Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-08/07/2003}~PPE~_LS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ruth D. Olive ~ncent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Souti~old Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-J~809 htrp://southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONSAND DETERMINATION MEETING-OF AUGUST 7, 2003 Appt. No, 5344 =Lefkfos Antoniou Property Location: 59235 County Road 48. Greenport; P~a~'cel ~-4~2-11-. SEQRA DETE.RM. INAT, ION} T~e Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in,:this';.',a, pi)licalidfi';~rKt~ determines that~thi~ renew falls under the Type tl category of th.e:Sta~s:-LiSt eActibns', without an adverse effect on theenvironment if the project is ~mplemer)ted a~ptanrred. PROPERTY F/ACIS/DESCRI~TION~ -Fne, applicants ,propocC'ed cbnsis'ts of. 4,211 sq. ft. of area.,,with; '50,:09ft. frentage';aloog the.North Rqad, als~kdomi :~S County Highway 48, and 52~26 ff. ~10ng the ~on¢ I~!gnd Bound in Greenport. :~ pl~oper~y is improved with,~a two-stoP/frame dwel!ing eO pil~ as shown on the survey prepared by.Pat T. SeccafiCo, L$. T'pe e?~ ting~l~eir~g-~s 10 6 fe~ fi-om the iron[ Oil ne~ 39,3 feet from the apparent 2002: hrgh we[-cr rffark. '15 f~b:t from t::o east ~id~?rie!and'9;~ f, eBt,, as built, on the weet side lihe. Ta,, [rent sloop. ,z~th doubl,= s,ep,'area2s iS~.as-baiit and is shown; at 15.9 feet frorff.the front lot line.. BASIS OF APP.LICATIQN: Building Depart?ent's February 4 2003 Notice of Disa~p(0Va!;:'afdeq'ueS~Jtune~9 2003 ,.~lt ngSeetton 1,00;5~B} b ts d*e,nial~of a request for~a~. ,~,"bu dng permff .alto, endment. . The app ,cant has-a. ,'S~,. r~.,gle~fani, y dwel. ng as but (und~r'iBP~#281:5~Z):~hfch~does not conform to a smgl ,e s~de yaed r?qu!rernent of ~10 feet ~ind cordbinbdisTdb~;,df 25 feet, and th'~ froht,setb'a~:l~ i~ IbSs th~m themihiCnum20 ft. requ~reiiient and ~nd t~ons under ZBA #4160 FIblDIblGS ~OF FACT The Zoning Board pi'Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 24, 2008, 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 trueand~relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant is ¢equesting approval of "as-built construction areas of a new single-family dwelling as follow, s: (a) the westerly side ya(d setback,at 9.3 feet~,at its closest point,, and (b) the southerly front yard setback at 14.9 feet from the extended stoop and step areas, at its closest':point to the front property line. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The plan approved by the Building Department (BP #28154~Z) and Board of Appeals (#4160) did not ir~clude this new construction area. Page 2 -August 7, 2003 AppL No. 5344 - L, Antoniou 44-2-11 at Greenport REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property is located on County Road 48 adjacent to the Long Island Sound. The surrounding properties, have similar setbacks to C.R. 48 as the applicant's proposal. The lots in the area are all undersized. With respect to the side yard on this 4,211 sq. ft. lot, the pilings for the foundation included in Building Permit #28t54-Z were subject to a de minimus relocation due to subsurface materials, which resulted in the foundation at its closest point being setback from the front yard approximately 19.6 feet. With respect to the front yard, the design of the house included elevating the ground floor, due to engineering reasons~ to increase the height of the steps. The applicant redesigned and repositioned the steps to avoid placing the steps closer to the front lot line. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. There are no other options available, based on the engineering requirements of the codes and the existing nonconforming lot size of 4,211 sq; ft., of which 2200+- sq. ft. is landward of the bulkhead adjacent to the Sound beachfront area. 3. The relief granted herein is not substantial, resulting in a variance of 9 inches on the side yard. The relief granted herein is substantial in relation to the front setback, resulting ~n a reduction of 19.1 feet from the code required 35 feet. The relief granted is a reduction of 3.7 feet from the 20 ft. front yard authorized under B.P. #28154-Z. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the dwelling was designed with a location that does not conform to the zoning requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this small beach-front community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Information has been provided to show that there are other homes with setbacks similar, or the same as, the setback of the applicant's dwelling. 6. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new dwelling with front stoop and step area, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health. safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried, to Ragb: 3 - A~gust 7; 2003 A. pPl. No. 5344 - b Antoniou 44-2~ t at Greenp0rt GRANT the variance, as applied for, and as shown on the survey prepared by Pat-17. Seccafico, L.S. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressl ¢/a~dressed in this action. / Vote o,f the Bear¢; .Ayes: Members Torto,~ (C~air~'r~¢n),/Coehr'¢er, Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent was Member Homing.) T~s R~.~ol/~/a~Oly_ ~.opted (4-0,. ('/.¢../?,: Vir/CcVe~nl Orla~d'~,-O-%~irr:nan Pro Tern 9/4/03 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road 1~O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (t531) 765-1 g09 http//south~t~,~Vr~.[~hfork.ner. AUG 2 7 :oop FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION Z"t~':" ~?L~ MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2003 ~/-~. $o. ho! l,To n Clerk A~pl, No. 5353- Thomas and Arlene Carney : ' ~' Property Lobation:' :805 Oak Avenue (and Birch Avenue) Goose Bay Estates, Pa'r'cel 77-1-20.1 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property, ander consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type 11 categpry of the State's List ¢f ;Actions, without an adverse effect on the environme, nt if, th~ ~orgj¢ct is ~mplemen'ted as ~lanhed. PROPER-FY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property:cops!ars of !~,2~.Q SCl. ft. With frontage along two streets, 80 feet along the south side of Oak Av:en0e (a Private road improved 20; ft. wide) and 80 feet a cng the north sfide, of B rcb Awenue, in SouthoJd. The property ~s improved with a 1-1/2 story frame house, cud sm:all tshe¢, as shown or1 the N~ve~mSer 9 1998 survey prepared by Chdstopl~er Henr~ L $. . ' BAS S OF APiL GAT ON Bud ng Department s Not ce of D sapp¢~va~ dated. Mar~ch 10, 2003, ameride4 Ju~e 18, 2003, citing Sections 100-30A.4 and 100~33, in its deniaI [of a.buiJding pEr. to,construct an accessory garage in a front yard [¢catiqo rather.that,.the C°de'require8 r&ar yard.' FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appea s he d a pub ic hear'ng on th s app icat on on June 19, 200;3,~ at which time wdtter~ and oral evidence were presented. Based upon ali testimo~[y, 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 locate a detached two- car, 24' x 24' garage in a front yard facing Birch Avenue with a setback of 99+- feet from the front lot line and at least three (3) feet from the south/west side line. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections~ the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the~;haracter of the' neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed new garage measures 24' x 24' and will be behind the house almost centered between the north and south property lines (116+- feet from Oak Avenue and 99+- feet from Birch Avenue. The reque§ted location meets and exceeds the setback requirements that would be needed for a principal building. The entrance to lhe garage will be from the north, using the Page 2 - August 7, 2003 Appl. No. 5353 -T. and A. Carney 77-1-20.1 at Southo]d existing ddveway. Due to two street frontages, thoro are two front yards and two side yards for this property. 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 a 2-1/2 lt. high embankment, into which the garage will be tucked The remaining yards are either front or side yards, rather than a rear yard under the code definitions, and would also require a variance. 3. The relief granted herein is not substantial. The garage is proposed behind house using the existing driveway without change to the residential nature of the property. 