The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutZBA-07/25/2002 5S:~EALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hail Gerard P. Goehdnger, C2airman 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Torrora P.O. Box 1179 George J-Iorning Southold. New York 11971-0959 ~0~d Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (63I 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631/765-J.809 http://soutl~oldtown, northfork.net. BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 7-8:7-1 7~25 2:32 PM. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, JULY 25. 2002 6:~:3~p.m. Call to Order· I. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW DETERMINATIONS (SEQRA): Type 11 Declarations CNa ¢urther steps under State Law~: Appl, No. 5155 - ROBERT B. AND MARY ANN SKOBLICKt. Accessory B & B. Appl. No. 5142- KENNETH DIMON Appl. No, 5164 - WAYNE AND SHEILA DINIZIO Appl. No. 5147 - FRED AND DONNA FRAGOLA. Appl. Nc,.'5138 - NANCY BRUSH · ,.., No. 5136 MICHAEL CHUISANO (Owner: Paul Maggio). Arpl. No. 5141 - WILLIAM ARANEO, Appl. No. 5137 DAVID AND LISA CIFARELLI. Withdrawn· Appl_ No. 5140 - ANDRZEJ AND RENATA KOPALA. Front yard setback. Appl. No. 5175- RUSSELL W, MEYER· Setback variance. Appl No. 5:139 - VINCENT AND DIANA CARVELLI. Setback and location variances. Unlisted Declarations with Neoative Effect on the Environment: Appl. No. 5140 - ANDRZEJ AND RENA~A;KOPALA, ustc lot coverage and fence height, Appl No. 5139 - Vl NCENT AND DIAN4.C,~RVELL, as to at coverage. Others pendinq site plan or ether aqencv reviews: Appl. No. 5146 - NORTH FORK STORAGE. II. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Written testimor~y in lieu of extensive ora test rnony is requested and would be ,appreciated. All testimony shall be limited to zomng issues ¢ropedy before the Board ~m AppL No. 5155 - ROBERT B, AND MARY ANN SKOBLICKt This is a request for a Special Exception under Code Section, 100-31B(;14)' [ref, 100-30B14] to Operate an accessory Bed and Breakfast incidental to their ownership residence in the existing dwelling. Applicants propose a maximum of three (3) B & B guest rooms, for up to six guests. On~site parkin~ is proposed for a minimum of five (5) v.ehicfes. Location of Properly: 2110 Oaklawn Avenue, Southold; Parce 70-2-25.1. [~0~¢¢1~ ~ /{~¥~/~/~ ~7~/~.~' ~q~ / ,,- ~-¢¢'~ pm. Appl~ No. 5142 - KENNETH DIMON. This is request for a Variance under Section 100-33(1), based on the April 9, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for an as-buiit addition to an accessory garage that is less than three feet to the rear lot line. ,~g~L'620KnappPlace, Greenporti 34.-3-10././r~/%0~.~ '¢~¢r, /~tl/~S ~t>¢i3~/! t~:40 pm Appl. No, 5144 - WAYNE AND SHEILA DINIZIO. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B, %.Fli¢Cl)~based on the B,uJld~ing D~,pa,rtmertt%;March, 29 2002 Notice Of Bisapproval for a garage addition to the exi¢ing dwelling ,with, a front yai'd Se,{back a[ less than 35 feet. 1975 Cpt. Kidd Drive. Mattituck: 10~.-I-12. [-t;*~'¢. ~Z_ ¢ ~¢~,, Page 2 Agenda updated 7/25/02 2:32 P,~. Regular Meeting of JuIy 25~ 2002 Southold Town Board o£Appeals II. PUBLIC HEARINGS continued: ~nC~"~':'4~pm Appl. No. 5147 - FRED AND DONNA FRAGOLA. Request for a Vadance L~der Section 100-244B, based on /the Building Department's April 15, 2002 Notice of Dis~approval to locate a dwelling with * front yard setback at less than 40feet. 1145 Gull Pond Lane. Greenport: 35.-4-8. ~6/ 7~ ~/~,. 11 'O¢oQ_pm Appl. No. 5138 - NANCY BRUSH. Request for a Variance under Section 100-33, based on the Building 6' Depadment's April 1 2002 Notice of Disapproval cenceming a proposed swimming pool. The S~im~ing pool is being ~located, in part. within a side yard. 8581 New Suffolk Avenue, Cutchogue; t16.-1-1.2, q,~.crt,~ RESOLUTION to Re-Calendar. with new notices, for future hearing date (September 19'" requested by a'tomey for applicant). 