HomeMy WebLinkAbout5753
C2~-i~" n___ ...:>- n
l/)J~~O+~
.J.. 1t757J,''lOD, ".... /!
1i-~""'7s5 (J~ ~CJ.s ~
~--6^ i&k
;J# 1!J?!lJj . OV'; /D/rXO/{J!; It 1q/;71/tJ6
-#JB.B7 ~md .
" . I r:' \ &:' of. ,_ " / lp I /
rJ!:T :::7-...,.. ~~i (Pi, .!JIO
/17
10
I
'.
"
..
'I>
~\.
te //7
J2~-iF'____. ...~---n--.---- .../<2.
Vl./.J~O+ ~ I
}JJ>>J ~
-Ir:/) 7J f1/ 0 i)
11- .1- )J:5 ^~ ... j .J .'.- ~ ~ '}o$ 6>-..---
.-z::~~
;tJ?'I pfc?/o;4; /O!c<ok6 It 1Z}621//)6
.'
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Ruth D. Oliva. Chairwoman
Gerard R Goehringer
Vincent Orlando
James Dinizio. Jn
Michael A. Simon
Southold lro,,vn Hall
53095 Main Road · RO. Box l 179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
Office Location:
Town Annex/First Floor. Noah Fork Bank
54375 Main Road lat Youngs Axenue)
Southold. Nh' 11971
http://southoldtown.noah fork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel. t631 } 765-1809 ° Fax (631) 765-9064
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION ' .' o~ C~r~
MEETING OF OCTOBER 27, 2005
ZBA No. 5753 - Anne Pollio and Kimogenor Point Company, by Benedict J. Pollio, Attorney-In-Fact
Property Location: 445 Kimogenor Point Road, New Suffolk CTM 117-10-1
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: Co-applicant, Kimogenor Point Company, is a cooperative and owner of
premises, which includes Parcel 3, improved with the co-applicant, Anne Polfio's single-family dwelling owned
and occupied under a proprietary and Perpetual Lease, and shown on the November 2, 2000 survey prepared
by Joseph A. Ingegno, land surveyor. Adjacent are Parcels 1 and 2, also in the name of Kimogenor Point
Company, improved and shown on the 6/16/82 survey, amended by Otto W. VanTuyl & Son, made for
Kimogenor Point Company of the entire 7.2+- acres.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's March 22, 2005 Notice of Disapproval, citing Section 100-31
in its denial of an application for a building permit to construct a proposed addition o an existing single-family
dwelling. The reason stated by the Building Inspector in the disapproval is that the construction is proposed on
a lot that is improved with several single-family dwellings and other structures, citing Section 100-31A which
reads:
'In the AC, R...Districts, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a building shall be
erected or altered for any uses except the following:
A. Permitted uses. (1) One-family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot.'
FINDINGS OF FACT
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on August 18, 2005 and October 20,
2005 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: The applicants wish to construct additions to a single-family, two-story
dwelling, as shown on the plot plan prepared May 18, 2005 by Boulevard Planning East, P.C. The single-story
addition is proposed to be a family room, 16.6' by 21.5 feet in size, located at the northeast corner of the
dwelling, 22.6 feet from the closest (easterly) lot line.
Page 2 - October 27, 2005
ZB File Ref. 5753 - Anne Polrio;
CTM 117-10-1
Company
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 because the structure proposed is not substantially altering the existing building
on the same location. The use of the building is not being altered, and will remain as a single-family dwelling in
the same location. The scale and character of the addition will keep the dwelling within the harmony of the
properties surrounding the house and the adjacent neighborhood.
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 subject dwelling is located on a lot that is owned co-
operatively with many other homeowners on the same lot. If the applicant were required to build an addition to
conform to the strict regulation of the code for one dwelling on a lot, only one dwelling would be permitted,
resulting in removal of dwellings off the property. Aisc, the addition does not change the single-family dwelling
use of the applicant's building.
3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. The addition is for a family room, and not a proposal to
create another dwelling or to substantially increase dwelling density.
4. The difficulty has not been self-created. This development has existed for many years before zoning, and it
was the adoption of a zoning plan and regulations that created nonconformities to the property with the
dwelling structures on it as a single lot.
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 the requested 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 Dinizio, seconded by Chairwoman Oliva, and duly
carried, to
GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the plot and elevation plans prepared May 18, 2005
by Boulevard Planning East, 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, Dinizio, and Simon.
was absent.) This Resolution was d~4-~ Q~,~
Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman 11/4/05
Approved for Filing
(Member Orlando
/,.
0
0
LEGAL NOTICE
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING
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 Thursday, October 20, 2005, at the time noted below (or as soon thereafter as
possible):
9:30 a.m. BENEDICT POLLIO #5753. Request for a Variance, based on the Building Department's
March 22, 2005 Notice of Disapproval concerning an addition to an existing dwelling. The reason for
disapproval is that Section 100-31A states that "no building or premises shall be erected or altered
which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, for any uses except ... (1) One-
family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot. The new construction is proposed
on a lot which contains more than one dwelling. Location of Property: 445 Kimogenor Point Road, New
Suffolk; CTM 117-10-1.
The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard 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 at 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue),
Southold before the date of the hearing. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call (631)
765-1509.
Dated: September 29, 2005.
