Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-11/14/2002 AgendaAPiSEALS~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 (63 ~) 765-1809 http:#southoldtowmnorthfork.net BOARD OF_APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Prep. 11/8; t~/'-./ AGENDA REGULAR MEETING THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2002 6:30 p.m. Call to Order. I. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW DETERMINATIONS (SEQRA): Type II Declarations (No futfher steps under State Law): Appl. No. 5223 - DANIEL WEST. Appl, No. 5213 - THOMAS VLAHOS. Appl, No, 5195 - DIANE DUNBAR, Appl, No. 5201 - RORY KLINGE and CAROL RAND. Appl. No, 5210 - DAVID and LAUREL SMITH. Appl. No.'5207 - GARY and JOANNA CAMPO. Appl. No. 5198 - SUSAN LAGUARDIA Appl. No. 5203 - RONALD and DIANE EKSTER. Appl. No. 5206 - PATRICIA GARABRANT, Appl. No. 5205 - FRANK AND CAMILLE PIROZZI. Appl. No. 5196 - MARC RUBENSTEIN AND PATRICIA PIERCE. ppl. No. 5197 - ALEXANDER D, WALKER, III. ppi. No. 5051 -.ELBOW EAST ('CLIFF AND PHIL'S LOBSTER HOUSE). C U~nlisted Declarations with Nermtive Effec~ on the Environment: Appl. No. (pendi,~g i[~p~ction reviews) Others pendino site p/an or other agencv reviews: AppI. No. (none received) II PUBLIC HEARINGS: W#tten testimony m lieu of extensive oral testimony /s requested and appreciated. Ali testimony shall be limited to zomng tssues properly before the Board. 6:30 pm Appl, No. 5223 - DANIEL WEST. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B, 13used on the Building Department's July 27, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for permission to construct additions/alterations to an existing dwelling, part of which is located at less than 35 feet from the front property line facing a private right- of-way. 120 Private Road, 665 Goose Creek Lane. Southold; Parcel 77-3-24. 6:35 pm AppL. No. 5213 - THOMAS VLAHOS. This is a request for a Vadance under Section 100-244B ~3ased on the Building Department's August 20, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for permission to construct a second-floor addition to an existing dwelling over the rear portion which has a nonconforming location at less than 35 feet from the rear property line. 250 Summit Ddve, Cpt. Kidd Estates, Mattituck; Parcel 106-2-9. Page 2- Agenda upd t/~/02 November 14. 2002 Meeting Southold Town Board of Ap?eels 6:40 pm AppL No. 5195 - DIANE DUNBAR. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's July 9. 2002 Notice of Disapproval, regarding proposed additions/alterations to an existing dwelling in, a nonconforming location at less than 35 feet from the front properxy line. 615 Dogwood Lane, East Marion; Parcel 37-1-11. 6:45 pm AppL No. 5201 - RORY KLINGE and CAROL RAND. Th, is is a request for a Variance under Sections 100-242A and 100-244, based on the Building Department's July 24, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for permission to construct additions and alterations to an existing dwelling in a nonconforming setback location, and less than 35 feet from the front lot line, less than 10 feet on a single side, and less than 25 feet for both side yards. Location of Property: 420 Steding Place, Greenport; Parcel 34-3-17. 6:50 pm Appl. No. 5210 - DAVID and LAUREL SMITH. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-30A.3, based on the Building Department's July 26, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for permission to construct additions/alterations to an :existing dwelling in a nonconforming location at less than 50 feet from the front lot line. Location of Property: 1010 Bay Avenue Mattituck; Parcel 143-3-17. 7:00 pm Appl. No. 5207 - GARY and JOANNA CAMPO. This is a request for a Variance under Sectics 100-30A.4, based or the Building Department's July 23, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for permission to construct an accessory garage ~n an area other than the required rearyard. Location of Property: 650 Three Waters Lane, Orient; Parcel 15-6~24. 7:10 pm Appl. No 5198 - SUSAN LAGUARDIA. This is a,request fora Variance under Section 100- 31A b,,ased ,o,,n the Building Departments May 14, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, denying as built alterations to an existing accessory building, for two-stow ;_~-/~'-~the' '~ ~*~¢~"~ reason that such alterations are not permitted as designed for a seconcJ dwelling use on the property. Location of Prc 3arty: 2950 Camp Mineola Road, Mattituck; 123-5-5. 7:15 pm Appl. No. 5203 - RONALD and DIANE EKSTER. This is a request for a Variance under Sections 100-242A and 100-244B, based on the Building Department's March 1, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for permission to locate a deck addition at less than 35 feet from the front property line. Location of Property: 1700 Main Street, New Suffolk: Parcel 117-9-23. 