The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About5764 )>, i. '~ ' 5 mah,' )?) tLtr . #ilk71~~~4 ~ ..,u~.-idd...:iI')'Q/f~; ~,/~dfv~..;., /113 .3 ~ .3.3. 4._ I~i;; I~o.;z rtJj~~.' . I~ I' ./ILIJF 173 $/2-."/(0; 1/.1.) /fl,j>' 32.-.S:S~c.Q , 1-57" 'I s:i~~>k.;'>c) . .,,2U/}.~~~/.J1i .~~:aij'tfo;/J;/()i'- ",' ~-SCHOENH1I1\R;" RO~ c. ...,,----.. South Side Rte. 25, Mattituck 143 4 *20 74"'-"~d 3/20/80 D-approval of insuff. area and width of parcel to be established in a proposed subdivision, and for permission to reinstate preexisting nonconforming sideyard setback, and for approval of access. /<-1,,' .. , '. ,Jj, (} p;< -'D Jut 0 Q.>n rt"i/a '5j:t - IYtIIA:. '/r, rht1 f #-7>>y . ~J. ~JG. Yo ~~~ . --5):s d6 ]7fuAC ~ ~ /haJJ . ~Md APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ruth D. Oliva, Gerard E Goehringer James Dinizio, Jr. 0:~ma~ Michael A. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 Mailing Address: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/Em-st Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JANUARY 11, 2007 RECEIVED JAN 1 7 2007 o 8 Town Clef} ZB File No. 5764 - ROY C. and ROBERT SCHOENHAAR Property Location: 10300 Main Road, Mattituck CTM 143-3-33.2 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 further steps under SEQRA. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants' property consists of 2.586 acres, improved with a dwelling as shown on the March 15, 2002 survey prepared by John C. Ehlers. The northerly .78 acre portion of the property is zoned B-General Business, and the southerly +/- 1.78 acres is zoned R-40 Low-Density Residential. The property has 197.06 feet along the south side of the Main Road (NYS Route 25). BASIS OF APPLICATION: Zoning Code Section 280-18 (formerly 100-30A.3) bulk schedule, based on the Building Inspector's May 17, 2005 Notice of Disapproval, amended October 4, 2006 for a lot which contains less than 40,000 square feet and less than 175 feet of lot width in the R-40 Residential Zone District, and a proposed building in the B-General Business Zone District with a front yard setback at less than 100 feet from a proposed right-of-way. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application has been referred by the ZBA as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning November 14, 2006 reply states that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. This communications also notes that the division of Lot 1 is along the B/R-40 zoning boundary and notes the 25 ft. wide right-of-way servicing of the three proposed lots and Lot 2 which is landlocked Lot 2 with no legal access to an existing or proposed public road. The County is requesting that the Town consider an increase in the width of the right-of-way to 30 feet and to redraw both Lots 2 and 3 as flag lots with 15 feet of frontage along the Main Road. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 30, 2006, 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: Page 2 - January 11, 2007 t ZB File No. 5764 - Roy C. and Rob:~'t'Schoenhaar CTM No, 143-3-33.2 AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant wishes to create a three lot subdivision on this 2.59-acre parcel. This property is split into two zone districts: B General Business on the north, and R-40 Low-Density Residential on the south. The applicant is proposes a conforming land area and width for proposed Lot 1, located in the B-General Business Zone; proposed lot 2 will be non- conforming at 34,089 square feet; and less a proposed 25 foot wide right-of-way, the lot will be 32,812 square feet in area instead of the code-required 40,000 square feet, and 173.45 feet in depth instead of the code required 175 ft. lot depth. The right-of-way as proposed would create a 13 ft. non-conforming setback for the pre-existing dwelling on lot 1 instead of the code-required 100 ft. minimum setback. 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 produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed lots sizes are in keeping with the size and shape of other residential properties to the east and west of the subject property. The proposed 25-ft. wide right-of-way along the westerly boundary of the subject parcel will, however, create a front yard setback that is substantially in nonconformity with the code requirements, that will increase the difficulty of access for fire and other emergency vehicles to the two additional southerly residential lots. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The proposed right-of-way can be re-located to the easterly property boundary, running parallel to the existing 20 ft. wide right-of-way belonging to the land now or formerly owned by Jody Pumillo, which will either not require a setback variance from the existing dwelling on the subject property, or will be substantially less non-conforming than this right-of-way being proposed. 3. The variance granted herein is substantial in relation to the setback relief from the proposed right- of-way boundary for a 13 ft. setback. This proposed setback would create an 87% reduction from the code-required 100 ft. minimum setback. 4. The difficulty has been self-created. The ownedapplicant seeks to subdivide his subject property which has frontage only along the main Road, and land-locked for the two rear lots. The relief requested for the setback from the proposed westerly right-of-way can be eliminated, since two conforming lots could be created as of right with a right-of-way to the two rear lots without the need for a setback variance, or request for a minor setback reduction. 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. While additional noise may be created by cars using the proposed R.O.W and potential future neighbors, the impact would not be unreasonable with the addition of two more houses in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of a three-lot subdivision, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. Page 3 - January 11, 2007 ~ ZB File No. 5764 - Roy C. and Rol~"Schoenhaar CTM No. 143-3-33.2 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 Weisman, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance with respect to the lot sizes noted herein, and to DENY the requested setback reduction from the proposed westerly right-of-way, as applied for. Any deviation from the variance given such as extensions, or demolitions which are not shown on the applicant's diagrams or survey site maps, are not authorized under this application when involving nonconformities under the zoning code. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. The Board reserves the right to substitute a similar design that is de minimis in nature for an alteration that does not increase the degree of nonconformity. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Dinizio, Oliva, ~ringer, Simon, and Weisman. Resolution was duly adopted (5-0).U/'~~ Jam/~s"'Dinizio Jr., Chairmanj - - ul~/~/2007 Ap/15roved for Filing -- This LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 280 (Zoning) Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearing will be held by the SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY~ NOVEMBER 30~ 2006: 11:00 A.M. ROY C. and ROBERT SCHOENHAAR #5764. Request for a Variance under Section 280-18 (formerly 100-30A.3) bulk schedule, based on the Building Inspector's May 17, 2005 Notice of Disapproval, amended October 4, 2006 for a lot which contains less than 40,000 square feet and less than 175 feet of lot width in the R-40 Residential Zone District, and a proposed building in the B-General Business Zone District with a front yard setback at less than 100 feet from a right-of-way. Location of Property: 10300 Main Road, Mattituck; CTM 143- 3-33.2, containing 2.586 acres. The Board of Appeals will hear all persons, or their representatives, desiring to be heard at each hearing, and/or desiring to submit written statements before the conclusion of each hearing. Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for review during regular business hours and prior to the day of the hearing If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email: Linda. Kowalski@Town.Southold.ny.us. Dated: November 6, 2006. ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN #8118 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Dina Mac Donald of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that he/she is Principal clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspaper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, County of Suffolk and State of New York, and that the Notice of which the annexed is a printed copy, has been regularly published in said Newspaper once each week for 1 week(s), successively, commencing on the 17th day of November, 2006. Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this 2006 day of .--~L'~/ CHRISTINA VOLINSKI NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF NEW YORK NO. 01-VO6105050 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires February 28, 2008 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006 PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pur- suant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Chapter 280 (Zoning) Code of the Town of Southold, the following public hearings will be held by the SOUTH- OLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, EO. Box 1179, Southold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 30, 2006: 9:35 A.M. FRANK MELE III #5976. Request for a Variance under Section 28045, based on the Building lnspec- tops September 6, 2006 Notice of Disap- proval f. oncerinng a proposed accessory sw~mnung pool in a yard other than the code-requited rear yard, at 305 Gardin- ers Lane, Southold; CTM 70-8-28. 9:40 A.M. JOHN and ANGELA REINERTSEN #5973. Request for Variances under Sections 280-15 and 280-18 (100-30A.3 and 100-33 based on the Building Inspector's August 4, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning a pr~)posed new dwelling, accessory swim ~nlng pool, and accessory (cabana) build- ing. The dwelling will be less than 50 feet from the front lot line and rear lot line, and the swimming pool and accessory building will be in a side yard rather than the code~reqaired rear yard. Location of Property: 590 Arrowh.ead Lane, Pecon c; CTM 98-2-4.1. 9:45 A.M. BERIT LALLI #5978. Request for a Variance under Section 280-124 (100-244 based on the Building Inspector's May 15, 2006 Notice of Dis- approval) concerning a proposed addi- tion to the existing dwelling at less than the code-requited 35 feet from the front lot line, at 1405 Narrow River Road, Ori- ent; CTM 27-34.3. 9:50A.M. MARK MELNICK #5977. Request for Variances under Sections 280-124 and 280-116 (100-239,4B, based on the Building Inspector's August 25, 2006 Notice of Disapproval, amended November 9, 2006 concerning an addi lion and alterations for a second-story over the existing first floor of the exist- ing dwelling and addition at less than the code-requited 35 ft. front yard, at 405 Private Road #3, Southold: CTM 70-6- 15. 9:55 A.M. MICHAEL BLYNN #5975. Request for a Variance under Section 280-124 (100-244 based on the Build- ing Inspector's May 24, 2006 Nolice of Disapproval) concerning a proposed addition to the existing dwelling at less Residential Zone District. Location of Property: i380 Bridge Lane, Cutchogue; CTM 85-2-5. 10:15 A.M. SERGE AND SUSAN ROZENBAUM; M. NIAMONITAKIS and E. NIAIvlONITAKIS #5691. Re- quest for Variances under Sections 2804 and 280-t4 (Sections 100-13 and 100- 32), based on the applicant's request to construct and operate a farm stand with design as a building for sales of farm pro- duce and which is deemed as not meeting the definition of a farm stand, based on the Building inspector's amended No- vember 3, 2006 Notice of Disapproval. The reasons stated in the Notice of Dis- approval are: "the proposed constnlc- tion on an 18.75 acre farm parcel with three front yards in the AC Zone, is not permitted pursuant to Section 100-32 (renumbered 280-14), which states: 'No building or premises shah be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the AC, R80 ... Districts un- less the same conforms to the Bulk and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter with tbe same fore# and effec as if such regulations were sef forth herein in full.' According to the bulk sched- ule, the proposed construction requires a front yard setback of 60 feet, and is not permitted pursuant to Section 100- 13, which defines a farm stand as: 'any structure open to the weather on at least one side, used for the sole purpose of re- tail sale of produce grown by the owner of the stand on the farm acreage within the Town of Southold; and such struc- ture ma), be one-story or les~ roofed or have partial walls and flooring but may not be completely enclosed except when the business is closed. A farm stand may not be insulated or mechanically heated or cooled by permanent equipment A truck bed or trailer on whee& with areas in excess of 20 square feet displaying pro- duce, shall be considered a farm stand.' Location of Property: 7540 Main Road (and Cedar Lane), East Marion; CTM 3I-6-28.5 and 28.6. 10:25 A.M. FITF, LLC #5617. Re- quest for Variances under Section 280- 18 (Bulk Schedule) for a lot proposed with !ess than 40,000 square feet of land area in the R 40 Low-Density Residen- tial Zone Districl (forn er y M 1I), and a lot under contract of sale with the Town of Southold, proposed with an area of less than 80,000 square feet in the R-80 Residential Zone, located along the west side of Reservoit Road, Fishers Island; Suffolk County CTM Parcel i000-9-8-2. 