BY ORDER OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN
By Linda Kowalski
FORM NO. 3
NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL
DATE: March 22, 2005
TO:
Rob Lei:men for
Benedict Pollio
32645 Main Rd.
Cutchogue, NY 11935
Please take notice that 3'our application dated March 10, 2005
For permit for an additiowaheration to an existing single family dwelling at
Location of property: 445 Kimogenor Point, New Suffolk
County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 117 Block 10 Lot l
Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following ~ounds:
The proposed construction, on a property in the R40 zone is not pernfitted pursuant to
Article III Section 100-31 which states:
"In AC, R... Districts, no building or premises shall be used and no building or part of a
building shall be erected or altered which is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in
whole or in part, for an,/uses except the following:
A. Permitted uses.
(1) One family detached dwellings, not to exceed one dwelling on each lot."
The construction is proposed on a lot with more than one dwelling.
Authorized Signature
APPLICATION T~IE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD ~ PPEALS
Fo, Off,,', 0,,0' F1FCg
Fee: $ Filed By:. Date Assigned/Assignmen! N
orn~ ~o~e~:_ JUL - 6
70NING BOARD OF APPEALS
Parcel Location: House No.q~' Street ~/naa~-er~/"
SCTM 1000 Section ] ] ~ Block~_Lot(s) ] Lot Size
flg~ Hamlet
Zone District
I (WE) APPEAL THE Vv~ITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
DATED: /~ ~ rg~ ~, ~O0 $-
Mailing
· / 5' /u 35-
Address:
Telephone:
NOTE: I f applicant is nol ~he owner, state if applicant is owner's aOorne), agen~uilder. ¢ont rac~ vendee, etc.
Authorized Representative:
Address:
Telephone:
Please specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above listed names:
/~Applicant/Owner(s) [] Authorized [] Other:
Representative
WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DENIED AN APPLICATION DATED ~'~'~
FOR:
)f~Building Pernfit
[] Certificate of Occupancy [] Pre-Certificate of Occupancy
[] Change of Use
[] Permit for As-Built Construction
Other:
Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. Indicate Article, Section, Subsection and paragraph
of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code.
Article ~ Section 100- ~l Subsection
Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for:
~A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map.
[] A Variance due to lack of access required by New York Town Law-Section 280-A.
[] Interpretation of the Town Code, Article Section
[] Reversal or Other
A prior appeal [] has J~'has not been made with respect to this property UNDER Appeal
No. Year
Boulevard Planning East, PC.
Architects · Engineers · Construction Management
32645 Main Road
Cutchogue. N.Y. 11935
PHONE: 631.734.201 I
Internet: w~v.blvdplan.com
Re: Response to ZBA Application Questions
June 30, 2005
Question # 1:
The applicant cannot realize a reasonable return due to the following:
At the time of the purchase of the property, the property was part of a co-op of houses on one piece
of land. This existing structure was already converted, and permits were issued on this project in 2000.
and not executed. We are seeking to enlarge the subject structure, which is conforming to all existing
zoning regulations as pertain to setbacks and lot coverage.
Question # 2:
The hardship relating to this subject property is unique in that the variance that we are asking for is
one that has to do with a situation where more than one house is sitting on a property, that is owned in a
co-operative.
Question # 3:
This hardship applies to the entire neighborhood, since it falls within the same subject parcel.
Question # 4:
This request will not alter the character of the neighborhood in the following ways. The use that
we are asking for is one that has precedent in the neighborhood. The structure proposed is not altering
substantially' the existing building on the same location. The scale and character of the proposed
building will be in harmony with both the surrounding neighbors, and the surrounding neighborhood.
Question # 5:
The hardship has not been self-created because we have a precedent of past permits, and
completed projects on the same subject structure.
Question # 6:
This request is the minimum necessary' primarily because we are asking for a use variance, not a
setback variance. The use is both in conformance and customary' in the neighborhood where the
project is located. Both the existing and proposed buildings conform to all of the setbacks and lot
coverage requirements.
Question # 7:
The spirit of the ordinance will be observed, and the public safety secured by the granting of this
variance due to the fact that the use we are asking for is a customary use in the subject neighborhood,
and will only enhance the property while keeping the construction in the scale and character of the
neighborhood.
Page 3 of 3 - Appeal Application
part B: REASONS FOR USE VARIANCE fif reauested):
For Each and Every Permitted Use under the Zoning Regulations for the Particular District Where
the Project is Located (please consult yobr attorney before completing):
1. Applicant cannot realize a reasonable return for each and every permitted use under the
zoning regulations for the particular district where the property is located, demonstrated by
competent financial evidence. The applicant CANNOT realize a REASONABLE RETURN because:
(describe on a separate sheet).
2. The alleged hardship relating fo the properly Is unique because:
3. The alleged hardship does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood
because:
4. The request will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because:
5. The alleged hardship has not been self-created because:
6. This Is the minimum relief necessary, while at the same time preserving and protecting the
character of the neighborhood, and the health, safely and welfare of the community. (Please
explain on a separate sheet if necessary.)
7. The spirit of the ordinance will be observed, public safely and welfare will be secured, and
substantial Justice will be done because: (Please explain on a separate sheet If necessary.)
( ) Check this box and complete PART A, Questions on previous page to apply AREA
VARIANCE STANDARDS, (Please consult your attorney.) Otherwse, please proceed fo the
signature and notary area below.
Sworn to before me thi[~-, .'. ":,+~,~ -,
day of ........... :..:....?~.":!:~ ~.
