HomeMy WebLinkAbout8033 BOARD MEMBERS � SOUjo Southold Town Hall
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179
Patricia Acampora Southold,NY 11971-0959
Robert Lehnert, Jr. cis Office Location:
Nicholas Planamento G,'c'►c • �OQ Town Annex/First Floor
Margaret Steinbugler Olif'CloU 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue)
Southold,NY 11971
RECEIVED
http://southoldtownny.gov
C9 It:3&�w(
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SEP 2 3 2025
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel. (631) 765-1809 9
FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATI&Uthold Town Clerk
MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18,2025 =
ZBA FILE No.: #8033
NAME OF APPLICANT: Anthony J. and Joanne Colletta
PROPERTY LOCATION: 1657 Meadow Beach Lane, Mattituck,NY SCTM No. 1000-116-4-15
SEORA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this
application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without
further steps under SEQRA.
SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk
County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23,and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply
dated June 20, 2025 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appear to be
no significant county-wide or inter-community impacts.
LWRP DETERMINATION: This application was referred for review under Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency
review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy
Standards. The LWRP Coordinator issued a recommendation dated August 18, 2025. Based upon the information
provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available,
it is recommended that the proposed action is INCONSISTENT with LWRP policy standards and therefore is
INCONSISTENT with the LWRP.
Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character,preserves
open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse
efj`ects of development.
1. Structures that do not meet regulatory setbacks, gross floor area(size) on small waterfront parcels do not
support or enhance community character or minimize the effect of development on the environment.
Policy 4. Minimize the loss of life, structures, and natural resources from flooding and erosion.
2. The existing structure is located in Flood Zone X with a 0.2 Percent Annual Chance Flood Hazard, and
much of the parcel is located in Flood Zone AE, with a 1%Annual Chance Flood Hazard. In addition, sea
level rise is expected to continue and will increase future flooding potential.
Structures within these flood zones are subject to potential loss from storm surge-induced events and this
will increase over time as sea level rises.Expansion of the gross floor area runs counter to the Town's policy
to minimize the loss of structures from flooding and erosion.
However, with the conditions imposed herein,the Board now finds the proposed action to be CONSISTENT with
the LWRP.
Page 2, September 18,2025
#8055 Anthony Colletta
SCTM No. 1000-116-4-15
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a trapezoid-shaped 37,773 square-foot(33,966 square
feet buildable)non-conforming waterfront parcel in the A-C Zoning District with 120.00 feet fronting Meadow Beach
Lane,a 20-foot wide easement on the west;226.44 feet adjoining a neighboring residential parcel to the north; 173.66
feet along the tie line at Halls Creek to the east; and 202.31 feet adjoining an adjacent residential parcel to the south.
The property is developed with a two-story frame dwelling with a two-car attached garage and brick driveway, an
additional stone driveway,a rear wood deck with hot tub,concrete and brick walkways,and a slate walk to a catwalk
and dock on Halls Creek, all as depicted on the survey prepared by Jeffrey W. Haderer, Licensed Surveyor, last
revised May 14, 2025.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Article XXIII, Section 280-124; Article XXXVI, Section
280-207A(b); and the Building Inspector's May 28,2025 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit
to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling;at 1)less than the code required minimum
front yard setback of 40 feet; 2) gross floor area (GFA) exceeding permitted maximum square footage for lot
containing up to 40,000 square feet in area; located at: 1657 Meadow Beach Lane, (Adj.to Halls Creek) Mattituck,
NY. SCTM No. 1000-116-4-15.
RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests front yard and Gross Floor Area (GFA) variances to expand the
existing screened porch and construct a one-story addition to the rear(east side)of the dwelling;to construct a kitchen
addition on the south and east side of the dwelling; and to construct an addition to the garage on the west side of the
dwelling for total added habitable area of approximately 520 square feet. The kitchen addition maintains an existing
front yard setback of 34.9 feet where the code requires a minimum of 40 feet, and in total the additional living space
results in a Gross Floor Area(GFA) of 5,140 square feet where a maximum of 4,648 square feet is permitted based
on the Town Code.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
The property is covered by the following Certificates of Occupancy:
No. Z-21017 dated September 15, 1992 pursuant to Building Permit No. 20170-Z dated September 27, 1991 for
a new one family dwelling with attached wood deck and accessory one-car garage;.