10:35 A.M. ZAHARIA PAPAZA- HARIOU & OTHERS #5974. Request for a Variance under Sec0on 280-15, based on the Building Inspector's Au gusl 24, 2006 Notice of Disapproval concerning an accessory swimming pool proposed in a yard other than the code- required rear yard, at 2905 Private Road #1, East Marion; CTM 22-3-8.1. 10:40 A.M. ROBERT SEELEY g5912. Request for a Variance under than the code-required 15 feet, at 7800 Section 280-116 (100-239.4A based on Soundview Avenue, Southold; CTM 59~ [b~luflding inspec4or's April 12, 2006 9c32' Notice of Disapproval concerning a 10:00 A.M. HENRY OMAN aud for Variances under Seclion 280-14 (1(30- 32), based on the Building inspector's July ~5, 2006 Notice of Disapprove con- cernmg proposed Lots 1 and 2 with less than the code required 80 000 square fact,less than 175 It.of frontage/o width along Bridge Lane, and with a proposed side yard setback at less than the code- required 20 feet from the division #ne. The apphcant's parcel as e~ists contains 1.637 acres and is located in the R-80 structure proposed it less than from the top of the bluff adjacent to the Long Island Sound, at 1250 Sound Drive, Greenport; Rockcove Estates Lol 4; CTM 33-3-19.4. 10:50 A.M. MICHAEL and ROBIN DREWS g5929. Request for Variances under Sections 280-116 and 280-124 (100-239.4B and 100-244 based on the Building 10apector,s May 31, 2006 No- tice of Disapproval) concerning a pro- posed new ahigle-family dwelling, after setba~ proposed at less than 75 feet to the bulkhead and less than the code- requited 15 feet on a single side yard at 7425 Nassau Point Road, Cutchogue; 11:00 A.M. ROY C. and ROBERT SCHOENHAAR #5764. Request for a Variance under Section 280-18 (former y 100-30A.3) bu k schedule, based on the Building Inspector's May 17, 2005 No- lice of Disapproval, amended October 4, 2006 for a lot which contains less than 40,000 square feet and less than 175 feet of lot width in the R-40 Residential Zone District, and a proposed building in the B-Generai Business Zone District with a front yard setback at less than 100 feet fi-om a ri hr-of-way. Location of Prop- erty: 103~ Main Road;Mattituck; CTM 143-3-33.2, containing 2.586 acres~ 11:15 A.M. EDWARD FERGUS #5941. Request for a Variance under Section 280-18 (100-30A.3 based on the Building ~spector's May 31,2006 Notice of Disapproval) concerning a proposed single-family dwelling with a setback at less than the code-required 50 feet from the rear lot line at its closest point, at 1854 North Bayview Road, Southold; CTM 70-I2-39.3. 11:30 A.M. JAY V~ GUILD g5866 (Rehearing) . Request for a Variance under Section 280-18, formerly 100-31A- 2c, based on the Building Inspector's August 30, 2005 Notice of Disapproval, amended March 1, 2006 concerning commercial agricultural greenhouses proposed in a location at less than 75 feet from the rear lot line, less than 20 feet on a single side yard, and exceeding the code limitation of 20 percent lot cov- erage on this 6-acre parcel, at 34695 C.R 48 (a/k/a Middle Road or North Road), Peconic; CTM 68-4-19. I1:45 A.M. EAST MARION FIRE DISTRICT #5972. Request for a Vari- ance under Section 280-69 (100-162A3, AS) based on the Building Inspector's July 25, 2006 Notice of Disapproval communication/tefa~ommunications tower on property owned, leased or otherwise controlled by a special dis- trict approved by the commissioners of the special district. The proposed tower will exceed the code limitation with a height greater than 10 feet above the average height of buildiugs within 300 feet of the facility, OR if there are no buildings within 300 feet, these facili- ties shall not project higher than 10 feet above the average tree canopy height in that radius measured from ground level If there are no buildings within 300 feet of the proposed facility site, all telecom- the faciIity in all directions. Location of Property: 9245 Main Road. East Marion; CTM 31-3 11.31 containing 3.{)5 acres. The Board of Appeals will hear all ing to beheard at each he,ring, andTor desiring to submit written statements Each hearing will not start earlier than designated above. Files are available for prior to the day of the hearing. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to contact our office at (631) 765-1809, or by email: Linda. Kowaiski@Town. South- Dated: November 13, 2006. ZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS RUTH D. OLIVA, CHAIRWOMAN FORM NO. 3 TOWN OFSOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOUTHOLD, N.Y. OCr S - 200~ NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL DATE: May 17, 2005 AMENDED: October 4~ 2006 TO: Roy C. & Robert Schoenhaar 10300 Main Road Mattituck, NY 11935 Please take notice that your application dated May 16, 2005 For a permit for a subdivision at Location of property: 10300 Main Road, Mattituck, NY Tax Map No. 1000- Section 143 Block3 422.~ ) ~} 3. "~ County Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The proposed subdivision of a lot located partially in the Residential R~40 and Business B Districts is not permitted pursuant to Article III, Section 100-30A.3, which states; "No building or premises shall be used and no building or part thereof shall be erected or altered in the A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 Districts unless the same conforms to the Bulk Schedule and Parking Schedule incorporated into this chapter with the same force and effect as if such regulations were set forth herein full." Bulk Schedule requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. Proposed lot 2 will become non- conforming, with a total lot size of 34,089. In addition, the proposed subdivision is not permitted pursuant to Article X, Section 100~103.A., states, "Structures shall be setback at least one hundred (100) feet from the right-of-way." Following the proposed subdivision, an existing structure on the property will now have a +/- 13-foot from yard setback (from the new right-of-way). This Notice of Disapproval was amended on October 4~ 2006~ to reflect a new map submitted for this proiect. Authorized S~gnature Note to Applicant: Any change or deviation to the above referenced application may require AI'PLICATI~!