Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout5555APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer Lydia A. Tortora Vincent Orlando .lames Dinizio, .Ir. Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (63 I) 765-9064 http:/, southoldtown.northfork.net RECEiVED/ c BOARD OF APPEALS %]~ ~: l~L3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~' ~0~ 3 0 ~ Gorrected 11/23/04 FINDINGS, DELIBE~TIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 7, 2004 ~~~ Soul. Id Towh ¢lerk ZBA File No. 5555 - R. TAPP and N. ELLIS Prope~y Location: 275 West Road, Cutchogue; CTM 110-7-11.1. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 20,925 sq. ft. lot has 74.96 ft. frontage with 278.04 feet in depth to the high water line along Cutchogue Harbor, which extends beyond the bulkhead (the bulkhead runs along the 4 ft. topographical contour line). The property is improved with a one-story frame house and garage and a two-story frame house with porch, as shown on the December 22, 1998 survey, updated December 17, 2003, prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's May 24, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, amended August 2, 2004, citing Code Sections 100-31A, 100-239.4B and 241A & C in its denial of a building permit application concerning a new, second dwelling with increased size, after removal of the existing nonconforming cottage on this 20,925 sq. ft. lot, and with setbacks less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on September 14, 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: VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants request a variance to construct a new single-family cottage, after demolishing the existing cottage, in the existing nonconforming location which is less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. In addition, the use of a second building on a lot as a dwelling is nonconforming because only one dwelling is permitted per lot. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Building Department issued a July 5, 1978 Certificate of Occupancy concerning two cottages. The July 3, 1978 Housing Inspection Report notes the cottage to be constructed as the "southerly" building containing a kitchen, dining room, living room, and three bedrooms. CTM Parcel 110-7-11.1 REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. Grant of alternative relief will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The purpose of the reconstruction of the existing seasonal cottage is to continue its single-family occupancy in a new building containing a maximum living area of 986 sq. ft., plus 262 sq. ft. for an unheated screened porch. The alternative relief requires a minimum 48 feet to the bulkhead (63'11" = 25 feet minimum from the top of the upper bank, plus 38'11" from the bulkhead), instead of 53'11" as requested. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance to maintain and construct a new seasonal cottage. The existing 792 sq. ft. building will be demolished, and the cottage will be rebuilt to conform with the New York State Construction Code for legal ceiling height, required safety access with new stairs, replacing heating and electrical connections that may be fire hazards. The building is proposed to conform with the code required front, side and rear yard setbacks, and increasing the easterly side setback from 12'3" to a minimum of 15'1". The westerly side setback will be a minimum of 23'10" minimum to a screened porch. The rear yard setback will be a minimum of 78'6" to the tie line along apparent high water. 3. The relief requested for a 38'11" setback to the bulkhead is substantial, representing a 51% variance. The alternative relief granted herein will provide a greater setback at 48'11" to the bulkhead, representing a lesser variance at 65.33% of the code-required 75 feet. 4. The difficulty was self-created. It has been known for many years that the existing cottage is only one foot from the top of the bank and has remained in a nonconforming location. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this community of single-family residences will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of this relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a single-family cottage, replacing the existing cottage, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Chairwoman Oliva, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to DENY the variance as applied for, and to GRANT alternative relief, as noted below: CTM Parcel 110-7-11.1 After demolition of the existing cottage, the new cottage shall contain a maximum footprint for all building area of 1150 sq. ft., including porches, decks and other structures. 