Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-10/29/2002 SPECAPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY OCTOBER 29, 2002 A Special Meeting of the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS was held at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman/Member Lydia A. Tortora, Member Vincent Orlando, Member Linda Kowalski, ZBA Confidential Secretary Absent was: George Horning, Member Ruth D. Oliva, Member 6:45 P.M. Call to Order by Chairman Gerard Goehringer. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW: (pending reviews). PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. DELIBERATIONS/DECISIONS/RESOLUTIONS OR OTHER: The Board deliberated on the following applications. The originals of each of the following applications were decided, with the original determination filed with the Southold Town Clerk: APPROVED WITH CONDITIONS PATRICK W. LOHN #5200 SHIRLEY KRAM and KRAM FAMILY TRUST #5189 LISA EDSON #5032 APPROVED AS APPLIED PAUL and LISA HOLOBIGIAN #5180 R. W. REINIGER #5182 THOMAS SAMUELS and NANCY STEELMAN #5181 DENIED WITH ALTERNATIVE RELIEF ROBERT and DONNA M. MOSQUERA #5185 Page 2 - Minutes Special Meeting held October 29, 2002 Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals RESOLUTIONS/UPDATED REVIEWS/OTHER: A. RESOLUTION ADOPTED: Motion was offered by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried, to confirm the next Regular Meeting Thursday November 14, 2002 at 6:30 p.m., to be held at Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold. Vote Of the Board: Ayes: All. This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). Members Oliva and Horning were absent. EXECUTIVE SESSION: None held. There being no other business properly coming before the Board at this time, Chairman Goehringer declared the meeting adjourned. The meeting was adjourned at 8:40 P.M. Respectfully submitted, /GeritOl5. Go~hrin~, Ch[ir~ay~F/~ /~A'lSproved for Filing Resolution Accepting for Filing RECEIV, D $outhold Town APPr~AL$ BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando Southold Town Hail 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631~ 765-9064 Telephone (63I 765-1809 http: sou~tIoldtown.northfork, net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5189 - SHIRLY KRAM AND THE KRA~Vl FAMILY TRUST STREET ~ LOCPcLITY:, 100 West Lane, Southold DATtSOF'PUBLICHEARING: October 17. 2002 SEORA D, ETERMINATIDN:; Tl!e Zoning Board of, Appeals has visited the property under ~°'nsid~a~on in ~ at~pJiCa~fion and determine~ that tliis review falls under the Type II category of the State's Eist of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as;play, ecL PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The apphcant's property is located on the west end of a pr!~ ~:oad,.w~¢~qxmnd,s Off of Little eeconic Bay Road near Angel Shores Development in Soutllold. The py~,~ consists of approximately 15,783 sq ft of land area, having 100 ft. along peconi9 Bay ~a~ [~>t dePth` of 161.75 feet. The property is improved with an one-story, single- family dwelling.wi~2de~!q all as shown on the survey prepared by John C Ehlers (last dated ~2-12-0t). BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's May 6, 2002 Notice of Disapproval denying a I~, ~..lt [to~'cpn,~tm~t (a) ~ addition to the existing dwelling and (b) an accessory garage in a frost yard~area The bu!lding penmt apphcatton was disapproved for the reason that the new cogstmPtion did not meet the,setback or yard locations required under Section 100-244B, 35 feet cacti at lhe,fr(~nt art~l rear yards. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zonihg Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on October 17, 2002, at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, perspgal.: nspect~9a of the property and the area, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following ~acts to be ~me and relevant. ~REA VARIANCE REL~F REOUESTED: The applicant proposes (a) an addition to the ea~.isfihg dwelling ,~ith a setback of and (b) an accessory garage in a front yard area. The b,aild~g, permit }pphcat~oll was disapproved for the reason that the n~w construction will not meetl ~q. setbac~ 0r.}yard locations required under Section. 100-244B. with a' minimum 35 feet ench!the ~ont and rear yards. REASONS,FOP~ BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony and record bef~e tttd Boardi~d personal mspeetlon, the Board makes the following findings Page 2 - Oc~obci AppL No. 5 1000-88-6-12 at Southold I Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties In the case of waterfront houses, accessory structures am encouraged landward of the house, which area is typically identified as a front yard 2~ The benefit sought by the apphcant cannot be achieved by some method: feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Due to the location of the exasrmg waterfront house and wetlands in the southerly yard, the suggested location of 8 feet off the northerly property line and 5 feet off the westerly (side yard) property line is more feasible than any other location on this lot for an accessory garage. 3. The requested area variance is substantial, since it is a reduction of more than 25% in the front yard setback. 4 The difficulty was self-created when the applicant built the existing house close to the water edge. 5. There is nc evidence that the grant of the variance ~xSll have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions m the neighborhood or district This is typical for waterfront communities_ with aCCeSsory structures m the front yard or landward side of the house. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Tortora, it was RESOLVED. TO GRANT the application as applied for SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The setbacks of the proposed one-story garage shall not be less than 8 ft. from the northerly property line and not less than 5 ft. from the westerly property line, at its closest points. A continuous row of shrubs shall be planted and maintained at approximately seven feet from the west side property line, along the w'es~ side of the garage, and mmntained at all times. The length distance for the shrubs shall be at least 20 feet. The new addition(s) at the easterly portions of the dwelling shall be as shown on the plans dated 9-24-02 prepared by Mark K. Schwartz, A.I.A., and shown on the sketch diagram prepared by Proper-T Permit Services dated 6-19-02. Ths action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other features of the subject property that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other Gerard P. Ooehnnger, Chairman Lydia A. ~orLola George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Or_ando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southald Tox~ c [-ia~~. 53095 Main Road P.O. :Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephorte (631t 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 17. 2002 Appt. No. 5204 - SANG LEE FARMS Property Location: 25180 Cour~y Road 48. Peconic CTM Parcel: 84-5-1.3 and 1.2 (combined) SEQRA DETER,MINATION:..The Zo~ning Board of Appeals has vis ted.the property under consideration in this appllcahon and determines that tb~s rev, ew falls under the Type'lt-category of the State s List of Actions, with0~t an adverse effect on t~e environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's land is an agricultural farm consisting of 15.3+ acres Iodated on the south side of ~C.R. 48 (a/Ida North Road or Middle Road) in Peconic. Existing on the property are a dwelling and greenhouses as shown on the site plan map prepared by Samuels & Steelman Architects datedS/5/02. Of the entire 15.3 acres, 14.361 acres has development rights sold. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's July 29, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended August 19~ 2002, dbny nga permit to enc ose an agricultural/farm stand structure. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this application on October 17, 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 to be true and relevant. