Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/04/2004 . -"" ;}. ''V e (;'V-\ APPEALS BOARD 1\tEMBERS Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva. Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 e Lydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959 Vincent Orlando Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio, Jf. Fax (631) 765-9064 bup :.'/southo Idto\\'n. norrhfo rk. net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD . FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 Appl. No. 5492 . TOWBEE, LLC Property Location: 700 Hummel Avenue, Southold; CTM #1000-63-2-30.1. 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 74,052 sq. ft. parcel has frontage along two streets: Hummel Avenue to the north and Boisseau Avenue to the east, in Southold. The widest frontage of the property along Boisseau Avenue is 156.10 feet, and 639.17 feet along Hummel Avenue. The westerly lot line runs 105.05 feet deep to the Long Island Railroad right-of-way. The property and existing buildings are used for warehousing and storage. The property is zoned Light-Industrial (LI). e BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's January 26, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, under Section 100-82A, stating that the bulk schedule allows one use per 40,000 sq. ft., and the use, as proposed, would constitute a second use. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on this application on 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: RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant maintains that the building inspector erred in citing Article VIII, Section 100-82A to deny them a building permit. Section 100-82 A states: "Except as otherwise provided hereon. no buildina or premises shall be used and no buildina or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the LB Districts unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parklna and loadina Schedules incorporated into this chapter bv reference, with the same force and effect as if such reaulatlons were set forth herein full." The Building Inspector further states that the proposed (multiple light industrial) use would constitute a second use. The applicant maintains that this property has had multiple uses continuously since before the inception of zoning in Southold town and therefore qualifies as a pre existing multiple light industrial use. e Page 2 - March 4, 2004 Appeal No. 5492 - Tow Bee LLC CTM 63-2-30.1 REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties, because this property has had multiple light industrial uses since prior to the enactment of the zoning ordinance. According to an affidavit submitted by James H. Rich Jr., the subject property has had In excess of 20 different combinations of uses at varying times since 1920. These uses Include a plumbing contractor, masonry contractor, lumberyard, and landscaping contractor to name Just a few. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant (multiple light industrial use) has existed historically on this property since before zoning. 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial. The property has a previous ZBA approval to upgrade the buildings to allow for uses that are quieter, more attractive, self contained, and conducted inside the buildings. 4. This request will not have an adverse effect or Impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because the property has been used for multiple light industrial uses for many years and the applicant only seeks to continue what has historically existed. BOARD RESOLUTION: Based on the above reasons the Board finds that the basis for the Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval was incorrect. NOW, therefore, on motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, it was RESOLVED, to REVERSE the January 26, 2004 determination of the Building Inspector, finding that the applicant Is not requesting an additional use on this property but merely seeking to continue the multiple light industrial uses that have existed for years. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dlnlzlo. This Resolution WJUIY adopted (5-0). I~~-,;;, ~ RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN 3/5/04 Approved for Filing , , . "\,J' ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall ~ Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 e l.ydia A. Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959 Vincent Orlando Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064 http://southoldtowll.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 ZBA Ref. Variance #5470-V and Special Exception #5471 Applicants/Owners: JOSEPH AND ELIZABETH GORDON Street & Locality: 485 Gardiners Lane, Southold CTM: 70-8-29 Date of Public Hearing: February 26, 2004. 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. The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on these applications on February 26, 2004, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, e documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: REQUESTS MADE BY APPLICANTS: A) The Applicants-Owners request a Special Exception pursuant to Article III, Section 100- 31B, sub-section 13 of the Zoning Code, to establish an Accessory Apartment within the existing principal building. The applicants reside in the dwelling, and the dwelling has a Certificate of Occupancy of record, noted as #Z4622 dated April 28, 1972. B) The Applicants also request a Variance under Section 100-242A and 100-244B, based on the Building Department's November 25, 2003 Notice of Disapprovai, concerning proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling which will be less than 40 feet from the front lot line and less than 50 feet from the rear lot line. C) It is further noted that although the applicants based their Appeai on the Building Department's November 25,2003 Notice of Disapproval, a Variance under Section 100-31A(1) is not necessary to place a second dwelling unit above the garage for the reason that a Special Exception was granted for an Accessory Apartment, and further noted below. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: This property is 21,030.85 sq. It. in area with 175.30 feet along the east side of Gardiner's Lane. The property is improved with the applicants' one-story, single-family residence. New construction is plalJned for alterations and second-floor additions over existing footprint areas as shown on the plins prepared by Penny Lumber dated 8-25-03, e revised 10/1/03. The October 30, 2003 survey prepared by Stanley J. Isaksen, Jr. shows the dwelling at 36.9 feet from the front property line, 51 +- feet from the easterly line, 56.3+- feet lrom the southerly line. at its closest points. . Page 2 - March 4, 2004 SE #5470 and V#35471 - J. and E. Gordon CTM 70-8-29 e FINDINGS OF FACT In considering this application, the Board has reviewed the code requirements set forth pursuant to Article III, Section 100-31B(13) to establish an Accessory Apartment and finds that the applicant complies with the requirements for the reasons noted below: 1. The Accessory Apartment is proposed with a livable area not exceeding 1181 sq. ft., as a second-story over the existing garage and extensions. The Apartment unit will be less than the code's limitation of 40% (at approximately 32% of the existing dwelling livable floor area), based on the size of the principal building footprint (1798+- sq. ft.) and new addition (1181+- sq. ft.). 2. Joseph and Elizabeth Gordon, the applicants herein, have owned and resided at the property since May 25, 1972. Mr. and Mrs. Gordon will continue to occupy the dwelling as a principal residence while the accessory apartment is occupied as a single-family unit. e 3. The applicants' plans comply with the on-site parking requirements and provide for a total of three (3) parking spaces, two for the principal use and one for the Accessory Apartment, utilizing the garage and existing driveway areas. 4. The applicant complies with the requirements of a dwelling unit as defined in Section 100-13 of the Zoning Code. The existing livable first floor is 1426+- sq. ft., the garage is 682+- sq. ft., 372 sq. ft. open extension, and 1181 sq. ft. on the second floor with the new addition. The applicants confirm the floor area of the apartment at 1181 sq. ft. 5. The plans indicate that exterior entry to the Accessory Apartment of the existing one-family dwelling will retain the existing appearance of a one-family dwelling. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION, DESCRIBED BELOW: Based on the testimony, documentation, and other evidence, the Zoning Board determined the follOWing Findings of Fact to be true and relevant: SPECIAL EXCEPTION , 1) The Accessory Apartment, as applied for, is reasonable in relation to the District in which is located, adjacent use districts, and nearby and adjacent residential uses. 2) The Special Exception use is accessory to the principal use and will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties. e 3) This accessory use will not prevent orderly and reasonable uses proposed or existing in adjacent use districts. ;l-"lll~:! ~li-l . Page 3 - March 4. 2004 SE #5470 and V#35471 - J. and E. Gordon CTM 70-8-29 e 4) No evidence has been submitted to show that the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, order of the Town would be adversely affected. 5) This zoning use is authorized by the Zoning Code through the Board of Appeals, as noted herein, and a Certificate for Occupancy from the Building Inspector is a code requirement before an Accessory Apartment may be occupied. 6) No adverse conditions were found after considering items listed under Section 100-263 and 100-264 of the Zoning Code. 7) A Certificate of Compliance or similar document will be necessary for issuance by the Building Inspector certifying that the premises conforms to Ch. 100 of Zoning for an Accessory Apartment use. e AREA VARIANCE 8) Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or be a detriment to nearby properties. Proposed is a two-story addition, over and extending 12.9 ft. at the rear of the existing garage, for a 40.7 ft. rear yard setback and 36.9 ft. front yard setback, at its closest points. 9. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be aChieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, because house was built in its present location more than 30 years ago. The house is only 30.5 feet deep, and the lot is narrow with 115 feet at the north lot line, which greatly constrains the applicants' ability to do any construction without seeking a variance. 10. Although the reduction is 18% of the code's requirement for a 50 ft. rear yard setback, the relief amounts to approximately 390 sq. ft. for an addition on a 21,031 sq. ft. lot. 11. No evidence has been submitted to indicate that the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, or district. 12. The difficulty to construct is not self-created and is related to the narrowness of the parcel. 13. The relief granted is the minimum determined necessary and adequate for enjoyment of an addition to a single family dwelling. while at the same time protecting and preserving the e character of the neighborhood, as well as the heaith, safety. and welfare of the surrounding community. 'P.Ig.!J4~ i - . . Page 4 - March 4, 2004 SE #5470 and V#35471 - J. and E. Gordon CTM 70-8-29 e RESOLUTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to REVERSE the Building Inspector's November 25, 2003 determination with respect to Section 100-31A(1) for the reason that a Variance is not necessary and a Special Exception was granted for an Accessory Apartment, noted below; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to GRANT the Variance as applied for, as shown on the October 30, 2003 survey prepared by Stanley J. Isaksen, Jr., L.S. and Penny Lumber Plans dated 8-25-03, revised 10/1/03, and BE IT FURTHER e RESOLVED, to GRANT the Special Exception application for an Accessory Apartment, to be used only in conjunction with applicant-owner's residence, as applied for, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Owner(s) shall occupy the dwelling as their own principal residence. 2. There shall be no backing out of vehicles onto the street. 3. There shall be a flexible chain ladder properly installed for the upper livable floor area. 4. A Certificate of Occupancy or written compliance document shall be obtained from the Building Department before occupancy of the Accessory Apartment. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). '~f&. gQuv<L RUTH D. OLIVA, CH IRWOMAN 3/5/04 e '1'<'!:l<'-l4-l I I ~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 e Lydia A Tortora Southold, NY 11971-0959 Vincent Orlando Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio. Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064 http:/,/southoldtO\\!n.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 ZBA #5483 - JOHN and JOYCE SAMPIERI Property Location: 1380 Bayberry Road, Cutchogue; CTM #1000-118-2-12. 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 applicants' property consists of 44,615 sq. ft. and is improved by a single-family dwelling and two accessory shed structures, as shown on the July 6, 1996 survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., updated September 28,2003. e BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's December 4, 2003, Notice of Disapproval, citing Sections 1 00-242A and 100-30A.3, in its denial of a building permit application concerning proposed alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at less than 15 ft. on a single side yard. