Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/03/2002APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS =a~%%N,~' Southold Town Hall /~'~Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road ~_~ Lydia A. Tortora ~ P.O. Box :[179 George Homing ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando ~ Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 AppL No. 5165- Suzanne Egan. Location of Preperty: 37415. Main Road, Orient: Parcel 20-1-3.2. and 3.5 (as one lot). REQUEST, MADE BY APPLICANT: This ts a request for a Special Exception under Article III, Section 100-30A.2B and 100:31B, sub-sections 14a-d of the Southold Town Zoning Code (amended 2-7-9). Applicant:owner requests an Accessory Bed and Breakfast, accessory and incidental to the owner's occupahcy in this single-family dwelling, with up to three (3) bedrooms for lodging and serving of breakfast to not more than six (6) casual, transient momem. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: This property contains approximately 1:.84 acres of land located on the north side of, the Main Road' (a/k/a State Route 25) in Orient. T,he property is improved with a s ngle-family dwelling and three accessory buildings. The dwell!ng'6ccupied and maintained as a single-family dwelling by the owner/applicant. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Bpa~d of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on September 19 2002 at whichi time wilton, and. 0?ill evidence was presented. Based upon alt testimony, documentation, persona i,nspect on of th6: property and the area and other ev dence, the Zoning Board finds the followng facts to b~e true .and relevant. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION. DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony and record before the Board a'n~d personal mspect~o~ the Board makes the following findings: 1. Th~s use as req~estec~ ts reasonable m relabon to the District ~n which ~s located adjacent use d~stncts, a~nd ge~arby aad.,adjac~nt res~denhal uses. Th~s proposed Bed and Breakfast Accessory Use s inc den{a(;tO {he aiJ. plica;nL~ownets residence in this dwelling as'~single-family dwelling. 2. The own~'s pr,eposeU- Bed and Breakfast accessory use will not prevent- the orderly and reasonabl,e ,,u~ of} adjacent properties or propedies in adjacent use :districts or of permitted or legally ~bli~hed Us~s i~ ,this zone distrtct or adjacent use districts. 3, The sa, f~y~ health ~elfare comfort convenience order of the town would not be adversely a.ffected b~ t~ proj~osed~ Bed a~d Breakfast accessory use and its location. 4. The st~b~d ~11 be ~dily accessible for fire and police protection. 5. The~_,,~._~pto~e_.d flse will be in harmony w~th, and promote, the general purpose and intent of the z~ni~g~/i~[{9[~0,0~and ~vi/becompat bio with its surroundings and with the character of the neighb~nd-~fth6~jommunt in]enera~ , y g . 6 The s~Pe~l Except o~ is for approval of an accessory use (Bed and Breakfast in an existing home) an~ W ,not ~revent the orderly and reasonable use of this property or adjacent properties. 7. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that this minor variance will have an adverse impact Page 2 - October 3, 2002 B & B AppI. No. 5165 - Suzanne Egan 20-i-3.2 and 3.5 at Orient on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. This accessory use is an authorized zoning use subject to a Special Exception review and approval by the Board of Appeals ane a Certificate for Occupancy from the Building Inspector for other safety and health regulations. 8. No adverse c, onditions were found after considering items lis[ed under Section 100-263 and 100- 264 of the Zoning ~;(~d~e. BOARD ACTION/RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors, the following actioi~ was taken: On motion by c~)a!rman Gioehringen seconded by Member Orlando, it was RESOJ.VED, k0.,,,?,_.R~N,~__ ~.tble application for an Accessory Bed 'and Breakfast .Use as described above: 'FOT:HE EO'L~OW NG CONDIT ONS: · 13A~'rhuTn. of f~e (5) park ng spaces sha be emsi[e on this property (th'me for the I~ ~d ~r~c'akfast Use and two for the s~ngte-famlly~fwell[ng)~ 2) Appl~'~.a~t-Own,er shali occupy the dwelling as their p[i~cip~,l r,esi,dence, and ,shall obtain.~--.~ ,~ a~ ¢~lfi~te, of Occupancy or Comptian¢e frg~ ~e Bui~ing Dep ~.~,~ent befor~ ob~u~ap(~ qflhe bu' d'ng as a neTM Accesso~ Bed 3) IBm g~Utl'~rigat~on by tl~e Board of ~peals B~e~kf~s[~., ,fid does not include use of the Io~ ahd t~ru~liri(~ i~(~r' any .mhe~ fis~ or p. po e. · obta n a B & B perm t fm!~ the Town of Southold 4) The o~ers-app cant sba B,bild~g~,Dep~rtment as required by Code Secti0i? 1~0p~31 5) ~h~C~l~all be no backing out of cam onto Reute, 2 6) Ther,e Stta I be a flexib e chain ladder placed~ r~e~. each guest bedroom for etn~gency p~Urposes. 7) The Board of Appeals reserves the right to visit I trding compliance with, the, conditions of this approval· Vote of the Board: Ayes:, Members GoehrJnger (Cha duly adopted (3-0). ~Membe~ Hoining of Fishers Island illness.) / GG:VO / ~Gera~ P. - AP~E;d Bo/(RD MEMBERS ~ G Southold Town Hall · erard P. Goehringcr, Chairman 53095 Main Road ,.~? Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 \'k.~ George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 ~' Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 x(, Vincent Orlando Telephoae (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.north:~ork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Appl, No. 5072 - JERRY CALLIS, JOHN PETROCELLI, JOSEPH MACARI. Property Locati?n: 1610 paradise Point Road. Southold; 81-3-19.004 (owned by James and Barbara-M II~i'); In the matter of the application of Jerry Callis, John Petrocalli and Joseph Macari, appellantS, to reverse and annul Building Permit #27894-Z dated November 13, 2001 and Certificate of Occupancy dated November 30, 2001, issued by the Building Deoartment for an accessory "platform with monument" located on property owned by James and Barbara Miller, 1610 Paradise Point Road, Southold: SCTM 1000-81-3- 19.4. RELIEF REQUESTED: This is an appea~ to reverse and annul a building permit dated November 13. 2001 (#27894-z) issued to James and Barbara Miller for "construction of 60 sq. ft. platform. located 20 ft. from the apparent high water for a monument and to the conditions of the DEC and Trustees," and to reverse and annul a Certificate of Occupancy dated November 30. 2001 (#Z-28096) issued to James and Barbara Miller for an "accessory platform with monument". Appellants request the board to reverse and annul on the following grounds: 1. Appellants maintain that the 40-foot high heron sculpture is not a "monument" and therefore not entitled to the height exceptions enumerated in Section 100-230 (D)1 of the Southold Town Code. 2. Applicants allege that if the heron sculpture is as an accessory structure, it is subject tO the code's 18~foot height limitation set forth in 100-33A. 3. Applicants further maintain that the 40-foot high Heron sculpture, located on the Miller's beachfront property in the Town's R-80 distdct is not a permitted accessory structure or use pursuant to 100-31C. because it is not "customarily incidental" to a single-family residence in the town of Southold or elsewhere. 