(Notary ~ublf~~~~° ~
~~~~~~ A~ Agent
(Agent must submit Authorization ~rom Owner)
ZBA App 9/30/02
,A. pplicant(s)'
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
(Please include with Z.B.A. Application)
If building is existing and alterations/additions/renovations are proposed.'
A. Please give the dimensions and ov6rall square footage of extensions beyond existing building:
Dimensions/size: I ~t ~ ' ~ ~ I, ~q ~
Square footage: 3'~,~, ~ ~ ~
B. Please give the dimensions and square footage of new proposed foundation areas which do not
extend beyond the existing building: . ~
DimensionS/size: A~r~
Square footage:
II. If landis vacant:
Please give dimensions ,re'rtl overall square footage of new construction:
Dimension/size:
Square iZ3otage:_
Fleigh!:.
1151. Pu, pose and use of new construction requested in this application:
IV. Additional haformation about the surronnding contours or nearby buildings that relate to the difficulty
in meeting the code reqnirement(s):
V. Please submit seven (7) photos/sets after staking comers of the proposed new constnlction.
7/02
Please note: Further changes, after submitting the above inJbrmarion, must be placed in ~vriting arid may
require a ne*v Notice of Disapproval to sho*v changes to the initial plans. If adttitional time is needed,
please contact our oJfice, or please check with Building Department (765-I$02) ~r ~4ppeals Department
(765-i809) {£3'ou are not sw'e. Fhank ),ol~.
ex. ex.. ~ I...t- ,,"-" /r"---~ <- I-~" - - .J
____L...I2l::!.A.Y:-:lo.TrVT"rClO.- ____ _ -:Jj------ __~_.._
!"fo)lL distance from th:6;n dwelling ad
~sf: any #and all lawful ono feetinste~ required tn
iVjlies:. . 20 feet. a,
is'llWidesignated as ,LgeIllof 8: 15 p.m., prevailiIlg ,time, ,
,(;,.upon' whom 'Jll'OCess AppeatNo. 05-101, Appeal of 1'1
!mSt..it.may,be servoo.SSNY Daniell Calabro, 705 Roanoke .ti
IIWmailcopyQfprocesstO: Avenue, .Riverhead, New York R,
,6 Carleton Avenue for a variance to Chapter 108, 21
0/stIs!:ip"NY1I730; . Section 108_51 .of the Code of C
fJK,9129;10/6,10f13,'10/20, the Town of River head, :request- a
10/27, H/3105 (ell 7) inl;l permission, to reinstate the fc
))IWIl<t(;~),. pnor, u~e. of a. food Pi
~JliIi\t'to Section'.67 of !he marketldelilr.rocery storL . b~
\\Io;.bw, a Publ.c. Heanng All ap"ea s adJourned. to this
l~~e. held by the .:/!oning ~te will be heard pnor to those S
'~M;AppealsoftheTownof hsted above. . . C
~head; Suffolk County, New Any persou deSlfmg to be Sl
rk'ol1 Ociober 13 2005 at the heard on the above. m<:nl1oned il
~erhead Town' Hall, 200 appeals should appear at the "
IW. ell Avenue Riv.erhead speCIfied t.me and p.l.ace, e
.. , ,. .' MARTIN KELLER fHAIR- I
"" ~'borkl not befohre fthteh t~mle MAN ZONING BOARD OF S
}wn e ow on eac 0 e ,0 - , APPEALS
.mg appeals:
':45 p.m., prcvailing time, IX 10/6/05 (H9)
>peal No. 05-95, Appeal of NOTICE OF FORMATION
LlogE..o & Joann Caruso, 3 OF LIMITED LIABILITY
igeon Court, Riverhead, New COMPANY. NAME: RGJ
,rkfor a variance to Chapter REALTY LLC. Artides of
8, Section. 108-20.3 of the Organization were filed with the
,de of the Town of Riverhead, Secretary of State of N "w York
luesting.permission to erect a (SSNY) on 09/22/05. Office
imming pool having a side location: Suffolk County. SSNY
cd abutting a side street of 20 has been designated as agent of
,t instead of the required 60 the LLC upon whom process
,t. against it may be served. SSNY
7::50. p,m., prevailing time, shall mail a copy of process to
'"eal No, 05-96, Appeal of the LLC. c/o John R.
n & Donna La: Valle, 46 Little Montecalvo, Post Omce Box
.yRoad, W~gRiver, New 460, Speonk, New York 11972.
,rW'/brVariances l() Chapter Pmpose: For any law!,,1 pur-
~;S"ctionl1)8~17 of the Code pose.
. thE' Town of, Riverhead, 6X 10/6, 10/13, 10/20, 10127,
jll~~g permis~ion toerect a IlI3, 11110/05 (120)
oI'liaving a rear yard depth of NOTICE
f'e~tin~tead of the reqiiired 20 Pebble Beach Farms Lot
~t m;ada shed havtng a r7ar Owners Association East
rodepth of 10 feet ~d a SIde Marion New York 11939 will
:dWl~tb of 5 feet mstead of close. its {oads from Tuesday,
, reqmred 20 reet eac.h and 3 OctOber II. at 8:00 a.m. until
;t fr~m a proposed pool Wednesday, October 12, 2005 at
;~eadofthe requrre<!.II~ feet. 8:00a.m. The road closing will
..55 p.m., p~evallml, l1me, be supervised.