6:55 pm AppL No. 5136 - MICHAEL CHUIBANO (Owner: Paul Maggio). This is a request for a Variance under 100 244B, based on the April 1, 2002 Notice of D, isappreval for a new dwelling at less than 50~fegt from the mar Iot~ and less than 40 feet from the front lot linc. 575 Diamond Lane. Peconib; 68.2 10. Abigail A. Wi~ham, Esq. 7,lqr . .:~ '. L~ TtO~-pm Appl. No. 5141 - WILLI,A,M ARANEO. Th~s is a request f{5~a Variance under Section 100-242A, ref. 100-244B, Obased on the Building Department s March 22 2002 Notice of:Disapl:/rov, al, for an "as but" deck addition at less than 15 ..~J( ,~et for a s~ngle s~de yard. at 460 V~liage Lane. Mattduck 114.-6-19. I[~/.~.~n CANCELED BY APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT. 7:10 pm Appl. No. 5137 DAVlD AND LISA CICARELLI. This is a request for V~dances under Section 100 101 and 100 2-13A, basod on tho Building Department's Fobruary 15, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for proposed window cleaning business, and proposed additions and alterations to a commercial building/single family residence. Zone District: B General Business. Location of Properly: 11160 Main Road. Mattituck: Parcel 1000 122. 3 9. Appl. No. 5140 - ANDRZEJ AND RENATA KOPALA. This is a request for Variances under Section 100-30A.4 100-30A.3. based on the Building Department's March 27. 2002 Notice of Disapproval for the location of a proposed partly in a front yard, and fencing greater than four feet in the fronl yard and greater than 6.5 feet in the rear 'yard. Lot coverage will also exceed the code limitation of 20% of the total lot area. Location of Property' 675 Locust ~ver3Je, Southold; Parcel tO00-62.-3-32../~,qC.~'V'~-6¥ '~ ,~z'/-C-C'c-~(e.oct. Z¢~ /'~'~/'¢0'"',~ 7~m Appl. No. 5173 - RUSSELL W. MEYER. This is a request for Variances to locate additions and alterations to the existing dwelling, under Sections 100-244 and 100-239.4B based on the June 4. 2002 Amended Notice of Disapproval. new construction will have setbacks at less than 50 fi. from the rear yard line and less than 75 feet from the edge of the freshwater body. 6815 8oundview Avenue. 8oathold: Parcel 59.-6-1. ,~-zz..~-e~- Appl No. 5139 - VINCENT AND DIANA CARVELLI. Request, based on a Notice of Disapproval amended ~., 2002, for Area Variances under Sections 100-239.4B 100-242A, 100-244B, and 100L30A.4 (100-33), Balk Sche[ ,,,.I,¢0'or proposed dwelling additions and alterations which do not meet the minimum setbacks from the rear lot line frofi~ Aisc preposed is a swimming pool to line, lot line to the bulkhead, and lot coverage in excess of 20% of the total ct area. Page 3 - Agenda updated 7/25/02 2:33 PM Regular Meeting of Jul5 25, 2002 $outt~old To~ Board o f Appeal.' II. PUBLIC HEARINGS. continued: ~;;~'o)0.-- ~r¢~ //~_.~. Carve]li hearing, continued: ~O,~ ~t3~- ~ ~ be located in a side yard area, r~her than a rear yard., or permitted front yard. 3605 Camp Mineola Road. Mattituck; 123.-6-t2.4. David Be.~. Architect. 7:45 p~ Appl. No. 5146 - NORTH FORK STOOGE (Ownen Tide Group}. Request for a Variance under Se~ion 100 131, ba~ed o~ the Building Depadmonts Juno ~8, ~002 Amended Notice of Disapproval which ~tates that a ~olf storage business is not permitted i~ .an LI Zone Distri~. Also requo~od are ~otbacks for now buildings proposed at ess than 100 feet from the right of way, and less than 75 feet from the roar propody line; Middle Road, C.R. 48, and Depot La, Cutchogue; 96 1 1. Anthony B. Tohilt. P.C.- New ~lendar date reque~ed by a~orney, pending possible amendment for Interpretatbn relie[ before finalizing with PB if possible. III POSSIBLE DELIBERATIONS/DECISIONS on the followinq applications: ./A. Car~overs from previous meeting calendam: Appl. No. 5058 ~ CHRISTINE KOSMYN~ and ANN BURGER (formerly Leoniak properly). Hearing concluded 6/20; ~Appl No 5098 - GEERI MARTENS AND R. MURRAY. ~Received landscape info ~AppL ~O. 5127- N~TEL. J. Caputi, Esq. (Hearing concluded 6/20). ~ppl. ~o. 50~8 - Gk~ and CHRISTINE DAWSON ~50 BroaOwaters ~oed, Cutchooue. Headn~ ~ncluded ~120. ~0~ppl. ~o, 5072 - DR. d. CAkklS, fiI AL (Miller prope~y) Headno concluded ~120. ~).AppL Re. ~ - Mattiluck Historical