HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-04/08/2004 SpecialAPPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hail
Ruth D. Qlhz~..C~airwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard E Goehringer P.O. Box 1279
· Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vincent Orlando Tel. (~31) 765-1809
James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.nortkfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
THURSDAY, APRIL 8, 2004
A Special Meeting of the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS was held at the Southold Town Hall,
53095 Main Rood, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on Thursday, April 8, 2004, commencing at 6:10 PM.
Present were:
Ruth D, Olive, Chairwoman/Member
Gerard P. Goehdnger, Member
Lydia A. Tortora, Member
Vincent Odando, Member
James Dinizio, Member
Linde Kowalski, ZBA Confidential Secretary
6:10 PM Chairwoman Olive called the meeting to order.
AGENDA ~TEM l: The Board proceeded with the first item on the Agenda as follows:
I. SEQRAdeterminations (none).
ii. PUBLIC HEARING: (none held),
Ill. DELiBERATiONS/DECISIONS. The Board deliberated on the folOowing applications. The originals of each of the
following applications were decided, with the original determinations flied with the Southold Town Clerk:
Approvals ancorporated by Reference: Originals Filed with Town Clerk):
MARTIN J. BANCROFT, JR. ¢5484. (Headng concluded 3/18/04). This is e request for a Variance under
Section 100-33, based on the Building Department's December 22, 2003 Notice of Disapprovel, concerning
the location of a proposed lap pool in area other then the code-required rear yard, at 38099 Main Road,
Orient; Peroe[ 1000-15-2-16,
JOSEPH and FRANCES SETARO #5496. (Headng concluded 3/18/04), This is a request for a Variance
under Sections 100-242A end 100-244B, based on the Building Department's January 22, 2004 Not~ce of
Disapproval, ~ast amended January 27, 2004, concerning proposed second-stery additions and alterations to
the existing dwelling with combined tote[ side yards at less than 25 feet, at 3680 Stillwater Avenue,
Cutchogue; CTM 137-I-I3.
FREDERICK and DOROTHY CHARNEWS #5469. This is o request for a Variance under Section 100-
30A.3 (ref. bulk schedule) based on the Building Department's November 3, 2003 Notice of Disepprova~
concerning a proposed addition with a setback at less than 50 feet from the rear property ~ine, at 11675
Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue; CTM 103-7-16.
STEVEN SZCZENIAK #5497, This is a request for a Vadance under Sections 100-33 and 100-244, based
on the BuiOding Department's December 10, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended February 12, 2004,
concerning the proposed additions to the existing dwelling with ~ot coverage exceeding the code limitation of
20% of the ~ot area, and after this new construction, the existing garage will be at the side yard of the new
Page 2 - Minutes
Meeting held
Southold Town Board of Appeals
addition instead of a code-required rear yard, at 1400 Mar[ene Lane, Mattituck; CTM 144-2-36.
Approvals (incorporated by Reference: Originals Filed with Town Clerk):
R~CHARD and NANCY W[LLOTT ¢5491. This is a request for a Vedance under Section 100-242A and 100-
244, based on the Building Department's October 17, 2003 Notice of Disappreva] concerning a proposed
addition with e rear setback at ~ess than 35 feet, et 560 Private Road #31, Southold; CTM 77-3-21.
ROBERT and KELLY L. KRUDOP. Applicants request the following Lot Waivers under Se~on 100-26.
Based on the Building Department's November 17, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, the properties have merged
under Section 100-25 due to common ownership with the first ~ot at any time after Ju~y l, 1983:
#5487. To unmerge CTM 1000-96-%9 of 12,254 sq. ft., from CTM 1000-96-1-8 of 14,787 sq. ft.
Location of Property: 170 and 250 Tuthi]l Lane, Cutchogue.
#5486. To unmerge CTM 1000-96-%6 9334 sq. ft., from CTM 1000-96-1-8 of 14,787 sq. ft.
Location of Property: 50 and 170 Tuthi~[ Lane, Cutchogue.
JONATHAN G[LSON and REGINA EBEL#5498. This is e request for a Vadance under Sections 100-33
and 100-242A, based on the Building Department's February 5, 2004 Not[ce of Disapproval, concerning an
accessory garage, which will become more nonconforming in its existing side yard ~ocation, after
construction of proposed additions to the dwelling. The code requires accessory buildings to be in a rear
yard. Location: 1185 Mill Road, Mattituck; CTM 108-9-8.4.
GEORGE AND DONNA D]AKOUMAKOS #5501. This is a request for a Lot Waiver under Section 100-26 to
unmerge Lot 40, Map of Orient by the Sea, Section One, shown as CTM 15-7-11 of 12,500+- sq. ff., from an
adjacent land area of 13,705+- sq. fi., shown as CTM 1D7-10, improved with a dwelling. Location: 455 and
555 Three Waters Lane, Orient.
GEORGE PENNY IV ¢5493. This is a request for a Variance under Section 100-31C, based on the Building
Department's January 23, 2004 emended Notice of Disapproval concerning a proposed horse barn and
corral on a lot which contains less than ten (10) acres of land, the minimum size required for keeping,
breeding, raising, and training of horses· Location of Properb¢': 1150 Kenny's Road, Southold; CTM 59-3-
17.3 (containing 6.967 acres)·
DONALD and IRENE SUTER #-5489. This Ps e request for Variances under Sections 100-33C, 100-242A,
and 100-244B, based on the Building Department's July 23, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, last amended
February 3, 2004, concerning: (a) proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling st less than 35
feet from the front property ~ine and less than 10 feet from the side lot line, and (b) relocation of the existing
accessory garage end proposed addition, at Jess than 35 feet from the front property line. Location of
Property: 1150 Dean Drive, Cutchogue; CTM 118-5-14.
ARTHUR and RUTH VENTURA #5495. This is e request for a Variance under Section 100-239.4A(1),
based on the Building Department's December 23, 2003 Notice of Disappruva~ concerning the location of e
proposed dwelling at less than 100 feet from the top of the b~uff adjacent to the Long Isiend Sound, at (No #)
Sound View Road, Orient; CTM 15-3-46 (Orient By the Sea).
Page 3 _ Minutes
Meeting he~d
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Denial with Grant of Alternative Relief (incorporated by Reference: Originals Filed with Town Clerk):
J & C HOLDINGS, Contract Vendee #5419. (Owner: Edna Doll). (Hearinq was concluded 2/26/04):
Applicant requests Variances under Sections 100-30A.3 and 100-239.4A, based on the Building
Department's November 7, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended August 6, 2003, concerning e
proposed location of a new dwelling with setbacks: (a) at less than 50 feet from the front properb/
line and (b) less than 100 feet from the top of the Sound bluff, at 590 North View Drive, Orient;
CTM 13-1-5.I.
JOSEPH TRENCHENY #5453. (Hearing concluded 3/18/04). Request for a Variance under
Section 100-244B, based on the Building Department's August 25, 2003 Notice of Disapproval,
concerning additions and alterations proposed with a total side yard area at less than 25 feet, at
120 South Lane, East Marion; Parce~ 37-6-3.2.
DeniaI (~ncorporated by Reference: Originals Fi~ed with Town Clerk):
MARTHA CASSlDY #5457. Headnq concluded 2/26/04): Request for Variances under Sections
100-30A. 1 and 100-231, based on the Building Department's March 10, 2003 Notice of
Disapproval, amended May 6, 2003, for the following reasons: (1) a tennis court is not a permitted
use on a vacant lot, and (2) the proposed tennis court fence will exceed the code limitations of
four ft. maximum height a~ong or within front yard areas, six ft. maximum height a~ong side and rear
yards when a principal use is existing). Location: 1015 Youn§s Avenue, Orient; CTM 18-1-3.
IV~ RESOLUTIONS/OTHER ACTION:
A. RESOLUTION: Motion was offered by Member Goehdnger, seconded by Chairwoman Olive, and
du~y carried, to authorize advertising of the new public hearings for the Apd~ 22, 2004 Regular Meeting of the Board of
Appeals, to be hem at the Town Hall Meeting Room, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, commencing at 9:30
AM. This Resolution was duly adopted.
B. The Chairwoman discussed updates regarding litigation on the fo[lowing ZBA matters: Dawson,
Taggert, Cel[is.
No other Board action was taken. There being no other business properly coming before the Board
at this time, Chairwoman Olive declared the meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~-id~l~Kov~a[ski 4/23/04
Inc~d by Reference: Filed ZBA Decisions (t?) ZBA Confidential Secretaw
Approved for Filing - Ruth D. Olive -¢~'/ /04 ..~,'~,.¢p/~A
~PPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hail
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vincent Orlando Tel. (631) 765-1809
James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OP SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
ZBA #5488 and #5487 - ROBERT and KELLY L KRUDOP
Location of Property: 50, 170, and 250 Tuthill Lane, Cutchogue
CTM Lots: 96-1-6, 96-1-9 (to unmerge from CTM 96-1-8)
Date of Public Hearings: March 18, 2004
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The Applicants' property consists of a total (merged) area of
36,375 square feet, with 365 feet along the east side of TuthilI Road and 67.90 feet along C.R. 48
(a/k/a Middle Road). The property is improved with the following: (a) one-stoW, single-family
dwelling, (b) a detached one-stow garage, and (c) one-stow frame house, presently under
reconstruction.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Article il, Section 100-26, based on the Building Inspector's November
17, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, which stated that the subject lot was as a result of mergers under
Section 100-25 due to common ownership with the first tot at any time after July 1, 1983.
APPLICANTS' REQUEST: Applicants request Lot Waivers to unmerge CTM Lot 6 and CTM Lot 9
from the remaining CTM Lot 8.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on these applications on March 18, 2004, at
which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based on all testimony, documentation,
personal observations of members of the board, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the
following facts to be true and relevant:
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony presented,
materials submitted and personal inspection, the Board makes the following findings:
1. The title search, prepared by Ticor Title Insurance Company dated Januaw 20, 2004, indicates
that all three Iots were held in separate deeds by predecessors in title dating back to 1944. On
June 15, 2001, Sue Mason conveyed each Iot individualfy, as follows: CTMs 9 and 6 conveyed to
Kelly L Krudop and CTM 8 conveyed to Robert H. Krudop.
