The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6389 BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ken Schneider Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 1197l http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 ZBA FILE: 6389 NAME OF APPLICANT: John E. and Sharon I. Wren PROPERTY LOCATION:225 Hippodrome Dr .Southold NY FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION q ~'!() · MEETING OF DECEMBER 2, 2010 ,~0~¥,.~~.,~ Clerk SCTM# 1000-66-2-32 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. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated April 29, 2010 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. LWRP: This application is not subject to review under Chapter 268 because the variance relief requested does not involve features that relate to a regulated natural feature or a bulkhead or other shoreline PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Subject property is a non-conforming 10, 944 sq. fi. lot in the R-40 zone. It is improved with a two story single-family dwelling and a detached accessory garage. It has 144.00 feet of frontage on Hippodrome Dr., 76.00 feet along the eastern property line, 144.00 feet along the southern property line and 76.00 feet along the western property line as shown on a survey dated February 24, 2010 added proposed additions, prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin, III, LS. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variance from Code Section 280-124, based on an applicatio~ for building permit and the Building Inspector's March 10, 2010, Notice of Disapproval concerning reconstruction and addition to single-family dwelling, at 1) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) exceeding maximum lot coverage of 20%. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant proposes alterations and an addition to their existing dwelling, including an attached garage, requiring variances for a rear yard setback of 9.3 feet where the code requires 35 feet and lot coverage of 20.5% where the code permits a maximum of 20%. AMENDED APPLICATION: During the hearing, the applicant was asked to bring the plan into more conformity with the code. On September 21, 2010 the applicant submitted a survey, dated September 2, 2010 prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin, III, LS, which shows a reduction in the length of the proposed addition along the pre-existing non-conforming rear yard setback from 33.7 ff to 32 ft, which thereby reduced the lot coverage from 20.5% to a conforming 20%, thereby eliminating the request for the lot coverage variance. Page 2 - December 2, 2010 ZBA File#6389 - Wren CTM: 1000-66-2-32 ADDITIONAL iNFORMATION: The Wren's are planning to reside in their family cottage year round with their son and two grandchildren. Their home currently contains four bedrooms which they propose to re-locate on the second floor. An additional room on the second floor will serve as a sewing room for Mrs. Wren who is a master quilter. However, the proposed new sanitary system is designed for five bedrooms should the property be sold and used differently by a subsequent owner. The first floor includes a proposed small increase in living space, and an attached garage to provide room for bedrooms above. The proposed gabled portion of the existing dwelling, which will be maintained in the addition, is 20 ft. +/- high to the ridge, which is considerably lower than the code permitted 35 ft. The remainder of the dwelling will be one and half story with a roof that slopes away from the property line with a dormer located midway up the roof line to permit essential headroom, natural light and air in the bedrooms. The applicant's propose to demolish an existing accessory garage on the property to make better use of their side yard, which is the only outdoor space they have for recreation, since there is no functional rear yard. Letters were received from neighbors both objecting to and supporting this application. At the first public hearing on July 29, 2010, the applicant's architect was asked to explore an alternative design for the proposed addition that would create a larger rear yard setback than the pre-existing non-conforming 9.3 feet, and/or reduce the length of the proposed addition along the rear yard setback. The applicant's architect/agent submitted a letter dated August 5, 2010 requesting that the Board consider the application as applied for since any alternative designs discussed with the applicants had proved unsatisfactory both aesthetically and programmatically. Another hearing took place on August 26, 2010 and subsequently, the applicant's architect/agent submitted an amended survey (Sept 2, 2010) showing a conforming 20% lot coverage and a reduction in the proposed length of the addition from 33.7 fl. to 32 ft. At the public hearing on September 23, 2010 the applicant's architect/agent showed and submitted to the Board hand drawn scaled alternative floor plan layouts, as requested. These plans maintained the existing conforming front yard setback of 35.5 ft and reduced the depth of the proposed house by 8 feet to increase the rear yard setback from 9.3 ft to 17.3 ft, which still required a substantial 50.5% variance from the code. The architect testified that, because of the significant slope of the existing roof gable, which will be continued in the proposed addition, in order to have reasonable head room, natural light and air in the second floor bedrooms, dormered windows are required, and, with a 17.3 foot rear yard setback, the width of some rooms would only be about 6 feet which is not conforming to New York State code. Moreover, the result would be a single loaded corridor which is a very wasteful and inefficient use of space. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 29, 2010, August 26, 2010, September 23, 2010, 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 and makes the following findings: 1. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(l). Grant of the variance of will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The Wren home has existed in its present location since the establishment of the Beixedon Estates subdivision as a beach community pre-zoning in the 1920's and 1930's. Since then, many new houses have been built and many of the original cottages have undergone substantial renovations and expansions and are being used as year round residences, as proposed by the applicants. Of the eight homes surrounding the subject property, only one has not been remodeled or rebuilt. Many have required variances for these additions and alterations. The applicants propose to renovate their home to a size and style that is in keeping with many of their neighbor's homes, by adding 901 square feet to their one and a half story dwelling, as amended. The total footprint with the proposed addition and attached garage is 2,189 sq. ft. Other nearby properties compare as follows: I. The Pinto house directly across the street from the Wren property (SCTM 1000-66-2-25) is 2,523 sq. ft. 2. The Libassi residence (SCTM 1000-66-2-45) which abuts the Wren property on the SE corner is 3,653 sq. ft. without the 600 sq. ft. garage with room above. 3. The Alessi residence (SCTM 1000-66-2-35) is 1,806 sq. ft. Page 3 December 2. 2010 ZBA File#6389 - Wren CTM: 1000-66-2-32 4. The Stein residence (SCTM 1000-676-2-33) which is directly to the west of the Wren residence is 1,988 sq. lt., including the detached garage 5. The Kuchner residence (SCTM 1000-66-2-44) which abuts the Wren property line on the south (rear) is 2,542 sq. ft., not including 785 sq. ft. of decks and a 400 sq. ft. swim~ning pool. 6. The Ball residence (SCTM 1000-66-2-46) is 2,513 sq. ft., including a 504 sq. fi. garage While lot sizes vary among these properties, and many are larger than the applicants', the Wren application proposes a code conforming 20% lot coverage, and the maintenance of their existing conforming front yard and side yard setbacks and roof height, which is considerably lower than the 35 feet permitted by code. No additional traffic, parking or number of occupants will result from the proposed addition. The applicants' modernized, renovated and enlarged home will dramatically improve the dwelling's street appeal and represent improvements that are similar in size and character to other homes in the neighborhood. 2, Town Law .~267-b13)(b)(2). The ben,fit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, .feasible .fiJr the applicant to pursne, other than an area variance. Due to the shallow 76 foot depth of the subject property, an area of only six feet is conforming with respect to the front and rear yard setbacks, and any construction outside of that 6 foot space would require a variance. Therefore, the Board finds that no reasonable addition can be constructed on any part of this property without the need for a substantial variance. 3. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(3). The variance requested herein is substantial. The applicant is requesting to maintain the pre-existing non-conforming 9.3 fi rear yard setback (a 73% variance from the code) and to increase the length of the existing one and a half story house along that property line setback by an additional 32 feet, as amended. However, any increase in the rear yard setback for the proposed addition would result in the need for a front yard variance ~vhich would create two non-conforming setbacks on the subject property. Based upon written submissions and oral testimony by the applicant's architect, the Board concludes that there is no other practical location for any addition other than extending the house along the non-conforming rear yard setback (see additional information above). 4.Town Law §267-b{3){b)(4) Nc) convincing 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. There am two properties that adjoin the applicants' rear property line (Warlan and Kuchner) and one that adjoins their westerly side yard (Stein). All three home owners have expressed varying degrees of opposition to the applicants' plans based in large measure upon concerns about a reduction in their privacy as a result of the applicants' proposed renovations/addition. The portion of the Wren property that is contiguous with the Warlan's back yard is the westernmost half, where the existing Wren house is sited at 9.3 ft. from the rear yard setback. That view into the Waflan's back yard from the Wren house is currently screened by mature evergreen vegetation that was planted and is maintained by the Warlan's. If additional screening is desirable, the Warlan's can leave their hedge un-pruned and/or the Wren's can plant additional evergreens. The applicant's propose no change to the height or massing of the existing house adjacent to the Warlan's rear yard, and noise and traffic will be reduced by m-locating an existing rear door farther to the east in the proposed addition, and away from the Warlan's back yard. The only other change proposed in the southwest portion of the applicant's existing dwelling are two dormers facing west toward the Stein residence, located 34 feet from the Wren's house. (The Wren house sits 10 feet away from the shared property line and, based upon a survey by Otto W. Van Tuyl dated Jan 12, 1956, the Stein house sits 24 feet from the shared property line). The Wren's have offered to have the dormer windows fabricated with obscure glass, and to install the shortest operating windows per code so that views into the Stein windows will not be possible. The applicants have also agreed to install any mechanical equipment on the easterly side of the new addition, away from the Stein and Warlan dwellings, to mitigate potential noise impacts. The portion of the Wren property that is contiguous with the Kuchner's front yard and driveway to the south is the easternmost half. The front of the Kuchner's house is located 160 feet from the shared property line, and will be 169.3 ft. from the applicants' proposed addition. The Kuchner's and their agent claimed in writing and at the public hearings that the proposed addition will cast shadows and reduce natural light and open views in their yard. However, since the Wren house is located to the north of the Kuchner property, the applicant's proposed addition cannot cast a shadow on the Kuchner property that lies to the south. Regarding loss of open views to the Wren's side yard and Hippodrome Drive, the Board notes that the massing and height of the proposed addition is well Page 4 - December 2, 2010 ZBA File//6389 - Wren CTM: 1000-66-2-32 below the code permitted 35 ft and that the applicant could, as of right, screen the existing view with evergreen plantings that would grow to be higher then the proposed Wren house. Regarding environmental impact, the proposed additions and alterations include improvements to house mechanical and septic systems that will be updated to current codes, whereas the existing systems are based on outdated codes. The house will have gutters and leaders into drywells to contain storm water runoff on site per town code. 5. Town Law §267-b(3)(b){5). The difficulty has not been self-created, but results from the pre-existing non- conforming location of the existing house which was purchased by the applicant's family pre-zoning, and which has remained in continuous occupancy and ownership by the Wren family members every since. However, it is self- created in so far as the applicant is requesting to increase the existing non-conformance of the rear yard setback by extending the length of the house with the proposed addition. 6. Town Law §267-b. Granting of the amended relief requested is the minimum reasonable action necessary and adequate to enable the applicants to enjoy the benefit of an addition to their house to accommodate their full time residency and the needs of their large family, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. In applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, for the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the determent to 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 Weisman (Chairperson), seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT, the application as amended and shown on the survey dated September 2, 2010, revised proposed addition size to 20% lot coverage, prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin, III, LS. With the following conditions: CONDITIONS 1. West facing dormer windows shall be fabricated with obscure glass, and will be the shortest operating windows as allowed per code. 2. Exterior mechanical equipment shall be located on the easterly side of the new addition. 3. The applicants shall plant and continuously maintain evergreen screening that will grow up to 20 feet or more in height such as Leyland cypress, along the entire length of their rear and westerly property lines, at a height of no less than 6 feet and at a spacing designed to create, upon maturity, complete visual privacy from adjacent properties. Before appl'~ing for a building permit, the applicant or agent must submit to the Board of Appeals for approval and filing, two sets of the fmal architectural drawings conforming to the amended relief granted herein. The ZBA will forward one set of approved, stamped drawings to the Building Department. Failure to follow this procedure may result in the delay or denial of a building permit, and may require a new application and public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Any deviation fi.om 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 futura 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 Weisman (Chairperson), Goehringer, Homing, Schneider. Nay: Member Dinizio. Thi)Resolution was duly adopted (4-l). Ledlie KanesIWeisman~Chairperson Approved for filing ~/07/2010 / BOARD MEMBERS so Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Old 53095 Main Road • P.O. Box 1179 Eric Dantes Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Gerard P. Goehringer coo Q Town Annex /First Floor, Capital One Bank George Horning % 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Kenneth Schneider ~y~oUrm,~ Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD January 30, 2014 Tel. (631) 765-1809 • Fax (631) 765-9064 John E. Wren P.O. Box 1568 Southold, NY 11971 Re: ZBA Decision #6389 Dear Mr. Wren, I have reviewed your letter of inquiry dated January 22, 2014 regarding the conditions imposed in ZBA decision #6389, specifically requesting approval of modifications to condition number 3 which required the installation of evergreen landscape plantings to provide privacy screening along your rear (southerly) and side (westerly) property lines. On January 28, 2014 I conducted a field inspection to confirm the statements you make in your letter about the existing landscape screening on your property and your adjacent neighbors properties to the south and west, and to consider the changes you ultimately made to the scope of the house additions and alterations approved by the ZBA. Since the length and height of your project are both reduced from what you originally proposed, and you have eliminated the west facing dormer windows, I agree that the existing plantings, including your neighbor's mature Leyland cypress along your shared rear property line and the 6 Leyland cypress you have planted on your own rear property line, meets the intent for privacy screening conditioned in the ZBA decision, and that therefore the condition has been met. I will advise the office to forward a copy of this letter to the Building Department so you may go forward with obtaining your Certificate of Occupancy. S ce ours, c t(TL-- C4 Leslie Kanes eisman, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals CC: Michael Verity, Building Department 1 Post Office Box 1568 Southold, New York 11971 January 22,.2014 3 Chairperson Leslie Kanes Weisman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold JAN 2 4 7,014 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 11791 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: John E. Wren and Sharon I. Wren #6389-Decision 12/7/10 Dear Madam Chairperson and Members of the Board: This letter is in response to the inquiry of the Building inspector prior to his granting our Certificate of Occupancy, concerning installation of Leland Cyprus trees along our southern property line. In your decision of 12/7/10, a copy of which I have enclosed for your convenience, on page 4 under "Conditions" number 4 required us to plant the trees along the rear and western property lines. 1. As to the plantings required on the rear (southerly) line: Since your decision and prior to our construction, our neighbor, to the south (western third of southerly line), Warlan, removed their hedge and planted on our mutual line eleven 15 foot Leland Cyprus trees which have since grown five feet or more. Although, at our request they trimmed them back, at one point they had grown extensively and even blocked our entry into the basement. During one snow last winter most of the trees even bent over to touch our house, preventing any passage by us between the house and the trees. Now, the building inspector, following the letter of your decision, is requiring us to plant a row of such trees on our property as well. Because there is only 9.4 to 9.6 feet set back along that portion of our line, adding another row of trees would completely block access to the back of the house, would create a potential fire rescue hazard and would prevent access to our basement. 2. As to the plantings along the rest of the southerly line to the East: Due to the modification and reduction in size of the approved plan, the visible structure of concern to our other neighbor on the southern line, Kutchner, we have planted 6 Leland Cyprus trees extending eastward from those planted by Warlan. The plantings more than cover the area of our home to be seen by both neighbors when the trees are fully grown. There should be no need to extend the plantings further to the East along that line. Nothing there has been changed. 3. As to the plantings along the westerly line between our home and that of Stein: Chairperson Leslie Kanes Weisman January 22, 2014 Page 2 The same applies here as in #1 above. The neighbor had already made the plantings prior to our commencement of the construction, some of which he planted on our side of the westerly line. In addition, again, due to the modification and reduction of the approved plan, no construction was done on that side of the house, thereby eliminating the need for the additional plantings. There is only a 10.4 foot setback on the westerly side of the house. It is for the above reasons that I am contacting you, to request that you grant us relief from having to further comply with that condition in your decision. We thank you for your consideration in this matter. 'V&yy truly y s, E. Wr JAN `Z 4 2014 FINAL MAP REVIEWED BY ZBA SEE DECISION # E.kYST£,'VG BUILDING COVERAGE DATA DESCRIPTION EXIST. HOUSE AREA ! % LOT COVERAGEi 992 sq. ff. i 9.1% I EXIST. PORCH 286 sq. ft. 2.6% PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE DATA I DESCRIPTION i AREA 1% LOT COVERAGEj EXIST. HOUSE & PORCH I 1,278 sq. 1.7% :PROP. AODiTION i 911 sq. ft. I 8.3% i TEST HOLE DATA (TEST HOLE DUG BY 7~IS O~P!GE ON JANUARY ~ 2©10) NOTES SURVEY OF LOT~ o MAP OF BEIXEDON ESTATE,_, FILE No. 1472 FILED MARCH 16. 1946 SITUATE SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-66-02-32 SCALE 1 "=$0' MAY 16, 2007 ~A, 2010 ADDED PROPOSED ADDIT!ONS MARCH 25. 20]0 ~EVISED PER 3CDHS. NOTICE DATED 05/!8/10 SEPTEMBER 2. 2010 REVISE PROP ADDITION SIZE TO 20% LOT COVERAGE AREA = 10.9~4 sq. fl. 0.251 ac. 1. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO AN ASSUMED DATUM EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN THUS: 2&L~ 2. MINIMUM SEPTIC TANK CAPACITIES FOR 5-6 BEDROOM HOUSE IS 1,500 GALLONS. 1 TANK; 8' DIA., 5' HIGH 3. MINIMUM LEACHING SYSTEM FOR 5-6 BEDROOM HOUSE IS 400 sq f1 SIDEWALL AREA. 2 POOLS; B' DEEP, 8' dio. PROPOSED FUTURE 50% EXPANSION POOL CERTIFIED TO. JOHN E. WREN SHARON WREN Nathan Taft Corwin III Land Surveyor PHCNE (63t)727-2090 cc× (651)727 ;727 REPLACE BASEMENT IDOWS STORAGE POCKET DOOR KITCHEN REFRIG UP PAN~RYCABS EXISTING FIREPLACE LIVING ROOM MUD ROOM HALLWAY 24' x 14' BENCiH FAMILY ROOM POCKET BREAKLINE ~ CEILING REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS ~ LEGEND EXISTING WALL -- REPLACE EXISTING r I DEMOLISH WALL WINDOWS INSULATED WALL FIRST FLOOR PLAN I[z .BEDROOM 14 x 11' LU BEDROOM 14' X 1.1' 8' PLATE HGT dormer wall BEDROOM 10'- 9" x POCKET BATHROOM 8' PLATE HGT SECOND FLOOR PLAN POCKET LAUNDRY 6'-7" x 5'-5" PLATE HG} MASTER BATH 11'-1 x 9'-3" 6'-1" KNEE WALL WI CLOSET 7'-7 x 3E8" HALLWAY LEDGE / SHELF BEDROOM 16' - 1" x 11'-2" 411 CLOSET SEWING ROOM :l: 16'-10" x 12' 3 ~' 8' cl~. @ exist. ~able RECEIVED APR 6 ZOmbi BOARD.OF APPEAL~ oz A1 ASPHALT SHINGLES CLAPBOARD SIDING ASPHALT SHINGLES STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING EST DORMER _.~ECOND FLR FIRST FLR ASPHALT SHINGLES REPLACE EXISTING WINDOW CLAPBOARD SIDINIG ~I~L JLJIZ HUL alaF TF I~I~F 8' CLG HGT _TOP PLATE AT GEDROOM DORMER / EXIST~G STUCCO FINISH REPLACE EXISTING WINDOWS STUCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING PROPOSED ADDITION EXISTING HOUSE NORTH ELEVATION CLAPBOARD SIDING AT ALL DORMERS NEW WINDOWS SOUTH ELEVATION ~"= EXISTING HOUSE ' PROPOSED ADDITION ASPHALT SHINGLES TOP PLATE HGTAT EAST CLAPBOARD SIDING AT ALL DORMERS EXISTING SECOND FLR ST[JCCO FINISH TO MATCH EXISTING ~ GRADE RECEIVED FJ~FIRSTFLS APR 6 2010 BOARD OF APPEALS E A2 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COUNTY OF SUFFOLK STEVE LEVY SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECUTIVE THOMAS A. ISLES, A.I.C. P DIRECTOR OF PLANNING April 29, 2010 Town of Southold ZBA PO Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Att: Leslie K. Weisman Chairman Dear Ms. Weisman: Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A14-14 thru A14-25 of the Suffolk County Administrative Code, the following applications submitted to the Suffolk County Planning Commission are to be a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. A decision of local determination should not be construed as either an approval or disapproval. Applicants Municipal File Numbers Moy, Sim (c/o Shawn Barron) Gonzales, Joseph Abele, John Greene, Andrew Regina's Garden (c/o Edward Harbes) Wren, Mafyl Pappas, Jennie #6383 #6384 #6386 #6387 #6388 #6389 #6390 TRK:ds Very truly yours, Thomas A. Isles Director of Planning Theodore R. Klein Senior Planner LOCATION MAILING ADDRESS H. LEE DENNISON BLDG. - 4TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 6100 (631) 853-5191 100 VETERANS MEMORIAL HIGHWAY HAUPPAUGE, NY 11788-0099 TELECOPIER (631) 8534044 FORM NO. 3 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT NOTICE OF DISAPPROVAL RECEIVED APR 6 20,0 BOARD OF APPEALS DATE: March 10, 2010 TO: Meryl Kramer for J & S Wren P O Box 683 Greenport, NY 11944 Please take notice that your application dated March 1, 2010 For a permit for reconstruction of and addition to a single family dwelling at Location of property: 225 Hippodrome Dr., Southold, NY County Tax Map No. 1000 - Section 66 Block 2 Lot 32 Is returned herewith and disapproved on the following grounds: The construction on t~~fing 10,944 sq. fl. parcel, is not permitted pursuant to Article XXIII SectiOn280-124 w~ch states: "This section is intended to'-pl'oVi3e minimum standards for granting of a building permit for the principal buildings of lots which are recognized by the town under 280-9, are · 10" nonconforming and have not merged pursuant to 280- . ~ Lots measuring less than 20,000 shall have a minim~ar yard setback ~ff 35 fejet. The survey indicates a proposed ~g'y, ard setback c~9.3~. ~ ~ Also, the required lot coverage ~ 20%.)The propos&Sqo'( coverage is indicated a~.,~0.5~) Authorized Signature APPLICATI~TO THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOAR~F AP~L~'IL~VE!D APR $ ? 1o / ~OAKL) L)F APPEfNLS ] J-~ ~ D For O~ftce Use On!r Fee: $ Filed By:~,~,~ Date Assigned/Assignment No. Office Notes: UouseNo.~2~ Street ~I?~)~)p~)~V]E DR- Hamlet SCTM 1000 Section ~ Block ~ Lot(s) ~)/~ LotSize tO,~ I (WE) APPEA~.~THE WRITTEN DETERMINATION OF THE B_U~[LD~ING INSPECTOR DATED ~- ~.- [ ~ BASED ON ~ DATED ~' ~ ' [ ~ Applicantfs)/~ner(s): ~.~0~ 4' W EN NOTE: In addifioD go th~ Rbovg, please complete below if application is signed by applicant's attorney, agent, architect, builder, contract NameofRepresentafive: ~',~"~L- ~-~A~v~-~ for (~/) Owner, or ( )Other: Agent's Address: 3~0 ~0~ ~'~ . Telephone ~f.'~f ~ Fax#: Please check box to specify who you wish correspondence to be mailed to, from the above names: ~pplicant/Owner(s), or [] Authorized Representative, or [] Other Name/Address below: WHEREBY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REVIEWED MAP DATED ~ '~-Jf ' AN APPLICATION DATED ~ / I 0 FOR: ~Building Permit [] Certificate of Occupancy [] Pre-Certificate of Occupancy [] Change of Use [] Permit for As-Built Construction []Other: and DENIED Provision of the Zoning Ordinance Appealed. (Indicate Article, Section, Subsection of Zoning Ordinance by numbers. Do not quote the code.) Article )~ I I ~ Section 280- j "~ ~ Subsection Type of Appeal. An Appeal is made for: 0/-A Variance to the Zoning Code or Zoning Map. [3 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, ~as not been made at any time with respect to lthis property~ UNDER Appeal No. Year : (Please be sure to research before completing this question or call our office for assistance.) The name "Black Hills" comes from the Lak~ words Paha Sapa, which ean "hills that are black." Mt. Rushm( Mountain Of Rock before the presidential carved. P~erre, South Dakota is t~nly example of a state and capital in the U.S: ~ ~1~-~'~ ~h-a re a~tters. Mowes that show pohce officers bein~truck, beaten, or treated in an Offensive ma~er are forbidden ifi)6outh Dakota. The Prairie R~lesnake is the South Dakota( only venomous ke native to A~eA V~dA~V¢~.~r~4$O~VS: BOARD OF APPEALS (I) An undesirable change will not be produced in the CHARACTER of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties if granted, because: (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: (3) The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: (4) The variance will NOT have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because: (5) Has the alleged difficulty been self-created? ( )Yes, or ()~o. Ara there Covmmnts and Restrictions concerning this land: /1~ No. O Yes (m,&,~m~ £ur~sA This is the MINIMUM that is necessary and adequate, and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. Checl~ this box ( ) IF A USE VARIANCE IS BEING BEQUF~TED, .4ND PLEASE COMPLETE THE ATTACHED USE VARIANCE SHEET; (Please be~.. ~.lt.y~~ SignOre of/~ppellan{ or Authorized Agent (Asent mus~ sul~ written Authorization from Owner) Sworn to b~g~_me this d~yof 4~ .~0/0 . Noim~Pablic LAUREN M. STANDISH Notary Public, State of New Yor~ Nc 01S16164008 Qualified in Suffo!l', County Commission Expires Apri! 9, 20 RECEIVED APR 6 2010 WREN RESIDENCE Area Variance Reasons BOARD OF APPEALS 1. An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because: a) With respect to the requested relief from Article XXIII Section 280-124 i.e., minimum rear yard of 9.3 feet where 35 feet is required, the house will simply be expanded along its preexisting configuration and location 9.3 feet from the property line, thus maintaining the preexisting nonconforming rear-yard setbacks of the existing principal structure and remaining consistent with the scope of the existing development. Moreover, the proposed renovations have been designed to maintain the traditional architectural style typical of the existing home and surrounding homes within the neighborhood. b) With respect to the requested relief for lot coverage of 20.5 feet where 20 feet is required, the relief requested is minimal. The prccxisting accessory structure will be removed in order to maximize the open space on the lot and therefore reduce the lot coverage. 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: a) Due to the shallow preexisting depth of the lot, 76 feet, any construction with a depth of over 6 feet would unavoidably require relief from Article XXlII Section 280-124. The pre-existing front yard setback is 35.5 feet, which the proposed construction is maintaining. 3. The amount of relief requested is not substantial because: a) The relief requested from Article XXlII Section 280-124 to maintain an 9.3' minimum rear-yard setback where 35 feet is required is not substantial because the structures requiring rear-yard relief will be constructed in partially within, the preexisting structural footprint, and aligning with the existing structure, thus maintaining and not diminishing the preexisting nonconforming rear-yard setbacks. 4. The project will not have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions because there will not be any significant change in the developed nature of the property, and there will be a net improvement to the ecological condition of the site as a result of the new septic system. 5. None of the variance relief requested is self-created due to the preexisting locations of the structures being renovated and their need for renovation and expansion. APPLICANT'S PROJECT DESCRIPTION (For ZBA Reference) Applicant: ~,x~ ~~ .f~( W~:~ Date Prepared: I. For Demolition of Existing Building Areas Please describe areas being removed: APR ~ 20~D II New Construction Areas (New Dwellinn or New AdditionsfExtenMons) '. . . ~/ o~ ! Dimensions of first floor extension: '~l' X. '~'. 5, Dimensions of new second floor: Dimensions of floor above second level: Height (from finished ground to top of ridge): Is basement or lowest floor area being constructed? lfyas, please provide height (above ground) measured from natural existing grade to first floor: III. Proposed Construction Description (Alterations or Structural Changes) (aaach extra sheet if necessary) - Please describe building areas: N~ber of Floors and General Characteristics BEyOR~ Alterations: ~"~a~Q Number of Floors and Changes WITH Alterations: ~.~/fi~ ~ I~-.- _~-~a Y IV. Calculations of building areas and lot coverage (from surve~yo.r): Existingsquarefootageofbuildingsonyourpmperty: ~ ~ ~' _~'. 7. o_/a. . Proposed increase of building coverage: n O~'~r-~a~ ~ Square footage of your lot: Percentage of coverage of your lot by building area: V. PurposeofN. ewConstruction: ~?A-N~) L.