Society. (Headn~ conclude~ 5/~fl. ~endinO financial info~ation item applicant,) ~fo~ation - mquo~ed by ~ ~-02.) B. ~eliBerationstDecisions item ~ublic Hearings held oedier. (see A~onda Item supra). ~. ~ew Hoa~n~s/Re~ular Moetin~ Da~o confirmed: ~:30 p,m, August 22, 2002: B. Spocial Moetin~ reminder September ~, 2002, for car~ove~/docisions when appropriate. V. POSS~LE E~C~I~ SESSION (litigation pending - t/b/d). APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~~ Southold'Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ~ 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 George Horning Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http: 'southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS:AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 25. 2002 Appt. No. 5140 - ANDRZEJ. AND RENATA KOPALA. Property Location: 675 Locust Avenue, Southold CTM 62.-3-32 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the prope~ under consideration in this application and determines that this rewew falls under the Type ti category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the enwromuent if the project is implemented as planned as a setback or lot line request. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTiON: The applicant's property is located on the comer of Lx~cnst Av~mue and L'Hommedieu Lane in Southold and consists of 25,000 sq. ft. of land area. This parcel is improved with a one-story dwelling 41+- ft. from the westerly front line and 40.3 feel; from the southerly front lot line. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's March 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval denying a permit To constm~ a clay ~enms court structure with eight-ft, high fencing, noting that the new constmeti0n does not me~t the requirements of Sections t00-30A.3, 100-30A.4 and 100- 23 ~.: The code fkqUirement is that aecessoxy structures be located in a rear yard, that fence be limited to a height of 4 ft. when located in a front yard and of 6.5 feet when located m or along side and mar yards, and that lot coverage be limited to 20% of the area of the lot. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zon./ng Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 25. 2002. at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all teitimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and the area. and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to ~be tree and mlevam. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REOUESTED: Apphcants request variances for: (a) the proposed loeation Of a clay ;ems ~urt as an accesso~- su-ucmre partly m a nonconforming front yard area and partly in,coxlf0rming ~ear yard area; (b) mnnis court fencing at a maximum height of 8 ft.; (0 an increase in, lot coverage to a maximum of 32 percent of the lot for the purpose of adding 5 I">~ 105' clay tennis cotirt structure 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 ama variance will nm produce change m the character of 'the neighborhood. Applicants have accepted as a condition of this variance that the outside of fence areas will be Page 2 - Suly 25, 2002 Appl. No. 5140- A. and R. Kopala 62-3-32 at Southold screened along both the norda and south directions (toward road and maintain screening north and south oftenuls court) during the existence of this structure. 2. Durhag the hearing applicants testified that they were unable to find a larger piece of property (larger than a half acre) at a price range that they were financially able to spend. After reviewing the record and viewing the site, it wns noted that although this parcel is a corner lot, the rear yard area is quite large. Also, them were no objections offered, either in wrifmg or at the hearing. Comments received were in fact in support of the application. 