2. The Board received testimony from the applicants and their attorney that the lots were
purchased with the intention of building a future dwelling on each. As further evidence that the
applicants had not intended to merge CTM Lots 6 and 9 with the remaining area (CTM 8), they
point to many facts, including lack of drinking water and that there was a concrete foundation
remaining from a house that existed until about 1990, and an accessow storage building which
was in disrepair at the time of purchase on June 15, 2001. There also was an encroachment on
CTM 9 of approximately four feet of the corner of the house. While planning to build a contractor's
Page 2 - AodJ 8. 2004
ZI3A Reft 5488 and 5487 - R. and K Krudoo
~000-98-I-~. 8
storage workshop on the ex',sting foundation in 200I. the applicants obtained approva;s to move
the house to a more conforming Iocat',on on CT~f 8. Durin9 October 2003. the Town changed the
zor:mg of the area from Light Industrial tc R-40 ResMent~L Aiso. CTM 6 had a sma'.~ ~n~a ow cn
it, however the house was taken down whe~ the Coun'~ ccndemned a uo~ion of the prcpeAy for
widening of Coun~ Road 48
3 The waivers of merger for CTM 8 s~d CTM 9 w~; recognize the or',g~na[ lot ~:,~es show~ on
deed recorded at L~ber 12126 page 510. The waivers w[;~ resuit ~n :ors s~m~;ar 'n saze to lots i;q the
~mmed~ate neighborhood. CTM (vacant) Lot 6 consists of 9,334.08 square feel and CTM
=or 9 consists of ~2,254.58 scuare feet. CT~; Lot 8 of ~4.787.45 square fee; w;:i rema:n ~m :roved
w~th ~o dwah~n9 s*;ruc~ures and a detached ac~ssow frame
4. The waivers of merger w~[~ a~low for the u~t~mate construction of ~¢o s~ngle-family residences
the neighborhood, one on CT~ 8 and the other on CTM 9. which wi~ not resu~! in a s~g~:ficant
~ncrease ~n the
5. The waiver wi~ avofd aR economic hardship for the applicants $~d their fam~;y.
6. The waivers of merger w~i~ a~;cw for construction ¢ o~e s~g~e-fam~iy dwelling on the ors as
odg~a~iy conveyed, which w~ no; resu;t q s s~gn~f~ca~t ~ncrease ~ the density of ~he
ne~g;~borhood. There w~ be no need for s~gn~ficant change ~n ~ts contours or s~o~es a~d no
evidence was presented to sugges; that the ~ots wou~d requ:re fi~g afl'acting nearby
environmental or f:ood ames, cr ~:o suggest that ~ts naturaJ deta~[s character, comours oT
wou~d be s~gn~ficant~y a~tered ~ any manner.
7. ~n granting the wafvem, ~he ~oard finds that the ~nterests of the town w~;~ be se~ed because the
spp~]~nts ~ntend to reconstruct a house on the properly w~th~n the required setbacks for th~s zone,
ut:~z~n9 a~ of the current codes peda ~ng to f~re. b~;~d~ng, safety, and zon;ng codes t~at
RESOLU%ON: On motion by ~embe* D~n~z~o, seconded by Cha~m/oman Ciera, ~t was
RESOLVED, to G~NT the ~ot wa~vem, as a~¢:ed for.
TMs action does not authorize or co~done any current or future use. setback or other feature of the sub: ~c~
9rope~y that v~oJates the Zoning Cede, other than such uses setbacks and o~,~er features as are expressly
addressed ~n th~s action.
VOTE OF T~E BOARD: AYES: Membem O~va (Chs~w¢oman), Goehdnger, To,ora, Orlando, and
D~n~z]o. Th~s Resolution was du~y adooted
RUTP] D. OL~VA, C[~]A~RWOMAN 5/3/04
A~proved fo~ F~ing
APPI~ALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hail
l~uth D. Oliva, Chair~voman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box t179
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vincent Orlando Tel. (631) 765-1809
James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.norlhfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
Ref. #5491 - RICHARD and NANCY WILLOTT
Property Location: 560 Private Road #31, SouthoId
CTM # CTM 77-3-21.
SEQF~ DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review fails under the Type Il category of
the State's List uf Acuo,~, w~Lhou[ an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented
as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 18,873.48 sq. ft. parcel is bordered on the
east with 120 it. frontage along a private right-of-way, 139.71 ft. frontage along a private right-of-way
a!ong the south side, and !20 ft. frontage along a private right-of-way at the ,,*,,est side. The
applicants' property is improved with a two-stow residence and two accessow buildings as shown
on the November 14, 2003 survey prepared by Stanley J. ~saksen, Jr., L.S.
BASIS OF AF'PLICAT~ON: Building Department's October 17, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing
Code Sections 100-242A and 100-244 in its denial of a building permit application concerning a
proposed addition at less than 35 feet from the rear yard line.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 18, 2004, 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:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants wish to construct a 14' x 34' carport with deck
above the t~rst stow, at 23.9' from the north ~ot line, and a 243 sq. ft. addition behind the existing
dwelling at 37.9 feet from the east !ot line, at its closest points.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and
personal inspections, the Board makes the fo[lowing findings:
1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The 476 sq. ft. carport with open deck above, is
proposed at the north side of the house, and with a new 243.12 sq. ft. addition proposed at the east
side of the house, the new construction is proposed.to maintain the same lines at the west and east
sides of the house that has existed for 18 years or more.
Pa0e 2 - April 8 2004
%hA Ko. '5491 - R!chard and Nancy Willot':
CTM 1000-77-3-2~
2. The benefit sought by the applicants cas,sot be achieved by some method, feasib!e for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area vanance. By definition the Iot has three (3) front yards, and
the remaining yard :s the rear yard. 'The easterly setback (front yardi is 37.9 feet, and the northeriy
setback (rear yard) ',s currentJy 38 feet. The house faces the wester;y front yard. aad ~ne carpod
addit:cn woud apbear to be !n a side yard (noFch side) with e minimcm 24 % setback.
3. The variance granted is substantial, with a reduction of 11 feet from the code requlred minimum
of 35 feet from the rear propeAy
4. The difficulty was se!f-created when knowledge of the zoning restrictions continued s~nce the time
of acqu:r~ng the propeF~y.
5. No evidence has been subm!tted to suggest that the relief granted will have an adverse impac':
on the physicai or enw~onmental conditions :n this :es',dent:a[ neighborhood.
8. Grant of this relief is the m,n~mum action necessary and adequate to enable the appl!cents
eh}ay the benefit of a~ addition w:si!e prese~[n9 and protecting the character cf tee selgnborhood
and the health, safety and welfare of the community.
RESOLUT;ON OF THE BOARD: [n considerin.c al~ of the above factors and apply!n9 Be ba',anci~9
test under New York Town Law 287-S. motion was of?erec by Member Tortora seconaec cy
Member D[nizio. and duly carried. ~o
GRANT the variance as appIied for, as shown on the survey amended December 22 2003.
prepared by Stanley J, [saksen. Jr., L.S, and elevation diagram dated 8-21-2003 prepared by
Penny Lumber.
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use setback or other feature cf the subject
property that may violate the Zoning Code. other than such uses. setbacks and other features es are expTess;y
addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Otiva {Chairwoman}, GoehXnger, To~2ora, Or;ando and Diniz;o.
This Resolution was duly adopted
Ruth D. Olive, Chai,~oman ~- 13/04
Approved for Fiin9
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard ?. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vincent Orlando TeL (631) %5q889
James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~: a~/~
F~ND,NGS, DEL,BE~T~ONS AND DETERM,NATiON APR 23 2004
ZBA Ref. g5489 - DON and ~RENE SUTER ~o~h~ ?o~ (~erk
Prope~y Location: 1150 Des~ Ddve, Cutchogue; CTM 116-5-14.
SEQ~ DETERM~NAT{ON: The Zoning Board ¢ Appea}s has visited the prope~ under
consideration ~ this application and determines that th~s review fs}}s under the Type ~ catego~ of
the State's L~st of Acdons, without as adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented
as Canned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRiPTiON: The applicant's 18,883 sq. ft. ~o~ has frontage along the south
s~de and east s~de by Dean Ddve, and 259.85 ft. a}ong the westedy prope~ }ine. The ~ot is
~mproved w~th a one-stow, s~nCe-fam~y residence and accessow garage.
BAS~S OF APPLICATION: Bui~d~ng DePa~ment's Ju~y 23, 2003 Notice ¢ Disapprogs~, last
amended Febmaw 3, 2004, citing Code Section 100-33C, 100-24~, and 100-244B, {n ~ts denial of
a bu~d}ng permit app~i~t~on concerning: (8) proposed additions and alterations to the existing
dwelling at ~ess than 35 feet from the front prope~y li~e and less than 10 feet from the side iot ~ine,
and (b) ceio~t~on of the existing accessoW garage and proposed additio[q, at less than 35 feet from
the front prope~y I~ne.
HND~NGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 18, 2004, at which
time wd~en and ora~ evMence were presented. Based upon al~ testimony, documentation, personal
inspection of the prope~, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be t~e
and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Ap¢icants wish to construct additions with alterations to
the existing dweil~ng at 29.9 feet from the eastedy (front) lot line and from the westedy (side) lot line
w~th vadab~e setbacks be~een 5.1 ft. and 12 ft., and to rotate the existing detached garage (265 sq.
~. and proposed 128 sq. ff. addition) to a minimum setback at 23 feet from the front ~ot line.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submi~ed and
personal ~nspections, the Board makes the fo~}owing findings:
1. An undesirab}e change wi~ Rot be produced in the character of the neighborhood or $ detriment
to the nearby propedies, the applicants propose to decrease the son-conformity of the existing
garage by relo~dng it 6.1 feet father from the prope~y }i~e, sad the proposed sddit{on to the house
w~l~ maintain the ex~st~ng non-conforming setback of 5.1 feet,
Pa~e 2 -Apri: 8 2904
ZBA No, 5489 - D. and L Surer
CT~,,4 1000-1 I6-5-14
2. The be~ef;t sought by the ap¢ic~nt cannot be achieved by some other-method feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than aR area varia,~ce, because the lot is narrow and lhe pos~t~o~
house a~ready exists.
3. Tbs amount ¢ relief requested ~s substa~t~a~ because ~ reorese~ts more the~ s 50~ reduc~o~
the m~,mum setback recu~reme~t of 10 fee(
4. There was ~o evidence subm~¢ed to ~d~cste that t~e g ra~t of the variance wE have s~ adverse
erect or ~mpact o~ the phys~ca~ or e~v~ro~me~ta~ conditions ~ the ~e~ghborhood or d~s~dct.
5. Gra~t of this relief ~s the m~mum act~o~ ~ecessa~ a~d adecua~e to e~sb~e the a 3p[~ca~t to e~oy
the behest of additions and re~o~t~cn of the garage, wh:;e preserving a~d protec'~9 the ch~r~cter
~he ~e~ghborhood a~d ~he hea~th, safety a~d welfare of (he community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: ~ co~s~der:~¢ a; of the above factcrs a~d app[y~9 ~he
test u~der h~ew York Tow~ Law 287-8 mot~o~ was o~ered by ~ember D:~z:o seconded
Member Goehr~ger. apd du~y ~rr~ed. ~o
G~NT the vsdaRce as applied for, as show~ o~ the CoRstFuc([oR d~agram for (~e
add~t~oRs da~ed 10-18-02 revised 9-5-03 by R~chard ~. Su~er R.A. a~Q ma3 preparec
Sia~ey J. ~sakse~. Jr.. Ls~d Su~,'eyor dated Februa~ :. 2000. rsvfsed Ja~uaw 7, 2004.