~ TO ORIGINAL TIlE SOUTHOLD TOWN OF APPEALS Office Notes: Parcel Location: llouse No. 10300 Street ~fn Road SCTM 1000 Secliou 143 Block 03 Lot(s)_.33_,2._Lot Size 2.58 Zone District "B" & "R-40" I OVE) Al'PEAL 'FILE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF 'FILE BUILDING INSPECTOR Applicant/Owner(s): Roy C. Schoonhnnr & Rohox'r gol-~,,,,h.o_o_r P, lailing Address: 330 Eastwood Drive, Cutchosue, New York 11935 Telephone: fi31_73z,_5876 Authorized Representative: William c:_ ~ngg~n¢ Address: P.O. Box 65 13105 Main Road Mattqr,,ok: Ixlm., v~rk 11952 Telephone: 631-298-4200 Please specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, fi'om tile above listed names: [] Al~plica]d/Owner(s) ~ Authorized Representative [] Other: WIIERli;IIY TIlE BtlIIJ)ING INSI'ECTOR DENIED AN AI'I'LICATION 1)ATEi) May 17:, FOR: U Bailding Permit 13 Cerlificale of Occulmncy [] I'rc-Cerlificate of Occupancy [] Change of Use [] Permi~ for As-Built Coastructiou [3 Other: Subdivision 2OO5 Provisiou of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. iudicate Article, Sectioa, Subseclioa cad paragraph of Zoaing Ordiuauce by aun~bers. I)o not quote the code. Article IIIA Section 100-30A Subsection 3 Article X Section 100-102; Article X, Section 100-103A Type of Appeal. All Appeal is made for: ~ A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoidng Map. [3 A Variance dae to lack of access reqaired by New York Town Law-Sectloa 280-A. [] lnterpretalion of the Town Code, Article Section 13 Reversal or Olher A prior al)ileal [] has ~ has md been made wiih respect lo this propert3 UNDER Appeal No. Year iRI~ASONS FOR Al'l'EAJ~lditional sheets may be used with amflic,~' s .uature): AREA VARIANCIf RE/ISONS: (1) An undesirable change will :lot be produced ill the CI1AI~,ACTER of tile neighborhood or a deh'bneut (to nearby properties if granted, because: Please see Appendix I for'answers to questions 1-4. (2) The beuefit sought by the applicaut CANNOT be achieved by some method feasible Mr tile applicanttopursue, otherthananareavariance, because: The master plan and zoning changes have caused part of the subject properties to be zoned business and part zoned residential. (3) Tlteamountofreliefrequestedisl~otsubstantialbecause: (a)It would divide the business property and the residential property; and (b)the residential building lots would conform to those in neighborhood. intheueighborhoodordistrictbecause: The zoning lines were determined by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, and the residential lots would conform to the existing lots. (5) Ilas II~e alleged difficulty beee self-crc:He{l? ( )Yes, or (x)No. The town caused part of the difficulty. This is file MINIMUM thai is necessary cud adequate, cud at the same lime preserve and In'olecl characler of the neighborhood and tbe heallh, safety, and welfare of the community. Check lhis box ( ) IF A USE VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED, ~D PLEASE COMPLETE TIlE ATTACilED USE VARIANCE SIIEET: (Please Signalsre of Appefian~4/Aufl,or~ed Agent Sworn 1o befole llle this 5th day of July ,20 O~ · No[a~3' Public ELAINE T. VILLANO Notary Public, State of New York No, 01VI6029229, Suffolk County Commission Expires Aug. 9, oL,/v~ ~'/ RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2005 ONING BOARD OF APPEALS Appendix I- Reasons For Appea~ Question 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: Residential Lots Answer- The proposed subdivision represents a 2.59 acre parcel of land that is split zoned with the front portion representing commercial "B" zone and the back portion representing residential "R-40" zone. There are ten properties that immediately border the proposed sub-division with nine of the properties being used as single family homes. See Appendix B. The lot sizes of the two proposed residential lots are 34, 089 (minus the right of way) and 35,105 square feet. The nine residential properties that directly border the proposed subdivision represent an average lot size of 23, 281 square feet. (See Appendix A- Section I.) When comparing the lot sizes of the nine properties to the two proposed residential lots, seven (or 78%) of the properties are smaller with an average lot size of 18,233 square feet and only two (or 22%) of the properties are larger with an average lot size of 40,947 square feet. (See Appendix A- Section II.) Thus, the proposed residential lots are larger than the majority of the bordering residential lots and they are almost twice the size of the average of the seven smaller lots. This application specifically proposes two residential lots to avoid one atypical lot of 72,853 square feet. Finally, the potential of a detriment to nearby properties or an uncharacteristic effect is mitigated by avoiding an oversized residential lot in the center of town. Also, the lot depth for the two proposed residential lots of+/-153 and +/- 138 is consistent with other residential properties located in the surrounding area. While the residential properties that border the East side of the proposed subdivision are of larger depth, they are not indicative of the majority of the surrounding residential properties. (See Appendix B.) Thus, when comparing the proposed property depths to the surrounding property depths, the two proposed lots again comply with the characteristics of area. The two proposed residential lots represent a solution that at a minimum will comply, but more likely will improve the existing characteristics of the surrounding area. The proposed lots not only fall within the lot sizes of the bordering residential lots, they are more similar in size to the two larger bordering lots. Further, the lot depths are more than adequate when compared to the surrounding properties. Given the proposals consistency with the existing residential lots, there will clearly be no detriment to any nearby properties and the characteristics of the neighborhood will arguably be improved. Commercial Lot Answer- At this time there is no plan to develop the commercial property. The current single family home on the property is a pre-existing structure that was built in the 1950s. The applicants intend to continue the single family use of the property until such time that an application to develop the lot is submitted. Further, the proposed right of way is located in the same location as part of the current driveway that has existed for over 50 1 of 3 JUL 2 8 2005 ONING ~OA~D OF APPEALS Appendix I- Reasons For AppeaIO years. Therefore, given the current and proposed continued use as a single family home, there will be no adverse effect to the neighborhood. Note- At the time of an application to improve this lot, the application will comply with the requisite rules and regulations. Thus, the setback violations will be remedied upon improvement of this lot in the future. Question 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: Answer- This property has been in the applicants' family for over 25 years. The applicants have paid taxes and maintained the residential portion of the property during this period without any benefit of its use. At this time the applicants respectfully seek the proposed relief by dividing the residential portion among the two principles and