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on 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: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants wish to construct alterations and second-story to an existing single-family dwelling, as shown on the site plan prepared by Busch Associates last- dated 12/18/03. The second-story addition is 1100+- sq. ft., proposed at 7'11" from the south/east side property line, with a proposed ridge height of 257" above grade. The existing shed and concrete pad in this yard area are to be removed; the existing front deck removed and replaced. 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 variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed partial second-story addition will be no closer to the existing side yard. There is substantial spacing, approximately 42 feet, between the applicants' dwelling in the affected side yard area and e the nearest neighbor's dwelling. . . Page 2 - March 4, 2004 ZBA #5483 - J. and J. Sam pieri CTM 1000-118-2-12 at Cutchogue 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance because the applicants wish to build a partial second-story addition over an existing nonconforming setback. Without the variance, the addition would not be possible. 3. The variance granted herein is substantial to the code requirement. However, the second- story addition is over an existing dwelling with a nonconforming side yard setback, and is di minimus in considering all other factors. 4. The alleged difficulty has been self-created. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the relief granted will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicants to enjoy the benefit of a partial second-story addition while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the heath, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all 0 the above and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the site plan prepared by Busch Associates last-dated 12/18/03. 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), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-~l: ( (Q~ \.J uD" r..9. Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 3/8/04 Approved for Filing _".n ___ ___._. ..'-' .. APPEALS BOARD l'"IEMBERS Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 e Lydia A. Tortora SouthoJd, NY 11971-0959 VincenlOrlando Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio, Jr. Fax (631) 765-9064 http:.....iSoutholdtov..'fi.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 Appl. No. 5479 - VERA BAKELAAR Property Location: 45 Booth Place, Greenport; CTM 1000-41-1.21. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is shown as a combined area of 12,000 sq. ft., consisting of Lot Ref. Nos. 44 and 45 on the Map of Washington Heights, filed December 29, 1927 in the Office of the County Clerk. The lot has 100 ft. along the south side of Wilmarth Avenue and 120 feet along the west side of Booth Place, and is improved with a one-story e frame house and detached concrete block garage. as shown on the October 8. 2003 survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., updated December 21,2003. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's January 5, 2004, Notice of Disapproval, citing Section 100-244, in its denial of a building permit application concerning a proposed addition and alterations with a total lot coverage exceeding the code limitation of 20%. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on 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: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a 11'x28'x16'x38' addition at the north side of the existing dwelling, leaving a 12.2 ft. setback from the easterly (front) property line and 53.7 feet from the northerly (front) property line. The lot coverage with the proposed 776 sq. ft. addition is requested at 24 percent (maximum). 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 variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed additions and alterations - are modest in size and will be in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. '\ "'page 'l' - March 4, 2004 Appl. No. 5479 - Vera Bakelaar CTM 1000-41-1-21 at Greenport 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance. The applicant's lot is small, 12,000 sq. ft. The applicant wishes to build the addition for two elderly relatives and provide caregiver and family support. Without the variance, the addition would not be possible. 3. The 24 percent lot coverage variance granted herein is substantial to the code. 4. The alleged difficulty has been self-created. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the relief granted will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of addition and alterations while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the heath, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Dinizio, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on October 8, 2003 map prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., revised December 21,2003. 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), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-01 N. dJDH.-.fl. LJ.,--Q . - Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 317/04 Approved for Filing --- - , APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer P.O. Box 1179 e 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 OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 Appl. No. 5452 - PATRIZIAZANABONI Property Location: 1385 Minnehaha Boulevard, Southold; CTM 87-3-23. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property contains 17,898 sq. ft. with 122.42 ft. along the west side of Minnehaha Boulevard and approximately 127 feet along Opechee Avenue at Laughing Waters, Southold. e BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's August 22, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended February 19, 2004, citing Sections 100-242A and 100-244B, in its denial of a building permit application concerning a new single-family dwelling with a front yard setback at less than 35 feet, after demolishing the existing building. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing 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: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a new dwelling with attached garage, replacing the existing one-story dwelling. The July 3, 2003 site plan, issued 8/8/03 by Architechnologies, shows a front yard setback, at 12'9" and 19'8" variable setbacks from the front line at Minnehaha Boulevard, and 22'5" from the front line at Opechee Avenue for the new two-story dwelling with front porch and attached two-car garage with storage above. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:AMENDED RELIEF: During the January 22, 2004 public hearing, the applicant was requested to increase the setbacks with a possible alternative that would be more conforming to the code's front setback requirement of 40 feet. On February 23, 2004, the applicant submitted a revised plan dated 2-19-04 increasing the front yard setback from the westerly front line at Minnehaha Boulevard from 12'2" (existing) to 22'2" (proposed/new), and increasing the southerly front lot line at Opechee Avenue from 24'5" (existing) to 27'9" from the new, enclosed front porch. e ~ .. , Page 2 - March 4, 2004 Appl. No. 5452- P. Zanaboni CTM 1000-87-3-23 at Southold 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 variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant wishes to demolish an existing single-family dwelling and construct and a new dwelling, located on property with two front yards. The new dwelling will increase the existing front yard setback on Minnehaha Blvd. from 12'9" to 22'9", and from 24'5" to 27'9" on Opechee Avenue, and will therefore be more conforming. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance because the applicant wishes to utilize part of the pre-existing footprint. 3. The variance granted herein is substantial to the code requirement. However, the variance will allow the applicant to construct a new dwelling which is more conforming to the code. 4. The alleged difficulty has been self-created. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the relief granted will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new dwelling while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the heath, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all 0 the above and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Tortora, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried to DENY the variance as applied, and to GRANT alternative relief, as applied for and shown on the revised plan dated 2-19-04 prepared by Architechnologies. 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 . .. ...~ . --.-- 'J. ~ Page 3 - March 4, 2004 Appl. No. 5452- P. Zanaboni CTM 1000-87-3-23 at Southold e addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0)..- .,)~(Q- CWw=cc Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 3/7/04 Approved for Filing e e ~~ 1Y\\'l>\\fFOL.t ~ APPEALS BOAt<D MEt...lBERS II Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva. Chairwoman ~ ~ 53095 Main Road ::0 ~ ~, Gerard P. Goehringer ~ ~A P.O. Box 1179 e Lydia A. Tortora ~ ~' Southold, NY tl971-0959 Vincenl Orlando ~Q. ~~ Tel. 1631) 765-1809 James Dinizio. Jr. '.l. il.,J- Fax (631) 765-9064 ~~ http: southoldto\\'n.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 Appl. #5482 - DARRIN SKREZEC Property Location: 32900 CR 48, Peconic; CTM 74-4-14.3. Zone: Limited Business. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is vacant land, split zoned with 2.7318 acres in the LB Business Zone, and .92 of an acre in the Residential-Office Zone. To the north is a dual lane highway (CR. 48), to the east property owned by the applicant located in the Residential Office (RO) zone district, to the south and west land used for established contracting businesses (auto repair, storage yard). APPLICANT'S REQUESTS/BASIS OF APPLICATION: Applicant initially applied for: (a) an Interpretation under Section 100-81A(6) as to whether or not a landscaping business e is permitted to stock pile landscape materials as an accessory use without the need for a Special Exception, and (b) alternatively, a Special Exception under Section 100-81(B)(2) for a contractor yard. AMENDED REQUEST: During the February 26, 2004 public hearing, the applicant confirmed that he was not able to obtain a written determination from the Building Inspector, and stated that the request for Interpretation was based on several months of attempts to obtain a certification from the Building Department of the site plan in its review under zoning. Since no written determination was available, and the applicant did not want to delay his application to obtain one, the applicant amended his request to pursue a Special Exception as a contractor yard, which also includes outside stockpiling of materials and plantings. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on 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. STANDARDS/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: After review of the requirements set forth pursuant to Chapter 100 governing a contractor yard use by Special Exception review, and on the basis of testimony presented and personal inspection, the Board finds: e 1. A contractor's yard, with wholesale and contracting activities and related outdoor Page 2 - March 4, 2004 Appl. No. 5482 - Oarrin Skrezec CTM 74-4-14.3 e stockpiling, is permitted in this LB Limited Business Zone District under Section 100- 81 B(2) of the Town Zoning Code. subject to special exception authorization of the Zoning Board of Appeals. In this review the Board determines that a contractor's yard related to applicant's new landscaping business use is in harmony with the zoning ordinance and will not adversely affect the neighborhood when meeting the code requirements. 2. In addition, the Board has reviewed the General Standards governing Special Exception uses set forth in Section 100-263 and finds that: A) The use of the property as a contractor's yard and landscaping business and related activities will not prevent the orderly and reasonable in this zone district and adjacent districts. To the north is a dual land highway (C.R. 48), to the east property owned by the applicant located in the Residential Office (RO) zone district, to the south and west land used for established contracting businesses (auto repair, storage yard). e B) This use will not prevent orderly and reasonable use of permitted or legally established uses in the district wherein the proposed use is to be located or of permitted or legally established uses in adjacent use districts. The applicant's property is split zoned with 2.7318 acres in the LB Business Zone, and .92 of an acre in the Residential- Office Zone. To the north is a dual lane highway (C.R. 48), to the east property owned by the applicant located in the Residential Office (RO) zone district, to the south and west land used for established contracting businesses (auto repair, storage yard). C) The safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, and the order of the town will not be adversely affected by the proposed