This actio~ does ROt authorize or coRdoRe aRy CUFFeR~ O~ future use srbacZ or other reature of the subject
prope~y that may v~¢ate the Zoner9 Code. o~her (ha~ such uses. setbacks s~d other features as are expressly
addressed ~ th~s ac¢or
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members O~va (Charwoman,, Goehd~ger, Todora Oda~dc, a~d
%h'.s Reso~ut~o~ was du~y adopted
Ruth D. O~va. Ch~[m~ome~ 4/15/04
Approved for
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hail
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1~.79
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 1197~-0959
Vincent Orlando Tel. (631) 765-ig09
_ James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
OF APPEALS
BOARD
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
Z BA Ref. ¢5495- ARTHUR and RUTH VENTU~
P~ope~ Lo~t~on: Sound V~ew Road, Odent
CTM 15-3-46 (Odent By the Sea).
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has v~sited the pmpe~y under
consideration in this appli~t~on and dete~nes that th~s review fails under the Type l~ categow of
the State's List of Actions, w~thout an adverse effect on the environment ~f the project ~s ~mplemented
as p~anned.
PROPER~ FACTS/DESCRiPTION: The ap¢~nts' 22,572 sq. ft. lot is vacant and has 100 ft.
frontage along the no~h side of Sound Wew Road, lot depth of 232.76 along the west s~de, and
102.2I ft. frontage sion9 the apparent'high water ~ne of the Long Island Sound.
BAS~S OF APPLICATION: Building lnspectoCs December 23, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing
Code Section 100-239.4A(1 ) in its denial of a building pe~it application ~ncem~ng the location of
proposed dwelling at ~ess than 100 feet from the top of the b~uff adjacent to the Long Island Sound.
F~NDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 18, 2004, at which
time wdtten and om~ evidence were p~esented. Based upon al~ testimony, documentation, personal
inspection of the p~ope~y, and othe~ evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be t~e
and [e]evant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Appll~nts wish to const[uct a dwelling at 80 feet f~om
the top of the bluff, at ~ts closest point, as shown on the map p~epared by Joseph A. lngegno, Land
Su~eyo~, dated Octobe~ 18, 2001, ~evised Feb[uaw 18, 2004.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials subm~ed and
personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the characte~ of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby prope~ies. The I~ne along the top of the b~uff vades,
wMening at the eastedy section of the prope~. The closest measurement to the top of the bluff
80 feet, measured from the no,beast corne~ of the proposed deck construction, which ~s a g~eater
setback than dwellings already established in the area.
Page2-April 8 2004
ZaA No, 5495 - AAhu? an~ Ruth Venture
CTM ~ 000-15-3-48
2, The benefit sought by the ap¢icants ~nnot be achieved by some method, feasibie for the
app!icant to pursue, other than aN area variance due to the propose~ dwel~ing's proximity to a
bluff, T~e house w~? meet the co,e-required m~m~m for fro~t and s~e yarc setbask ~eqv~r~me~fs,
3. The variance ~ranted here~ ~s substantial The requested 8C fi. b~uff setback ~s a 2C% reduct~o~
from the code-required m~mum 100 ¢:. setback.
4. The d~ff~cu~ was se~f-c~eated. AJthou9h the ~p~s~d area ¢ the 'o~ ~s ~m:ted fo~ burma;9
purposes, the ~de setback requirements have been ~n effe¢ for many years.
5. No ev[den~ has been subm~ed to suggest that the requested vsr:a~ce ~ th~s commun~b,
resMe~ces s~d wa~e~o~t ~d w~2~ have a~ adverse ~mpac~ on the phys~ca~ or
conditions Jn the ~e~¢hborhood. The wdtte~ ew~ust~on pre~ed by the Suffo:k Coum~ So;~ &
Co~se~¢sfion D~stdct dated March !2. 2004 states ~he and ~s heavily vegetated, end that ~:ne
shove the b;uff face ~s re~sdve;y fis~. Du~n9 const~uc'fio~ (he ¢p~;~cants w~; ~nsf¢;~ ~he ~ecesssw
d~e~s, gutters a~d downspouts to contain wate~ end to oreve~'~ runoff towards the
8. Grant of tMs relief ~s the m~R~mum action necessaw and adequate to enable the 8pp:~ca~qt
e~oy the benefi~ o¢ a new dwe;J~n9, wh~e prese~n9 a~d 9rotect~n9 the character o¢
ne~9~nborhood and the hes~th, safety ¢~d we[fare of the community.
RESOLUTION OF TH;E SOARD: In considering a~[ of the ~bove factors a~d a~?y~n9 '~he bs:~nc~n
test under New York Town Law 267-B, mot~o~ was offered by Charwoman O~va seconded by
~ember Goehr~ger. and dCy card,ed, '~o
GP~NT the variance as applied fo~ as shown o~ the map pre~sred by Joseph A.
Land Su~eyor, dated October ~8. 200~ and revised Feb~uaW :8. 2004 $~d shown on
constr~ct~op d~grsms dated FebrusW 18. 2004 o:e~ared by Sure: and Sute~ Architecture,
fo~ow~n9 ~ne recommendations dateC ~¢arch ;2, 2004 ~e~sred 3y t~;e Suffo:k Cou~ Sc~ &
W~ter Conse~t~on D~stdct fc~ proper containment of ws(e~ s~d p:eve~ficF of water
TMs action does not authorize or co~done any current or future use, setback or other feature of the sub:ect.
prope~y that may v~oJate the ZORfR9 Code. other than such uses setbacks and other lectures as are express;y
addressed in thfs action
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oh~(Cha~oman/, Goehrmger, ~ odors Odando, a~d
Ruth P. O~vs Cha~oms~ 4/15/04
Approved fo~ F~[~n9
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vincent Orlando TeL (631) 7654809
James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.nortl~fork.net
BO~dC~D OF APPEALS [~ECE~VED *~-~--~
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
ZBA Ref. ¢ 5498 - JONATHAN G~LSON and REGINA EBEL
PropeAy Location: 1185 M~II Rood, Ma~tuck; CTM 106-9-8.4.
SEQ~ DETERMiNATiON: The Zoning Boord of Appeols has vis~ted the propeKy unde~
consideration ~n th~s application and determines thor this review foils under the Type I~ categow of
the Stote's List of Actions, w~thout an odverse effect on the envkonment ~f the project ~s implemented
as Canned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRiPTION: The oppliconts' 3.21-acre porcel has 184.40 ~. frontoge along
the west s~de of Mi~l Rood ~n Mattituck, lot depth of 647.50 feet olong the noKhedy lot I~ne, 271.61
feet a~on9 the westerly ~ot line, and 654.74 feet a~ong the southerly lot line. The properly ~s improved
BAS~S OF APPLICATION: Build~ng DepaKment's Februaw 5, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, citing
Code Sections 100-33 and I00-242A in its deniol of a building permit application concerning
accessow garage, which will become more nonconforming in its existing side yard location, a~er
construction of proposed odditions to the dwelling. The code requires an accessow bumming to be
lo~ted ~n a rear yard. The new construction ~s at the side of the existing detached garage, and the
Apdl 18, 2002 Building Permit (~28291-Z) required a re~ocation of the accessow garage to the rear
yard location, as ap¢ied for.
FIND~NGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this appii~tion on March 18, 2004, at which
time wdtten and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal
inspection of the prope~, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true
and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants recently constructed new additionS to the
ex~sting dwelling, as Shown on the March 29, 2002 amended su~ey prepared by John C. Ehlers,
LS. The porch at the rear of the dwelling places more of the existing garage in a s~de yard location.
The existing garage replaced the former garage destroyed by fire (BP¢l1980-Z), and has remained
in ~ts present location s~nce 1982, with setbacks 25 feet from the south s~de ~ine and at least 115 feet
from the easterly (front) ~ot I~ne.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and
personal ~nspections, the Board makes the following findings:
?age 2 - Ae~l 8.2004
ZBA Ref. ~5498 - J. G-_, bor~ ,~d R~ t~e~
CTM #! 0d-9-8~4
I. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The Board is aware of the 35 years that a
detached garage has bee, ,n ~h~s (partiai) sma yard oca :on.
2. The benefit sought by the app![cant .- ~- ' '
ca~,no, be ach,eve~ by scme method, feas~be ¢
ap¢[c¢~ to pursue, other ~a~ a~ area var[a~ce. 7he prob;em arose whe~ ~he applicants agreed ~o
cha~ge the ~ocsdo~ of the three-car rsrage dc¢~9 [he co~struct[o~ of the addft~o~s a~c re,ovations
to the? home. In ~ ~- the , ome ;nrc the -esr yard, racing more of
;ac~, add~t~o~ extended the depth of h
the ex]st[~9 rsrage w~thf~ the s',de yard area.
3. The d~fficu~ty was se~f-created. The applicants, had k~ow]edge of the code requ,reme~.' ~ * *~o move
re[oca'~e or destroy t'*,e garage, ~n order to ge'; a cad,Scare of occu 3agcy for *~ additions ;n
dwe~n9 when a building permk was applied for ~SP ¢2829~-Z dated 4/18/82}.
phys~cs~ or env~ronmenta~ conditions ~n th~s residential ne~9 hborhood The ex~st;n9 topography ~'* '
proximity to ~ot i~nes w~]~ ~ot be chan¢ed,
5. Grant of the re~tef requested is the m~n~mum action necessaw and adequate 'to enable the
applicant to enjoy the benefit of additions ~nd a garage, wh~e )rese~ng andpro~ec~:~* *~ the
cna ac~er of ':he neighborhood and tee Rea th. safety and we[fare 2f the communr;y.
RESOLUT;ON OF THE BOARD: in considering a~[ of the above factors and applying the
tesl under New York Town _aw 287-~. motion was offerec by Member Goe,hringer, seconded oy
Member D~nizio. and du~y carried, to
GRANT the variance as applied for as shown on the su~ey dated September 2! 2001.
revised March 29~ 2002. with the fo~ owing cond:t~ons.
!) That the garage no~ be used for sleeping or living, and be used only for accessow
storage as authorized ~y the Code'
2 That the utility of e~ectdc an~ cold water) sha~ be permitted: that other olumb~n~ ~ ~
heat is not 2erm~ited m t, ,e g~
Th~s action does not authorize or condone an~ current or future use setback or other feature of the subject
prope~y that may violate the Zoning Cede. other than such uses, setbacks an~ ot~er features as are expressly
Page 3 April 8, 2004
ZBA Ref. #5498 - J. G~_lson and R. Ebel
CTM #106-9-8.4
addressed in this action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio.
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 4t18/04
Approved for Filing
~ ~ Southold Town Hall
· APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS 53095 Main Road
Ruth D. Oliva, Chain¥oman P.O, Box 1179
Gerard P. Goehringer Southold, NY 11971-0959
Lydia A. Tortora Tel, ¢31) 765-181}9
Vincent Orlando Fax (631) 765-9064
James Dinizio, Jr.
http://southoldtown.northfork,net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FIND~NGS, DEL~BERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
Reft #5493 ~ GEORGE PENNY IV
Property Location: 1150 Kenney's Road, Southold.