2. The height of the dwelling shall be not greater than that shown at 26'4" total height (or 22'8" mean height) shown on the schematic design dated 8/11/04, prepared by Samuels & Steelman, P.C. 3. The setback to the top of the bank shall be not less than 25 feet. 4. The setback to the lower bulkhead shall be not less than 48'11" (38'11" + 10'). 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 Oliva~Chairwoman), Orlando, Goehringer, Tortora, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0).~ / ,-r~, ,, 7- ~, - Ruth D. Oliva. Chairwoman 11/9/04,11/23/04 Approved for Filing POP, OH I<.1 Td_.,HEN C,L. I:I~ST FLOORP_LA~ POROH i I i i BATH ! HALL FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 114" = 1' .-0" LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 100 (Zoning), Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on TUESDAY~ SEPTEMBER 14~ 2004, at the time noted below: 10:40 AM R. TAPP and N. ELLIS #5555. Request for a Variance under Section 100-31A, 100- 239.4B, and 241A & C, for a new dwelling with increased size and as a second dwelling, a non- permitted use, after removal of the existing nonconforming cottage on this 20,925 sq. ft. lot, and with setbacks less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. Location of Property: 275 West Road, Cutchogue; CTM 110-7-11.1. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631) 765-1809. Dated: August 20, 2004. BOARD OF APPEALS RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN By Linda Kowalski FORM NO. 3 NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL TO: Patricia Moore Tapp & Ellis 51020 Main Rd. Southold, NY ! 1971 Please take notice that your application dated May 2l 2004 DATE: May 24 2004 Amended: May 28, 2004 Amended: Aug. 2, 2004 (address clarification) AUG 0 2 2004 For permit to demolish an existing cottage 8: construct a new single family dwelling Location of property: 275 West Road, Cutchogue, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 110 Block 7 Lot 11.1 Is returned herewith and disapp-'roved on the folloxving grounds: The proposed demolition of a non-conforming building with a non-conforming use (cottage) and construction of a new non-conforming building with a nonconforming use (second dwelling), on a 20,294 square foot lot in the R40 District, is not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV, Section 100-241 A&C, which state: Nonconforming uses. ...such building shall not be enlarged, altered, extended reconstructed or restored or placed on a different portion of the lot occupied by such use on the effective date of this chapter, nor shall any external evidence of such use be increased by any means whatsoever .... such buildings shall not be changed to another nonconforming use without approval of the Board of Appeals & then only to a use, which in the opinion of the said Board, is of the same or of a more- restrictive nature." The second dwelling unit is nonconforming and not permitted pursuant to Article III, Section 100-31A which states: Permitted Uses One Family detached dxvellings, not to exceed one per lot." The proposed building constitutes a second dxvelling unit. Furthermore, the new construction is not permitted pursuant to Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4 B which states:l All buildings located on lots upon which a bulkhead ... exists & which are adiacent to tidal water bodies other than sounds shall be set back not less than 75 feet from the bulkhead. The survey indicates a set back of approximately 40'. ~ Authorized Signature APPLICATION TO TIlE f;/~'I3,THOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS [Fee: $~.,Y~ Filed l~y: ~,~~ Date .Asstgned/Asslg,,ment No. TAPP, R & ELLIS, (P. MOORE) 5555 LT R40 ~TI'"I DEMO COTTAGE & BUILD HOME - BLKHD SB & 2ND DWEL 110-7-11.1 275 W. RD. CUT Z'~N!~ALS Parcel Location: House No. 275 Street West Road Hamlet Cutchogue SCTM 1000 Section 110 Block 07 Lot(s) 11.1 Lot Size Zone District R-40 I (WE) APPEAL THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED: Applicant/Owner(s): Robert Tapp and Nick Ellis Mailing P.O.Box 1064 Cutchogue~ NY [1935 Address: Telephone: 734-4101 Patricia C. Moore Esq. Authorized Representative: 51020 Main Road, Southold NY 11971 Address: Telephone: 765-4330 ~ ~K', 765-4643 Please specify who you wish correspondence ti) be mailed to, from the above listed names: [] Applicant/Owner(s) [~ Authorized Representative [] Other: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED ~_~-d ~/) .~2OD FOR: l~KBuiiding Permit [] Certificate of Occupancy [] Pre-Certificate of Occupancy [] Change of Use [] Permit for As-Built Construction Other: Prnvision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Section, Sabsection and paragraph of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code. Article)O;.IV Section 100-.~/ Subsection .At ~ C.. Xm l l /oo ..- ~3 ~. ~-t ~ Type of'rfp'peal. An Appeal is made for: zao .