4. n addition appellants allege the State Supreme Court order of June 29, 2001 collaterally estopped the Building Department from granting the building permit and Certificate of Occupancy, and the Board of Appeals from rendering a decision in the matter. Page 2 - October 3, 2002 Appl, No. 5072 - J. CALLIS and others 81-3-19,4 at Southold FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearings on this application on March 21 2002, June 20, 2002, and July 11, 2002. at which time written and oral evidence ware presented. Based upon all test mony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: Subject/Description: The subject is a 40-foot high white steel sculpture of a heron designed and created by sculptor Roberto Julio Bessin. The sculpture is displayed upon a 60 square foot platform, located approximate 20 from the mean high water mark on the Miller's beachfront property on Peconic Bay. The Miller's property is zoned R-80 Residential Low Density. SEQRA Determination: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if thie project fs implemented as planned. Relevant Code Provisions: 100-13 Code Definitions: Code Section 100-13 does not include a definition of the word monument, n the absence of definition. Section 100-13 B directs the board to Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language. unabridged dictionary. "Any word or term not noted below shaft be used with a meaning as defined in WebsteKs Third International Dictionary of the Engfish Language, unabridged dictionary (or latest edition)." Webster's Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged dictionary contains the following relevant definitions for the word monument. 3 a: something that by surviving represents or testifies to the greatness or achievement esp. of an individual or an age 4: a structure (as a pillar, stone or building) erected or maintained in memory of the dead or to preserve the remembrance of a person, event, or action 6. cbs (obsolete): a carved statue. Page 3 - October 3, 2002 Appl. No, 5072-J. CALLIS and others 81-3,*~ 9.4 at Southold 100-230 Exceptions and modifications: 100-230 (D) Height exceptions: The height limitations of this chapter shall not apply to: (1) Spires, belfries cupolas and domes not for human occupancy; and monuments, transm~ssio~ towers, excluding telecommunication towers. chimneys: derricks, conveyors, flagpoles, radio towers, television towers and television aerials, provided that no television or radio aerial shall be located nearer to any overhead electric transmission line carrying more than 22 volts than a distance equal to the aerial's height above the roof or other permanent structure to which it is attached. 1. Finding of Fact: Is the Heron structure a monument? Appellants maintain the Heron does not meet Webster's definition of a monument. and that a private citizen cannot self-characterize a particular structure to be a monument. To affirm the Building Inspector's determination appellants assert, would be to say that anyone could commemorate a. 50-foot. 100-foot or 500-foot whatever. and that as a monument, it would automatically be exempt from the code's 18-foot height limitation. a. In support, the Millers and their attorney maintain the heron sculpture ts a monument because: a dedication ceremony was held on the beach the Miller's property in July 1998. entitled "Dedication of the Heron Monument ...Hope for Peconic Bay". At the ceremony the Heron was described as "a monument dedicated by James and Barbara Miller to the conservation and preservation of the fine bays. tidal wetland. and wildlife in the Peconic Bay System." and, a plaque was made. b. The sculptor. Roberto Julio Bessin testified that the heron monument honors past and ongoing efforts to conserve and preserve the natural resources of the Peconic Bay system. He further stated that making monuments is part of what he (~oes for a living and constitutes the bulk of his creations. As example, he submitted photographs of two bird sculpture monuments, one erected in Oketo. Japan as a tribute to nature, the other in Shaft Japan, to commemorate the founding of its Chamber of Commerce. c. The board has carefully reviewed the question of whether or not the heron sculpture is a monument under the strict confines of the town code directive at 100-13 B. "Any word or term not noted below shall be used with a meaninq as defined in Webster's Page 4 - October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5072 - J. CALLIS and others 81-3-19.4 at Southold Third International Dictionary of the English Language, unabridged dictionary (or latest edition)." d. Webster's makes no reference or correlation between public and private ownership of monuments, or between public and private display of monuments. WebsteCs does not say that say that a private citizen cannot self-characterize a particular structure to be a- monument, indeed, many of the world's great monuments were first proclaimed as such by their creators, benefactors, and owners. Nor does Webster's say that to. be termed a monument, the object must ~)e displayed on public property, or in a public place for x number of people to. view. e. Webster's definitions of monuments include "a carved statue". Although termed Obsolete, use of the meaning is not restricted under 100-13 B. No evidence was presented to suggest that the building ~nspector erred in relying on such definition No evidence was presented to dispute the building inspector's determination that the Heron sculpture is "a carved statue" that meets Webster's definition of a monument~ f. The board fidds tha. t the Heron structure is a monument under Webster's definition No 4. '[he heroQ sculpture is a structure which has been erected and maintained to preserve the remembrance of past and on.qo n.q efforts te conserve and preserve the natura re~sour~ of ,the Pecenic Bay system. The United States, Environmental Protact~on Agencys des gnat~on of the Peconic Bay ~ystem as pad of the Federal Natidnal~ Estuaries program in 1993 was both an action and an event. Similarly, it is well kr}own that federal, state and. local agencies, as well as numerous groups and orgariizatid, ns have taken various actions to preserve the natural resources of the Pecenic Bay system. 2. Finding of Fact: Is the Heron sculpture an accessory structure? If it is an accessory structure, is subject to Town Code's height limitation 100-33(a)? a Applicants maintain that the 40-foot h gh Heron sculpture s not a permitted accessory structure or use pursuant to 100-31C because it is not "customarily incidental" to a single-family residence in the Town of Southold or elsewhere. Appellants alleg? that f,_f the heron sculpture is as an accessory structure, it is subject to the code's 18-fbbt height limitation set forth in 100-33A. b. The board agrees, wth the appellants that a 40-foot high Heron monument is not customarily found in Southold's residential districts or elsewhere for that matter The relevant distiriction here is that "monuments" are customarily found in Southold. and customarily in Southold. no two monuments are alike in size or shape..Southold has a 4 Page 5 - October 3~ 2002 ApPl. No, 5072- J, CALLIS and others 81-3-19.4 at Southold variety of different-sizea, different-shaped religious statues and monuments, carved statutes cast statues, metal statues and rock monuments, to name a few. Most are located on erivate property, many in the town's residential zoning districts. All are treated as accessory to the principal building. c. Appellar~ts. argue that the Heron monument cannot be an accessory structure ; i because of its height. The board disagrees. The Town Code 100-230 (D)(1) specifically · ~ provides for accessory "monuments" and "flagpoles" and "radio towers". Under the , same provision, these:structures are exempt from the height limitations of the zoning i regulations. Code provision 100-230(D)(1) states: "Height exceptions: The heiqht limitations of this chapter(Chapter lO0-Zoning) shall not apply to : ..."monuments': If the board were to agree with appellants' accessory/height argument then flagpoles and radio towers (er example, would not be permitted accessory structures if they exceeded 18-feet in height. This is simply not the case in Southold. It is uncontested that there are many' accessory flagpoles and radio towers in Southold that are taller than 18 feet. Appe ants con~ent on that the height of the heron structure precludes its Classification as an accessory structure is contrary to the plain meaning of the code· d. The board finds that there ~s no basis to support the appellants' claim that the heron monument' ~s not an accessory structure, qor it there any legal basis for appellants claim that the Heron monument is subject to the code's 18-foot height limitation set forth in 100-33A 3. In addition to the above, the Board has considered all arguments and issues raised by appellants. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the standards of New York Town Law 267-b. motion was offered by Member Tortora. seconded, by Member Olive. to DENY appellants request to reverse and annul Building Permit No. 2789Z and Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-28096. The building permit and Certificate of Occupancy are hereby affirmed. (Member Horning and Member Orlando ~0 ~/,¢¢'proved for Filing- Gerard P. Goehdriger BOARD MEMBERS ~'~ Southold T6wn Hail Gerard P. cJoe~ringer, Chairman #~ai~ 53095 Main Road Lyd~ ~ Tonora P.O. Box 1179 George Homing ~ ~ Sou~old, New York 11971-0959 Ru~ D. Oliva ~ ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 VNcent Orl~do ~d Telephone (63!~ 765-1809 h~://southoldto~.nor~orLnet BOA~ OF ~PE~S TO~ OF SO,HOLD FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER S. 2002 6ppl: ~NO. 5~ ~9:-NORTHEAS~ OVERSEAS TRADING ~O. kocationof Properly; 3570 Kennoy ~ Road,SOUnd d( Pamel 5~-g23. S~OI~A ~EIERMI~AIIOh: The Zoning Boa~ of Appoals has visit,d tho property mnsidemfion in th~ ~pplimtion and d~tomin~s that this roview falls und, r tho Typo Ca~o~ ~ tho:Bt~e~',Li~O[Actlo~s, wilhout an 8dveme,~ffect on ~e envimnmont · e, ~r0j~et is im.~lemont~d~as p ann~d PROPER~ FAGTSIDESORIPTION: Th~ 8ppi can~s- pmp,fl~ is lomt~d 0n sid~of K, nnoy', Road, 8outhold. The propofly mnsists of ~ total ama of ~2,482 sq. ff. ~¢h~$00~ .Imnm~e ~n~ K~Bnoy's R6~. Th~ p~moHs impmwd witl~ a 0ow ,in~lo- ~{~ d~elling, ~B~tmc~d :Undor BuilOr~ p~it ~2~2~ ;dato~S~tem~or 3 ~&~t~6~ ~f: the ~tifig dwelling are' shoWn o~ the P;~nic $~yom P.d.~su~e~ ~. . ~. Y ' . , ~ : -1 : S e ap~a~d;jql ~13~ t99~.~;~0 2,.feet from,the front I ne and'32 fe~ t0 the c o' e~'~rn r of ~e ga~ at the m~.9'~ ~ house. Also existing'is an~a~uil~' open,deck Sh~wh at 10.~ ~et'an~.9 feetfro~ the rear I~ line at its closest points. BANJO, OF. ~PP~C~I~N; Building Depa~ent's May 8 2D02 Nofi~ of D~sapprova de~,aperm~fora~ ~ buEt deck add~bon at less than 35 feet fr~ the mar lot line. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of App~ls held a public hearing on {his appli~tion on Septembe~ 19, 2002, at which time ~en and oral eviden~ were pr~ented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspe~ion of the pmpe~, and other evident. ~e Zoning Board finds the following fa~s to be tree and relevant: APPLICANT, S REQUEST: Applicant is requesting approval of the. Io~fion of an 'as built' de~ addition at 10.3 fe~ from the mar lot line. The open, unroofed deck is 26 ft. by 24 fi: in size,' R~SONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony pmse~ed, materials s~bmit~d, :and pemona nspe~ ons, the Boa~ made the follo~ng findings: The orope~y S a small lot consisting of 12,482 sq. ff. and improved with a single-family dwelling. Applicant wishes to ob~in approval for an "as builff 26 ff. by 24 ff. wood dec~ ~nstm~ed 10.3 feet from the mar yard pmpe~ line instead of ~e code required: 35 feet minimum. Under a prior Appeal No. 4650 dated Janua~ 27, 1999, applicant was APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS )~,~ Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman 53095 Main Road /~'x Lydia A. Tortora e~ P.O. Box 1179 George Homing ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631} 765-9064 Vincent Orlando ~tl Telephone (63I) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.aorthfork.ne} BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIQ~S:AND DETERMINATION MEETIN~ OF ~TOBER 3. 2002 Appl. No. 5188 - EDWARDAND PAULA Q~JINTIER! Property Location: 480 North Riley Avenue, Mattituck: Parcel 122-3-34.1 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this'review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicants' property is a 23,478 sq. ft. parcel with 165.20 ff. frontage along the rfl'ost northerly end of North RileY'Avenqe. The property has frontage along a bulkhead at James Creek to the north (bulkheaded) and to the east along wetland vegetation. The lot is ~mproved with a new single-family two-story dwelling and accessory shed. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's May 11, 2000, amended February 19, 2002 Notice. of Disapproval doing a permit to locate a new accessory garage for'the reason that the garage is propc~ed n a front yard at ess than 40'.feet from the front yard line at its closest point. FINDINGS OF FACT Tho Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this application on September 19, 2002, at which time wdtten 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 tobe true and relevant. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants request a Variance under Section 100-33C and Section 100-244 to locate an accessory one-story garage, 20 ft. by 35 ff. in size, in a front yard at 20 feet from the closest 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. Applicants own a non-conforming lot of 23,478 square feet in an R-40 zone. The parcel is improved with a ~wo-story house and two accessory sheds. The applicants Page 2 - October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5188 - E. and P. Quintiexi 122-3-34.I at Mattituck have applied for an accessory three-car garage to be located in the front yard with a setback of 20 feet instead of the required 40 feet. 2. Applicants need a garage for protection against the elements for their vehicles. 3. Applicants problem arose because they own waterfront property and the code allows accessory structures to be placed in the front yard if the accessory garage meets the required setback of 40 feet. The proposed garage would be setback 20 feet from the front line. 4. Grant of the vadance will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby propedJes. The placement of the proposed garage is the only location it could be placed due to the proximity of wetlands. The applicants have a permit from the DEC. 5. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other means than an area variance. The applicant is limited in his ability to build an accessory garage due to his proximity to wetlands and having a waterfront lot. 6. The difficulty is self-created. 7. The vadance is not substantial due to the configuration of the lot and the proximity to wetlands. The setback will be 20 feet from the front yard line and at least 75 feet from the bulkhead. 8. The vadance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physica[ or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that this vadance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 9. Grant of this requested variance is the minimum necessary for the applicants to enjoy a new accessory garage, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B; motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was P~ge~- October 3. 