CTM 59-3-17.3 (containing 6.967 acres).
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review fails under the Type It 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 6.967 acre vacant parcel has 158.25 feet
along the east side of Kenney's Road, !or depth of 733.44 ,~eet a!ong the south/easterly propeC, y
lines, and 886.35 feet along the rear property line. The property is referred to as Lot 3 on the Map of
Arcjidos Papadopoulos and George Maragos filed September 13, 1988 in the Suffolk County Clerk's
Office.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's January 23, 2004 amended Notice of
Disapproval, citing Code Section 100-31C in its denial of a building permit application concerning a
proposed horse barn and corral on a lot which contains less than ten (10) acres of land, the
minimum size required for keeping, breeding, raising, and training of horses.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 18, 2004, at which
time wdtten and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, persona~
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 keep the family horses for personal
use in a proposed horse barn and corral, without breeding, raising or training of horses. The relief
requested is an area vadance to allow keeping of the family horses on a 6.987-acre parcel, which is
less than the code requirement of ten (10) acres and to build a 40' by 60' horse barn and fenced
corral area. The original application requested a horse barn location at 50 feet from the westerly lot
line of adiacent Subdivision Lot 2.
/~ME. blDJED 17ELL~E: After testimony and questions were answered at the March 18, 2004 public
hearing, the applicant amended the plan, proposing the location of the horse barn at 100 feet from
the westedy lot line of adjacent Subdivision Lot 2, approximately 85 feet from applicant's easterly
Page 2 - Aorf¢ 8 2004
ZBA nsf. ¢5493 - George L Penny
CTM
Wate~ Authority. The proposed open co~a~ w~s ~so shown a~ 20 fee~ from the rear
8p~ox~mateJy 70 feet f;om the r~odhedy ~ot ~ne as shown Dp the supzey amnestied 3-I 8-03
by John C EhJe~s. L.S.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: O~ the bas~s of testimony presented materga~s subm;~1ed and
perso~a} ~s~ect~ons, the Soa~d maXes the fo~iow~p9
I. An undesirable change w~¢~ not be p~oduced {n the character ¢ the neighborhood o~ s detriment
~o the nearby p~oped~es, the app~J~¢s stated ¢n~en~ to build a barn to keep ~o~-ses fo~ 3e¢so~8~ use
on~y. which ~s a~owed ~n th~s ;es~dept~a) AC zone.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant CaRROt be acp~eved by some othe¢ method feasible fo~ the
applicant to pursue, o~ne~ than an area variance, becguse there ~s r:o abutting ".and fcr
purchase the add~t~ona~ scgeage ~o ¢u~fi~ the ~ 0-acre mgmmum ~equ~¢ement of the Code.
3, ~he 8moun~ of ~e~ef requested ~s substantial bemuse it Feo~esents 30% decrease ~n the
men,mum requ~remen[ to keep, ~ree~. ga~se, and ~¢¢~n horses, however, th~s pa~ of our cc~e seems
the paler to 8 commerd~ or fagm~ng wpe of actMty conducted o~ ~ne p~opeRy s~d th~s
app¢~can~owner w~l ~;m~t the numbe¢ of ho~ses ~o those of pe~sona~ use which ~s s~owed ~n most
resgdent~8~ zones ~ the ~owm on ~ots with much sma~e~ ~c[esge.
4. There was no evMence that the gga~t ¢ ~he vadsnce w~J have an adverse effect or ~mpsct on the
phys~ca¢ or env~onmen(s~ conditions ~n the neighborhood o~ d~stdct. S!a:i~s~ ~ots ad]ace~,t to
applicant's prope~y ere a~¢owed ~o nave horses fo~ persona~ use.
5, Gra~t of th~s 'e~ef ~s ~he m~nimum apron necessaW and adequate to enable the applicant to
enjoy the benefit of a bara 8Rd cogrs~ fo~ the owner's horses, whi~e presepv~ng and protecting the
character of the ne~gnsorhood ass ihs hea~th safety anc welfare of the community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: tn consMefin~ a]~ of the above factors and apply~9 the ba~aRClng
tes~ under New York Town Law 267-9, mot~on was offered gy Member Din]z~o. seconded by
r,~ember Goehdnger, and du~y carried, tc
GRANT the variance as ap¢ied loc, as shown on the mad prepared by John C. Eh]ers. L.S.
dated December 4.2002. amended March 18. 2003. with the CONDO%ON ths:~se
Page 3 -April 8, 2004
ZBA Ref. #5493 - George L. Penny IV
CTM 59-3-I 7.3
of horses is iimited to the family's personal use, and boarding of other horses is not
permitted.
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 Oliv~(~hai~Noman), Goehringer, Todora, Odsndo, and Dinizio.
This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0).~ / ~, ~'/ ~
Ruth D. Oliva, Chai~Noman 4/16/04
Approved for Filing
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall
Ruth D. Oliva, ChairWoman ,~ 53095 Main Road
Gerard P, Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vincent Orlando TeL (631) 765-i889
James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
Ref. # 5489 - FREDERICK and DOROTHY CHARNEWS
Property Location: 1675 Pequash Avenue, Cutchogue
CTM #103-7-18.
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 ~1 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 40,000 sq. ft. parcel is shown as Lot 4 on the
Map of Big Green Acres filed July 12, 1972. The parcel is improved with a 1-1/2 story frame house
with a,~ached garage
September 19, 2003, by Joseph A. lngegno, L.S. The dwelling is situated 69.1 ft. to the front lot line,
5t .9 feet to the rear line, 64.3 feet from the south/east side line, and at least 80 feet from the west
side line.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's November 3, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing
Code Section 100-30A.3 in its denial of a building permit application concerning a proposed garage
addition with a setback at less than 50 feet from the rear property line.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a punic hearing on this application on March 18, 2004, at wNch
time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal
inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zodng Board finds the following facts to be true
and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants wish to construct a 12 ft. garage addition
adjacent to the existing two-car garage attached to the dwelling, with a height of 19 feet to the top of
the ridge, ~eaving a 40 ft. rear yard setback, maintdning the same side iine as the west side of the
house.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and
personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1. Grant of the relief requested will not produce an undedrable change in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The property contains 40,000 sq. ft. of area and
the applicants' home with attached two-car garage is centered. The property is landscaped
Page 2 - April 8. 2004
ZBA No. 5469- F. and E Chamews
CTM 1000-103-7-16
extensively and contains a ~arge circuaar driveway. 7he proeosed garage addition is designed ~:o
blend into the house ar:d wE be constructed behind the dwel[in9,
2 The benedt sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the
app~t to pursue, other tha~ a~ area variance, because the extensive ;andscsp~n9 ~s we~-
established w~th a ~aree access/driveway s~oR9 :he westerly yard.
3, The relief requested ~s substantial The requested 40 % 'ear yard setback ~s s 10 ft. reducdo~ of
~he 50 ~, code requ~reme~'L
4, The d~cuky was seff-cre~ted whe~ the ~ew co~struct~o~ was p~sm~ed w~th k~cw~edee of curre~
zon~n9 restdcdo~s.
5 No evidence has beer submitted to suggest that avar, a~ce ~ ~h~s res~dent~a~ commun:ty w~
have sn adverse ;mpact o~ ~he pnys~ca~ or e~v~ro~menta~ conditions ~n the ~e~ghborhooa.
8. Grant of tMs relief ~s the m~mum action aecessaw and adequate to e~ab~e the app;~nts '~
en~oy the ~enef~t of an add:t~o~, wh~e 2rese~g and pro~ect~g the character cf the r.e~ghborhood
a~d the hes~th, safety a~d welfare cf the community.
RESOLUT:ON OF THE BOARD: [~ considering a~[ of the ebove factors a~d sppOy~ng the
test under New York Town Law 287-9, motion was 2ffered by Member Goehd~ger, seconded by
Member Ods~do, a~d duJy carded, to
G~NT the v~dan~ ~s applied for w~th o~[y the ut[~ of e~ectdc ~n the dsrage, as shown
the arcMtectura~ ¢~agrams dated 13/03 preoared by Christopher Stress, A. LA. and Aug :s(
22 2000 su~ey, gme~ded September 19, 2003. by Joseph A. ~nge~no, _.S.
Thfs action does not authorize or condone dry c~Frent o~ future use. setback or other feature of the su~ect
properly that may v(o~ate the Zon~n~ Code. other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are express;y
addressed fn this
Vote of ~he Board: Ayes: Members O'Jva [Cha~oman), Goehr~nger. To,ors. Odando, a~d D~n~z~o.
Th:s Reso;ut~on was du;y adopted
Ruth D. O~[va, Charwoman
Approved for
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 1197~-0959
Vis, cent Orlando Tel. (431) 765~1889
James Diniz~o, Jr. Fax (d3 J~) %5-90d4
t~ttp://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
Ref. # 5484 - MART~N J. BANCROFT, JR.
Property Location: 38099 Main Road, Orient; Parce~ 1000-15-2-18.
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under
cor~sideration in this application and determines that this review fails under the Type Il 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 29,546 sq. ft. parcel is 304.39 feet deep with
101.58 ft. frontage along the Lon9 Island Sound. The property is improved with a one-story frame
dwelling situated 60 feet from the front line along a 15-ft. wide right-of-way (at the southeast corner
of the property).
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's December 22, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing
Code Section 100-33 in its denial of a building permit application concemin9 a proposed lap pool in
the westerly yard, an area determined by the building inspector as a side yard.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 18, 2004, 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:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct an 8' x 30' accessory lap
pool adiacent to the house, nine (9) feet from the west property line at approximately 140 feet from
the top of the bank adiacent to the Long Island Sound.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and
personal inspections~ the Board makes the following findings:
1. Grant of the area variance wili not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood
or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed new 8 ft. by 38 ft. lap pool will be located on the
west side of the existing dwelling. The south end of the pool will be approximately 31 feet from the
southerly (front) property line and approximately nine (9) feet from the westerly (side) yard.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to
pursue, other than an area variance. If the applicant were to locate the lap pool in the rear yard
facing the north shore line of the Long fsiand Sound, the integrity of the aiready unstable bluff could
be affected This property also has a very sinai! front yard, which couid not accommodate this pool
3. The relief requested is the minimum re!ief that the board wil~ a~Iow.
4. The diffqcu~ty was selFcreated The code Iimits the location for E rear yard; ;:his restriction was
place at the time applicant a~uired the proper::y and pier, ned a Eocation for a
5. No evidence was submiLted to suggest that this variance wouid have a~ adverse impac: on the
physica; or environmental condition !r the ~eighborhood.* The lap poo: w;;: be 9rearer than ~30 feet
::rom the top of the Sound bluff.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: [~ considering all of the above factors a,qd applyinc~ the ba~a:qcin~
test under New York Town Law 267-B, motio.n was o~ered by Member Orlando seconded by
~vt, ember Goehdnger, a~d du~y carried, to
GRANT the varied, ce as app;ied for. as show~ an the survey prepared by John T. MetzGer,
L.S. dated February 17, 1999 amended to show a poo; Iocatic~ January '~4, 200z.
observin~ the recomme~datiop, s cf the :v~arch 12, 2004 letter from ,~he Suf%!k Cou~ So'.;
and Water Cor, servation District (with respec~ to remov!rt.g the !p o¢ the b]L'~ and re-graded
the blu~: sage so that it gently slopes back towards the yard. away from the b;uff edge and
properly vegetated to stabil::ze the soil and prevent erosio~.F
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future uss setback or other feature of the subject
proper~y t[qat may violate the Zonin9 Code. other thar~ such uses, setbacks end other features ss are expressiy
addressed fr~ this action.