4. The difficulty was not self-created. 5. There is no evidence that the grant of the relief requested will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions i~ the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this small beachfront community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the relief req L~ested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enabt'e 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 Member Orlando, and duly carded, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown with the applicant's hand-sketch on the survey prepared by Christopher Henn, L.S. dated 11/9/98, and shown on the plan prepared by Penny Lumber, revised 2/4/03. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora (Chairwoman), Goehdnger, orlando, and Oliva. (Absent was Member H0rning.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4~0). Lydia~. Tortorai ~_,h~r~qa~ ----Approved for Filing 8/27/03 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A, Tortora. Chairwoman Gerard P, Goehringer George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando ·: L%hthold To'wn Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (63D 765-1809 http:/sourholdtown.nor thzfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOLrl'HOLD FINDINGS DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2003 Appl. No. 5346 - Derrick Cephas Property. Location: 1600 King Street, Orient; CTM #26-2-42.2. SEQ..~R~,:DE~RMIN~,TiON:,~he Zoning Board of Appeals, has visited the property under ~:(~nsfd~;ation io Chis'ap¢ca~ioncand dete~ines ~at this review fails under the Type II ~tego~ of,the ,S~(9~S Mst of ~ons w thout an adverse: effect on the environment f [he projec~,~S, mp~em~nted as~ anned. · , ' 'b~ · ~.~* '~ ' ' PROPER~FACTS/DE~RIPTION, The app ~nt s 7.49 - acre parcel.is ~ocated along Orient Ha~b~ Wi~' f~ont~g¢ ai6ng the south side of Kind Street and the ~t side of Be~ as S~reet, ,Th¢~r~Ry,~i~ shown as L~ 2 on th~ Map ¢ Major Terrace, and is '~ro~ ~ ~sin~[er~a~!'t~,~wel~,g, sw, mm, ng pool. tenn.s couP, ~a~d acces~w stor~e bU Idfr~: ' BAS[~ ~EtAgPEICATION:, Builoing Depa~ent's October 1.. 2002 Notice of D[sa~v~!~g~,ded 'March 11, 2003, citing Set, on 100-33C in i~ denial of a building pekmit~ ,~E~.aa,}aCce~o~ (poo house) structure ~ less than 6¢ feet from ~e FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this application on July 24, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspeotion of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant; AREA VARIANCE RELIER REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a '16' x 45' accessory unheated :building, adjacent to the existing pool in the front yard at 40 feet from the front lot facing Douglas Street. The accessory building is proposed as a changing area related to swimming pool, activities and will,contain plumbing only for a half bath ~nd outdoor shower. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and per~sona ,j,nspect o[~s~ the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant0flhe relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the ne ghborhood, ora detr merit to nearby properties. Section 100-330,authonzes an accessdry building with a ~i-ont yard location, provided the setback meets the requirement; of 60 feet. The swimming pool is located 60+- feet from the front lot line Page 2 - August 7, 2003 Appl. No. 5346 - Derrick Cephas 26.~2-42.2 at Orient facing Douglas Street, and the area requested by applicant for the accessory building is near the existing pool equipment and parallel to the swimming pool with fence enclosure. The accessory building will not be used for habitable purposes and will be hidden behind a large hedgerow. 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 property ~s a corner lot with frontage along two streets, resulting in two very large front yard areas. The westedy (rear) yard consists of a restricted conservation buffer and sensitive wetlands, in the rear yard, adjacent to Majors Pond and Orient Harbor. The front yard location as requested is reasonably proposed near the existing pool. and will be screened to obscure views from the street. 3. The relief granted herein is substantial because the required front yard setback is 60 feet, and the variance permits a 20 ft. reduction from this code requirement. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the accessory pool building was planned in a location which did not conform to the current Town Code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a front setback variance in this waterfront community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy [he benefit of an accessory (poolhouse) building, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Tortora. and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the plan revised 2/28/03 and site plan dated 9/23/02 prepared by Elizabeth Thompson, Architect, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I A hedgerow or similai- screening shall be continuously maintained along the accessory building to shield views from Douglas Street to the accessory building. 2. No habitable use or sleeping is permitted, and shall be limited to an accessory use, as proposed. Page 3 - August 7. 2003 Appl. No. 5346 -Derr ck CeDhas 26.-2-42.2 at Orient 3. The building shall not be heated 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 expressiy/C'ddressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes Members Torto,~/(CCairwo)~), Goehrir~er, Orlando. and O],va. (AbSent Was Member Homing.) T¢ I~¢_~luti/~w/s'~/~y acted (4-0). Vir[cent Orlan~tz:~'~halrm~ Pro Tern 9/4/03 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (63l) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2003 AppL NO. 5371; Charlotte Deliteris Street & Locality: 455 .Summer Lane, Southold; Pgrce178eg~'t3 (with CTM 14).. SEQRA DETERMINAT. ION:: Y)e Zoning Board of Appeals has.visited the property :under conSidera{ion in"~;.th.!s applicati0n':~and_~determines that ;~his review falls :under the Type II category of the state,s List~ of Actions. without an adverse effect on the environment if the proje?t is implemented as planned. ~ - REQUEST MADE BY APPLICANT: The Applicant-Owner is requ,e, stng a Special Exception pbrsuant to ~Artible IIl;~Seg'tion~,100-31B.,. Sub-section 13 of the iZo~ing ~3ode, th. establish an AccessO~,Apartment~,Wi~hin the' existingprincipal building, the applicant's dwelling. The e~isting single-family dwelling has a Certificate of Occupancy of record (Z5197 dated 14 Jun6 73}; PROPERTY~ FACTS/DESCRIPTION: This property iS 24,000+- sq. ft. in area .(consiSting of Bayside Terrac;e~, Lot #13 and #14, combined under Appl. #3163, da(ed 8/31/83). The ~droperty is impro~e~l with,a single-family residence with setbacks noted onthe VanTuyl & Son fou,ndation '.stfrv~:j 4¢;~ed D¢cemb~r i5; 1971, as follows: (a) 39+-feet from the front ;line facing ,~u~nmer Lane, '(b) 26+- feet from the west side line, (c) 22+- feet from the north/east Side line, FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 24, 2003, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upbn "~11 testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: In;cons doting this application, the Board has reviewed the code requirements set forth pursuant to Article III, Section 100-31B(13) to establish an Accessory Apartment and finds that the applicant complies with the requirements for the reasons noted below: 1. The Accessory Apartment is proposed with a livable area of 624 se. ft. under the e)4isting bedroom area of the dwelling (principal building). The Apartment unit will not exceed 40% Of the ex~stmg dWe ling ~vable. f ocr area. 2. Charlotte Deliteris, the applicant herein, is the owner pursuant to a Deed dated 10/20/87 at Libor 10~58 page 1 Mrs, BelReris occupies the dwelling as her principal residence. 3. The property provides for on-site parking with a total of three (3) parking spaces, two for the principal.use tandl~on~for ttle ,~ccessory Apartment u~ilizing the garage and~existi~g driveway area. F~ge 2 - August 7, 2003 SE #5371 - Charlotte Deliteris CTM #78-9-13 (Subd. Lots 13 and 14) 4. The applicant complies with the requirements of a dwelling unit as defined in Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code. The accessory apartment will be located in the principal building which contains 2200 square feet, without the garage. The house was built in 1972 and received approval on June 12, 1973 from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services. 