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a 1300 sq. Floor and Building Elevation Plan prepared by Samuels & Steelman, Sheet No. 3 dated 8/1/02. REASO.NS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. The granting of these vanances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or be a detriment to nearby properties, because the applicant seeks approval for the construction of an agricultural retail farm stand, which is a permitted use in the A/C zone in which this parcel is located. A vadanca is required, however, because the applicant wants to install a heating/cooling system in the structure, for the expressed purpose of providing for the ability to operate on a year-round basis, within a comfortable environment, for the benefit of his customers and employees. It is the determination of this board that the operation of a farm stand on a year round basis, rather than just seasonally, will not in any way alter the character of the neighborhood or district, 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 the applicant has sufficiently demonstrated through verbal testimony and the documentation submitted in the case file, that the expressed benefit sought by the applicant is not possilSle without obtaining the requested variances. Page 3-October 17. 2002 Appl. No. 5204 - bangLee Farms 84-5-/.3 and /.2 at Peco~ic expressly addressed in this action. was absent.) This Resolution was,duly adoptep~(4-O)./' // ,,,..Gerard P. Goehringer-'Approved f~r Filing nd Orlando. (MemberOliva At;PEALS BOARD MEMBERS;V Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva V'mcent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD S6ufhold!T~Xvn Hall 53095 Mai~ Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (63t~ 765-9064 Telephone (631~ 765-1809 http://southoldtown.nor thfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS:AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5182 -,- R.W. REINIGER Property Location:.-,3500 LighthouSe Road. South01d 1000-50-2,1 SEQRA, DETERMIblATION:' The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under considerationin:~hi~s appli:catipn and determines that this review falls under the Type II categbry .of tl~.~te'~ U~t of Actions, without an adverse effect on the en¥[ronment if th$ prOject is im~plemJ~lsted as planned. PROPER;T'f FACTS/DESCRiPTION: The applicant's property is located on the east side of Lightho~$ i~oad (at the north end or dead end). in Southold The lot consists of 18.908 sq. ft. in"atea, and is improved with (variable one and two story) frame single- family dwelling .as shown on the survey prepared by John C. Ehlers L.S. dated February t8, 20~00,'a~ner~Ued April 3 2000 BASIS OF, ~LIC~TION, Bu~ d~ng Department s April 22 2002 blot ce of, D~sapproval O~fiy'n¢ a ~*rrd't tq co,nstruc~ add't'on(s to the ex st ng dwe 'ng for the reason that the ad,lit ¢nsi.~) ~lg~,rrteet the Cm[mmum 35 ft. rear and m n mum 35 ft front yard setbacks r~qulred fi~;Jr!§ectk~ns 100-242A and 100-244 of the zoning code. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning :Boa. rd of Appeals. held a public hearing on this application on October 17I 2002,r at which time written and oral evidence was presented: Based upon all testimony, documeotation personal inspection of the property and the area, and other evidence. the Zomog Board finds the'followng facts to be~ true and relevant. AREA VARiA'NCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Relief considered in this application is for a 3' by 8',4" on~-story shed/addition at the. southeast corner of the dwelling, leaving a setback bf g!Sqz- ff. rrbm the closest p¢operty line and 12-- ft. from the southerly property tine. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testi'nony presented, materials submitted, and oersonal insoections the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. This lot consists of almost 19,000 sq. ft., most o~ which is located below the Coastal Erosion Hazard boundary line. The lot has a small building envelope which is improved with a modest contemporary style with nonconforming Setbacks from all property lines. In reviewing the file and dudng the Page 2 - October 29; 2002 Appl, No. 5182 - R.W. Reiniger 1000-50-2-1 at Southold hearing, no opposition was offered (from contiguous or adjacent property owners or others in the community) regarding this request. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, The setbacks of the house are significantly nonconforming on all sides. No other step is available except to apply for area variance relief. 3. The requested area variance is not substantial based on the size of the shed and based on the limited building area and bluff-related restrictions of the tot. 4~ There is no evidence that the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborh°°d or district. The shed is landward of the house and Coastal Zone Management boundary. BOARD RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York T°wn Law 267-B, motion was offered by Chairman Goehdnger, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried to: GRANT the variance for a shed as applied for and shown on the sketched copy of the Ehlers' survey, with notations by Mark Schwartz, Architect for the applicant. 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. the Board: Aye s:Member~.,/(C~~ra, Horning, and V°te of (MemOdando. bet Oliva was / ,~a~ p. Goehringer- Approve~ for Filing/~" APPEALS BOARD P. Goe~ring r, Chairman' Gerard e Lydia A. To~tora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando S0h[hold To~vn Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (6319 765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FIi~INGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2002 · App!. No. 5185 -" ROBERT and DONNA H. MOSQUERA Property Location: 370 Hobart Road, Southold t000-fi2-3-6~ 'SEQPLA~DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has~ visited the property under consideration ii~ thi~ application and defermines that this review falls under the T~pe II c~egor~ of the ~t~te's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the proleet m ~mplemente~ as~planned. PROPERTY FA~CTSJDESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on, the west side ~o~ Hobart Roll ~or ~v~e~h.~~ in S~o?held. The property consists of 9,127 sq ft: of 10t arena W~tl~2~ ~:~on~ al6ng~..th~/'~ad.: It is improved ~ith a two-sto~y frame h~use '(under ren0~atmn)~s show~ on the. Joseph A: Ingegno survey dated December 11, 2000. amended Mhy~2lt~,2~'. f, BASIS. OF APPLICATION: Building Department's June 17, 2002 Notice of Disapproval de)ay!~g ~ ~pernfi,t to congtruct addmons w~th alterations that will be located within 35 feet from'ihd~fro~n~ and rear property hnes. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on October 17, 2002 at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, pd/'~onal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the follo~,i/~g facts tb be t~ue and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: A variance is requested under Section 100- 244B and 100-242~ of tlie zoning co'de, for proposed additions/alterations which will include a cantilever of 2'ft. on tl~ first floor at the west end of the house, leaving not less than 31'5" from the property, line, for a kitchen area, and porch addition which will have a front yard of 3.5 feet at i~s ci~sest point to the front lot line. REASONS F~)R ~BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and personal inspections, ~he Board made the following findings: i. Grant of an area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborlmad or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant's home has a significantly reduced fi'ont, yard area (7'6"} from the front property line. Applicant proposes a front yard setback of :t.5 feet and a rear setback of 31.5 feet. During the hearing process, the Board recognized the very small front yard setback proposed, and reviewed the alternative Page 2 - October 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5185 - R. Mosquera options with the applicant. It was agreed that the new addition on the southeasterly side of the property would not be built any closer to the front line (15'4"L 2. The benefit sought by the applicanl cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. 