use and its location. D) The use will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes and intent of the code, as it restricted to the 2.7318 acres zoned Limited Business. E) The use is compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regarding to visibility, scale and overall appearance. F) The structures, equipment and material will be accessible for emergency protection. In making this determination, the Board has also reviewed other matters under Section 100-264, and finds that no adverse conditions will result from this authorization: e Page 3 - March 4, 2004 , Appl. No. 5482 - Darrin Skrezec CTM 74-4-14.3 - -. e . A. There will be no adverse change in the character of the existing and probable development of uses in the district and the peculiar suitability of such district for the location of such permitted uses. B. No evidence has been submitted to show that property values will be adversely affected. Adequate screening will be a condition for continuous maintenance by the applicanUowner along the existing tree line bordering the zoning district division line. C. The location of the proposed building and use will not cause traffic congestion on publiC streets, highways and sidewalks. D. There is availability of adequate and proper public or private water supply and facilities for the treatment. removal or discharge of sewage, refuse or other effluent (whether liquid, solid, gaseous or otherwise) as a result of this use. e E. The use or the materials incidental thereto will not give off obnoxious gases, odors, smoke or soot. All outside storage areas must be screened from the street and must be keep in an orderly manner. F. No evidence has been submitted to show that the use will cause disturbing emissions of electrical discharges, dust, light, vibration or noise. G. No evidence has been submitted to show that the operations as a contactor yard will cause undue interference with the orderly enjoyment by the public of parking or of recreational facilities, existing or proposed by the town or by other competent governmental agencies. H. Off-street parking of vehicles incidental to the use is reasonably adequate and appropriate, and is subject to approval of the Southold Town Planning Board under the site plan regulations. I. There is no evidence to show that there will be any hazard to life, limb or property because of fire, flood, erosion or panic by reason of or as a result of the use or by the building to be used, or by the accessibility of the property or structures thereon for the convenient entry and operation of fire and other emergency apparatus. There will not be undue concentration or assemblage of persons upon such plot in the operations as a landscaping buSiness. J. The use and the building location will not cause an overcrowding of land or undue e concentration of population. Page 4 - March 4, 2004 . Appl. No. 5482 - Darrin Skrezec CTM 74-4-14.3 e . . , K. The plot area has been deemed sufficient, appropriate and adequate for this use. L. The use is not unreasonably near a school, theater, recreational area or other place of public assembly. M. This LB Business zoned site is suitable for a contractor's yard and related uses considering its size pf 2.7+ acres and character of the neighborhood. N. Concerns with respect to outside storage of debris have been addressed as noted in the Conditions of this Special Exception. No other evidence has been presented to show that there would be any detrimental impact to adjacent properties and land uses. O. Adequate provisions have been made for the collection and disposal of storm-water runoff, sewage, refuse, solid, and liquid waste. There are no known gaseous wastes to be generated from this project. e P. The natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes and without risk of pollution to groundwater and surface waters on and off the site. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carried, to GRANT the Special Exception for a contractor yard, as applied for and shown on the map prepared by John C. Ehlers, L.S. surveyed 8-29-00, amended 1-6-04, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. Existing line of trees along the Zone District division line between the LB and RO Zone shall be maintained in good condition. 2. Applicant-owner to be sensitive when planning for future construction on the adjacent RO Zoned portion of the property, for the purpose of maintaining existing trees to the best of his ability. 3. Applicant-owner shall screen the outside storage bins from view, at the e Page 5 - March 4, 2004 Appl. No. 5482 - Oarr;n Skrezec CTM 74-4-14.3 e yards open to C.R. 48, with evergreen plantings. 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), Goehringer, Tortora. Orlando and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly ad:r:' --l,&(\~ Ruth D. Oliva. Chairwoman - Approved for Filing 3/8/04 e e t .~ ~"" '. . ,,'\l ~\PPEA.lS BOARD 1\IEMBERS Sourhold Town Hall ,,' RUlh D. Oliva. Chairwoman ~ ~, 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer a - ~ P.O. Box 1179 en ~ e lvdia A. Tortora ~ ~ Sourhold, NY 11971-0959 Vincent Orlando ~O. ~~, Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio. Jr. rt. ~-,j- Fax (631) 765-9064 http:,/isoutholdto\\'n.northfork.He( BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 ZBA No. 5488 - LUKE and RITA L1CALZI Property Location: 2105 Calves Neck Road, Southold; CTM 70-4-46.1. 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 applicants' 58,518 sq. ft. (1.343 acre) parcel is located along the east side of Calves Neck Road in Southold. The lot is improved with a 1-1/2 story frame house, detached garage, accessory pool house structure, and accessory swimming pool as shown on the September 7, 2000 survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S., revised 10/24/03. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's December 8, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, amended e February 6, 2004, citing Sections 100-244 and 100-33C, in its denial of a building permit application concerning an "as built" accessory swimming pool located at less than the code-required 50 feet from the front lot line on this waterfront parcel and a detached frame pool storage house located in a side yard rather than the code required rear or front yard for this waterfront parcel. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on 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: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants obtained a building permit (renewed #28313-Z) and constructed an in-ground swimming pool as shown on the October 24, 2003 survey (required for the issuance of a certificate of occupancy by the Building Department). The survey confirms the setback of the pool at 49 feet instead of the code-required 50 feet from the front property line. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: During The February 26, 2004 hearing, the applicant indicated that he is trying to obtain a determination from the Building Department that the pool house is preexisting Certificate of Occupancy, and as of the hearing, the question was not resolved between the applicant and the Building Inspector. The applicant indicated that plumbing and other alterations were also added to the pool house by a previous owner. At the February 26, 2003 meeting, the applicant confirmed that he wished to pursue the poolhouse status separately in order to prevent any delay in obtaining a Certificate of Occupancy for the swimming pool. (No action was taken by the Board in any respect to the pool house building for the reason that additional information may be necessary to obtain further reviews by the Building Department, separately.) - REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: I .; Page 2 - March 4, 2004 ZBA #5488 - Luke and Rita licalzi CTM 1000-70-4-46.1 e 1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The "as built", built in swimming pool is permitted in the front yard of waterfront parcels. The applicant was issued a permit for the pool, which met all the required setbacks at the time of the application to build. After the project was built, the applicant furnished a construction survey dated October 24, 2003 showing the swimming pool was one foot too close to the front lot line, with a 49-foot front yard setback. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. A swimming pool is a permitted accessory use in a front yard on waterfront parcels. The swimming pool, after excavation that was larger than necessary, is in a location "as built" one foot closer to the road than the code permitted. 3. The requested area variance is minimal and represents a one foot reduction in the current code requirement of 50 feet for the front yard setback. e 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant's built the SWimming pool closer to the road than the building permit authorized. 5. Grant of the relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicants to enjoy the benefit of a swimming pool, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the survey prepared October 24, 2003 by Joseph A. Ingegno, L.S. subject to the following condition: The structure shall remain open to the sky. 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), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-~ ... Ll'M ty. ~~ Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 3/9/04 Approved for Filing e I ~':.! -Q , 11 ~' APPEALS BOARD MH-IBERS Southold Town Hall , ~ ~ 53095 l\!ain Road Ruth D. Oliva. Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringcr ~ ~H P.O. Box 1179 e Lydia A. Tortora ~. ~ Southold, NY 11971-0959 Vincent Orlando ~Q '{o~ Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio. Jr. ~.i'. Fox (631) 765-9064 http:........southoldHnvn.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 ZBA #5485 - MATTITUCK FIRE DISTRICT Property Location: 1000 Pike Street, Mattituck; CTM 1000-140-3-11.1. 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 59,935 sq. ft. (1.3097 acre) lot is a corner lot with 306.75 feet along the south side of Pike Street and 199.10 feet along the west side of Wickham Avenue in Mattituck. The property is improved with a one and two story brick firehouse, office building, and one-story frame garage, as shown on the July 5, 1994 survey, revised January 16, 2004 by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's, January 2, 2004 Notice of Disapproval, amended e January 16, 2004, Notice of Disapproval, citing Sections 100-92 and 100-33B(3), in its denial of a building permit application concerning a proposed addition with a front yard setback at less than 15 feet, and concerning a proposed annex building at less than five feet from the side and rear lot lines. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on 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: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct an 376 sq. ft. radio room at the front of the existing fire house and a new 2,762 sq. ft. garage/storage annex building. The radio room is proposed at 22'4" at its widest point and 26' at its deepest point, with a minimum 10 ft. setback from the front line along Pike Street. The height of the one-story addition is proposed at 17'8" from grade. The 24'2" high accessory garage/storage annex building is proposed in the southwest corner of the property set back a minimum of five (5) feet at its closest point to the southerly and westerly lot lines. 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 will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because the firehouse has existed for many years and has been expanded upon to serve the growing needs of the community. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant e to pursue, other than an area variance because the applicant has demonstrated that the addition of the Page 2 - March 4, 2004 - ZB,c, #5485 - Mattituck Fire District CTM 1000-140-3-11.1 It radio room will enhance the safety of the fire trucks leaving during emergencies. The enlargement of the storage building will allow for a more orderly storage of apparatus on the property. 3. The variance granted herein is substantial. The required front yard setback for the radio room is a 5 f1. reduction of the code required 15 ft minimum. The required rear yard setback for the storage annex building is a 5 feet reduction of the code required 10 feet minimum. 4. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Grant of the relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of the additions, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborbood and the health, safety and welfare ofthe community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Dinizio, seconded by Member e Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT the variances as applied for, as shown on the maps (ASP-1, A-1-3) prepared 7-21-03, revised 1-16-04 by Frank G. Relf, Architect, P.C. 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), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (S-O).~ ' . . Q.0J~ Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 3/9/04 Approved for Filing e I , ~ " ~ ~\)ffOl.t t'~ APPE.-\LS BOARD t\lEt\lBERS II Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oli"a. Chairwoman ~ ~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer 5 ~~ P.O. Box 1179 rn :e# e Lydia A, Tortora ~ ~ Southold, NY 1l971-0959 \'incent O,-Iando +"'Q- ~~! Tel. (631) 765-1809 James Dinizio. Jr. ~. i' Fax (631) 765-906'+ http: :sollrholdtown.nonhfork.nl'[ BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 ZBA #5477 - JOHN and VIVIAN HINTON Property Location: 515 Horseshoe Drive, Cutchogue; CTM 1000-95-4-18.27. 