their respective families. As explained in answer to question 1, the proposed subdivision lot is split zoned between a commercial "B" zone and a residential "R-40" zone. The unique zoning condition combined with the large size of the residential portion and the location in the center of town, have created a situation for the applicants that offers limited opportunities for future use. Along with maintaining the character of the neighborhood, without a split of the R-40 portion into two residential lots, the applicants' objectives can not be satisfied. Question 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: Answer- The proposal before this board is a request to provide a variance which will result in three lots that entirely conform with surrounding properties of similar use. Unlike a complex request for a use variance, lot line change, etc., this proposal requests minor exceptions to lot depths and lot sizes that will not even be evident to the naked eye. For example, the proposed square footage for lots 2 and 3 deviates from the R-40 zone requirements by a mere 15% and 12% respectively. (See Appendix A- Section III.) Further, the exceptions requested for the commercial lot are based on the pre-existing structure and since the use of this property will not change, the relief requested is also minimal. The proposed subdivision is both reasonable and straightforward. Thus, the amount of relief requested is anything but substantial. Question 4. The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: Answer- The majority of the residential portion of the lot is covered with brush and small trees ("woods"). Pursuant to an approval of this proposed subdivision, the applicants plan on developing the residential lots in a manner that will preserve as much of the woods as possible. Applicants will take special care in preserving existing woods located along and nearby the perimeter of the lots. Further, since lots 1 & 2 represent zone "B" and "R-40" respectively, applicants intend to landscape the border between these two lots 2 of 3 RECEIVED JUL ~ ~ 2005 Appendix I- Reasons For Appeal' to create a buffer. Also, applicants do not intend to significantly alter the already flat terrain of the lots. Turning to the environmental conditions in the neighborhood, no adverse effect is similarly expected. All directly bordering residential lots have public water. Further, even if they did not, there is more than adequate land for proper waste systems because the proposed lots will be just shy of an acre. Also, Suffolk County Water Authority has already provided a letter of availability to provide water to this property. (See Appendix C- SCWA Letter). Finally, the intended development consists of merely build homes on the residential properties. Thus, the potential impact to the water, air, and sanitary quality is minimal. JUL $ 2005 3 of 3 -- OWNER OF 'SOUTHOLD I.~OPERTY VI LLAGE RECORD CARD DISTRICT SUB. ACREAGE '~ / TYPE OF BUILDING K~ES. c~/O SEAS. VL FARM LAND IMP. TOTAL DATE LOT COMM. [ IND. [ CB. MISC. Est. Mkt. Value 3~oo ~oo0 NLR~/ Farm JILDINIG CONDITIOI',D .x_ BELOW ABOVE Value Per Acre Value Tillable 1 Tillable 2 Tillable 3 Woodland Swampland ..-~ ,.~ Brushland FRONTAGE ON WATER FRONTAGE ON ROAD BULKHE~D Toro I House Plot ixtension { /~ ~ ~"~ ~0"" v/ J Floors ~tension /~ [ ~. ~ j Fire Place O tl~ Heat ~ 4 ~,~ Porch Roof Type ~reezeway ~ I 'Patio J Rooms 2nd Floor ~arage Driveway Dormer ]4 III "° ~,,.,~,"""~'~o"~ ,~ ~.,~. ~ ,~ ~ed Prop~ty Tax S~vice Agency II IIII DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SOFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE November 24, 2006 zoL~..~G OF APPEAL! THOMAS ISLES, AICP DIRECTOR OF PLANNING Ms. Ruth Oliva, Chair Town of Southold ZBA 53085 Main Rd., P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Oliva: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following application(s) submitted to the Suffolk County Planning comrmssion is/are considered to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Applicant(s) Municipal File Number(s) FITF, LLC 5617 RosenbaumJNiamonitakis 5691 Achoenhaar, Roy & Robert 5764 eeley, Robert 5912 rews, Michael& Robin 5929 Fergus, Edward 5941 East Marion Fire District 5972 ,Melnick, Mark 5977 *Staff notes the subdivision of Lot 1 along the B/R 40 zoning boundary and the 25 ft. wide fight-of-way servicing the 3 proposed lots. As proposed, lot 2 is considered landlocked with no legal access to an existing or proposed public road. Consideration should be given to increasing the width of the right-of-way to 30 ft. and redrawing both lots 2 and 3 as flag lots with 15 ft. of frontage along Main Road. Very truly yours, Thomas Isles, AICP Director of Planning CSW:cc S/s Christopher S. Wrede Environmental Planner LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR · P.O. BOX 6100 · (631) 853-5190 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY NAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631) 853-4044 JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair WILLIAM J. CREMERS KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 Date: To: October 3, 2005 OCT 4 ZOO5 Ruth Oliva, Chairwoman Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Anthony Trezza, Senior Planner Re: Schoenhaar Variance Application SCTM# 143-3-33.2 Appeal # 5764 We are in receipt of your request for comments regarding the above-referenced application currently before the ZBA. I have reviewed the map as submitted to your office and find that a few changes will be necessary before the ZBA can process this application. Specifically, the Town Engineer and the Planning Board will require a turn- around area at the end of the right-of-way for emergency vehicular access. This revision to right-of-way will change the proposed lot areas and therefore change the amount of relief sought by the applicant. It is recommended that you have the applicant contact the Planning Board office so that we may discuss the proposed map changes with him. Once the overall layout of the site has been revised to the Planning Board and Town Engineer's satisfaction, we will advise your office accordingly and provide specific comments regarding the application. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office. PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE Chair KENNETH L. EDWARDS MARTIN H. SIDOR GEORGE D. SOLOMON JOSEPH L. TOWNSEND MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 OFFICE LOCATION: Town Hall Annex 54375 State Route 25 (cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.) Southold, NY Telephone: 631 765-1938 Fax: 631 765-3136 PLANNING BOARD OFFICE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MEMORANDUM Date: October 25, 2006 To: Ruth Oliva, Chairperson Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals From: Jefilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairperson~J/~d-t,~'~) Members of the Planning Board OCr ~ ~ 2oo6 BOARD OF Re: Schoenhaar Variance Application SCTM# 143-3-33.2 Appeal # 5764 We are in receipt of your request for comments regarding the above-referenced application currently before the ZBA. The Planning Board reviewed the application at their work session on October 2, 2006, and offers the following comments and recommendations at this time: Pursuant to the amended Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building Department dated October 4, 2006, this proposal will create one (1) non-conforming lot and one (1) non-conforming structure. The structure on Lot 1 will have a setback of 13 feet from the new right-of-way, where 100 feet is the minimum required by the Town Code. Lot 2 will have a lot area of 34,098 square feet where 40,000 square feet is the minimum required in the R-40 Zoning District. The size and shape of the proposed residential lots are consistent with the nature and character of the existing neighborhood to the west, which consists of lots that are square or rectangular in shape and range in size from ¼-acre to 1A-acre. 3. Although the setback relief being sought is substantial (87 feet), the Planning Board acknowledges that the structure is pre-existing with no proposed changes to the building at this time. 4. The applicant is advised that if the ZBA grants the variances, this project will still require review and/or approval from the Southold Town Planning Board, the New York State Department of Transportation, the Suffolk County Department of Health Services, the Suffolk County Planning Commission and the Town Engineer. Based on the above, the Planning Board supports the setback relief for the existing structure. The Planning Board typically does not support the creation of non-conforming lots that allows a property owner to increase density when the parcel does not have the yield pursuant to the Town's subdivision regulations. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact this office. Dear Mrs. Kowalski: I am writing to you via e-mail concerning the request for a permit assessed to Roy C. and Robert Schoenhaar. REC iIVED NOV' 0 2006 ZONING BOARD OF A~PFAI R r a S[.JDaivlsJul~ ¢~t ~uo~ Page 2 of 2 n Rd., Mattituck, I live on Marlene Lane and will be directly affected by the development of the property owned by Mr. Schoenharr. I have therefore, reviewed the plans and reviewed what actions have been taken on the proposed subdivision to date. I oppose the subdivision of the property on the grounds that there is insufficient acreage for the current proposed development of the property as stated in Article III, Section 100- 30A, Bulk Schedule requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. In addition Article X, Section 100-103, requires structures to be set back at least 100 feet from the right-of-way. These plans do not conform to the Town of Southold zoning laws currently in effect. Granting of a permit for this subdivision will cause overcrowding, congestion and would be an injustice to the property owners in the residential district who rely on strict zoning laws to protect the investment they have in their homes and property and would impose a hardship on their living conditions. I wish to approach the Town of Southold in a way that will allow my views to be considered. I am therefore, writing to you for information about how I can go about approaching the board legally with my objections to the variance requested, t am planning to be at the board meeting on 11.30/2006 at 11AM. I would also like to submit my objections in writing to the board. Please let me know if there are any official forms that I might file that should be presented at the meeting and what the procedures must be followed. Thank you, Rose Skuro 11/20/2006 November 25, 2006 To: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Re*. Schoenhaar Variance Application Thursday November 30th., 2006 11:00AM SCTM 0143 3 33.2 From: R. Skuro, 305 Marlene Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 SCTM # 143 3 30 I have received the legal notice describing the most recent application for a variance for SCTM #143 3 33.2, assessed to Roy C. and Robert Schoenhaar. A section of this parcel forms the Easterly border of my property and the granting of variances for the proposed development brings up serious issues that will directly and permanently affect my environment, as well as the environment and eharaeter of the neighborhood and the community in generaL This parcel is landlocked on its East, West and South borders by residential and business property owners. The parcel's North border is bounded by Route 25. Access to and from the lot and/or its structures requires the use of a right-of-way. The structure on Lot I will have a setback of 13 feet from the proposed right-of-way, where 100 feet is the minimum required by Town Code. In addition, Lot 2 will have a lot area of 34,098 square feet where 40,000 square feet is the minimum required in the R-40 Zoning District. Currently, there is a preexisting structure on the property with no proposed changes to the building at this time. The proposed right-of-way would need available access from an already congested Route 25. The access would be located on the South side of Route 25, across from the shopping plaza and in between not one, but two busy shopping plaza entrances and exits used by shoppers on a daily basis. There is also a stop for the Hampton Jitney and the S92 daily bus service on one of those two entrances. This is a high traffic area that is not only dangerous to negotiate any day, but especially in the Summer and Fall, when vacationers and visitors make use of Route 25 and at times this reduces the flow of traffic to a standstilL The surrounding area contributes to the congestion with a new pharmacy, gas stations, banks, boat sales and small businesses. During the workweek, residents of the area and commuters also deal with rush hour traffic peaks and share the roadway with larger vehicles such as delivery and supply trucks traveling to and from businesses in the area as well as utility vehicles, buses, pedestrians and bicyclists. In the event of an emergency, when one or more ambulance, police, or fire vehicles need immediate access to the property, there could be a problem gaining access to the interior parcels not only due to the traffic on Route 25 as I have described, but also from the proposed residential development, resulting in multiple users of the same right-of-way and homes crowded on smaller parcels of land, reducing availability to the surrounding area. Page I of 2 (Continued from page 