7:20 pm Appl. No. 5206 - PATRIClA GARABRANT. Proposed Accessory Bed and Breakfast use incidental to the applicant-owner's residence in the existing dwelling, located at 9625 Main Road, east Marion; Parcel 31-3-21. Applicant proposes lodging for up to four (4) guests and a maximum of two (2) guest B & B rooms, with serving of breakfast tO the applicant's guests under the Bed and Breakfast. 9age 3 ~genda upd i 1/8/02 November ~4. 2002 Meeting 5outhold Town Board of Appeals I. PUBLIC HEARINGS. continued: Written testtmony m lieu of extensive oral testimony is requested and appreciated. All testimony shaft be limited to zoning issues properly before the Board. 7:30 pm Appl. No. 5205 - FRANK AND CAMILLE PIROZZt. This is a request for a Variance, under Se0tion 100-244B, ~ased on the Building Department's July 23. 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for proposed additions/alterations to existing dwelling which will be less than 35 feet from the front lot line. Location Of Property:. 1090 Ba~view Drive, East Marion; Pa¢cel, 37-5-9. 7:35 pm Appl, No. 5196 - MARC RUBENSTEIN AND PATRIClA PIERCE. This is a reque~ for Variances under Sections 100-243A, 100-242A, ahd 100-244, based on the Building Department's July 5, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for permission to construct additions and alterations to an existing dwelling and two accessory nonconforming guest cottages which increases the degree of nonconformance or creates a new nonconformance, and' which is proposed at less than 55 feet from the front lot line. Location of Property~ Made ne Avenue Fishers Island; Parcel 6-7-7. 7:40 pm Appl. No. 5197 - ALEXANDER D. WALKER. III. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-244. based on the Building Department's July 8, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, for proposed additions/alterations to an existing dwelling at less than 55 feet from the rear lot line. Location of ProperTy: Mansion Drive, Fishers Islan0; Parcel 1000-6-6-16 ~ 17 (combined as one lot). 7:50 pm Appl. No. 5150 - T. and A. LAOUDIS. (Continued hearing, carryover from October 17, 2002). Heigh~ vanances are requested for proposed stone wall and gate structure, all e~(ceeding the code's height limitation of four feet in or along a front yard, at 635 Kimberly Lane. Southold; 70-13-20.4. 8:00 pm Appl. No. 5160 - MIRIAM REALTY. (Continued hearing, carryover from September 29, 2002). Proposed are (11 additions and alterations to an existing dwelling with setbacks at less than 10 feet on one side andless than 25 ft. total side setbacks, (2) an accessory building at less than three feet from the property line, (3) total lot coverage for all buildings m excess of the code limitation of 20 percent. Location of Property: 425 Miriam Road, Mattituck; Parcel 1000-99-1-31. 8:15 pm Appl. No. 5051 - CLIFF AND PHIL'S LOBSTER HOUSE. (Continued hearing from February 28, 2002,~. Based on the Building Department's Notice of Disapproval issued November 13, 2001, amended/updated October 22, 2002, applicant requests zoning determinations for: (a) an Interpretation under Article XXIV, Section 100-243 to Reverse the Building Department's determination which states that the proposed addition/alterations, to an existing restaurant establishment is not permitted in a Residential P':'40 District, or aitern~tbely a Variance authorizing the proposed addition to the existing restaurant: a nonconforming use in a nonconforming building; and (b) a ~Page 4 ~ Agenda upd I 1,'8/02 November 14. 2002 Meeting $ou¢~old Town Board of Appesls PUBLIC HEARINGS: Cliff and Phil's Lobster House ( Elbow East), continued: ...setback variance is also requested under Section 100-244B [or an addition to the existing building which will be less than 40 feet from the fronl proper~y line. Location Of Property: Corner of the east side of Kenny's Road and the south side of NoAh Sea Ddve, Southold; Parcel t000-54-5-22. End of heanngs. III. POSSIBLE DELIBERATIONS/DECISIONS on the following applications: A. Carryovers from previous meeting calendars: October 17, 2002 deliberations/decision (Board carryoverS): Appl~ No. 5190 - JOEL LAUBER. Floor area above second floor at Orchard St., Orient. Appl. No. 5084 - 640 CHURCH ST. LLC. Private Road, Church Lane. Cutchogue. B. Deliberations/Decisions from Public Hearings held earlier this evening (see Agenda Item II, supra). IV. RESOLUTIONS/UPDATED REVIEWS/OTHER: A. New Hearings/Regular Meeting Date confirmed: December 5.N~002 at 6 pm. B. New Applications pending inspections and reviews (5214- 5270). V. POSSIBLE EXECUTIVE SESSION (litigation pending - qb/d). APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS ~a~O~, S0uthold 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 (632)765-9064 V'mccnt Ortaudo Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.nor tkfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETE:RMINATION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14,' 2002' Appl. No. 5084 - 640 CHURCH ST LLC Property Location: 640 Church 'La, Cutchogue; Parcel 96.