3. Consideration of the relief songht in this application was carefully reviewed by Board Members, and the Board finds that although the tennis court is fairly large, it will be smaller than the average and the court will be of a natural, earth (clay) material, lea-/mg the rear yard 'visibly unobstructed because it does not give the appearance of a building wall, and the fen(mg will not take up all of the mar yard area. At the hearing, the applicants furnished a measurement of +-14 ft., south -between the fence and the front property line. Motion offered by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Horning, and duly carded, to: DENY the lot coverage request of 32% as applied for, and GRANT ALTERNATIVE RELIEF allowing a smaller clay tennis court stmct~are with fencing, subject to the following CONDITIONS: 1. Total lot coverage on this site for building areas and accessory tenms court improvement not to exceed 30% of the total tot area; this allowable lot coverage shall be for a clay tennis court, which cannot be substituted for another building or structure; the difference between dwelling and the clay tennis court will result in the size limitation of the proposed clay tennis court. 2. The Board requests that the setback from the north and south property lines be increased - the setback be increased on the public road (south) side from 14 to +-16 fe~. 3. The planfmg of arborvitaes (evergreens) at a minimum height of 5 feet, spaced 3'- 5' apart, along the outside of the fencing on the public road side (south side); this screening for the tennis court shall be mairrtained on noF~h and south after installation of the fence. 4. The tennis court structam must be of clay material only. 5. The tennis court shall not be illuminated. 6. The tennis court shall not be leased, and shall be used only by applicant/owners' Page 5, July 25, 2002 Appl. No. 5140- A. and R. Kopala 62-3-32 a~ Southold friends and relatives. This action does not author'~ze or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zorfmg Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (~-'~ortom..~.J-Im'rdag,/mad)Orlando. (Member Oliva was absent.)This Resolut[oi1 ~~~~///~/ // August 1, 2002 APPEALS BOAi~D MEMBERS ~~. Southold Town Hail Gerard P. Goehrknger, Chairman ~ 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 L~vdia A. Tortora George Horning Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631l 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldt own.nor th fork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETI~NG OF JULY 25. 2002 Appl. No. 5058- ANN BERGER and CHRISTINE ~OSMA~KA as TENANTS IN COMMON, and EUGENE BERGER and MARTIN KosMYNSi¢~ as TENA_NTS IN COMMON. PROPERTY LOCATION: 2040 Pine. Tree Road. Cu,tchogue (combined lot area, consisting of CTM Nos. 15. 16, 17 of Section 98, Block L) , Note: Conditions also refer to another lot opposite this parcel referred to as CTM'98-1-1L2 (owned by M. and A~ ~.0smynka). DAT~ OF P~BLIC I~U~ARING(S): February 21, 2002. March 28, 2002, June 2b, 2002. SEQRADETERM~ATION: TheZoningBoardofAppealshasvisitedthepropertyunderconsiderationinthis. a.~.p, li~!!0(t ~nd~' de£6i-mine~ tha~! this review f~ts under the Type Ii category of the State's List of Actions, W~th~tl an ~ers~ effect ~thg 6nvir~nment if the project is implemented as planned. Iq~Ol'ERT~ :. X¢'I S. IIl'~( Rll"l IO%: Applicants' property is located on the westerly side of Pine Tree Road in ('lll¢'h0tllt' a}l(I ('(ill,tiM ~ 0f il Iolal lu't.a of 59,014 sq fL It is an improved lot with a dwelling and garage building leealell al Ill,.' renler ol' Ih(' )la} n'rty~ The parcel consists of smaller~ lots shown on the March 28, 1935 s}ll}(li~ i,ion liltlp;' filed il, lin' Sul'folk ( '6unty Clerk's Office as Map No. 1179 of Nassau Farms, referred to as #29. .t0..ti. anlf .i.::..Xl}plicanf,' i}rlqn, rL~ is improved with a dwelling and garage buildihg, near the center of the I}~'~qnq'13.} :'l'l e 10.~5 m:ll).qmT~n ~l ~ite Of appruxlmateiy 60+- ft. in width, and 13,650+- sq. ft. in size for each. I~ASIS (~ ~PlfllgA~TION: On November 8, 2001, the former awners of the property, Peter and Valerie I.e'o!li.}i... "" I I'. C Ill}Il ~l II ! lilt' Huilding Department for a division of merged 10ts into two lots, with a lot ~i~e i}r~22,;.