~x//N~ AC4~A A FUL.U q3~ K~coID~-~ VI. Please describe the land contours (flat, slope %, heavily wooded, marsh area, etc.) on your laud angthow it relates_to the difficulty in meeting t.h,e code requirementS): ~ ~ 1-~dP----' F-.C-AcoON<o iN¢- ~-,~ ~P__'F..tt, d(o A V,~RJ;~ME.P__. Please submit seven (7) photos, labeled to show different angles of yard areas after staking corners for new construction), and photos of building area to be altered with yard view. 7/2002; 2/2005; 1/2007 RECEIVED QUESTIONNAIRE FOR FILING WITH YOUR Z.B.A. APPLICATION APR $ 2010 BOARD OF APPEALS Is the subje, cppremises listed on the real estate market for sale? [] Yes [~tNo ,Ale there any proposals to change or alter land contours? 15~tNo [] Yes, please explain on attached sheet. / 1) Are there areas that contain sand or wetland grasses? ~x~(~ 2) Are these areas shown on the map submitted with this application? 3) Is the property bulkheaded between the wetlands area and the upland building area? 4) If your properly contains wetlands or pond areas, have you contacted the office of the Town Trustees for its determination of jurisdiction? Please confirm status of your inquiry or application with the Trustees: and if issued, please attach copies of permit with conditions and approved map. D. Is there a depression or sloping el?~tio, g,n near the area of proposed construction at or below five feet above mean sea level? , . E. Are there any patios, concrete barriers, bulkheads or fences that exist and are not shown on the survey map that you are submitting? ~ ~ ~ (Please show area of these structures on a diagram if any exist. Or state "none" on the above line, if applicable.) F. Do you have any construction taking place at this time concerning your premises? If yes, please submit a copy of your building permit and map as approved by the Building Department and describe: G. Do you or any co-ownar also own other land close to this parcel? ~) If yes, please label the proximity of your lands on your map with this application. H. Please list present use or operations conducted at this parcel ~j N~.-~ and proposed use ,~--~'~'~ Aul~l~i~ed ~atur'~'and Date 2/05; 1/07 EXISTING HOUSE - north side with flags EXISTING HOUSE looking east with flags RECEIVED WREN RESIDENCE SCTM# 1000-66-2-3 APR ~ 2010 BOARD OF APPEALS State Environmental Quality Review RECETVED SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only APR 6 2010 PART I - PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by A~oplicant or Project Sponsor) BOARD OF APPEALS 1. APPLICANT/SPONSOR 12. PROJECT NAME MERYL KRAMER /WREN RESIDENCE RENOVATIONS AND ADDITION 3 PROJECT LOCATION: Municipality SOUTHOLD County SUFFOLK 4. PRECIBE LOCATION (Street address and road intersections, prominent landmarks, etc., or provide map) 225 HIPPODROME DR. SOUTHOLD, NY 5. PROPOSED ACTION IS: [] New [] Expansion [] Modification/alteration 6. DESCRIBE PROJECT BRIEFLY: RENOVATE EXISTING 992 SF TWO STORY WITH 1246 SF TWO STORY ADDITION 7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFFECTED: Initially ,2 ar. res Ultimately .1 ac~es 8. WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY VV~TH EXISTING ZONING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICTIONS? LJ Yes L~ No If No, descdbe briefly REQUIRED REAR SETBACK IS 35 FEET. PROPOSED AND EXISTING IS 9.3 FEET. WHAT IS PRESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT? [] Residential [] Industrial [] Commercial [] Agriculture [] Park/Forest/Open Space Describe: PROJECT 1S LOCATED IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD. [-~ Other ¸10. DOES ACTION NVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL. OR FUNDING. NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL. STATE OR LOCAL)? LJ Yes ~j No If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit/approvals: 11. DOES ANY ASPECT OF THE ACTION HAVE A CUR RENTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL? ]Yes ~ No If Yes, list agency(s) name and permit/approvals: 12. AS A REBULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/APPROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION? []Yes []No I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE OVER Reset P. ART II - IMPACT ASSESSMENT ~ completed by Lead A~lency) A. DOE~ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.47 ff yes, coordinate the re¥lew process and use the FULL EAF. F--J Yes r--JNo . W1LLACTiON RECEIVE COORDINATED REVIEWAS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTEDACTIONBIN~NYORR. PART6tT.G? ifNo, anegative declaration may be superseded by another involved agency. E]Yes r-]No C. COULD ACTION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED W1TH THE FOLLOWING: (Answem may be handwritten, if legible) C1. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quaifiy or quantity, noise levels, existing traft-m pattern, selil:l waste production or disposal, potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly: C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaooiogisal, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain bhefly: C$. Vegetation or fauna, fish, shellfish or wfldlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered species? Explain briefly: C4. A communily's existing plans or goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain briefly: C5. Growth, subsequent development, or related activfties likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly: C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified in C1 -C57 Explain briefly: C7. Other impacts (including changes in use of e~ther quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly: D. VLqLL THE PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL CHARACTERISTICS THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREA (CEA)? ~1 Yes I~1 No If Yes. explain briefly: E. tS THERE. OR IS THERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO POTENTIAL ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS;' [] Yes [] No if Yes, explain briefly: PART III - DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency) INSTRUCTIONS: F~rea¢hadversee~ectident~edab~ve~determinewhetheriti~substantia~arge'imp~rtant~r~t~henvises~gn~cant~ Each effect should be assessed in connection with its (a) setting (i.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d) irreversibility; (e) geographic scope; and (f) magnitude, if necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If question D of Part II was checked yes. the detsrmination of significance must evaluate the potential impact of the proposed action on the environmental characteristics of the CEA. EAF and/or prepare a positive dectsmflon. [] Check this box if YPU have determined, based on the information and analysis abeve and any supfl°rfingdecurnentation, thet the Ix°posed action YV1LL NOT result in any significant adverse environmental impacts AND provide, on attac~ merits as necessary, the masons suppothng this determination 3-26-2010 Name of Lead Agency Date Pdnt or Type Name of Responsible Officer in Lead Agency ~ APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM- (FOR SUBMISSION BY OWNER and OWNER'S AGENT) The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officers and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. (Last name, fin:st name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person or company name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Check all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance f Special Exception If "Other", name the activity: RECEIVED BOARD OF APPEALS Change of Zone Approval of Plat Exemption from Plat or Official Map Other Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO Complete the balance of this form and date and sign below where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, parmer, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP APPLICANT TRANSACTIONAL DISCLOSURE FORM (FOR SUBMISSION BY OWNER and OWNER'S AGENT) The Town of Southold's Code of Ethics prohibits conflicts of interest on the part of Town officem and employees. The purpose of this form is to provide information, which can alert the Town of possible conflicts of interest and allow it to take whatever action is necessary to avoid same. (Last name, first name, middle initial, unless you are applying in the name of someone else or other entity, such as a company. If so, indicate the other person or company name.) NATURE OF APPLICATION: (Cheek all that apply.) Tax Grievance Variance ~ Speeinl Exception If "Other", name the activity: Change of Zone Approval of Plat Exemption from Plat or Official Map Other RECEIVED APR 6 Zrh ,~ BOARD OF APPEALS Do you personally, (or through your company, spouse, sibling, parent, or child) have a relationship with any officer or employee of the Town of Southold? "Relationship" includes by blood, marriage, or business interest. "Business interest" means a business, including a partnership, in which the Town officer or employee has even a partial ownership of (or employment by) a corporation in which the Town officer or employee owns more than 5% of the shares. YES NO Complete the balance of this form and date and sign below where indicated. Name of person employed by the Town of Southold: Title or position of that person: Describe that relationship between yourself (the applicant) and the Town officer or employee. Either check the appropriate line A through D (below) and/or describe the relationship in the space provided. The Town officer or employee or his or her spouse, sibling, parent, or child is (check all that apply): A) the owner of greater than 5% of the shares of the corporate stock of the applicant (when the applicant is a corporation); B) the legal or beneficial owner of any interest in a non-corporate entity (when the applicant is not a corporation); C) an officer, director, panner, or employee of the applicant; or D) the actual applicant. DESCRIPTION OF RELATIONSHIP Submitted this/,~']_~ ~f~r'2~)[ L) Signature: PrintName: ~ ~/'] ~'~x~ }:~' }~v~ AGRICULTURAL DATA STATEMENT ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVED APR $ 2010 BOARD OF APPEALS IFtlENTO USE THIS FORM: The form must be c~mplet~dby the applicantfor any special usepermig site plan approval, use Variance, or subdivision apprOw! co property ~ithin an agricultural district OR within $, QO feet Of q fqrrn opera'an located in agricultural distric~ All appl~catiOns requiring an agricultural data . ~r~'t must be referred.to the Suffolk Coun~ DepartmtntofPlanning i.n.aqcordance with Sections 239~ m ant1239-n ojfthe General Municipal. Law. 6) Location Of Pi'opcrty (road and.tax map number): ~ ~ ~ 4A5 PF'O~I~LOME. DI~: K0C/)-'r~ t-~ (~ 7) Is' the parcel Within an agricultural districi? ~'q0 [] YeS If yes, AgricultUral District Number . . 8) Is this parcel actively f ,armed?"~No E]Yes 9) Nan~.¢ and address, of any owner(s) 'of land within the agricultural district containing active farm operation(s)' 1Oc~tted 500 feet of the-boundary of the proposed project. (InfOrmation may be available through 'the Town Assesiors Office; Town Hall location (765-1937) or from any public .9omputer at the Towh Hail loeati0ns by viewing the parcel numbers on the Town of Southold Real Property Tax System· N_am¢ and Address Please U~e back.side of page if more than six property owners are identified:) The lot numbem may be obtained, in advance, when requested'from eithei-, the Offiee of the Planning Board at -.~65r1938 or the.Z.p~ing Board of Appeals at 765-1809. ,-'°*~ ' ~i~atm~ of Applicant Dale Note: I. The Imml board will iolicit comments from the ownem of land identified abo~o ih ord~ t~ ennsld~ thc eff~t of the propoint actio~ ~n ~cir farm-op~'ation. Solicitation will bo mitde by supplying a oopy of tiiis stat~n~at~ 2; Comments returned to the local board Will I~ taken into consid~a'ation'as part of the ov~ndl mvi~w of this applicatign. 3. Copi~ of the completed Agricultural Data statement shall bo sent by applicant and/or the cl~rk of the bo{trd t6 the property owners identified above. The cost for mailing shall b~ paid by the aplSli .cgnt at the time thc application is ~ubmitted for review. Failure to pay at such time m~ans the application is not enmpleteand cannot be acted upon by the board. 1-14-09 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER STREET FORMER °WN~_ ' & LN" r R ES.~/6 SEAS. IMP. VL. TOTAL VILLAGE DIST. , SUB. LOT c~j /,~'¢~'"~-/ LAND W FARM cOMM. DATE CB. MICS. Mkt. Volue REMARKS CLiz573 Tillable Woodland House Plot Total Volue Per Volue Ac re Meadowland FRONTAGE ON ROAD DEPTH BULKHEAD DOCK AGE BUILDING CONDITION NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FARM Acre FRONTAGE ON WATER COLOR TRIM ~xtension ixtension !xtension ~orch Foundation Basement Ext. Wails Ireezeway Fire Place ~arage Type Roof ~atio Recreation Room ). B. Dormer 'oral Bath Floors Interior Finish Heat Rooms 1st Floor Rooms 2nd Floor Driveway Dinette K. DR. BR. FIN. B TOWN OF SOUTHOLD BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOWN HALL SOUTHOLD, NY-11971' TEL: (631) 765-1802 FAX: (631) 765-9502 www. northfork.net/Southold/ PERMIT NO. Examined 20__ Approved ,20.__ Mail to: Disapproved a/c 0~C 8//af/O Phone: Expiration ,20___ BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION CHECKLIST Do you have or neexl the following, before applying? Board of Health 4 s~ts of Bufldin~ Plans Planning Board approval Survey Check Septic Form N.Y.S.D.E.C. Trustees Contact: ~ - I Building Inspector ~~ INSTRUCTIONS Date ~/'2.~ ~ompletely filled in by typewriter or in ink and submitted to the Building Inspector with 4 sets of ns, accurate plot plan to scale. Fee according to schedule. b. Plot plan showing location of lot and of buildings on premises, relations~p to adjoining premises or public streets or areas, and waterways. c. The work covered by tkis application may not be commenced before issuance of Buildiag Permit. d. Upon approval of this application, the Building Inspector 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 issues 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 witkin 18 months from such date. If no zoning amendments or other regulations afl, ting the-' property have been enacted in the interim, the Building Inspector may authorize, in writing, the extension of the permit for an addition six months. Thereafter, a new permit shall be required. APPLICATION IS HEREBY MADE to the Building Department for the issuance ora 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 authorized inspectors on premises and in building for necessary inspections. 1" A~~ v ~Ig~tu~f applicant or name, ifa corporation) (Mailing address of applicant) State whether applicant is owner, lessee, agent, architect, engineer, general contractor, electrician, plumber or builder Nameofownerofpremises \JO.~.~ ~r ~'~)/k! 0~/~--~ (As on the tax roll or latest deed) If applicant is a corporation, signature of duly authorized officer (Name and title of corporate officer) Builders License No. Plumbers License No. Electricians License No. Other Trade's License No. 1. Loca~o~o~.,and on w.hj'c,h proposed work will be done: House Number Street ) Hamlet County Tax Map No. 1000 Section ~2¢ Block Subdivision Filed Map No. (Name) Lot State existing use and occupancy ofpremis~ and intended use and occupancy of proposed .construction: ' ~ a. Existing use and occupancy ~'lkl~'2L,~., .~M!I,~. _~r:~t,]'~]~/_~/~--, 4. Estimated Cost k~:~ _'~(~0OO 5. If dwelling, number of dwelling units If garage, number of cars Nature of work (check which applicable): New Building Repair Removal Demolition Fee Addition ~ Alteration f Other Work (Description) (To be paid on filing this application) Number of dwelling units on each floor 6. If businesS, commercial or mixed occupancy, specify nature and extent of each type of use. 7. Dimensionsofexisting~ructures, if any: Front "~,~ Rear Height F~.~[ '-9.:-~" Number of Stories - Dimensions of same structure with alterations or.,~d~itions: Front Depth 9~. '7~ Height Q--~i"- '~ NumberO:fStodes_ 8. Dimensions ofen~re new ~onstmction: Front '~-[ Rear ,"7~t~--.-1, Depth Height ~.q' ---'7~ Number of Stor-~e~ ..... 7.": 9. Size oflot: Front l+ 4 Rear t + 4 Depth "7("~ 10. Date of Purchase Name of Former Owner 11. Zone or use district in which premises are situated 12. Does proposed construction violate any zoning law, ordinance or regulation? YES i~ NO __ 13. Will lot be re-graded? YES __ NO /Will excess fill be removed from premises? YES NO__ 14 Names of Owner ofp,emises ss Z* 'Name of Architect ~ll~[j~{¢~' Address~Phone No Name of Contractor' Address L0 r,~r~-a,nv~ ~ Phone No. 15 a. Is this property within 100 feet of a tidal wetland or a freshwater wetland? *YES__ * IF YES, SOUTHOLD TOWN TRUSTEES & D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. b. Is this property within 300 feet ora tidal wetland? * YES__ NO * IF YES, D.E.C. PERMITS MAY BE REQUIRED. NO 16. Provide survey, to scale, with accurate foundation plan and distances to property lines. 17. If 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 ) ~2,o~"~ ~, g ~ ~/¥~_.~-- being duly sworn, deposes and says that (s)he is the applicant (Name of individual signing contract) above named, (S)He is the ~~ (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 application; that all statements contained in this application are tree 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. Notary Public kO~J Signature of Applicant CONNIE D. BUNCH N0tapJ..Public. State of New Yor~ ~o. 01BU6185050 Qualified n Suffolk Count~ Commission Expires April 14, 20_~ ~.. Town of Southold LWRP CONSISTENCY ASSESSMENT FORM RECEIVED APR 6 2010 A. INSTRUCTIONS BOARD OF APPEALS All applicants for permits* including Town of Southold agencies, shall complete this CCAF for proposed actions that are subject to the Town of Southold Waterfront Consistency Review Law. This assessment is intended to supplement other information used by a Town of Southold agency in making a determination of consistency. *Ercept minor exempt actions including BuiMing Permits crud other ministerial permits not located within the Coastal Erosion Hazard Area. Before answering the questions in Section C, the preparer of this form should review the exempt minor action list, policies and explanations of each policy contained in the Town of Southold Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. A proposed action will be evaluated as to its significant beneficial and adverse effects upon the coastal area (which includes all of Southold Town). If any question in Section C on this form is answered "yes", then the proposed action may affect the achievement of the LWRP policy standards and conditions contained in the consistency review law. Thus, the action should be analyzed in more detail and, if necessary, modified prior to making a determination that it is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the LWRP policy standards and conditions. If an action cannot be certified as consistent with the LWRP policy standards and conditions, it shall not be undertaken. A copy of the LWRP is available in the following places: online at the Town of Southold's website (southoldtown.northfork.net), the Board of Trustees Office, the Planning Department, all local libraries and the Town Clerk's office. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE AND PROPOSED ACTION sc # ooo _ Co& - 02 - The Application has been submitted to (check appropriate response): Town Board ~ Planning Dept. [] Building Dept. ~ Board of Trnstees [] Category of Town of Southold agency action (check appropriate response): (a) Action undertaken directly by Town agency (e.g. capital construction, planning activity, agency regulation, land transaction) (b) Financial assistance (e.g. grant, loan, subsidy) (c) Permit, approval, license, certification: Nature and extent of action: Location of action: Site acreage: Present land use: Present zoning classification: p-- It' an application for the proposed action has been filed with the Town of Southold agency, the following information shall be provided: (a) Nameofapplicant: J~--g~U- KgAM~-I~ F01~ S44AFk014 ~dOffN (b) Mailingaddress: ~0 ~)Y~ ~ 52 ,l (3 ~lq~Op.:~ ~ l~¥ (c) Telephone number: Area Code ( ) 6~i- 4 ~fq" ~"~' ~ (d) Application number, if any: Will the action be directly undertaken, require funding, or approval by a state or federal agency? Yes [--] No [] If yes, which state or federal agency? DEVELOPED COAST POLICY Policy 1. Foster a pattern of development in the Town of Southold that enhances community character, preserves open space, makes efficient use of infrastructure, makes beneficial use of a coastal location, and minimizes adverse effects of development. See LWRP Section HI - Policies; Page 2 for evaluation criteria. ~']Yes ~] No [~(Not Applicable - please explain) Attach addit~ sheets ff ~ss~ Policy 2. Protect and preserve historic and archaeological resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 3 through 6 for evaluation criteria [] Yes [] No ~ (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessm3' Policy 3. Enhance visual quality and protect scenic resources throughout the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 6 through 7 for evaluation criteria ~ Yes ~ No [] (Not Applicable- please explain) Attach .additional sheets if necessar) NATURAL COAST POLICIES Policy 4. Minimize loss of life, struelalres, and natural resources from flooding and erosion. See LWRP Section IH - Policies Pages 8 through 16 for evaluation criteria Yes ~ No [~ (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessmy Policy 5. Protect and improve water quality and supply in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section III - Policies Pages 16 through 21 for evaluation criteria No (Not Applicable - please explain) Yes -R-W-~ KP_.NOqK~oN ^t, Jb E>/PAI,,~IOt4 I)I~'Fr~,S ~%USF~ 1IqCLUDP--.~ Tt4-E ~E~'V> ~'q~ I .............. Attach additional sheets ff neccssa~- Policy 6. Protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems including Significant Coastal Fish and WihBife Habitats and wetlands. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages 22 through 32 for evaluation criteria. Yes ~-~ No ~-~(Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessar> Policy 7. Protect and improve air quality in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI - Policies Pages 32 through 34 for evaluation criteria. See Section IH - Policies Pages; 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. ~-~ Yes [] No ~ (Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessm3- Policy 8. Minimize environmental degradation in Town of Southold from solid waste and hazardous substances and wastes. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages 34 through 38 for evaluation criteria. RYes [] No [-~ (Not Applicable- please explain) PUBLIC COAST POLICIES Policy 9. Provide for public access to, and recreational use of, coastal waters, public lands, and public resources of the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section HI - Policies; Pages 38 through 46 for evaluation criteria. [] Ye~ No ~(Not Applicable - please explain) Attach additional sleets if necessaO- WORKING COAST POLICIES Policy 10. Protect Southold's r-dependent uses and promote siti f new water-dependent uses in suitable locations. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 47 through 56 for evaluation criteria. Yes ~ No ~(Not Applicable- please explain) Attach additional sheets if necessa~' Policy 11. Promote sustainable use of living marine resources in Long Island Sound, the Peconic Estuary and Town waters. See LWRP Section III - Policies; Pages 57 through 62 for evaluation criteria. Yes No ~ Not Applicable - please explain ! Attach additional sheets if necessm3' Policy 12. Protect agricultural lands in the Town of Southold. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages 62 through 65 for evaluation criteria. Yes [-~ No~ Not Applicable - please explain Attach additional sheets if necessaq' Policy 13. Promote appropriate use and development of energy and mineral resources. See LWRP Section IH - Policies; Pages 65 through 68 for evaluation criteria. Yes ~'~ No ~Not Applicable - please explain M E R Y L K R A M E R RECEIVED April 5, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 11791 Southold NY 11971 BOARD OF APPEALS RE: Wren Residence SCTM# 1000-66-02-32 Property Location: 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southold To the Board: Enclosed please find eight copies of the following to complete the application for the above mentioned project: 1. Notice of Disapproval 2. Completed Application 3. Survey with proposed work 4. Schematic Design plans and elevations 5. Photographs of the property showing stakes of outside corners of proposed addition 6. Project description questionnaire from and transactional disclosure forms 7. Agricultural Data Statement 8. Completed Short Environmental Assessment Form 9. Town property card lO.Completed LWRP form 11. Check for $600 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me. cc: John and Sharon Wren 218 FRONT STREET PO. BOX 683 GREENPORT, NY 11944 6:]1-477-87:]6 WWW,MKARCHITECT.COM RECEWED LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION Sharon and John Wren 225 Hippodrome Drive Southold, NY 11971 March 18, 2010 We hereby authorize MERYL KRAMER, ARCHITECT to act as our agent in obtaining all permits required by TOWN, SUFFOLK COUNTY and NEW YORK STATE for the renovation to our home. ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE, RMC, CMC TOWN CLERK REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS MARRIAGE OFFICER RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fmx (631) 765-6145 Telephone (631) 765-1800 southoldtown.northfork.net OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TO: FROM: DATED: RE: Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals Elizabeth A. Neville April 13, 2010 Zoning Appeal No. 6389 Transmitted herewith is Zoning Appeals No. 6389 of Meryl Kramer for John & Sharon Wren the Application to the Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals. Also enclosed is the Applicant's Project Description, Questionnaire, Short Environmental Assessment Form, Transactional Disclosure Form, Agricultural Data Statement, LWRP Consistency Assessment Form, Cover Letter from Meryl Kramer Dated April 5, 2010, Notice of Disapproval From Building Department Dated March 10, 2010, Copy of Property Record Card (Both Sides), Letter of Authorization from John & Sharon Wren to Meryl Kramer to Represent them in this Matter, 1 Page of Photos of Property, Copy of Survey Showing Existing & Proposed Construction Dated February 24, 2010 Prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin III, Land Surveyor, 2 Pages of Plans Showing Floor Plans & Elevations Dated March 1, 2008 Prepared by Meryl Kramer, Architect. eTown of Southold P.O Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 Date: 04/12/10 * * * RECEIPT * * * Receipt~: 76776 Transaction(s): 1 1 Application Fees Reference Subtotal 6389 $600.00 Check#:1006 Total Paid: $600.00 Name: Wren, John 225 Hippodrome Rd. Southold, N.Y. 11971 Clerk ID: CAROLH Internal ID: 6389 Chairperson Leslie Kanes Weisman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road, P.O. Box 11791 Southold, New York 11971-0959 23 Lake Drive Somers, New York 10598 October 5, 2010 R~C~IV~D ~ 2010 OCT BOARD OF AppeAL Re: John E. Wren and Sharon I. Wren #6389 Dear Madam Chairperson and Members of the Board: This is in response to the letter of Mr. and Mrs. Kuchner dated September 27, 2010, as well as in response to the letter of Denise R. Schoen, Esq. dated September 30, 2010. The subject property is unlike most parcels in the neighborhood in that no addition can be constructed without a variance of some sort. The original building here dates back to 1927 and my family has owned it since 1948. Sometime thereafter this Town passed zoning laws which prohibit construction on the property inconsistent with the code which, but for the relief which can be afforded by the Zoning Board of Appeals, would amount to a constructive taking of the property. It makes no difference whether the property is owned by us or by others; the non-conformity was caused by the Town's passage of the laws making it so after its construction. As to this property, the law is unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory and capricious. In order for us to make any renovation worthwhile, the only feasible way to not offend the entire neighborhood is to allow the expansion along the already lengthy non-conforming southerly wall of the home. Of course there are many ways that a less extensive renovation could be done, but each would require variances for both front AND rear-yard setbacks; would severely limit the desired program, and yet would still require the expenditure of large sums to accomplish something that was not wanted in the first place. The key here seems to be that this Town has decided that the coverage it will allow is 20%, and therefore, anything within that parameter is, by its own code, "not too large for the property." If you take into consideration all the newly constructed or renovated homes in the community, this proposed construction will fit very nicely. Although the Pinto house directly across the street is not 100% new, the look of a second- story addition to what was a ranch, gives the appearance of a completely new home. The original ranch was built in 1960. According to the Kuchners, and their attorneys, the proposed structure is too large and therefore not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. By reason of the Town determination that 20% coverage is acceptable, by its own code, our proposed structure is NOT too large for the property. That being said, it would be unreasonable to RECEIVED OCT Chairperson Leslie Kanes Weisman October 5,201~OARD _ Page 2 ~JF APPEALS state that because the Town passed a code which rendered our home to be non- conforming, due to the nature of our lot there is no way to accomplish the minimum coverage of the 20% allowed. A denial of our variance request would be unreasonable, arbitrary, confiscatory and capricious. On the other hand, it would be reasonable to state that because of the nature of this lot and the way the community has been established with non-conforming setbacks throughout, the extension of the non-conformity on the southerly line would be reasonable. To accomplish the 20% allowed, the new construction either would have to continue the non-conformity as proposed; or, not only continue it to some degree, but also to make it non-conforming as to front yard as well. The latter would hurt many, such as the community at large and the neighbors to the north while slightly alleviating but not eliminating the harm alleged by the Kuchners. Apparently, as an alternative it would be permissible under the code to build a detached two-car garage with only a five-foot setback from the rear line. Are we being told that such a construction would be favored by the Kuchners and this Town rather than a completely well designed and aesthetically pleasing structure concealing the garage within and making an architecturally fitting home which would increase the tax base and help continue the upgrading of the community? If this construction is approved, the Town is enhanced, the community is upgraded, without affecting municipal services and without harming the neighbors in any way. However, the Kuchners will have a building side to look at from 160 plus feet away, which is further away than any other buildings surrounding their property. The only parties complaining about the project are the Kuchners and the Warlans. The Warlans on the southeastern part of the line will not be affected negatively, but to the contrary will in fact have a positive change. Our back door will be moved away from them to the east. There will be no other changes to the existing structure along their property line. We have acquiesced to Mr. Stein's concems by agreeing to install opaque windows in the proposed dormers facing his home on the west to prevent us from peering into his home. We agree to locate mechanicals elsewhere than on the Stein side. The Pintos, to the north, have no problem with our plan, nor do Ms. Castellano on the east, the Hafers on the northeast or the Ilibasis on the southwesterly side of the property. Responding to the claims of the Kuchners and their attorney that this is a case of a self-created hardship, there are two points to be made: the first is that one-third of the property was gifted to me; and secondly, even had I bought it, the self-created hardship rule is lightly applied to area variance requests. I address each point: ~ECE~VED Chairperson Leslie Kanes Weisman Page 3 October5,2010 OCT 6 ~~ BOARD OF APPEALS I and my two sisters received the subject property in 1976 from our parents as a gift. Subsequently one sister, Nancy, no longer wanted to own her share and sold it to me. Then in 2008 Lyster Carney, widower of my second sister, wanted to move to Portland, Oregon and sold his inherited share to me. If one were to accept the points made by the Kuchners on this issue, you would believe that had I not been an attorney, the alleged self-created hardship could not have occurred. Ridiculous! What was I supposed to do when the gift was made; research the law in 1976 and tell my parents that I did not want the gift because someday if I owned it by myself I may want to expand but will not be able to because as an attorney they will say the gift was a self-created hardship? The foregoing notwithstanding, the New York Court of Appeals, in Application of Young, 42 A.D2d 833,345 N.Y.S.2d 812 (4th Dept 1973) order affirmed 35 N.Y.2d 662, 360 N.Y.S.2d 640 stated, "It is within the discretion of a board of zoning appeals to grant an area variance to a landowner who acquired the property with the knowledge that it was substandard. The fact that practical difficulties are self-created does not foreclose the granting of the area variance in an appropriate case." We are asking for nothing more than to use our property to the fullest extent allowed by this Town's Code, but to do so will require either an extension of the southern non-conformity or the creation of an added non-conformity on the northern side. There is no other way to accomplish the allowed 20% coverage, which this Town's code indicates is appropriate for the lot. It is for these reasons that we respectfully request this Zoning Board of Appeals to grant this variance. ~.