2002 Appl. No. 51~88- E. and P. Quintieri 122-3-34.1 at Mattituck ( RESOLVED, to GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the survey map da[ed March 16, 1996, amended May 2, 2000, by Stanley J. Isaksen, This act[on 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 Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora. and O[iva. This Resolution ~vas duly adopted (3-0). (Me~Q:zber~,q~oming a~:~l-Qrlando were absent.) ro //~'rarfl P. Goehfinger- ~pp~ovefl fo~cFifing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ Soutliold T0~vn Hall Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman ' ~ 33095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora ~,~ P.O. Box 1179 George Homing ~ Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando ~ Telepkone (631) 765-1809 htrp://southoldtown,nor thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Appl. No.5167 - ROBERT AND MAUREEN VOELKEL Proper~y Location: 95 Pine Tree Road, .Cut hogue '10007103-6-5 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of AppeaJs,has~visited the property, under Conside, ratioh in this application ah'd~detei-min6s'tt~ai tl~s'~?l"i~w.¥~llS un'der the Type II ' dateg~ry Of [he State~s~ LiSt'0f ActiOns. Without.an adver~b::effect Oh-the' envirOnment if the project is implemented as planfied. ' PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the north side of Pine Tree Road in Cutchogue. The lot has 237.16 ft. of frqntagealong north side of Pine Tree Road and 150 ft. along the east side of Bay Avenue; the most northerly line is 160.67 feet in e~gth and the remaining easterly line is angled, with a distance of '~ 47.97 feet. Th~ pr~3~rty is shown on a Map of Nassau Farms as combined Lots 101 and 102 and consists of a total area of 28,339 sq. ft. .BASIS Old'APPLICATION: Building Department's May t 2002 Notice of Disapproval denying, a permit to construct an addition and alterations to an existing principal building for the reason that the setback will be 33 feet instead of the code requirement of Section 100-2~4B of 40 *feeFfrorn the'front lot line at its closest point. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on September 19. 2002;{at which time Wdttei~ ahd oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentatiori, personal iriSpection of the prOperty and the area, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants request a seven ft. variance from the southeasterly comer of a proposed garage addition, leaving a 33+- ft. setback from the front lot line facing' Pine Tree ;Road (at its closest point). REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and pe~onal ihspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Applicants own a non-conforming 28,339 Square foot parcel with two front yards in the R-40 zone. The parcel is imprOved with a one-story house with attached garage. The applicants have applied foran addition of a garage with a 'setback of 33 feet from the frOnt yard line instead of the 40 feet required in an R-40 zone. APPEAES BOARD MEMBERS ~ " Southold To~vn HalI ~,.., Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman 53095 Main Road ~ Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 ~, ~, George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631/765-9064 V'mcent Orlando Telephone (53~ 765-1809 http://southoldtownmorthfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5068 - CHRISTINE and GLENN DAWSON Property Location: 150 Broadwaters Road, Cutchogue; Parcel No. 104-10-8 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's November 14, 2001 Notice of Disapproval denying use of a preexisting accessory building as an accessory, nonconforming cottage. The Notioe of Disapproval states that a denial is issued regarding applicants' request dated April 6, 2000 for a Certificate of Occupancy of a preexisting accessory nonconforming cottage, for the rsason that it is non-habitable, based upon the Building Inspector's Housing Code Inspection Report of 4/13100, and Section 100-241-G of the Zoning Code which states that 'whenever a nonconforming use of a building or premises has been discontinued for a period of more than two (2) years or has been changed to a higher classification or to a conforming use, anything in this Article to the contrary notwithstanding, the nonconforming use of such building or premises shall no longer be permitted unless a variance therefor shall have been gra~ted.by the Board of Appeals.' PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicants' property contains approximately 51,000 sq. ft. in size and is ibcated on the north side of Broadwaters Road with 126 ft. of road frontage and aversgedepth of 511.83 feet, and a frontage of 72.99 feet along the ordinary high-water mark. The property is improved with a one-family, one-story principal dwelling, and a second building [referred to herein as accessory building or cottage), as more particularly shown on the survey prepared by ELS Associates dated 3-24-00 for the applicants. The property is shown as Lot #181 onthe Map of Nassau Point Club Properties, Inc. APPLICANTS' REQUEST: Applicants: (1) request an Interpretation of Section 100-241G and 100-242A of the Zoning Code; and (2) Appeal for a Variance or other relief under Sections 100-241G and I00-242A, regarding the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval dated December 14, 2001. FINDINGS OF FACT ~ The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on April 18, 2002; June 6, 2002; June 20, 2002; July 11, 2002, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: Page2 - October 3 2002 pZBA AppI. No. 5068-C and G. Dawson arce11000-~04-10-8 at Cutchogue Applicants' property is located in the R-40 residential zone district and contains a single- family dwelling and a small waterfront cottage. Applicants wish to maintain the cottage building as an accessory to the princ~al~residential dwelling. Applicant has testified that that there is no intent to subdivide the property or to use the cottage as an independent ,single~family dwelling. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personaHnspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicants wish to use the cottage for guests and. fa~nlly members, pr mar. y dur ng the summer months. Such accessory use is not uncommon in this waterfront neighborhood. 2. The b,enefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applic,3~t to pursue, other than a variance because the building inspector has determined that thee cottage.isa discontinued no~-conforming use, and appellants have no recourse excepti~t° apply'for a variance. · 3. The.v~ariance granted herein is not substantial and will allow the applicant to maintain the cottage as an accessory use. 4. The a[leged difficulty has not been self-created. 5. AlthoUgh. neighbors have expressed concern that the co,age will be used for "group rentals" Which could create excessive noise and become a nuisance for the neighborhood, the applicants modified their request of June 30, 2002, and conditions attached to this variance will protect physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an accessory cottage while preserving and protecting the character or'the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carried to GRANT, a Variance authorizing an accessory (cottage) building with the following CONDITIONS: 1. The cottage/building shall only be used as an accessory structure to the single-family residence. 2. Temporary occupancy is permitted; 3. Sleeping quarters shall be permitted; Page 8 - October 3 2002 ZBA Appl. No. 5068 - C, and G. Dawson Parce! 