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 41,893 sq. ft. lot has 150 ft. frontage along Horseshoe Drive, and is shown as Lot 27 on the Map of Oregon View Estates, Cutchogue. The property is improved with a one-story frame dwelling with deck and above-ground swimming pool behind the house, and a detached accessory shed in the rear yard, shown on the October 8, 2003 survey prepared by Robert B. Holzman, L.S. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's May 8, 2003, Notice of Disapproval, citing Section e 100-33, in its denial of a building permit application concerning the location of a swimming pool in a side yard instead of the code-required rear yard, after the as-built deck was added to the dwelling. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on 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: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The relief requested is for the location of an above-ground swimming pool, 26 ft. in diameter, as built in a location along the side of the deck, behind the dwelling. The pool is at least 51 feet from the west side lot line, at least 165 feet from the rear line, and at least 70 feet from the east side yard. The April 19, 2003 plans prepared by Penny Lumber show the above- ground pool built into the side of the deck. 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 undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The as-built" deck, built after the above ground swimming pool permit was issued, which measures 20 feet 2 inches by 24 feet 2 inches and is attached to the principal dwelling, shown on the October 8, 2003 map prepared by Robert Holzman, Land Surveyor. Since the deck extends past the pool, the pool was determined to be in the side yard. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to e pursue, other than an area variance. Since both structures are existing, as built on the applicant P~'l9 2 - ,March 4, 2004 ZBA #54TT - John and Vivian Hinton CTM 1000-95-4-18.27 at Cutchogue property, it would be a financial hardship for the owner to dismantle the pool and move it behind the deck several feet. 3. The requested area variance is minimal for the location of the pool in this application. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant built the deck after receiving a building permit for the above ground pool, without knowing the pool would be in the side yard with the construction of the deck in its present location. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this community of single-family dwellings 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 applicants to enjoy the benefit of a swimming pool, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the October 8, 2003 survey prepared by Robert B. Holzman, L.S. 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), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (S-OJ, _ J ~ f1. ~.l.J-..Q . Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 3/11/04 Approved for Filing .. 1o:t"'"~~ . ~'itUFFOl.t tJ~ APPEALS BOA.RD MEI\IBERS ~.~~ Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oli\'a, Chairwoman g ~~. 5."1095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer rn ""'~ P.O. Box 11 79 e Lydia A. Tortora ~ ~,1 SOlllhoid. NY 11971-0959 VincenlOrlando ~ · ~-II Tel. (630 765-1809 James Dinizio, Jr. ~~t Fa, (63 I) 765-906..1 hnp:, snutholdtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOVTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 ZBA No. 5480 - JOHN SCOTT and SANDRA TUFFY Property Location: 31025 Main Road, Cutchogue; CTM 102-2-23.4 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 43.2548 acre parcel has 370 feet along the north side of the Main Road in Cutchogue, and is improved with a two-story, single-family dwelling and barns as shown on the October 28, 2003 survey, amended November 11, 2003 by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's November 17, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing Section 100-30A.3 in its denial of a building permit application concerning proposed addition at less e than 50 feet from the front lot line. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on 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: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct two additions at the front of their existing dwelling. The addition is proposed to extend 18 feet at the west side of the dwelling leaving a 28+- ft. front setback; the easterly 18 ft. extension is proposed with a 43+- feet front setback. Both side yard setbacks will be conforming to code. 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 undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed new additions at both sides of the existing dwelling measure approximately 18 feet by 20 feet each. The additions will be single story, and will have a 28.9 ft. and 43+- feet from the closest respective front lot lines. The proposed setbacks are greater than the established 21.9 ft. setback of the existing house at its closest point. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The dwelling has remained in its present nonconforming location for many years, with a setback of 21.9 feet. e - P"Il9 2 - March 4, 2004 ZBA #5480 - John Scott and S. Tully CTM 1000-102-2-23.4 at Cutchogue 3. The variance granted herein is not substantial and provides a greater setback than that which exists. 4. The difficulty is related to the placement of the dwelling many years ago with a nonconforming setback of 21.9 feet from the front property line. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this community of mixed uses (agricultural, residential and business) 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 additions to the dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE SOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-S, motion was offered by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the October 28, 2003 survey, amended November 11, 2003 by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. and diagrams submitted 1/6/2004, prepared by James J. Deerkoski, P.E. 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 Soard: Ayes: Members Oliva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0)'0 . ~,~ .G\l\JIUr Ruth D. Oliva, C airwoman 3/11/04 Approved for Filing . AFPEALS BO:\RD MEMBERS a~"'?""''' Southold Town Hall .