VO~a o, the 9card. Ayes. Members O~,/va,h~Ch~,rwoman), Goehringer. Tortora. O~,¢.ndo a~d
Th!s Resolution was dtzly adopted (5-0'~~ ~ . ~/i,~V~¢..-¢h,~
Ruth D. Oiivs. Chairwoman
Approved for F!ling
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall
Ruth D. Otiva, Chaipccoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vincent Orlando TeL (631) 7~5-1889
James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF At~IPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
Ref. #5497 - STEVEN SZCZEN~AK
Property Location: 1400 Madene Lane, Mattituck; CTM 144-2-36.
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 10,875 sq. ft. parcel has 75 ft. frontage aion9
the west side of Marlene Lane, and lot depth of 145 feet. The property is improved with a one-story
frame dwelling and detached garage as shown on the November 13, 1984 survey prepared by
Wi!!iam R. Simmons, L.S.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Buildin9 Department's December 10, 2003 Notice of Disapproval,
amended February 12, 2004, citing Code Sections 100-33 and 100-244 in its denial of a building
permit application concemin9 (1) proposed additions to the existin9 dwelling with lot coverage
exceeding the code limitation of 20% of the lot area, and (2) for the location of the existing detached
garage, bain9 at the side yard of the new addition, after construction, instead of a code-required rear
yard.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 18, 2004, 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 followin9 facts to be true
and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct with a total of 23.45% of
the lot for building coverage, for a new porch addition at the north side of the dweIling and new
extension behind the dwelling, as shown on the 5-6-2003 site map and construction drawings #2-6
revised 1-6-2004, prepared by Alexander Latham III, R.A. The request to increase lot coverage to
23.45% would amount to a total of 2550 sq. ft. of building area, instead of the code limitation of 2175
Sq. ft. (or 20% of the lot).
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:AMENDED RELIEF: ptjCng the March 18, 2004 public hearing, the
applicant was requested to consider a reduction in the lot coverage to less than 23.45%, to allow '
more conformity to the code's 20% limitation for ali building area. On April 5, 2004, the applicant
submitted a revised plan for 2446 sq. ft., or ¥-22.5% totai lot coverage.
P~ge 2 - Apdl 8 2004
ZSA Nc. 54~7 - Steven Szczen]~k
CTM ~0OO-114-2-3~
iTBASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, rnatedais submitied and
personal !nspections, the ~oard makes the fo~[ow~n9 f~d~ngs:
I. A~ undesirable cha~ge w~ ~ot be p~oduced ~ the chsrscte~ of the neighborhood o~ ~ dart:merit to
the nearby prope~es, the garage has existed at the current ~ocat~on on the ;or for any years a~d w~
remain. T~e addition st the rear of the house ~s s~m~ar Lq s~ze to other homes '.n the area.
2. The benefit sought by the ap¢~csnt cannot be achieved by some other method feasible for the
ap¢~cant to :uTsue, other than an area variance, because the ~ot ~s sma~ anc narrow ~n s~ze (75
road frontage and 145 :~eet deepL
3. The amount of relief requested ~s not substant~a~ because ~t represen'Ts cn~y a 2.5% ~ncrease ~n
the maximum code requirement of 20% lot coverage, for a totz~ of 22.5%.
4 The d~ff~cu~ty ~s se~f-created.
5. There was no evidence that the grant of the vadance w~;~ have an adverse effect or ~mpact on the
phys~ or enwronmenta~ cond;t~ons ~n the neighborhood or d~stdct.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: ~n considering a;[ of the above factors and spgy~ng the
test under New York Town Law 267-B. motion was offered by Member D~n~z]o seconsed
Member Goehr~nger, and duly carrfed, to
GRANT the variance requested for a tcta~ lot coverage of 22.50%, as applied for and stated
~n the March 22. 2004 ~etter and revised s~te p~sn prepared by ADL :~] Architecture. P.C.
a ZBA date stamp of Apd: 5, 2004.
Th~s action does no'~ authorize or condone 8ny current 2~ future use, setback or other feature ¢ the sub~ect
property that may violate the Zoning Code. other than suc:~ uses, setbaoks a~nd other features as are expressly
addressed ~n th~s action.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members O~va (Cha~,¢oman) Goehdnger. To~ora. Odando. $:d
Tn ~ Reso ut,on was du~y adocted (5- .
Ruth D. O~vs Cha~tomsn
Approved for
APPEALS BOAkD MEMBERS Southold Town Halt
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard E GoehrLnger P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tor~tora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vktcent Orlando Tel. (631) 745-18¢9
James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
Appl. No. 5457 - B. MARTHA CASStDY
Property Location: 1015 Youngs Avenue, Orient; SCTM #I000-18-%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 Il 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 33,000 sq. ft. parcel is unimproved and vacant. The property has a frontage of 200
feet along the west side of Youngs Avenue, in Orient.
BAS~S OF APPLICATION:
The Applicant requested variances based on the Building Department's March 10, 2003 Notice of
Disapproval, amended May 10, 2003 and renewed November 6, 2003, citing Sections I00-30A. 1
and 100-231 of the Town Code, in its denial of a building permit to construct a tennis court with
fencing in the absence of a residential structure on a lot in the R-40 Zoning District. In the Notice of
Disapproval, the Building Department determined with respect to this property that: (1) a tennis
court is not a permitted use; and (2) the proposed tennis court fence is not permitted because it
exceed the limitations of four feet in height in front yard areas and six and one-half feet in height in
side and/or rear yards. The applicant requested a use variance for the construction of the tennis
court as a non-accessory use, and contended that this request should properly be considered as a
request for an area variance based on the assumption that a tennis court is a permitted use. The
applicant also requested an area variance for the tennis court fencing.
F~ND~NGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on this application on January 22, 2004 and
February 26, 2004, 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:
REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT:
The Applicant desires to construct a tennis court in the rear yard on a vacant lot. Applicant does not
desire to construct a home on the property at this time.
Page 2 -Apr[[ 8, 2004
ZaA No. 5z;57 - M. Cassidy
CTM 1000-!8-1-3
~ a cover ietter with the ,'~pp;ication ¢~d dud~9 the public hearings, the a';lomey for the
co,,tended that the application was n f~c~ a permuted use. a~d as such ;~e app~cat~o~ should be
co~sMered as a req ~est for a~ area variance ar, d ~ot a req~;est for a use variance.
APPLICABLE CODE PROViSiONS:
The ~o~[ow~¢ provisions of the Southc[d Tow;q ~o~9 Code apply :o ~h~s R-4C Resident:s;
D~stdc~ a~d are relevant to th~s
~00-13. De~n~t~ons, ACCESSORY USE -- A use customarily ~dde~ta[ aRd subordinate ~c the ma~ use o~
IoL whether such "accessow use" ~s ~ducted '~ a p~c~ps~ or accessory bu~ d~,
~OO-3OA.~. P~pose. The purpose of the Low-Dens~ ResMe~t]a[ R-40 D~stdct is to provfde areas
res]de~[~a~ development where existing neighborhood characteristics, wa~er supply a~d e2v[ro~me~ta~ ~d~t~o~s
permit ful~ deveiopme~ dens~ties o¢ approx~mate:y o~e (1) dwe][in~ per acre a~d where ope~ space
agdcukura] prese~at~on are ~ot predominate objectives.
~188~30A,2. Use reeCatfons, m $~ R-40 D~std~ ~o bu~ld~ or ~a¢ of a bu~[d~ sha~] be erected or a~(ered
which ~s arra~gea, intended or designed to De used. ~n whole or ~n ps~. for a~ uses except the
A. Permf~ed uses:
1. Same as ~100-31A of the AgdculturaFConse~atfon Distd¢. except that wlnedes are excluded.
B. Uses pertained by spec~a~ exception ¢ the Board of Appeals. The fo]]owfn~ rises are perm'.~ed as $
spec~a~ exception by the Board of Appea~s. as hereinafter provided, and subject tc s~te p~an approval by
the Plann]n9 Board:
1. Same as ~100-31B of the Agr~cultura[-Conservatlo~ District. except that a children's recreat~o~ camp,
farm labor camp and veterinarian's o'~ce and animal hospital are nC pe~K!ed and bed-and-breakEast
2. L~brs~es, museums or aA get,eries.
C. Accesso~ uses ]~m~ted to the fo~iow~n9:
1. Same as ~100-31C of the Agficultursl-Conse~adon D~stdct.
~188-31A. Use r~u~at]o~s, n A-C. R-80. R-I20. R-200 and R-400 Districts. no building or premises sha]~ be
used and ~o building or pad of a bui[d~n~ shall be ere~ed or altered which ~s arranged, intended or designed to
A. Perm~Bed uses.
¢11 One-family detached dwe~!~ngs, not tc exceed one dwell[n9 on each lot.
The following agricultural operations and gccessow uses thereto. [~ciudfng ~rdgsdon (provided that
excep~ sorayin~ and dusting '~o 3rotect vegetation, within I50 feet of a~y ~o~
Page 3 -Apd~ 8, 2004
ZBA No. 5457 - M. Cassidy
CTM 1000-18-1-3
(a) The raising of field and garden crops, vineyard and orchard farming, the roaintenance
of nurseries end the seasonal sale of products grown on the premises.
(b) The keeping, breeding, raising and training of horses, doroest]c an]roa~s and fowl
(except ducks) on lots of 10 acres or roore.
(c) Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses (including pOas~c covered) and other re~ated
structures, provided that such buildings shall conform to the yard requireroents for
pdncipa] buildings.
(d) The retail sale of local produce from structures of less than 20 square feet floor area
shall be set back at least 10 feet froro any lot line.
(3) Buildings, structures and uses owned or operated by the Town of Southold, school districts, park
districts and fire districts.
(4) Wineries which roeet the following standards:
(a) The winery shall be a piece or premises on which wine reade from pdroadly Long
Island grapes is produced and sold;
(b) The winery shall be on a parcel on which at least 10 acres are devoted to vineyard or
other agricultural purposes, and which is owned by the winery owner;
(c) The winery structures shall be set back a minimum of 100 feet fraro e roajor road; and
(d) The winery shall obtain site plan approval
§10D-31C, Accessory uses, ]iroited te the following uses and subject te the conditions Iistad in §'~00-33
herein:
(I) Any custoroary structures or uses which are custoroadly incidental to the principal use, except those
prohibited by this chapter.