~9?..sq.lf: ~ 104 fL il} }~ illlll with an accessory building for proposed Parcel I~ and with 36,617 sq. ft. an!Ill2'5.. I'l. il~:~ iillllt nil0 a.sil~ah'-famih dwelllng proposed Parcel. IL The Building Department disapproved the .qq}!u,~ll~ qn Nine~ }. u'r 8. 2001. ami agmn on November 29, 2001, as amended, for the reason that it wo,.ld t[~'l~i{tim[~ ] ( ] t · · ]e~' J¢~,617 sa ft. and t25 feet in width r ...... a ~ .... , rr, ..... t ¢ O!ll.i p,~l} t I I i}I q~l}~t.iI ~ .u ,ill! I ,Il t el I) of 22,397 sq. ft. and 104 feet m vwdth, and place an accessory building on }Ill ~.~? ~n. . I,~ :.1'- ·¢ubst'~ }n'n.ll.~ .~. I}.~ Il'Iici: dated· July 25, 2002 the Board {ifAppeals received reformation to show Ill,~t~l§¢~ c[ll u~,. lU ~II?'lll) ~ als t 011~ C) ell ~m£ by deeds dated March 29, 2002, by the Le6niaks to Berger and others. O~ .F;~N: ~u~ng 2t101, bY s. eparate application filed u. nder nppL No. 4995, Peter and Valerie l.e~hh~t~ '. ~$~rq aplilicm}l~. ~ld}mdted a request for Lot Wmvers for three m , · ; ..,:.. , !. ..... erged parcels. Dunn [llt~:l!}l [!hi. ~U?ll ii[g~ll.l, ot eqn ,, t'l r In. hi Oil this apphcatlon and the application was withdrawn. ,I ) )llc~,ml~ Ill[~l'~ .( ~{ .' ('rs e · %1) )1 No 5058 nron0sino in~,,ffiot,~,* ~,., ....... .~ ~..' ...... line.apllllcaliim' g FINDINGS OF FACT RELIEF*REOUESTED: Variances are requested for the following: iPage 2 - July 25 2002 ~'BA Appl. No. 5058 - Berger and others ~Parce198-1-15. 16. 17. also 98-1-11.2 at Cutchogue (1) Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3 of the Zoning Code for the reason that both proposed Parcels I and II do not meet the minimum code requirement of 40,000 sq. ft. per lot, and do not meet the minimum requirement for lot width of 150 feet per lot in the Residential R-40 Zone D~str~ct. Parcel I ~s proposed of 22,397 sq. ft. m area and 104 sq. ft. of lot width; Parcel II is proposed of 36,617 sq. ft. and 125 ft. in lot width. (2) Section 100-31 of the Zoning Code for the reason that ar~ accessory garbage is not permitted on a lot. The accessory building is proposed on Parcel I without a dwelling. REASONS FORBOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the area varmnee~ will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because the applicants. (fo~mer owners) believed they had a total of three lots,'and later' learned that the lots ~vere merged under'Section 100-24 and 100-25 of the Zoning Code. The former lots (CTM 15, 16 and 17) were, similar to those Shown on the 1935 subdivisi~n~ map, and thbse lots ekisting in the area. The new ia3~oat of the p~operty will creat~e a ~total of two ors, .and wh~c are equal ~, or larger, than lots in the area. IPle~se also s~e hearing transcript which is incorporated tis part of the record, for facts and testimony?rovided.) 2. The benefit s0ugl~,t by :the appficant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an~ area variance. The lot does nat contain a minimum of 80~000 sq. ft. to Create :t~o lots of 40,'~000 sq, ft. ~3. The co~le~x~quire, ment, is 40~000 sq. ft. per lot and a minimum lot width of/~50 feet. The relief Yequested f6v~t~e~lfft s~i~of pr0poSed Parcel I ~s sabstanfial: because it only meets 56% Of the code requireme~ (~39'~ sqi~ft~), q[~he variance is not substantial in relation to the lb~ si~e o1' propoged Parcel II beca~s~ ~t ~s 3~o617 sq. ft. and meets 91.5 '/o of the code reqmrement. .~4~. No ~evid~e~e!~as bee~ s~mitted to suggest that variances requested for the lot sizes in the proposed ~?arcels I ~ai~ 'II Will h~ve an adverse impact on physical or environmenta~ conditions in the neighborhood~ 5. G ant of ~th~ requested variance ~s the m~mmum action necessa~ and adequate~ to enable the iapplicant to e~j~y th6: be ~n~t of a second building lot, while preserving and protecting t~e character of rthe neighb0rli~od and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B. motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried, to GRA~T the. Variance as applied for, in accordance with the map approved ~0/23/0! prepared by Kenneth II. Beckman L.S.. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Page 3 - July 25; 2002 ZBA AppL No, 5058 - Berger and others Parcel 98,%15, 16, 17, also 98~1-112at Cutchogue 1. That the ownership of proposed Parcel II and CTM 98-1-11.2 (currently owned by Martin and Christina Kosmynka as their residence, across the street- be of the same ownership; 2. That the yard and garage on proposed Parcel II be maintained in neat condition, with no outdoor storage- except hat one boat may be permitted. 3. That a natural evergreen screen be planted .of arborvitae at a min. height of four feet and four feet apart, inside of the north property line of Parcel II during the Fall 2002, and be kept mainta'med. 4. That only one driveway shall b.e constructed for Parcel [I, and the driveway shall remain on the southerly side of tile property (as currently located). 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: Member~s~Go~ringer (Chairman), Tortora, Horning, and Orlando. (Member Oliva was absent due t~c~ily illnes~ T~u ~n~n~Y adopted (4-0). JG.G~rd P. Goehringer. CI~airma/r ~August 16,2002 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS _~ Southold Town Halt Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ~ 53095 Main Road ~'- Lydia A. Torrora P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southotd, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http:#southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 25, 2002 Appl. No. 5117 - Lucas Ford Property Location: 3245 Horton's Lane, Southold CTM Parcel: 59-3-32.1 SEORA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the properW under consideration ii~ this application and determines that this review falls under the Unlisted Actions category provided in the New York State review act, without an adverse effect on the environment ff the proje? is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the west side of Horton Lane.in Seuthold. The pr~pegty is improved with a car-truck sales dealership and is located in the B- General Business!,Zone Distfiet There are two wall signs and one ground sign existing at the premises. BASIS OF, .APPLICATION: Building Department's January 15, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, denying sign permi~k ~un~r se~tiod, i00-205.i~, '100-205D and 100-206B, for the reasons that four proposed (two wail and two gr°und signs) are not permitted,4' the code provides for a lhuit of two alternative ~ign or~alternatiye,,corabinations, and therefore four signs are excessive; applicant is also requesting two fPe~standing or ground sigfis instead of the code limitation for only one freestanding sign for each (one) road frontage; and interljally illuminated signs are prohibited in this zone district. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 25, 2002. at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and the area, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants are proposing to remove two existing wall signs and one ground sign, As a replacement two new wall signs on the rear of the building will be placed, and two ground signs are requested, one being a monument sign and the other replacing the existing ground sign in the same location, all as shown on the 9-27-88 site plan map (prepared by John A. Grammas Associates) with handwritten notations added by the sign company for consideration. (Please see ZBA file, or sign company diagrams dis~ipproved by the Building Department, for dimensions and color and related specifications of the signs3 REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1, The grant of an area variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhoud or detriment to nearby properties. The illumination of the four signs, and an increase in the number of signs from two to four. are prohibited under the currem Zoning Ordinance pertaining to signs. Use of illuminated signs is also prohibited in the B Business Zone. An increase of signs from a total of three to four is unwarranted for these types of non-conformities. The additional interior lighting of the proposed, signs' will create an unnecessary brightness, adverse to the neighborhood, with Page 2 - 3'uly 25. 