- 1 - ~1.1 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of' Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on a pdvate right-of- ,way which extends off the northwest side of Middle Road (a/ida C.R. 48 or North Road) in Cutchogue, The property contains 27, 748.41 sq, ft. of land area and is improved with an unoccupied 440+- sq. ft. building. BASIS OF APPEAL: The Appellants, 640 Church Street. LLC, applied to the Building Department on December 7, 2001 for a permit to construct a 4,900 square foot industrial building on property located at 640 Church Lane in Cutchogue. On January 10, 2002, the building inspector issued a Notice of Disapproval denying a permit for the proposed construc~n on the 27,748 square-foot property, located in the LI (Light Industrial) Distdct on the folloWifig grounds: 1. The proPosed construction notes a setback of 40 feet from the right-of-way in violation of ArticleXIV, Section 100-143.A which states: "Structures shall be set back at least 100 feet from the right-of- way." 2. The proposed industrial building is noted as having 100 linear feet of frontage on the riGht-of-way in violation of Article XIV. Section 100-143.C. which states "...no single structure shall have more that 60 linear feet of frontage on one street_" 3. The proposedJndustdal building would have a rear yard setback of 50 feet, instead of the code-required 70-foot minimum, pursuant to Article, XIV, Section 100-142. RELIEF REQUESTED: 1. Appellant initially requested three variances based upon plans submitted January 30, 2002 to construct a 100 foot long by 49 feet wide (4,900 square feet) industrial building, all as shown on the "Preliminary Site Plan and survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, Land surveyor, dated November 18,1998. amended February 20, 2001 anc October 15, 2001. The three Page 2 - November 14, 2002 Appl. No. 5084 - 640 Church St. LLC Southold Town Board of Appeals variances were to construct a building with; (a) 100 linear feet of frontage instead of the 60- foot maximum; (b) 40 foot setback from the right-of-way instead of the 100 foot minimum and, (c) 50 foot rear yard setback instead of the 70 foot minimum. 2. During the hearings, it was learned that applicant's property did not have approved access to a public street. On May 28, 2002, the applicant submitted a request to amend the application to include a 280-A variance regarding access. On August 23, 2002, the Building Inspector issued an amended Notice of Disapproval to include a disapproval based upon lack of access of the property to a public street pursuant to Town Law 280-a. The board has not deliberated on this matter and will render a separate decision to address this variance. 3. Dudng the hearings, the applicant requested the board to give an interpretation of vadous sections of the code, which he maintained would eliminate the need for the variances. The board chairman advised the applicant dudng several headngs that such request would have to be made formally, and at the August 22, 2002 hearing, applicant's contract vendee said he would not pursue an application for an interpretation. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearings on this application on Apdl 18, May 2, June 6, August 22 and October 3, 2002 at which time wdtten and oral evidence were presented. Based upon ali testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: 1. Appellant Thomas McCarthy of McCarthy Management lnc, is one of the principles of 640 Church Street LCC, which purchased the Light industrial zoned property for $21,000 on November 28, 2000. 640 Church Street LCC has contracted to sell the property to Gene Chituck, Chituk Pools of Cutchogue to operate his pool warehouse/construction business. 2. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION/NEIGHBORHOOD The property is a nonconforming 27,748 square-foot lot, located in the Light industrial (LI) district which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The lot is 140 feet deep with 200 feet of frontage on the west side of a dirt right-of-way known as Church Lane. The property is located within a small 5,7-acre community comprised of non-industrial uses, including nine single-family residences, and the First Baptist Church of Cutchogue. The 5.7- acre area is bounded on the north, east and west by lands owned and operated by the Town of Southold for its municipal landfill, solid waste and composting operations: There are a total of seven nonconforming lots, including the applicant's, on the approximately 370-foot long Church Lane right-of-way. Three of the lots contain residential homes~ which have existed at Page 3 - November 14, 2002 Appl. No. 5084- 640 Church St. LLC Southold Town Board of Appeals ~' ' · ~his site since the 1920's. The First Baptist Chumh is located on the east side of Chumh Lane, approximatey 150 feet from the applicant's property., and has frontage on Route 48. The -'ii?