.~_d.~0). Lydia. Tortora, Chairwoman - Approved for Firing 7/,.~¢/03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ,~~~. SoCthold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~ 53095 Maifi Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 V~mcent Orlando Telephone (63:1) 765-1809 http://southoldto~vn.nortlffork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 1.0, 2003 AppL No. 5328 - JOHN AND MARTHA TUTHILL, Prop..erty Lo..catiop: 1060 Na.~/Street (a/ida Odent St.), Odent; CTM #1000-25-4-3. 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 imp emented as planned.. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 13,164 sq. ft. parcel is improved with a 1-1/2 S.[ory'.frame dweling wth garage. The dwet ng is shown at'39.5 feet at, its closest 'PO nt Io th~ front, property ~ne (exclusive of stoop) and 16.8. feet from:the north,erly side property:line, as shown-on the June 22, 199I survey prepared by Stanley J. Isaiah, jr~,~ L,.S. · BASIS OF A~P~LI~,TION: Building Department's February 5, 2003 Notice, of Disapproval,. b~tihgi Secti0~ *[00-244B, in its denial of a building permit to construct a deck.addili~on~a.~ ie,~s ,.tha~ ~35~feet from the front property, line.. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 19, 2003, at which~time,~written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, d0cum~r~t~i0r~';, i~rsonat hsPect on of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the fo]lowing facts,te be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants applied for a 12'x 30' front porch additio~ to the existing dwelling, which would leave a +-27 ft. front yard setback (after removal of the existing front stoop). REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials sUbmitted and pem0nal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the a~terative tel!el will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. During the June 19, 2003 public headng,~ the, board noted that the proposed front yard setback would be forward of the 31 ff. average ~sefoa~k~of other dwellings on the same side of the street. Applicant indicated that sbveral houses in the area have porches. Although the applicant agreed to reduce the~prol~0~ed frbnt porch to 10' x 30' with a 29 ft. front yard, the board believes "Page 2 -July 10, 2003 Appl, No. 5328 -J, and M. Tuthill 25-4-3 at Odent the applicants can enjoy the benefits of a smaller 8' x 30' porch, which would not be forward of the 31 ft. average setback of other dwellings. 2. The alternative relief set forth below will not have an adverse effect or impact on the character of the neighborhood or surrounding properties, and is in keeping with the front yard setbacks of nearby dwellings. 3, The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be ach eyed by some mathod~ feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because applicants' dwelling has a front yard setback of 39.4 feet, and without a variance the porch could only be 4.4 feet forward of the house. 4. The difficulty is self-created in that the home was built in a location that did not provide for a front porch to conform to the Code's 35 ft. m~nimum setback requirement. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the alternative relief granted will have an adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. 6, Grant of the alternative relief is the mlmmum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a 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 Member Orlando, and duly carried, to DENY the variance requested, and to GRANT Alternative Relief for a new 8 ft. x 30 ft. front porch, 31.7 feet at its closest point to the front property tine. 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, Orlando. and Oliva. (Absent was Member Horning.) This Resolution was duly~adopte~e..cL(4- .0~ Lya'a A:.T./2~'rtora, Chairwoman - Appro ed for i lng APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairvcoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehring~ P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southotd, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (63,1) 765-1809 htrp://sontholdtown.northforLnet BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF dULY 10, 2003 AppL No. 5282 ~ KENNETH CERRETA Property Location: 1656 Bay Shore Road, Greenport; Parcel 53~4-6. 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 L st of Act ons, without an adverse effect on the enwronment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 16,800 sq. ft. parcel, shown on the filed map of Peconic Bay Esta/t~__s as Lot 26. has 50 ft. frontage a cng the north side of Bay Sh~re Road in Greenport. The property is improved with a one-story frame dwelling with deck and has 56.82 f~. (tie line) frontage facing Pipes Cove (Shelter Island Sound). The existing dwelling conta ns nonconforming side yards of 7.9 feet and +-4.5 feet and front yard at 34,7 feet, as shown on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. dated October 13, 1987, revised December 6, 2002. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's October 9, 2002 Notice of Disapprova, citing Section 100-244B in its denial of a building permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling at less than 10 feet for a single side yard, less than 25 Feet for Iota '~ de yards, and ess than 35 feet from the front lot line. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on May 15, 2003 and June 19, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon ail testimony, documentation, personat inspection of the property, anc~ other evidence, lhe Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a garage addition, and alterations, to the existing dwelling. The original plan indicated a proposal for a 24.7' deep by 24' wide, one-story garage addition at 10 feet from the front property line and 4.8 feet from the northerly side line. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:AMENDED RELIEF: During the May 15, 2003 public hearing, the applicant was requested to increase the setbacks for a possible alternative garage plan that would be more conforming to the code's front setback requirement of 35 feet On June 4, 2003. the applicant submitted a revised plan for a 30.7' x 25.7' garage addition shown on the 6/2/03 plan prepared by Frank Uellendahl Architect, and Page 2 - July 10, 2003 AppL No. 5382 - Kenneth Cerreta 53-4-6 at Greenport survey with revised garage setbacks at 29.7 feet from the front lot line and 4 feet from the side tine (adjacent to Lot 25 to the north). REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: t. Grant of th~ alterative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of tl~e neigh~o~ho6d or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed new construction measures 25'8' x 30'8" and is proposed four feet from the northeast property line and' 29'8~' from Bay Shore Road, which is similar to setbacks of nearby houses.. The four-foot side yard maintains the same setback as the existing house. 2. The benefit sought by th.e applicant cannot be achieved by some methqd, feasible for the applicat~t'~o pu~sH,e,'e.~h~r ~han an area ';~adance. The lot contains 10,560 sq. f. to a :tie ine~ong Pipes Ceve hg~h water mark (16;8g0 sq ft to the fled map ne), and the bu~ d~ng options are ~m~fed. ~'"-'~ 3. The a!t,ern~a~tive relief granted herein is substantial because the required side yard ..... se~tback is a 6 ft, reduction of the code required 10 ft. minimum. The front yard variance is minimal and permits a 5 ft. 5 in; reduction in the code required 35 ft. minimum. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant designed an addition which did not conform to the current Town Code requirements, 5. There is no evidence that the grant of the alternative relief will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this small beach 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 garage 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 Orlando, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carded, to DENY the variance requested, an(: to Page 3- July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5382 - Kenneth Cerreta 53-4-6 at Greenport GRANT Alternative Relief as shown on the revised plan for a 30.7' x 25.7' garage addition shown on the 6/2/03 plan prepared by Frank Uetlendahl, Architect, and survey with revised garage setbacks at 29.7 feet from the front lot line and 4 feet from the side line. This act[en 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, Odandc, and Oliva. (Absentwas Member Homing.) This Resolution was duty adopted (4-0). lydia/~~'/~-~r Filing 7/~.;¢'/0'3 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~~ - Southold'Town Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~ 53095 Main Road Gerard E Goehringer EO. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 V'mcent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southotdtown.nordifork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOVvSXl OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING Of JULY 10, 2003 i. AppL No. 5337 - LEONARD AND HELENCOSTA Property Loca~on: 900 Gin Lanel SouthOId;. C!M 8Br3~1~. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of~Appeals has visited the property under consJderalion ih this application and determines ,that this review falls 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. PROPF_P, TY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 14,810 sq. ft. parcel has 100 ft frontage ,along the northerly side of Gin Lane in Southold. The property is ~mpr0ved with a'ene~sto, ry f~e dweljin~ situated 39~7 feet from the southerly front proPerig line, 12.2 feet fro~'the'h;~)rthbrl~, ~ ~ propertY line, 22.5 feet from the w~ster y s d~ property, ne, as ~shOwn.' on t~e May 16, 1997 survey, prepared by Harry Hillerbrant~ L.S. BA~IS ;OF APPLICATION: Buildir~g Department's March 6, 2003 Notice of D sapprova, citin~Se~tibn '.100;244, i~ its denial of a building permit to construct addit onslalterations to an eXi~ting~dWelling wt~ich will be +-31.58 feet from the front property ine, instead of the codei?eq~re~1,3~feet~ , FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Ap.peals he d a publ c hearing on this app cat on on June 19, 2003, at which time writtei3 .~ha oral evidence were presented. Based .upon alt testimony, documeritation,~ perS0n~/I insPect on of the property, and other .evidence. the ZOning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANigE. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants wish to construct a. proposed 14' w~de by 10 ft.:deep garage extension, resulting ~n a 31'7' setback from the front et ne and maintaining t~e exi~g 12.2 feet on the side yard. (The second-story add t on over the existing ho~u~e s n~J proposed within the code restricted 35 ft. front yard and is shown at le~ast 391.7 .~eet'f~'om ~he front property line.) REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted ~nd personhl inspections, the Board makes the following findings: · Grant' of the: rebel requested will not produce an undesirable change n the character of the neighborho~. 0~:,a d;etriment to nearby properties. During the hearing no tesl~mony ~vas subrh;~te~t, to. indicate that the granting of th s varance wou d create a detriment to tl~e; imr~iafe neighborhood or surrounding district. Page 2 -July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5337 - Leonard and Helen Costa 88-3-11 at Southold 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pumue, other than an area variance. Based on the lot size and code requirements, the required setback is 35 feet. The granting of a 31 '7" setback is within keeping of the average set backs in the area. 3. The relief requested is not substantial and represents a 3.5 ft. redbction of the code's 35 f. setback requirement. 4. The difficulty is self-created because the applicants wish to expand the garage into a nonconforming area. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed additions will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a garage 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 Tortora, and duly carried, to GRANT the Variance as applied for and shown on plans prepared by Penny Lumber dated 2/9/03 and applicant's hand-drawn sketch marked on the May 16, 1997 survey praparad by Harry Hillerbrant, L.S. This action does r~ot 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 ara expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Orlando, and Oliva. (Member Homing of Fishers Island was absent ) This Resolution was duly 7/,~/03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~ ' S0uthold'Iown Hall Lydia Au Tortora, Chairwoman ~ 53095 Main Road ~ Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 I George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 '~ Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (63!) 765~9064 VYmcent Orlando Telephone (63~) 765-1809 http ://southoldrown.northforlcnet BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONSAND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 Appl: ,No. 5327 - DONNA AND LEON~D,SCHLEGEL Property Location: 1480 Westphalia Road; Matti~uck; CTM #114-7-13.1. BEQRA DETERMINATI©N:~ The zoning Boa[d of Appea[s,~has visited .the property under consideration in this a, pplic~tion a~d dete,,.r~nihe~ that ti~is review fails under the TYPe II ~ca.tegory of the State s L si~ 9f Ac~ons~ w tho[it an ad~ver~e effect on the environment f the project ~'S im~ emented as pla'ri*bed. ' ~ ' ' PROPERTY EAC'I'S1DE,~CRIP.TION: The app icants' residence is ocated on a two-acre parcel, a~ja, cont to th s property Th s ct s approx mate y;one ,acre n s ze and is vacant with 270 ft. frontage along Westphalia Road in Mattituck. BAS,t~q,. OF APPLICATION: Building Department's January 27 2003 Notice of D!~a~pproval :iSitng, s~ctio.~ ~00-23~ i~ i~s den a of a ~ailding permit tO construct a fence exceeding the code Iim~tatJon of four feet when located in the front yard. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 19, 2003. at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation~ persona[ inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board {inds the foti6win§ ~acts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEI: REQUESTED: Applicants wish to construct a six ft. high gate, 14 feet in length, with four stone pillars, two at a height of 6.5 feet and two at a height of 4.5 feet .in:.the front yard area (see applicant's sketched location on a survey prepared in 1976, by Otto W. VanTuyl & Son. amended November 9, 1992. 