5. The floor diagram indicates that exterior entry to the Accessory Apartment of-the existing one-family dwelling wilt retain the existing appearance of a one-family dwelling. 6. The accessory apartment is subject to inspection by the Building Department and renewal of the certificate of occupancy annually. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony, documentation, and other evidence, the Zoning Board determined the following Findings of Fact to be true and relevant: 1) The Accessory Apartment, as applied for, is reasonable in relation to the District in which is located, adjacent and nearby residential use districts. 2) The Special Exception use is accessory to the principal use and will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties. 3) This accessory use will not prevent orderly and reasonable uses proposed or existing in adjacent use districts. 4) No evidence has been submitted to show that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, order of the Town would be adversely affected. 5) This zoning use is authorized by the Zoning Code through the Board of Appeals. as noted herein, and a Certificate for Occupancy from the Building Inspector is a code requirement before an Accessory Apartment may be occupied. 6) No adverse conditions were found after considering items listed under Section 100-263 and 100-264 of the Zoning Code. 7) A Certificate of Compliance or similar document wilt be necessary for issuance by the Building Inspector certifying that the premises conforms to Ch. 100 of Zoning for an Accessory Apartment use. RESOLUTION: On motion by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the Special Exception application for a one-bedroom Accessory SE ~371 - Charlotte :Deliteris CTI~I #78-9-13 (Subd. Lots 13 and 14) Apartment, to be used only in conjunction with the owner's residence, as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The owner shall occupy the dwelling as hedhis principal residence. 2. There shall be no packing out of vehicles onto Summer Lane. 3, A Certificate of Occupancy or written compliance document shall be obtained from the Building Department before occu a'ncy of theA~ ;essory Apartment. VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Members)l rte (C,j~in~,// '9~n), G,c~dnger, Tortora, and Orlando. (Member Homing of Fishers Island was¢ ~.T/~¢c ¢(ion ~/',,a~ duly adopted (4-0). VI~CE T O1~'~,~O, 3~airman Pro Tern 914/03 Aporoved for Filing fi'aBe 3 of 3 BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tor[ora, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer George Horning Ruth D. Oliva V'mcent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SoUthold ~wn Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 SouthoId, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.ner FINDINGS· DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF' AUGUST 7, 2003 Appl. No. 53827- William and Donna· Goqgins . - Property Location: .1780 Jackson Street.and 875~,.New Suffolk Road, New St~ffolk; Parcel 1t7-10-14.1 (13 and 14 combined as one lot). SEQRA DETERMINATION: The. ZOning Board of Appeals has v. isited the property under constder~tion in th~s appllcati, on.~nd, determines that ~hls review falls under the, Type II category :of the State's l~ist.of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if -the projeOt is implemented ~i,¢planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPtION: The applicant's 41,206 s~, 'ft, par,cel is improved aw~th a ,tw'p-Story;~ood framgdgelling~ garage ,(under construction) ahi:l §Wimming pool (u,nder cohstrL~ctior~};.aSgsbown, on.the suCvey prepared by Stanley J. l~aksen; Jr. dated October 21, 2002. The prOpe~ consists of two formerly identifii~d Cdtinty Tax,Ma~ Nos. 13 and 14, which are now combined to form a single ct. identified on the County Tax Maps s Lot 14.1 ' .For ~e reqd¢d,~t II~t9oted that,the4ormer Accessory Bed and Breakfast was re.moved and )S,nQ longer ~r~ ~f[6Ot:fo~,the~lsl~ng smgle-fam~ly dwelhng. ' BASIS. OF APP~A,TION: Building Department's May 3 2003 Notic,e of D sapproval, amende,.d May, I~Q3, e[tiBg Section ~00-30A.3 in 'its denial b~ ~hbmldmg p~bnit to cons. trdgt ar~:~a~ld ~an a~nd roof [epa rs to the ex~stmg dwblhng ~vith!a s ngle s de yard a ess;thamlS;¢¢e~¢d less thar~ 35 feet fo~"a comb ned s de. ygd ~ .~,.~. The applicant voluntarily merge~i:t'0~l~.,¢0unty Parcel Nos. 13 and .13 and,,~¢emo,~ed the:Accessory Bed ;and Broak'fa~t: use. Formerly the northerly setback wa~s¢ a side yard, .before the ~p.arce s m~rjed .,6-rron , ootl yards meet the defin t orjsof.[h e,i>'on n,. . g Code as front yards as.fronting a:bn¢ mapped ~[reets (Jackson Street t0 thblnoCtii~and Fifth ,Street to the west). Th~ Z~'~ing Board;of Appeals held a public hearing on this app ication on July 24, 2003, at~'~vhi~.~ :time w,ri~ten and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all'testimony, dA",'~'~,'P*?*;'~".."S&?~'"ql inspection of the propertg, and other evfdence, the Zoning , !: '.:. · '. ,,' :: facts to be'. true and relevant: AR~/~A, RIA~NOB REI_IEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to redesign and reconstr[~Ct thb. e, ~stmg? opetl...,.'~P°~ch fac Rg Jackson Street. w. th a terat OhS tc~ the ernst ng dwe 1 pg as ~h~n ~on th&:plot plan ~nd construcbon d~agram prepared by Donald, G. Feller, age 2 - August 7, 2003 Appl. No. 5382 - W. and D. Goggins 117.-10-14.t at New Suffolk Architect dated 5/6/2003. The setbacks of the dwelling are 5.9 feet and 9 fl. from the west properly line along Fifth Street, at its closest points. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicants propose the reconstruction and rehabilitation of existing porch areas, along with reverse gable roof, as shown on the plan dated/5/6/2003 prepared by Donald G. Feller, R.A. After physical inspection, it was realized that the dwelling ts a renovated 70+ year old structure which was exposed to weather conditions on the north side of the home. The proposed new construction measures 44' x 7', leaving a 9 ft. setback from the lot line facing Fifth Street. The new porch construction is one-stow in height and maintains the same setback as the existing house. The renovation and rehabilitation are necessary and will create no impact on surrounding properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The dwelling has existed for more than 50 years in its nonconforming location and the reconstruction is needed for repairs and upgrade. The new construction is in-place, in-kind renovation of the porches and construction of alternative roof design, for which a variance ~s needed to complete. 3. The relief requested is substantial because the code requires a minimum 50 ft. front and the relief is for a 9 ft. setback from the lot line facing the area noted as Fifth Street. Although the house has existed in the present location for over 70 years, the variance will authorize a reduction of 41 feet from the setback requirement. 4. The difficulty was self-created in that this area could have been addressed in 1999- 2000, during the major renovations that took place when the applicant took title. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the relief granted herein will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The construction is landward of the existing dwelling and does not affect the adjacent waterfront areas: 6~ Grant of the alternative relief is 'the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new porch addition with alterations, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3 - August 7, 2003 Appl. No. 5382 - W. and D. Goggins 117.