~ Ruth D. Oliva. Chailwoman ~ ~~ 53095 Main Road Gerard P. Goehringer C) =-' ~, P.O. Box 1179 ..... :a, !i e L\'dia A. Tortora ~. ~~y Southold, NY 11971-0959 \'incent Orlando ~~Q ~r:::,'t-~+ Tel. (631) 765-1809 JJmes Dinlzio, Jr. ~y Fax (fi31) 765-9tJM http: ~OLl[ho!d[o\\'n.nonhfurk.J1t't BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 ZBA #5481 - CHRISTOPHER DURKIN Property Location: 5779 Westphalia Road, Mattituck; Parcel 113-12-7. SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment if the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicant's 87,470.50 sq. ft. (two-acre) lot has 220.32 ft. frontage along a 15 ft. wide right-of-way which extends off the east side of Westphalia Road in Mattituck. The parcel is improved with a single-family, two story frame dwelling, shown on the May 10, 2001 survey prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's November 25, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing Section 100-33, in its denial of a building permit application concerning a proposed accessory garage e exceeding the code limitation of 18 feet. The disapproval determination shows a proposed height at +- 21 feet. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on 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: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a detached, accessory frame garage at 20 feet from the easterly side line and 112 feet from the northerly rear line. The relief requested was for a garage at 21 feet mean height, instead of the code limitation for 18 feet from grade. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:AMENDED RELIEF: During the February 26, 2004 public hearing, the applicant was requested to reduce the height for a possible alternative plan that would be more conforming to the code's 18 ft. mean height limitation. On March 1,2004, the applicants submitted a revised alternative plan showing a proposed mean height at a maximum of 19 feet from grade. 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 will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because the proposed garage/ storage building will be located on a 87,470.5 sq. ft. residential lot in a neighborhood of similar size parcels. - 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because the applicant seeks to build a structure large enough Page 2 - March 4, 2004 ZBA #5481 - C. and D. Durkin . CTM-1000-113-12-7 to store accumulated items of family members. An alternative to building a single structure could be building two storage structures of smaller size. However, a single building will be less costly and will serve the needs both the applicant and the neighborhood. 3. The alternative relief is not substantial. The requested height for this accessory structure results in a one-foot reduction of the code required 18 feet maximum, requesting a mean height of 19 feet. 4. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Grant of the relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an accessory garage/storage building, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Dinizio, seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, to DENY the relief requested for a 21 ft. mean height, and to GRANT alternative relief for a 19 ft. maximum mean height from grade, as applied for, and as shown on the amended March 1, 2004 plan prepared by M. Hand and map prepared May 10, 2001 by Kenneth M. Woychuk, Land Surveyor, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. There shall be no water and no heat. 2. The utility of electric is permitted. 3. There shall be no sleeping or habitable use, or other unauthorized use. 4. The Board reserves the right to inspect the premises for compliance with these conditions. 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), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (S~ d~ ,dJ Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 3/11/04 Approved for Filing . " ~~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Southold Town Hall Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman #~.'\ 5~iN5 Main Road :::. ", Gerard P. Goehringer I::) . 8 P.O. Box 1179 en 'Je~ e Lydia A. Torlora ~.. ~, Southold. NY 11'171-0'159 \'incent Orlando ~Q ~o/ Tel. i6311 765-1809 James Dinizio. Jr. './. 1'1.", Fax (6~1) 765-'1064 Imp: 'S011tholdwwn.northfllrk.nl't BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 4, 2004 ZBA No. 5490 - STEPHEN PISACANO Property Location: 16155 C.R. 48, Cutchogue; CTM 101-1-15.1. 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 FACTSIDESCRIPTlON: The applicant's 22,446.51 sq. fl. lot has 124.14 ft. frontage along the north side of County Road 49 (a/k/a Middle Road) and is 186.79 deep. The lot is improved with a 1-1/2 story frame house and accessory frame shed. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's December 26, 2003 Notice of Disapproval, citing Sections 100-242A and 100-244B, in its denial of a building permit application concerning proposed additions and alterations at less than 40 feet from the front lot line. e FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on 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: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a proposed two-story addition extending 12 ft. and 14 fl. from the west side of the existing dwelling, maintaining the existing dwelling's 25.8 ft. setback from the front lot line. 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 will not produce an undesirable change in character of neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The existing dwelling is 25.8 feet from the front lot line and existed in this nonconforming location for many years. This front setback was created when County Road 48 was widened as a dual lane highway, and leaves no alternative for the applicant. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The same setback as existed for many years will be maintained. 3. The degree of the requested area variance is the minimum the Board would approve, since this is a design squaring off the front of the existing dwelling without encroaching any closer to the front property line. The proposed two-story addition will only 1 +- fl. above the existing ridge of the present - roofline of the home. . > Page 2 - March 4, 2004 ZBA #5490 - Stephen Pisacano CTM 1000-101-1-15.1 at Cutchogue 4. The difficulty is related to the location of the dual lane highway and location of the house with its nonconforming front yard. 5. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an addition, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the map prepared January 2, 2004 by Joseph A. Ingegno. L.S. 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), Goehringer, Tortora, Orlando, and Dinizio. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-~, ',', _ ..~.~ Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 3/11/04 Approved for Filing