No. Z-27268 dated August 22, 2000 pursuant to Building Permit No. 25856 dated July 8, 1999 for first and
second floor addition to existing one family dwelling; and
No.Z-31921 dated October 18,2006 pursuant to Building Permit No.31900-Z dated April 11,2006 for a second-
floor addition to an existing single-family dwelling.
The application included an architect's signed and stamped GFA analysis of properties"around 1657 Meadow Beach
Lane" indicating the area average is 5,119 square feet. In the written application and at the public hearing the
applicant's representative asserted that the three homes included in the GFA analysis constitute the neighborhood
and that the homes further north on Meadow Beach Lane, beyond the one immediately adjacent, should not be
included in the analysis.
The applicant's parcel is the beneficiary of prior Board relief and included a copy of Zoning Board of Appeals file
#1679 dated September 25, 1972 which granted a variance allowing the location of accessory buildings in the side
yard(not less than 15 feet from the northern property line)and not less than 40 feet from the westerly property line,
with the same 40-foot setback to apply to the main residence.
During the hearing the applicant's representative,indicated the applicant would eliminate the 42 square foot garage
addition which would bring the proposed GFA to 5,098 square feet which is below the architect's calculation of
5,119 square feet for the average GFA of the properties"around 1657 Meadow Beach Lane."
r
Page 3, September 18,2025
#8055 Anthony Colletta
SCTM No. 1000-116-4-15
The application stated that the applicant intends to apply for a Board of Trustees wetland permit subsequent to their
Zoning Board of Appeals application.
One neighbor submitted a letter in support of the application.
FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION:
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on September.4,2025 at which time written
and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony,documentation, personal inspection of the property
and surrounding neighborhood,and other evidence,the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and
relevant and makes the following findings:
1. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(1). Grant of the front yard setback variance will not produce an undesirable change in
the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The 34.9-foot front yard setback has existed
since the house was built in 1991, hence is part of the character of the neighborhood. However, granting the relief
relative to excessive GFA will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment
to nearby properties. Any excessive GFA over the neighborhood average is precedent setting and not only
detrimental to the immediate community but has town wide implications. The applicant's analysis of GFA averaging
for other dwellings in the;neighborhood considered just three homes in the immediate area and did not account for
the neighboring homes further to the north, contrary to the method suggested by the Board's GFA averaging
guidelines. The applicant notes that the homes further to the north are in a separate subdivision, Harbor Farms, and
are covered by that subdivision's design standards and covenants and restrictions.-The applicant testified that either
the Zoning Code or the ZBA's averaging guidelines state that if the subject area is distinct from an adjoining
development,the GFA averaging may omit the adjoining development. The Board finds no such language or basis
in either the Zoning Code nor in the Board's GFA-averaging guidelines to omit nearby homes from GFA averaging
analysis on these grounds and finds that the homes omitted from the analysis share,with the subject dwelling,having
an address on Meadow Beach Lane and that they are architecturally similar to the homes included, all being two-
story frame dwellings of traditional design with several also being waterfront properties. Further, the.Board notes
that it is not uncommon for GFA averaging analysis to encompass homes that are quite diverse from one another,
such as having different architectural styles and/or different numbers of floors,'originating from different time
periods, and varying in degree of renovation. Absent a thorough analysis of GFA in,the neighborhood consistent ,
with the Zoning Code or the Board GFA averagingguidelines,the Board compares the proposed GFA of 5,098 feet
to the code-permitted maximum of 4,648 square feet and finds that granting of the GFA variance will produce an'
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood by allowing"the creation of an over-sized home in the area.
2. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(2). The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible
for the applicant to pursue, other than a setback variance. Since the existing dwelling has a 34.9-foot front yard
setback, any addition to either side of the house will require some form of variance relief. The benefit sought by the
applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a GFA variance. The
existing house includes two first floor bedrooms and there appear to be design degrees of freedom available to enable
reconfiguring the space to achieve the stated.objective.
3. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(3). The front yard'setback variance granted herein is mathematically substantial,
representing 12.75%relief from the code.However,the requested front yard setback is equal to the front yard setback
of the existing dwelling; the proposed addition does not introduce any further encroachment. The GFA variance is
also substantial,.representing 10.58%relief over the code-permitted maximum,and the evidence to establish that the
GFA is less than the neighborhood average is incomplete.
4. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(4).No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the requested front yard variance in
this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
J
Page.4, September 18,2025
#8055 Anthony Colletta
SCTM No. 1000-116-4-15
neighborhood. However, evidence was presented that allowing an excessive GFA will have an adverse impact on
the physical or environmental conditions pursuant to the Town Code. The applicant must comply with Chapter 236
of the Town's Storm Water Management Code.
5. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self-created. The applicant purchased the parcel after the
Zoning Code was in effect and it is presumed that the applicant had actual or constructive knowledge of the
limitations on the use of the parcel under the Zoning Code in effect prior to or at the time of purchase.
6.Town Law&267-b. Grant of the requested front yard setback relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate
to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a reconfigured house while preserving and protecting the character of
the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Grant of the requested GFA relief IS NOT
the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an expanded and
reconfigured house while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and
welfare of the community. There appears to be potential to reconfigure the existing first floor bedrooms and/or to
expand living space into the garage(as depicted in the proposed plans).
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above-factors and applying the balancing test under New
York Town Law 267-13,motion was offered by Member Steinbugler,seconded by Member Lehnert,and duly carried,
to
GRANT the front yard variance as applied for, and
DENY the variance to exceed the allowable Gross Floor Area as applied for.
SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. Submission of a revised signed and sealed Survey/Site Plan and Architectural Plans depicting the variances
granted,only.
This approval shall not be deemed effective until the required conditions have been met.At the discretion of the
Board of Appealsfailure to comply with the above conditions may render this decision null and void
That the above conditions be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued
The Board reserves the right to substitute a similar design that is de minimis in nature for an alteration that does
not increase the degree of nonconformity, provided de minimis relief is requested within one year of the date of
this decision. Any time after one year, the Board may require a new application.
IMPORTANT LIMITS ON THE APPROVAL(S)GRANTED HEREIN
Please Read Carefully
Any deviation from the survey,site plan and/or architectural drawings cited in this decision, or work exceeding
the scope of the relief granted herein, will result in delays and/or a possible denial by the Building Department
of a building permit and/or the issuance of a Stop Work Order, and may require a new application and public
hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Any deviation from the variance(s)granted herein as shown on the architectural drawings,site plan and/or survey
cited above, such as alterations, extensions, demolitions, or demolitions exceeding the scope of the relief granted
herein, are not authorized under this application when involving nonconformities under the zoning code. 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.
Page 5, September 18,2025
#8055 Anthony Colletta
SCTM No. 1000-116-4-15
TIME LIMITS ON THIS APPROVAL: Pursuant to Chapter 280-146(B)of the Code of the Town of
Southold any variance granted by the Board of Appeals shall become null and void where a Certificate of
Occupancy has not been procured,and/or a subdivision map has not.been filed with the Suffolk County
Clerk,within three(3)years from the date such variance was granted. The Board of Appeals may,upon
written request prior to the date of expiration,grant an extension not to exceed three(3)consecutive one(1)
year terms.1T IS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH
THE CODE REQUIRED TIME FRAME DESCRIBED HEREIN.Failure to comply,in a timely manner
may result in the denial by the Building Department of a Certificate of Occupancy,nullify the approved
variance relief,and require-a new variance application with public hearing before the Board of Appeals.
Vote of the Board: Ayes:Members Planamento(Vice Chair), Acampora,Lehnert, and Steinbugler. (4-0)
Nic 1 s Wanamento,Vice Chair
Approved for filing. / /2025