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 area variance will not produce a~ undesirable change in the character of the n~i~lhborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed front yard fence will be constructed to replicate a white picket style fence, which gives a translucent appearance, unlike a solild style fence. Eighty (80%) percent of the fence is at the code required four feet in height. Two stone piers support the gate and measure 6.5 feet in height, and the other two piers, located along the front property line, measure 4.5 feet in height. The tallest part bf the wrought iron gate is about six feet in height and swales t'~''~ down to about five ft; height. Page 2 - July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5327 - D. Schlegel 114-7-13,1 at Mattituck 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. To achieve the impact of a beautiful fence as designed in this application, a small variance is required. 3. The requested area vadance is minimal since only a small portion of the entire fence and piers exceed the code height limitation of four feet, resulting in a length of +-14- feet. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant designed the fence with piers exceeding the code height limitation of four feet. 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. 6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a specially designed fence with pillars, 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 Goehdnger, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on applicant's hand-drawn sketch. 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, Orlando, and OliVa. (Absent was Member Homing.) This Resolution was. duly adopted (4-0). Lydia A.'T, pt~bra, ChairwOman- Approved for Filing 7,/ ~'/03' APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~~ Southold Town'Hall Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman ~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer EO. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vin~ Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONSAND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5343 - ERNEST SCHNEIDER Properly LocaJion: 10'15 and 91:5Lakeside Drive, Southold; CTM 90.4-5 and 6. SEQRA D,ETERMINATION: The-Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under cofisideratlon in [his application: ~nd, determines that this review falls under the Type II cat~gory of-~ State,s List of Actiofis, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project i~ implemented as planned. PROPERT~F~ACTS/DESCRIPTION! The applicant's properties consist of two lots: (a) 1000-90.4-5 (~CTM 5') of 35,933~804 sq. ff. and 59 feet along Lakeside Drive; (b) 1000~ 90-4-6 ("C, TM 6') of 57,613.447 sq. ft. and +-109 feet along Lakeside Drive. CTM 6 is improved w~h a single-family dwelling. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's March 11, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing Section 100-30A.3, in its denial of the lot sizes in this lot-line change proposed by applicant. The Building Department states that the lots do not meet the ~eqbirements of the code for a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. and minimum lot width of 150 ft. The property is located in the R-40 Residential Zone District. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearinc on this application on June 19, 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 requests area variances for a change in the lot width of 9.20 feet, resulting id an increase of the existing nonconforming width of (CTM 5 from 90.02 feet to 99.22 feet, and decrease of the existing nonconforming lot width of 1000-90-4-6 ('CTM 6') from 100.79 feet to 91.50 feet along Lakeside Drive. CTM 6 is presently 57,613.447 sq. ff. and will be reduced to conform to the code's 40,000 sq. ff. minimum requirement with 43,956.378 sq. ft. CTM 5 is presently 35,933.804 sq. ff. and will be increased to conform to the code's minimum 40,000 sq. ft. requirement with 43,186 sq. ff. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the followin[~ findings: Page 2 - July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 534:3 - Ernest Schneider 90;4;5, 6 at South01d 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicant proposes that the lot area for the existing house, lot #1 (CTM 6), be reduced from 57,613 sq. ft. to 43,956 sq. ff., and that the vacant lot #2 (CTM 5), Of 35,933 sq, ft. be increased to 49,590 sq. ftC, or 1.138 acres. The purpose of the lot line change is to provide a greater upland area to CT,M' 5, wh cb contains wetlands and a: limited, buiiding envelope for new construction. *Ehe lot~area for both ets will meet the code required ,minimum of z~-0,000 sq. ft, in this R- 40 :Low Densi~ Residential Zone District. The relief ~ranted herein is for th~ widtl~,~ or ~o~d fmhtage, bi each 10t, a cng Lakeview Drive, and would eliminate the nonconforming lot area of (:;TM 5, and allow for two conforming Iot~ with a minimum of 40;000 sq. ft. 2. The benefi[ sought: by the applica~t cannot be achieved by some method, feasibl? for the applit~a~t to~,,pursue, other thao an area variance. The,.p~rpose et: the let li~e ch~oge is to .b~ing the 10ts'into c0r~oi;mity w[th,t5~ codes minimum ~0 000 Sq. ff ,requirement, a~d w~thout, a ')a~r~. rice fo~ 10t w~dth, C~TM ~ woul~l be substandard m s~ze ~n~ this R-40 Zone Distric-ff. 3. ~The d~iculty is self-created in that applicant desires to change the size of the 10ts witfi~ more ~onformities. 4. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed lot line change will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, 5. Grant ¢ the requested variance is the m~n[mum action necessary and adequate~ to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of' a lot line change, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLU'~ION 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 Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT the Variance as applied for and shown on the survey dated May 7, 2001, revised January 31,2003, prepared by Stanley J. Isaksen, Jr., 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, Page 3 - July 10, 2003 Appl. No. 5343 - Ernest Schneider 90-4-5, 6 at Southold setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehdnger, Orando, and Oliva. (Absent was Meml~er Horning.) This Resolution was duly ado.~ted (4-0). Lydia A. Tort/af'~ Chairwom~n~- Approved for Filing 7/.~//03 - ' ~ Southold Town Hall ~.~ George Horning ~% ~l~[Ir_~'ff Southold, New York 11971-0959 RO~D. Olivq Chairwoman~ ~/~/~ ~.,~"'4t~t ~"~ ,,xq~'~dY 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 JULY 10, 2003 Appl. No: 5326 - GARY AND DEBORA STROU D Property Location: 480 Soundview Avenue West, Peconic; CTM #1000-74,2-7. 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 State's List of Actions, without an adveme effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants' property consists of 27,007+- sq. ft. of land arba and is shown as Lol 47 on the Map of Peconic Homes, Section Two. filed November 26, 1967 in the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. The property is located on the .north side of Soundview Avenue West in Peconic, situated 260.04 feet east of Henry's Lane. This tot is improved with a two-story frame dwelling with front and rear deck additlohs. The October 29, 2002 survey prepared by Smith, Jung & Gillis, L.S. shows .dwelling setbacks at_ 27 feet 6 inches from the west side line, 78 feet 11-1/2 inches from the.f~nt (south) lot line, and 16 feet 3inches from the east (sidel line, at its closest points. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's February 28, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing. Section 100-244B, in its denial of a building permit to construct an addition to the existing dwelling for the reason that "a single side yard is required to be a mfniinum of 1'5 feet..." It is noted that the current zoning code bulk schedule reads that, on nonconforming parcels contai9ing between 20,000 and 39,999 sq. ft., the side yards are required to be a minimum of 15 and 20 feet, for a combined side yard area of 35 feet. The' appliCants' proposed garage will result in a combined Side yard area of 21.3 feet, with less than 20 feet on this westerly side yard. FINDINGS OF FACT The.Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this application on June 19, 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 construct a two-car garage, 22'6" x 28' 3~" along the west side of the dwelling, leaving a setback of five (5) feet from the side property line. The setback from the front lot line along the street is proposed at 76' 11-~ % P~ge 2 -July 10, 2003 ApI~L No. 5326 -G. and D. Stroud 74-2-7~ at Peconic REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Gcant of the relief requested will produce an undesirable change in the character of or ApplY'cants propose to build a five ft. side yard code states that a parcel containing between have a minimum single side yard of 15, remaining side yard area of 35/~eet. In SOundview Avenue West and along Henry's Lane no garage 'add tons, at ess than 15 ~["from' the side Some lots are vacarff. 2. The benefit sought by the applicants can be achieved by some method, feasible for ;to put. sue, other than an area var a~ce. The.exist ng house has a setback from ' 10¢, line, f~m the rea? deck~:bf approximately t70. feet, and at least ,'~"~ 105 The rear yard of this propose~l contains over ~ a 638'sq. ff. garage without a to locate a garage. ~n a and. veh~ple, parkiag, the Board a 14' x 28' increasing the setback to a at its closest point, for a 3. The relief requested s substant a, resulting in a reduction of 15 feet, or 75% of the code r, equirement~ Tite alternative relief for a combined side yard area at 29.8+- feet is also s~b, stantial, ,r~sultJng in a 15% reduction or 5.2 feet Iess than the code requirement for a combined side yard minimum at 35 feet. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the 638 sq. ft. garage was planned as an addition to the dwelling in a westerly side location with setbacks that do not conform to the current Town Code requirements. 5. Grant of the relief as appl ed for will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In recognizing applicants' need for a garage for storage and vehicle parking, the Board grants an alternative allowing for a 14' x 28' 3-¼ "garage, increasing the setback to a m~n~mum of 13'6" (13.5 ft.) from the westerly property ne at its closest point, and combined side yards at 29.8 feet. 6. Grant of alternative relief is the m~nimum action necessary and adequate to enable the apPlicant to enjoy the benefit of a garage, and does not preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. P~g~ 3'July 1~0, 2003 Appk. No. 5326- G. and D. Stroud 74-2;7~ at Peconic 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 Goehdnger, and duly carried, to DENY the variance as applied for, and to GRANT Alternative Relief, allowing rQr a 14' x 28' 3-¼" garage, at not less than 13'6" (!3.5 ff.) to the west side line, at a maximum height of 22 feet to the top ridge of the roof. This action does not authonze 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, Orlando, and Oliva. (Absentwas Member Horning,~oluti.~was..~y~4-0). Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman - Approved for Filing 10/31/03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~ Southold 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 i) 765-1809 ht tp ://so ulholdtovO.nor thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 6/27/03: 7/2/03; final 7/3/03 AGENDA THURSDAY, JULY :10, 2003 SPECIAL MEETING 6:00 p.m. Ca[i to order by Chairwoman I. POSSIBLE DELIBERATIONS/POSSIBLE DECISIONS: Carryovers (headnoe concluded 6/19/03: Appl. No. 5282 - Kenneth Cerreta Appl. No. 5337 - Leonard and Helen Costa Appl. No. 5316 - Robert Reiliy AppL No. 5328 - John and MarthaTuthill AppL No. 5319 -John Hurtado, Jr. Appl. No. 5335 - Bluepoints Co., inc. Appl. No. 5336 - John and Patricia Clark Appl. No. 5327 - Donna and Leonard Schlegelt Appl. NO. 5339 - David Page and Shinn Vineyard AppL No.' 5326- Gary and Debora Stroud Appl. No. 5330 - Edgewater II, LLC Appl. No.i5331 - Helen Theohads Appl. No. 5369 lA & B)- Tariq Mahmod Baig and Riffat Minhas Appl. No,,5343 - Ernest Schneider A. ppl. No.'5341 - Peter Boger Appl: No. 5338 - Robert Samolewski n. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Written testimony iq lieu of extensive oral testimony is requested and appreciated. All testimony shall be limited to zoning issues properly before the Board, 6:45 p.m, Appl. No. 5381 - MICHAEL PISACANO. Location of Property: 1457 Cox Neck Road, Mattituck; Parcel 10C~0-113-07-19.11. This is an Appeal requesting a Reversal of the Building Inspector's amended November 8, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, based on Section tt100-24(A) for construction of a s~ngle family dwelling. The basis of the Notice of~ Disapproval is that this 73,616 sq. ft. area is not permitted in the R-80 District because it is not a recognized lot by any of the following four code standards: I) The identical lot shall be created by deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's office on or before 6-30-83, and the lot conformed to the minimum lot requirements set forth in Bulk Schedule; or 2) Lot was approved by the Southold Town Planning Board, or 3) Lot is shown on a subdivision map approved by the Southold Town Board pdor to 6-30-83, Page 2of 2 Agenaa Special Meeting Ju~y '~ 0, 2003 SouthoJd Zoning Board of Appea~s or 4) Lot is approved/recognized by formal action of the Board of Appeals prior to 6-30-83. ?:30 p.m. Appl. No. 5323 - VI F~GINIA and~CHRISTOPHER COYNE (continued from 6/19/03) Request for Variances under Sections 100-31A and 100-33, based on the Building Department's February 11, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, for approval Of: (a) living space in a non-habitable accessory building, with a proposed addition; (b) proposed additions/alterations to a non-habitable accessory building, and (c) "as built" accessory shed located in an area other than the code required rear yard. Location of Property: 8310 Soundview Avenue, Southold; CFM 59-7-29.6. End o~head/~g$. Publ[c meeting continues: III. OTHER RESOLUTIOI~S/I;JPDATED REVIEWS/OTHER: 1. Possible Resolution to approve Minutes of May 1, 2003 and May 15, 2003 meetings for filing. IV. POSSIBLE EXECUTIVE SESSION