Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout#7498 Loria - Letters from Applicant recvd 5-27-2025.pdf Karen A.Meg 69 Twom,E MA Latham 631,72OIsuff x2al% I:hoc�!,'a?sullblklaw.cum ., Sri V A K E : L r ': . 17 U R. 1 N & Q U 1, ,?-r A R . 1, ;.2 11 C;1 Srorml',l May 27, 2025 Via Email k.im. I11oId.i3y.us Chairperson Leslie Kanes Weisman and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals � , , r Town of Southold 54375 Route 25 Southold,NY 11971 Re: Zoning Board of Appeals Area Variance Application (Var. #7498) Owner: Philip Loria Premises: 1090 First Street,New Suffolk,NY SCTM#: 1000-117-7-31 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members of the Board: Our law firm represents Philip Loria in connection with an Application for variances at 1090 First Street,New Suffolk,NY. This letter is submitted on behalf of Mr. Loria in reply to the Board's Resolution permitting the Public Hearing on the above referenced Application to be reopened for the purpose of accepting written comment following the receipt of an amended Application and allowing the Applicant to reply to any such additional comments. The Amended Application Pursuant to that Resolution, on May 14, 2025, the Applicant submitted an amended Application which responded directly to the requests of the Board to reduce the requested front and rear yard setbacks. At the IIearing on April 3, 2025, the Board recommended removing the front entry leaving a 13.3 ft. entry with stairs and a landing that wouldn't count toward the front yard setback. On the waterside of the dwelling the Board suggested that the deck be substantially reduced to a landing and something big enough to put a barbeque and then stairs down. It was stated that these recommendations would substantially reduce or eliminate an almost conforming rear yard setback of 35 ft. (See p. 24 of April 3, 2025 Regular Meeting Minutes). Applicant listened to the Board's requests. Specifically, the amended Application did so by: (1) removing the covered front porch entry way and replacing it with a 5 x 6 ft. stoop and stair with rail to permit access to the proposed dwelling, thereby reducing the front yard setback from 4.3 ft to 13.2 ft where 35 ft. is required; and (2)reducing the size of the rear deck from 10.7 x 29.9 ft. to 4 x 15.5 ft, which would still allow the Applicant safe access to the deck with rear steps to grade level, thereby allowing for a rear yard setback of 32.9 ft. on the northerly side and a May 27, 2025 Page 2 of 3 compliant setback of 35.2 ft. on the southerly side, a requested variance of 2.1 ft. (reduced from the 10.8 ft.previously requested). The Written Comments: General Objections are Insufficient During the period in which the Board re-opened the Public Hearing, several letters were received in support of the Application. However, the bulk of the written comments were in opposition, but reflect nothing more than generalized community opposition to the development of previously vacant land and the obscuring of a view of the Peconic Bay from passersby on First Street,including neighbors residing across from the Applicant's lot. Generalized community opposition to further development does not constitute a basis for a factually based determination by a Zoning Board of Appeals. As the Court of Appeals held in lfrah v.Utching 98 N.Y.2 304, 308, 746 N.Y.S.2d 667, 669(2002): "Although scientific or other expert testimony is not required in every case to support a zoning board's determination,the board may not base its decision on generalized community objections." Here, certainly,there has been no scientific evidence presented against the project, no environmental or engineering report, simply regrets that a vacant lot will be developed. Sheer numbers of generalized complaints about the Application are also simply insufficient to form a basis for denial of Applicant's request to build a humble, three-bedroom house on a buildable lot. A compliant low nitrogen sanitary has been approved by the Suffolk County Health Department and the Applicant has taken great care to reduce the variance relief needed on this non-conforming lot. In such cases, analogous to this one, the Second Department, Appellate Division has observed: "[T]he only opposition presented in this case was the generalized grievances of a group of neighboring property owners.Further,this civic opposition was not based on facts, but on the weight of numbers, i.e., how many neighboring property owners were in opposition. As such, the mere presence of community opposition or the unsupported