~r~identia! communityi continues on properties adjoining apPlicant's, I~pe.rty te the West on ~':~ ~uthi I Lane. · ' ' 3, ACCESS TO CHUR, CH LANE ~cess'~, Qh. urch? L,ape is~ via, the four ane County Route 48 For veh c es traveling west ~,cce~s~o~'Church bane, is dir&ctly off Rt. 48. However, .for vehicles to enter Church !zane from the. ~c ~S~/th~e ~. ,qo~·. rect aCCeSs. There s a the twO-way turn lan~ on Rt. 48~ tha~ prev des access ~nd ~gress i~o the heavy traff cked andfi; approx mately 230 feet from Church Lane. But in order for vehicles to enter Chumh Lane from thewest,.they would have,to enter .the turn lane[ and then make a U-turn into oncoming traffic. r;. ~, Bbth ,oral and writtenr evidence wa~ submitted .that ~e Southold landfill entrance near Church Lan~ h~s be.en identified by the Southold Town Tra~spbrtation Committee, the Southold Town Polic'e ~;hlef and ot,,er town agebcies, as a hot .s~ot~ ~beCause of ~umereUs accidehts there. accesSr read or~ Rt. 48:and redirect landfill traffic to residences, who live opposite the proposed pool First Baptist Church. aswell as others in the COmmunity raised noise, public safety, Ioss of character of the , of life that a large warehouse would have on this small corn ',eveEehd Cornelius Fulfor(J testified that the Church elders do notwish to sell the addition to~unday services, coriducts fgnereal services and provjdes Other cpm during ~t~e week. He and o~t~er nei~hbotzs noted that there, hove been seno:Gs ght,lat tl~"~ door of ,he church' ~*esultir~g frbm the landfill 'a~;ceSs,. arid said that tiuck [~raffic 'from the. prop,bsed' prbject onto the otherwise residential Chu pla'ce ad;taad[tional risk fo the ~ongregatio:n as well as to chitdrer~ who live and 5[ N~OI~II~.~. Ri~l NG EES DENT AL COMMUNI-i~': ~,~.' ,~',~',l~,, ,' :, ~. , ~ , .. ~ , . The. ~'s.~e.~vl~ ve on Ch'~ rch t.~ne test f ed tha~ they were unaware that the r property had been.,, re~drte~;fro~ res denta to Lght Ihdustria i:n 1989 They stated that ther faroi es and gran~c~ldr,~n,.~ ,whofl~ve with them. and walk a ong Church Lane to the school bus stop, would be aUt~e,~s.~.ly~ ~mpacted by the truck traffic no[se, dust and other d~sturbances assoc ated w~th a lar,ge w,a.r.eh~, use[ qperatlon. '~e ~,lT~".C?~(es~,gntlallcommumty which includes Church Lane community was ~ncluded in a ;~Jbg~§~ ',-~32'~J~aft study'.,ent:tled 'Cutchogue l~hdustria[ Area Planning Study', .prepared by Page 4 - November 14, 2002 Appl. No. 5084 - 640 Church St. LLC Southold Town Board of Appeals Nelson, Pope & Voorhis, LLC, for the Southo!d Town Board, and made part of this record, Among other things, the study indicated that the town's rezoning of the residential properties anticipated that the uses would be phased out and converted to industrial uses. However, the study notes that 14 years later, the properties have not been developed for industrial uses, and the nonconforming residential homes remain the predominate land use in the area. 6. MULTIPLE VARIANCES REQUESTED: Because of community concerns, and because of the multiple variances requested and the substantial degree of each, board members requested the applicant and contract vendee to justify and document the need for the proposed large size of the warehouse building. From the first hearing in Apdl, and at each subsequent headng, information was requested to document the need for the actual square footage. Mr. Chituk initially testified that he installs in-greund swimming pools and that he wanted to be able to store two or three pool kits at a time, filters, pool covers, a limited supply of chlodne and chemiCals and other supplies needed for his business. He each said each pool kit takes up a 20 foot box truck and would be fork lifted on and off the trucks. Mr. McCarthy testified that Mr. Chituck owns a dump truck and a trailer with which he transports his backhoe from site to site, and uses pickup trucks as service vehicles, which would leave in the morning, may stop back at the site during the day to pick up supplies, and would return in the evening. He said that the proposed pool business would not be open for business on Sunday and that Mr. Chituk realizes that that there are children in the area and would make it a policy of his company to travel slowly on the right-of-way. He later stated that the business would involve five trucks. Board members pointed out that the vague description provided did not substantiate the need for the proposed 4,900 square foot building to justify the variances requested. At the August 