''peal.'t'0.OS-97, Ap~eal of IX 10/6/2005 (121)
n'1,~rt 8e Tom Fahs., 321
illi!'ms Way,Baiting~ Hollow, NOTICE OF PUBI[J!;;
,w'York for a vanance to HEARING
lapter'108, Section 108-26.2 TOWN OF RIVERHEAD
the Code of the Town of COMMUNITY DEVEWf::
ve~l!ead; requesting' pennis- MENT AGENCY
,,,.to.~lter'a dWellini'Sothat TOWN OF RIVERHEAD.
,ftollt y:ird depth w1l1 be 35 SUFFOLK COUNTY NEW
,t'iri.iead of the requil;jJd 40 YQBK
l,t . NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
~;gR;l'.m" p~evailing time., th!'t the Members of the Town of
'1J?:eal'No, . OS'98, Appeal of . R.verhead Community
Wi:'<!l:Ma~Valente, 19 Pve Development Agency, Town of
~e;."J. fun., espo.rt, Ne.w.'.YOrk to. r Riverhead, Suffolk County, New
fll1llC'eS to. .Chapter 108, York (the "Agency"), will meet
,ctim;t lIl8-14.2 of the Code of at the Town of Riverhead Town
,'fown "fRivemead,);equest- Hall, 200 Howell Avenue, in
~, ~~~j9n to denjolish an Riverhead, New York, in said
lSl!llg'7s!d"l1ge . iID4' erect a Town, on October 18, 2005 at
w,<>ne.1ia~g sideyardi widths 7:20 P.M., Prevailing Time, for
'~..:.5 ,fe._e1.. . an.} .7 fee. J lru, '.'ite:id.of the PWP.'o.. s. e of conducting apub-
';req!i!r"!lIO feet ":,,d 15 feet hc he"":'llg on whether C:ulmary
:~Yeli andhl1vm,g a rear Arts Riverhead LLC should be
tI1L~tlf'of 31 feet lruLtead of 4<:s(gnated the "qualified and
40'fee!. . . . ebgible sponsor" for the rede-
',' 'p'1"vai~ing'liIne, ve!ppmynt of the foll<>wing four
,g.5"?,9.;~J'J~~~."f propertles located on East Main
" 'Ve~~t;~~~~~%l~~~J::J~~u~
f<)l-an .iDtetpl'eta:tton fOJ.'II)allykl1own as 14 East'~am
..... . '. .I'08j'SeetiOii \1'08'3. Sti;eet (SQTM .0600-IIZ8.00-
~l!' 's ,C:l!l\Ve1!inll" 'l\yo, 0@Oo53:000);property form.al-
m.'.,.i!lr.,. .f....h e.. . ~.~. ~?<>n. b"':ng Iy. Part. . of the Rivei'bead Par. king
_a;two '.y d'",1ll1ing DistrictN9. I (SCTM 0600-
iy.:t!€. '...~.eta.. .c..bed..,.. ,.b. 1lil..dit!j~S.i flU.'I-. 12.&O.'O.06;()O,.66;003); .p.r9perty
"ll1~tll v"!1ance"to:,ection fonnallyknown as the Rimland
~. !1''2B,.,r. equ.... estiqji. ,-p"n. m..:s~)o. n Building (gCTM 0600-128.00-
lldd anapartJnent over an 06;00-SO:001) and property for-
iStin. g ~tacned:ll!'f.' .ag..e; \:her. .e-.mall~. kn. own. as the Suburban
. pr~~tmg two smsle family l'urmtOre BUlldmg 0600-
"dellces on the subJect'prern- 1~8;00'06.00-51:000; (here-
:s.. . inafter collectively referred to as
l:1O' p.m., prevailing time, "the Property") that haa been
'peal No. 05'100, Appeal of acquired and assembled by the
."tles Leunig, 109 Sound Allency for transfer to Swezey-
)ad, Wading River, New York Riverhead Holding LLC in cou-
ra variance to Chapt'". 108, nectionwith a proposedl urban
ction 108-20 of the Code of renewal project known as the
"Tn'Ul1l l'lfRivPTl1p::In TPnw"d_ '"~Wf'!7PV'''' ProlPC'.t" ::inti in ~()n-
.
~
h
s
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
STATE OF NEW YORK ss:
Nancy M. Mclaughlin, being duly
sworn, says that she is the Legal
Advertising Coordinator, of the Traveler
Watchman, a public newspaper printed
at Southold, in Suffolk County; and that
the notice of which the annexed is a
printed copy, has been published in said
Travefer Watchman once each week
for............week(s) I successively,
cO~.J.'(il1g on the...\iJ...........day of
...UL\.(.).v~r.V............, 2005.
~",,?rhl\lo 1't're me this.~....daY of
!JUVL2.~........, 2005.
~.. ~./"
... .....{,~~.. ~~;~?
Notary Public
Emily Hamill
NOTARY PVBLIC, State of New York
No. 01 HAS059984
Qualified in Suffolk County
Commission expires May 06, 2006
~~'liV
/ Q\"<
\~~
IO~
~'
I .
PATRICIA C. MOORE
Attorney at Law
51020 Main Road
Southo1d, New York 11971
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
Py.
. /..A~ /.,;}
-l~p',~J Jo{@
~1 (01)-1
Memo: Zoning Board of Appeals
Re: Pollio Appeal 5753
October 20, 2005
There were three issues addressed at the last hearing which we are
pre:oared to address: (1) Ownership issues, (2) environmental issues,
and (3)lot coverage issues.