~ 11~ JWPorg Via Federal Express JONATHAN TARBET, ESQ. BP,~N J. LESTER, ESQ. DENISE R. SCHOEN, ESQ. RUDOLPH j'. FUSCO, ESQ. TARBET, LESTER & SCHOEN, PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. Box 2635 524 MONTAUK HIGHWAY AMAGANSETf, NEW YORK 11930 (631) 907-3500 (TELEPHONE) (631) 907-3501 (FACSIM~E) WW~¥.FdkSTHA MPTONI AWYER&'OM RECEIVED denise c~>easthamptonlawyer.com BOARD OF APPEAI I September 30, 2010 Via FACSIMII.E & FEDERAL EXPRESS Chairwoman Weisman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 54375 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: In the Matter of the Application of John and Sharon Wren Dear Chairwoman Weisman: We represent Dr. and Mrs. Kuchner, who reside immediately adjacent to the rear yard of the Wren Property located at 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southold, New York (the "Wren Property"), which is the subject of the above-referenced Zoning Board application. At the Board's last hearing on this matter, we requested time to review a letter from the applicant's architect dated September 21, 2010 and to provide the Board with our comments. Please accept this letter as our response to the September 21 letter. A. Character of the Neighborhood: The Proposed Wren Residence is not in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. In her letter, the Wrens' architect states that the project will not cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood because there are other houses in the neighborhood which are as large or larger that the proposed Wren residence. What the architect fails to specify is whether those homes are (a) situated on lots that are larger than the Wren parcel or (b) situated a more conforming distance from neighboring property lines. Of course, this is the only proper analysis to determine whether the proposed Wren residence is truly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Simply referencing the size of the other houses in the neighborhood without any other data renders the examples irrelevant. Moreover, the architect never mentions in her letter the actual size of the proposed addition to the Wren Residence for comparison. She states in the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated March 26, 2010 that the project consists of renovations to an existing 992 two-story residence with a 1,246 square foot two-story addition but this only represents the "footprint" or lot coverage and not the total square footage of the dwelling including the second story. Of course, this information is critical in order to make a proper comparison to other homes in the neighborhood. Based on our calculations, it appears that the Wren Residence with the proposed addition will be in excess of 3,139 square feet. For example, the architect mentions the "newly" constructed Pinto Residence situated directly across Hippodrome Drive (SCTM # 1000-66-2-25) from the Wren Residence. First, the Pinto Residence is not newly constructed and has existed on the property since the early 1950's. Second, the Pinto Residence is 2,400 square feet~ but is situated on a lot that is 2,741 square feet larger than the Wren Property. Finally, the residence is situated a conforming distance from the rear yard lot line and lot coverage is less than the maximum of 20%. The Pinto Residence additions DID NOT require any setback relief. In fact, the rear yard setback on the Pinto Residence is 54.5 feet. The llibassi Residence (SCTM# 1000-66-2-45), which is 3,653 square feet, is situated on a lot that is 35,500 square feet or more than 3.5 times the size of the Wren Property. The residence is situated 68 feet from the rear yard lot line and it does not appear any variances have been granted for this property. The Alessi Residence (SCTM# 1000-66-2-35), which is 1,806 square feet, is situated on a lot that is 13,373 square feet. Significantly, this lot is larger than the Wren Property but the house is smaller than the proposed Wren Residence. It is also not an adjacent property and is actually situated on another street altogether. The footprint of the Wren Residence alone consists of 2,189 square feet which does not include the second story. As set forth above, we estimate the total square footage of the proposed Wren Residence to be in excess of 3,139 square feet. This calculation is based on the architect's statements in the September 21 letter. The Stein Residence (SCTM # 1000-66-2-33), which is 1,988 square feet, is situated on a lot that is 8,015 square feet. The Wren Residence is proposed to be significantly larger than the Stein Residence and the Stein Residence is also situated a much more conforming distance of 24 feet from the rear yard lot line. It should also be noted that the Stein Residence is situated 13.5 feet from the front yard lot line and because the lot depth is the same as the Wren Property (at 76 feet) provides a perfect example of how development on the Wren Property could be conducted in a manner that would lessen the negative impact on neighboring property owners such as the Kuchners. The Kuchner Residence (SCTM # 1000-66-2-44), which is 2,542 square feet, is situated on a lot that is substantially larger than the Wren Property at 33,715 square feet. The Kuchner All square footage calculations were taken from the architect's letter dated September 21, 2010. Residence also meets and exceeds all applicable setback regulations. The same can be said of the Ball Residence (SCTM # 1000-66-2-46), which is 2,513 square feet but situated on a lot that is 35,850 square feet and a conforming distance from all lot lines, with the exception of a deck that is situated 45 feet from an existing bulkhead. It is readily apparent that none of the architect's examples establish that construction of the proposed expansion of the Wren Residence, which doubles the lot coverage and is not within applicable setback requirements, on a lot that is radically undersized at just over 10,000 square feet, is appropriate or consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood. It is telling that the only homes listed by the architect that are even close to the size of the proposed Wren Residence are located on lots that are three times the size of the Wren Property. B. The Wrens' Alternative Design demonstrates that they have not requested the minimum variance necessary to afford them relief. The Wren's architect states in her letter that she attempted to redesign the house by increasing the rear yard setback by an additional eight (8) feet. If this design were approved by the Board, the proposed addition would be situated 17.3 feet from the rear yard lot line, which would still require a 50% variance from the 35 foot setback requirement. However, the architect goes on to say that the design did not meet her clients' "programmatic requirements" and she, therefore, rejects the redesign as a viable alternative. The alternative design, which is annexed to the September 21 letter, shows a substantial addition to the residence with a second-story master bedroom, guest bedroom, sewing room/bedroom, two bathrooms, a washer/dryer area, and several closets. The first floor contains a family room, dining room, living room, kitchen, mud roof, breakfast nook, storage area, and garage. There appears to be more than ample living space in this design. What the alternative design clearly demonstrates is that the Wrens have aitematives that they can pursue to minimize the variance necessary for the proposal, which would relieve some of the burden they have electively placed on their neighbors. In other words, the alternate design plan by showing a reduced rear yard lot line variance, thereby demonstrates conclusively that the variance the Wrens are seeking is not the minimum variance necessary.2 Of course, there are multiple other options the Wrens and their architect could explore to reduce the magnitude of the rear yard lot line variance, such as shifling the proposed addition closer to the street. The Wrens have rejected this concept because they don't want to encroach on the front yard setback requirement, which demonstrates that they are more comfortable imposing the detriment SOLELY on their immediate rear-yard residential neighbors than making a compromise to the programmatic requirements. : Nothing herein should be construed as the Kuchners' support for the alternative design, which they would have to evaluate more carefully after it is placed on a guaranteed survey and after further public hearings. The alternate design may not meet the standards for issuance of a 50% variance. C. The Examples of Prior Zoning Board Approvals Given are Readily Distinguishable. The Wrens' architect also sets forth in summary fashion without any comparative analysis a list of properties that have received variances in the neighborhood. Of course, simply providing a list of the relief given to other lots does not adequately demonstrate how those variances have any precedential effect on the current proceeding. We have annexed hereto a copy of each of those prior Determinations. As you will see, these Determinations actually demonstrate how the Wrens' application seeks one of the largest variances ever requested or granted in this neighborhood and possibly in the Town of Southold. As Member Dinizio stated during one of the public hearings on this matter, if approved, this may be the largest variance ever granted in the Town of Southold. (See page 124 of the transcript from the public heating that took place on July 29, 2010). Set forth below is a brief summary of each matter and how each is clearly unlike the present action. The applications highlighted in bold relate to rear yard setback variances but none involve a variance that comes close to the magnitude of the variance requested herein. 1. Hafer (Appeal # 1561)(30 Arshamomaque): Variance granted for garage to be situated 25 feet from front yard lot line and 5 feet from side yard lot line. 2. Latham (Appeal # 4279) (SCTM # 1000-66-2-18): A five (5) foot variance granted to enlarge and relocate residence 30 feet from the rear yard lot line. 3. Latham (Appeal # 4315)(SCTM # 1000-66-2-18): Side yard setback variance of eight (8) inches and front yard setback variance of sixteen (16) inches for as-built residence. 4. Cannon (Appeal # 4872)(SCTM# 1000-66-2-27): Front yard setback variance to construct a porch of 1.5 feet from Orchard Road. 5. Ball (Appeal # 4415)(SCTM # 1000-66-2-46): Variance to allow construction of deck 45 feet from a bulkhead. Cannon (Appeal # 4972)(SCTM# 1000-66-2-27): 4.4 foot front yard variance granted to construct a foyer and deck 30.6 feet from the front yard lot line. Side yard setback variance of 4.7 feet DENIED. (The requested rear yard setback variance appears to have been withdrawn.) 7. Carpenter (Appeal #4992) (SCTM # 1000-66-2-21): A three (3) foot front yard setback variance for a 174 square foot porch. 8. Alessi (Appeal # 5053)(SCTM # 1000-66-2-35): Variance to allow use of existing third story donner area. 9. Latham (Appeal # 5904)(SCTM # 1000-66-2-19.1): A four (4) foot variance to allow an existing deck to become enclosed 31 feet from the rear yard lot line. 10. Hamilton (Appeal # 6089)(SCTM # 1000-66-2-26): Applicant was granted a variance of 9.5 feet to allow an existing deck, which had been in place for years, to remain 21.5 feet from the rear property line. 11. Heath (Appeal # 6351)(SCTM # 1000-66-2-13): Rear yard lot line variance of two (2) feet and a front yard lot line variance of two (2) feet for expansion of an existing residence. The proposed expansion of the residence within the rear yard setback was only ten (10) square feet. All of these Determinations are readily distinguishable on their basic facts alone. Astoundingly, the three rear yard variances that were granted in this neighborhood for principal structures were for FIVE feet or less. The sole rear yard variance granted for an accessory structure (deck) was 9.5 feet and the Board concluded that this 38.5 percent variance was "substantial" but concluded that there would be no adverse impact on the community because the deck had been present in its location for many years without complaint. In this case, the applicant seeks a two-story addition to a residence only 9.3 feet from the rear yard lot line. The variance requested is substantial, as per the decision in Hamilton, because it represents a 74% reduction in the required rear yard setback, which is nearly double the relief granted in Hamiltoi!, for a stmcture that has significantly more mass and visibility than a deck. It should also be noted that the Cannon side yard setback variance of 4.7 feet was denied presumably because it impacted a neighbor and because it was considered substantial. The Cannon variance request represented a 47% reduction in the required ten (10) foot side yard setback. These approvals make it all the more evident that granting a rear yard lot line variance of more than twenty-five (25) feet would be dramatically out of the character for the neighborhood and contrary to the relief granted by the Board in this neighborhood in the past. In fact, granting the relief requested by the Wrens would set a negative precedent and encourage future applicants to request substantial relief without any thought being given to neighbors or to the Zoning Codes intended to protect neighbors. The Wrens' architect states that the Kuchners' peace and quiet will actually be improved by the removal of an existing porch. Of course, it is not for the Wrens' architect to decide which improvement has less of an impact on the Kuchners. It is evident that the Kuchners would elect to maintain the status quo over the proposed improvements, which will significantly and negatively impact their use and enjoyment of their own property. The remainder of the September 21 letter has been directly refuted in our prior submissions and testimony before the Board. For these reasons, we respectfully renew our request for the Board to deny the application in all respects. Very truly yours, Denise R. Schoen DRS: ca ACTION OF 'J:U.E; ZON'J~G BOa~,'n, OF ACTION OF '~.*lit~ ZON'I~G BOAP, D OF APPF-,AI~ O~ u**.u.~ TOWN OF SO~'~.'i-iOLD .iu alm,me e at a meet/~ of the ~m~e Board ( ) ~u~ for ~ce due ~ ( ) 1972 the a~pea] 1. SPECIAL EXCEPTION. By resolut/on of the ~oard it was def.-m/ned ~hat a special except/on ( )' be ~anted ( ) be den/ed purSUant to Article .................... Sect/on ....... , ............ Subsect/on .................... paragraph .................... o/ the Zoning O~linance and the dec/sion of the Bu/Iding Inspee~ ( ) be reversed ( ) be Upon aplpl eal l 2. VYLLR.IA~CIF. By resolution of the ]~ard it was determined that (a) Strict application of the Ordinance (would) (would not) produce practical hardship because ai~ieult/es or u.u~ecessary (b) ~"he har~=t~fp created (Is) (~s not) ,,r~t,!ue and (would) (would not) be slmare~ by all propezttea ~lik~ ill the tll~lecliate vicinity of this propez-ty and in the same use district because (c) The waHa,~e (does) (do~s not) obse~e the spirit of the Or_at~a,~ce ami (woulff) el~an~e the character ol the district because (would not) ) be de~ied and APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehdnger, Chairman Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio, Jr. Robert A. Villa Richard C. Wilton BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~outhold Town Half 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 7'65-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 ACTION OF TIlE BOARD OF APPEALS .Appeal No. 4279. Application for JOAN LATHAM (Owne~). Request for a VariAnce under Article IIIA, Section 100~30A.3 for per~iAsio.n to relocate ,an eXistb~g dweth%g with addition in llne with the ex~stlng ~ yard sethaclr~ li~e at 30 feet, which is noneonfu~,dng with the present rear yawl 'req~nt of 35 feet. Thi~ parcel is a corner lot with two fgont yards, contains a total lot area of apprexlm~,tely 17,500 sq. ft., and is. know~ as 50. Rogers Road, Southold, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel No. '1000-66-2-18. WHEREAS, a public hes~ing w~s held on November 2, 1994 and at said. hearing all those who desired to be heard were 'heard and their t~ny recorded (no opposition was received);, and Wt~-REAS~ the Boa_mi has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning tblg application; and WHEREAS, the Boa~l Members have personally viewed and aec familiar with the premises in question, the present use and zone diSt~et, and the surrounding areas; and WHEREAS, the Boal~ m~de the .foLlowing fiRdlnoo~ of fact: 1. The premises in question: (a) is a parcel of i.nd referred to as Lots 18 and 19, as combined for. this application with a total nonconforming .lot a~ea of 17,500~ square feet, as situated on the corner of the Orchard Street and the westerly side of Roger's Road, Southold, Town of Southold; (b) is shown by the June 21, 1994 survey prepared by Roderiek VanTuyl, P.C. with a two-sto~y frame house set back 37 feet from Rogers Road, '13+- feet from the-southerly side property line, and 32 ft. from the westerly (rear) property line - when using the scale, provided ,at 40 feet to an inch; (e) is located in the R-40 Zone District as adopted in the Master Plau revisions dated Januauy 9; 1989. Page 2° Appl. No. 42?9 Appliootion of JOAN LATHAM Dead{on Rendered Nevember 2, 1994 2. By .this application, appellant has ~equested permission to m-locate the dwelling, with enla~'gement, all as shoWn on the pt~n dated 8a10-94, which depicts: (a) a front yat~d setback from Roars Rood at 3?'6,, (b) a aide yard setback at 15'6"' from the southerly property line, (c) rear yard setback at 30 feet, at its elesest ~ouint fo~ the ,..ne.w location {rather th~n 29 feet which was the sly ~established location}. 3. Today's :setback ~equi~ement, trader Article XXIV, Section 100-~ .r~quires ,,a miiiimum rea~.yard setbao-k at 35 'feet fo~ lots e0ntmmng less than ~0,000 SCI. ft. in lot-a~a. 4. The' a~ount of relief requested by this application is a ~lUetion. 0£~five ,(5) 'feet in the ~*ea~ ~ setback, fo~' a 30 ft. ~tb~{e.][ 4n{d Of ~. 5. in cmisidering thi~ application, the Board finds: (a) reloca6ng 'the that the depth of the lot lends to th~ difficulties in ~gne dwelling structure within the eede's (b) that the effect or impact on the neighbol, hood or district;' relief requested will not physical o~ en~mentsl have an adverse conditions in the (c) that the constrmction under consideration will not cause or create an incz, ease in ally dwelHn~ ,nit density pertaining to thin property or oouse a substantiA! effect on avm'l~ble governm~ltsl facilities; (d) tlmt there is no other alte~hative feasible for appellants to pttrsue in relocatilig the existing dwelling; (e) that the benefit to the applicant will not be detrimental o~ cause any adverse effects to the health, safety and welfare of the community; (f) that in considering all of the above factors, the interests of justice wili be served by gx~ntin~ the relief requested and as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Member Wilton, seconded by Member Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested for a 30 ft. rear yard setback in the proposed relocation of the eXistln[ dwellln~ as Page 3 - Appl. No. 4279 Application Of JOAN LATHAM De~sion: Rendered November 2, 1994 VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Mess~s. GoehrinoO~r, Doyen,- Din~zi~, and Wilton. (Member Villa was absent - out Of state). Thi~ ~esolu~ion was .duly adopted. APPEALS BOARD M~MBERS Gerard P. Gochringcr, Chairman Scrg~ Doyen, Jr. lames Di~zio, Ir. Robert A. %rills Lydia A: Tonora S0ulh01d Town H~ 53095 Main Road RO. Box t 179 S0ulholO. New York 11971 Fax (516) 76~-II~23 Telephone (516) 765-1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE: 'BOARD OF' APPEALS DATE OF ACTION: J,]ne ?~ 1995 APPL. i%1315. APPLICANT: STEPHEN AND JOAN LATHAM. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 60 Ro~,e~s Rd. 1000-66-2-I8. (& Orchard Rd.)~ Southold~ NY. BASIS OF APPEAL: Notice of Disapproval issued by th~ Buildin.~. Innpevt. or on M,y 9~ 1995. "Consl/nlction h~ in~,,~cient side and f~ont yard setb~nkn l~-~q~ side. is iS'feet slid front ~ 35 feet'. ' "PROVISIONS APPEALED FROM: Article XXIV, Section 100-244B. RELIEF REQUESTED: Varis~ce for location of dwelling, as built, while ~onst~-ucllng umier BP ~2~91Z ~ ~,f~ent side~ at ~e s~erly end ~d ~nt f~nt ~ at ~e ~terly y~. MOTION MADE BY: Lydia A. Tortora, Member SECONDED BY: Gerard P. Goeh~r, C~- ACTION/RESOLUTION ADOPTED: GRANTED as applied. REASONS/FACTS: The request is a modification of the projec: as applied under Appeal No. 4279 rendered tl/2/94. The pereeuta~e of relief m~quested is not substantial, b~in~ a vari-nce of eight (8") inches on the side and 16 inches on the £~ont, at its closest points. Tht~ request does not affect den.~ty. The relief requested will not produce an advers~ effect or impact on the physiag! or environmental conditions of the nei~hbo~'hood. No opposition was submittsd dtwing the besting from neighboring landowners, and the westerly property owner supports $hi.~ r~quest. VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Serge J. Doyen, Member J.m~ Dini~o, Jr., Member Rohel't A. Villn, Member Lydia A. Tortora, Member Gerard p. GoeMn~el., Chslvmnn-Member APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gcmr_d R Goebringer, Chairman Sarg~ Doye~ Ir. lames Di,ai~io, .Ir. Rob6rt A. Vi/la Lydia A. Tonora O Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box t179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) Telephon~ O16) 765-1809 BOARD OF AA~PEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE. BOARD OF AI~PF. ALS DATE OF ACTION: June 7~ 1995 APPL. ff4315. APPLICANT: STEPHEN AND JOAN LATHAM. LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 60 Rok, e~s Rd. 1000-6~m2-18. (& Orchard Rd.)~ Southold~ 1Wf. BASIS OF APPEAL: Notice of Disalopx`oval issued by the B. uilding Inspector on May. 9~, 1995. nConm~u.at/on h~ in-~azffiaient side and f~ont yard setbacks x~qui~R1 side is 15'feet and front yard 35 feet. *'PROVISIONS APPEALED FROM: Article XXIV, Section 100-244B. RELIEF REQUESTED: Variance for location of dwelling, eonstamXefin~ under BP ~22491Z with {n-~,,feicient sideyaz~ at and insuffiaient fx`ont yard at the easterly yard. as built, while the southerly end MOTION MADE BY: SECONDED BY: Lydia A. Tortora, Member Geraz~ P. Goehringer, Cbai~mn ACTION/RESOLUTION ADOPTED: GRANTED as applied. REASONS/FACTS: The request is a modification of the project as applied under Appeal No. 4279 rendered. 11/2/94. The pel~enta~re of relief requested is not substantial, being a val~flnc~ of eight (8") inches on the side and 16 inches on the f~ont, at its closest points. Thi.~ request does not affect den.~ty. The relief x`equested w/II. not produce an adverse effect ox- impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighbox-hood. No opposition was submitted duzdnC the hearing frem neighboring 1-ndovraers, and the westerly property owner supports this x`equest. VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Serge J. Doyen, Membe~ Jnmns Dinizlo, Jr., Member Robert A. Villa, Membex- Lydia A. Tortora, Member Gerard p. Goe~z., Chnb'mnn-Member Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortom Lora S. Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sou~old, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF OCTOBER 19, 2000 AppI..No 4872 ? L CANNON 1000,66-2-27 STREET & LOCAT ON 1050 Arshamomaque Road (and Orchard Road) DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: October 19;2000 FINDINGS OF FACT PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicant's property is a parcel of 10,752 sq. ft. at the comer of Arshamomaque and Orchard Roads in Southold. A survey by John C. Ehlers dated October 17, 2000 shows a two-story house wi~ an one-story segment on the westerly side and a raised wooden patio/deck. The house is 45.8 feet from Orchard Road and 35.4 feet from Arshamomaque Road. BASIS OFAPPLICATION: Building Inspector's Notice of Disapprovaldated Septem_ her ~11:, 20DO de~,jir/g a building permit application for an add t on on the northerly s de of .the'ho.?se'~e/c~a- ~se the northe, riy setback.from Orchard Road would be reduced to 32.5 feet wnereas Code section 100-244B requires a setback of 35 feet. AREA:VAriANCE RELIEF;REQUESTED Applicant requests a variance authorizing constraction ~3f a screened porch 12 feet deep on the northerly side of the house (and areund the northWeSt Comer), reducing the setback from Orchard Road from 45.8 feet to 33,8 feet, as shown on the survey dated October 17, 2000. These setback meesuren~ents a. ppear'tO be more precise than those that were sketched on an old sun/ey, used.in applying for a building permit, and cited in the permit denial, and the Board baRS.its cl~dsi0~ 0n ~3e October 17, 2000 survey measurements. REASONS: I~OR!~BOARD"ACTiON: On the bass of testimony presented, materials submitted'~rid' pe~6nar inspection, the Boardmakes the following findings: .(i) Applicant's house was bu tt 50 or more years ago. AppliCant wishes to expand ti~6 I~viril~ SPa,ce by adding an one-story screened porch on the north s de (and aroUnd;thenerti'~'W;~st ~o~'). Applicant's architect testified that th s is the only feasible Iocatioh f0r the desired addition. i (2) Based:=on the survey dated October 17, 2000, the requested setback variance is less than' %1/2 feet, :which is not substantial. Including the proposed addition, the lot coverage wig, be about 16-1/2 percent, well below the allowable 20 percent and c°nsistent with.the neghborhood. For these reasons, grant of the requested vadance will not prodUce:an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detrimen~t to nearby propert es. Page 2 - October 19 Appl. No, 4872 - L. Cannon 1000-66-2-27 at Southold (3) There is no evidence that grant of the requested ~riance wilt have an adverse effect or impact on phYSical or environmental conditions (4) The action set forth below is the minimum necessary and adequate to enable applicant to expand the house in the desired manner while preserVing and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Tortora, seconded by Chairman Goehringer and Member Collins, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the vadance as requested. VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Members Goehdnger (Chairman), Dinizio, Tortora, Collins, and Homing. This Resolution was duly adoptedH.(5-~ /~../'GERARD P. GOEH~INGER,~;~I~AIRMAN · APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ge~mrd R Ooehringcr, Chairman Serge Doyen James Dinizio, k Robert A. 'v-ffla Lydia A. Tort0ra Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sourh01d, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1809 Appl. #4415 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS Sept. 19, 1996 APPLICANT: THOMAS BALL LOCATION OF PROPERTY: 1890 Arsh~momaque Avenue~ Southold. COUNTY TAX MAP DISTRICT 1000, SECTION 68, BLOCK 2, LOT 46. BASIS OF APPEAL: Notice of Disapproval issued by the Building I~spector dated August 21: 1996~ proposed open deck construction will have insufficient setbulkbead setback." PROVISIONS APPEALED FROM: Article XXIII~ Section 100-239.4B. RELIEF REQUESTED: Open deck addition of approx'~n~tely 19.00 sf. extending 15 feet from the rear of existing dwelling, with a proposed setback of 45 feet between the actual bulkhead and the closest point of the deck (plus 30 sq. ft. of step area additionally if needed). Both sides of the deck are proposed to remain in line with the established setback lines of the dwelling at the west and easterly points. MOTION MADE BY: J. Dinizio SECONDED BY: S. Doyen ACTiON/RESOLUTION ADOPTED: Granted as applied and with the condition thut: (1) there be no enclosure or roof; (2) the deck not extend beyond the establish lines of the dwelling at the west and east yards~ as proposed.' REASONS FINDINGS: 1. Due to the dimensions and unusual conf~u-ation of the property, the difficulties are directly related to the land; 2. the lot size of 21,071 sr. is substandard, and applicant has cenfirmed lot coverage is not over the maximum 20% allowed by cede; 3. applicant confirm no other buildings or structures are proposed, and applicant doe~ not intend to enclose or roof the deck addition. VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Doyen, Din.izio, Tortora, Goehringer. Nay: R. Villa, who feels the relief is not the minimum. This resolution was duly adopted (4-1). ; 'L IVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK Town Clerk, Town of Southold n ARD r. Approved for Filing ~) RMAN APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehriager, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr~ Lydia A. Tortora Lord S. Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall.. 53095 Main Road ED. Box 1 i79 Southold, New York 11971 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 FINDINGS, DELIB15~ATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF 3[~LY 19, 2001 Appl. No. 4972 - LISTA CANNON. '1300-66-2-27. L0C~.~..ti0r~:. 1050 Ars.h~momaque Avenue, Southold Date of Pi~l~lic Fleeting:' Ju!y.12, 2001 F[NDINGS OF FACT PRQP~ERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicant's prdperbj is a parcel of 10,752 sq. ft at the cqmer,0f~amOmaqueand Orchard Roads in Southold. A survey by John C. Ehlers rd,~te~ '! ~qt~eff'fT;'i~0~0. SEOws a twO-story hoUSe~ with an :one-story' segment on the Wes~y;~_'d~ a~d a-raised ~den patio/deck. The .house is 45.8 feet from Orchard Road and 35.4 feet ff~m Ar§ham0r~ac~ue Road. BA;~ ~F APPLICATION: Building Inspector's MarCh 9, 2001 Notice of Disapproval which ~t~tes;that L~i~der Ai'[icle XXIV, Section 100-244B the proposed construction will have~..at !ess than 35. feet from the front property line', less than 10 feet from the side' i~r~ .t~, .I .e~s than 35 feet from the rear property line and lot coverage for total b~ldmg'area in, excess of the 20% code hm~tation. AREA ,VARI~t~CE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant originally requested variances to Io~: ~,~[)-p~[~(~'~7 x;~101 ft. ~ntry foyer.at the east:side Of the dwelling, teaying a front yard~s~ck at 30 feet, (b) proposed deck, steps and shower structure at the.west side of the i~q.~e, lea~i~g 5.3 and'5.,5 feet at its closest points to the westerly property line, (c) 13 ~;~t~ ~ ~1~ ~ ~?'[0'~de~k. afid~shower area whic~ will be five feet frown the rear pro~)erty line.'