22, 2002 hearing, board members requested the applicant to provide the board with Written documentation to substantiate the need for the proposed size of the building, in response, Mr. McCarthy again asked the board to provide an interpretation of certain code provisions. The board chairman advised Mr. McCarthy that he would have to filea separate application for an interpretation of the code. The board chairman asked the applicant to reduce the size of the building and move it closer to the north property line, and to provide a landscaping plan~ At the close of the August 22nd headng, Mr. Chituk said he would reduce the size of the building and did not want to pursue a separate application for an interpretation of the code. 7. REVISED PLAN: Subsequently, on September 27, 2002 applicant submitted a revised plan that includes a floor plan, showing an office, toilet, tool storage room, shop, staging area, pool kit storage room, Page 5 -November 14, 2002 AppL No. 5084 - 640 Church St. LLC Southold Town Board of Appeals ' ';~ ~ pool chemical storage room, and shelving for storage. No written breakdown of the space was provi'de~ The revised plan i~ndicates a proposed one story industrial b~ui!ding 50 foot wide by ~,-~.~80 deep (4,000 square feet), w th a 2,261 square,foot aspha t paVement area adjaceht.'to the "~building, and?~ very large crushed concrete service area that would occupy most of the '/[cemaining southwes! part of 'the property. Athough the revised Plan shows 'the .proPosed ?~ibuilding as corfform!ng to the code!s 60-foot~ maximum Width, the building is now setback closer to the right-of-way 34 feet, instead of the code required 100 foot setback, and closer to the rear yard property line, 20 feet instead of the code's 70 foot minimum. The revis~ed plan !:~'~ul~: require'r three ~y, adahces ,including 2 t ~r~ ;:~,000 square, foot bui ding is ~vhat Mr. ( CONCLUSIONS - ~REASONS,FOR BOARD ACTION: On.the bass of test mony presented, mated~ls submitted -ar~d personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings in accordance With~ the re¥iew standards set forth in Town Law 267b: .~.~.~G~rell[ ~f ~the area variances will produce an undesirable chancle m the character of the ne~cfl~b~o~3d or a detriment to' nearby i~rooerties. Applicant s propoSed ~,,000 Square foot is 341{eet,fr0m the right, of-way, an insufficien! setback to protect residents li.ving opposite Church ;L~ ~fi'or~ being.adversely impacted by the pool construction wai'ehouse business~ The code ~:re~,ui~'ie'ment~,is 100 feet. The revised plan also places the building 20 feet from the rear yard ;p,r~lin~-'anddoes not afford sufficient setback from the two residential homes that adjoin ~.a 4,(300 square foot warehouse, the avera, ge,. home in the ne ghborhOod s less than 1 500 square feet. Ind.eed; the ~ze and w0uld~ produce an undesirable change in the character,~ ,of the t~ie area cons sts pr mar y of s ng e-fatal y'~ dwell ng~. The create a argo warehouse operation wou d be a detnment to nearby the applicant can be. achieved by some method, feasible for the pursue, other than the requested area variances. The applicant's prbperty is ~rd ir~ size, consisting of 27,748 square feet instead of the 40,000 square foot for the LI district. The depth of the property is only 140 feet. in~:order~,to coders 100 foot setback from the right-of-way, and the code's 70-fobt rear yard would need to 'have a minimum lot depth of 200 feet ~o construct a I=eet. Page 6 - November 14, 2002 Appl. No. 5084 - 640 Church St. LLC Southold Town Board of Appeals The board does not dispute the applicant's contention that no building could be cortstructed on the lot without a variance. But the applicant could construct a smaller building that would substantially reduce the degree of variances, which in turn, would minimize the impacts and detriment to the community. As example, that the applicants and could construct a 60 foot wide by 40 deep building (2400 sq~ ft) with a 60 foot setback from the right-of-way (40% code reduction) instead of proposed 34 foot setback (66%), and a rear yard setback of 40 feet (57% reduction) instead of the proposed 20 feet (80% reduction). The applicant was given an opportunity to remedy the lack of documentation to justify the alleged need for the large size building. Instead, the applicant submitted a floor plan merely indicating rooms within the proposed footprint of the building without articulating or justifying the need for the actual square foot requested. 3. The variances requested are substantial and represent a 66% reduction (34 ft) in the code- required 100-foot setback from the right-of-way, and an 80% reduction (20 ft.) in the code- required 70-foot rear yard setback. 4. The alle.qed difficulty has been self-created. The applicant knew the Iotwas nonconforming and substandard when purchased, as reflected in the Iow purchase price, and subject to conspicuous zoning restrictions. 