conclusory allegations voiced by the neighboring property owners does not justify the denial of the variance application." Pottick v. Duncan 251,A.D.2d 333, 335, 673 N.Y.S.2d 740, 741 (2d Dep't 1998); see also Lessin s Inc. v. Scheyer 16 A.D. 3d 418, 419, 790 N.Y.S.2d 545, 546 (2d Dep't 2005) ("The mere presence of community opposition and the unsupported conclusory allegations of neighboring property owners does not justify the denial of applications for area variances"). To the extent that the community members express concern that the view of the Peconic Bay will be obscured, it is well settled law in the State of New York that the State "does not recognize an easement for light and air,except where created by express agreement." Chatsworth Reafty 344 LLC v. Hudson Waterfront Co. A LLC 309 A.D.2d 567, 568, 765 N.Y.S.2d 39, 40 (2d Dep't 2003). In the latter case, "[f]undamentally at issue in this case is defendants' interreference with the unobstructed rivcr view that plaintiff has enjoyed for the better part of a century." In the case of ESX Servs.LLC v.Board of Mgm.of the Essex House Condo 2019 N.Y. Misc.LEXIS 1564, 8*-9*,2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 30881(u) (Sup. Ct.N.Y.Co. 2019),one apartment owner with a terrace had built a greenhouse which impaired the neighboring apartment owners' views of Central Park. Rejecting the plaintiff's claim,the trial court held:"Generally,an adjoining landowner does not have an easement for light or air ... Based on the foregoing, plaintiff cannot May 27, 2025 Page 3 of 3 claim any damages for an alleged partial obstructed view of Central Park from any of the windows in the apartment." See also Lafayette Auvergne Corp. v. 10243 Management Corp_, 35 N.Y.2d 834, 362 N.Y.S.2d 863 (Mem) (1974) ("Light and air form valuable easements to be created by express agreement and,generally speaking,if an easement is to result,the intent on the part of a landowner to impose a servitude upon his land must be clear." (citations omitted)); Levy v. Samuel, 4 Misc. 48, 23 N.Y.S.825 (Super. Ct. N.Y. Co. 1893) ("The decision of the question involves the legal rights of the adjoining owners,which will now be considered.The English rule in regard to ancient lights has been repudiated in this state, and generally throughout the country"). Here, if maintenance of the view was of such community importance to the preservation of the waterfront, then some group or the government should have stepped forward to purchase the Applicant's lot, rather than simply objecting generally as is the present case to Applicant's desire to build on a buildable lot. Again,the front yard setback of 13.2 ft.is further from the street than the adjacent northerly house at 1200 First Street,which is setback 3 ft.from the street and received substantial variances. Thus, what the applicant is proposing as a front yard setback is not out of character of the community. The benefits sought by the Applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible other than a variance due to the non-conformity of the lot. Many of the properties in New Suffolk are non-conforming and there is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental condition of the neighborhood. A low nitrogen sanitary system is approved by the Suffolk County Health Department subject to Town approval. Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that this Board should grant the Applicant's requested area variances. Res ctCsubm' — K e A KAH/db cc: Philip Loria April 3,2025 Regular Meeting the square footage and lowered the height (inaudible) significant portion of the house. Even though they don't deserve a legal right we created open site lines that allows neighbors walking by(inaudible)nearby homes to have some of that great view.Virtually every property in New Suffolk is non-conforming including mine which is why we're seeking the setback variance. When we began all the Trustees came down and gave me an okay to proceed. The D.E.C. has given us approval, the Health Department has pre-approved the septic system.We hope that the Zoning Board will value our thoughtful changes and my lifelong contribution to the quality of life in New Suffolk and grant this variance.Thank you. CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN :Thank you Mr. Loria.lust a couple of things before we open this up to questions from the Board and or the audience, I know a number of you are here for this application. First of all, the former Grella/Osbourne property was a rebuild. That front yard setback even though it doesn't