3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. The variance grants a modest reduction in the setback of the southwest corner of the building. 4. The variance granted will 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 mino~ variance will have any adverse impact. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of additions/alterations to the dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: 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 Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried to: GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the Joseph A. Ingegno survey dated December 11, 2000, amended May 28, 2002. 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 Goehringgr--(C-dvalr~~ra. a~ Orlando. (Members Oliva and Horning were able, duly adop~/ed~3-/0~// / ~,ei~ard P. Goehringer -~3~pproved for Filing 7APpEA~LS BOARD'MEMBERS: Gerard P. Goehfinger, Chairmai~ Lydh A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Soulhold Tc;~n Hall 53095 Maih Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Teleptmne (631) 765-1809 http:/southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5200 ~ ~P~ATRICK W. LOHN 87-3-55 Pr~p~i~ Lo~c~on :~Cornef 0fMinnehaha Boulevard and Wabun Street, Southoid SEQR.~ DETEBM'IN .VI ION: The Aoalng Board of~Appeals has visited,the property under conslderali~'m in Ihis ~qqdicalion and determines that~ this review falls under the Type II calegory of Ihe Slale's I.iq of ~,clion~. without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is' i~plelneated as pl!anneff, I'ROPl:RI5 I: X( I'S.I}l..S¢'l~ll'TION: The applicant's property is a 11,596 sq, ft. parcel Im':~lcd on Ibc soulh side of X~:dnm Street and the west side of Minnehaha Boulevard at I.ano, hing ~,'* qlcq's, bonlhohl.. The in'operty is improved with a~one-~story frame house and acccssor?,~arage.J~s ~ho~n an Iht .-ur~ey prepared by John T: Metzger, L.S~ dated July 5, 2000, BASIS Oi~ APPLICATION: Building Department's June 14, 2002 Notice of Disapproval dimying a permit to construct a new dwelling, after removing the existing dwelling, for the reason that, the setback will be less than 35 feet from the front lot line and the lot coverage will exceed the code limitation of 20%. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appe~a?s held a public hearing on this application on Octoberl7, 2002 at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, ~,umeri{afio~s p~rsonal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds:the, follo~g,fai~ts to I~e~ ~rueand relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: A Variance is requested under Section 100- 24~B to locate a .new single-family dwelling at two-stories. 10 ft. from the front lot line at its closest point {northwest cornerk A variance is also requested for a total lot coverage not to exceed 22+- p~ercent of the size of the lot {for the new dwelling construction and garage structarel~ 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 i~ the character of the neighborhood or a detrim[m to nearby properties. The property size shown on the assessors' records (.29 of an acre) is significantly substandard. After careful inspection of the premises hy applicants, inspections showed serious flaws and dry rot in walls and the Page 2 - October 29, 2002 AppL Iqo~ 5200 - Patrick Lohn 1000-87-3-55 at Southold floors. Applicant wishes to replace the existing dwelling structure with a new dwelling and detached garage in a somewhat better location as shown on the site plan map prepared by Elizabeth Thompson, Architect, dated 5/01/02. 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 wants to raze his home and replace it with a similar size structure, only two-story in size. Since the property is adjacent to a private dirt driveway, the building department has determined this to be a front yard area. This yard effectively would be a side, and applicant is proposing 10 ft. on that side.. With respect to the garage (included in the lot coverage variance), applicant proposes a somewhat larger garage for storage because the new house has limited storage space. The Board concurs with this reasoning. 3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. The variance grants a modest reduction in the setback, and the lot coverage relief is only 2% over the code requirement, comparable to others in the area. 4. The variance granted will 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. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new dwelling and 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 26%B, motion was offered by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried to: GRANT the variances as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A) the front setbacks and lot coverage (22%) shall be as shown on the plan prepared by Elizabeth Thompson, Architect, dated May 1, 2002. B) the accessory garage building shall be ~sed for storage purposes (not for habitable or other non.permitted code use). 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, AppL NO, 5200 -: Patrick Lohn setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote .of the Board: Ayes: Members Goeh~a~)C~3~ora~.._~d Orlando. ..ffr~d p. GOehring[-~- At;proved f/q/?Filing C .APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora ~ George Homing · ~ Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 53095 Mai~ Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11921-0959 ZBA Fax (631)~ 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http: 'somholdtown.northfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5180-~aul and Lisa H01obigian Property Locat ont 1t55 Mar erie Lane Mattituck (near Laurel) 1000-144-3-3 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under considei'ation 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 p~ojebt,is~ implemented as planned PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the east side "bi M~le,ne [Lane in Mattituck and consists of 11,6511 sq. ft. of land area and 75 ff. 'fi-onta~e~ab~g Marlene Lane and 155.6 ft. n depth The property s reproved wth a one-story fra~ne h~use and accessory garage as shown on the survey prepared by John T.'Metzger,!~LS d;ated November 1 1994 BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's June 11. 2002 Notice of Disapproval, a~;ende~ OCtober 9 2002 denying a permit to construct an :add t on to the existing d~ i~g Uh~t~r sectl(~n 100-33 'and Section 100-242A of the Zoning Code. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on October 17, 2002, at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and the area, and ether evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. AREAVARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The relief requested by application is to allow the. existing frame garage to remain in its present nonconforming, (s de yard) location side yard location. Applicant proposes to remove the existing rear deck and build a new addition at the rea~' of the dwelling. REASONS 'FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony and record before the Board and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findinCs: 1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The removal of the existing deck. and construction of a new addition, will not create an increase in the nonconformity of the garage location Page2-October'29,2002 ' 7 ,~ - i~ ' ,, · ?i~?-: Appl. No. 5180- L. Holobogian 144-3-3 at Mattituck (near Laurel) 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The house and the garage were originally built to meet all former zonihg codes. When the deck was built onto the back of the house, it simultaneously put the garage partly in the side yard and no longer in the rear yard. 3. The requested area variance is not substantial. There is no increase in the degree of nonconforming location of the garage~ The garage is existing. 