2002 ZBA Al)pl. No. 53_ 17 - Lucas Ford 59-3-32. I at Southold late-night lighting and an unnecessary freestanding structure. The proposed use by applicant is to have an increase in illumination and signs, which is unnecessary and excessive because the business is visible from C.R. 48and Hutton Lane, as well as other areas within view, during regular business hours. The alternative relief granted in this determination will provide for extra signage, fallowing continued advertising and viewhag for the business - before, during, and after business hours. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some meth~od feasible, for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance. 'Exterxmlly righted signs placed m acgordance with Town Code are a viable alternative avmqable to the applicant (instead of internally lighted signs). 3. The relief sought is substantial. The applicant's original request is for four (4) highly visible info-;ur-illuminated sions to be ket~ lighted at ali times, both.day and ~aigig. · The aReruntive relie( for signs with code-permifted exterinr: lighting, grants of up to thre~ S~gns (total), instead of the cod limitation Of two signs, is more in. co~nformity with the intentions of the.~code provisions. Tho r~liof annlied for by annlicants will have an adverse effect or impact 0n~ thee physical Or environmental conditiansln the neighborhood or d~stnct Th, ere ~..e~,properties~jgcen~ an0,~thin ~4~ of ~h~ annlicant's n~o0ertv ~which are zoned or used residential fy. or agricul~ally..~T~he auve~e effect on the neighborhood, with late-mght hghtlng and excess~ve, s~ ~ structm'es~ o, ~t~?)g~s~ tn? pene, )~ ~h~ ~nnlle~nt The Oronosed'use to have an increase in illUminatei signs for a~]~erfisement pUrposef is unneces.s, ary because the bus,ness ,s ws,ble from C.R. 48 dunng re~gula~ bus,qe~s ~ou~s. E~ter,~r signage will continue to exist for the purposes intended by the a p!icant, befoie; during, aii~ after business hours. 5.1 The difficulty has been self-created. BOARD ~SOLU.TION: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New Yorl~ Town Law ~67-B. motibn offered by Member Homing, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried, to: DENY the application as applied for, and to GRANT ALTERNATIVE RELIEF for replaceme~nt of the two existing Wall signs with two new wall signs, and replacement of one of the ground signs with one new ground sign, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There will be no interiorly illuminated signs as groposed by the applicant on the building. 2. The pre-existing, non-canforming ground mounted sign will not be illuminated after 10pm. or before 6am. 3. No other interior-lighting of signs, or other ground signs, are granted in this decision. 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 nsec, setbacks and other features Page 3 - July 25, 2002 ZBA Appl. Blo[ 5117- Lucas Ford 59-3-32. I at Southold as are expressly addressed in this action. TVo°~O ;~t t(~ie]]';~;~: oliA YvaeS~ asM~bn;be~.S) ~~n~ a;~e~.O rlan do. Nay:Member BOARD MEMBERS ~r.,,v .~.x~ - Southold Town Ha}I Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairma~ ~'~ 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora ~'i P.O. Box 1179 George Homing ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959 Rnth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincem Orlaado ~ Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTItOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONSAND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JULY 25, 2002 Cpl. No. 51,27 ~ NEXTEL (A. Junge, Owner) operty l~0cation: 21855C~R. 48 (Middl~ Rfiad), Cutchogue Parcel: 96-149.1 SEORA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under considerati0n in tiffs, ai~plication anti'determines that this review falls under tbe Type