1000-104-10-8 at Cutchogue 4. No cooking or kitchen facilities. authorize or condone any current or future use~ setback or other ,f 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 Goehringer (Chairman), Tot[ora, and Oliva. (Members Homing and. Orlando were absent.)This ~ ad/ol~d/{3~ GG:LT *~*~Gerard P. Goehr~lger -/A'~preved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~~q~ Southotd Town Hall Gerard E Goehringer, Chairma~ ~ 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold. New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax f631) 765-9064 V~ncent Orlando Telephone (63 i) 765-1809 http: 'southoldtown.nor thfork,nel BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERAT!ON~ AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5165 - William and Vicki Toth Property Location: 425 Jacobs Lane, Southold; Parcel 88-1 - 1.5. SEORA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under conilderatian in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the envffonment ff the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicants' property is shown as Lot #3 on the Minor Subdivision Map of Deerfield Farm filed March 27, 2001, and consists of 2.773 acres (120,8000 sq. ff.) with 275.83 fi, of frontage along the north side of Main Bayview Road, Southold Applicants' property is improved with a single-family two-stow frame house and garage. Also existing is an "as built" foundation for a barn (the subject of this variance). BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's May 8, 2002 Notice of Disapproval denying a permit to construct an accessory horse barn on an as-built foundation, located with a setback at less than 40 feet. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on September 19. 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 tree and relevant. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REOUESTED: Applicants request a Variance under Section 100- 31C(8), for an accessory home barn on an "as built" foundation (ref. Building Permit 28117-z) located with a setback of 36.6 feet from the angle of the westerly properS' line at its closest point. The code requirement is 40 feet from all property lines for barns which house horses and domestic animals other than household pets. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Applicants own a large lot of 120.800 square feet on which there is a two-stoW house and a garage. The applicants also have applied for a permit to constmot an accessory barn in which they will house three horses for their own use. Page 2 - October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5164 - W, and V. Toth 88-1-1.5 at Southold 2. Applicants problem arose when the Building Inspector made a survey of the foundation and noted that the foundation hod been constructed 36.6 feet fi.om the rear yard line instead of the required 40 feet. 3. Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. 4. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other means other than an area variance. The foundation was incorrectly placed at 36.6 feet instead of the required 40 feet from the rear lot line. 5. The variance was self-created as the applicant should have been more careful in meas~ing the proper distance form the rear lot line. 6. The variance is not substantial. The foundation of the proposed barn is only 4 inches short of the required 40 feet. 7, The variance will not have an odverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that this minor variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 8. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum necessary for the applicant to enjoy a barn in which to house their horses, while preserving and protecting the health, safety and welfare on the 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 Tortora, and duly carded, to GRANT the variance as applied for, with the provision that the only utilities to be installed in the ham will be electric and water. 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 am expressly addmssod in this action. Vote of the Board; Ayes: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, and Ol~iva. This Resolution was duly odopted (3 -0). (Members Homing and Orlan/do~el~'-'~nt.)y~//~-'~/ ~ermd PTBoehringer. Appr~v~ for Filing/ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ Southold Town Halt Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman ~ 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 George Horaing Southotd, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http:~/southoldtown.aorthfork.nel BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5168 - ANTONE and GERALDINE BERKOSKI Property Location: 8580 Cox~ Lane, Cutchogtte 1000-83-3-3.2 SEORA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State'S:List ~)f Actions, Without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as plaone& PROPERTY FACIX~q/DESCREPTION: Applicants' property ~s,apprOXunately 1.98 acres ~with 86.77 feet of fronz~ge along the north side of Cox s Lane in Cutchogue. The lot appears as Lot 2on the Miii~riSul~tivision Map prepared for Norman McCullough & uno Existing is a single- ~Iy ~Wellin~ ~i~ garage and porch, and an in-ground swimming pool. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's April 8, 2002 Notice of Disapproval denying ~ p~rmit to ennstrac~ an accessory ham in a side yard rather than a rear yard. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on Sootemher 19. 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. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REOUESTED: Apphcants request a Variance from Section 100-33 to locate an accessory barn 30' x 40' in size in a side yard. The setbacks of the ham are proposed at 83+- feet from the front lot line, 99+- feet from the rear lot line, and 27+- feet from the side line. Section 100-33 of the zoning code requires accessory buildings to be located in a rear yard al'ea. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimouy presented, materials submitted, and personal inspections, the Board makes the folloa4ng findings: 1. The granting of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborh6od, or be a detriment to nearby properties because the barn will have a front yard setback greater than 80ff. from the street, (Cox Lane). This accessory building will also be shielded from view by a buffer of pm-existing shade trees and other natural vegetation that will not be removed during construction. Page 2 - October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5168 - A. and G. Berkoski 83-3-3.2 at Cutchogue 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because a steep rise in the topography renders the rear yard area unsuitable for the placement of a barn. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the setbacks defined by the applicant on the plot plan will include a side yard setback of approx. 27 ft., a rear yard setback of approx. 100 ft., and a front yard setback of at least 80 ff. 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or district. There are no wetlands that wifi be affected, and this specific placement of the barn insures that soil displacement will be ~ and all soil will remain on the property, 5. The difficulty for this applicant has not been self-created; but is caused by the particularly uneven topography in the rear yard of this parcel. 