~'TI3t5~ ~r~giaat~qaest was f~r .aot coverage of 22 10% Subseq~e,t y the~pp Jcation request was amended to eliminate the variance request for io~ C°Ver~g~.as ~'~ on t~e sb~vey amended May 17, 2001, prepared by John C. Ehters, L.S. '.In t~,'_ amet~fllent, ,the.deck was reduced to an approximately size of: 13 x 25', plus~.8.~4;x]5.5:.ste~;~ea, ~lLat ;he southwest comer of the house. The front 7x10 ft. entranCe',foYer i'6~iris..the:sa~ne.. R ' ' ": ' ; " '='' ' ~NS; FOR ~J~RD ~G~fl0N, DESCRIBED BELOW:' On the basis of testimony pm~h~edjn~aten~ls sabmiffed and personal inspection, the Board' makes the following find'~a'gs: 1. An undesirab[e change in the character of the neighborhood or'a:detdment to nearby ProP',e, ' .r .t~s by the grant of thisvariance because {he house and 10t ~,dstin a.neighborhood with lots of similar size and shape. 2. The benefit sought by applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for appellant to pursue, other than an area variance, because the size and configuration of the Page 2 -July 19, 2001 AppL No. 4972 - L. Cannon 10013-66-2-27 at Sou[hold lot as a comer ot prevent the applicant from. installing.the deck in any other location. 3. The amount of relief requested is substantial. 4. The variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district because the foyer and deck are relatively small structures and they wilt not increase the total lot coverage beyond that which has been permitted. Also other lots in the neighborhood have similar lot coverage. The action set forth below is the minimum necessary to enable applicant to build a house in accordance with his plans while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION/ACTION: On motion by Member Dinizio, seconded by Chairman Goehrthger, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the front yard relief requested at 30.6 feet from the eastedy (front) property line at its closest point, and DENY the requested 5.3 ff. side yard setback; and BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED, to GRANT alternative relief in the westerly side yard at no closer than eight (8) feet to the property line. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use. setback or other feature of the subject property that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly.addressed in this action VOTE OF THE BOARD: Ayes: Members Goehdnger (Chairman), Dinizio, Tortora Collins. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0), ~ ~-~ AND = P. GOEHmNGER, CHAiRUAN ~ SOLI"~O.T,D '~'~;~,~,T/--~.~..%-C ~rd P, Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr, Lydia ~. Tortora Lord S. Collins George I{oming BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD · ' 'S6Utho!d:T6~ ., 53095 .Main,.l P.O. Box 11 Southold, New Ye ZBA Fax (631) 7 Telephone (63:1) 5 FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION September 20,.2001 Meeting App!,. No.-4992 ~-..'PA~ICK L.' CARPENTER LocatiOniOf Prbp .e(t,.Y.:' 235:: orchard ROad, Southold Date;:of'PUbliCHearing i: :September 20,.2001 Findings of Fact PROPER:TY FACTS;. AppliCant's property.is located at Beixedon .in Southold. The property cons of approximately. 13,7:00 sq.:ff;;with:92, i2 ft: along Orchard Road (a private mad) and allot deptl ~!45~,~4 fL on the west..Sideand 161.86 ft. on the east side..The prOpertY is im:provedwith a c Mmily, one-stOry.frame house, .accessory garage located, n the Side Yard and small:shed in the yard,' as shoWn on the map ot' November 8, 1973 prepared by Rodedck VanTuyl, 'P.C, BASIS OF' REQUEST:- Building ~Department's July 16, 2001 Notice of DisapproVal .for the rea that undet:Article..xxVI,i.., section?lOO~244,. . . . ~. the prOposed addition will :,be less. than 35 feet. from front proPe.~' :ii0e,... . AREAA/ARIANCE RELIEF: 'The.apPlicant proposes to construct a 6 ft.. by 29 ft. one-story addi ~t the.fr0n~t.of;the-~/xisting one,story dwelrngw'th a setback of 32 feet from the: front line. RE.~SONS. FOR BOARD ACTION, DE,SCRIBED BELOW: On the basis of' testimony presen; materials SUbmitted and perSona! inspection, theBoard makes the' following findings: 1. ~i,a~iof.}an. area:~anar~.-e..wfll~ not produce an undesirable change in the character Of. n .ghborhood'or a d.etnmenf~o nearbypropertles. The applicant wishes to construct a 6 ff. by 2' co~md Porch, whi(~h will be open 0n-three sides; to the front of the ex sting one-story dwelling. ' addition, wi be located 32 - feet at the.closest point from the front yard property line. The propo fronf yar~ Setba~ i.s similar tO others in the community and will have no impact On the adjoir pi~°Peffii~s'Or the neighborhood 2, Th~',:benefit.sought by applicant cannot be achieved by some method; feasible, for appellar pursue; 0ther,t~a.n.: area.variances because aPplicant's existing front yard is 38+- feet at the clo~ poirit~t0.!the dwelling',, and any addition would require a variance from.the 35-foot front seth requirernent; 3.. The re!queSted area varianCe is not substantial and represents an 3-foot reduction in the o requ red.3~J-ft, setback requirement 4. The .proposed variance will not have an. adverSe effect or impact on the phys cai or environme conditiOnS in.the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted to Suggestthat the.~ addition will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions. Sage 2 - September 20, 2001'-../ .~BA Appeal NO. 4992 - P. Carpenter 1000;66-2-21 at Southold RESOLUT ON/AC. TION: On motion iby ~Me.m~r. TO..~em;~.seconded:'bY 'Membe~'.H orn~g~ it was' RESOLVED, to GRANT the vadance as aPplied fOr. Vote of the Board: 'Ayes:. Members Goehdnge[ (Chairman); Dinizio; Tort~ra, Collins; and Homiz This ReSolution was duly adopted (5-0); RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOU%E{OLD ?OVfN' C ~LERK. "D~/o i,f~, ,~ aou'~ ,~. ! :~o,4 .~ APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Sonthold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.norflffork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEk-I'ZNG OF FEBRI. JAR¥ 21~r2002 AppL No. 5053 - ANTONIO AND JOY ALESSI 1000-66-2-35 STREET & LOCATION: . .-620,Rogers Road, Southold DATE oFPUBLIC HEARING: January 10, 2002 FINDINGS OF FACT ,pROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Applicants' property is located on.the west side of Rogers Road in Beixedon Estates, Southold. The property is approximately 13,250 sq. ft. in area and is improved wlth a 2-1.2 story frame house with accessory shed located in the northerly yard area, as shown on the survey prepared by John C. Ehlers, LiS. updated ll-15-0L BASIS OF APPLICATION: The basis of this application is the Building. Department's September 4, 2001 Notice of Disapproval concerning applicant's request for to amend Building Permit ~27094-Z for an -as built additianland alteration." The request for a building permit Was disapproved by the Building Department for the reason that the height of one-family dwellings is restricted to 2-1/2 stories and the as built amended construction shows a third story habitable space area. AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant is requesting a variance anthorizing the use of the third story ."dormer area" described on the plan prepared by Mark IC Schwartz, AIA, dated January 11, 2002. The area which is the subject of the Appeal for a variance includes a bathroom, two bedrooms and .Stairway in conformance with the N.Y.S. Building Construction Code, for proper ingress and egress and comprehensive fire suppression system. REASONS.I~OR BOARD ,~(~TION: Based an the testimony and record before the Board and personal inspection, ~i~ Board makes the following findings: Grant Of an area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, or be a detriment to nearby properties because the applicant has already installed a proper fire suppression system and has existing (2) bedroom areas for family use. The .benefit sought:by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for .the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because the applicant raised the dwelling addiog the necessary bedrooms on the first flor, which, create the third fluor area. The utilization of the third floor for (2) bedrooms can only be granted by this action and with the installation of a proper fire suppression system (sprinklers system). 3. Th~ requested variance is not substantial. The !proposed variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the phYsical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. {insert screening or other property effects}. No evidence was presented to suggest that the physical or environmental conditions in the Page 2 - February 21, 2002 ZBA Appl. No. 5053 ~ A. and 4. Alessi Parcel 1000-66-2~35 at Southold neighborhood wonid be adversely affegted or impacted. The dvte!ting ~ith third story use in place' ns a single-family r%identill us~ ~ll'h0t effec~ the. Ovei~nll desi~n'0fth~ h~use ~r chnnge the character of the neighborhood. RESOLUTION/ACIION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors, and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law, motion was offered by Member Goehringer (Chairman), seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, subject to the condition that the dwelling meet the requirements of the NYS Construction Code for both a proper fire suppression :rYstem (sprinkler system) and for proper window size. This action does not authorize or condone any current er furore use, setback or other feature. Of the subject property that ~/iulates the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and Other features a~ are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, Horning, Olivn, and Orlando. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). ' ~ ~ Gerard P. Gochringer, Chairman . or Owner s Matl,ng Informatmn: Agent Mr. Ma~k K. Schwartz, A.I.A. P.O. BOx 933 · Cutchogue, NY 11955 APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Ruth D. Oliva, Chairwoman Gerard P. Goehringer James Dinizio, Jr. Michael A. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTIIOLD TeL (631) 765.1809 · F~r~t (631) 76~-9064 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JUNE 29, 2006 ZB File NO. 5904 - Stephen and Joan Latham Property Location: 60 Rogers Road, Soulhold CTM 66-2-19.1 (fonT~eriy 18 & 19) Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · EO. Box ! 179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Town Annex IF=st Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 RECEIVED Southold Toms C/ed, SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration In this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without an adverse effect on the environment If the project is implemented as planned. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The applicants' 16,553 square foot parcel is improved with a two-story frame house with garage and porch, as shown on June 21, 1994 survey, amended May 12, 1995 by Rnderick VanTuyl, P. C. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Deperlment's April ~'6, 2006 Notice of Disapproval amended May 12, 2006, citing Sections 100-242A and 100-244, in its denial of an application for a building permit to construct a proposed addition and alterations to an existing dwelling. The reason stated by the Building Inspector in the denial Is that the addition(s) and alterations on this nonconforming lot will increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the rear yard setback of 31 feet instead of the code required 35 feet. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on June 22, 2006, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evMence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true end relevant; AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicants wish to enclose a 396 sq. ff. portion of an existing deck at the rear of the dwelling. The setback will not be closer than 31 feet to the rear property line and is shown on the site map prepared by Penny Lumber 5-8-2006. 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 vadanoa will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. This addition is a fill-In to enclose an open space (deck) which was granted by the Zoning Board of Appeals under File #4279 and ~1315. The enclosed addition will not extend further into the front yard and will maintain the same 31'6' setback that has existed over the years. 2. The banefit sought by the applicants cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicants to pursue, other than an area variance. The home is presently set back 31'6" from the rear lot line. 3. The variance granted herein is not substantial. The applicants request is minimal. ' .em Page 2- June 29, 2006 ZB File No. 5904 - Stephen & Jean L CTM NO. 66-2-19.1 4. The difficulty has been se~f-created since the setbasks have remained nonconforming at 31'6. 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 nstghborhood. 6. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an enclosure (addition), while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Member Otiva, and duly GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the site plan map dated/day 8, 2006 and shown on the construction diagram prepared 2-2-2006 by Penny Lumber. Any deviation f~om 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. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members (~liva (Chairwoman), Goehringer, Dlnizio, and Simon. Absent was Memb. Welsman. This Reselution was ~d_opt~ed (4-~?. Ruth D. Oliva 7/14106 Approved for Filing APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS James Dinizio. Jr., Chairman Gerard P. Goehringcr Ruth D. Oliva Michael A. Simon Leslie Kanes Weisman Mailine Address: Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road * P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 119714)959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, North Fork Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · l~sx (631) 765-9064 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 6, 2007 DEC 18 ZB File # 6089 - KENNETH A. and EVELYNN R. HAMILTON Property Location: 45 Orchard Road, Southold CTM 66-2-26 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review fails under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without further steps under SEQRA. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances based on the Building Inspector's September 10, 2007 Notice of Disapproval concerning an as-built deck addition at less than 35 feet from the rear lot line and which new construction will create a side yard location for a portion of the accessory garage (garage is entirely in a rear yard). ZONING CHAPTER 280 OF TOWN CODE (formerly Chapter 100): Zoning Code Section 280-124 which states that the minimum rear yard setback is 35 feet and Section 280-15 which states that an accessory garage must be located in the rear yard. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on November 15, 2007, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: AREA VARIANCE RELIEF REQUESTED: The relief requested by applicant concerns the setback of a deck addition (as built) at the rear of the dwelling, located 21.5 feet from the rear lot line instead of the code required 35 feet, and concerns the pre-existing accessory garage which as a result of the as-built deck addition is. located partially in the side yard instead of entirely in the code-required rear yard. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: · Page 2 - December 6, 2007 ZBA File # 6089 - K. and E. Hamilton CTM 66-2-26 1. Town Law ~267-b(3}(b~(3}(1~. Grant of the variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Although many decks are constructed at greater height and with railings, this deck is similar to a patio or platform, except that it is raised +/- 16 inches above the ground. The rear yard contains level ground, and the deck at the height that exists is not easily visible from adjacent areas. The accessory building has existed in its present location for years, and the result ora portion of the shed along the side of the deck will not create an undesirable effect from any sides. 2. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(2). The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Reconstruction of the deck with stone material will not achieve a different effect since the property is residential and the rear yard is for use by the applicants as residents. 3. Town Law ~267-b(3)(b)(3). The variance requested herein is substantial with respect to the deck. The application calls for a 38.5 per cent reduction in the required rear yard setback. The location of the garage as exists is a consequence of the extension of the house into the rear yard by construction of the deck and is not substantial. 4. Town Law ~267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty is self-created, in that it was created when the applicant constructed a raised deck without a building permit. 5. Town Law ~267-b(3)(b)(4). No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the relief requested is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of his property, 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 Weisman, seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, as shown on the Plot Plan dated 8-24-07 prepared by Boulevard Planning P.C., subject to the following Condition: That the deck shall remain open to the sky. That the above con~dition be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued. Any deviation from the variance given such as extensions, or demolitions which are not · Page 3 - December 6, 2007 ZBA File # 6089 - K. and E. Hamilton CTM 66-2-26 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 Diniz~(Chairm~o~), Goehringer, Oliva, and Weisman. Nay: Member Simon. This Resolution/w~s duly ~do0te~d (4;1).A / t~'~es Diniz~o ~., ~/hairman 12/~,4/2007 pproved for Filing ~Dffice Location: 'Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold. NY 11971 http://southoldtown.no~thfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765.1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 Mailing Address: 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 RECEIVED ~--~ .~.' ¢~ ~t · ... 2010 So~l~r,,~ Town Cl~rk FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF JUNE 30, 2010 ZBA FILE 6351 AMENDED NAME OF APPLICANT: Elliott B. & Ora J. Heath PROPERTY LOCATION: 500 Hippodrome Drive, Southold, NY SCTM 1000-66-2-13 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the prope[~y 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. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated December 15, 2009 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. LWRP: This application has been reviewed under Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to us, it is our recommendation that the proposed action is CONSISTENT with LWRP policy standards and therefore is CONSISTENT with the LWRP provided the following best management practices are implemented. In the event that the action is approved, to further Policy 4.2 protect and restore natural protective features and Policy 6 protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems, it is recommended that a natural vegetated buffer be required instead of the proposed non-turf. It is further recommended that the dimensions, type and maintenance activities of the buffer be memorialized within a Covenant and Restriction filed with the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The subject property is an irregular shaped, non-conforming 15,113 square foot parcel, with 11,601 sq. ft. landward of wetlands, in the R-40 District, as shown on the site plan survey drawn by John C. Ehlers, Land Surveyor, dated 10/30109. The northwesterly lot line forms the boundary of the Applicant's rear yard, and measures 177 feet, with an additional 19 feet at the northeast corner of the property. The easterly lot line forms a side yard with an adjacent parcel, and measures 111.00 feel The southeasterly lot line forms the front yard along Hippodrome Drive, and measures 109 feet across to the Hippodrome Creek wetlands, where the boundary then proceeds for 112.26 feet southwesterly across the wetlands before intersecting with the rear yard lot line. The property is improved with a single-family dwelling currently undergoing some permitted additions and renovations and a detached accessory garage with attached shed. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Code Section 280-124, based on an application for building permit and the Building Inspector's October 16, 2009 Notice of Disapproval concerning Page 2-June 30, 2010 ZBA File#6351 AMENDED- Healh C'I'M: 1000-66-2-13 at 500 Hippodrome Dr,, Sou~old proposed additions and alterations to a single family dwelling, (1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, (2) less than code required rear yard setback of 35 feet. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests front and rear yard variances for the proposed construction of additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling. The Applicant proposes a 33 foot front yard setback, and a 33 foot rear yard setback, as shown on the site survey drawn by John C. Ehlers, Land Surveyor, dated 10/30/09. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Applicant has submitted NYS DEC Tidal Wetlands Permit 1-4738- 00578~00003 dated 12/19/08 and amended 08106/09. The Applicant has also submitted Southold Board of Town Trustees Wetland Permit 6949 dated 8/20108, and amended 06/24109 and 11/18/09. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on Feb 25, 2010 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 and makes the following findings: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: Town Law §267-b{31{biilL Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The alterations and additions requested by the applicant will change the existing two story residence with a one story entry porch into a two story residence with added interior space for a master bedroom on the second floor created by raising the roofline, of which only 10 sq. ft. will be non-conforming in the rear yard, and a small open second story deck. The proposed new enlarged one story covered front porch entry in the front yard will be 1.5 feet deeper than the existing (from 3 ft. deep to 4.5 ft. deep) to enhance it's functionality, and will include a second story balcony to enhance views to Hippodrome Creek. There are other 2 story homes of similar size and style in the neighborhood and the proposed additions will improve the appearance of the existing house. Town Law §267-b{3i{b){2). The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because the applicant Is proposing to add modest additions that will create non-conformities to the code. Town Law §267.b(31{b){3), The variances granted herein are not substantial. The Applicant requests a 33 feet front and rear yard setback where 35 feet is required by Code, The variances requested are each .05+ %. Town Law §267-b(3)¢b)(4L No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a vadance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Applicant has agreed to follow the guidelines recommended by the Town Trustees and the NYS DEC. There is no proposed additional construction in the westerly side yard adjacent to Hippodrome Creek where there is an existing easement across the property to the neighbor's property. Town Law §267-b(3)(bi(SL The difficulty has been self-created because the applicant is proposing changes to the existing building footprint for new construction that will create modest non-conformities to the code required front and rear yard setbacks. Town Law §267-b, Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of alterations and additions to a single family dwelling while ?age 3- .[un¢ 30, 2010 ZBA Fi1¢#6351 AMENDED- Heath CTM: 1000-66-2-13 al 500 Hippodrom~ Dr., Sou(hold 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 Weisman (Chairperson), seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carded, to GRANT, the variance as applied for, and shown on the site plan survey prepared by John C. Ehlers Land Surveyor dated 10/30/09 and the architectural drawings by MCH Design Services dated Nov 6, 2009 and labeled Sheet no. 4 and no. 5. Condition: The Applicant will follow provide Covenants and Restrictions to establish and maintain a ten foot wide "Landscaped Buffer~' - A land area of a certain length and width which is planted with indigenous, drought-tolerant vegetation similar to that found within the immediate proximity of the parcel. Vegetation shall be installed in sufficient densities to achieve 95% ground cover within two years of installation. Survival of planted vegetation shall be 90% for a period of three years. Maintenance activities within the buffer are limited to removing vegetation which is hazardous to life and property, trimming tree limbs up to a height of 15 feet to maintain viewsheds, replanting of vegetation and establishing a four-foot-wide access path constructed of pervious material for access to the water body; to be maintained in perpetuity adjacent to and landward of the existing fifteen foot wide easement traversing the Property. That the above conditions be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued. 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: AIl. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0), Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Appreved for Filin9:7 1 a~ /2010 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 53095 Main Road EO, Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 http://southoldtown.north fork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 Fax (631) 765-9064 RECEIVED . 3.IX, FINDINOS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATICJlI~ulhold Iowa1 Clot[ MEETING OF MARCH 25, 2010 ZBA FILE 6351 NAME OF APPLICANT: Elliott B. & Ore J. Heath PROPERTY LOCATION: 500 Hippodrome Drive, Southold, NY CTM 1000-66-2-13 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. SUFFOLK COUNTY ADMINISTRATIVE CODE: This application was referred as required under the Suffolk County Administrative Code Sections A 14-14 to 23, and the Suffolk County Department of Planning issued its reply dated December 15, 2009 stating that this application is considered a matter for local determination as there appears to be no significant county-wide or inter-community impact. LWRP: This application has been reviewed under Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. Based upon the information provided on the LWRP Consistency Assessment Form submitted to this department, as well as the records available to us, it is our recommendation that the proposed action is CONSISTENT with LWRP policy standards and therefore is CONSISTENT with the LWRP provided the following best management practices are implemented. In the event that the action is approved, to further Policy 4.2 protect and restore natural protective features and Policy 6 protect and restore the quality and function of the Town of Southold ecosystems, it is recommended that a natural vegetated buffer be required instead of the proposed non-turf. It is further recommended that the dimensions, type and maintenance activities of the buffer be memorialized within a Covenant and Restriction filed with the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The subject property is an irregular shaped, non-conforming 15,113 square foot parcel, with 11,601 sq. ft. landward of wetlands, in the R-40 District, as shown on the site plan survey drawn by John C. Ehlers, Land Surveyor, dated 10/30/09. The northwesterly lot line forms the boundary of the Applicant's rear yard, and measures 177 feet, with an additional 19 feet at the northeast corner of the property. The eastedy lot line forms a side yard with an adjacent parcel, and measures 111.00 feet. The southeasterly lot line forms the front yard along Hippodrome Ddve, and measures 109 feet across to the Hippodrome Creek wetlands, where the boundary then proceeds for 112.26 feet southwesterly across the wetlands before intersecting with the rear yard lot line. The property is improved with a single-family dwelling currently undergoing some permitted additions and renovations and a detached accessory garage with attached shed. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Code Section 280-124, based on an application for building permit and the Building Inspector's October 16, 2009 Notice of Disapproval concerning Page 2-Match 25, 20 l0 ZBA Fi1¢#6351 - Heath CTM: 1000-66-2-D at 500 Hippodrome Dr., Southold proposed additions and alterations to a single family dwelling, (1) less than the code required front yard setback of 35 feet, (2) less than code required rear yard setback of 35 feet. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests front and rear yard variances for the proposed construction of additions and alterations to an existing single-family dwelling. The Applicant proposes a 33 foot front yard setback, and a 33 foot rear yard setback, as shown on the site survey drawn by John C. Ehiers, Land Surveyor, dated 10/30109. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Applicant has submitted NYS DEC Tidal Wetlands Permit 1-4738- 00578/00003 dated 12/19/08 and amended 08106109. The Applicant has also submitted Southold Board of Town Trustees Wetland Permit 6949 dated 8~20~08, and amended 06124109 and 11/18/09. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on Feb 25, 2010 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 and makes the following findings: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following findings: Town Law §267-b~3~b){'l). Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The alterations and additions requested by the applicant will change the existing two story residence with a one story entry porch into a two story residence with added interior space for a master bedroom on the second floor created by raising the roofline, of which only 10 sq. ft. will be non-conforming in the rear yard, and a small open second story deck. The proposed new enlarged one story covered front porch entry in the front yard will be 1.5 feet deeper than the existing (from 3 ft. deep to 4.5 f. deep) to enhance it's functionality, and will include a second story balcony to enhance views to Hippodrome Creek. There are other 2 story homes of similar size and style in the neighborhood and the proposed additions will improve the appearance of the existing house. Town Law §267.b~3~tbl(2}. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because the applicant is proposing to add modest additions that will create non-conformities to the code, Town Law 6267-b(3)(b}(3).. The variances granted herein are not substantial. The Applicant requests a 33 feet front and rear yard setback where 35 feet is required by Code. The variances requested are each .05+ %. Town Law §267-b(3)tb}(4). No evidence has been submitted to suggest that a variance in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The Applicant has agreed to follow the guidelines recommended by the Town Trustees and the NYS DEC. There is no proposed additional construction in the westerly side yard adjacent to Hippodrome Creek where there is an existing easement across the property to the neighbor's property. Town Law §267-b(3)ib)(5), The difficulty has been self-created because the applicant is proposing changes to the existing building footprint for new construction that will create modest non-conformities to the code required front and rear yard setbacks. ~ Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of alterations and additions to a single family dwelling while Page 3- Match 25, 2010 ZBA Fileg6351 - Heath CTM: 1000.66-2-13 ~ $00 Hippodrome Dr., Sou~hold 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 Homing, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly carried, to GRANT, the variance as applied for, and shown on the site plan survey prepared by John C. Ehlers Land Surveyor dated 10130/09 and the architectural drawings by MCH Design Services dated Nov 6, 2009 and labeled Sheet no. 4 and no. 5. Condition: The Applicant will follow the recommendations of the LWRP dated 02./08110 regarding the planting of a natural vegetated buffer and the submission of Covenant and Restrictions with the Office of the Suffolk Clerk. That the above conditions be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued. 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: All. Members Weisman (Chairperson), Dinizio, Geohringer, Homing, Schneider. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0)~) /_ '~slie Kan6s Welsmar{, Chairperson Approved for Filing: 3 1 .~112010 Southold Town Cled, JONATHAN TARBET, ESQ. BRIAN J. LESTER, ESQ, DENISE R, SCHOEN, ESQ, HEATHER A, WRIGHT, TARBET, LESTER & SCHOEN, PLLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW P.O. BOX 2635 524 MONTAUK HIGHWAY AMAGAnSETT, NEW YORK 11930 (631) 907-3500 (TELEPHONE) (631) 907-3501 (fACSIMILe) WWW. EASTHA M PTON LAWYE R.COM 8OARD OF APPEALS (631) 907-35OO (TELEPHONE) September 21.2010 Via REGULAR MAlL & FACSIMILE Chairwoman Weisman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Sonthold 54375 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Sonthold, New York 11971 Re: In the Matter of the Application of John and Sharon Wren Dear Chairwoman Weisman: We represent Dr. and Mrs. Kuchner, who reside immediately adjacent to the Wren Property located at 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southold, New York (the "Wren Property"), which is the subject of the above-referenced Zoning Board application. Please accept this letter as a supplement to our Memorandum of Law dated August 18, 2010 previously submitted to this Board on behalf of our clients in opposition to the Wren application. In our Memorandum of Law in Subsection E. on page 10, we stated that the applicant had made a representation during the initial public hearing on this matter that the Wren property had been family-owned for many years and, therefore, the hardship causing the applicant to seek relief from this Board was not self-created. Upon further review of the Board's file and the Assessment Records maintained by the Town of Sonthold, it appears that Mr. Wren obtained a minority interest in the Wren Property in 1976. He acquired an additional interest in 1998 and only recently completed his purchase of the property in 2008. There is no evidence that Mr. Wren's ownership of the property pre-dated the enactment of zoning regulations in the Town of Southold in 1957 and, accordingly, the hardship is in fact self-created. Morevoer, Mr. Wren is also a licensed real estate attorney who is familiar with the effects of local zoning regulations on the development potential of a pre-existing and non-conforming residence on a pre-existing and non-conforming lot. Mr. Wren purchased an undersized lot but now requests that the Board overlook the zoning constraints imposed by the dimensions of the property which, as a real estate attorney, he can reasonably be expected to have known prior to completing his purchase. We look forward to presenting our client's full opposition to the Board at the continuation of the public hearing on this matter. Very truly yours, Denise R. Schoen DRS: ca cc: Dr. and Mrs. Kuchner RECEIVED OCTOBER 4, 2010 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD TOWN HALL ANNEX BUILDING 54375 MAIN ROAD, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 BOAI~D OF APP£AL$ RE: ADDENDUM TO LETTER SUBMITTED TO BZA ON RECORD DATED 8/18/2010 BY JOHN G. STEIN IN REFERENCE TO VARIANCE # 6389 WREN RESIDENCE AT 225 HIPPODROME DRIVE, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 ATT: CHAIRPERSON, VICE CHAIRPERSON AND SOUTHOLD ZONING BOARD MEMBERS I AM MAKING THIS ADDENDUM TO MY ORIGINAL LETTER SUBMITTED FOR RECORD DATED 8/18/2010 DUE TO THE READING AND HEARING OF MS. MERYL KRAMER'S (WREN ARCHITECT) LETTER DATED 9/21/2010 IN THEIR RESPONSE AND SUBSEQUENT "modification" LETTER FOR PENDING VARIANCE # 6389. FIRST AND FOREMOST PLEASE BE ADVISED AND AWARE THAT I COMPLETELY STAND BY MY ORIGINAL LETTER WRITING OF 8/18/2010 IN TERM S OF MY CONTINUED GROSS DISAPPROVAL OF THE WESTERLY PAIR OF WINDOWED DOUBLE DORMERS; WESTERLY FACING MY RESIDENCE "EQUIDISTANT" TO MY FIRST FLOOR (EAT-iN KITCHEN, BATHROOM, MASTER BEDROOM) AND EYE LEVEL AND PARALLEL TO MY SECOND FLOOR BAYWINDOWED TWO BEDROOMS AND SKYLIGHTED WINDOWED 2ND FLOOR BATHROOM. AT THE MOST RECENT BZA HEARING ON THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 23RD 2010 I SUBMITTED EIGHT 5X7 COLOR PHOTOGRAPHS REFERENCING THE IMMEDIATE CLOSE PROXIMITY (/6' ~ v' FROM PROPERTY LINE AND STARING DEAD CENTER AT THE WRENS PROPOSED DORMERS); THE "EQUIDISTANT" LEVEL OF "ADVERSE IMPACT" THIS COMBINED WINDOWED DOUBLE DORMERS WOULD HAVE ON MY USE AND OCCUPANCY OF MY COMPLETE EXPOSURE OF ALL THE ROOMS I HAVE LISTED ABOVE. LET ME CATEGORICALLY STATE THAT I AM ADAMANT AND STILL 1N COMPLETE DISAGREEMENT FOR "ANY" TYPE OF DOUBLE DORMERS ELEVATED AND FACING MY PROPERTY; AND RUNNING THE LENGTH OF MY RESIDENCE ON THIS EXPOSURE AND APPLICATION REQUEST. WHETHER WINDOWED, OPAQUE, OBSCURED, OR CLOSED OFF AND WINDOWLESS, THIS' CONSTRUCTION WILL HAVE A SEVERE CLOSE AND ADVERSE IMPACT ON MY PRIVACY AND USE AND OCCUPANCY OF MY RESIDENCE OF THIRTY PLUS YEARS. ADDITIONALLY WHEN PRESENTED WITH MS KRAMER'S LETTER DATED 9/21/2010 BY MR. WREN IN PERSON ON (sunday am sep 26TM); I REITORATED AND I QUOTE - - "JOHN, I STAND BY MY ORIGINAL LETTER SUBMITTED BACK IN AUGUST 18, 2010" WHETHER OBSCURED, DARKENED, SHADED, WINDOWLESS, OR "LIGHT AND AIR ONLY" I EMPHATICALLY DISAPPROVE OF THIS CONSTRUCTION IN REGARDS TO THE ALREADY EXISTING CLOSE PROXIMITY - EQUIDISTANT 2~4D FLOOR BEDROOMS AND BATHROOM - AND GROSS LOSS OF PRIVACY IMPACTING MY EXISTING USE AND OCCUPANCY OF MY RESIDENTIAL LIVING AREA. LASTLY, I ALSO FURTHER DISCUSSED AGAIN, WITH MR. WREN THE PLACEMENT OF ALL OF HIS PROPOSED MECHANICALS OF HVAC AND OR THERMAL PUMPS TO BE PLACED FROM THE FURTHEST POINT OF THE ADJACENT THREE CONTIGUOUS NEIGHBORS FROM A "NOISE ABATEMENT LEVEL" (STEIN westerly i~'~/~' & KUCHNER + WARLAN southerly 9'3" ) THAT BEING SAID - I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A BUILDING "COVENANT & RESTRICTION" FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE MECHANICALS TO BE PLACED ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF MR. WREN'S 76.00 WIDE PROPERTY DEPTH AT OR NEAR HIS PROPOSED 2 ½ CAR BAY GARAGES; DUE TO THE FACT THAT THIS PLACEMENT OFFERS THE MOST MAXIMUM VACANT LAND AREA TO ABSORB THE NOISE LEVEL. THANKING THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN ADVANCE FOR YOUR PROFESSIONALISM, EXPERTISE, AND OBJECTIVITY CONCERNING THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. I RESPECTFUL, L~fREMAIN, JOHN G. STEIN 295 HIPPODROME DRIVE, SOUTHOLD, NY 11971 (917) 449-3182 EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE DATA (TEST HOL PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE DATA ~ECE~VED 8/18/10 Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board of Appeals Town Of Southold: My name is John G. Stein, I've lived at 295 Hippodrome Drive for the past 30 years (Dec 1980) · I am the immediate neighbor to the West adjacent to Mr. & Mrs. Wren, to whom l have the utmost respect and care of their family and friendship. Throughout the past several years I have provided Banking & Mortgage Finance for several of his immediate family members; and assisted numerous clients of his subsequent to his Law practice. The reason I make this acknowledgement is to characterize how close our rel~tio~hip is on a neighborly basis for the past 30 years. When I was first made aware of this Variance Request for a "Notice of Disapproval" Re: 1). Less than the code required Rear Setback And 2). Exceeding maximum Lot Coverage of 20% --- By Certified Mail; I anxiously looked forward to speaking to Mr. Wren to get further details on the nature and scope of the "Impact" of the Two story addition; and the pair of Double Dormers with six windows facing directly upon my residence both on my first floor and "Equidistant and Level" with my second floor matching level and parallel to Two existing second floor Bedrooms with baywindows and a Full Bathroom and stall shower with windows and skylights already existing on my second floor residence; not to mention my first floor master bedroom, bathroom eat in kitchen, all windowed on the first floor. I make this realization and reflection to the Board in addition to my Existing Property Line of roughly 13 Feet 11 inches between Mr. Wren and my existing residence. The proposed second story Windowed Double Dormers "greatly" concerns both myself and my immediate Family using the dwelling; in regards to our "severe" Loss of Privacy and immediate Parallel bedrooms and skylighted Full bathrooms that would be facing each other directly parallel and level with each other in respect to Mr. Wrens already existing "close" property line ( 13' 11") as is highlighted from his most recent Land Survey dated 1/5/2010 by Nathan Taft Corwin IlL Cordially and friendly I asked John Wren to accomapany myself into my house (roughly two weeks ago from this writing); to view the subsequent impact this would have on my Use and Occupancy and Privacy we had shared for the past 30 plus years. To further make John Wren aware of my concern and non-approval and dislike of the "Doubled Windowed Dormers" I asked him to sit on the Lavatory and "wave" to his wife out the window and above the skylight in a referenced comical viewpoint of myself to make him realize how close this Double Dormer would impact my residence in addition to getting in and out ora shower and standing in both bedrooms of my second floor. To which he complied and visually saw the close proximity of the proposed additions. In a similar fashion I walked with Mr. Wren to show and ask him that regardless of what the final construction will be; that from a "Noise Abatement" standing that ALL Mechanicals of HVAC - Heating Ventilation Airconditioning and Centarl Air including Thermal Heat Pumps if so chosen be situated and placed from the furthest ~ECEIVE~ ~OARP OF APPEALS of my Property Line (on the Other side facing east near or by his proposed 2 ¼ car Bay Garages like other residential properties) due to the fact that Mr. Wren's property line is already so close and narrow that this would additionally have a severe and loud mechanical noise level impacting my Quiet Use and Occupancy of my residence on a daily 24 hour basis. I cannot stress these points out more strenuously to the respected Ladies and Gentlemen of the Board of Appeals Town of Southold. Thanking you in advance for your professionalism, expertise, and objectivity concerning this Variance Request. I respectfully re G. Stein mber 21, 2010 ~_oning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 11791 Southold NY 11971 M E R Y L K R A M E a r c h i t e c t R I., RECE[VED BOARD OF APPEALS RE: Wren Residence SCTM# 1000-66-02-32 Property Location: 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southold Dear Chairperson Weisman and Southold Zoning Board Members: I would like to enter into the record the following clarifications and modifications to our original application dated April 5th, 2010: We are amending our application to remove the request for a lot coverage variance. I am attaching a revised survey showing the proposed addition resulting in a total lot coverage of 20%. This will reduce the addition to the rear yard setback non- conformity from 33.7' to 32'. The original survey showed the proposed lot coverage calculations incorrectly, i.e. the existing porch was not included in the existing building coverage data. The existing house and porch square footage is 1288 sq. ft., which amounts to 11.7% lot coverage. The proposed addition should have been indicated as 950 sq. ft., not 1246 sq. ft.. As we are reducing the size of the proposed addition, it now reads correctly at 901 sq. ft.. The total footprint area of the house with the proposed addition is 2189 sq. ft., which includes the attached garage. Th/s Project Will Not Cause An Undesirable Change In The Character Of The Ne/ghborhood Nor Create A Detr/ment To Nearby Propert/es. This neighborhood is no longer comprised of tiny beach cottages as it was in the 1930's through the 1960's. The neighboring properties have had renovations and additions, new decks and garages, and new houses have been constructed. For example, the newly constructed Pinto Residence, SCTM # 1000-66-2-25 directly across Hippodrome Dr. from the Wren residence is 2523 sq. ft.. The Ilibassi Residence, SCTM # 1000-66-2- 45, which abuts the Wren Residence on the southeast corner is 3653 sq. ft., not including the 600 sq. ft. garage with a room above. The Alessi Residence, SCTM #1000-66-2-35 is 1806 sq. ff. The Stein Residence, SCTM # 1000-66-2-33, which is directly west of the Wren Residence is 1988 sq.ft, including the detached garage. 218 FRONT STREET P.O. BOX 683 GREENPORT, NY 11944 632-477-8735 WWW.MKARCHITECT,COM The Kuchner Residence, SCTM #1000-66.2-44, which abuts the Wren property on the south side is 2542 sq. ft. not including 785 sq. ft. of decks and a 400 sq. ft. pool. The Ball Residence, SCTM # 1000-66-02-46, is 2513 sq. ft. including a 504 sq. ft. garage. i. According to Mr. Wren, Beixedon Estates was a beach community with 21 original homes of which the subject property is one. Since 1948, 28 more homes were built in the community. Of the total current 49 homes, 10 have been totally reconstructed and 10 have been remodeled, with all but one being made significantly larger. Of the eight homes surrounding the subject property only one has not been remodeled or rebuilt. ii. In this neighborhood, the following properties have received zoning variances: 1000-66-2-13 1000-66-2-18 1000.66-2-19.1 1000-66-2-21 1000-66-2-26 1000.66-2-27 1000-66-2-30 1000.66-2-35 1000-66-2-46 a. In response to the neighbor's concerns regardingthe proposed scheme, we offer the following clarifications: i. The plan shows 4 bedrooms and a sewing room. Mrs. Wren is an avid quilter, and plans to utilize the sewing room as such. The Suffolk County Department of Health Services Wastewater Management permit that we have secured is the same for a 4 or 5 bedroom house. We are fully aware that the sewing room could potentially be considered a bedroom, and we have designed the septic system to handle the load for it. We have also allocated space for an expansion tank, should the need arise, which is a requirement set forth by the SCDHS. ii. The Wren family members who plan to live in the house full time are Sharon and John Wren and their son, David, who has joint custody of his two children. iii. The claim that this house will cast a shadow on neighboring properties is moot. The Wren Residence is located on the NORTH side of the rear property line, and therefore north of the Kuchner property. It is impossible for this house to cast a shadow on the Kuchner property to the south. iv. The claim that the light and air, peace and quiet of the Kuchners and the Warlans to the south, is completely unfounded. The part of the house to which the Warlans are exposed will experience no change. As to the Kuchner's parcel, light and air will not be affected as it lies to the south and their open space consists of 160 feet from the common line. In fact the Kuchner's peace and quiet actually will be improved because the Wren's screened in porch which is a source of noise, will be eliminated. v. The applicant and the community will both benefit if the variance is granted. There will be NO detriment to the health, safety or general welfare of the neighborhood or community whatsoever. vi. Mr. Wren has resided in the property since 1947. In 1976 his parents gifted the property to him and his 2 sisters. Mr. Wren subsequently purchased their interest. The Benefit Sought by the Applicants Cannot be Achieved by Some Method Feasible for the Applicant to Pursue Other Than an Area Variance. After the first public hearing, in response to the Board's sup~estion, I attempted to redesign the house by increasing the rear yard setback by approximately 8 feet in the area of the new addition. I have attached sketches of the first and second floor plan sketches as evidence of this study. The resulting design did not allow for the programmatic requirements. The Wrens would like all bedrooms to be located on the second floor, and in order to do this, it is necessary to have rooms, in this case, a garage, below. In addition, because the buildable area is so shallow, the design resulted in a very long single loaded corridor which is very wasteful and inefficient use of space. The front yard setback is also of concern in this property and we want to maintain the existing 35 foot setback for aesthetic reasons, and because we did not want to introduce another variance into our request. The amount of money that will be involved in this renovation/addition is substantial, and unless the design meets the programmatic and aesthetic requirements of the owners, it is not worth pursuing. The Requested Area Variances Are Not Substantial. The existing rear yard setback of 9.4' consists of a one story portion (porch) and a one and one half story portion (main house) for 42.4' along the south side of the property. The proposed addition will maintain the existing non-conformity for an additional 32 feet. The gabled portion will be approximately 20 feet high to the ridge (considerably lower than the allowable 35') and approximately 20 feet long. The remainder will be a one and one half story with a roof that slopes away from the property line and has a dormer which is located midway up the roof line. Grant Of The Requested Variance Will Not Have An Adverse Impact On The Physical Or Environmental Conditions In The Neighborhood. There have been many letters both in support of this project as well as those in opposition. The two properties that share the property line in question are the Warlan and the Kuchner Properties. The Portion of the Wren property that is contiguous with the Warlan property is the westernmost half. The existing massing of the house remains unchanged in that area, The only additions proposed there are two dormers facing west. Mr. Wren and Mr. Stein have discussed the location of these dormers and the Wrens have agreed to have the windows fabricated with obscure glass so that the view into the Stein's windows will not be possible. Additionally, the windows in these dormers are the shortest operating windows available from the manufacturer. The Wrens have also agreed not to locate any mechanical equipment on the west (Stein) side of the property. Regardingthe environmental impact, the upgrade ofthe existing septic system will be an improvement to the existing septic system. The house will have leaders and gutters to handle roof water runoff. The requested improvements will have no adverse impact on the community. There will be no increase in traffic; there will be no more usage of the property than there is now other than in the future the usage will be full time as opposed to seasonal. There will be no strain on the water supply as it is from the SCWA, and the separate sewage system will be significantly improved. To the contrary, the proposed improvements will have a very positive affect on the neighborhood. At present, the septic system and house systems were based upon the old building codes. Now all septic and house systems will be updated to the new codes. The Difficulty Causing the Applicants to Seek the Relief Requested is not Sel~ Created. As the attorney for the Kuchners acknowledged, the property has belonged to the Wren family and has existed in its non-conforming state for many years prior to the adoption of Southold Town zoning regulations. Best Regards, ~~IA, LEED AP cc: John and Sharon Wren Attachments: First and second floor alternate design sketches Copies of property cards and surveys of relevant properties Appl. # 1561 4279 4315 4872 4415 4972 4992 5053 5904 6089 6351 TAX MAP SHOWING ZBA VARIANCES IN AREA Name Variance Granted Hafer Latham, J. Latham, S.& J. Cannon, L. Ball, T, Cannon, L. Carpenter, P. Alessi, A.& J. Latham, S.& J. Hamilton, K.& E. Heath, E.& O. Two car garage Rear yard setback location of dwelling (minor) setback from Orchard Road open deck setback coverage, side, front and rear setbacks front yard setback third-sto~j use increase in rear yard non-conformity location of garage and rear yard setbacks front and rear yard setbacks 2010-08-1816:53 rneryll~r amer ar chite~31-477*0936 >> 6317659064 P 1/3 August 18, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 11791 Southold NY 11971 Via facsimile 765-9064 N g R Y L K R A M E R ~.'' RECEivED ALI~ ] 82010 · RE: Wren Residence SCTM# 1000-66-02-32 Property Location: 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southold Dear Chairpemon Weisman and Southold Zoning Board Members: This letter is in response to the lettem that neighbors of the above applicant have sent to your office and of the concerns that have been expressed. I will attempt to address some of those concerns. I believe that these concerns are based upon not fully understanding the architectural drawings that were submitted. The design of the proposed residence has a formal arrangement, possibly evoking images of larger homes. However, the house was carefully designed to maintain the more diminutive scale of the original structure: The overall height of the proposed structure will remain the same as it exists, 27'-3" to the ridgs. The allowable height by the town code is 35' to the midpoint of the roofline. It is important to note that the proposed second gable is 3'-8" lower than the existing gable. The windows in the proposed new gable are the minimum size required by state code for egress. The eave height of the structure that links the two gables is designed to be just above 7 feet tall. Again, it is Important to realize that the roofs have a steep slope, and that the roof facing the rear property line (the area of most concern) will be sloping away from the property line. The shed dormers at all locations sre designed at a minimal height, and incorporate the smallest height operable windows available from the window manufacturer. It is possible for my client to mitigate the concerns of the neighbors by plantingtmes on the rear property line in order to maintain the privacy of the concerned parties. With regard to the footprint et the proposecl structure alia eX(~e~q:lll'lg tl~e ;~UTo AIIOWAOI~ lot 2~.0 t'RONT .~TREET P,O, [}OX 663 (~I'tEENPORT, NY :].1944 6~t&'477'lB73G WWW.MKA,~tCHITECT,[}OM 2010-08-1816:54 merylkramer arch~e~)3~477-8936>> 6317659064 P 213 coverage, we believe that the ~2 % relief that we are requesting is a very nominal amount. The total square footage of the first and second floor areas including the ~arage of the Wren property is proposed to be 3721 sr. By comparison, the total square footage of the Kuchner property including the first and second floor areas including the ~arage and decks is 4030 sr. The Stein property, which is located next to the Wren property has a smaller square footage, 2596 sf, however the lot coverage on the property is 28%. I feel it is critical to reiterate what I stated in the original application: Due to the shallow preexisting depth of the lot, 76 feet, any construction with a depth of over 6 feet would unavoidably require relief from Article XXlII Section 280-124. The pre-existing front yard setback is 35,5 feet, which the proposed construction is maintainin~ The 31.2' depth is not an excessively large dimension, and is compatible with the existing structure and neighboring structures. For example, the Kuchner Residence has an overall depth of 59', the Ball Residence has an overall depth of 42', the Alessi Residence is 30' deep with an additional 13' deck, and the Castellano Residence is 26' deep, I am attaching a copy of the tax map of the area surroundingthe application in question along with a chart indicating the relief ~ranted to some of the neighborini[ properties. I respectfully request that the board take all of the above information into consideration while making their deliberations, Best Regards, cc: John and Sharon Wren 2010-08-1816;54 merylkramerarch~e~3N477-8936>> 6317659064 P 3/3 ADDI. # 1561 4279 4315 4872 4415 4972 4992 5053 5904 6089 6351 TAX MAP SHOWING ZBA VARIANCES IN AREA Name Variance Granted Haler Latham, J. Latham, S,& J. Cannon, L Ball, T. Cannon, L Carpenter, P. Alessi, A.& J. Latham, S,& J, Hamilton, K.& E. Heath, E.& O. third-story use two-car garage location of dwelling (minor) setback from Orchard Road open deck setback coverage, side, front and rear setbacks front yard setback third-story use increase in rear yard non-conformity location of garage and rear yard setbacks front and rear yard setbacks ./,::,~ ~/~- z-'z.~ TOWN OF SOU~LD ~OPERTY .RE¢O~ ¢~ 3,..~ ~"' oWNE~ ST~ ~ ~ . - V~ D~s*~c* J su~. ~o~M~ ow~ ~ ~ ' E .... ~C~G~ ~/~ S W TYPE OF BUILDING / RES. LAND SEAS. VL. FARM COMM. IND. CB. t MISC. I M P. TOTAL DATE REMARKS iABOVE Tillable 3 Woodlond Swampland Brushland House Plot Total COLOR TRIM I st 2nd ~'~<E~ll~g. :7~x' //z.~ =_ //70 ~o 4 ~ Foundation PC ~HER Bath ~ Dinette tension Extension Garage Ext. Walls BR. Dec'Patio Faro. Rm. Pool Foyer A'C' L' ~r-- ~ ~ ~ Laundry ~ ~ ~ ~ Study HIPPODRONE DR. SOFFit DET~I= r~ ,0 DRIVE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER ~TRE~, d'~O W'~GE ~ S W ~PE OF BUILDING RES. ~O S~S. VL. FARM CO~. CB. MICS. Mkt. Value ~ND IMP. TOTAL DATE /~RE~RKS AGE BUILDING CONDITION N ~ NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FARM Acre Value Per Value Acre Tillable FRONTAGE ON WATER Wo~land FRONTAGE ON ROAD Meadowla~d DEPTH House Plot BULKH~D Total ~ ~ DOCK COLOR TRIM )rch 'eezewoy :rage ]tio B. )tal 700 Foundation Basement :Ext. Walls Floors Interior Finish Fire Place Z-by0 Heat ~/~. Rooms 1st Floor Recreation Room ormeT Rooms 2nd Floor Driveway inette /ER. ~R. BR. FIN. ~.?.r~TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD OWNER STREET ~ J::-,,L.~ VILLAGE ~ ~ ~ff)% ~ ~ S W TYPE O~ BUILDING ~ ~ / O~ S~S. VL. FARM COMM. CB. MICS. Mkt. Vo[ue ~ND IMP. TOTAL /DATE RE~RKS ' AGE BUILDING CONDITION NEw NORMAL BELOW ABOVE FARM Acre Value Per Value Acre Tilleble F~ONTAGE ON WATER ~ ~/ ~ j~ ~ ~ ,7~ Wo~l~nd FRONTAGE ON ROAD ~eedowl~nd DEPTH House ~t ~ ~ ~ BULKH~D Tot~ ~ ~ ~ DOCK TRIM~~ 66-2-35 02~02 M. Bl~fg. 'Extension Extension PorCh Breezewo¥ Foundation Ext. Walls Fire Place Type Roof Recreation Room Dormer Bath Floors Interior Fihish Heat Garage /~?e:~.,,, v~,~ .' .~ Rooms 1st Floor Patio Rooms 2nd Floor O.B. Driveway Total TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY '~L~?~JCARD '~ ~ ' OWNER AGE VILLAGE E W DISTRICT SUB. ACREAGE / -- TYPE OF BUILDING LOT -~ ~p IMP. TOTAL DATE REMARKS BUILDING CONDITION NEW NORMAL BELOW Farm Acre Value Per Acre 1 Tillable 2 Tillable 3 Woodland Swampland B rush!~l '~ House Plot Total ~ - ~J~X/~, ~'/~. '~ Basement ~ Floors Extens,on /~y.~. ~ ~ ~'~/ Ext. Wolms ~,O~ Interior Finish ~sion Fire Place / He~ / ¢ ~ ~ ~ Porch Attic ~/0~ ~ 7~ , 2~ /q~ / Porch Rooms 1st Flor Dr / ~ ~ ~. ~ ~o ~ Patio Rooms 2nd Floor Garage ~ d J ~ ~ ~ ~ / ~ ~e ~ / Driveway ..... /~,~ ~, /, P,E$19ENCE RESIDENCE F.F. ] 7.5 BEACH bulkhead 5~' ±E I existing house ' , I'~~'~'/I/~'~l~/ Scale '1' : 50'0' ~C~ 563°12'00"W TOWN HAF~DOR rTE PLAN OWNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD ~OPERTY RECORD CARD FORMER OWNER VILLAGE DISTRICT SUB. ^cR~,G. rJ'J' S W TYPE OF BUILDING VL. '~ TOTAL _/o o ~ /c~ ocO NORMAL LoT ~ ~ DATE NEW ABOVE Farm Acre Value ~le 1 Tillable 2 Tillable 3 Woodland Swampland. Brushland Total --~ ~ ~,/~/~"7 2~ .z~ -~3 B E LOW Volue Per Acre Porch Rooms Ist Flor Patio Rooms 2nd Floor OWNER TOWN OF SOUTHOLD PROPERTY RECORD CARD FORMER OWNER VILLAGE W DISTRICT SUB. ACR~E ~_3 TYPE OF BUILDING RES.' 3/O~ I~SOD AGE NEW Farm Tillable 2 Tillable 3 Woodland SEAS. IMP. 5-00 NORMAL VL. TOTAL FARM DATE BUILDING CONDITION BELOW ABOVE Acre Value Per Acre Value REMARKS Swampland Brushland House Plot Total COMM. lIND. J CB. I MISC. ~reezewa ~arage Foundation -'~_. Bath Basement ~'~ ~..J_.._ Floors Ext. Walls Fire Place Porch Porch Interior Finish Hea~ Attic Rooms 1st Floor Patio Rooms 2nd Floor Driveway HIPPODROME DR. LOT S ,,j I LOT 4 TOWN HARBOR AREA -- 21, Orl SQ. to tFe line FLOOD ZONE ~C ' SURVEY OF LOT 4. "MAP OF EEIXEDON ESTATES " BLOCK 7 AT AR SHAMOMAQUE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY , N.Y. SCALE I"= 30' MAR 3, 1987 CERTIFIED TO AMERICAN TI~E INSURARC~ CO. 87 - 223C TARBET, LESTER & SCHOEN, taLC ATTORNEYS AT LAW p.O. Box 2635 52~ MOl'rrA[rK HrGh'WA~/ AMAGAN$m~, Nh'W YOm< 11930 (6~1) 907-3500 ('r~L~PIme~£) RECEIVED 80ARD OF APPEALS den/so@east h,ampmnhwyer.com September 30, 2010 V_.~....FACSILVllI,E_& FEDERAL EXPRESS Chairwoman Weisman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of $outhold 54375 Route 25 POBox 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: In the Matter of the Application of John and Sharon Wren Dear Chairwoman Weisman: We represent Dr, and Mrs. Kuchner, who reside immediatel.y adjacent to the rear yard of the Wren Property located at 225 Hippodrome Drive, $outhold, New York (the 'q/qmn PropeWf'), which is the subject of the above-referenced Zoning Board application. At the Board's last hearing on this matter, we requested time to review a letter from the applicant's architect dated September 21, 2010 and to provide the Board with our comments. Please accept this letter as our response to the September 21 letter. A, Character .of_th~ Ne[~borhood: The Prooosgd__ _._Wren Residence is not in=keeoino with the character o~ th~nei~hborhood. In. her letter, the Wrens' ambjtect states that the project will not cause an undesirable ehznge in the character of the neighborhood because there ate other houses in the neighborhood which are as large or larger that the proposed Wren residence. What the architect fa_ils to specify is whether those homes are (a) situated on lots that are larger than the Wren parcel or (b) situated a more conforming distance from neighboring property lines. Of course, this is the only proper analysis to deteamine whether the proposed Wren residence is truly in keeping with the character of the RECEI'VED -6,397 BOARD OF APPEALS neighborhood. Simply referencing the size of th= other houses in the neighborhood without any other data renders the exan~pJes h'relevant. Moreover, the amhitect never mentions in her letter the actual size of the proposed addition to the Wren Residence for cemp~son. She states in the Short Environmental Assessment Form dated March 26, 2010 that the project consists of renovations to an existing 99:2 two-sto~y residence with a 1,246 square foot two-story addition but this only represents the '¥ootprint" or lot coverage and not the total square footage of the dwelling including the second story. Of' course, this information is critical in order to make a proper comparison to other homes in the neighborhood. Based on our calculations, it appears that the Wren Residence with the pro~ addition will be in excess of 3,139 square feet. For exaunple, the architect mentions the "newly" constructed Pinto Residence situated directly across ItJppodrome Drive (SCIM # 1000-66-2-25) from the Wren Residence. Fa'st, the Pinto Residence is not newly constructed and has existed on the property since the early 1950's. Second, the Pinto Residence is 2,400 square feet1 but is situated on a lot that is 2,741 square feet larger than the Wren Property. Finally, the residence is situated a conforming distance from the mar yard lot line and lot coverage is less than the maximum Of 20%. The PLato Residence additions DID NOT requkre any setback relief. In fact, the rear yard setback on the Pinto Residence is 54.5 feet. The llibassi Residence (SCTM# 1000-66-2-45), which is 3,653 square feet, is situated on a lot that is 35,500 square feet or more than 3.5 times the size of the Wren PmI~rty. The residence is situated 68 feet from the rear yard lot line and it does not appear any variances have been granted for this property. The Alessi Residence (SCTM# 1000-66-2-35), which is 1,806 square feet, is situated on a lot that is 13,373 square feet. SJ~afificanflv. this lot is lar[,er than the Wren Eronertv but the house is small~ than the olx~ose..d Wl~n Residence. It is aim not an adjacent property and is actually si.mated on another street altogether. The footlYrint of the Wren Residence alone consists of 2,189 square feet which does not include the second story. As set forth above, we estimate the total square footage of the proposed Wren Residence to be in excess of 3,139 square feet. This calculation is based on the architect's statements in the September 21 letter. The Stein Residence (SCTM # 1000~66-2-33), which is 1,988 square feet, is situated on a lot that is 8,015 square feet. The Wren Residence is proposed to be significantly larger than the Stein Residence and the Stein Residence is also situated a much more conforming distance of 24 feet from the rear yard lot line. It should also be hotel that the Stein Residence is situated 13.5 feet from the front yard lot line and because the lot depth is the same as the Wren Property (at 76 feet) provides a perfect exarople of how development on the Wren Property could be conducted in a manner that would lessen the negative impact on neighboring propen~ owners such as the Kucbuers. The Kuehner Residence (SLwM # 1000-66-2-44), which is 2542 square feet, is ~tuated on a lot that is substantdally larger than the Wren Property at 33,715 square feet_ The Kuchner All square footage calculations were taken from the architect's let[er dated September 21 2010. RECEIVED BOARD OF APPEALS Residence also meets and exceeds all apphcable setback regulations. The same can be said of the Ball Residence (SCTM # 1000-66-246), which is 2,513 square feet but situated on a lot that is 35,850 square feet and a conforming distance from all lot lines, whh the exception of a deck that is situated 45 feet from an existing bulkhead. h is readily apparent that none of the architect's examples establish that construction of the proposed expansion of the Wren Residence, which doubles the lot coverage and is not within applicable setback requirements, on a lot that is radically undersized at just over 10,000 square feet, is appropriate or consistent with the development pattern in the neighborhood. It is telling that the only homes listed by the architect that are even close to the size of the lavposed Wren Residence are located on lots that are three times the size of the Wren Property. B. The Wrens' Alternative I)esi~ demonstrates that they have not renuested. _~g minimum variance necessary to afford them The Wmn's architect states in her letter that she attempted to redesign the house by increasing the rear yard setback by an additional eight (8) feet. If this design were approved by the Board, the proposed addition would be ~materl 17.3 feet bom the rear yard lot 1me, which would still require a 50% variance from the 35 foot setback requirement. However, the architect goes on to say that the design did not meet her clients' "programmatic requirements" and she, therefore, rejects the redesign as a viable alternative. The alternative design, which is annexed to the Septemher 21 letter, shows a substantial addition to the residence with a second-story master bedroom, guest bedroom, .sewing room/bedroom, two bathrooms, a washer/dryer area, and several clos~. The fzrst floor contains a family room, dining room, living room, kitchen, mud roof, breakfast nook, storage area, and garage. Them appears to be more than ample living space in this design. What the alremative design clearly demonstrates is that the Wrens have altemafivcs that they can pursue to mLnimive the variance necessary for the proposal, which would relieve some of the burden they have elecfixely placed on their neighbors. In_other words, the alternate desima olan bv showina a reduced rear yard lot line variance, thereby demonstrates conclusively that th,, variance the Wrens are seekin~ is not the minirrtumyarJance necessary.2 Of course, them are multiple other options the Wrens and their.architect could explore m reduce the magnitude of the rear yard lot line variance, such as shilling the proposed addition closer to the street. The Wrens have rejected this concept because they don't want to encroach on the front yard setback requirement, which demonstrates that they are more comfortable impo~ng the detriment SOLELY on their immediate rear-yard residential neighbors than makiag a compromi,~ to the programmatic requirements, 2 Nothing herein should be construed as the Kuchners' support for the alternative design which they would have to evaluate more ~lly after it is placed on a guaranteed survey and after further public hearings. The alternate design may not meet the standards for issuance of a $0% va'lance. C. ~te Examples oE Prior.