II.category Of the State's List of Actibns, Without an adverse effect on the environment if the projecLisl, implemented as planned as a setback request. PROPERTY FA. CTS]DESCRIP~ION: The applicant's property is located on the north side of C.R. ~8 in Cutchogue, ....witlt ~5;589 Sq. fl. of land area and road frontage of 168.17. f~.: The p prtyro e is immediately adjacenf~ to' lhe Landfill at the north side. To t. he west are r,esidence~, and to the east, · vacant land. ~ The' prop~r~y ~s located in t. he Light Industrml Zone District and improved with an ~existhtg Telecoinmunications Ti~wer~ and business buildings. I~ASIS~OF APPIS1CATIO~: guilding Department's March 6. 2002, Amended March 11, 2002 Notice of Disapproval denSdng a permit to construct- an equipment shelter (storage building) for the reason that the~building Js p~oposed in a location at less than 70 feet from the rear property lin~ FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board 9fAppeals held a public hearing on this application on July 25, 2002. at which time wiqtten and oral e~idence was presented. Based upon all testimany~ documentation, personal inspection of the property, and the area, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. ARE~. VARIANCE :RELIEF REOUESTED: Applicant's request a location of a proposed 12'8' x mono~pole structure. - REASONS FOR,BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: L Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The Telecommunications Law requires co-location on existing towers~ This propert~ Contains an existing tower, and applicant's proposed a co-locate of an antenna in accordance with the codes. The need for an equipmem shelter building is in support of the co- locatiom The existing Telecommunications Tower sits approximately 41 feet to the rear property line. and there is aneed for this building to be as close to the tower as possible. 2. The be!~efit song~ by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to putsa~e' ;other than an a~ea variani:e because of environmental constraints and because the proposed locatinfl, ~s the most ~ben~ficial to the applicants and the neighborhood. The requested variance is nat Page 2 - Jal3 25. 2002 ZBA Appl, Iqo. 5127 - Nextel 96-1-1 O.1 at Cutehogue unreasonable and is within keeping of the many regulations pertaining to public utility uses and transmission towers. 3. The area variance is not substantial, will be one.story in height, and exceeds the setback requirements which apply to similar types and designs of accessory, storage structuees in this and all other zone districts, 4: The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental ~onditions in the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted to suggest the new location of the equipment shelter structure will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant will provide landscaping for buffering~ to screen outside of the fence area. The Board suggests ,five-f0ut arborvitae, planted four feet apart, to be continuously maintained. However, the Board resewes the right to ~review this buffering !ayout if~screen~ng is not adequately followed by applicant relative to this particular area. 5. application, the Board deems this action to be the minimum necessary and enjoy the benefit of a new accessory equipment shelter, and that the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, welfare BOARI~ RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors, and' appl~ng the balancing test under New Ybrk Town Law 267-B. motion was offered by~ MemBer To'ora, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, and duly carried, to: · iG~T tt~'~anance,as appbed for, and shown on the s~te plan drawings SP-land SP-2 dated $/~22/o~evi~:ed 8/2~/0~t., bY William F Collins, A. LA. 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 addressed4n this action. '-.. Vote of the Board: A~es: ~qfib'~goe.~4ug,er (C~-pmn), Tortora, Horning, and Orlando. (Member oliva w~ absen~s~o~y~ d~o~l~ (4-0). /~e~/ard P. Goehn'nger. Chairmj(n ~ /