6; The relief offered to this applicant by this area vari~ance is the minimum determined necessary by this board that the owner of this parcel shall be able to enjoy the benefit of a livestock/storage barn, while at the same time protecting and preserving the character of the neighborhood, as well as the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. BOARD RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors, the following action was taken: On motion by Member Oliva, seconded by Chairman Gochringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the variance as applied for, and shown on applicants' sketch submitted with the variance application. This action does not authorize or condone any current or furore use, setback or other feature of' the subject properVd that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in tlfis action. ~aO stedOu lfytha~op tedBoar~:3- 0 )Ay.e~(~Memb e~itbr ser~oG&ghr ~g~ ~m d~/~s ~on m'fd P. GoehringerL App'~oved fo~iling APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ Southold Town Halt Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman ~ 53095 Main Road ~ Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 '~ George Homing Southold, New York 11971~0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 V~mcent Orlando Telephone (63~_) 765-1809 htrp:#southoldtown.n~or~?ork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS· DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3. 2002 Appi. No. 5175 - THOMAS AND KAREN UHiLINGER. Property Location: 13370 Oregon Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 83-3-7.1. SEQRA DETERMINATION: ~The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration h3 this application and determines that this review fails under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicants' property consists of 43,560 sq. fi, in area and has a frontage of 175 fi. along the east side of Oregon Road. This property is impr,o,ved with a single~fami!y two-story/one-story frame house with a setback of 35 feet from' ~he f~ont' ot line ~t its' ~losest point (to the front porch). An accessory garage and accessory swimming pool exist in the rear yard. ~ ~;~:~ , I~AsIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's May 16, 2002 Notice of Disapproval deny nga permit to Co~nstruct a new front porch addition at less than 50 feet from the front~line. ' FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on September 19, 2002 at which time written and oral evidence ware presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: APPLICANTS' REQUEST: The applicants are requesting a Vadance under Sections 'JO0-2~2A and 100-244~ to rebuild and enlarge a front porch. The existing porch, which has a nonconforming front setback, will be removed. A new 8 x 31 fi. front porch addition is proposed~ leaving a front yard setback at 34+- feet. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submiffed and persona! inspections, the Board makes the following findings: I ~Graot~ of ar~· a~ea vadance .w not produce an undesirable change n the character of t~ ne,g~bo~od o~ a detriment to nearby properties. The property is large and contans an od:two-story house but n the 1800's A cants wsh to re ace an , . pp P existing front pom.,h which is 6~5 feet wide and to extend it to a width of 8 feet. The porch ha~ be~en in existence for many years and the proposed two ft. extension will not adversely impact neighboring properties. Page 2 - October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5175-T. and K. Uhlinger 83-3-7.1 at Cutchogue 2. The benefit sought by the applica0t cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. The porch is in need of replacement and without a variance, the applicants would be unable to construct any sort of porch. 3. The variance granted herein is substantial in relation to the code's 50 ff. front yard setback requirement. However, the house was constructed in the 1800's, long before zoning, and the proposed pomh will only encroach 2 ft. more than what has existed for many years, 4. The alleged difficulty has been self-created and is due to the applicants' desire to replace an existing porch. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed additions will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood~ 6. Grant of the requested vadanceds the minimum necessary and adequate to enable applicants to enjoy the benefit of a front pomh addition while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance 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 Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, and Oliva. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). (Member Orlando and Member Homing were absent) ~~ LT ~ g APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ~ 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold. New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (63!1 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (63~;D '765-1809 http://southoldtown.nor thfork, ner BOARI~ OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIOi~IS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Appl. NO. 5156 - ROBERT AND BARBARA TAYLOR. Property Location: 21755 C.R. 48, a/Ida North Road. Cutc.hogue; Parcel 96-1-18.2 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that thisrevieyv falls under the Type I category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicants' property consists 9f24,501 sq. ff. with 100 ft. of frontage'a/cng the north side of Middle Road (C;R. 48) in Cutchogue. The pri~perty is improved with a one and one-half story frame house and accessory shed(s). ~/~SIS OF APPLICATION: Budding Department's Apdl 22, 2002 Ngtice of Disapproval denying a permit to consti'uct an accessory garage at a height ~hat e~(Ceeds' ~he code ;li.,mi~tion Of 18 feet. FINDINGS OF FACT 2T0he~Z0ping Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on Septembe,r 19, 02~ at which t me wr t~en and ora ev dence was presente~ Based up, on a testimony, : documentation, persor~a[ inspection of the property and the area,: and, other evidei3cs the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants request a Variance under Sectio~ 100-33A to allow a height of a proposed new accessory garage (25' x 44' in size) at 1'11" over the code's 18 ff. mean height limitation. REASONs FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and Pe~Sonal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the vadance will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Applicants wish to construct an accessory garage that will be used for his contractor's vehicle, workshop and storage purposes. The proposed height is approximately 1'11" over the mean height average allowed in the code. The slight increase will not be noticeable or have a negative impact on the neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other means other than an area variance. The stight increase in building height is required to accommodate large vehicles associated with the applicant-contractor's work. 3, The variance granted herein is not substantial and represents an increase of one foot' eleven inches over the permitted height limit for accessory structures. 4. The alleged difficulty has been self-created and is due to the applicant's desire to construct a higher accessory than permitted by code. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that this vadance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of this requested variance is the minimum necessary for the applicants to enjoy an accessory garage, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Oliva, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the variance, regarding the height of the proposed accessory garage with storage and workshop area, as applied for and shown on the site plan prepared by Architechnologies, Inc. issued 5/6/02, and construction diagrams, A-0 of 8-20-01, and A-l, A-2, A-3 of 9-13-01. This action does not authorize or condone any current or futura 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. /.