1. Ownership Issue: Kimogenor Point, a cooperative, is the owner
of the land. The original development plan contained three
parcels: Parcell has the Archer house and club house, Parcel
2 has 5 dwellings, and parcel 3 has the Pollio dwelling a
cottage and garage for the dwellings (Parcel 1 (SCTM#1000-116-
6-24.1) has a separate tax lot from parcel 2 & 3 which parcels
were combined (SCTM#1000-117-l0-l)). Kimogenor Corp also owns
a separate one acre parcel with the tennis court across from
Jackson Street (SCTM#1000-117-9-l). You have a copy of a
VanTuyl survey whj.ch shows the three waterfront parcels.
Anne L. Pollio has a Proprietary and Perpetual Lease- she owns
the building and improvements under the lease, and she owns
the capital stock of the corporation which owns the land. The
Board has historically required both the dwelling owner and
the Corporation to make a joint application.
2 .
Environmental Issues:
,
A.
Installation of Fully Compliant Septic System in 2004-
no detergents seep into the Bay. The system was able to
be constructed 12' down and conforming to required
separation from water. Certification by Leonard is in
your file. The sanitary of each dwelling is considered
at the time of renovations to the individual structures
by the building department and Health Department and
since the Pollio sanitary is conforming, the
environmental concern regarding the sanitary is not
relevant to this appeal.
I
.
B.
Elevation of this property is 10' to 12' above Kimogenor
Point- the property has no history of flooding since it's
construction in 1946 based on the experience of the
Pollio family and their prior owners. The basement was
dry after the October unprecedented rain fall.
C.
1903-1905 the cottages were constructed.
later, in 1946, this House was built as
house at Kimogenor Point with a sizable
crawl space.
Forty years
a year round
basement and
D.
This house is outside of Flood Zone, built in 1946 as a
year round house with heat, a basement, insulation and
air conditioning - other homes in Kimogenor Point were
originally constructed as cottages.
E.
This house built with the most open space, typical of the
manor house style, on parcel 3 of the original site
development plan and has no zoning setback issues.
F.
Suffolk County Public Water extended into Kimogenor Point
in 2000 and as each house is renovated the sanitary is
reviewed and upgraded, as required by the Health
Department.
G.
No issues of drainage because drywells constructed for
roof runoff
H.
This house has C.O. for the original house and all prior
renovations. The Pollio dwelling has repeatedly
received building permits and C.O's for renovations or
alterations to the dwelling over the past 40 years.
This variance represents a reversal of interpretations
without any legislative change to the code. Our position
is that a denial of this appeal would result in a taking
of a property right established by issuance of the prior
building permit for a smaller project and all prior
permits on record (list of C.O.'s in your file).
1.
The Archer property received approvals in 2005 for
extensi ve second floor addition and first
renovation. Unlike the other homes in Kimogenor
this house is more substantial, has all the CO's,
sanitary, and previously granted a building permit
larger renovation.
a more
floor
Point
a new
for a
.
I
.
3. Lot Coverage:
I submitted in September an original site plan of the Kimogenor
Point property prepared by Bob Leonard of Boulevard Planning East,
PC. .
Also for your file, if you need to refer to it, is one print of
Samuels & Steelman's site plan submitted in the Archer appeal. In
the Archer hearing Tom Samuels testified that on the parcel
containing the Archer dwelling (Tax Lot 1000-116-6-24.1) he
esti.mated that the lot coverage was less than 7%. In Archer,
Appeal #5654, the Zoning Board granted the appeal for a second
floor addition and first floor renovation to the existing
dwelling, as applied for.
The site plan prepared by Boulevard Planning East, PC, based
on an areal photograph of the two Kimogenor Point parcels (1000-
116-6-24.1 and 117-10-1) shows that the square footage of
structures on both parcels (8.3 acres) is approximately 9.5%. If
we take only the one parcel with the Pollio dwelling (117-10-1)
the lot coverage is 14%. Please note there is an additional acre
across Jackson Street containing the tennis court which is also
part of Kimogenor Point Corp development (117-9-1) and if added to
the lot area would further reduce the lot coverage calculation
below 20%. Since the structures do not come close to lot coverage
limitations of 20% the building department did not issue a notice
of disapproval regarding lot coverage. The appeal is based on
expansion of a nonconforming use (more than 1 dwelling on a
parcel). The issue raised by Fenton of lot coverage is not
relevant to this appeal.
At the hearing a question was asked whether open space and
wetland areas are deducted from the lot coverage. Please note the
definition of "Lot Coverage" and "Lot Area" does not exclude
Wetlands, Open space, Bluff or Beach. (Southold Town Code Section
100-13)
\
..
...
--
,
,
7 '\. ~-_'
- - ),
L I. \-, - 7
':\.\~ .