- 31 · ,~ Iii A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. 0 A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A. 0 Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section__ [] Reversal or Other A prior appeal~ has 0 has not been made with respect to this property tINDER Appeal No, ]/'ear ~7.O9- . ( ~yo,~ {q~,~-~ Reason for Appeal Zoning Board of Appeals re: Tapp/Ellis Continued Pursuant to Town Law section 267b-3 the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals is to analyze and assess the personal benefits anticipated by the applicant against the potentially deleterious effects that a grant of the relief requested would have on the health, safety and welfare of the effected neighborhood or community. In performing this balancing test, the Zoning Board is charged with the responsibility to consider the five factors enumerated in Town Law Section 267b-3(b). The variance should be granted for the following reasons: 1. No uhdesirable change will character of the neighborhood or properties, if the variance is residence was built in 1902 and existing house is located only 1' from the bulkhead). The house be produced in the a detriment to nearby granted. The existing pre-dates zoning. The off of the bank (23+/- has a valid c.o. dated July 5, 1978. The existing residence has been maintained with a new roof, continuous repairs and standard maintenance. Nevertheless, the existing residence required extensive repairs to the foundation which has begun to deteriorate. The architect has recommended replacement of the foundation. The east wall has suffered from water damage and despite many efforts to correct this problem the wall continues to leak. The primitive construction of the original house causes significant mold problems. The bathroom was built later than the original house and the bathroom is separating away from the main structure. The electrical system is antiquated and is dangerous. The hot water heater is 'not ventilated to current code and is a cause of concern. The house continues to "settle" as is evidenced by the doorways which no longer close. To correct these problems will require extensive structural repairs, replacement and investment, consequently the owner was faced with the option of repairing the house in its present condition (with poss. variances for structural repairs to a nonconforming structure) or rebuild under modern building code (i.e. hurricane protection compliance). The reconstruction of the house made the most economic sense. Consequently, the application is to remove the old house and rebuild a similarly sized house away from the bank. This property will be improved with a more conforming structure. The use of a second dwelling is legally existing on the property and will be replaced, in kind. The existing 2 story dwelling footprint is 792 square feet and will be replaced _.with a 2 story dwelling with a footprint that is ~ 986~/~sq.ft. (a 194 sq, ft. difference is due to ~-c~struction standards and reallocation of space for legal stairs) a screened-in covered porch is also proposed but is not habitable space. The sanitary will be moved away from the bank. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can not be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The extensive construction required to bring the existing house into conformity with current building codes necessitates a variance regardless of whether the house is repaired in the same place or replaced and relocated away from the bank. The existing house lacks adequate ceiling heights, the stairs are not to code, the electrical and heating systems are a fire hazards. Public Health, Welfare, and Safety would require the existing house to be made safe (current building code standards) and pushed away from the bank. The existing house could remain indefinitely, it would be repaired to continue in existence. The use will continue (conforming residential use) but the nonconforming second dwelling structure is being made safe. 3. The area variance is not substantial The application of the balancing test weighs in favor of the grant of the variance. The residential use is being replaced, the existing nonconforming structure is being replaced with a more conforming structure. 4. The variance will have no adverse effect on the physical or environmental conditions neighborhood or district. The proposed house more consistent with the neighborhood. or impac~ in the will be 5. The alleged difficulty was not self-created. The conditions of the narrow lot, create the difficulty. 6. The variance requested practicable given the personal the applicant. We respectfully request that together with any further necessary and reasonable. property, topography and is the minimum variance benefits anticipated by the appeal be granted, relief that is deemed COUNTY OF SUFFOLK