-10-14.1 at New Suffolk RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under NeW York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer seCOnded bY Chairwoman Tortora, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the May 6, 2003 plan prepared by Donald G. Feeler, R.A. This action does .not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate ~e ZOning Code, other than such uses, setbacks arld other features as are expressly a~dressed in th!s action. ;Vote of the Boar. d: AYes: Members Tortor/~(Cl~i~),~Goeh//~ger, Orlando, and Oliva, (Absent was Member HOming.) T~;¢ Re~__~l~. ,~/~s//~ly ~opted (4-0). Vir~eht bdan~d~, C'~'irman Pro Tem 9~4~03 APproved for Filing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http: southoldmwn,nor~hfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2003 Appl,: tqo. 5~1§,- Robert and Patrida Hovey · ¢Property LO~bn: 125 Hilltop Path, Southold; Pame11000-54-1-20. SEQRA D~MINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under 'rCOnsid~ratiS~i-!n4his appliCation and determines that this review fails under the Type ii [hb State's Li~t of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if rthe tmplem~nted as planned. ~pplicants' property is an 15,682 sq. ft. parcel with1 2-20' wide right-of-way, which extends off:'the easterly ~de The property is improved with a one-story-frame 6,2000 by John C_ Ehlers, L.S. Department's January 22, 2003 ~otice of lg Sectiohs 1'00-244', i 00:30A.4, an~t 100-33, ,t G35 sq. fi. of additions to existing dwelhng and'to locate'an~ acCessory carpod in ,a yard The pool Which was proPosed in the Oh~inal the Buiiding Department and. addressed in the January 22, ~ot included in applicants' appeal for variances. FINDINGS OF FACT Board. public hearing on, thi9 application on July 24, 2003, and orat.e~ide~ce were pres, ented. Based upon all testrnony, .r, tio~), personnel in~p~ctiOn of th~ prep~rt~;~and~ other"e~e~e,,:~ Zoning ~he fo~low=,ng fac~ to...be true and ~r~le~anf: ~, ~, h ; '~ Applicant wis:hes to construct additions as , amehdgd ~0¢1z15-2003, pfepared~l~y John nd shown on the site.qplanYpr~pared for thg¢~pplicants da~ed 6-~,1-2003, are shown at the south and and for ~ ' a prep red 6-1:1-03 (west elevation), 6-25-03 (north elevation). (east Page 2 - August 7, 2003 Appl. No, 5318 - Robent and Patricia Hovey 54:1-20 at Southold Also requested is a proposed 18'x24' accessory carport in the 'yard northwest of the existing dwelling. The carport is proposed at 9.4' from the closest property line (northwest), and at least 60 feet from the front lot line. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Hilltop Path is a right-of-way that serves as the applicant's driveway, and is a grassy, lawn buffer between the property and adjacent wooded lots, Hilltop Path provides access not only to this let but to two other parcels, CTM 54-1-21 of similar size, and CTM 54-1-16 consisting of 3.5+- acres. The 3.5+~ nearby parcel may also be accessed from Sunset Path, another adiacent pdvate right-of-way, which combines with Hilltop Path, as access for the surrounding neighborhood directly to North Sea Ddve. a town street. The opposite side of the premises has a steep slope which limits the options to build. The adjacent 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 available area to build is very limited, due to the present location of the home (for more than 40 years), steep slope of the land, and the fact that the property has two front yards, both adjacent to Hilltop Path, a private 20~ft. wide pdvate right-of-way. 3. A) The relief granted is not substantial. The code requirement is 35 feet, and the applicants' request is for a reduction of a small section at the southeast comer section of the addition, for a 7 ft. setback reduction; a small section at the southwest comer of the addition will be for a setback reduction of 9 inches. B) The relief granted with respect to the location of the carport is not substantial. The location requested will give the appearance of a carport addition at the north side of the house, The applicant will also be removing the as-built shed. 4. The difficulty was self-created when a carport and additions were designed without COnformity to the current Town Code requirements. 5. There is no evidence that the grant of the variances will have a~ adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the r~eighborhood or district. The applicants will retain all excavated soil on the site and re-grade the landscape for the new COnstruction area to prevent erosion, containing all runoff within the property boundaries. Page 3 - August 7, 2003 AppL No. 5318 - Robert and Patricia Hovey 54-t-20 at Southold 6. Grant of the variances are the minimum action necessary and adequate tc enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a detached carport and additions to the dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying tfte balancirig test under New York Town Law 267oB, motion was offered by Member Goehdnger. seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carried, to GRANT the variances as applied for, and as shown on the survey map dated 11- 16-200C. amended 01-15-2003, prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S. and shown on the site plan prepared for the applicants dated 6-21-2003, with a ZBA date stamped' of June 26, 2003, and 6-21~2003 east elevation sketch, 6-11-03 (west elevation), 6-21-03 (east and south elevations), 6-25-03 (north elevation). si(etches. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property ff~at may violate the Zoning ?/gd~, other than such uses, setbacks anc other features'as are expre~sly addressed in this action Vote o[ the Board; Ayes: Me.mbers Torte (C//nair~an),~Goeh~nger, Orlando, and Oliva. (AbsentwasMemberHorning.)T¢is ~o~n//~va~yf.,opted (4-0,. :)da~l~Co;C~airman P o Te 9/ 03 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A, Torrora, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer George Horning Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.north'fork.ner FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION' MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2003 )1. No. 5319-JOHN HURTADO, JR. ; .2,670 GrandviewDrive Orient; CTM 1000-14-2-3.6. Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this s review falls under: the Type il category of the State's List of Actions, project is implemented as planned. applicant's 49,515+- sq. ft. parcel has 150+- ft. frontage along the 0;40. E, i'n depth along the westerly sid0 line, 35t~13 feet along the eastedy the Long :ts!and Sound, The property is shown ~is Lot 2 on the Map'of Grandview d Junia;'8? ,,1982 in the Suffolk CoUnty Clerk s Office. A new dwelling eXiSts, at thb and was under cons~Jction when the May 1,2002 survey was prepared by Harry p. Hillebrand, L.S. ~f 56:2 feet from the front property line, 100 feet from the top of the bluff, and 36 feet on the east sidb. y 27. 2003 Notice of Disapproval, ~citing Sections ] permit ~ construct an a.c~c~ssory swimming pOOl the Disapproval are that thegn;aw deck and pool are ! the top of the bluff along the Long Island Sound and th,at (part of} the ,~e~.n;a.~ide:\vard -lbcat~on'[ stead 'of the, code,re mred..rear al'd,., At the time of the .~.,,suance n, the Jan Jaw 2.7.};2~(2~. ,~,~ce;af !D~sap'proval; the deck addft~on (ret. Brlan,,A~.¢Rapp, R.;A. Plan dated ~Dec. 25., 2002. Jqb 024)28A!';~a's:,l~rop~sed ~r~ 85,feet from the top of the bluff. Od E~bma.~'6, 2003, the lapphcanl'.r~ z~sed In~ ooc;~ Ioca!4on. as she,, n on .the,~st~pZey prepared by ,Harry P: Hillebran{ I:.¢. showing a ,"'new la;j, bt?t. at 89-90 I.:-io~ Ir6m, !h~ top or the blnff at itb.closest poinfg. '' '' ~ .... [ ' '"., .i!t~ ;; ~FINDINGS'OF;FACT on this ~ppljcat cfi on Juae 19i 280;3 ;'e,t whiph t[m'e wr.itter[ evid?.nce ','.,,ore presen:ed. Bt-~sed uaor: all testimony, do~cumentation, Per~s~.n~t[ inSPection of. the and o!.r'er evidence lhe Z~rSi~g'Board r:nds the follow bg f~:ts to'bg!true and relevant: ': : pOOl from the Jot rear yard ..0r .pa,trait!ted ~dition. ~,. th cx'tende~ sta th,,-ren.a~nmg ~.o,. t~on or ;l,he.deck ~lf be;[~eyond the 10Oft. ..~ r.:" . ,'." ' (,c) a 60+- /- ~'a. ft;L~')'~h,, ,.~,"~'~-' ~,.-re..,s,, '~s ~n,so.prr~posed' " ' ,at' 7o*-~ .... rae~ from ~h, .