(2) Home occupa~on, including home professional office and home business of~ce. In permitting these uses, the
Town Board recognizes thet the residents historically have operated sroall businesses which provide services to
the cororounity froro their homes. The Boerd finds that these businesses have not iropactad negatively on the
appearance of these residential zones, th the Board's judgment, it finds that in order to roaintain the economic
viability of the town, to roeintain the rural quality of life and in the interests of the welfere of the residents, these
businesses (or home occupatiens) should be perroitted to continue. In setting forth the following subsections, the
Board intends to permit as of right certain business uses in residential zones with the understanding thet these
uses are to be conducted in a manner that wiil not a~ter the character of the residentiai neighborhoods. The Board
believes that the fei}owing subsections provide su~dent safeguards to accoroplish that alto. These uses shel~ be
permib~ed, provided that: (see a-i).
(3) Boat decking facilities for the docking, rooodng or accommodation of noncororoercia[ boats, subject te the
following requ[rsroenta: (see e, b, c).
Fags 4-A~dl 8 2004
ZBA No. 5457 - M. Gassicay
CTM
($) A~y sw~m~9 poo~ shs~] be completely e~c[osed w~th 8 perma~eRt ch8~ ~k (or s~m!~sr ty~e~ fe~cs of
not mo~e th8~ ~o-~ch mesh. Rot less thsR four (4) Ceet i~ height, e~ec(ed. ~8~ed 8~d prov~dsd w~
set¢-dos~, se~¢4stch~9 9a(e to p~eveR~ u~sutho~zed ~se of the poo~ s~d to prsvect 8cc~de~'~s. Howeve:.
~f ss~d poo~ ~s ~ocsted more ths~ fou~ (4) Ceet above ~he ~rou~d t~e~ s fspoe ~s ~o~ ~eq~rsd. prov~deo that
8~ po~Rts ¢ ~ccess '~o s~d poo: a~e adequately protected by s s¢%c~os~, se~f-stcN~9 9s;e. A~y
sw~mm~B poo~ ~ ex~steRce at the effecEve dote of the provisions ¢ ins su~secdo~ shs[[, w~tN~ 028
year from such date. comply w~h $~ ¢ (he provisions hereof.
(b) I~d~v~dus~ outdoor te~ms ~u~ re~ated to residential use o~ s lot CO~ta[R~R9 S s:~(e-fam~]/detached
dwe[]~9, ~rov~ded that the same as set b~cK ~ot ]ess thsR s~ (8) feet %m 8~; lot ]~es s~d thct the~e ~s
i~gh~R9 for sffer ~srk use.
(5) Pr~wte ~ara~es; provided, however, lhst ~ot more ths~ ~o (2) pssse~e~ 8~tomoN[e spaces ~n suc?
gsmges may be ~essed to persons Ro( ~eside~t a~ the
{8} Off-street park[~ spaces 8ccessow to uses oP the ~emises. Not mole ths~ fcur {4) of~-street pa~k:~9 spaces
shs~ be ~e~i~;ed w~tN~ the m~'.mum fro~¢ yard.
(7s-c~ The storage of either s boat or trsve~ trs~]er owned 8n~ used by the owner or occupant of the premises
wh[o~ suoh bose or tmve~ tra~]er is s(o~ed for his perso~[ use. subject '~o { 100-I91Q. Supplements ~k~9
(8) Ho~ses 8~d domestic sn~msIs other than hodsehoM Pets. o;ov~ded the( such s~ms[s shs[, not be ~oused
w[tN~ fo~y (40) ~ee¢ of any lot ][~e. Hous~ for f~ocks of more ths~ ~¢e~t~-~ve (25) ~ow] she[ Rot be co~s?~cted
w~(N~ ~ (50) feet of s~y ~e.
(9) Yard ss,es. $~fc ss~es, gauge ss~es su¢5o~ ss~es ot s~m~sr ~pes of s~es o~ perso~8] prope~ owned by the
occ:;~8n~ of the 3rem~ses 8~d Iocsted the~eo~, sub~ec¢ to the fo~ow~9 ~equ[rements: (see
{I0) W~edes rosy have a~ sccesso~ 9i~ sho~ on the premises wNch m~y se~l ~tems sccessow to w~e_ such
corkscrews, w~e g asses, oecs~e~s, items fo~ the stors~e s~d d~sp~sy of w~e. books oP w~emsk~;~9
reg~o~ s~d ~onspecific ~tems besd~9 ~[~e ~s~n~s of the w~e~. W~Redes ms} ~ot hove ¢ commerc[s~ Mtche~ ss
sn 8ccessow use 9ut m~) hove 8 noncommercial kitchen ¢sc~l~ for private use by the employees. ~Added
1994 b~ L.L. No. 28-t994]
(11) CN~d c¢~e. ~Added ¢1-12-1998 by L.L. No. 20-1996~
REASONS FOR ~OARD ACTiOn:
OR ¢he bss~s of test~moRy ~rese~ted. mater~s,s submitted s~d persons, ~s2ect~o~. the Bo~r~
the fo,~ow~9
~ The Applicant's prope~y ~s ~ocsted (~ the R-40 Low-De~s~(7 Res~de~t~8, Zone D~str~ct
is ~o~ ~mproved wE(h s o~e-fsm~,y detached dwe],~9, or 8~y othe~ ~erm:tted Jses
Sect~o~ 100-31-A of the Zo~9 Code. Accord~Rg~y, ~e'~ere~ce ~s msde to Se¢~o~ I00-23E cf the
ZoRi~9 Code:
Page 5 - Apri~ 8, 2004
ZBA No, 5457 - M. Cassidy
CTM 1000-18-1-3
§ 100-23E. Any use not permitted by this chapter shall be deemed to be prohibited. Any list of
prohibited uses contained in any section of this chapter shail be deemed to be not an exhaustive list
but to have been included for the purposes of clarity and emphesis.
2. The proposed use of a tennis court with fencing is authorized under Code Section 100-
31C as an accessory use only, and such use must be "related to residential use on a lot containing a
single-family detached dwelling." The applicant concedes that the subject lot does not currently
contain a single-family detached dwelling. Accordingly, a use variance granted by the Board of
Appeals is required in order for applicant to construct the tennis court as currently proposed.
3. Despite counsel for applicant's contention, the standard for the granting of an area
variance is inapplicable here. Counsel directed the Board to the Appellate Division's decision in
Bovadiian v. Board of Appeals of the Villaqe of East Hills, 136 A.D.2d 548 (2d Dept. 1988), for the
distinction be~¢¢een a use vadance and an area variance. ~n Boyadiian, the Appe!iate Division stated
that "[aln area variance does not involve a use which is prohibited by the zoning ordinance whi~e a
use variance involves the permitting of a use which is prohibited by the zoning ordinance. Id. at 550
(internal citations omitted). In this case, a tennis court is only permitted in the R-40 district as an
accessory use, which by statutory definition must be "incidental and subordinate" to the main use on
the subject lot. Specifically, a tennis court is permitted onty when it is "related to residential use on a
lot containing a single-family detached dwelling.. 2. Not qualifying as a permitted use under the
relevant ordinance, such use is deemed to be prohibited. Accordingly, even under the precedent
cited by counsel for applicant, the standard for the granting of a use variance, rather than that
re~atfng to an area variance, applies. See Town Law §267(1)(a).
4. Applicant has failed to show that she will suffer the "unnecessary hardship" required by
Town Law §267-b to qualify for a use variance. First, it cannot credibly be contended that applicant
cannot realize a reasonable return for each and every permitted use on this property. Applicant's
only financial showing is her assertion that she pays $432.93 in annual real property tax. Without
substantiation, applicant further contends that no financial return is available on a vacant lot. Putting
aside the validity of that contention, it is not the relevant inquiry. What is relevant is whether in fact
she can reaiize a reasonable return on any permitted use in this district, or more specifically a one-
family dwelling. Applicant has not introduced any financial evidence on this point. In fact, applicant
has stated on the record that if a variance is not granted, she is prepared to build a dwelling on the
property. It must be emphasized that merely because the applicant does not desire to engage in
any of the permitted uses does not constitute the required hardship under the statute.
5. Second, applicant has not made a showing that the alleged hardship to it is unique, and
does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. Applicant merely contends
that there are few or no other vacant lots owned by other persons owning improved properties in the
neighborhood. But the fact that applicant owns more than one property in the neighborhood does
Page 6 -Apd[ 8. 2004
Z~3A No. 5457 - M. Cassidy
CTM
not entitle her to engage ,n uses that others in the nei9 r~borhood who own cnly one property, may
not.
8. Third, appIicant has not demonstrated tha~ the reques~ w~: ~ot
character of ~he ~e~¢hborhood. App~t aga,~ co,tends that "s tenms cou~ ~s 3erm~tted ~ t~e
d~str[cf'. As shown above, such use as requ:ested Es, ~n fact. ?oh~b~'~ed. App ~n~; fur:her comtends
that since applicant's resMence ~s ~n dose prox~m:~, any co~cern oveE ~n ~meE:endec tenn~s
should be a~ev~ated. Notw~thstand~n9 app~'.~¢s promise ~o mo:qEfor the ~ud the fac':
the essent~a~ character of fha neighborhood ~s residential As ;ong as the appE~cant's
separate, there can be no assurance, now or ~n the future thaf a frees~nd~n9
adversely ~moacf the neighborhood. A use variance runs w~th the ~and. Ape',cant has proposed
covenants and restrictions on the ssEe of the sub;er proper~y or proper;les w~th ownersh~
to the subject prope~. Eve~ F enfor~ment of such covenants and Caste. crOons were [ees[b~e,
provides no assurance that the cou¢: ~tseEf w~B be carefu~;y monitored. Enfcrceme%
~s mo~ect~caL ~t should be ~o~ed that two ~e~ghbors have expressed co~cer~ reg~d~9 rise
hennas cou~ 8nd draEnage ~ssues wh~e a~other has suppo¢(ed the app~[cadon.
7. Finally, applicant conceded En her app~Ecat~o~ and et the pub:~c head,Es that any e~eged
hardship has been se~f-created.