PATRICIA C.MOORE
Attorney at Law
-, 51020 Main Road
,
Southold, New York 11971
30 SEP 2 8 ZOOS
~, IJ~ -1':
~\) \ ~
Tel: (631) 765-4330
Fax: (631) 765-4643
September 28, 2005
Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals
Ruth Oliva, Chairwoman
Southold Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
Re: Pollio Appeal- Kimogenor Point
SCTM#1000-117-10_1
Dear Chairman and Board members:
Enclosed please find seven original site plans of the
Kimogenor Point property prepared by Bob Leonard of Boulevard
Planning East, PC.. Also enclosed is one print of Samuels &
Steelman's si te plan submi t ted in the Archer Appeal for your
reference. Tom Samuels testified that on the parcel containing the
Archer dwelling (Tax Lot 1000-116-6-24.1) he estimated that the lot
coverage was less than 7%. In Archer, Appeal #5654, the Zoning
Board granted the appeal for a second floor addition and first
floor renovation to the existing dwelling, as applied for
The site plan prepared by Boulevard Planning East, PC, based
on an areal photograph of the two Kimogenor Point parcels (1000-
116-6-24.1 and 117-10-1) shows that the square footage of
structures on both parcels (8.3 acres) is approximately 9.5%. If
we take only the one parcel with the Pollio dwelling (117-10-1) the
lot coverage is 14%. Please note there is an additional acre
across Jackson Street containing the tennis court which is also
part of Kimogenor Point Corp development (117-9-1) and if added to
the lot area would further reduce the lot coverage calculation
below 20%. Since the structures do not come close to lot coverage
limitations of 20% the bUilding department did not issue a notice
of disapproval regarding lot coverage. The appeal is based on
expansion of a nonconforming use (more than 1 dwelling on a
parcel). The issue raised by Fenton of lot coverage is not relevant
to this appeal.
At the hearing a question was asked whether open Space and
wetland areas are deducted from the lot coverage. Please note the
definition of "Lot Coverage" and "Lot Area" does not exclude
Wetlands, Open space, Bluff or Beach. (Southold Town Code Section
100-13 )
.
~
.'
--
"
Wi th regard to "environmental concerns" of Pollio sanitary
system raised by Fenton, the Pollio sanitary was replaced in 2004
and enclosed are 7 copies of the Engineer's certification. The
sanitary of each dwelling is considered at the time of renovations
to the individual structures by the building department and Health
Department and since the Pollio sanitary is conforming, the
environmental concern regarding the sanitary is not relevant to
this appeal.
If there is anything else you need please do not hesitate to
contact me.
~/ r~~y yours,
;---- / ' ,
tr~cia C. Moore
PCM/mr
Encls.
.
Boulevard Planning East, PC.
.,
Architects. Engineers. Construction Management
Internet: www.blvdplan.com
32645 Main Road
Cutchogue, N. Y. 11935
PHONE: 631.734.2011
September 20, 2005
Southold Building Department
Town Hall
53095 Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971 - 0959
SEP 2 8 Z005
Re: Pollio Residence Septic System, Kimogenor Point, New Suffolk, New York
To Whom It May Concern,
This letter is to certifY that the existing sanitary system for the above residence was installed in
conformance with all applicable laws, is suitable for the needs of the existing residence, and will
adequately handle any extra capacity that will come from the proposed renovations and additions to the
house.
J
---
.
.
Office Location:
Mailin~ Address:
Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank
54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue)
Southold, NY 11971
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971-0959
\
http://southoldtown.northfork.net
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064
January 11 , 2006
Mr. and Mrs. Benedict Pollio
c/o Patricia C. Moore, Esq.
51020 Main Road
Southolel, NY 11971
Re: ZBA Appeal 5753 - October 27,2005 Variance Determination
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Pollio and Ms. Moore:
Our department is in receipt of your January 4, 2006 letter with partial maps, copies
of which are different that the relief granted for a family room, shown on the May 12, 2005
map filed in the above Appeal.
The applicant's May 12, 2005 maps were filed in July 2005, two months prior to
receiving notification that your office will be representing the applicant at the second, later
public hearing. The project description (copy enclosed) filed with the above appeal also
confirms the applicant's request is for a 15.6 by 21.5 ft., 35.9 square foot addition.
Since the map copies with your January 4, 2006 letter show new construction areas
extendin~1 outside the dimensions requested for the family room, there is no other procedure
available for amended relief, except to follow the same appeal procedure that was followed
under the first appeal.
Encls.
a:;:u~~
Ruth D. Oliva
Chairwoman
~
"-
z-~/~J
-' 1')./1/
.
Adelaide & Joseph Fenton
300 Jackson Street PO Box 611
New Suffolk, NY 11956
.
", "\ \'
~t<t\\~ ~ .
q~
I\\U
Ms. Ruth D. Oliva
Chairwoman, Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
54375 Main Road
Southold, NY 11971
August 17, 2005
Df:ar Ms. Oliva:
We are in receipt, by certified mail, of a notice with respect to a hearing on
August 18, 2005 at 9:50 a.m. entitled Benedict Pollio # 5753.
Although the documents seem to indicate that the property in question is that of
Anne L. Pollio, the actual owner is the Kimogenor Point Company, a cooperative, and
that she is their tenant, and presumably, a stockholder in the corporation. lbis corporation
owns a three and a half acre parcel, next to our home, most of which consists of a sandbar
on Great Peconic Bay and West Creek that empties into it. There are twelve residential
structures on the site, a club house, and a row of garages. Eleven of the residential
structures are leased to stockholders and the twelfth is used, from time to time by various
affiliated or related persons. The co-op was formed one hundred years ago and most of
the: structures were built then. They were sununer cottages, utilized seasonally after
school closed until Labor day. The property in question was acquired by the co-op
corporation at a later date.