5. The i~rol~osed variances will have an adverse impact on 13hvsical or environmental conditions in the nei.qhborhood and distdct. The applicant concedes the use of at least five trucks; which will be entering and exiting the 370-foot long Church Lane right-of-way on a daily basis. This increase in volume and use of the unimproved road due solely to applicant's structure would present a safety hazard to the residents, children, and to the First Baptist Chumh, which provides many community activities weekdays and the Saturdays. Indeed, the landfill access and egress turn lane on Rt. 48~ is slated for closure because it is a dangerous spot. Applicant's proposed trucks traveling from the west, would have to make a U-turn on Rt. 48 into ongoing traffic at the same dangerous turn-lane to access Church Lane. 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 Homing, and duly carried, to DENY the application, as applied for. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Tortora, Homing, Oliva, and Odando. (Chairman Goehringer voted against for the reason that grant of alternative relief was available for Page 7 - November 14, 2002 AppL No, 5084 - 640 Church St. LLC Southold Town Board of Appeals / .~rard P GO;h~ 02'-- APPEALS BOARDr ?4EMBERS ~ Southold ToWn Hall Gerard P Goeh in er Ch ' . g , amna~ 53095 Main Road Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179 .' ~eorge Homing Southold, New York 11971-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 765~9064 V'mcenr Orlando Telephone (631) 765-1809 http:, southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 2002 Appl. ~No. 5196 - MARC RUBENSTEIN and PATRICIA PIERCE Location of Property: Madeline Avenue, and Central Avenue, Fishers Island 1000-6-7-7 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned, PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is 1.38 acres improved by a single-family dwelling residence in the main building, two accessory guest houses, and accessory non-habitable studio building (see Pre-C.O. #Z-17030 dated June 24, 1988 to Lily Emmet West). This property is located on the north side of Madeline Avenue and the west side of Cehtral Avenue on Fishers Island. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's July 5, 2002 Notice of Disapproval denying a permit to construct a additions and alterations to the existing main dwelling and two accessory guest houses, for the reason that the additions increase the degree of nonconformance or cr, eates a new nonconformance. The setback is also located at less than 55 feet, the code s minimum requirement under Section 100-244B from any front lot line. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 14, 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: APPLICANT'S REOUEST: Applicants request a Variance by structurally connecting the existing non-habitable studio to the existing guest cottage, and by adding and attached two structures, the main single-family dwelling and another existing guest cottage, by an enclosed addition. More specific details are available as shown on the site plan prepared by Chander, Palmer & King, CME/CPK Design Group, last dated June 15, 2001 and revised 6-6-02. Page 2- November 14, 2002 Appl. No. 5196 - M. Rubenstein & P. Pierce 1000-6-7-7 at Fishers Island 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 the neighbOrhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The granting of these variances will not ,produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhoods or be a detriment to nearby properties, because the applicant has proFosed a plot plan designed to reduce the total m/tuber of pre-existing accessory sWactures,. (guest cottages)~ ~om three to one, by atta~h~g the closest one to the pre-exisfin~ principle dwelling, ard by combining the other t-&o into one unit. 2. The benefit sought by the~ applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible fop the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because the principle dwelling has ,a pre-existing front yard setback on Madeline Ave_ of +-17 feet. This setback will remain the same after the proposed porch addition. The pre-existing acc~ss0ry structures require another variance to allow for the~ alterations proposed by the applicant. 3. The requested variances are not substantial. The front yard setback will be maintained, and other setbacks are greater than required by code. Total lot coverage after completion of the project will be approximately six percent. 