~EABONS FQR, BOARD ACT[ON. m accordan~ w~th the rewew standards, set.fod~ tn the tOwmlaw 267-b 3 ~rea}~dan~es ~Zh~ boa(d has ~d~md. the benefit to ~e app cant if th~ vaa~n:~ sxg~nte~,,~as we~h~ Page 2 - August 7, 2003 AppL No. 5319- John Hur~ado, Jr. t4-2-3.6 at Orient against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare to the ne ghborh~od and community by such grant, and determines that: 1. A) Grant of the area variance will produce an undesirable chanqe in the character of the nei.qhborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The pool could be redesigned to reduce the degree of the variance. This alternative setback Would minimize the variance, and diminish the impact to nearby properties. The lot is sloping towards Grandview Ddve right from the bluff top edge. Soils are being eroded from the lot and being dragged on by vehicle traffic since there is no stabilized construction entrance. Erosion along bluff areas in this sound-front community has been known over the years. The bluff toe is not stabilized with any hardening structure, nor are there any to either side of this parcel. There are many glacial erratics present along the shoreline which is indicates underlying long-term instability of the shoreline topography on, and adjacent to applicant's property. Although appellants will be installing drywells and providing proper drainage to contain runoff on their property in the final construction stages of the new dwelling, the Board believes that risks to the bluff and nearby properties far outweigh the benefits of the proposed variance. (B) Grant of the relief requested for a deck addition will not produce an undesirable change in t~ character of the neiqhborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The new deck construction will be simila, to the setbacks established for structures existing in the immediate area of this sound-front community. The deck will also be open to the sky and not require excavation or construction of an in-ground foundation or elevation above one-story height. 2. A) With respect to the proposed 576 sq. ft. in~qround swimminq pool, the benefit sought can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Applicant's request is based on his proposed 1630+- sq. ft. deck at the north side of the new house which is presently under construction. The new dwelling is presently under construction at a width of 93.1 feet by applicant at an angle to the front property line, on this 150-ft. wide lot. The Board believes that the pool could be sited to minimize the vadance and diminish impact to nearby lands. An increased setback from the Coastal Zone Erosion Hazard boundary and from the top of the bluff would not only protect the sensitive bluff area, but woutc also eliminate the negative impacts to nearby properties. The applicant's claim did not include actual cost estimates, or expert evidence, to substantiate that there is no other alternative feasible. B) With respect to the open deck addition, the benef t souqht by the appl cant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. 3. The requested variance is substantial for the pool as requested, resultinq in a 25% reduction of the code requirement. Applicant requests a 25-foot reduction in the minimum 100-foot bluff set back requirement to accommodate a 16'x36' in-ground swimming pool, as well as excavation and regarding, and landscaping. The requested variance is not substantial for an elevated, open deck, resulting in a 10% reduction from the 100-ft: setback requirement. The relief requested for the deck is for a 10 ft. reduction from the top of the bluff, for an elevated, open deck. The deck will not require extensive excavation for an in-ground foundation since it will ~ elevated on footings at the base of the deck construction. ~, 4. The difficulty has been self-created. Appellant knew when they applied for a building' permit to construct the house in 2002 that the 100-foot setback requirement existed. The difficulty is further self-created by the Page 3 ~ August 7, 2003 Appl. No. 5319- John Hurtade, Jr. [[4-2-3.6 at Orier~t 'act that the in-ground sw mming poo could be placed with increased setbacks from the top of the bluff. By ~esign and/or during planning stagbS, an increased setback from the COastal Zone Erosion Hazard boundary and fr,om the top of the bluff would not only protect the sensitive bluff area, but would aisc eiim hate the legatKte impac[~ to'heathy p~0p~es. The applicant's claim did ~not include actual cost estimates, or exper[ .~vidence,~ to substan/~iate that there is no other alternative feasible to locete a pool. A) fi'ave'.an ad~/erse effect or impact on thn ~ondifi_o!~ £n. u~e_. ~ckM,~rQgoc. The lot ~s Slopm¢l towards Grandwew Drive noht Sods are being oroded from. the lot-and b'emg dragged on by vehmle traffic since there bluff areas ir~, thi~;sound-front community has existed for ~ffOlk. Coun~J~oi],and Water Conservation Distdct states !-harden!ng stcuc~6~e, n6i~ ar~' the~e any to either side of this parCeL the sh0reBne:'which:i'~.iridipa[es up., .d~dying Iong-term instability of applicant's: p'rope~' :Although the Owner-appliCant will be runoff: 6¢,,their p~oper[y ia the final construction outweigh the adlverse effect or impact on the of'the deck meets the lO0, ft. proper drainage to contain ~;ip; [fro final conslruction stages. -':I~; Gra~ of,the variance for applfcant's enioyme~ Of a deck addit'on s'the m n mum act on necessa and hdbc~BgiCe~,'~lhil~",~§e~[n.~and pro~tectmq the character of t~e ne[qhborhood and the health, safety and ~)elfa~'e~f~.the Cd~h~finitAt. ..... . . ~ESOEUrI'ION OF'THE BOARD: In cons derng a of the above factors and applying the balancing test under ~ew Y~fl( Town [a~w:267-B;.mot~on was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly ~arr[ed, tO DENY the pool variance, as applied for, and to G ~RANT a variance as app ed fo[ w th respect to the rear yard deck as shown on the survey p an dated February,6 2003~jprepared by Har~ry P Hdlebrand, LS., with the condition that the applicant and future owners :[611~5w th~ recommen~lat ons given by the Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation Disthct darted May 9, 2003 (copy attached for reference). ~his a.c~o,n does n, ot au,thorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject ~4~operty that may ~, ~ ht~ the Zon ng Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly Lydza ~. ~ortora, Chairwoman Southold Town Board of Appeals Box 1179, 53095 Main Road Southold New York 11971-0959 Dear Ms. Tortora: We have visited the site known as ZBA File No. 5319, Jot~ Hurtado. a~ 2670 Grandview Drive in Orment on May 9, 2003 as you have requested. The lot is sloping towards Grand?iew Drive right from the bluff topedge. Soils are being eroded from the lot during the construction activities. Soils are also being dragged ou~ onto Grandview Drive by vehicle traffic since there is no Stabilized Construction Entrance. At this time the house is incomplete and downspouts and Sincerely, Page 4- August 7. 2003 AppI. No. 5319- John Hurt, ado. Jr. 14-2-3.6 at Or/em / , :addressed in this action. / ?Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortgr~ (Ch~rwg~ar~, GghriB;~J'er, Orlando, and Olive. i~Member "orning of ~F|shers island0 Th 'sfftF~,l~~y~d~z~q/~d (4'0), Vin~n~ (Ji-lando,'~Ch-a~/f'r~n ~ro--rem 9/4/03 Approved for Filing ~Absent was: AJPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora. Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD S0iith01d TdvOn Hall 53095 Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 htrp://southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 7. 2003 %Appl. No. 5358 ,: Jay Kennedy Propert~r Location: 330 Map[e'Lane (Private Road #3), Ori,nt; CTM 17~3-2. SEQRA DETERMtNATI©N: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under cons deration Jn this application and determines that this review fails under the Type II Catsgo~y of'the :Stffie's E[St ofi:~ctions,~ without an adverse effect on the. environment ii: the project is implemented as planned. "~ PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 46,206 sq. ft. parcel has 280 ft. frontage along the sou~th side of Maple Lane, a private righ~t-of-way, and is improvei~'with a two-story frame house situated 8.9+- feet from the front lot line, as shown on the survey prepared 5¥J0hn C~. Ehlers, L.S: 4-19-01. BASIS OF APPLICAnT[ON. ,B~ldlng Department s April 23, 2003Noti ,ce ,of, D~sapp~-ova, clt/ng SeC'(~on ~1.~00~3~3, .t~ ~ts d~n~al of a budding permit to locate an accessory swimming p'o~) ;Partlyt,,in :a ~id~,:,ktSt~1~ki;ef entirely in area¢ yard;: - ' .' 4' '~, ¥,~. ;,¢¢; . FINDINGSOF FACT The Zonk~g Board,p[ Appea S held .a public'hearing on this. applicationon. July 24, 2003, at which: tithe writ~er,'ahd,;oral evidence wi~re preserited.. 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: Appli~t~t wishes to-construct an inground ,swimming Pool ir{ the w~¢erly yar~, most of which is located in the rear yard and partly m thbi;sideiyai-d..T, he ~tb~oks of!the prOPosed 16'x32' pool are requested at 28 feet from t~e.,".