8. Carefu~ consEderat;on ¢ th~s application ~eaves the ~oard wEfh ~',tt;e recourse [nasmuoh as
spp~nf has fa~ed to meet each and evew cf ~he rec u[red showEngs.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD:
In cons~dedn9 a[[ ¢ fha above factors and eppEy~ng the balancing tes~ under New York Town Law
287-b, motion was offered by Member D~2~z:o. seconded by Member 7o~ors. end duEy carried,
DENY the apr;cat,on, as,appr~ed for.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members O[ (Cha[~¢oma~), Goehr[nger. To,ora Odando, end D[n~z~c
Th~s Reso~u~[o,. w¢.s cd,y ¢.dopteG
Ruth D. O~[va. ~hs~oman- 4/f 2/04
Approved for
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hail
Ruth D. Oli~, Chairwoman 53095 Main Read
Gerard E Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vincent Orlando Tel. (631) 755-1809
James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.northferk.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
Ref. # 5501 - GEORGE AND DONNA DIAKOUMAKOS
Property Location: 455 Three Waters Lane, Orient
CTM #15-7-1 '~ (for unmerger from CTM #15-7-10)
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this
application and determines that this review fails under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions,
without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 18, 2004,, 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:
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTiON: The applicant's property consists of 12,500 sq. ft. (or .287 of an acre)
and is shown as Lot 4'~ on the filed Map of Orient by the Sea, Section One, and the Suffolk County Tax Maps
as Parcel 15-7-'~1. The adjacent property which has been deemed merged by the Building Department with
the applicant's property is improved with a dwelling and is referred to as CTM t5-7-10, shown as Lot fl40 on
the filed Map of Orient By the Sea.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's February 23, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, citing Code
Section 100-26 in its denial of a building permit application, in which it determined that CTM 11 has been
merged with CTM 10 due to common ownership during e period of time after July 1, 1983.
RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant requests a Lot Waiver to unmerge CTM 11 as shown on the Stanley J.
Isaksen, L.S. survey dated 2/28/02, amended April 30, 2002, from CTM 10 (shown on the R. VanTuyl survey
dated 8/25/60).
CODE PROVISION: Section 100-26 of the Zoning Code reads, as follows:
A. If a lot has merged, the Zoning Beard of Appea~s may waive the merger and recognize original lot lines upon
public hearing and upon finding that:
(1) The waiver will not result in a significant increase in the density ofthe neighborhood.
(2) The waiver would recognize a lot that is consistent with the size of lots in that neighborhood.
(3) The waiver will avoid economic hardship.
(4) The natural details and character of the contours and slopes of the lot will not be significantly changed or
a~tered in any manner, and there will not be a substantial filling of land affecting nearby environmental or flood
areas.
rcage 2 - Apd! 8. 2004
ZEtA #510~ - G. Diakournskos
CTM 15-7-11
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION:
In considering all of the above and applyin8 the criteria under Section 100-28 of ~he Zenana Code. a~c on the
bas~s of testimony presented, materials submkted a~c ~ersons; ~qspectfons, the 8oard makes the fo~ow~n9
f~d[ngs:
!. The wsrver of meraer w~ no~ resu[~ f~ ~ significant ~crease ~n the de~s~, sf (he ne(ghborhood because
o~y o~e add~'donai house w~ be buf~t.
2. The waiver of me~¢er w~ recognize a ]o, that ~s consfstent wit, the s~ze of :ets ~ the neighborhood. The
ne~¢hborhood and d~stdct ~s we~-dev¢oped w~th s~nae-fam~y resMences, and consists of many o~der ~ots
do ~o~ co~form to the R-4C ,4u,000~ m[~,mum fo, tins zomn9
3. The waiver w~]~ avoid economic hardsMB because the ~ots are curre~tfy he~d [~ separate cw~ershfp and the
vacant o'~ was purchased wkh re~a~ce on the 1997 %or,ce of No~-Merger issued by the Southo!d
~u~d~n9 ,nspsc~or.
4. ~o evidence was prese~ed to suggest that ~ts qatura~ deta~]s character, coRtodrs O( s~ope wour. d
s]9~f~cant~y a~tered ~ any manner. Nor was any evidence presented to su99es'~ that the ~ot wou~d require
substant]a~ fi~[;n9 affectin~ environmenta~ or flood areas
5. The waiver would recognize the odgfna~ ~ot [~nes for Lot 41 as set o~h In the fi~eQ Map of Orient By the
Sea. f~ied 11/21/I957.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: ~n considering ail of the above factors and applying the bslanc[~q~ test under
~uw York Town" ........ ¢¢ ~' ............. ~ -
du~y carried, to
G~NT the Waiver of Merger, as aue~ied for.
Th~s action does not authorize or condone any current or future use. setback or other feature of the
propehy that may violate the Zoning Code. other than such uses. setbacks and other features ss are exoress[y
addressed ~n this action.
Vote of the Beard: Ayes: Members Oliva ~Cha~omanl Goehr~nger, Toflora Cdando. and Diniz~c. This
Ruih D. Olive. slrwomar ~/~/04
Approved for
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall
Ruth D. eltra, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tortora Souttmld, NY 11971~0959
Vincent Orlando Tel. (631) 765-1809
James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (63 i) 765-9064
http://southoldtewn.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
Appl. No. 5419 - J & C HOLDINGS, Contract Vendee (Edna Doll, Owner)
Property Location: 590 North View Drive, Orient; CTM 1000-13-1-5.1
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeais 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 p~anned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 41,907+- sq. ft. described parcel is vacant, with 129.50+-
ff. frontage alone the norih side of North View Drive, 327.89 ft. in depth along the westerly side line, 315.20
feet along the easterly side line, and 137.71 feet along a tie line at the high water mark of Lone Island Sound.
The distance between the front line and the top of the bluff line (upland area) on the east side is 120.95 feet,
and 161.92 feet a!on9 the west side.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's November 7, 2002 Notice of Disapproval, amended August
6, 2003, citing Section 100-239.4A. 1 and 100-30A.3, in its denial of a building permit to construct a new
dwelling with setbacks: (a) less than 100 feet from the top of the bank or bluff, and (b) less than 50 feet from
the front property line.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 20, 2003, December 18,
2003, and February 26, 2004, 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
fei!owing facts to be true and relevant:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: in applicant's August 7, 2003 request, setbacks were proposed for
a new single-family dwelling, 32 ft. deep by 65 ft. wide, at approximately 50 feet from the top of the bank and at
43 feet from the front lot line, as shown on the survey of June 26, 2003, revised July 28, 2003 by Hillebrand
Land Surveying, P.C. By letter with enclosures submitted November 19, 2003, the applicant's attorney
submitted information fora redesign in the plot plan, repositioning the driveway to the east Side of the property,
adding a retaining wall for the west side and dryweils to prevent runoff onto adjacent lands.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/AMENDED RELIEF:
On November 5, 2003, a site evaluation was submitted, based on the 1-1/2 story design proposed by
applicant, from the Suffolk County Soil & Water Conservation District, indicating the bluff face appeared stable
without evidence of erosion. During the November 20, 2003 hearing, the board requested information to show
the conceptual design and layout in this variance application. On November 24, 2003, the Suffolk County Soil
& Water Conservation District submit.ted an additional evaluation regarding a concern for the larg~e volume of
fill, and recommending that the large volume of fill should be compacted in 6" lifts to eliminate future settling,
Page 2 - Apri~ 8, 2004
AppL No. 54~ 9 - J & C Holdings
CTM i000-D-!-5.]
with vegetation of ali bare soi; to be done immediately with a quick germinat;ng grass seed mix or
grow(rig ground cover.
On December 11, 2003 the applicant submitted a cor, ceptua~ plan co~f~rm~ ~.68~ sq. ~. ~Mn9 ares o~ the
f~rst f~oor w2h ~ ,188 sq. fA. ~v~¢ ~res on the seine f~oor, and 380 s~. f~. for 8
Dude$ ~he December 18, 2003 public hearing, discuss:ohs coRt~ued she the applicant's e~9~neer c~sdf~e~
app~[~t's ~ntent~ons to move up to I0 ~. depth of 5~ from th s ex~st~9 9rsde st south s~de cf the house ¢or t~e
f~ re-grfd~ of the remg~n~ yard areas, ~r~cress~n9 the 9round e~evat[on from 74 feet ~o 79 fee~,
four ~. high reta~g ws;~ at the ~or~h/wester~y yard eras. e~d adding f~[~ at the east sma cf the ho~se tc 90
e~evat~ce ~bove ~e~R sea level at 2s h~¢hest co,tour. The sp¢[cs~t s~so conf~rmed that the fror, q: Of the house
wouM resuk ~n a lower grade, a~er removs~ of so~ from the fro~t to the beck yard.
O~ Februaw 5, 2004, the ap¢~nt subm~ed a revised 1/27/04 p~sn w~th u palsied engineer cs~cu:st~ons for
et 8 height at 3 feet rather then 4 feet. the'} the garage wes reJocated uRder the f:mt f~ccr ¢ the he,se
west s~de, ?edud~ng the 8 ~. we(, setback that was ~g the ¢rewous o~sr (dated 12/29/03); ':hat the he~?t of the
proposed house was rev(sad to $ maximum 30'4" feet to the top of the 5dge from the f~r~shed grade.
~n considering the 1/27/04 revised p~a~ Board Members determined that e IC 2. reduction on the east sma cf
the ~o~se ;o a ~ength of 49 feet ¢nstead ¢ 59 feet or 82 feet) w~;; ~ncrease the setback from t;~e
provMes a m~nfmum that the Board w~ a~ow.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION:
[R accordaace w~th the review standards set fo~h ~n the Town Law 287-b3 "ares vsr~a~ces':, ~he board
considered the be~e~t to ~he applicant ~f the variance ~s gra~ted, es weighed aga[ast the detr~me~ to
hes~th, safety a~d welfare to the ~e~ghborhood end commun~ by such gra~t, sad hereby cleaves ;ne
es 8p¢~ed for, w~th ~re~t ¢ e;temst~ve relief a~d determining that:
1. A) Grant of a~temat[ve relief w~ not proeuce an undesirable change ~R the character of the ~e~ghbor;~ood
8 detriment ;o ~eerby prope¢:~es. 7he app,(cent redesigned the dwe~[;~g w~th %~/2 stodes. ~cwer;~¢ the he:gkt
fro~ fi ~shed grade to the top of the r~dge to 30'4" maximum. The garage wes moved 'co the wes~ s;de, u~der
the f~rst f~oor ¢ ?he dwelling. The retelling ws~ was ~cwered ~o $ maximum of three f3 feet. The s~terret~ve
granted by the Board w~l[ ~essen the degree of the requested $o~cosformf~g setbacks and w~] reduce :~e
wsua¢ impact rc Reerby propeVr[es. The ¢ropeAy w~[ contsf~ dpftej[s 8~d must 8e oropedy re-graded
coR'(s~ water urevent~g rLmoff. $~d m~t~gat~n~ ~oor-org~nege cosd2~o~s of the so~:s
(B) Grant ¢ the 8[temedve relief w~ not produce ¢~ undesirable chs~ge ~;~ the chamcte~ of ~he
neighborhood or $ detriment to nearby propeA~es. %he new coRstruct~on w~[J oe s~m~ar to setbacks
for dwellings ex~stigg ~a the ~mmed~ate eras of th~s sound-front community. The dwelling ;c the west ;s at ;ess;
..100 feet from the ep¢~cant's froposed dwe~[n9, the dW¢~[fng to the east ~s et ~east 75 feet from the afp~ca~t's
prouosed dwe[~9. The ~o adjacent dwellings are s~tueted fudher from the street than the ~*oposed
Page 3 - Apr,] $, 2004
Appi. No. 5419 - $ & C Ho]dings
CTM 1000-]3-i-5.]