4. The prgposed variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or envkonmental conditions in the neighborhood, or district, The applicant will maintain the front yard setback, and the applicant will have constructed a silt-retention fence along a portion Of'yard, where lawn abuts a small fi'esh water wetlands on the property's eastern edge. 5..The difficulty for the applicant is not self-created, but is due to the placement of the pre-existing principal building, and other accessory structures on the parcel. 6 The relief offered to this applicant is the minimum determined necessary for this applicant to enjoy the benefit of implementing the proposed plan, 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. 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 page 3- November 14, 2002 Appl. No. 5196 ~- M. Rubenstein & P. Pierce 1000-6,7;7 at FiShers Island Homing, seconded by Chairman Goehringer, and duly carried, to Gl~a2XrT the variance as shown on the site plan prepared by CME/CMK Design Group revised 6-6-02, and SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The proposed deck addition will remain open to the sky. 2. The accessory structure proposed by the applicant will be used only for family members and their guests. 3_ The accessory structure shall be used, as intended, for seasonal use (between April - October). 4. There will not be a kitchen or kitchenette in the accessory structure. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject proper~y that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses. setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (C~.hah:maa),q~ortora~ Oliva and Orlando. This Resolution was duly adopted C5~. ~/'/ / ///' Gerard P. Goehringer -~Approv~d for Filing APPEALS BOARD, MEMBERS --. So~old ToXvn Halt X~ Gerard P. Chairman 53095 Main Road Goehringer, Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box 1179~ George Homing Soutflold, New York 119~71-0959 Ruth D. Oliva ZBA Fax (631) 76529064 Vincent Orlando Telephone (63~) 76~-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork, net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OFNOVEMBER 14; 2002 AppI. No. 5197 - ALEXANDER D. WALKER. II Location of Pfope~y: Man.sion House Drive, Fishers Island; Pamel-6-6-16 &, 17 (combined as one lot)_ SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration- ih this application and determines that this review falls under the Type category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the ~nvironment if the I~roj~ct is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applic'ant's property consists 0f ~pproximately 38,333 sq. ff. Of area and is located on the east side of Mansion. Ddve, Fist~ers Islar/d; BASIS .OF APPLICATION:' Building Department"s July 8, 2002 Notice of\Disapproval deny}0g ~-~rmit to construct additions to the sin~e-family dwelling. ~he new Co ,nstruct[on is proposed within 55 feet from the rear lot line with'regard to a t~o.r.story ~on:ovei' a preexiStin~ nonconforming rear yard portion Of'the dwelling, and--ar~-'~----~- addition~ at thee. southeast comer, maintaining the established 25 ff. nonconforming . setback. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 14, 20Q2, 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: APPLICANT'S REQUEST: Applicant is requesting a Variance under Section 100-244B for the location of additions/alterations to an existing dwelling construct a two-story addition over a portion of the dwelling which is !ocated within 50 feet of the rear line (plus addition over the footprint of an existing deck and portion of a screened pomh at a minimum idistance of 25 feet from the rear lot line (ref. Amhitecturel Site Plan dated June 27, 2002). REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted., and personal inspections, the Board made the following findings: 1. The granting of this vadance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or be a detriment to nearby properties, because the applicant's Page 2 - November 14, 2002 Appl. No; 5197- A. Walker 1000-6-6-16 and 17 at Fishers Island dwelling has a pre-existing front yard setback greater than 1~ feet, and th,e app!i~nt will not encroach upon any side yard setbacks. 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 of the pre- existing, non-conforming rear yard setback as exists of 25+- feet. 3. The requested variance is not substantial; the existing rear yard setback is already existed at 25+- feet at its closest point, and the lot coverage is minimal at 6+- percent; 4. The proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or distdct because the nearest neighbor's dwelling is distant by greater than 100 feet, and there will be no increase in noise or traffic. 5. The difficulty for the applicant is not self-created because the applicant's property contains a structure with a pre-existing, non-conforming rear yard setback. 6. The relief offered is the minimum determined necessary for the applicant to enjoy the benefit of additions and alterations, 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 Horoing~ seconded by Member Odando, and duly carried, to GRANT the vadance as applied for, and as shown on the site plan prepared June 27, 2002 by Point One Architects + Planners. 