~est s} del ne a~nd";44~feet from the front Iht. line ' as shown on'the April 7 2003 landscape design pJa~prep~re;d; by Rob White. REASONS/FOR BOARD'~ACTION: On the basis of. testimony presented, materials submitted and persoqa[Li~spedtions the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the relieFrei:lueS,te~ wil not produce an undesirable change in the character of the ne ghborhood ,or~,{a de[r ment to nearby propert es The app cant s home s located close to Maple :Lane and are related 'to topographical concerns and neighbor requests to locate,the p¢ot ig t~is proposed area. This yard location when viewed from Maple Lane appears a~ the rear yard. and meets or exceeds the setbacks of the Page 2 - August 7, 2003 ApPI, No. 5358 -J. Kennedy 17-3-2 at Orient principal dwelling structure, and will be screened with additional plantings as shown on the April 7, 2003 design plan. 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 location is mostly located in a rear yard, and only a portion of the pool is technically a side yard when measured from the rear line of the house. 3. The relief requested is not substantial because the pool will be 44 feet from the front lot line and 28 feet from the westerly property line, mostly in a rear yard. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the pool was planned in a location which did not conform to the current Town Code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that this minor variance wilt have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. In fact the neighbors confirmed their preference for the requested yard location. 6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy a swimming pool, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the April 7, 2003 landscape design plan prepared by Rob White. 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/~ddressed :i~is action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Torte(a//"/(¢ai~¢)///~oeh~e,, Orlahdo, and Oliva. (Absent was Member Homing.) T~ is R al a ~uly opted (4-0). Vi'(~ent Or~j:x~'o, ~3hairrCCan Pro Tern 9/4/03 Approved for Filing :. APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora. Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Sodth6~d Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 1197143959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (63t) 765-1809 htrp://southoldtown.norttffork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AIJGUST 7, 2003 No. 350 JAMES and.MARIA McKEE Appl: * 5 ;- Property Location: 1970 Vanston Road,,;Cutchogue; CTM~¢I 1,1-3-12.2. · SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appealshas visited the property under coriSideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II ca,tegory of the State;s' List of ActiOns, without an adverse effect on the environment if the pro. fect is implemer~ted'as'~planned: PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION:-The applicants' 26,767 Sq. ft. parcel; shown on the filed map Of,Property 0f Alohso Jersey as Lot 5 and part of Lot 4, has 110ft. frontage aiong the north side. of West Cove Road and 172.20 feet along Vanston Road in Cutchoguo/, ;Th6. pr01~e~, is improved ~vith.a 1-1/2 story frame dwelling which faces Vanston Road. The existing dwelling has the following setbacks: (a) 55 feet from the east front line, (b) 74 fee~ from t,he south front line, (c) 26.3 feet from the north side line, ands{d) 35:Cr,fe~t,,from, the, west rOar tine as shown on the January 31, 2003 survey revised 7/25/2003; by~,Pat T: Seccafico, LS. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's April 1, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing Section' 100-3,3, ihqts denial of a building permit to construct :an accessory swimming pOo inca yard other than tho code required rear yard. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held; a public headng on this application on July 24, 2003, .at which time wr'~en and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, perS..,onal inspection of.~the property, and;other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the foliow hg facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants wish to locate a 20' x44' inground swimming'pool iht the :southerly froDt yard area on an angle parallel With their home, as shown or~ the survey, p~repared byPat T. Seccafico revised 7/25/2003, with setbacks: (a) 25 feet from the 'fi'ont line along West Cove Road, and (b) 20 feet at the closest corner with the westedy [ot,llne. REASONSt~FOR :B0~ "~s~l:) ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted g'nd per's;bn~l inspections, the Board makes the following findings: Page 2 - August 7, 2003 Appl. No, 5350 - James and Maria McKee 111-3-12.2 at Cutchogue 1. Grant of alternative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The pool location will be angled parallel to their house, and can be moved another two feet to allow at least 27 feet from the front line along West Cove Road and a minimum of 56 feet from the front line along Vanston Road. The pool and pool equipment will also been screened from view with evergreens facing West Cove and Vanston Roads. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area vadance~ due to the limited rear yard at the most northerly comer of the property. To place a pool in the rear yard would not only crowd the rear yard, but it would place pool activities very ctose to the neighboring lots. 3. The alternative relief is substantial because the code requires the pool to be located in the westerly yard area, and the variance allows the pool to be located in a front yard. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the pool was planned in a location that does not conform to the current Town Code requirements. 5. There is no evidence that the grant of 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 a swimming pool, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Goehdnger, and duly carded, to 'DENY the variance as applied for, and to GRANT Alternative Relief requiring a minimum of 27 feet from the front lot line along West Cove Road and at least 56 feet from the front lot line along vanston Road, at its closest points, and pool equipment to be placed in a location at the southwest corner of the pool area, all screened from view with evergreens facing West Cove Road and Vanston Road. 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 -August 7, 2003 AppL No. 5350 - James and Maria McKee 111-3-12.2 at Cut~hogue setbacks and other features as are expressly a,~ldressed in this action. Vo,e of the Board: Ayes; Members Tortor~(C~airw~),,Goehr~ger, Odando, and Oiiva. (AbSent was Member Homing,) 1'.¢ I~e,~olut~'c~S/~'uly~pted (4~0)~ VCrf~&n( Orl~ ~, C'h'~irma~ -Pro Tern 9/4/03 APproved for Filing Chairwoman ), Oliva Hail ; 53095'Main Road P.O, Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631/765-9064 Tetepizone ~63 I) 765-1809 ht tp://sout~oldtown.nor th fork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING.OF AU~ST , 2003 1095 Shore DriveTGreenport; 47,~'2-23. The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the p~-Operty,under · consideration in this application and determines that this review fails under ttle Type !~,c~tegorY.,of'the State's, 'List: of Actions,; With'oUt a;fi~'~d~ers8 .effect on the envkon~nt if ¢, ,the project is implemented a~ planaed. '. : : : "' - pROPERTY FA'~TS/DESCRIP~ION: The applicants 9;375sq, ft. parce!?.show0,as Lot 1,,~ 8nd part of Lot 11 On thefiled Map of Greenport Shores, has 75 ffi frontage'along the i~.,hst, :s[,~e/.oi ,ShCe prive~ an~l~is' improved ;with 'a' single-f~ily~; bn~bry dwellih'g'." The ,,L~,jsting:d~¢llin~ ¢ontains'ise~baeks at 30,2'-fee~ from th6~Srdnt !o,t' liriS, 20~1 feet'frorn the :~-~he~ly~s[cle:~r,~l~ atjgpnc~nformirfg 'northerly ~ide yard' ~,t a'nd ~d~ormirigi27 feet ~n. the south side ,BASIS OF~ APP~ICA'[I,ON., Budding Department's April 17, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, dting Section 100~244B; B ,its den a of a building permit to c~onstruct an addition ,to the exi!sting dwelling for the ~'ollow}ng reasons: (al total sideyards are less than 25 feet and ~b)¢h~ko,nt yar~ Will be~Ssrthan 35 f~'et. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on April 17 2003 ~at'which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon-all testimony, ~d0cumentation, 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 an addition as shown on t~ie January. 21, 2003 survey, updated February 5, 2003 b')i Peconic Surveyors, P.C. The 1Z3 ft. x 26.8 ff. addition will be at an elevation of 24 feet. or two- stow height, and is proposed at 15 feet from the south property line, for a combined side .yam' area of 23.7 feet, and 32 feet from the front property line. ApproXimately 35% of this area is existing. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings Page 2 -August 7, 2003 AppL No. 5354 - N. Rapisarda & anD. 47-2-23 at Greenport 1. Grant of the relief req dested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a dethment to nearby properties. The new construction is proposed at 15 feet from the southerly Icl line, which will be approximately 4.5 feet beyond the existing 20.1 ft. setback. The design of the new 24 f. high, two-story addition will blended with the style of the existing dwelling to give a farmhouse look. The front of the addition is proposed two feet farther than the existing 30 front setback of the dwelling, which will not be significantly close to the street. Approximately 35% of this area ~s existing. 2, The benefit sought by the applicants cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The dwelling contains limited design options to expand, based on the substandard size of the property t9,375 sq, ft., 75 ft. width and 125 lot depth) and location of the dwelling built on the site in 196t. 3. The relief granted herein is substantial. The reduction requested is a 33% reduction of the 35ft. (combined) side yard requirement, allowing a combined side yard area of 23.7 feet. The front yard variance is minimal for a two ft. reduction of the existing front yard setback. 4. The difficulty was self-created when an addition was planned without conformity to the current Town Code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the relief granted in this community of small lots with similar residential setbacks will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicants to enjoy the benefit of an addition to the dwelling, while preserving and protecting [he character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community, .RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT the variances, as applied for, as shown on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. revised February 5, 2003. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning COde, other than suCh uses, Page 3 - August 7~ 2003 ApPL No. 5354 -N. :Rapisarda & ano. 47-2~25 at Greenport of the Board: Ayes: Members Tell:C/' ' f/'~ '~ (~¢'¢~r~r~, Ge~ringer, Odando, and Vote Oliva. ~AbSentWas Member Horning.) ~~¢w~/~octed (4-0). ~!~,~ f W~/~-~ Vi¢~[bda~o, ~r~an P~ Tern 9/4/03 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOA2R. D MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ruth D, Oliva Vincem Orlando s°Ui5oid Town Hall 53095 Mahl Road P.O. Box 13.79 Southoldi New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (63J[) 765-9064 Telephone (63 ~1) 765-1809 http://southoldtovC~,northfork;net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATION~AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2003 ,Appl. NO. 5349 - Harold Reese Jr~ Lq?.afion o( Property: 1,025. Seawood .D~rive and 8360 Noi'th. Bayview Road, Southo!d; :CTM 79-7~63'~an'd 55) SEQRA DETEF~MINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals ha, s visited the prop.erty und, er ~'consideration fi,~thjs apr icat o~.ahd;determ t~es that~th sLte~/iew fa Is un~ler the TYPe II category of the State s List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment the project is implemented as tanne, d. ,~PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property iS vacant and consists of a total' lahd: area o1~,28'.33 a~c~res;.,!d¢.ntified as Cou[~ty Tax Lot #79~7-63 and 55, with ~,;105~ ft} frootage alo0g!.Se;agzoo~%'DrIve; 50 feet along Topsail Lane¢;~dd 4'99 fi: along ~Bayview Road; in So~thoEt.~: FINDINGS OF FACT BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's March 10, 2003 Notice .of Disapproval; citing Section 100-25 in 'ts denial of an application for a building permit and request for a merger determination. The reason stated in the denial is that the lands are adjacent and merged. APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Applicant requests a Waiver of Merger, pursuant to Article II, Sec,?,o,n,, 100-26 to unmerge a vacant area of 14,379.24 sq. ft. referred to as 1000-79-7- 63 ( 63 ), from the remaining land, a vacant area of 28 acres referred to as 1000-79-7-55 ("55"). The Zoning Boa[d of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 24 2003 at':which time wi'itten ;and oral evidence were presentedBased' upon all test'mony documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other ewdence, the Zomng Board finds the following .facts to be true and relevant: REASONS FOR BOARD ACTIC N: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, [he Beard makes the following findings: 1. The March 28, 2003 title'search, prepared by North Star Title Agency, Inc. indicates that Harol~ Reese, ,Jr. is and continuously owned 63 since 1/27/1969, and 55 since 2/11//66. 2. In considering this application, the Board believes that the 'original lot lines' of this property were established by two separate deed conveyances more than 34 years ago Page 2 - Au~ast 7~ 2003 Appl. No. 5389 - Harold Reese, Jr. I000-79-7-63 Lot Waiver (ref. Liber 6496 cp 689, and Liber 5909 cp 470) when the lots were acquired at different times by the applicantl Harold Reese, Jr. 3. Many lots in the neighborhood contain an area of approximately 11,000+- sq. ft., contiguous to the east (Seawood Acres, Section I), which are developed with single- family residences (approximately 29 homes). Grant of a Waiver of Merger for 63 would recognize a lot consistent with the size of a majority of the lots in this area. 4. Information was submitted by applicant to show that the waiver will avoid economic hardship. 5. The natural details and character of the lot and character of the contours and slope of the lot will not be significantly altered or changes. The difference in grade between the front and rear lot lines is approximately 20 feet. The owner proposes to locate a house built into the slope, eliminating any significant grade change and without substantial filling of land Dp/wells will contain roof runoff and proper drainage within the property is required. 6. Information has been submitted for the Building Department, which confirmed that the lot is not merged with any other adjacent land. RESOLUTION/ACTION OF THE BOARD: Now, therefore, on motion by Member Goehringer, seconded by Member Orlando, it was RESOLVED, to Grant the Waiver of Merger, as applied for. 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 Co, ce, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action/ / Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members To, ora ~Chai, p~an), Go/CSringer, Oliva, and Orla,do. (Abse,t was Member Homin~¢ of.. ~sh/e,~ I/Clan/C/.) Tbf.~ Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). 1/~t ',,ff.~/// // ~' '~'~ Vi~ 6en{'O rlah'f'd'o, Ch a-irma ~' Pro Tem 9/4/03 Approved ,for Filing APPE~ALS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora, Chairwoman Gerard E Goehringer George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIOI'qS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2003 Sotfthold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southotd, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (6311 765-9064 Telephone (63t) 765-1809 htrp://southoldtovqn.nor thfork.net AppL No. 5351 -Joseph and Donna St; Pierre ;Properby Location: 370 GeoseCreek Lane, Southold; CTM #79-1'-6 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals. has visited the prope~y under consideration in ,this application and~def, ermines that'this review falls~ under the Type 11 .category-of the. State's List. of Actions; without an adverse effect on the envirofiment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DEsCRIPTION: The applicants' 16,835 sq. ft: parcel is a narrow, deep lot with 75 ft. n width a cng a private right-of-way and 239.95 feet n depth a cng ~e ~es~;~,de of:~h~~t~o~: .:~hei.lo~ as frontage along'Goos~ Creek ~ndcontains a b~]l~head apd~ ~eparate ret~iDing gta}l filohg ,the.northerly shore front'area. The lot is improved with a one-story, frame ,[,welliBg, ;as shown on the March 26, 2003~,su~vey prep.ared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. . ~ ' - ~ ' BASIS OF APPLdCATION: Building Department's Apdl ~, 200:~ Notice of Disapproval, citing Section 100-244B, in its denial of a building permit request to"construct an addition to the existing dwelling with a single side yard at less than 10 feet and combined side yards, at. less than 25 feet. ' ' FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 24, 2003, at which time wdtten ano oral evidence were presented. Ba~ed upon alt 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 an additiomat the northeast corner of the existing dwe ng The setbacks are ,proposed at 8 feet from the side, and the combined side yards will be 14.6 feet, at its closest points. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Beard makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The 30'8" x 20' addition is proposed at a 16' height to the top of the ddge, and will be for a dining room and family room behind the house. The design is aligned with the existingi angle of the house, and the construction will increase the nonconformity to a total side yard of 14.6 feet, and Page 2 -August 7, 2003 AppL No. 5351 -J. and D. St. Pierre 79.-1-6 at Southold single side yard will be reduced from 10.3 feet to 8 feet. This type of sunroom is typical in this creek-front neighborhood and will not change the character of the area. 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 has a narrow width of 75 feet and the house is sited at approximately 75 feet from the wood retaining wall, at its closest point. To locate the addition at the opposite side of the house would require substantial redesigning of the house, and the benefit of the views from the new addition would not be available unless it were placed at the north side, facing Goose Creek. The existing house was placed by previous owners parallel to the side yards, so even tough the addition is being built straight back from the existing foot print, the side yard setback is reduced because of the angles. 3. The relief granted herein is substantial because the required side yard setback is a 10 ft. reduction of the code requirement of 25 feet for combined side yards, although it is only a 2.2 ft. reduction of the existing nonconforming side yard total of 16.9 feet~ The vadance permits a total side yard of 14.6 feet. 4. The difficulty was self-created when an addition was planned and designed which did not conform to the current Town Code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the relief requested for a parcel in this waterfront community consisting of narrow tots will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an addition, while preserving and protecting the character of the neigt~borhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLOTION 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 GRANT the variance requested, as shown on the survey dated March 26, 2003 prepared by Peconic Surveyors, 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, Page 3 -August 7, 2003 Appl. No. 5351 - .J. and D. St. Pierre 79.~1-6 at Southold / setbacks and other features as are expressly//addressed in this action. / Vote of the Boa:rd: Ayes: Members TortCa (C,hairwo/~n), G~oehri/c)ger, Orlando, and Oliva. (Abse"twas Member Hernin9~)T~s ~,.~_.~,u~ w~ Vir~snt i:)rla~d'b-~, Ch&i~a~n Pro Tern 9/4/03 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Lydia A. Tortora. Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer George Horning Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando S0~tliold'T65vn Hail 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (633_) 765-9064 Telephone (631~ 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS A~D DETERMINATION MEETING OF AUGUST 7, 2003 ~ppi? ~1o. 5360 ~ 'Nancy ~te'in p, ropecty Loca;~ion..- 2665 Cedar [~an~,iEast Marion; CTM 37-~-12..1, ' ~EQRA DETERMINATION.?h~ zd~g Board Of App~ ~ ~has V!S, ite. d.the prepe,rty~under ,cOnsideration, in this applic~ion .and d~etermines that this review ffdlls under the Type 11 ~ate~orY'of ~e State's ,Li~t ~'~tig~ Without afl adv~erse effect ~nr the envtr0fimer~t if the project is implemcn~e~ as ~NOPERTY FACTS/DESCR PTION: The applicant's 15,417+- sq, ft. parcel, shown on :tl~e filed ~ap of~ Gardinsrs Bay Estates (combined part of Lot 136, 137 and 138), has 1.49:~2. (('i~.r,~nta'~e al'~)n'~ th~' s8~]th side of Pine Place, a private r(~ad, in. East Marion The ~r&Cj~rty is i~nprove~l ~th ~0 One-stoW frame dweliing as' r~ferred to in a site map prepared by Meryl kram'er; 15,:A~ Ceased 4/28/03. BASIS OF APP~ICA'~IOiq: .Building Department's April 29, 2003 ,Notice of Disapproyal, Citing Se~tions~ '100-242A'ai~8 t00~244B, in its denial'of a b'Uilding permit to constr~uct add'iti~)nS ;~nd altera'~ionS: to l~ie ex St ng dwe ng (1) w th a front yard setback at ess than 35 feet, and (2)' With a single side yard at less than 10 feet, FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of~Appeals held a public hearing on th s application on July 24 2003, at which time wntten,.and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, d0cbmentation, persor~a! inspection of the property, and Other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE REEIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a 24 ft. sq. addition and new roof over the existing patio at the front of the 'dwelling, leaving a setback of 29.2 feet at its blosest point, measured to a tie line along an ~rregular curve with the front~ lot line, and a 24 sq. ft. bathroom addition at the northerly section of the house, leaving a setback of 4 feet from the north lot line at its closest point. 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 proposed new front yard construction, shown on the 4-15-03 architectural plan, shows minimal one-story front porch area on the west side of the house, 90% of the existing front cement deck is Page 2 - August 7. 2003 Appl. No. 5360 - Nancy Stein 37-4-12.1 au East Marion preexisting, and will be covered with new wood decking, a roof, and railings. The north yarc construction consists of adding a small 4' x 6.1' bathroom addition will be incorporated into the design of the existing house, tucked in about a foot inside to an open corner at the side, maintaining [he same four-foot side setback as the existing house and minimally visible. With respect to the front yard area, the property has greater road frontage than neighboring properties, and due to the angles in the road easement, [here is a visual appearance of conformity to the 35 ft. front yard setback requirement. With respect to the side yard, the 24 sq. ft. bathroom addition is one-stow in height and is designed to blend in with the characteristics of the dwelling, without extending beyond the existing nonconforming side yard setback: 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The lot is improved with a preexisting dwelling with nonconforming setbacks, and due to its small 15.417 sq. ft. size, areas for one-stow extensions and alterations are limited without variances. A major portio~ of the front porch is existing of cement construction. 3. The relief granted herein is substantial. The side yard reduction is substantial and represents a 40% reduction of the current code requirement for a 10 ft. minimum side yard. The applicant's front yard variance results in a reduction of 15.7% of the 35-ff. minimum requirement, or 5.6 feet, allowing a 29.2 ft. front yard setback. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the additions and alterations were planned by applicant without conformity to the cUrrent Town Code requirements. 5. No evidence has been submitted to shOw that the grant of the relief requested will have an adverse effect or impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 6. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of additions, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. This is a waterfront community of Consisting of nonconformities with respect to setbacks and lot sizes. RESOLUTION OF THE BO_ARD: In considering ail 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 variances as applied for, and, shown on the prepared by Meryt Kramer, R.A. revised 4/28/03. :Page 3 - August 7, 2003 App]. No. 5360 - Nancy Stein 37-4-12.1 at East Marion Kramer, R.A. revised 4/28/03. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other featur~,s as a~e expressly ~dSressedin this action. Vote of the, Board; Ayes: Members Torto~//(c'¢airw_9~), (~oehri~ger, Orlando, and Oliva. (Absent was Member Homing.) T?~., ~-'~R'e~a~IY'~ pted~L,,~ ~ ~/~' (4-0). V~n6ent Orla)'~d~, Ct~a~rma~ Pro Tern 9/4/03 Approved for Filing