The notice indicates that the Kimogenor Point Company is requesting a variance
so that an extension can be added to one of its existing structures. A number of years ago,
this particular structure was extensively extended, without the benefit of a variance. Later,
a porch was added, also without the required variance. The present request will constitute
a third extension.
Having been asked for comment which is submitted herewith, we are sure you
will keep it in mind when coming to a conclusion.
1) Zoning, where the property is located, is one acre, so that the thirteen existing
structures and garages constitute non-conforming uses and the application with respect to
one: of the buildings will add to this non-conforming use. If granted, will this not reinforce
the co-op's ability to secure similar extensions to each and every cottage on the site, and
is tins appropriate? Will it not burden the already crowded site with even more intensive
use and density? The one acre zoning, already compromised by these non-conforming
uses, risks being made into a mockery. Twelve cottages and a club house on three and one
half acres is one quarter of an acre each, or one quarter of the zoning standard. Is it
appropriate to expand non-conforming uses in the circumstances, having already had two
previous substantial alterations without notice and hearing?
2) Because the co-op site is mostly a sandbar, the cottages are only a few feet
above the high water mark, so that when the tide is particularly high, as for example what
happens at Equinox time, ifheayy winds from the east pile the water into the bay, the site
floods, as does the boat yard site at first street in New Suffolk, and the cesspools that
service the cottages are covered by the encroaching salt water. When the flooding
recedes, effluent from the cesspools inevitably enters the creek and the bay, and these
'\
.
Adelaide & Joseph Fenton
300 Jackson Street PO Box 611
New Suffolk, NY 11956
.
phenomena show up as sea foam, but is in reality soap suds, from laundry detergents in
th,~ cesspools. You may want to study this situation and/or have the DEC, who is
probably more attuned to the problem, address it at this site. A detailed environmental
impact statement may be warranted. In July, one of the stockholders complained to us that
there was a cesspool problem and that the cesspool people could not do anything about it.
There must be something to this because at the site of the proposed work, the cesspool
collapsed two years ago, and instead of installing another in the same area, the
replacement was installed up against the eastern side of the building, indicating a problem
of some sort. At the time, the building department advised us when they issued their
permit, that they recommended that the DEC be asked for a permit as well. The proposed
extension includes another bathroom and laundry room, further taxing an already
over-taxed site.
3) The density problem is compounded by what has been taking place in recent
years. The cottages are being upgraded by new owners. Instead of being used only in the
swnmer, as the original co-op envisioned, they are used for longer periods and in some
cases on a year round basis, putting more pressure on the already fragile infrastructure.
Each new tenant's renovations tax the site further, so that the tipping point may have
already been reached. Is it appropriate to continue down the variance path to an eventual
and inevitable sanitary debacle?
While we sympathize with each tenant's desire to create his or her own Taj Mahal
at the site, which reflects the current building pattern, the place just can't accommodate
this. Waterfront property is at a premium, bigger and bigger homes are being built, often
out of keeping with the neighborhood. There is just so much waterfront and prices have
belm bid up irrationally. One of the twelve Kimogenor Point cottages was recently
advertised for $1,675,000. A purchaser, at these prices will want to upgrade the facilities,
and further burden an already inadequate site.
It has been suggested that, as other properties along the beach have done, in order
to stay on the buildings original footprint ( in this case already enlarged twice), family
rooms are being crafted by enclosing a porch which faces the bay, and making them
adjustable to seasonal uses.
Please think this through-not just in respect to one variance-but to take into
account the entire site. Lead poisoning is also cumulative.
Respectfully Submitted,
(UAMtle.J- ~~ ~~
Adelaide and Joseph Fenton
s -( /--~ (I:-",u)
'f(~ ,;g.,~ R..I
, -f:f)~ / tt..~
---
!;? /d!3 0
,~
ADELAIDE FENTON
300 JACKSON STREET
P.O. BOX 611
NEW SUFFOLK, N.Y. 11956
.
(631) 734-5099
FAX: (631) 734-5136
E-MAIL JOSADY@AOLCOM
Ms. R-Llth D. Oliva
Chairwoman, Board of Appeals
Town of Southold
54:575 Main Road
Southold, N.Y. 11971
REceIVED
AUG 3 0 2005
~:th --11565'1--
ZONINQ !3 of....t.v - . ~ ~
/J. ..2~'~PP"AL :>/ / <><---
L~O ~~ v 16 a~
fU...,~" i It ';,~ 7 U F ,/4 )
Augus'C 29, 2005
Dear lis. Oliva:
We, in the course of reviewing various data at your office
with res.t'ect to the mast recent Kimagenor Point Ca. applicatian fer a
variance{Benedict Pollta #575'), discovered that a previaus varianae had
been approved without Kimogenor Point Co. having notified me of that
applic:ation and hearing, as required b7 the Tawn's laws and reBUlations.
Their failure to notif7 lie of that hearing, violated 117 rights, and
inval1.dates the variance.
My purpose in writing to you is to put the Board on notice
with respect to Kimogenor Point Co's failure in that instance, and to
inql!l.ire as to what action you propose to' take. Please let me knaw so that
I can decide how to proceed to protect my right. a. the adjoining propert7
owner to the property of Killogenor Point Co.
I would also like to call your attention tOo the feet that
no variancss were ever issued with respect to two previous additians tOo
the structure owned b7 Kimogenor Point Co. whioh was the ~bject of the Aug-
ust 18, 2005 hearing.
Reepectfully,
;:It-_~-.....~~ .~~
Adelaide Fenton
0/.