//'Gerard P. Goe ' g - I~reved fpr/Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~% Southold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ~~ 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://§outholdtown.nor thfork.ner BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3 2002 Appl.:No. 5166 - CHRISTINE McENANEY. Location of Property: 2205 Gillette Drive, East Madon; Parcel 38-3-14. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review fallS'under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. RROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the east side of Gil!e~ Ddv,e in East Marion. The property is 135.6 feet wide with an average depth Of 82,4, feet, Existing is a single-family, two-story frame dwelling situated 35 feet from the f[b'~t lot line, 22 feet from the rear line, 45.26 f~et from the south side line.and 27 feet froh~e nort~ si-Ue line. The existing 9' x 6' front stoop has a setback of approximately 28.5 t~eet fr0m the ;fi'~nt lot line according to a survey prepared by Elizabeth McQuilkir~, LiS. dated May 12, 2000, updated 8-29-01. '. :,,; BASI~';~0F APPLICATION: Building Department's May 9, 2002 Notice of Dis,approval deny hg 'a permi[to.C°nstruct a front porch addition at less than 35 feet from Ithe front 10t line '~a~: required~under Section 100-244B of the zoning code. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this application on September 19, 2002, at which time wdtten and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to Construct a 5'2" by 36'4" one- story front porch addition to the residence, which has a front yard setback of approximately 35 feet. Applicant requests a variance authorizing Construction of the porch addition, resulting in a setback of 30 feet at its closest point from the front property line,: REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal inspections, the Board made the following findings: 1. Grant of an area vadance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, The proposed setback is reasonably Consistent with others ~n the neighborhood, some of which have front Page 2 - October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5166 - C. McEnaney 38-3-14 at East Madon porches. The porch addition will enhance the appearance of the residence and will have no adverse effects 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 vadance because the code requires a 35-ff. front yard setback, and without a variance applicant would not be able to construct a front porch. Also, an alternate rear yard location is not feasible because setback limits established under a pdor decision was rendered on this property. 3. The variance granted herein is not substantial and represents a 17.5% reduction in the code's 35 ff. minimum front yard requirement. 4. No evidence has been submitted to this board to suggest that this minor vadance will have any adverse impact. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary andadequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a front porch addition while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety~ and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carried, .to GRANT the variance 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 Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehdnger (Chairman), Tortora, and Oliva. This LR3~solution was duly adopted (3-0). ~(Member~~t.) APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ Sonthold Town Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ~ 53095 Main Road Lydia Ao Tortora P.O. Box 1179 George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 'Vincent Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http: southoldtovCn.nor thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5163 - NATHANtEL AND SUSAN KWIT Property Location: 1000 Old Harbor Road, New Suffolk 117-5-12.1 SEQRA DETERMINATION:: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type Il category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the'project is impletnented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's Apdl 18, 2002 Notice of Disapproval denying a [ber ,mitfor reconstruct on of a two-story residence in a nonconforming ocat on at less;th~in 75 feet from the bu khead structure and less than 50 feet from the rear property line. The existing nonconforming dwelling will be demolished. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zp, ning Board of Appea s he d a pub c hear ng on th s app cat on on September 19 2002~ at ~h~ch time wntten and oral ewdence was presented. Based upon all testimony docurnentati0n,;person~l mSpect~0n of the property and the area, and other ewdence, the Zoning Bo~ard fihds the following facts to be true and relevant. AREACVARIA~NCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants request a Variances under Sec~ioS. li00¢'39 reconstrUction of a two-story residence in a nonconforming location at less,t~,t~an 75 [[eet ifro~ the bulkhead structure and less than 50 feet from the rear pi-operiy i~qe. ~l:le ~isting nonconforming dwelling will be demolished. REASONS' FIDR BOARD. ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials subm [ted ~ pers~)rfal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. GFa~t'i~i?~e~adartce will not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or a detriment to. r~arby properties. The present home was moved to its existing location m.a, 13~.~e,a.l;~,~st. B~cause of substandard construction, applicants wish to replace the exi~¢.~welii!~g with:a~new, updated bui d ng n the same or similar footprint. 2. ~'ber~efit~sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other means other there. ~an. ama ~/a'riance~ Since the applicants are going to utilize essentially the same locat~bb of th~ existing home, setbacks remain almost exactly the same, or mostly Page 2 - October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5163 - N. and S. Kwit 117-5-12.1 at New Suffolk similar. The reason for this location is because of topography and major landscaping on the site, as well as present location of the sanitary system. 3. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that this variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The existing dwelling is virtually unable to be renovated, due to lack of a foundation and other substandard factors. Based on topography of the site, the key to reconstruction of the dwelling is the existing location 4. The premises is located on a well-vegetated and elevated portion of the property, updated bulkhead leading to Schoolhouse Creek. A significant alternating of the present location would only disrupt a well-manicurad lot with many mature trees and landscaping. 5. Grant of this requested variance is the minimum necessary to enable applicants to enjoy a new dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B. motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Chairman Goehdnger. it was RESOLVED, to GRANTthe vananca as applied foo and.sho.un on t;he plan prepared by Samuels & SI;eel_man of 4/17/02 (slt. e p J-an wll:h enveJ-ope). 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 Goehdnger (Chairman), Tortora, and Oliva. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). (~nd Oda~ndo were absent.) gg /...~/ /~rardP. GoehringeL~-~p~)p~~-I ("~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~.,a Southold To~n Hall Gerard P. Goekringer. Chairman ~'~'-I 53095 Main Road ~ Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 -~ George Homing ~ Southotd, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (651)765-9064 Vincent Orlando '~v~t Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.nor thfork.nel BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 AppL No. 5183 - HELEN BOOTH Property Location: 405 Fasbende'r Avenue. Peconic; Parcel 67-6-5. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited' the property under ,consideration itt this applfcatior~ and determines that this review falls under the Type II 'ca,tegory qf the St~ite~s Eist of Actions without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPER'FY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is imp[oved with a single- family dWelling located on the-;south side of Fasbender Avenue (and Soundview Aven.u, e, a private urii:mp~ov~d 'road) iq Reconic. The iot contains a lot area'of 10,542+-'sq. ff. total. 'The ~x~tng dwet ng (~obili& home) is shown on the survey with a 1.3 7 ft front setback from,the southwest corrterto,ward Sound V~ew Avenue, at ~ts closest point, 41 feet from the front line facit~g FasbenderAvenue, and 9.8 feet to the east side linei B~8.!$ OF APPLtCATION:~ Building Department's June 29, 2002 Notice of Disapproval for alS151~[cant'to Co,nstruct a;new ~lwelling, after removal of the mobi'le home. (dwe ling) Which ex st~ in a nonb~hform rig setback ocat on at 3+- feet from the southwest corn~' 6f the proposed new dwelling at its closest point, and 9.8 feet from the easterly side yard-at its closest point. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearin~ on this application on September 19, 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. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant requests a Variance under Section 100-242A. to place a new dwelling, after removal of the existing dwelling, with setbacks at 35 feet from the front lot line and with a single side yard of less than 10 feet from the side lot line. at its closest points. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted., and personal, inspections, the Board made the following findings: 1.: Grant of an area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of th~ n(~ighborhood ora detriment to nearby properties. The app cant wshes to rep ace her Page 2 - October 3, 2002 Al)Pl. No, 5183 -H. Booth 6%6-5 at Peconic home, in place, in kind, will use a footprint which has existed for many years in its present location. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. Applicant's property is located adjacent to a paper street from a filed development map which creates two front yard areas under the zoning code, 3. The vadance granted herein is not substantial. The variance grants a modest reduction in the setback of the southwest corner of the building. It is doubtful that the paper street which has existed for 30 or more years will be built or improved. 4. The variance granted will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Dudng the hearing process, no evidence was submitted to the board to indicate the front setback increase would have any adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a replacement dwelling~ while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: In consideFing all of the above factors, the following action was taken: On motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Oliva, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the variance as applied for, and shown on preliminary map prepared 8/23/01 by Destin G, Graf, LS. and construction floor plan prepared by Haven Homes, Inc. dated 8-8-01. 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 Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora and Oliva. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). (M~¢e.r~)r[~ /Mmrd:re'r'H~n?n~.~z~/Fishers 'sJand Were absent1) ,/.- ,-'¢ /.~//~/ ~~/ / >:, GG:RO / ~ /' ~ c.~ / ~ / ,~ard P, goehrJnger - Appl~d for tilinJ~ [& ? 6 ~ ~. ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ . ~ Southold Town Hall ,_,-~Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 k,~_~. George Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (6311 765-1809 http: ~outholdtown.nor thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5171 - Stephen N. Sachman and Alexia Quadrani Property Location: 4705 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue; Parcel 111 .-9-9. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under con~sideration in th!s application and determines that this review falls under the Type II catbgory of ~he State's List o~ Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the pro.(ect is impl~mented as planned. PiR©PERTY::FACTS/DESCF~IPTION: Applicants' property is a 35,043 sq. ft. parcel with g~'O~ritage a[o~O ~ streets,: 101.02 feet along the east side of Nassau Point Road and 31S0;~32 teet~ on~d,~he sou~th Si}de of Carpenter Road The property is improved with a single~famil~ dwelling, and accessory one-story garage as shown on the July 13, 1998 sur~ey p~ep~,red b,y Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. and updated December 28, 1998. BA81~ OF ,~iOPLtGATIONi :gulld~ng Department's May 8, 2002 Notice of Disapproval dej~yir~,a~ p~rmit a~piicali6n ~ateCl May 7, 2002, for a propbsed Second-story additiod to theiPe~$tin~idwelling, (Pre*er~tly nonconforming at the only side yard at 14.2 feet). FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on September lS. 2002, at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Etased upon all testimony, documentation, pe.,rsonat inspection of the property and the area. and other evidence. the Zoning Board finds the following: facts to be true and relevant. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants request a setback variance for a proposed secqnd-sto~y ad?tion to the existing dwelling within the 15 ft nonconforming si? yard. i~ .Sect~bns', 100;242A and 100-244B of the Zoning Code require a 15 ft. minimhm side yard. REA~SONS F~OR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials SUbrriitt~d, and per.~oha rlspebt ons the Board made the following findings: 1. Grant of a~ area variange will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the n,eighbo~od::or a d~etijment to nearby properties. The property has an ex st ng non- cenf6rming. ~ide, ~ard $'~tback of 14 feet 2 riches The propbsed new additon w /,~--- malnta!n thls,s.et ~aok.' The proposed adOt~on ~s a m~rror of the ~ther side of the house: this ~vili give the h~ouse syrflmetry Page 2 - October 3, 2002 Appl. No. 5171 - S. Sachman and A. Quadrani 1 ! 1-9-9 at Cutchogue 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance, because the applicant wishes to expand do to a growing family need and this is the logical move since there will be no clearing of trees or excavation of soil. :3. The vadance granted herein is not substantial; the reduction of the side yard setback on the second story is only 10 inches. 4. The variance granted wilt not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted to this board to suggest that this minor variance will have any adverse impact. The proposed addition will not increase the original footprint or increase the density of pollution to the neighborhood. All the down spouts will drain into drywells not to cause a drainage problem and the natural screening on the south side of the property line to be consistently maintained. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a second-story addition, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Oliva, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the variance as applied for, and shown on the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno dated December 28, 1998, and shown on the copies of front elevation, rear elevation, and floor layout sketches received 6/7/02 in behalf of the applicants. 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 Goehrin~e,.c-~r~irman), TOrtora, and Olivia. This Resolution was duly adopted (~~~~b~.) ro // ~erard P. GoehrTnger- Approv.~d for Filing