1) To: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Schoenhaar Variance Application Thursday November 30th., 2006 11:00AM SCTM #143 3 33.2 From: R. Skuro, 305 Marlene Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 $CTM # 143 3 30 A portion of the proposed right-of-way is located along my property's Easterly boundary line and I will not only be directly affected by the proposed right-of-way as planned but I am also concerned about issues regarding pedestrian and vehicle access, additional parking problems, proper and timely maintenance of the right-of-way, and other issues that arise from the proposed development of landlocked property and the increase in population and usage of that area. This situation may also encourage trespassing by one or more individuals at any given time in order to gain easy access to their residence or nearby shopping areas, recreational facilities, and other neighboring residences or businesses, thereby necessitating the need for privacy barriers or additional fencing along property boundary lines. I am concerned about zoning variances that create overcrowding, and will diversely impact the environment, the character of the community and the quality of life afforded to the residents. On a parcel of land where there currently exists one structure, there is a proposal for two more residences to be built, one of which is to be built on inadequate acreage. There also exits the possibility of developing a business area on that same acreage now or sometime in the future. Also, the granting of the variance for the right of way may set a dangerous new precedent that could be referred to and implemented in the future in similar situations in the Town of Southold, with even less desirable results. Granting zoning code variances for property located in an area that is already problematic would create permanent, undesirable changes to the character of the area, create new issues requiring more intervention by local government and authorities and possibly necessitate new regulatory procedures, as well as negatively impact the surrounding residents, the neighborhood and community in general on an ongoing basis for ail future generations. Very truly yours, · Page 2 of 2 November 25, 2006 RECEIVED NOV ? 2006 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS To: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Schoenhaar Variance Application Thursday November 30th., 2006 11:00AM SCTM #143 3 33.2 From: R. Skuro, 305 Marlene Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 SCTM # 143 3 30 I have received the legal notice describing the most recent application for a variance for SCTM #143 3 33.2, assessed to Roy C. and Robert Schoenhaar. A section of this parcel forms the Easterly border of my property and the granting of variances for the proposed development brings up serious issues that will directly and permanently affect my environment, as well as the environment and character of the neighborhood and the community in general. This parcel is landlocked on its East, West and South borders by residential and business property owners. The parcel's North border is bounded by Route 25. Access to and from the lot and/or its structures requires the use of a right-of-way. The structure on Lot 1 will have a setback of 13 feet from the proposed right-of-way, where 100 feet is the minimum required by Town Code. In addition, Lot 2 will have a lot area of 34,098 square feet where 40,000 square feet is the minimum required in the R-40 Zoning District. Currently, there is a preexisting structure on the property with no proposed changes to the building at this time. The proposed right-of-way would need available access from an already congested Route 25. The access would be located on the South side of Route 25, across from the shopping plaza and in between not one, but two busy shopping plaza entrances and exits used by shoppers on a daily basis. There is also a stop for the Hampton Jitney and the S92 daily bus service on one of those two entrances. This is a high traffic area that is not only dangerous to negotiate any day, but especially in the Summer and Fall, when vacationers and visitors make use of Route 25 and at times this reduces the flow of traffic to a standstill. The surrounding area contributes to the congestion with a new pharmacy, gas stations, banks, boat sales and small businesses. During the workweek, residents of the area and commuters also deal with rush hour traffic peaks and share the roadway with larger vehicles such as delivery and supply trucks traveling to and from businesses in the area as well as utility vehicles, buses, pedestrians and bicyclists. In the event of an emergency, when one or more ambulance, police, or fire vehicles need immediate access to the property, there could be a problem gaining access to the interior parcels not only due to the traffic on Route 25 as I have described, but also from the proposed residential development, resulting in multiple users of the same right-of-way and homes crowded on smaller parcels of land, reducing availability to the surrounding area. Page 1 of 2 (Continued from page 1) To: Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Schoenhaar Variance Application Thursday November 30th., 2006 11:00AM SCTM #143 3 33.2 From: R. Skuro, 305 Marlene Lane, Mattituck, NY 11952 SCTM # 143 3 30 A portion of the proposed right-of-way is located along my property's Easterly boundary line and I will not only be directly affected by the proposed right-of-way as planned but I am also concerned about issues regarding pedestrian and vehicle access, additional parking problems, proper and timely maintenance of the right-of-way, and other issues that arise from the proposed development of landlocked property and the increase in population and usage of that area. This situation may also encourage trespassing by one or more individuals at any given time in order to gain easy access to their residence or nearby shopping areas, recreational facilities, and other neighboring residences or businesses, thereby necessitating the need for privacy barriers or additional fencing along property boundary lines. I am concerned about zoning variances that create overcrowding, and will diversely impact the environment, the character of the community and the quality of life afforded to the residents. On a parcel of land where there currently exists one structure, there is a proposal for two more residences to be built, one of which is to be built on inadequate acreage. There also exits the possibility of developing a business area on that same acreage now or sometime in the future. Also, the granting of the variance for the right of way may set a dangerous new precedent that could be referred to and implemented in the future