~Z~,u~R Board Disfin~uishable~ BOARD OF APPEALS ADDrovals Givea a_re Readily The Wrens' architect also sets forth in summary fashion without any comparative analysis a li~ of properties that have received variances in the neighborhood. Of course, simply providing a list of the relief given to other lots does not adequately demonstrate how those variances have any precedenfial effect on the currant proceeding. We have annexed hereto a copy of each of those prior Determinations. As you will see, these Determinations actually demonstrate how the Wrens' application seeks one of the largest variances ever requested or granted in this neighborhood and possibly in the Town of Sonthold. As Member Dinizio $~ated during one of the public hearings on this matter, ff approved, this may be the largest variance ever granted in the Town of Southold. (See page 124 of the transcript Rom the public he~ing that took place on July 29, 2010). Set forth below is a brief summary of each mater and how each is dearly unlike the pre~nt action. The applications highlighted in bold re]ate to mar yard setback variances but none involve a variance that comes close to the ma~itudo of the variance requested herein_ 1. Hafcr(Am~al#1561Y30Arshamo. m..aq..ue): Varianc~ granted for garage to be situated 25 feet from front yard lot line and 5 feet from side yard lot line. 2. Latham (Auueal # 42791 fSCTM # 1000-66-2-15): A five (5) foot variance granted to enlarge and relocate residence 30 feet from the rear yard lot llne. 3. Latham (Appeal # 4315)(SCTM # 1000-66-2-18): Side yard setback variance of eight (8) inches and front yard setback variance of sixteen (16) inch~s for as-built residence. 4. Cannon (Appeal # 4872)(SCRM# 1000-66-2-27): Front yard .setback variance to construct a porch of 1.5 feet from Orchard Road. 5. BallXAm~eal # 4415YSCTM # 1000-66-2-46): Variance to allow construction of deck 45 feet from a bulkhead. _C_a~non (Am>cai # 4972)(SCTM# L00~66-2-27k 4.4 foot front yard variance granted to construct a foyer and deck 30.6 fe~t from the front yard lot line. Side yard setback variance of 4.7 feet DENIED. (The requested rear yard setback variance appears to have been withdrawn.) 7. C. amen~er (Amoral # 4992) (SCIiM # 1000-66-2-21): A thre~ (3) foot front yard setback varian~ for a 174 square foot pomh. 8. ~.e. ssi (Avt~,al # 5053~(S..CTM # 1000-66-2-35/: Variance to allow use of existing third story dormer axea. 9. Latham (Appeal g. ~904)(SCTM # I000-66-2-19.1}: A four (4) foot variance to allow an existing deck to become enclosed 31 feet from the rear yard lot line. RECEIVED BOARD OF APPEALS 10. ~Iamilton (Apueal iS 6089~(8_CTM # 1000-66-2-26): Applicant was granted a variance of 9~ feet to allow an e:dsting deck, which had been in place for years, to remain 21~ feet from the rear property line. He~th (Appeal # 6351)(SCTM # 1000-66-2~3J: Rear yard lot line variance of two (2) feet a~d a front yard lot line variance of two (2) feet for expansion of an existing residence. The proposed expandon of the residence within the rear yard ~thack was only ten (10) square feet. Ail of these D~terminations are readily distinguishable on their basic facts alone. Agtnundin~lv, the thr~ l'~ar yard variances that were ~ranted in this_nei~hbo~ocdjor lxincitml su'uctums were for _FIVE feet or less. The sole rear yard variance granted for an accessory structure (deck) was 9.5 feet and the Board concluded that this 38_5 percept variance was "substanfi.al" but concluded that there would be no adverse irapact on the community because ~e deck had been present in its location for many years without complaint. In this case, the applicant .seeks a two-story addition to a residence only 9,3 feet from the rear yard lot line. The variance requested is substantial, as per the decision m Hamiltot!, because it represents a 74% reduction in the required rear yard setback, which is nearly double the relief granted in Hamilton, for a structure that has significantly more mass and visibility than a deck. It should also be noted that the Cannon nde yard setback variance of 4.7 feet was denied presumably bemuse it impacted a neighbor and because it was considered substantial. The Cannon variance request represented a 47% reduction in the required ten (I0) foot side yard setback. These approvals make it all the more evident that g~anting a rear yard lot linc variance of more than twenty-five (25) feet would be dramatically out of the character for the neighborhood and contrary to the relief granted by the Board in this neighborhood in the past. In fact, granting the relief requested by the Wrens would set a negative precedent and encourage future applicants to reqUeSt substantial relief without any thought being given to neighbors or to the Zoning Codes intended to protect neighbors. Thc Wrens' architect states that the Kuchners' peace and quiet will actually be improved by the removal of an existing porch. Of course, it is not for the Wrens' architect to decide which improvement has less of an impact on thc Kuchners. It is evident that the Kuclmers would elect to maintain the status quo over the proposed improvements, wkich will significantly and negatively impact their use and enjoyment of their own property. The remainder of the September 21 letter has been directly refuted in our prior submissions and testimony before the Board. RECE~vE/~2,~ BOARD OF APPEALs For these rea~om, we respect~lly renew ~r ~uest fo~ the Bo~ to deny ~¢ app~c~on ~n Ve~ ~y y~, ~ni~ ~ Sch~n DRS: ca Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road; P.O, Box 11791 Southold, New York 11971-0959 RE: Wren Request for Variance (#6389) 1726 Arshamomaque Ave P.O. Box 774 Southold, New York 11971 September 27, 2010 : RECEIVED SEP 2 OF APPEA Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: Mr. John Wren, Esq. is a licensed real estate lawyer. His Hippodrome Drive purchase (in 2008) from Carney took place six years after the WALZ decision, and it is reasonable to state that the purchase price paid by John Wren undoubtedly reflected the fact that any future construction which added a footprint more than six feet deep (front to back of lot) would require a substantial zoning variance, in order to address a self-created difficulty. Since a standard bedroom is 8 or 9 feet wide, and an adjoining hallway adds 3 or 4 additional feet, any proposed construction of bedrooms requires a new footprint depth of about 12 feet. A 12 ft. deep footprint requires a variance which can be reasonably considered to be near the upper limits of the "minimum variance necessary," a standard required by the Town Code, because even a 12 ft. deep footprint would be on land fully HALF of which is usually protected by applicable setback requirements. The Wrens are requesting a variance which allows a footprint which is MORE THAN TWICE the upper limit of the range of what could be considered minimal, and which takes 100% of this land from the rear yard setback, to the detriment of their rear yard neighbors, whom the zoning code was designed to protect, John Wren's decisions to purchase the majority of the 225 Hippodrome Property, in 1998 and 2008, demonstrate speculation that he could obtain a substantial variance from the ZBA. As a real estate lawyer, he was fully aware of New York State Town Law 267-b(3), which specifies that any requested variance be the minimum which is necessary, and cites Five Factors which must be considered by the ZBA. At last week's public hearing, John Wren's architect presented the plans for a proposed building whose dimensions and location scoff at our zoning laws. When a Zoning Board of Appeals member questioned whether this was "minimal," the architect responded that she had determined that a smaller alternative was indeed possible, but would necessitate construction of a row of rooms with a corridor alongside; she stated that IN HER OWN OPINION AND TN THE OPINION OF THE WRENS, such an arrangement would be INEFFICIENT and AESTHETICALLY UNDESIRABLE. At that juncture, we expected the ZBA to request to see a set of formal alternative plans which would require a much less severe variance at the expense of Rear Yard Setback, but was astounded to see the architect simply shrug off this possible alternative without any further consideration. Aesthetics and design efficiency are not explicitly mentioned among the New York State Town Law criteria which govern the granting of variances, and cannot legally outweigh violations of the Five Factors, which have been addressed by our attorney's Memorandum of Law. Similarly, the architect argued that there were other large houses in the neighborhood, while totally omitting the fact that these larger houses were built on correspondingly larger lots! When a ZBA member inquired about possible alternative plans which would encroach on the Front Yard Setback, in order to preserve more of the Rear Yard Setback, the architect responded that this would entail requesting an additional variance and therefore was undesirable. Is this really a satisfactory answer? Why are the Wrens and their architect being given the power to repeatedly and egregiously disregard and disrespect Town Code? Town Law requires evaluation of whether the variance is the "minimum necessary" when the ZBA is considering granting of a variance. The Wrens have presented themselves as intending to move to Southold as a retired couple. They would like to have available, at all times, multiple rooms which would enable the simultaneous hosting of multiple transient guests. Does this really constitute a "need?" Does the desire to provide overnight hosting, simultaneously for many visitors, justify permanent construction which violates the Five Factors? Does the ability to host many overnight guests outweigh the resultant detriment to the daily quality of life of immediate neighbors? Does the ZBA really want to overturn WALZ, and set a new precedent for allowing 25.7 ft. encroachments resulting in 9.3 ft. rear yard setbacks? The Wrens appear to have made no attempt to move their proposed construction further than 9.3 feet from the Kuchner property line, in proposed egregious violation of the 35 ft. minimum rear yard setback zoning requirement. We must continue to request that the ZBA deny the current request of the Wrens. We request that the Wrens present new plans which locate proposed structures closer to Hippodrome Drive, where road width would function as additional setback, and that they seek more modest dimensions, which reflect true "necessity." We urge the ZBA to insis~ that the Wrens submit new plans which reflect the requirements imposed by the size and geometry of the lot which John Wren recently(2008) finished acquiring, and which respect the laws and precedent-setting rulings which have been designed to protect the citizens of the Town of Southold. Respectfully submitted, Joan F. Kuchner Eugene F. Kuchner c.c.: Tarbet, Lester & Schoen, Esqs. Nartin D. Finnegan, Esq. BOARD OF APPEALS TARBET, LESTER & SCHOEN, PLLC ATTORN£¥$ AT LAW RECEIVED .r_ ,. SEP 2 12010 September 21, ~-Ol, O BOARD OF APPEALS Via REGULAR M. AH. & FAC~IMT[,E Chairwoman Weisman Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 54375 Route 25 PO Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Re: In the Matter of the Application of John and Sharon Wren Dear Chairwoman Weisman: We represent Dr. and Mrs. Kuchner, who reside immediately adjacent to the Wren Property located at 225 Hippodrome Drive, Sonthold, New York (the "Wren Property"), winch is the subject Of the above-referenced Zoning Board application. Please accept this letter as a supplement to our Memorandum of Law dated August 18, 2010 previously submitted to this Board on behalf of our clients ia opposition to thc Wren applic~on. In our Memorandum of Law in Subsection E. on page 10, we stated that the applicant had made a representation during the initial public hearing on this matter that the Wren property had been fanlily-owned for many years and, therefore, the hardship causing the applicant to seek relief from this Board was not self-create. Upon further review of the Board's file and the Assessment Records maintained by the Town of Southold, it appears that Mr. Wren obtained a minority interest in the Wren Property in 1976. He acquired an additional interest in 1998 and only recently completed his purchase of the propeWy in 2008. Thew is no evidence that Mr. Wren'$ owne~hip of the property pre<lated the enaci~'~'~ent of zoning regulations in the Town of Southold in 1957 and, accordingly, the hardship ia in fact self-created. Morevoer., Mr. Wren is also a licenseA real estate attorney who is familiar with the effects of local zoning regulations on the development potential of a pre-existing and non-conforming residence on a pre-existing and non-conforming lot. Mr. Wren purchased an undersized, lot but now requests that the Board overlook the zoning constraints iruposed by the dimensions of the property which, as a real estate attorney, he can reasonably be expected to have known prior to completing his purchase. We look forward to presenting our client's full opposition to the Board at the continuation of the public h~tring on this matter. Very ~ruly yours, Denise R. Schoen DP, S: ca cc: Dr. and Mrs, Kuchn~r September 15, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971 John N. & Frances Blakely 550 Orchard Road, P.O. Box 432 Southold, NY 11971 Re: Wren Application #6389 Dear Madam Chair & Members of the Board: It has come to our attention that our neighbors of over twenty years have applied to expand their summer home in order that they might join those of us who are enjoying our retirement in Beixedon Estates. We relocated to Southold over twenty years ago when there were just a few winter residents in our community. Over the years, we have enjoyed numerous additions as retirees realized the benefits of living in Southold year-round. Many of these retirees have converted their very small homes into larger residences to accommodate their extended families and visitors (who all love Southold). Needless to say, these new year-round retirees have brought additional funding to the town and local merchants. We were so pleased to learn that the Wrens had decided to join us year-round but now find that there are some objections to their renovated home plans. I (John - a previous contractor) have reviewed their plans and cannot identify any serious reason the complaintants have against this beautifully designed home. In fact, when completed it would enhance the entire neighborhod at a time we would like to bdng up home values. The Wrens, as retirees in our community, would also be incredible assets to our community and Town. They are both contributors and the type of individuals you would like as your neighbors. We hope you will consider our recommendation and that of many of our neighbors that they get to build their dream retirement home. Respectfully,~ /. . John & Frances Blakel~ Mary E. Traver~ 735 Rogers Road P,O. Box 382 Southold, NY 1 i97 September 13, 2010 RECEIVED BOARD OFAppEAt. S Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 11791 rE: Jotm E. & Sharon I. Wren #6389 I am declaring my support of the building permit request to reconstmc~ end add to the Wren dwelling located at 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southoid. As a year-round resident, I welcome the W~n's plens to also reside in Beixedon full time. Their proposed renovations are intended to make the home more suitable for their year-round living. The Wren family members are orighaal ovmers in Beixedon and active members of our cormnunity. I have been acquainted with them for 46 years. In reviewing the Wren's architectural plans, it is clear that the proposed reconstruction/addition in no way is a detriment to the aesthetic nor the property value of the surrounding properties. I respectfully request your consideration of the Wren's permit application. Thank you for your time end attention. With kind regara% Mary E. Trave [~ 900 Rogers Road Southol~N.~ 11971 September ~ 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 1179 Southold, N. Y. 11971 SEP .. 8 BOARD OF APPEALS Dear Madam Chairperson and Members of the Board: I own a home at 900 Rogers Road, Beixedon Estates, Southold. The Wren family are my neighbors, one block away, on Hippodrome. I have seen the plans for the proposed renovation of their home. I am pleased and applaud their innovative design and approve of their project. In the past few years, I have watched many of my neighbors expand and modernize their homes in Beixedon. It is my feeling that these continuing improvements cause us, as the Community to have a more up-scale, well cared for neighborhood, which enhances all of our property values. I respectfully request that you approve their plan and varfance. Very truly yours, Thomas G. Petrosino Mailing address: 120 Salisbury Avenue, Garden City, N. Y. 11530 Stephen G. Latham P.O. Box 595 Southold, NY 11971 August 25, 2010 Southold Town Board of Zoning and Appeal Southold Town Hall Southold NY, 11971 John E. Wren & Sharon I. Wren #6389 Dear Madam Chaiperson and Members of the ZBA; At your July 29, 2010 Public Hearing I commented briefly on my 60 year relationship with John Wren and his family. We grew up together over those many summers, our children had the same wonderful experiences and now John and Sharon are hoping to retire to this wonderful community. John has been an active member of our community in good times and bad, following hurricanes and blackouts. He has been a President and Director of the Beixedon Estates Association, Inc. for more years than I can remember. He would never do anything which would diminish the ambiance or property values of this community. Beixedon is a commun/ty of eclectic homes of various aha.nas and sizes, large and small, old and contemporary. Many of these homes have been renovated, updated, expanded up and/or out, requiring and receiving ZBA variances. John and Sharon are simply trying to transform a small summer cottage into an attractive, comfortable retirement home. They are a family of 12, including parents, children and grandchildren. They come together regularly for long weekends and vacations, requiring shared bedrooms and a lot of air mattresses on the floor. They need more space than exists in a 1930's cottage. It is my understanding that letters have been submitted to the ZBA, raising objections to some aspects of thc project. Some complainants cannot even see thc Wren property t~om their homes while others haven't even seen the plans. I submit that some of these complaints are bom out of personal animus toward John and his family and have nothing to do with the size, location or architecture of the project. John and Sharon are honorable and respected members of this commmfity. I hope you can provide them with the relief they need to move forward with this project. (" 2010-08-1912:Z~ merylkramerarch~3~477-8936>> 6317659064 M E R Y L K R A RECEIVED August 19, 20~0 BOARD OF APPEALS Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 11791 Southold NY 11971 Via facsimile 765.9054 RE: Wren Residence SCTM# 1000-66-02-32 Property Location: 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southold Dear Chairperson Weisman and Southold Zoning Board Members: I have been informed that the hearing for the above mentioned property has not been closed and that you would like the opportunity to ask me some clarification questions. I will be out of town next week and respectfully request that the hearing be adjourned until next month's meeting on September 23rd. In addition, it would be helpful for me to have the questions sent to me in advance so that I may t~ave some time to prepare any additional drawings or gather information that may be helpful in answering your questions. cc: John and Sharon Wren 1890 Arshamomaque Ave. PO Box 1708 Southold, NY 11971 August 25, 2010 ~ (,~ -~ Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road; P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 RE: Wren Request for Zoning Variance #6389 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: We would like to clarify our reasons for opposing the Wren variance project (File #6389). The proposed project will more than double the existing home on the property to approximately 3750 sq. ft. This will be one of the largest houses in the neighborhood on one of the smallest lots in the neighborhood. To compound the problem, it is only 9 feet from the rear property line for much of the property. In addition, the huge second floor dormer will deny privacy and the rural character to the neighborhood. It will be a detriment to the privacy of all the properties south or to the rear of the second floor dormer. Another issue at stake is the additional run-off that will be created by the large footprint that the structure occupies. There is already a road run-off problem on Hippodrome Drive. Approval of this variance would be detrimental to our neighborhood, especially to the adjacent properties that are to the rear of the Wren property line. It is for these reasons that we respectfully request that this application be denied. Sincerely, Thomas & Barbara Ball ~'~' Page 1 of l / ~(~ I' Torn, Vicki From: joy alessirioy.alessi@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 17, 2010 12:55 PM To: Toth, Vicki Subject: [NEWSENDER] - Wren Renovation - Message is from an unknown sender Joy Alessi 620 Rogers Road Southold, NY 11971 ioy.alessi~Rmail.com Aug. 17, 2010 Ms. Vicki Toth Town of Southold Board of Trustees Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Toth: This letter is written in reference to a variance application submitted by Sharon and John Wren, 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southold, #6389. I understand the needs of homeowners to update and in cases enlarge the period houses that exist in Beixedon Estates. Many of these homes were constructed sixty years ago, as was mine and require renovation. The renovation of the Wren house poses issues for its neighbors specifically and questions for Southold in general. The renovation massively enlarges the house with a vertical extension abutting the neighbor's property only 9' from the property line. This compromises the privacy of all concerned and destroys the very sense of open space that we all treasure in our community. In fact, today's regulations call for 35' of easement and surely that standard should be respected. To ignore our well-debated regulations for conformity to an antiquated rule makes a mockery of the wisdom of creating new standards and gives the specter of favoritism an open door. I would like my neighbors to be able to renovate their home as I did and I would hope that the Town Trustees can be relied upon to see that it is done in keeping with their own standards. Most respectfully, Joy Alessi 8/17/2010 Toth, Vicki From: alexandra graham [esgraham@optonline.net] Sent: Monday, August 16, 2010 9:21 PM To: Toth, Vicki Subject: Zoning Appeal Dear Ms. Toth, This letter concerns the Variance application by our neighbors, John and Sharon Wren. We live one house away from their property which overlooks our backyard. I (Ed) have not seen the plans of the proposed construction and was informed by John Wren that he intended to place a dormer on the roof of his A-frame type home. He has planned for some time to remodel his home in order to retire and move permanently to Southold. He is a welcome neighbor in this regard. Recently I was told that the design of the house includes the vertical extension at the rear of his house. His property line is approximately 9 feet from my next-door neighbors (Warland). If this is the case and the description is accurate, it would be an imposing structure to be that close to the property line, overlooking our back yards. 1 would hope there has been or will be an on-site inspection to see the reality of this situation. Equally important, 1 think it is incumbent of the Planning Board to base their decisions according to established standards and recent precedents in these matters in the hope that they are not based on preferential treatment or inconsistent exceptions. Judgements that do not refiect the intentions of Town policies cause much community dissension. Sincerely, Ed Graham 8/17/2010 Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road; P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 1890 Arshamomaque Ave. PO Box 1708 Southold, NY 11971 AUG 1 BOARD OF APPEALS RE: Wren Request for Zoning Variance #6389 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: We would like to state our opposition to a variance for the Wren project File #6389. We feel the variances requested for the 35 ft setback and the 20% lot coverage would allow for an excessively large house on a small lot. The proposed 2 story house will only be 9 feet from the rear yard property line, which would change the character of our neighborhood Our home is located two lots southeast along a right of way adjacent to the Wren property. While we believe the Wren's should be able to expand their present home, we feel the excessive size of the project would detract from the rural character of the neighborhood. We would like to note that when the Warlan's moved into their home a few years ago, they did extensive renovation, but the renovation project stayed within the original footprint and the house remained in character with the neighborhood. We feel the variance board should require the applicant to meet the code which would benefit the entire neighborhood. Thank you very much for your consideration. Singly, Thomas & Barbara Ball Joy Alessi 620 Rogers Road Southold, NY 11971 joy.alessi~gmail.com Aug. 17, 2010 Ms. Vicki Toth Town of Southold Southold, NY 11971 Dear Ms. Toth: This letter is written in reference to a variance application submitted by Sharon and John Wren, 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southold, #6389. I understand the needs of homeowners to update and in cases enlarge the period houses that exist in Beixedon Estates. Many of these homes were constructed sixty years ago, as was mine and require renovation. The renovation of the Wren house poses issues for its neighbors specifically and questions for Southold in general. The renovation massively enlarges the house with a vertical extension abutting the neighbor's property only 9' from the property line. This compromises the privacy of all concerned and destroys the very sense of open space that we all treasure in our community. In fact, today's regulations call for 35' of easement and surely that standard should be respected. To ignore our well-debated regulations for conformity to an antiquated role makes a mockery of the wisdom of creating new standards and gives the specter of favoritism an open door. I would like my neighbors to be able to renovate their home as I did and I would hope that the Town Trustees can be relied upon to see that it is done in keeping ~vith their own standards. Most respectfully, 225 Hippodrome Drive Southold, NY 11971 August 18, 2010 Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road; P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Request for Zoning Variance #6839 225 Hippodrome Drive Southold, New York 11971 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals: I find it necessary to write this letter to you to address the concerns of my neighbors. Let me begin by way of background. I have resided at 225 Hippodrome Drive during summers and weekends into spring and fall since 1947. Since I was married in 1966 and have subsequently had children, they too have enjoyed being here and continue to do so. Over that period I hays witnessed, endured and ultimately became friendly with the residents of more than 20 new homes in my community. In addition, I have observed the complete reconstruction of six homes. Additionally, of the 10 homes surrounding my home, there have been at least seven renovations or rebuilds completed. Facts: 1. Our house was built in approximately 1927; 2. Our lot is 144' x 76'; 3. Our requested renovation when complete would be only five-tenths (.5%) of one percent more coverage than the Code permits; 4. Distance from neighbors: a. Kuchner - (Lot 6) to south - 160' from our lot line to their front door; Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson, et al. Page 2 August 18, 2010 b. Pinto - to north - 125' from our front door to theirs; We are requesting area variances because of the coverage and because of the increase in the non-conformity of the southern wall setback; My wife and I are planning to retire to this home when complete. We are strong family advocates, enjoying three children and their spouses, along with six grandchildren. Our family visits us often, as, for example, my two granddaughters spend Christmas and the entire summer with us each year. Our son resides with us; We are social people as well, often enjoying the company of our dear friends from Holland, as well as many others; As is obvious, we need more room than our current house provides; In addition, my wife Sharon is a master quilter and spends long hours in her quilt room (mewing room) designing, cutting, piecing and sewing her award-winning quilts. She requires a lot of room for fabric storage, designer walls, layout racks, designing table and sewing center. If she were an artist who paints, her space would be referred to as a studio and no one would argue the size. Let me now address the specific issues raised by my neighbors: 1. Kuchner's letter to your Board dated 8/10/10: As mentioned above, the request is for a one-half of one percent variance only. Extremely minor in the scope of things and in comparison to the surrounding buildings; While the requested plan would result in a structure larger than many in the community, it is by no means a "McMansion." We will be using the premises as our full-time residence and never as a B&B; Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson, et al. Page 3 August 18, 2010 There is no "great room" in the premises, only an eat-in kitchen. The other rooms on the ground floor will be a dining room, family room~ living room, a bathroom with shower and a powder room; The current structure has four bedrooms. We intend to keep four bedrooms but to have all on the second floor; four In the Kuchners' prior letter to the Board, they stated that the proposed south wall will loom over their house. In fact, the Kuchners' front door will be 160' from our property line and 169.3' from our south wall. 2. Joy Alessi's letter dated 8/17/10 She states that the addition would "compromise" the premises of all concerned and destroy the sense of open space." The only property to be affected by the addition would be that of Lot 6 on the south. The Warlan house and any others will experience no change. The only other party who will be affected is Pinto to the north who is even closer, and has no obligation. 