4. The difficulty was self, created when the applicant built the deck onto the rear of the house. 5. There is no evidence that the grant of the vadance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant meets all required setbacks under the zoning code~ but by placing a deck on the rear of the house it logistically puts the garage to the side. This deck has existed since 1987 which does not change or affect the immediate area of the neighborhood. 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 Orlando, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried to: GRANT the variance for an addition at the rear of the dwelling, as applied for (also see construction sketch dated 4/16/02 prepared by Penny Lumber for the applicant). 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~g~r (C~lai/gqla~7'T~or.~Ea.~Hol-ning, and Orlando. (Member Oliva was a~;~t'.) Thi Res ~Jo'~~~q). ~/,~ard P. Goehringer - Al~roved for/F~ing - APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, CItairman C Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2002 SoutholdTdwn Hall 53095 Maii~ Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://sourholdtown.nortlffork.net App,. No:'5181 ~- THOMAS C. SAMUELS and NANCY STEELMAN ,... property Locat~an: ,.7090 Ne~v SuffolE Road, New-,Suffolk. '.parcel No. 117;6.-7.1 (formerCTM NOS. 7 and 4,combined as, one). SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in ~iS applicatii~r~ and determines that this review f~lls under the 'type II category of the ~Sta~Le%~ List or,Actions, without an adwrs.e '6ffect ~m the environment, if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 1.62-acre parcel is located on' the south side of Faffning Road in New Suffolk and is improved with a two-story wood frame dwelling, ¢ccessor~ swimming pool and barn structure. BAS~S OF APPDCATION Building Department's June 13. 2002, Notice of Disapproval denying a per~itc~,,construct additions and alterations to an existing accessory bailding which exi~sa ri~hC°nfor~ing front yard location (rather than a rear yard). FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on October 17. 2002, which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other, evidence the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a 20 ft. by 30 ff. addition to an existing nonconforming accessory structure, located on a large, 1.62 acre lot 4n this,R-40 zone. The lot has two front yards and applicant requests authorization to%l~cate the accessory addition in the front yard. rather than the code- required rear yard. REASONS FORBOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted :and' ¢~rsonal Bspect OhS the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the ,a!~ea variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborho0¢ or a detriment to nearby properties. The accessory addition will be set back 103,, feet frdm Fanning Road, and over 600 feet from New Suffolk Road. Because the set backs are substar~tialty greater than the existing set backs of nearby residences, and mature trees and andscapng w screen the addton from view. the requested var ance w II,not adversely ~mpact ne~ghbonng properties. · Page 2 - O~ober 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5181 - Samuels & Steelman 117-6-7. I at New Suffolk 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 difficulty arises because the lot is a through lot, with 30-foot frontage on New Suffolk Road, accessed via a 500- foot long driveway. Despite the property's large size, the permissible building envelope is restricted by two front yards, and the location of the existing 160 year-old house. There is no alternative location that would not require a variance. 3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. The proposed setbacks of the accessory addition far exceed the code-required setbacks for principal buildings in this R-40 zoning district. 4. The alleged difficulty has not been self-created. 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 vadance is the minimum action necessary and adequate t~ enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an accessory 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 Chairman Goehdnger, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried to GRANT the Vadance as applied for and shown on the site plan prepared 1/31/02 by Nancy L; Steelman, R.A. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board; Ayes: Members ~C~m_,.a~;~onto/~aT-~nd Orlando. (Members Oliva and H°rning were.~t.) Thi~~~.//~d (3-0). /-{3~rard P. Goehringer/- Appro/v~ for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando Southold To~vn Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.nor th fork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 17. 2002 ppi. NO 5204 - SANG LEE FARMS ,Property LocatiOn:. 25180 County Road 48. Peconic CTM Parcel: 84-5-1.3 and 1.2 (combined) SEQRA DETERM NAT ON The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property 'under cobs deretion in ~is applicaf, ion and determines that this review falls under the Type category of the State $ LiSt ct Actions, Without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. [ 'PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's land is an agricultural farm co]nsisting of 15.3+ acres i :;16cated or~'the ,~0U~h Side o,f C;R. 48 (a/k/a North Road or M dde Road) n Pecon c Ex st ng on the property !area ,dwel~ng and greenhouses as shown on the s~te plan map.prepared by Samuels ;& Steelman ; :'A~'cb teCts.~tated 18/5102, Of~ the entire' 1'5.3 acres, 14 361 ai;res has'development dgbts s~old. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's July 29, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended August !fl 9,~ 2002, den¢13g a Permit~to enclose an agricultural/farm stand structure; FINDINGS OF FACT !~The,Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application o~ October 17, 2002, at which time ;written and orcJl 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: The applicant is requesting a 1300 sq. Floor and Building ;Elevation Plan prepared by Samuels & Steelman. Sheet No. 3 dated 8/1/02. ~EASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presenteo, materials submitted, and personal inspections, the Boam makes the following findings: 1. The granting of these variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or be a detriment to nearby properties, because the applicant seeks approval for the construction of an agricultural retail farm stand, which is a permitted use in the A/C zone in which this parcel is located. A variance is required,.however, because the applicant wants to install a heating/cooling system in the structure for the expressed purpose of providing for the ability to operate on a year-round basis, within a comfortableenvironment: for the benefit of his customers and employees. It is the determination of this board that the operation of a farm stand on a year round basis, rather than just seasonally, will not in any way alter the character of the neighborhood or district. ~/~*'"'. 2., The benefit sought by the appl cent cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area valance, because the app cant has sufficiently demonstrated through verbal testimOny and the documentation submitted in the case file. that the expressed benefit sought by the applicant is.not poss b e w thout obtaining the requested variances. Page" 2_ October 17 2002 Appl. No. 5204. SangLee Farms 84-5-1.3 and 1.2 at Peconic 3. The requested variances are not substantia! because the applicant reques~ relief fro~ a cede requirement that limits the size of a farm stand to !000 sq. feet, presenting to the bOa~:da Pf°POSal for a single-story building containing approximately 1300 sq. feet, which the applicant maintains is the size necessary to provide an adequate space for his operation. A variance allowing for the construction of a modern farm stand suitable for comfortable year-round use, may be deemed by some as substantial in nature, but it is the determination of this board that the year-round operation of an appropriately equipped farm stand does not violate the intent, goals, or purpose of the town codes regulating the agricultural/conservation districts. 