in similar situations in the Town of Southold, with even less desirable results. Granting zoning code variances for property located in an area that is already problematic would create permanent, undesirable changes to the character of the area, create new issues requiring more intervention by local government and authorities and possibly necessitate new regulatory procedures, as well as negatively impact the surrounding residents, the neighborhood and community in general on an ongoing basis for all future generations. Very truly yours, Rose Skuro Page 2 of 2 November 30, 2006 The signers of this petition are residents of Marlene Eane and Bay Avenue in Mattituch who have come together, to voice their opposition to the Schoenhaar variance application brought before the ZB.4 today. The community is interested in preserving it's character and maintaining the qualiO~ of life that the neighborhood affords it's residents. The members of this community do not wish to experience the diverse impact to it's environment from the proposed development of a lot which contains less than 40, 000 square feet and less than 175 feet of lot width in the R-40 residential zone district and a proposed building in the B-General Business Zone District with a front yard setback at less than 100feet from a right-of-way. We appeal to the board to uphold the Town Codes and deny the granting of the variances requestetg Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - November 30, 2006 ~ 11:00AM To: Members of Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Schoenheer SCTM #14~,~3..33.2, Article III, Section 100-30A Bulk Schedule requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. ~ ~d~bc Article X, Section 100-103'~r~quires structures to be set back at least 100 Feet from the right-of-way. We support of the current Town of Southold zoning codes currently in effect and oppose the variances requested by the owners of the above referenced tax map. We feel the changes requested would diversely affect pur er)vironment~peighborh~ed and community. '' I -- ~ ' .; ,~ Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - November 30, 2006 ~ 11:00AM To: Members of Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Schoenhaar SCTM #143.3_.33.2. ~0 Article III, Section 100-30A B[~lulk Schedule requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. ~. ,Lf¥11~b' Article X, Section t00-103 requires structures to be set back at least 100 Feet from the right-of-way. We support of the current Town of Southold zoning cedes currently in effect and oppose the variances requested by the owners of the above referenced tax map. We feel the changes requeetod would diversely affect our environment, neighborhood and community. Date: ,,/% t~ Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting - November 30, 2006 ~ 11:00AM To: Members of Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Re: Schoenhaar SCTM #143.3.33.2 Article III, Section 100-30A Bulk Schedule requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. Article X, Section 100-t03 requires structures to be set back at least t00 Feet from the right-of-way. We support of the current Town of Southold zoning codes currently in effect and oppose the variances requested by the owners of the above referenced tax map. We feel the changes requested would diversely affect our environment, neighborhood and community. Date: Name: Address: I~EC ! 2 2006 December 12, 2006 To: Ruth Oliva and all Members of the Southold Zoning Appeals Board of Appeals Re: SchocnhearVariance Application SCTM #143 3 33.2 From: William and Kathlccn Collins, 225 Marlene Lane, MattituckNY 11952 SCTM # 143-3=31 I have learned of thc proposed variance application by some of my neighbors. I did not receive any official nOtiCe, I am requesting a delay in this case so I have appropriate time to ~y investigate the proposal and make my concerns heard. As a new member of thc community who has just paid over $5000 to preserve open spacc, I think it tidiculou~ to ignore thc limits that are already a part of thc town codc designed to protect those spaces. Have the maps been updated to properly show the homes in the area,9 What will thc street addresses of the new homes be.9 What materials will be used on a fight of way?. How much land will be between my yard and a tight of way?. How many bouscs already in thc immediate ~ are already fOr sale? The~ ai'c just a few of the questions ! Imvc end would IL~e answered. We may bc reached at 82 New Highway, Commack NY 11725 phone g64-! 513 c-mail ~ Thank you for your consideration. William and Kathleen Collins ~'d ~90699Z:O± :WO~ 9£:£0 900~~~-3~0 Ms. 'Ruth Oliva, Chairperson .... · ~.r~ Southold Zoning Board of Appeals ~ ' "~ ' 53095 Main St. ~ BEC g Southold, NY 11971-0959 i,f>jol/)/,~o ', - Dear Ms. Oliva: ~L I am writing in regards to the variance request of Mr. Schoenhaar for SCTM #143 3 33.2. After looking at the map and information sent by his attorney I must voice my objections. · Having two homes in a landlocked plot behind a commercial plot only accessible from Rt25 by a right of way is a dangerous situation. · The existing town codes call for a 100 ft. set back for homes, and this would clearly be violated on two sides by this proposal. · The plots would also be under the size desired by town code. · Ignoring these codes would then impact numerous homes that are already following town codes. The changes to water tables, drainage, lighting and building the fight of way including its maintenance, fire safety and Waffle concerns have all been pointed out as negative impacts from this project. I hope you agree that granting this variance is not in the best interest of all the surrounding landowners, and does nothing to maintain the character of the town of Mattituck. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. William Collins -- --S~EO~.~;--~OT~T. ...................... ~4 ...... ~,~' South Side Rte. 25, Mattituck 3/20/80 D-approval of insuff, area and width of parcel to be established in a proposed subdivision, and for permission to reinstate preexisting nonconforming sideyard setback, and for approval of access. N MAt' T~sk HoI~ ~1 = I~' PAROEL LIB IN ZONIN¢ OISTRIC, T "~Ii AND ZONIN6 DI5~IGT "t~-40" SRAPHIO SCALE T%PIOAL N PLOT PLAN no~. to ~cole STANDARD ~ uaDPe~lON ROY SCHO NI-IAAR MATTITUCK TOWN OF $OUTHO~-r~ SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK MARCH 15, 2002 TOTAL AP-.EA: 112,T4D SF OR 2.5~ ACRES 011~'~. P.O'¢ SOHOt!~NHAAR BDO EAST~OOO OUTOHO~U~ N~ IIqDD SUFFOLK. COUN"F'r' TAX ~ SCHOOL DISTRICT: FIRE DISTP. ICT, 1000-14D-D-DD.2 ivlATTITUCK MA~q-ITUCK JOHN C. EHI~ERS LAND SURVEYOR 6 EAST MAIN STREET N.Y.S. LIC. NO, 50202 R1VERHEAD, N.Y. 11901 369-8288 F~x 369-8287 REF.-\\Compaqserver~pros~2~2-104D.pro