8. Ed Graham's letter of 8/16/10 - His lot is parallel to Warlan two lots away, on the southeasterly side and would not be affected by the construction. The portion of our house as it now stands would not be changed in stature. 4. Thomas and Barbara Balls' letter of 8/17/10 They claim the addition would change the character of the neighborhood. NOT SO - as it would make the zmprovement more in keeping with the new house built across the street on the north by Pinto. As to reference to Warlans' house, they are correct, but the prior owner expanded the house prior to the Warlans' ownership, increasing its footprint. Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson, et al. Page 4 August 18, 2010 5. John G. Stein's letter of 8/18/10 - We fully understand Mr. Stein's concerns and we will work with our architect to address them. With the foregoing in mind, it is respectfully requested that the plan as submitted be approved. Ve t y yours, )l~n E. Wen JW/brg RECEIVED BOARD OF APPEALS 1726 Arshamomaque Avenue P.O. Box 774 Southold, New York, 11971 August 10, 2010 Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Re: Wren request for Zoning Variance; August 26, 2010 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Southold Zoning Board Members: We, Joan and Eugene Kuchner, have learned that, at the Zoning Board of Appeals meeting on July 29, 2010, John and Sharon Wren were offered the option of re-submitting their variance request unchanged at the August 26 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. We are writing to emphasize the severity of the violations which the Wrens are requesting that you approve. The detriment and injuries to our adjacent property that would be caused by granting excessive variances to allow the Wren's proposed construction have been enumerated in our July 21 letter to you (copy enclosed). We are the owners of the lot identified as Lot 6 on the Beixedon Estates Property Map (copy enclosed), and are the neighbor whose property is adjacent to most of the Wren's proposed new rear wall, the construction of which would violate the Southold Town Code zoning regulation requiring a minimum 35feet rear yard setback. The Wrens are requesting a variance to build a two-story structure which would be situated only 9feet 3 inches from their rear property line - a distance from the Kuchner front yard that is approximately one-fourth of the minimum distance specified by the Code. Furthermore, the Wrens are requesting that their proposed structure's footprint be allowed to exceed the 20% lot coverage allowed by the zoning regulations. We wish to emphasize that the size of the two-dimensional "footprint" does not fully convey the three-dimensional impact of the Wren's multi-level proposed McMansion. All the foregoing constitutes egregious disregard for Southold Town Code zoning regulations, specifically Chapter 280, Article XXIII, Section 280-124. The Wrens are presenting this as a request for a minimal variance, as if it involved inches. In reality, they are requesting that the Southold Town Code requirement of a 35 feet rear yard setback be violated by more than 25 feet, and that this extremely sub~ltlil~ff~i~l[6L$ be sanctioned for both of the two stories that they propose to build! They propose not only that the planned two-story construction be a mere 9 feet 3 inches from their rear property line, but also that the portion of the original structure which is now adjacent to our property have its roof elevated from a current height of one story to a height of 27.5 feet, so that more than 40 feet of Kuchner property would be confronted by a roof which is 27.5 feet high. According to architectural plans submitted by the Wrens, we find ourselves wondering whether they are planning a B & B, not the usual residence that fits proportionately on their one-quarter acre lot in a manner which respects the rural and historic nature of our town. The Wren's building plans will result in a second story which includes four large rooms designated as "Bedrooms" (measuring 14' x 11', 10'9" x 9'3", 14' x 11' and 16'1" x 1-1'2"). They also propose a fifth large (16' x 10') room on the second floor, which they label as a "Sewing Room" while every other room on the second floor is labeled as "Bedroom", "Bathroom" or "Laundry.' Their first floor plan includes a "Living Room" (24' x 14'), a "Family Room (14' x 15') and a "Great Room" (16'x 15'). It begs the question whether more than four rooms will function as bedrooms, each for multiple people, with commensurate septic system needs. Although the Wren plans havereceived two letters of support, both letters come from people (Mr. John Pinto, Mr. J. Jeffrey Hafer) whose property is across the street from the Wrens, separated from the Wren property by the width of Hippodrome Drive, and by the Wren's front yard setback, which is not at risk of being violated. We respectfully request that the Wren's request for excessive variances to permit two- story construction less than 35 feet from their rear property line, and covering more than 20% of their property, be denied. RespecffuHy submi~ed, Joan F. Kuchner Eugene F. Kuchner 2 EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE DATA DESCRIPTION AREA I % LOT COVERAGE EXIST, HOUSE 992 sq. ff. 9.1% EXIST. PORCH 286 sq. fi. 2.6*/. EXIST. GARAGE 584 sq. ft. 5.5% TOTAL 1,662 sq. ff. 15.Z% ® i.,of PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE DATA DESCRIPTION AREA % LOT COVERAGE EXIST. HOUSE 992 sq. ff. 9.1% PROP. ADDITION 1,246 sq. ff. 11~4% TOTAL 2.258 sq, ff. 2.0.5% ?EST HOLE DATA (TEST HOLE DUG BY THIS OFFICE ON JANUARY 5, .2010) RECEIVED BOARD OF APPEAL.~ NOTES: SURVEY OF LOT 2 BLOCK 7 MAP OF' BEIXEDON ESTATES FILE No. 1472 FILED MARCH 16, 1946 SITUATE SOUTHOLD TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-66-02-52 SCALE 1":$0' MAY 16, 2007 FEBRUARY 24, 2010 ADDED PROPOSED ADDITIONS MARCH 25, 2010 REVISED PER S.C.D.H.S. NOTICE DATED 0.3/18/10 AREA = 10,944 sq. fi. 0.251 ac. 1. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO AN ASSUMED DATUM EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN THUS: ~ 2. MINIMUM SEPTIC TANK CAPACITIES FOR 5-6 BEDROOM HOUSE iS 1,500 GALLONS. 1 TANK; 8' DIA., S' HIGH $. MINIMUM LEACHING SYSTEM FOR 5-6 BEDROOM HOUSE IS 400 sq ff SIDEWALL AREA. 2 POOLS; 8' DEEP, 8' dia. 4, THE LOCATION OF WELLS AND CESSPOOLS SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND/OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS. 5. EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM STRUCTURES SHALL BE PUMPED CLEAN AND EITHER BE REMOVED OR FILLED WITH CLEAN SAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.C.D.B.S. STANDARDS. 6. THIS PROPERTY iS tN FLOOD ZONE X FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM: FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 56105C0158H ZONE X: AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN. PROPOSED FUTURE 50~ EXPANSION POOL PROPOSED 8' DIA. X 8' DEEP LEACHING POOL PROPOSED 1,500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK CERTIFIED TO: JOHN E. WREN SHARON WREN Nathan Taft Corwin III Land Surveyor PHONE (651)727-2090 Fox (6.31)727-1727 Michael & Erin Warlan 595 Rogers Road Southold NY 11971 07/2~10 15:43 #202 P.002/003 RECEIVED BOARD OF 07/29/10 Town of Southold Board of Trustees Southold, NY 19971 Dear Board Members: We are writing this letter to express our concern in response to notification of a Variance application by our neighbors John and Sharon Wren residing at 225 Hippodrome Drive "Wren Property" (//6389). Our property lines are adjoined at the northeast section of our rear yard and the south portion of the "Wren Property". To give reference to the plans, this line is marked with circular shrubbery on the application plot plan. We have been residents at 595 Rogers Road since purchasing our home in the spring of 2006. Upon exploring multiple options for neighborhoods during our home search we settled on the neighbor of Be/xedon Estates for the allure of its tranquil private beach neighborhood as well as the integrity of a long standing community; mixed with summer and year round residents. This property mainly serves us as a year round weekend retreat, as well as a mainstay during the summer months. When we made our home purchase, it was apparent that there was a lot of history in this community. Many of the residents are original owners from when the properties were sold out of the resort community that it was originally owned. Most of the homes are old, and still bear the character of the early to mid 1900's when they were constructed. Our home is one of them. So to that point we can understand the need or want to update and improve residences; to repair the wear of time, as well as make them more up to speed with current efficiencies and comforts. However, it is our feel that these updates should be made within reason and respect of all our neighbors. Our main concern with the renovation to the "Wren Property" is directly related to the proximity of their home to our rear property line. As it exists already the rear of their home is overlooking into our backyard. We have privacy shrubs separating the properties which stagger in height. However, we are still in direct sightlines from existing windows and doors. We obviously knew what we were getting when we purchased our home, but did not expect such a drastic change the proposed project would create. The additional expanse along our property line both vertical and horizontal will create a "wall" of house From:THIRD AVENUE MANAGEMEN: 07/2~10 15:43 #202 P.003/003 overlooking our property. This not only puts us in increased sight lines to their home, but also takes away the "open air" appeal of the rear of our home. This change to the dynamic of our rear yard directly impacts our personal enjoyment and home use. It also causes us alarm when we think of ability to sell or rent our home in time if we choose or need. It would be potentially difficult to a~act buyers with a much larger home lining om backyard. Another concern relates to the construction. Given that their home is only 9 feet from our property line we feel that it would be very difficult to complete such a project without potential damage to our yard and plantings, as well as virtually creating a construction zone in our backyard. A project of this degree has the potential to drag on for months, if not a year or longer, with no assurances as to the professionalism or concern for neighbors by the persons completing the work. We can appreciate the reasons that the Town has enacted such zoning and construction regulations to prevent just this type of occurrence. It is not our stance to disallow some form of home improvement to their property; we would just ask that it be done in scale to existing home footprint and within the guidelines enacted to protect neighboring property Thanks you for your attention to our concerns. Regards, Michael & Erin Warlan SHUKAT Arrow HAFER WEBER & HERBSmAN, i.L.R A~rORNEYS AT LAW 11 ~ WEST 57TH STREET NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10019 ALLEN H. ARROW* PETER S. SHUKAT J JEFFREY HAFER DOROTHY M. WEBER JONAS EHERBSMAN TELEPHONE (252) 245 4580 tELECOPIER (2 I 2) 958-647 I *ALSO MEMBER CALIFORNIA BAR + OF COUNSEL ELLIOT A. RESN]K JASON A. FINESTONE MICHAEL B FRISCH KERRY L SMITH, PC+ JUDITH A MEYERS+ WRITER'S E-MAIL )eff~musiclaw.com July 28, 2010 Ms. Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re: Application of John E. and Sharon I. Wren #6389 Dear Ms. Kanes Weisman: My wife and I own a home at the corner of Arshamomaque Avenue and Hippodrome Drive across the street from John and Sharon Wren. We have seen the survey of proposed work in connection with the above-captioned application and wholeheartedly support same as the proposed reconstruction and addition will only further enhance an already beautiful neighborhood. Sincerely yours, JJH:cec Z010-08-0517;33 merylkramera 631-477-8936 >> 6317559064 M E R Y L K R A M E R P 1/1 August 5, 2010 Zoning Board of Appeals Town Hall Annex Building 54375 Route 25 P.O. Box 11791 $outhold NY 11971 Via facsimile 765-9064 RE; Wren Residence SCTM# 1000~6-02-32 Propert~ Location; 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southold To the Board: I am writing to request that the board vote on the application for variance for the above mentioned property as originally applied for and presented at the hearing last week. I studied the design over the past week, and presented an alternative design to my clients that increased the rear yard. However, the redesign proved unsatisfactory both aesthetically and programmatically. cc: John and Sharon Wren 718 FRONT STREET P.O. I50X 683 GREENPORI. NY 119a4 G~11-4'/7-873a WWW.MKARCHITECT.OOM Wednesclay, July 28, 2010 Leslie Weisman Chairperson Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals - 7o~, '-.x UBS PAGE UBS Financial e~ewb:es One LMayette Place 2nd floor Greenwich, CT 068~0 Tel. 203-862-2118 FaK 203~62-2181 TOIl ~ree 800~28~174 Em. 21 John J. Pinto Senior Vice President - Inveg[ment~ /~' john ,pinto~ubs.com I~ECEIVED www ubs.corn BOARD OF AppEA~ 02/82 Dear Leslie: I live at 230 Hippodrome Drive Shouthold, NY 1197'1. John and Sharon Wren at 225 Hippodrome are building an extension that needs Zoning Board approval Jeanne Pinto and John Pinto are in favor of the addition. SHUKAT ARROW HAFER WEBER ~ HERBSMAN, L.L.P. jeff~m usiclaw,com July 28, 2010 Ms. Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Zoning Board of Appeals Town of Southold 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Re: Apphcation of John E. and Sharon I. Wren #6389 Dear Ms. Kanes Weisman: My wife and I own a home at the corner of Arshamomaque Avenue and Hippodrome Drive across the street from John and Sharon Wren. We have seen the survey of proposed work in connection with the above-captioned application and wholeheartedly support same as the proposed reconstruction and addition will only further enhance an already beautiful neighborhood. Sincerely yours, JJH:cec 1726 Arshamomaque Avenue P.O. Box 774 Southold, New York, 11971 July 21, 2010 Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Southold Town Zoning Board of Appeals 53095 Main Road P.O. box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Dear Chairperson Weisman and Southold Zoning Board Members: It has come to our attention that John E. and Sharon I. Wren (#6389) have requested a Variance from Southold Town Code Chapter 280, Article XXVIII, Section 280-124, based on an application for a building permit, and the March 10, 2010 Building Inspector's Notice of Disapproval, concerning proposed reconstruction and addition to their single family dwelling at 225 Hippodrome Drive (SCTM#1000-66-2-32). We, Joan and Eugene Kuchner, own the property that is located immediately adjacent to the entire proposed rear wall of the Wren's requested structural addition, and, therefore, are the neighbors who would be most affected by the proposed variance. (On the Beixedon Estates Property Map and on the March 2010 Survey submitted by Nathan Corwin, we own Lot # 6; the Wrens own Lot #2). The Wrens are requesting a variance from 280-124 (B) of the Southold Town Code, to build a structure which (1) would be so large that the resulting total land coverage would exceed the code-specified maximum allowable lot coverage of 20%, and (2) would be positioned in a location which places its rear wall only 9 feet from the Kuchner property line, very much closer than the code-specified minimum rear yard setback of 35 feet. We vehemently object to the proposed imposition of their proposed building reconstruction and addition, which would permanently detract from the use and enjoyment of our own property. The Wren lot can certainly accommodate alternative major construction the rear wall of which remains a minimum of 35 feet from the Kuchner property line. The currently proposed new "addition" would cover more land by itself (1246 sq. ft.) than the currently existing house (992 sq. ft.); the height of the proposed new construction will be 27.3 ft. While this proposed new rear wall, with its many windows, is in the rear yard of the Wrens, it would stand adjacent to and look over the entrance and front of the Kuchner home and property. Although it is true that a portion of the current Wren house rear wall is 9 ft. from the Kuchner property line, that older Wren wall was built long before we became owners, and before current improvements in code; moreover, only about 10 ft. of older Wren wall is adjacent to Kuchner property, and that small length of wall is located near the western extreme of Kuchner property, away from our property's entrance area, which is located toward the east. Wren is requesting a variance to build a two-story high structure which extends the line of the older structure eastward for an additional 33.7 ft. , thereby quadrupling the length of the rear wall adjacent to our property, while positioning it in a location where it would loom over the entrance to our property and home. These requested variances would greatly diminish the rural character of our Southold property and home. The proposed structure would create an atmosphere of congestion and overdevelopment. We will be deprived of privacy. The value of our property and the value of adjacent real estate will be diminished. We request that these zoning variances be denied, and that any future construction at 225 Hippodrome Drive be carried out in strict compliance with current Southold Town Code, and without granting the Wrens any zoning variances. We respectfully submit this letter because on July 29, 2010 we will be out of state for our son's wedding, and therefore will be unable to attend the public hearing which has been scheduled for 12:00 P.M. on July 29, 2010. If this letter does not effectively convey the rightfulness and intensity of our objection, we request that the hearing be postponed to a date on which we are available in person, or that the decision of the Board be kept open so that we can review and address statements made at the meeting. Sincerely, Joan F. Kuchner Eugene F. Kuchner '1¥NI91 !0 Index No. Year RJI No. Hon. SOUTHOLD TOWN ZON1NG BOARD OF APPEALS 1N THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOHN AND SHARON WREN FOR AREA VARIANCES MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION Tarbet, Lester & Schoen PLLC Attorneys at Law Attorneys fi~r P.O. Box 2635 524 Montauk Highway AMAGANSETT, NEW YORK 11930 (631 ) 907-3500 To Attorney(s) for Signature (Rule 130-1.1 -a) Print name beneath Service of a copy of the within Dated, is hereby admitted. Attorney(s) for Please take notice [] NOTICE OF ENTRY that the within is a (certified) true copy of a duly entered in the office of the clerk of the within named court on [] NOT)CE Of SETTLEMENT that an order of which the within is a true copy will be presented for settlement to the HON. one of the judges of the within named court, at on at M Dated, To Yours, etc. LAW OP['ICES OF Tarbet, Lester & Schoen PLLC Attorneys for Attorney(s) for P,O. Box 2635 524 Montauk Highway AMAGANSETT, NEW YORK 11930 STATE OF NEW YORK,'COUNTY OF ss.: I, the undersigned, an attorney admitted to practice in the courts of New York State, [] caameauon certify that the within By Airlorney ~ has been compared by me with the original and found to be a true and complete copy. ~ [] A~m.¥'s state that I am ._~ Affirmation the attorney(s) of record for in the ~vithin g action; I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; ~ the same is true to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein alleged to be on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. The reason this verification is made by me and not by The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as follows: I affirm that the foregoing statements are tme, under the penalties of perjury. STATE OF NEW YORK, COUNTY OF ss.: I, the undersigned, being duly sworn, depose and say: I am [] ladivld..l in the action; I have read the foregoing ; and know the contents thereof; the same is true to my own knowledge, except ~ as to the matters therein stated to be alleged on information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be tree. ~ [] Corporale the of ~ a corporation and a party in the within action; I have read the foregoing and know the contents thereof; and the same is tree to my own knowledge, except as to the matters therein stated to be alleged upon information and belief, and as to those matters I believe it to be true. This verification is made by me because the above party is a corporation and I am an officer thereof. The grounds of my belief as to all matters not stated upon my own knowledge are as follows: Sworn to before me on STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF ss.: (if more than one box is check indicate after names type of service used.) I, the undersigned, being sworn, say: 1 am not a party to the action, am over 18 years of age and reside at On I served the within [] S*rvi~ I by mailing a copy to each of the following persons at the last known address set forth after each name below. By Mail v.~.al by delivering a true copy of each personally to each person named below at the address indicated. I knew each person served a [] s~,ic, a. to be the person mentioned and described in said papers as a party therein: " by transmitting a copy to the following persons by [] FAX at the telephone number set forth after each name below [] E-MAIL ~F1 m~t~nic at the E-Mail address set forth after each name below, which was designated by the for such and attorney purpose, by M..s q copy to the address set forth after each name. ~ [] Delivery by dispatching a copy by overnight delivery to each of the following persons at the last known address set forth after each SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN THE MATTER OF THE APPLICATION OF JOHN AND SHARON WREN FOR AREA VARIANCES MEMORANDUM OF LAW OPPOSITION TO THE APPLICATION PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The applicants, Mr. John E. Wren and Mrs. Sharon I. Wren (hereinafter the "Applicants"), have requested variances for the proposed reconstruction of their single- family residence with a proposed addition. The Wren property is located at 225 Hippodrome Drive, Southold, New York (the "Wren Property"). Our clients, Mr. Eugene Kuchner and Mrs. Joan Kuchner, reside at 1726 Arshamomaque Avenue (the "Kuchner Property"). The Kuchner Property is one of two properties that are contiguous to the rear yard lot line of the Wren Property. (Annexed hereto as "Exhibit A" is a survey prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin 11I and the Kuchner Property is shown thereon as Lot "6"). The other property that is contiguous to the rear yard lot line of the Wren Property is owned by Mr. Michael Warlan and Mrs. Erin Warlan and is located at 595 Rogers Road. Mr. and Mrs. Warlan have appeared in these proceedings in opposition to the application under separate letter. These homeowners would be substantially negatively impacted by the proposal if the Board grants the relief requested. FACTUAL BACKGROUND This project is classified as a Type II action in accordance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act. The subject property is situated at 225 Hippodrome Drive and is presently improved with a two-story residence and detached garage. The subject property is 10,944 square feet and has a lot width of 144 feet and a lot depth of 76 feet. The existing residence on the subject parcel is situated a non-conforming distance of 9.4 feet from the rear yard property line where a 35 foot setback is required by the Southold Town Zoning Code. The Applicants state that they have no alternative but to construct the new residence within close proximity to the rear yard lot line because the depth of the lot is 76 feet, which, after taking the front yard setback into account, leaves them a 6 foot wide envelope to build on without a variance. The Applicants suggest that since the proposed reconstruction will expand the principal dwelling along the existing rear yard setback, it is within the scope of existing development. Additionally, the Applicants contend that with respect to the requested relief for lot coverage, the relief requested is minimal. Mr. and Mrs. Kuchner dispute the Applicants' contention that more than doubling the size of the dwelling within the rear yard setback requirement will not have a negative impact on the neighboring property owners. The height, mass, and size of the proposed addition in relation to the existing residence and in such close proximity to the rear yard lot line will have a significant negative impact on the Kucher Property. Likewise, Mr. and Mrs. Warlan have expressed their concerns with both the extent of the proposed 2 construction and resultant lot coverage increase, as well as the potential effects on their property of upward expansion on the already encroaching existing dwelling. The Applicants request the following variances for their proposal: 1. A rear yard setback variance of 25.7 feet to allow the proposed addition and reconstruction to be built 9.3 feet from the rear property line where a rear yard setback of 35 feet is required by Southold Town Code Chapter 280, Article XXIII, Section 280-124. 2. A lot coverage variance of 0.5% to allow the proposed addition and reconstruction to increase the total lot coverage to 20.5% where a total lot coverage cannot exceed 20% is required by Southold Town Code Chapter 280, Article XXIII, Section 280-124. ARGUMENT THE APPLICATION FAILS TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR ISSUANCE OF THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCES The legal standard the Board must consider in determining whether to grant the requested area variances is set forth in Town Law § 267-b(3). As amended in 1993, Town Law § 267-b(3) sets forth a balance test that the Board must use when considering granting a variance request. The Board must weigh the "the benefit to the applicant if thc variance is granted.., against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant." Town Law § 267-b(3). The Board must also consider whether the variance requested is the "minimum variance" that is "necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve[s] and protect[s] the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community." Town Law § 267-b(3). The benefit to the Applicants (renovating and expanding an existing residence within the rear yard setback) is outweighed by the detriment to the neighbors as a result of the intrusion of a massive two-story addition with the required setback. The detriment to the neighbors' property values and their quiet enjoyment of their own properties is substantial and further delineated in the discussion below. Second, Applicants have NOT requested the minimum variances necessary to afford them relief and this is fatal to the application. Applicants do not make a compelling argument that they need the additional lot coverage to construct the additions they seek nor have they demonstrated that they are unable to achieve a greater setback from the rear property line. In conducting the balancing test the ZBA must consider the following five (5) factors. A. Grant of the Requested Variances will not Cause an Undesirable Change in the Character of the Neighborhood or Create a Detriment to Nearby Properties. The proposed improvements will cause an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and create a detriment to nearby properties. The Applicants are proposing to locate approximately 2,000 square feet of first and second story additions within the required setback. We have attached a computer rendering as Exhibit "B" hereto to demonstrate to the Board how imposing the proposed addition is to the Kuchner Property. The required rear yard setback is 35 feet yet the Applicants seek to locate the proposed addition 9.3 feet from the Kuchner property line. 4 As it stands today, only ten (10) feet of the Applicants' existing residence is situated within the required thirty-five (35) foot rear yard setback from the Kuchner Property. If the application is granted, an additional 33.7 feet of the residence will be within the rear yard setback requirement from the Kuchner Property. As a result, the Kuchner's will have what is effectively a 27 foot high, 44 foot long wall 9.3 feet from their property lien Because the majority of this addition is two-story, the mass and height of the addition will be tremendous when viewed from the Kuchner Property. This will nearly quadruple the length of the dwelling which will be situated within the rear yard setback from the Kuchner Property. A property owner does not have free reign to encroach on his neighbor's quiet enjoyment of his property simply because his home pm-exists the Town Code. There is a substantial difference between maintaining the existing non-conformity and extending an existing non-conformity by an additional 33.7 feet; by extending the nonconformity, you are inherently increasing the degree of non-conformity and in fact creating 33.7 feet of new non-conformity - this cannot be considered "maintaining" the non-conformity by any stretch of the term (See Board of Appeals decision of Roger and Leslie Walz, dated 1/31/02 and attached hereto as "Exhibit C".) The proposed residence will also exceed the maximum limit on coverage of 2,188.8 square feet. While the plans describe this structure as a two-story addition and reconstruction of a single-family residence for a retirement residence, the floor plan contains four bedrooms on the second floor, a "sewing room", a "great room", a "family room", and a "living room," which begs the question of whether more than four rooms will function as bedrooms. In addition, the proposed construction will more than double the size of the existing single-family residence, increasing the total area of building coverage for the existing house from 992 square feet to 2,238 square feet after the addition is completed. The height of the residence also has a direct correlation to the degree it detriments neighboring properties by its proximity to the rear yard lot line. In particular, Mr. and Ms. Kuchner will