look like it,that front yard setback existed,this is brand new. I Just want to put that in the record. Secondly, you're proposing a 9-foot-deep entry off of the street, If that were removed you would then have a 13.3-foot entry and you could certainly have a stair and a landing that wouldn't count toward that front yard setback. Another thing, on the waterside of the dwelling you have proposed a 10-foot 7-inch deck that is almost 30- feet long, 29 x 9 feet. If that was reduced substantially to basically just a landing and something big enough for maybe a barbeque and then stairs down and if you wanted to put a permeable pavers down a patio of some sort that's fine. The length of It is almost half the length it's more than half the length of the house, if that was substantially reduced or eliminated,you're going to have an almost conforming rear yard setback of 35-feet.So, I think although we know what it originally looked like, and we know the changes that are being proposed and it is certainly not as challenging as the former application was in my opinion there's still some room to make this even more conforming to the code. Does the Board want to say anything before,we open it up to the audience? Pat-anything from you, do you want to start? MEMBER ACAMPORA:You've said it. MEMBER PLANAMENTO : I think you heard what I wanted to say, however is this an opportunity for them to amend the application? CHAIRPERSON WEISMAN : It's possible but let's see if we have questions here and then we'll open this up to the MEMBER PLANAMENTO : It's a drastically different application than previously so thank you for making those changes. a4 Fuentes, Kim From: Phyllis Curott <pcurott@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 27, 2025 12:11 PM MAY 2 7 2Q5 To: Fuentes, Kim; Karen Hoeg; Philip Loria Subject: [SPAM] -Appeal #7498, Owner's letter attached Z0�611 WGB01RD®FAppF4LS Attachments: ZBA Appeal #7498, Loria 52725.pdf Dear Ms. Fuentes, Attached please find my letter of comment regarding my variance appeal, #7498, to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Thank you for your assistance in providing it to the ZBA today, per the deadline. Also, I would appreciate it if you would kindly confirm receipt of this email and the attached letter, as well as your ability to open it in PDF form.- Sincerely, Philip Loria via 12curott@gmail.com email ATTENTION:This email came from an external source. Do not open attachments or click on links from unknown senders or unexpected emails. i Philip Loria MAY 2 7 2025 P.O. Box 15 New Suffolk, N.Y. ZONING WiARD OrAot4LIS 631-484-3408 PhJl ria axx&gmaii.co) Re: Phil Loria, Appeal # 7498 May 27, 2025 Zoning Board of Appeals, Town of Southold Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Att: Kim Fuentes kiniC,(vsuuthuldtm%itr1V.go�_ BY EMAIL Dear Chairperson Weisman and members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: Thank you for considering my amended application for minor variance reliefat the front yard and 2.5 ft. at the rear northern corner of my house plans. I have taken great care to redesign the plans to comply with the ZBA requirements, blend with New Suffolk's hamlet character, quid address the concerns of the New Suffolk community which I have been part of for over 45 years as the owner of Captain Marty's Fishing Station, one of the few businesses in New SUffolk. The porch has been removed from the front of the house, and replaced with a 5 ft. x 6 ft. stoop, so the setback at the front is 13.2 ft. As you may recall, this revision was recommended by the Board at the April 3. 2025 Hearing. The proposed setback of the houscfront is consistent with other properties, both residential and commercial, on First Street. Also following the recommendation of the Board at the April 3, 2025 1 learing. I have substantially reduced the size of the rear deck. The rear, southern corner already complies with the setback requirements, the rear northern corner requires a minor variance of 2.5 ft. 1 have substantially reduced the footprint of the house to approximately 1400 sq R., making the size of the house proportional to the lot size and in keeping with the scale and character of New Suffolk. Unlike many homes in New Suffolk, the length of the house is approximately half the length of the lot. The house has also been lowered from the legally permitted 35 ft. by 2 ft. at its highest point (roofpeak) and lowered 5 ft for much of the rooffine. No setbacks are required for the height or the sides. I appreciate your guidance and consideration. Phil Loria