4. The proposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or district. There is no evidence that indicates that the year-round operation of a farm Stand will have any adverse environmental impact. The difficulty for this applicant has been self- created. However, this board does acknowledge that the appropriate jurisdictional Town entities should be encouraged to conduct a thorough review of current code requirements relatin9 to the operation of farm stands. 5. The relief offered to this applicant is the minimum determined necessary for this applicant to enjoy th~' !:, benefit of operating a farm stand on a year -round basis, while at the same time protecting and preservin~ the character of the neighborhood, as well as the health, safety, and welfare of the surrounding community. BOARD RESOLUTION: tn considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Chairman Goehdnger, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried to GRANT a Vadance authorizing enclosure of a farm stand structure subject to the following CONDITIONS: 1. The accessory farm stand, permitted by the granting of these variances, shall only be used for the purposes delineated in the submitted application, and Only those uses as allowed by Town Code. 2. There will be no habitable space within this structure. 3. The applicant must provide adequate on-premises parking. 4. The applicant will secure the necessary site plan approval for the project. 5. The applicant will grant access to the subject premise to representatives of this board, within one year of the completion of the building, for the sole PurPose of inspection, to insure that the above cond!tions have been met by the applicant. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the sUbj~ property that may violate the Zoning Code, Other than sUch uses, setbacks and other features aS are %~/~" ~' Page 3 - Oct_oDer 17. 2002 Appl. No. 5204 - SangLee Farms 84-5-1.3 and 1.2 ~t Peconic expressly addressed in this action APPEALS BOARD M, EMBt~RS Gerard E Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando , S0fittiold ToWn Hall - 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 htrp://soulholdtown.nor thfork.nel BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING 'OF OCTOBER 29. 2002 Appi; No. 5t80 - Paul and Lisa Holobi,qian Property Location:',~1155 Madene Lane, Mattituck (near Laurel) 1000-144-3-3 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the east side of Marlene Lane iq Mattituck and consists of 11.6511 sq. ft. of land area and 75 ft. frontage along Madene Lane and 155.6 ft. in depth. The property is improved with a one-story frame house and accessory garage as shown on the survey prepared by John T?Metzger,'L.S. dated November 1 1994. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's June 11, 2002 Notice of Disapproval. ameqded October 9. 2002, denymg a permit to construct an addition to the existing dvCelling Unde~r Section 100-33 and Section 100-242A of the ZOning Code. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a. public hearing on this application on October 17, 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 to be true and relevant. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The relief requested by application is to allow the existing frame garage to remain in its present nonconforming (side yard) location side yard location. Applicant proposes to remove the existing rear deck and build a new addition at the rear of the dwelling. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony and record' before the Board and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the area vadance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The removal of the existing deck. and construction of a new addition, will not create an increase in the nonconformity of the garage location. Page 2 - October 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5180 - L Holobogian 144-3-3 at Mattituck (near Laurel) 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The house and the garage were originally built to meet all former zoning codes. When the deck was built onto the back of the house, it simultaneously put the garage partly in the side yard and no longer in the rear yard. 3. The requested area variance ts not substantial. There is no increase in the degree of nonconforming location of the garage. The garage is existing. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant built the deck onto the rear of the house. 5. There is no evidence that the grant of the vadance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The applicant meets all required setbacks under the zoning code, but by placing a deck on the rear of the house it logistically puts the garage to the side. This deck has existed since 1987 which does not change or affect the immediate area of the neighborhood. 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 Orlando, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried to: GRANT the variance for an addition at the rear of the dwelling, as applied for (also see construction sketch dated 4/16/02 prepared by Penny Lumber for the applicant). 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~ger (~ai~a~'T~o?_~,Horning, and Orland°- (Member Oliva was a,~) This ~~~~~·  ard P. Goehringer - ApPrOved for/~f]ing - EALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goel~ringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD South01~ Town Hall 53095 ~l~a/n Road P.O. Box 1179 Southotd. New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http:/southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29 2002 Appl. 'No.. 5182 - R.W: RE1NIGER Property Locat on 3500 Lighthouse Road, Southold 1000-50-2-1 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under considera!ion in this .application and determines that this review falls under the Type Il categorY M the State's List of ~ctions, w thout an adverse effect On the environment if the prOject is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the east side of Lighthouse. Road:(at the north end or dead end), in Southold. The lot consists of 18,908 sq. ft. in ~trea, and is improved with (variable one and two story) frame single- family,dwelli'ng as shown on the survey prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S. dated February i;8, 2000;' ~mended Ap/'i 3, 2000 ~SIS OF A?,.RE!CATION;: Build, lng Department's April 22, 2002 Notice of Disapproval ny nO ~ gei'mit~.:to iconstruct a~ldition(s to the existing dwe Ing for the reason that the a~dd~t~ons;~]l r~ot ,meet the~ mm'~mum 35 ft. rear and minimum 35 ft. front yard setbacks required;L~d~i: Sections ~i00-242A and 100-244 of the zoning code. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning. Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on October 17, 2002, at which time ~vritten and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation~ personal inspection of the property and the area, and other evidence, the ZoninO Bo~trd fir~ds the following facts to bff. true and relevant. AREA VAR'ANC~E I~ELIEF REQ [JESTED: Relief considered in this application is for a 3' by 8 4 ,~?ne-st0ry shed/addition at the southeast corner of the dwelling leawng a setback O~ ~.5+- l~t.'ffom the Closest property line and 12+- ft. from the southerly property line. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and~oersonal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1 Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of ne~o~borhood or a detriment to nearby properties. This lot consists of almost 19.000 sq. ft. most of which is located below the Coastal Erosion Hazard boundary ine. The o~ has a small building envelope which is ~mproved with a modest contemporary style with nonconforming setbacks from all property lines In reviewing the file and during the Page 2 - October 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5182- R.W. Reiniger 1000-50-2-1 at Southold hearing, no opposition was offered (from contiguous or adjacent property owners or others in the community) regarding this request. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The setbacks of the house are significantly nonconforming on all sides. No other step is available except to apply for area variance relief. 3. The requested area variance is not substantial based on the size of the shed and based on the limited building area and bluff-related restrictions of the lot. 4. There is no evidence that the grant of the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The shed is landward of the house and Coastal Zone Management boundary. BOARD RESOLUTION: [n considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B. motion was offered by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Odando, and duly carried to: GRANT the variance for a shed as applied for and shown on the sketched copy of the Ehlers' survey, with notations by Mark Schwartz. Architect for the applicant. 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: Membe~~h~ra, Homing, and Orlando. (Member Oliva was ~. t . s d, uiy ~?/..~'~/ G :vo ¢,~1~ p. Goehringer-Approved for Filing~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~ x~Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southol'd TO~ Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765~9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http: Southoldtown. northfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 17, 2002 Appl. No. 4778 - CRAZY CHINAMAN CORP STREET & LOCATION: 11775 Main Road, Mattituck 1000-I414-36 DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: ianuary,13, 2000; September 19; 2002. SEORA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this applicafioa and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the enwronmenr if the project is implemented ~ planned. FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants' property conff~sts of approximately 13,500 sq. ft. in area with 55.21 ft. frontage along the north side of Main Road (State Route 25) in Mattituek. The property is improved with a two-story frame building and accessory frame garage as. shown on the Novembef~2~, 1980 survey prepared by Robert A. Ka~ L.S. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Applicant requests a Special Exception pursuant to Zoning Code Article VII, Section 100-,7{B(5) for approval of an apartment use over existing Professional Office use, subject to approval by the Zoning Board of Appeals. BOARI) CONSIDERATIONS/REASONS: In considering this application, the Board has reviewed the requirements set forth pursuant to Article IX, Section 100-39B-4 for an Aparanem over the professional office area and finds that the applicant comphes with the Code requirements, and that: 1. The apartment is located within the footprint of a prmeipal building containing a professional office asea. 2. The Apartment is subject to a Certificate of Occupancy for comphance issued by the Town Building: Inspector with respect to all other rales and regulations pertaining to occupancy, as well as~the N Y.S. and local Building and Fire Codes. 3. The applicant is the owner and has submitted a copy of the current deed of this property. The occupancy of the building is intended to be professional office use as provided by the provisions of applicable bodes. 4. :Applicant has subxrdtted the following information with regard to floor area: (a) the existing principal~,building contains a total of 1750 sq fr.; (b) the Apartment is approximately 625 sq. ft oflloor area. Page 2 - October 17, 2002 ~ ~ '~ ~" Appl. No. 4778 - Crazy Ch/naman Corp. 1000-141-4-36 1t/O Zone, Mattituck 5. The applicanl has submitted a proposed parking sketch to comply with the on-site parking requirements and is providing total of nine (9) parking spaces as a minimum (utilizing the ex~sting garage and outside areal. In addition, the Board has reviewed the General Standards governing Special Exception uses se[ forth in Section 100-263 and finds that: In considering all of the following, the Board finds and determines the following: A. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties or of properties in adjacent use districts. B. That the use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of pemfitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the requested use is located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts C. That the safety, the health_ the welfare_ the comfort, the convenience or the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the Accessory Apartment use and its location. D. That the use wilt be in harmony with and promote the general purposes and intent of this chapter. E. That the use will be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance. F. That all proposed structures, equipmenx and material shall be readily accessible for fire and police protection. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Chairman Gochringer. it was RESOLVED. to GRANT the Special Exception for an Apartment over a Professional Office area as applied for. and pursuant to the code limitations under Section 100-91B(4), as follows: ~ The Term Fire D,~, '~ ~ n ~, ~, ..... venno~ !nspecror ~ha ..... spe~ the Apa~ment and consider approval of the desigt~ locafiom access and other safe~-related elements. This apartment shall not be permitted over facilities producing intense heat or any other establishment which the Fire Prevention Inspector deterrmnes to pose a greater-than-average built-in fire risk Page 3 - Oc:toi~r l 7, 201)2 AppI. No. 4778 - Crazy Ctdnaman Corp. 1000-141-4-36 IUO Zone, Mattituck 2. The habitable floor area of the Apartment shall be at least 450 feet but in no case more than 750 sq. ft. 3. The Apartment shal~ not be located on the first floor of the building and shall contain all services for safe and convenient habitation, meeting the New York State Uniform Fire Prevention and Bailding Code and the Sanitary Code. 4. No further Aparanera use may be added without further approvals from this Board and other agencies having jurisdiction thereunder. 5. The access to this Aparm~em must be maintained separately from the outside of the building, distinctly separate from access to other uses on the first floor. 6. The Apartment shall have at least one on-sire parking space on site, conveniently located for access [o the Apartment. 7. The o~er may nor sell the apartment or any proprietary or other interest therein, to the tenant or any other party, except as part of a sale of the entire building in which the apartment is located. 8. The Apartment must be available for year-round rental. 9. The Apartment shall be properly constructed, maintained and used. and any unapproved use(s) is/are excluded therefrom. 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 addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Memb~ger ~ani, T~ and Orlando. Member Oliva was absent.)T31is~Res~olnt~%~n w2a~ffu_ 1y/~adopted~,4~..jJ/ ./ /~- Gerard P. Goehringer-~ppro~kxt for FjJ~[ng XppEA~s BOARD MEMBERS, Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ~-- Lydia A. Tortora .... George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Sotlth01d Town HaH 53095 Main Road · . P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (63D 765-1809 htrp://southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29. 2002 Appl. No. 5200 ~- PATRICK W. LOHN 8%3-55 Property Lncation:, Corner.ofMinnehaha Boulevard and Wabun Street Southold SEQRA ~ETERMI~NA, TION: Tke Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under considera~tm~ qn thid a~plication and determines that this review falls under the Type H category of ~he 'State;s List Of A~ions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PRGPERTY:,FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is a 11,596 sq. ft, parcel located on the s~ufli, side of Wabun Street and the west side of Minnehaha Boulevard at Lau~g..W~t~rs, ~SouthoJd. The property ~s ~mproved w~th a one-story frame house and acc~s~;tga~ag~,as shov~ on the. survey prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S. dated July 5, 2000~ ~ASIS OF APPLICATION:: Building Department's June 14, 2002 Notice of Disapproval de~ying a permit to construct a new dwelling, after removing the existing dwelling, for the reas0u, that the ,setback w~l[ be less than 35 feet from the front lot line and the lot coverage will exceed 'the~ code limitation of 20%. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a pubfic hearing on this application on Octoberl7, 2002 at W~hich time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, doc ~u~nentation~ persbnal inspection of the propertys and other ewdence, the Zomng Board firfds*the fbllow~ng facts to.' b,9,true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: A Variance is requested under Section 100- 7.44B to locate ~ ne~ single-*family dwelling at two-stories, 10 ft. from the front lot line at its closesl point (northwest corner). A variance is also requested for a total 10t coverage not to exceed 22+~ p~ercent of the size of the lot (for the new dwelling construction and garage structure}: REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, until pel~sona[ inspections, the Board madelhe following findings: L Grant of an area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a'detri~mem to nearby properties. The property size shown on the assessors' records (.29 of:an acre} is significantly substandard. After careful inspection of the premises by applicants, inspections showed serious flaws and dry rot in walls and the Page 2 - October 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5200 - Patrick Lolm 1000-87-3~55 at Southold floors. Applicant wishes to replace the existing dwelling structure with a new dwelling and detached garage in a somewhat better location as shown on the site plan map prepared by Elizabeth Thompson, Architect, dated 5/01/02. 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 wants to raze his home and replace.it with a similar size structure, only two-story in size. Since the property is adjacent to a private dirt driveway, the building department has determined this to be a front yard area. This yard effectively would be a side, and applicant is proposing 10 ft. on that side.. With respect to the garage (included in the lot coverage variance), applicant proposes a somewhat larger garage for storage because the new house has fimited storage space. The Board concurs with this reasoning. 3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. The variance grants a modest reduction in the setback, and the lot coverage relief is only 2% over the code requirement, comparable to others in the area. 4. The variance granted will 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. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new dwelling and 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 Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried to: GRANT the variances as applied for. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A) the front setbacks and lo4 coverage (22%) shall be as shown on the plan prepared by Elizabeth Thompson. Architect, dated May 1. 2002. B) the accessory garage building shall be used for storage purposes (not for habitable or other non-permitted code usel. This action does not authorize or condone any currem or future use. setback or other feature of the subject properts- that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses. Pag~ '- October 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5200 - Patrick Lohn 1000-87-3-55 at Southold setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Go~ma/n~.,~l~ora~_~d Orlando. (Members Oliva and Horning were absented ~-0~~ / gg ~r~d P. Goehring~'- A[~proved ~Filing C APPEALS BOARD MEMBER~! ' ' Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman? ~ Lydia A. Tortora .... George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Or~_ando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main~R0ad P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 1~_971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765~9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http: 'southoldtown.nor thfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS '3aND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29. 2002 AppL No. 5~85 - ROBERT and DONNA H. MOSQUERA Property Location: 370 Hobart Road, Southo]d 1000-62-3-6 SEQRA. DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type I1 category 'of ,the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the emqronment if the project is;implemenf~d as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is .located on the west side of Hobart !R~d (or Avenue) in Southold. The property consists of 9,127 sq. ft. of lot area with I25~. ~.'ontage, al6n~the road. It is improved with a two-story-frame house (under renova'tiOrtj.as shos~)a 6n'tfie Joseph A. Ingegno survey daf6d December 11, 2000, amended 22, oo2. : Building Department's June 17, 2002 Noti~ce of Disapproval dCa mg: .permit to construct additions with alterations that will be located within 35 feet f~o~.~fr~nt arid rea{ property lines. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on October 17, 2002 al 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 followiglg facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: A variance is requested under Section 100- 244'B and 100-242A Of the zoning code, for proposed additions/alterations which will include a cantilever~of 2 ~ft. on the first floor at the west end of the house, leaving not less than 31~5' from the property line, for a kitchen area, and porch addition which will have a front yard of 3.5 feet at its closest point to the from lot line. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted, and persona! inspections, the Board made the following findings: i. Grant of an area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhOnd or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant's home has a significantly reduced front yard area /'/'6'~ from the front property line. Applicant proposes a front yard setback of 3.5 feet and a rear setback of 31.5 feet. During the hearing process, the Board recognized the! very small front yard setback proposed, and reviewed the alternative Page 2 - October 29. 2002 Appl. No. 5185 - R. Mosquem 62-3-6 at Southold options with the applicant. It was agreed that the new addition on the southeasterly side of the property would not be built any closer to the front line (15'4"). 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. 3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. The variance grants a modest reduction in the setback of the southwest corner of the building. 4. The variance granted will 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. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of additinns/alterations to the dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood, and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION: BOARD RESOLUTION: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 26%B, motion was offered by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried to: GRANT the variance as applied for and shown on the Joseph A. Ingegno survey dated December 11, 2000, amended May 28, 2002. 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~c--~a~-T-mzt~ra, gg,Members Oliva and Horning we~~~ ~ ~/~/' //j~e~ard P. Goehringer -'"~pproved for Fi /~rlando. ~ ,Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman:!' ,~.~ Lydia A. Tortora George Horning Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando Southol/t Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box i179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.nor thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5181,-THOMAS C. SAMUEES and NANCY STEELMAN Property Location: 7090 New Suffolk Road. New Suffolk. Parcel No. 117-6~7%,1: (former. CTM Nos. 7 and 4 comb ned as one) SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type ti categ'ory of the:State's List of Actions. without an adverse effect on the environment if the project'is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 1.62-acre parcel is located on the south side of Fanning Road in New Suffolk and is improved with a two-story wood frame dwelling, accessory swimming pool and barn structure BASIS OF:APPLICATION: Building Department's June 13, 2002, Notice of Disapproval denying a;germit to construct addit OhS and alterations to an existing accessory building which exists, a nonconforming front yard location Irather than a rear yard). FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this application on October 17, 2002, which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a 20 ft. by 30 ft. addition to an existing nonconforming accessory structure, located on a large, 1.62 acre lot in .this R-40 zone. The lot has two front yards and applicant requests authorization to locate the accessory addition in the front yard. rather than the code- requ. ired rear yard. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of [estimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the area vadance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighbo.r, hood or a detriment to nearby properties. The accessory addition will be set back 103 feet from Fanning Road, and over 600 feet from New Suffolk Road. Because the set backs are substantially greater than the existing set backs of nearby residences. and mature trees and landscaping will screen the addition from wew. the requested variance will not adversely impact neighboring properties. Page 2 - Octol~er 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5181 - Samuels & Steelman 117-6-7.1 at New Suffolk 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 difficulty adses because the lot is a through lot. with 30-foot frontage on New Suffolk Road, accessed via a 500- foot long driveway. Despite the property's large size, the permissible building envelope is restricted by two front yards, and the location of the existing 160 year-old house. There is no alternative location that would not require a variance. 3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. The proposed setbacks of the accessory addition far exceed the code-required setbacks for pnnc~pal buildings in this R-40 zoning district. 4. The alleged difficulty has not been self-created. 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 vadance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an accessory 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 Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carded to GRANT the Vadance as applied for and shown on the site plan prepared 1/31/02 bY Nancy L. Steelman, R.A. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members G~(C, ba~n~ortc:ar-~nd Orlando. (Members Oliva and Homing wer~~l~~y~dO/~d (3-0). ./G~rard P. Goehringer/- Appro,~ for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Ooehringer. Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.nor thfork~net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 2002 Appl_ No. 5032 - LISA EDSON Property Location: 9326 Main Bayview Road (right-of-way oft), Southold; CTM #1000-87-5-25 (and R-O-W 87-5-24) The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public heating on this application on October 17, 2002 at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon ail testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property., and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on a private Right-of-Way, commencing at a point on the north side of Bayview Road, Southold and extending 450+- feet to the subject parcel. The applicant's property consists of 3.407 acres (including wetland and dredged areas of the canal). BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's July 5, 2001 and September 20, 2001 Notices of Disapproval denying a permit to construct a new dwelling for the following reasons: (1) a retaining wall is proposed at a height greater than the code limitation of 4 feet along or in a front yard area, (2) proposed is deck construction with a zero setback from the front yard line, and from the private right-of-way, at its closest point; and (3) the property does not have a determination under New York Town Law, Section 280-a, for minimum specifications at the base of a private right-of-way (land owned now or formerly by Mad Kksch referred to as 87-5-24), in establishing standards of improvement for safe access by fire and emergency vehicles (applicant's lot does not have direct frontage on a town street). FINDINGS OF FACT VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Variances under Sections 100-32, 100-231 and 100-235A. 1 for: (1) a retaining wall is proposed at a height greater than the code limitation of 4 feet along or in a front yard area, (2) proposed is deck construction with a zero setback from the front yard line, and from the private right-of-way, at its closest point; and (3) and New York Town Law Section 280-a, for the property does not have a determination under New York Town Law, Section 280-a, for minimum specifications at the base of a private right-of-way (land owned now or formerly by Mary Kirsch referred to as 87-5-24), in establishing standards of improvement for safe access by fire and emergency vehicles (applicant's lot does not have direct frontage on a town street). Page 2 - October 29, 2002 Appl. No. 5032 - L: Edson 87~5-25 at Southold REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant or, the. area variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property isa large 3.4-acre site with proposed access via a right-of-way, which will serve as access to applicant's property and driveway, and be used by two property owners to the no~tl~ for access to a boat basin on Corey Creek_ The requested increased keight of the retaining wall is needed to met Hca!th Department'regulations and will not be visible to adjoining neighbors. 2. The benefit, sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the ,app!icant m pursue, other than variances. The property is restricted by wetland setbacks, and other agency approvals and conditions governing this application. Without yariances~ ;he applicant would not be abl~ to maintain the appropriate.required setbacks to the wetlands; o?,conform to the requkements of ~he health departmbnt. 3. The variances granted herein are not substantial because the right-of-way will only be used to access applicant's property and driveway, a~nd by two property owners for access to a boat basin. 4. The alleged difficulty has been self-created. 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. The project has been reviewed and approved with conditions by the Southold Town Trustees and the NY State Department of Environmental Conservation. 6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a aew dwelling while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under Ne~v York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT the Area Variances as applied for and shown on the Map prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S last dated September 17, 200t, WITH THE Page 3 - October 29, 2002 AppI. No. 5032 - L, Edson 87-5,25 at Southold CONDITION that final approval shall be reserved to the Board of Appeals regarding acceptance or changes for a suitable landscaping plan around the Sanitary system, before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued, and to FURTHER GRANT a variance providing for minimum base improvemems to the legal rigl-rt-o£-way, as required under New York Town Law, Section 280-a, subject to the following minimum specifications: a) The legal right-of-way to the subject property shall be suitably improved to a width of 15 feet, extending from BayvieW Road to the proposed dwell'rog, with a minimum of 2-inches of crashed blue stone over a 12-inch layer of ½ to 1" stone, and with a proper inlet allowing storm water runoff without adversely affecting or disturbing wetlands. b) The improvements over this private right-of-way shall be subject to continuous maimenance at all times in the future, to allow for safe and sufficiem access by for all types of fire and emergency vehicles. 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 C~rman), Tortora, and Orlando. (Member Oliva and M~ R~~ed (3-o). G/e/?r~d/P:t)G~ehringer - 2~pproved~r Filing