The applicant is proposing a %1/2 story design with garage underneath, and must provide erosion control to
propedy retain water into dryweIIs at the ~andward side of the dwelling.
2. The benefit sought cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the ap¢cant to pursue, other than an
area variance. A dwelIing could not be placed without area variances in any location with the current code
restriction for a 100 fl. setback from the top of the bluff and 50 ft. setback from the front (street) lot line.
3. The alternative granted herein is substantial, resulting in a 45% reduction for a 55 ft. bluff setback instead of
the Code's minimum of 100 feet, and 16% reduction of the code's minimum 50 ft. setback 42 feet from the front
property line, at its closest points.
4. The difficulty was self-created. Although the upland area of the lot is limited for building purposes, the code
setback requirements have been in effect for many years.
5. The aiternative re!ief wi!! not have an adverse effect or impact on the physica! or environmental conditions in
the neighborhood. The setbacks ffom the bluff will be increased from the requested 50 feet to 55 feet on the
east side. The applicant ensures extensive landscaping with maintenance of bluff vegetation after
construction, as well as erosion and sedimentation control during construction activities.
6. Grant of the alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to
enjoy the benefit of a dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the
hea~th, 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 287-B, motion was offered by Member Orlando, seconded by Chain~zoman Oliva, and
duly carried, to
DENY the variance as applied for, and to
GRANT Alternative Relief, with the following modifications and conditions:
1. That the dwelling be reduced in length to 49 feet, increasing the setback to at least 55 feet from the
top of the bluff on the east side at its closest point, at least 70 feet from the opposite (westerly
corner) of the dwelling to the top of the bluff, and centering the proposed dwelling with 37+- ft. side
yard setbacks.
2. That the setback from the front lot line be a minimum of 42 feet.
3. That the ap¢icant and future owners follow the recommendations given by the Suffolk County Soil
and Water Conservation District dated May 9, 2003.
4. That vegetation be maximized along the westerly yard area, adjacent and along the length of the
proposed retaining wall.
5. That no yard or other debris be placed on the bluff face or adjacent areas.
8. The Board reserves the right to inspect all phases of construction and enhance plantings for erosion
prevention on site and to prevent water runoff prior to issuance of a C.O.
Pag~ 4 - April g. 2004
AppL No. 54!9 - J & C ~-_~oldings
CTM
7. This review is to be coordinated with e~¢inee~ and with
C.O
Thls sctioR does ~ot ~uthodze or condone s~y current or future use, setbacR or othe~ feature of the subject p¢ope~y thst
rosy rio]ere ~ne Zon~n9 Cede. othey ths~ such uses, setbscks and othe~ ~estu~
8ct~o~.
Vote of ~:he Board: Ayes: Members O~vs (Chs~omsn), Goehri~ge~, Todo;a, Orlando and D~n~z~o. 7h~s
Reso~ut~o~ was du~y 8dopted (5-0).
RUTH D. OL]VA, CHAirWOMAN
Approved fo~ F~[]ng 4-12-04
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard E Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vincent Orlando Tel. (63~) 765-1809
James Dinlzio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEET)NG OF APRIL 8, 2004
Ref. # 5496 - JOSEPH and FRANCES SETARO
Proper~y Location: 3680 Stillwater Avenue, Cutchogue
CTM 137-%13.
SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeais has visited the property under
consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type Il category of
the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the proiect is implemented
as planned.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property 9,104 sq. ft. parcel has 50 ft.
frontage along the south/west side of Stillwater Avenue and lot depth of 182.36 feet. The parcel is
improved with one-story frame dwel!ing and _.h~.o sma!! sheds in the rear yard.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Buildin9 Inspector's January 22, 2004 Notice of Disapprova!, amended
January 23, 2004 and January 27, 2004, citing Sections 100-242A and 100-244B concerning
proposed second-story additions and alterations to the existing dwelling with total side yards at iess
than 25 feet.
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants request a Variance for a second-story
addition over the first floor of the existing dwelling maintaining the same side yards which exist at 10
feet on each side, and total of 20 feet for both side yards.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeais held a public hearing on this application on March 18, 2004, 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:
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: On the basis of testimony presented,
materials submitted and personal inspections, 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. The applicant's house is one of several single-story houses
along Sti~lwater Avenue in Cutchogue. The proposed new construction wiil create a 22 ft. by 30 ft.
second-story living area over the existing single-story house. Both 10 ft. side yard setbacks have
existed for many years, and the new construction will not change either the side yards, or the
existing 48 ft. front yard.
Page 2 -ADdi 8 2004
ZBA No. 5496 - J, and F, Setaro
CTM !000-I37-1-3
2. The benefit sought by the epplicsnt csnno~; be achieved by some method, feasible fo; a~91icant to
pursue, other ~han an a~ea variance. 7he s~de y~d setbacks ~equested hove ex'.sted fo~ ':he fi:st
sto~ fo~ ms~y yea:s. Th~s ~ct ~s ;~s~:cu~sdy ~ow, which ~esves the s~de yards w~t;q ~t:;e o~
[oom Cot expansion. The log~ca choice ~s t'o: 8'n expansion as des~ned w~th (he new
as $ second-stow
3. The v~ds~ce ;equested ~s m~n~m~ end Fee;esents s 20% Feddct~oF (~ the cu¢;e~t code
requirement of 25 fee~ fo~ the new co~str~ct~on w~th the same s~de yard setbacks of the f~%t stew.
4. The d~c~ty was se[f-c~e~ted when knowOedge of ~he zoning -estdctio~s continued s~ce the
a~cant s~ ~ed the proper:y.
5. G:a~t ¢ ':h~s ;eider is ~he m~n~mum action ~ecesss~ ~¢d adequate to e~sbe the sp¢~t to
enjoy the benefit of addk;ons, wh~e p;ese~4n¢ and p~otect~n¢ the charac~e; of the ne~ghbc~hooo
the hea~th, safety 8nc welfare of the community.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: ~ cons~dedn9 s~[ of the ~bove factors and spp~y~n9 the
test uncle; ~ew York Tow~ _aw 287-8. mot[o~ was offered by Membe~ Odando seconded by
Membe~ Goeh;~nge~. end d~y ca~ded, to
G~NT the variance ss a~o~ed fo;. ss show: cn the s~te ma: w~th a ZgA date stsm~ of
W~ams. A;ch~tect.
Th~s ~ct~on does not authorize o~ condone 8~y 2u~Fent O; futuFe USe, setback o~ othe; feature of the subjec(
p~ope~y that may violate the Zoning Code. othe~ then such uses setbecks and othe; featu;es as ale expressly
eddressed ~n this
Vote of the Boa[d: Ayes: Members O[~vs (Cha~omsn), Goehdnge~. To,ors. Orlando, and
Th~s Resolution wes du~y adopted
Rcth D. O~va, Charwoman 4/13/04
Approved for
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall
Ruth D. OI~va, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road
Gerard E Goehringer P.O. Box 1179
Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959
Vincent Orlando TeE. (431) 7~5-180~
James Din~zio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064
http://southoIdtown.nortl}fork.net
. BOAR~ OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION
MEETING OF APRIL 8, 2004
Ref. # 5453 - JOSEPH TRENCHENY
Property Location: 120 South Lane, East Marion
CTM ¢37-6-3.2.
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 I~ categow 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 13,056 sq. ft. parcel has 60 ft. aIong the south
side of Oak Street in East Marion and 325.17 feet in depth along the eastedy property line. The
stoW dwelling is 33.1 feet from the ftont property Iine, 3.4 feet from the east side property ~ine, end
approximately 34 feet from the west side property line, as shown on the Februaw 26, 2003 survey
prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C.
BASIS OF APPLICAT]ON: The Building Department's Notice of Disapproval dated August 25, 2003,
amended 2-23-04, cites Code Section 100-244B in its denial of a bui[din§ permit application
concerning additions and alterations, for the reason that the total side yards are proposed at less
than 25 feet (combined).
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on Februaw 26, 2004 and
March 18, 2004, 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:
AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant proposes a two-stow addition along the west
side of the existing dwellin§. The ap¢icant's Februaw 26, 2003 site plan, revised 8/18/03, prepared
by Architechnogies, shows a new two-stow addition at 10 feet from the closest angle along the
southwest lot line, and 15 feet from the side property Iine at the greatest width, without change to the
easterly 3.4 ft. side yard, resulting in a combined side yard area of 13.4 feet.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:AMENDED RELIEF: During the Januaw 22, 20,94 public hearing, the
applicant indicated that a second stow was also being added over a portion of the existing dwelling,
which would not meet the side yard setback requirements. At the Februaw 26, 2004 public hearing,
the Board reviewed the apg!cent's Februaw~ 2;}, 2004 amended site plan adding a proposed
* Page~3;- April 8,2004
ZeA ~o. 5453 -Joseph
CT~ ']888-37-8-3.2
second-stow over the existing first floor of the dweIling at 7'6" from the easterly side lot ~ine. in this
review, the applicant was requested to consider an a~temetive which would increase the side yard at
the sharp engIe of the south/west lot line, for the reason that the 10 fl. setback es angled would not
provide sufficient fire accessibility. On March 18, 2004, the ap¢cent submitted e revised site plan,
providing en increased setback from 10 ft. to 12 ft. on the south/west angle from the proposed
addition at its closest point.
REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and
personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings:
1. Grant of the alternative relief will not produce an undesirabie change in character of
neighborhood ors de~rimen~to nearby properties~ The app~ic~nt!s house is one of manysingle-stow
houses eIong South Lane in East Marion. The new proposed construction wiil transform the existing
house into e two-stow design with e height at 28 feet to the ridge. The existing side yard set back of
3'4" on the north/east side of the property wiii be unchanged. The new second stow addition will
have an increased easterly side yard setback from the 3'4" that remains for the existing first floor to
7'8", end the west/southwest side setbacks will be 17'6" and 12', as shown on the survey/site map
revised March 18, 2004, prepared by Architechnologies.
2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to
pursue, other than an area variance. This lot is particularly long and narrow, which leaves the side
yards with Iittle or no room for expansion. The logical choice is for an expansion as designed with
the new construction es second-stow additions.
3. The vedence requested is substantial for e two-stow addition, representing a 38% reduction for
the existing 3.4' side yard and proposed 12 ft. side yard, from the current code requirement of 25
feet for combined total side yard setbacks. The additional second-stow will result in a reduction of
22%, for e combined side yard area of 19'6" (7'6" and 12' minimum) as revised.
4. The difficulty wes self-created because the applicant acquired the nonconformin9 premises with
knowledge of the tight side yards, and while zoning restrictions were, end have been, in effect.
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors end 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
DENY the relief as apptied for, and to
GRANT alternative relief as shown on the March 16, 2003 amended plan prepared by
~ Pa[~s $ - Apdl 8, 2804
ZaA N~. 5453 - Joseph Trsncheny
Architechnoiogies.
This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the
subiect 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 Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio.
This Resolution was duly adopted (5-~. ~. ~)-Q .~"~,
Ruth D. Olive, Chairwoman 4//</04
Approved for Filing