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), Tort. om, Horoing, Orlando, and Oliva. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0).~....~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS "', Southold ToWn Hall Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman ~'. 53095 MaiI~ Road C, Lydia A. Tortora P.O. Box i179 ' George Homing ~, ~_o~- Southold, New York 11971-0959 ~4,'~'~~ ZBA Fax (631)I 765-9064 Ruth D, Oliva Vincent Orlando ~Q~/ Telephone (631) 765-i809 ~ http//southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 14, 2002 Appl. No. 5174 - Adene Manes Property.Location: 2000 Sound Drive. Greenport 1000- 33-1-18 SEQRA DETERMINATION; The Zening Board of Appeals has v s ted the property Under consideration in this applicafiop and determines that this review falls under the Type II ~tego~of theiStaie's List,of Acti0ns, without an adverse effect on,the environment=if the project ~s, implemer~ted as planned~ PROPERTy. FAGTS.(DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is a 28,884 sq. ff. parcel w!th l!00~fti alo0g ~e n0~h~ ,side of Sound Ddve at Eastern Shores, Gmenport. Th~ lot is imprOyed With a: ~s[hgl~-~fami~i two-story frame house situated 99 feet from the front line al0nglS~nd iDri~Je. Thee lo(/i-las a depth of 275.87 feet along the west line to the, Long Island S~hd and1275.63 t'eet in depth along the east line. BASIS 0F APPi~ICATION[ .Building Department's April 2, 2002 Notice of Disapproval d(~ny[t~,g ~.perm[t ~c,ohsttu~ an accessory in-ground swimming pool at less than 100 feet fr0~h th~e~0~ of th&~bank or ~uff ofthe Long Island Sound. FINDtNGS OF FACT The Zoning ~B~aFd of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 14, 2062,1 at:which time wdtten and oral evidence was presented: Based upon a test mony, documentationi personal inspection of the property and the area. and other evidence, the Zoning` Board flr~ds.the following facts to be true and relevant. AREA 'VARIANCE .RELIEF REQUESTED: A variance under Section 100-239.4A(1) is requested for,the~ amended ocat on of a proposed accessory 16x32 in-ground swimming pool at 42 feet'from the top of the bluff shown on the survey prepared January 15, 2002, am;ertded FebrUary 6, 2002, and offered by Catherine Mesiano Inc at the October 17,. 2002 headng. The ~2; ft. setback location was amended at the October 17, 2002 headng to proYide for'a g~ater setback from the bluff at 42 feet instead of 50+- feet in the initial filing (m~p,Was als0 dated February 6, 2002) REASONS FO~ BOARD ACTION. DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony and reC°rct'bbY&re the'Board and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of the area vadance wil produce an undesrabe change n character of neighborhood ~ ' or a detrment to nearby properties. Yes, there are no sw~mmtng pools located on the waterfront side of neighboring homes in this water front community. Page 2 - November 14, 2002 AppL No. 5174-A. Manos 1000-33-1-18 at Greenport 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The pool could be put in the front yard of the house, after more thought and better planning and carefully placed. 3. The requested area variance Js substantial; it represents a 58% variance for a 58-foot reduction from the 100-foot bluff setback restricted area. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant placed the existing house very close to the bluff. 5. Grant of the variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. If the variance were granted, the potential for damaging the existing stable bluff is great (see attached letter from the Suffolk County Soil and Water Conservation District). To build this swimming pool, large and heavy equipment are required to excavate the soil, which creates disturbances to the land near the bluff areas. Also once this is constructed, the pool is filled thousands of gallons of water which creates a constant load on the bluff and surrounding area. 6. This Js not the minimum necessary. Alternatives are available to place the pool in the front yard area considering the greater setback (99 ft.) distance between the existing house and the road. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Oliva, seconded by Member Orlando, it was RESOLVED, to DENY the variance, as applied for. This 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 features as are expressly addressed Jn this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehrin~0rto/r.~k~ning, .~, and Orlando. This Resolution was duty ado,~,~5-0). // ~ /.../,///~ · VO / .-""~ I~ RA~'P-. GO EI~I N .~(~R, chai/an ^ttachment for reference: 9-16-02 ~tff~lk County Soil & Water ConservatioaDistrict Letter.