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
BUlLnn~G DEPARTMENT .
TOWN HALL
SOUTHOLD, NY 11971
TEL: (631) 765-1802
FAX: (631) 765-9502
www.northfork.net/Southold/ PERMIT NO.
BUILDING PERWAPPLICATlON CHECKLIST
Do you ha_ need the following, before applyinl\?
~ Board of Health
" 4 sets of Building Plans
Planning Board approval
Survey
Check
Septic Form
N.Y.S.D.E.C.
Trustees
Contact:
Mail to:
Examined , 20_
Approved , 20_
Disapproved alC~?t; (Cv..JtA. ......
Phone:
Expiration
,20_
Building Inspector
L~1122004 i
._.=....J
APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT
Date
,20_
INSTRUCTIONS
a. This application MUST be completely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 3
sets of plans, accurate plot plan to scale. Pee according to schedule. .
b. Plot plan showing location oflot and of buildings on premises, relationship to adjoining premises or public streets or
areas, and waterways.
c. The work covered by this application may not be commenced before issuance of Building Permit.
d. Upon approval of this application, the Building fuspector will issue a Building Permit to the applicant. Such a permit
shall be kept on the premises available for inspection throughout the work.
e. No building shall be occupied or used in whole or in part for any purpose what so ever until the Building Inspector
is"ues a Certificate of Occupancy.
f. Every building permit shall expire if the work authorized has not commenced within 12 months after the date of
issuance or has not been completed within 18 months from such date. If no zoning'amendments or other regulations affecting the
property have been e:nacted in -the interim, the Building fuspector may authorize, in writing, the extension of the permit for an
additiDn six months. thereafter, a new permit.shall be required. '..
APPLICA TlON IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance of a Building Permit pursuant to the
Building Zone Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Suffolk County, New York, and other applicable Laws, Ordinances or
Regulations, for the construction of buildings, additions, or alterations or for removal or demolition as herein described. The
applicant agrees to comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, building code, housing code, and regulations, and to admit
_ri"" "'_'0 '0 """';"~ "'" ;, lmild;", fu, o="my m._o~ /' / ?
;~ame, if a corporation)
32,{1S- 1VlR,,, .,1~ CJeia'!;jve.
(Mailing address of applicant)
;tate whether applieant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder
~".f
Benu'JI~ I-
A?//; C7
(As on the tax roll or latest deed)
f applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer
""--.
~ ame of owner of premises
(Name and title of corporate officer)
:uilders License No.
lumbers License No.
lectricians License No.
Ither Trade's License No.
Location of land on which proposed work will be done:
f45" I<IWl~()r .fJf j( iii 1
House Number Street '
!/e~ 5'v/~/k
Hamlet
County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ~ } 7
Subdivision-..Ko,",ppenor )If'
(Name)
Block I f)
Filed Map No.
Lot P/t? - J
Lot
--"
.
~ ..... ..~ ...
allCY of proposed construction:
2. State existing use and OCCUpltl.",y of premises and intended use and oc
a. Existing use and occupancy r? '- 4/".en , ~ .
b. Intended use and occupancy
~ ~$Ii" ~'1 o~
3. Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building
Repair Removal Demolition
Addition )(
Other Work
Alteration
(Description)
4. Estimated Cost $ 5"0/ CJ (l t?
Fee
5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units
If garage, number of cars IV / H
(To be paid on filing this application)
Number of dwelling units on each floor
7. Dimensions of existing structures, if any: Front 5'1. S"
Height Number of Stories
Dimensions of same structure with alterations or additions: Front 7 S-
Depth 3 7 Height Number of Stories
Rear
5'1, S-
NIII
Depth 3 7
6. Ifbusiness, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use.
Rear Si, .~
8. Dimensions of entire new construction: Front
Height Number of Stories
Rear
Depth
9. Size oflot: Front Iv / J}
Rear
Depth
II. Zone or use district in which premises are situate~',\ f? - 4 ()
Name of Former Owner
10. Date of Purchase
12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? YES_NO ~
13. Will lot be re-graded? YES_ NO-X- Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES_ NO X
~ G"I", (.~
14. Names of Owner ofPremisesl"leJ1! '1/J,,, Address WI wh,k/"'II 8J,.JPhone No. !J~1i - ~41-~5(?!
Name of Architect IJ}"J. p, "" ~ Address~~5'" .111,"", /fa PhoneNo 7., 1-2oIJ
Name of Contractor Address Phone No.
15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland? *YES _NO -
* IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED.
b. Is this property within 300 feet of a tid(l! wetland? * YES 1- NO_
* IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED.
16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines.
17.lf elevation at any point on property is at 10 feet or below, must provide topographical data on survey.
STATE OF NEW YORK)
SS:
COUNTY OF )
J(o b .",. J-- J,..e; 4.n o(hI' .J- being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant
(Name of individual signing contract) above named,
(S)He is the
A~.e.., f
(Contractor, Agent, Corporate Officer, etc.)
of said owner or owners, and is duly authorized to perform or have performed the said work and to make and file this applicatior
that all statements contained in this application are true to the best of his knowledge and belief; and that the work will be
performed in the manner set forth in the application filed therewith.
.-'".~
Sworn rfore me this
day of
.-rl-- H <oJ #
":"I" pt ~
LlC: SlaW 0 .
. o.48~~~coun~ ~
if3S U