live in the shadow of this structure. These neighbors presently enjoy a southeastern sun exposure in their mar yards that will be dramatically decreased by the proposed residence. They will also be subjected to the noise of having a home only 9.4 feet from their common property lines. The light, air, peace and quiet that both property owners have come to enjoy in the outdoor living space of their properties will be eliminated by the proposed residence. The negative impacts on light and air that these proposed structures will have on these neighbors are of the type and quality that zoning regulations are specifically enacted to prevent. Moreover, the extent of lot coverage and sheer size of the principal residence that the Applicants seek to achieve by encroaching on their neighbors is excessive and out of character with the surrounding properties, this is an estate size home completely inappropriate for a 10,000 square foot lot. The Applicants' proposal to more than double the footprint of the existing principal dwelling while simultaneously encroaching on the already lessened rear yard setback requirement by more than twenty-five (25) feet is entirely inconsistent with the development pattern in this neighborhood. B. The Benefit Sought by the Applicants can be Achieved by Some Method Feasible for the Applicant to Pursue Other Than an Area Variance. There are more feasible locations to situate the addition and the garage that will allow for greater compliance with the rear yard setback requirement. While the legal building envelope on the property is limited by the front yard setback requirement of 35 feet when combined with the rear yard setback requirement of 35 feet, there is room to relocate the addition to give the most impacted neighbors more light and air and to allow for installation of landscaping for screening and privacy. As presently designed, there was little or no effort placed in trying to achieve the benefit of the addition while reducing the magnitude of the variance required from the rear yard setback. The Applicants have the option of relocating the garage to a more conforming location on the property, reduce the size of the proposed addition, or propose a single-story addition that reduces the bulk. In fact, at the public hearing for this matter, Board Member Dinizio suggested that the Applicants could "take the garage out of this mix" and/or "narrow[] your addition somewhat and moving it towards the front" as feasible alternatives to the current proposal. (See page 121-122 of transcript of public hearing that took place on July 29, 2010). Vice Chairperson Goehringer suggested that the applicant should "move [the proposed addition] off the line, the 9.3 setback line a little bit farther..." (See page 126 of transcript of public hearing that took place on July 29, 2010). The Applicants have chosen to ignore these suggestions and instead seek variances to the increased detriment of their rear-yard neighbors. C. The requested area variances are substantial. The requested variances are substantial. Member Dinizio stated at the July 29, 2010 public hearing that he did not "believe we've ever granted a variance that big before" and "that 9.3 feet is quite a variance... an enormous variance from what we're used to giving." (See page 124 of transcript of 7 public hearing that took place on July 29, 2010). This is hardly surprising considering the rear yard setback variance for the reconstructed residence and addition is 25.7 feet, 73% of the required rear yard setback of 35 feet. What makes this variance even more substantial is the sheer size of the addition. The addition will place 33.7 feet of two story additions 9.3 feet from the rear property line; this will bring the total amount of house which will be encroaching on the rear yard setback from the Kuchner Property to roughly 43 feet. This is only compounded by the proposed height of the addition which is 27.5 feet. In addition to the setback variance required by the project, the Applicants also seeks a lot coverage variance of 49.2 square feet. This variance, which may seem small being that it is only 49.2 square feet of lot coverage, is substantial given size of the lot (0.25 acres or 10,944 square feet) and the fact that the Applicants are permitted, as a matter of right, to 2,188.8 square feet of coverage, which is more than sufficient for a single-family residence and associated accessory structures as evidenced by the existing dwellings on the property which conform to the current lot coverage requirements. D. Grant of the Requested Variances will Have an Adverse Impact on the Physical or Environmental Conditions in the Neighborhood. The requested variances will have a significant adverse impact on the physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood. As more fully set forth above, construction of the new residence and addition in such close proximity to the property lines of Mr. and Mrs. Kuchner and Mr. and Mrs. Warlan will create a significant adverse impact on the quality of life for these neighbors. Although other residents of Beixedon Estates have requested modest variances for their properties in the past, the Applicants seek substantial variances with no regard to the impact it will have on their immediate neighbors. While it is true that two neighbors have written letters to the Zoning Board in support of the Applicants' proposed construction, it must also be noted that these neighbors are essentially unaffected by the construction. These neighbors, Mr. John Pinto and Mr. J. Jeffrey Hafer, own properties on the opposite side of Hippodrome Drive relative to the Applicant' s property. As a result they will be largely unaffected by the size, extent, or proximity of the proposed construction and addition to the rear property line. Unlike the Kuchners and the Warlans, these neighbors are not losing any of their privacy, sun exposure, or their peace and quiet. The extent of the proposed reconstruction has been downplayed greatly. In fact the Applicants have tried to justify the size and proximity of it to the Kuchner Property and the Warlan Property by referring to how "far" it will be from their homes. Contrary to what the Applicants suggest, the approximate size and extent of the construction can be better seen in the photo simulations attached hereto as "Exhibit B." These simulations demonstrate how the Kuchners will be directly impacted by the mass of the proposed addition and its precarious proximity to the rear yard lot line. It should also be noted that the Applicants' request to for a lot coverage variance should also be considered to be detrimental to the environment. The greater the lot coverage present on a parcel, the less ground area there is available for drainage and runoff. This can eventually and cumulatively result in unnecessary flooding in the area, especially in an area such as the Beixedon Estates which is a residential community clustered along the Peconic Bay and Creek. E. The Difficulty Causing the Applicants to Seek the Relief Requested is not Self-Created. The difficulty causing the Applicants to request these substantial variances does not appear on the record to be self-created. The Wren property has been family-owned for many years and prior to the adoption of zoning regulations in Southold. However, the Board should note that this factor alone is not determinative. CONCLUSION The application is egregious and fails to meet the standards set forth for grant of the requested variances. The affected neighbors, Mr. and Mrs. Kuchner, strongly object to the application and respectfully urge the Board to deny the application in ail respects. Dated: Amagansett, New York August 18, 2010 Tarbet, Lester & Schoen PLLC By: ,~~~ Denise R. Sehoen, Esq. PO Box 2635 524 Montauk Highway Amagansett, NY 11930 10 Exhibit A EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE DATA DESCRIPTION AREA % LOT COVERAGE EXIST. HOUSE 992 sq. ff. 9.1% EXIST. PORCH 286 sq. fi. 2.6% EXIST. GARAGE 584 sq. ft. 5.5% TOTAL 1,662 sq. fi. 15.2% I PROPOSED BUILDING COVE}CAGE DATA DESCRIPTION AREA % LOT COVERAGE EXIST. HOUSE 992 sq. ff, 9.1% PROP. ADDITION 1,2.46 sq. ff. 11.4% TOTAL 2,258 sq. ff. 20.5% TEST HOLE DATA (TEST HOLE DUG BY THIS OFFICE ON JANUARY 5, 2010) 14' NOTES: SURVEY OF LOT S BLOCK 7 MA? OF' BEIXEDON ESTATES FILE No. 1472 FILED MARCH 16, !946 SITUATE SOUTHOLD TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-66-02-,.52 SCALE 1"=50' MAY 16, 2007 FEBRUARY 24, 2010 ADDED PROPOSED ADDITIONS MARCH 25, 2010 REVISED PER S.C.D.H.S. NOTICE DATED 0.3/18/10 AREA = 10,944 sq. fl. 0.251 ac. 1. ELEVATIONS ARE REFERENCED TO AN ASSUMED DATUM EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN THUS: JJ2~ Z. MINIMUM SEPTIC TANK CAPACITIES FOR 5-6 BEDROOM HOUSE IS 1,500 GALLONS. 1 TANK; 8' DIA., 5' HIGH S. MINIMUM L~ACHING SYSTEM FOR 5-6 BEDROOM HOUSE IS 400 sq ff SIDEWALL AREA. 2 POOLS; 8' DEEP, 8' diG. PROPOSED FUTURE $0% EXPANSION POOL QPROPOSED B' DIA. X 8' DEEP LEACHING POOL (~ PROPOSED 1,500 GALLON SEPTIC TANK 4. THE LOCATION OF WELLS AND CESSPOOLS SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM FIELD OBSERVATIONS AND/OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS. 5, EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM STRUCTURES SHALL BE PUMPED CLEAN AND EITHER BE REMOVED OR FILLED WITH CLEAN SAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.C.D.H.S. STANDARDS. 6. THIS PROPERTY IS IN FLOOD ZONE X FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM: FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No, S6105CO158H ZONE X: AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE 0.27. ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN~ CERTIFIED TO: JOHN E. WREN SHARON WREN Nathan Taft Corwin III Land Surveyor PHONE (651)727-2090 Fax (631)727-1727 OFFICES LOCATD3 AT IA41LING ADDRESS Exhibit B Computer image is based on architectural plans submitted to Town of Southold ZBA -m WHITE area - current visual space occupied by Wren residence, as seen from Kuchner driveway LIGHT RED area - proposed Wren addition if a variance is granted, as seen from Kuchner driveway LIGHT RED shaded area = from Kuch her Exhibit C APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman James Dinizio, Jr. Lydia A. Tortora Lora S. Collins George Homing BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 MEETING OF JANUARY 24, 2002 Appl. No. 6039 - ROGER AND LESLIE WALZ STREET & LOCATION: 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING: November 15, 2001; Novernber 29, 2001. FINDINGS OF FACT IN THE MATTER OF ROGER AND LESLIE WAI-Z, APPLICANTS, FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHOLD, Article XXIV Section 100-242A, entitled "Nonconforming buildings with conforming uses", to reverse the Building Inspector's determination rendered in the May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval. BASIS OF APPEAL: Appellants Roger and Leslie Walz am appealing the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001, Notice of Disapproval for a building permit to construct a second- story addition to a one-family dwelling. The May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval recites the following: "Proposed addition not permitted pursuant to Article XXIV Section fOO-242A which states, Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or renovation of a nonconforming building containing a conforming use, provide that such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. Existing structure has a nonconforming setback of 3 feet from the easterly side lot line and 5.6 feet in the westerly side line. The addition of the second floor represents an increase in the degree of nonconformity.' PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a nonconforming lot, containing approximately .26 acres, located at 2605 Old Orchard Road, East Marion; SCTM 10047-6-5. The lot is improved with applicants' house, which is a one-story building with side yards that are nonconforming under Section 100-242A for nonconforming lots, which requires a minimum side yard setback of t0 ft. and a total of 25 ft. for both side yards. The building has a nonconforming setback of 3 feet from the easterly side lot line and 6.6 feet in the westerly side line. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicants request the Board of Appeals to reverse the Building Inspector's determination that the proposed second-story addition over the "footprint" of the existing house represents" an increase in the degree of nonconformity" per Section 242A. They contend Page 2 - January 24, 2002-- Appl. No. 5039 - R. and L. Walz 1000-37-6-5 at East Marion that the Building Inspector improperly applied Section 242A, and request an interpretation of the code provision. Applicants request the Board of Appeals to reverse the Building Inspector's determination on the following grounds: 1. Applicants maintain the second-story addition does not constitute an "increase in the degree of nonconformity" because the addition "goes up and not out", and is therefore no closer to the lot line. 2. Applicants contend that the degree of nonconformity should be measured as the horizontal distance from the "footprint" of the existing nonconforming building to the property line. Applicants acknowledge that existing side yard set backs are nonconforming and that the second-story addition would retain the nonconforming setbacks. However, applicants maintain that there is no change in the degree of nonconformity since "nothing Is closer than that which exists" and therefore the code requirement is met. WHEREAS, the following code provisions are pertinent to this request: I. Article XXlV Section 242A, Nonconforming buildings with conforming uses, reads: Nothing in this Article shall be deemed to prevent the remodeling, reconstruction or renovation of a nonconforming building containing a conforming use, provided that such action does not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. II. Section 100-13 Definition of the zoning code, NONCONFORMING BUILDING OR STRUCTURE - A building or structure legally existing on the effective date of this chapter or any applicable amendment thereto but which fails, by reason of such adoption, revision or amendment, to conform to the present district regulations for any prescribed structure or building requirement, such as front, side or rear yards, building height, building areas or lot coverage, lot area per dwelling unit, dwelling units per building, number of parking and loading spaces, etc., but which Is continuously maintained after the effective date of these regulations. WHEREAS, The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on the matter on November 15, 2001 and November 29, 2001, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal observations of members of the board and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: 1, The head of the Building Department testified that an increase in the degree of nonconformance will occur If the new construction or renovation to a nonconforming building is located at/ or closer to the pre-existing nonconforming set back line. As example, he stated that if the nonconforming building has a side yard setback of 3 feet, · Page 3 - January 24, 2002-- Appl. No. 5039 - R. and L. Walz 1000-37-6-5 at East Marion and the proposed single-story addition is set back 3 feet 10 inches, there would be no increase in the degree of the building's nonconformance. Similarly, he said, the Department believes that a second-story addition over the exact footprint of a nonconforming building would increase the degree of nonconformity, but if the second- story addition were set back more than existing footprint, for example 3 feet 10 inches, no Increase in the degree of nonconformance would occur, and the code provision of Section 242A would be met. 2. In examining the provisions set forth in 242A, the Board finds that the degree of a bullding's existing nonconformity is clearly established by the three-dimensional space, which does not comply with the re~lulations pertaining to such buildlnRs. For example, if the code requires a minimum side yard set back of t0 feet, and a single-story bullding's has a nonconforming set back of 3 feet, the degree of nonconformity is the 10 ft. by 20 ft. area, or 200 sq. fl. space which occupies the 10-foot, non-permitted building, side yard area. The degree of existing nonconformance has been established by the space which does not comply with the zoning regulations. 3. The Board finds that pursuant to section 242A, if the new construction, remodeling, reconstruction, or addition, to a nonconforming building creates a new area of nonconformance, where none existed before, the degree of a building's nonconformity will be increased. For example, if the bulldlng's nonconforming 10 ft. by 20 ft. dimensions are expanded, any part of the new construction which encroaches Into the 10-foot, non- permltled building, side yard area would create a new area of nonconformity, where none existed before, and would increase the degree of nonconformity. Similarly, if a second- floor were added straight up over the nonconforming t0 ft. by 20 ft. area, the addition would create a new area of nonconformity, where none existed before, and would increase the degree of nonconformance. 4. Although applicants contend that the proposed second-floor addition over the bullding's existing footprint does not increase the degree of nonconformity, we find no legal basis for this conclusion. The second-floor addition will increase the building's established degree of nonconformity because there would be more area, more square footage, more volume, and more building within the 10-foot, non-permitted side yard area. Simply because the second floor is built on top of a nonconforming footprint does not grandfather it or negate the fact that it will create a new area of nonconformity, where none existed before. 5. The Board agrees with the Building Inspector's determination that the appellants' proposed second-story addition represents an increase in the degree of nonconformity. 6. The Board finds that there Is no basis in Section 242A to substantiate the Building Department's position that permits a nonconforming structure to expand into a nonconforming area If the expansion Is an inch less or a foot less than the existing buildlng's nonconforming setback. This approach permits new nonconforming construction where none existed before. This position could be viewed as arbitrary Page 4 - January 24, 200,~ Appl. No. 5039 - R. and L. Walz 1000-37-6-5 at East Marion because the three dimensional space within which a structure Is permitted to be built on a lot is defined by the town code regulations governing building set backs, maximum height and bulk. NOW, ON MOTION BY MEMBER TORTORA, SECONDED BY CHAIRMAN GOEHRINGER, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board of Appeals Interprets Article XXlV, Section 242A to mean that: Remodeling, re~:onstruction or enlargement of a nonconforming building with a conforming use is permitted provided that such action does not create and new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. An increase in the de.qree of nonconformance will occur if the remodeling, reconstruction or enlargement creates a vertical or horizontal expansion of the established pre-existing dimensions of the nonconforming building, and the new construction does not comply with the regulations pertaining to such buildings, and/or if the new construction creates a new area of nonconformance, either vertically or horizontally, where none existed before. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED to DENY the applicants' request to reverse the Building Inspector's determination. VOTE OF THE BOARD: AYES: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, Collins, and Homing. NAY: Member Dinizio (voting against the decision for the reason that the decision goes beyond the authority of the Zoning Board of Appeals.) ~ ///"Gerard4W~.OoshHnger,~h~irman-"" -~- . '.~--~_.J. "j I~ F~CEIVEDAN DFILED B~/- / Approved /-z~ ~z- ~,,~. ?~ SOUTHOLD ~OWN CLEI~ Town Clezk, Town of Southold Southold Town Board of Appeal,'~ Drawing Addendum to Appeal No. 5039 for an Interpretation of Article XXlV, Sections '100-242A, of the Code of the Town of Southold, entailed "Nonoonforming buildings with conforming uses. Figure A and El are an example of a pm-existing single-story building with a noncomforming side yard set back of 3 feet, instead of the code-requirod 10-foot minimum. As noted in the decision, the three-dimensional space within which a building is permitted to be built on a lot, or a nonconforming building permitted !o expand, is defined by the town code regulations governing building set backs, maximum height and bulk, and lot coverage. Figure A - Hozizontal View lot line' ~, minimum front yard minimum rear yard Figure B - Vertical View minimum side yard 35 maximum height Permitted building area within which a nonconforming building containing a conforming uae may be remodeled, reconstructed or enlarged, which will not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. ~ building area within which an increase in the degree of nonconformance will occur, and/or which will create a new area of nonconformance where none existed before, if the nonconforming building is remodeled, reconstructed or enlarged either vertically or horizontally. <- lO fl ~ minimum side yard _S_outhold Town Board of Appeal~ ~ ~ Drawing Addendum to Appeal No. 5039 for an Interpretation of Article XXlV, Sections t00-242A, of the Code of the Town of Southold, entitiled 'Nonoonforming buildings with conforming uses. Figure A and B am an example of a pm-existing single-story building with a noncomforming side yard set back of 3 feet, instead of the code-required 10-foot minimum. As noted in the deosion, the three-dimensioNal space within which a building is permitted to be built on a lot, or a nonconforming building permitted to expand, is defined by the town code regulations governing buiiding set backs, maximum height and bulk, and lot coverage. Figure A - Hozizontal View lot line '1' miaimum front yard minimum rear yard Figure B - Vertical View minimum side yard 35 tt maximmn height Permitted building area within which a nonconforming building containing a conforming use may be remodeled, reconstructed or enlarged, which will not create any new nonconformance or increase the degree of nonconformance with regard to the regulations pertaining to such buildings. Non-~ermitted building area within which an increase in the degree of nonconformance will occur, and/or which will create a new area of nonconformance where none existed before, if the nonconforming building is remodeled, reconstructed or enlarged either vertically or horizontally. ~ 10 fl ~. minimum side yard se~ 9914 STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine . of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that she is Principal Clerk of I HE 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 I week(s), successively, commencing on the said Newspaper once each week for 9th_ day of Se tember 2010. Sworn to before me this · Principal Clerk il) ayof 201o. ""-~ C ~' ,~EW YORK NOTARY '~ OUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY SEPTEMBER 23, 2010 PUBUC ~GS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pur- suant to Section 267 of the~fown Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (Zoning), Town of Seuthoid, the following public hear- ings will be held by the SoLrrHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF AP- PEALS at the Town HaH, 53095 Main Road. P.O. Box 1179. Southoid, New York 1] 971-0959, on ~ TEMBER 23. 2010: 9~30 AM - ANTHONY S. CAMPO on an application for building permit and the Bu0ding Inspector's June 3, 2010 Notice of Disapproval concerning demolition and construction of a new single-family dweilthg, at I) less than the code required bulkhead setback ol 75 feet: at: 1165 Fisherman's Beach Rd., adl~ to Cutcbogu¢ Harbor) Cutchogue. 9:50 AM - RICHARD ]. arod 1OANN SA~ARESE #6415 - Request for Vari- ance from Code Section 280-124, based on an apphcation for buildin~ permit ano me Building Inspector's May 26, ~010. Notice of Disapproval concerning proposed demolillon and construct new rear yard setback of 35 feet, at: 2575 Old Orchard Rd., (adj, to Orient Bay) East Marwn NY. $c'rM#1000-gT-6-7.1. L0:15AM ~TEPHANOS STir: FANIDES #6413 - Request for Vari- [nce from Code Sections 280-116(B) and 280-124, based on an appilcatinn for building pemuc and the Building In- spector's June lt, 2010. Hofice of Disap- proval concerning proposed alterations/ additions and "as built" deck addition to seasonal dwelling, at; 1) less than 75 feet. 2~ less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, ~ ~ less than die code required total com- bined side yards of 25 feet. 4) less than ou the Building Inspector's July 14. 2010 the code required rear yard setback of Notice of Disapproval citing Zomng 35 feet. 5) more than the code required Code Section 280-10A, which states that total lot coverage of 20%, at: 780 Rabbit rue nonconforming lots merged until La., (adj, to Gardiner's Bay) East Marl a total lot s~ze conforms ~ th6 cuxrent on, NY. SCTM#1000-31-18-17. bulk schedule (mimmum 40,000 square ~O:~ AM - C~]TCHOGUE NEW ~ feet in this R-40 Residential Zone Dis- SUFFOLK HISTORICAL COUNCIL trict) this lot is merged with tot 10 to the from Special Exception per Code Sec- don 280-13B(15) and Variance ~rom Code Section 280-18 baaed on an appli- cation [or building permit and the Build- ing Inspector's July 19. 2010, Notice of Special Exception for Historical Society, 06420 - tess than the code reqmred front yard setback of 50 feet. at: 27230 Main Rd., and Case's La.. Cutchogue, NY. #6409 - Request for Variance/r6m Code for building permit and the Building In- spector's May 4, 2010 NoQce of Disap- tion of accessory garage, at 1] less than the code required side yard setback of 20 ~eet, 2) less than the code reqmred from yard setback of 35 feet. 3) more than the code required maximum lot coverage of 20%; at: 3255 Bayshore Rd., (adj. to Pc- conic Bay) Greenport. NY SCTM#1000- 33-6-8 280-124 and 280-116. based on an appli- cation for bui!ding permit and the Build- ing Inspector s March 8. 2010, amended Inne 3, 2010 Notice of Disapproval eon- existing dwelling, at 1) les~ than the code required side yard setback of 15 [ect, 2~ le~s than the code required combined side .yard setback of 35 feet, 3) less than thee:ode recs~ed setback to a bulkhead of 75 feet; at: 4075 Stillwatar Ave.. iEasl Creek (Eugeac's C~eek~ Cutchogue. NY. 11:30 AM - DOUGLAS SLAMA and NANCY SCHRANK ~6418 - This is a IL Section 280-10A. to muncrge land identified as SCTM #1000-98-5-9. based south, at: 355 and 405 Robinson La.,Pe- conic, NY SCTNi#1000-98-5-9 and 10. ~ETH MASTRO # 6417 - Request for Variance/rom Code SectiOns 280-116(B) and 280-124, based on an application for building permit and the Building Inspee- tor'f June 14, 2010, Notice of Disap- royal ~oncernmg proposed substantial Patieratinnstadditions to dwelling, at; 1~ less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 2) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, 3) less than the code required to- tal :ombined side yards of 25 feet,4) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, at: 1595 Bayview Ave., (adj. to Arshamomque Harbor) South#Id, NY, SCTM#1000-52-5 -9. 12:10 PM - RO~D A. POLLIQ Sectioni 280-15 and reh~[ from puor g~ant g6205, based on an applicailon for building permit and the Building ins nec- tot's May 25.2010 Notice of Dlsapp~ oval quired rear yard, Z/relief from Conm- uon gl of ZBA Grant #6205; at: 165 Sec- ond St.. New Suffolk, NY SCTM#1000- [:00 yM - ~.EGINA'S GARDEN ~ - (adj ~rom Jul~ 29. 2010) ti#ns 280-13 and 280-14, baaed on an ap- pbcatinn for building permit I# operate a farm office m a non conforming building, and the Building Inspector's March 10, 2010, Notice of Disapproval stating that the Bulk schedule at: t150 Sound Ave., Mattimck. SCTM#1000-120-3-5. prior meetings and pending additional information: Adjourned from Public Hearing July 29, 2010: ~.3~ PM - THEODORE C. MA RTZ~ JR. #6344. Adjourned/rom Public Hearing June 30.2010: 2:00 PM - SIM MOY gfi383. Adjourned from Public Hearing July 29, 2010: Thc Board of Appeals will hea~ al/ at (631) 765-1809. or b~ emall: H~- ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS EESLIE KAN,ES WEISMAN. CHAIR- PERSON BY: Vicki Toth 53095 Main Road (Meding/USPS) '~r /%L~ 9885 \~ STATE OF NEW YORK) ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn, says that 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 12th day of Au,qust, 2010, -~ ~"'"'¢~// _/'/'/~ Principal Clerk Sworn to before me this LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OP APPEALS THURSDAY AUGUST 2~, 2010 PUBLIC HEARINGS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pur- suant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (Zonuig),Town of Southold, the following public hear- ings will be held by thc SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF AP- PEALS at the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, £O. Box 1179, Soudiold, New York 11971-0959, on THURSDAY. AU- GUST 2fl. 2010: 9:30 AM - Steve and Ol~a Toned/os g6407: Request for Variance from Code Section 280-15(F), based on an applica- tion for building permit and the Build- ing Inspector's June 11, 2010 Notice of Disapproval, concerning proposed two story two car accessory garage, 1) loca- tion in a side yard when a front yard or rear yard location is code-required on a waterfront parcel, at: 17327 Main Rd., East Marion. SCTMg1000-23-1-14.10. d/th A. Mock S6403: Request For vari- ance from Code Section 280-124, based on an a~plieation for building permit and the Budding Iaspeetor's Maroh 2, 2010~ updated May 25, 2010 Notice of Disap- proval concex'ning proposed foundation reconstruction and alteration to year round dwelling at: 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 50 feet; 2) less than the code required side yard setback of 15 feet; 3) conversion of front pOrch to habitable space which pursuant to"Walz" constitutes an increase in non- conformance. Property located at: 7617 Soundvuiw Ave.,(edj, to Great Pond aka Leeton's Lake) Southold SCTM#1000- 1~10 AM - William A. Penney IH /'Hdv Carl #6319 & 6336: (adj. from PH 12/3/09) Location of P~operty: 45450 C.R. 48 (a/k/a North Road or Middle Road) and Youngs Avenue, Southold; ~ 1000-55-5-2.2. Zone District: Gen- eral Business B. The applicant is request- ing the following, based on the Building Inspector's revised August 5, 2009 No- ti~c~ of Disapproval: ; #6319 - Request for a Special Excep- t/on concerning vehicle and accessory #6336 - Request for a Variance con- fern!nE an as-built accessory shed build- mg tn a location other than the code- required rear yard. 10'.30 AM - Thomas M. and Maureen E Dowlinp #6a1~ Request for vari- anco from Code Section 280-124, based on an application for building permit and the Building Inspector's May 26, 3010 Notice of Disapproval concern- ~ng propOsed additions/alterations to a single-family dwelling at: I) less than the Cbde required side yard setback of 15 feet. 2) less than the code required to- tal side yard combined of 35 feet. Prop- erty located at: 1200 Broedwaters Rd., (adj. to Broadwatcrs Cove) Cutehogue, SCTM#1000-104.9.3. 10'45 AM. Michael and Renee Belle- ro #6414: Request for variance from proved Cluster Subdivision setbacks and Code Section 280-18, based on an appli. cation for building permit and the Build- ing Iaspeetor's May 26, 2010, amended July 13, 2010 Notice of Disapprove concerning proposed additions/altera- tions to ex,sting single-family dwe ng at: 1) less than the approved front yard setback of 25 feet; 2) less dian the~code two and a hal~ Property located at: 2095 The Strand and The Greenway, East Marion, SCTM#1000-30-2.52. 1L'00 AM. Bonnie M. Oulnn//6408; Request for variance from Code Sec- tion 280-116(B) and 280-15, based on an application for building permit and the Building Inspector's June 14, 2010 Notice of Disapproval concern ng "as built" alterations/addiQons and acces- sory stractures at: 1) less than the code required setback from a bulkhead of 75 feet; 2) accessory structures ocated in side yard when the rear yard location i~ code required. Property located at: 1075 Cedar Point Dr.,West (adj. to west Lake) Southuid, SCTM#I000-90-1.4. ueen ~401: Request for variance from Code Section 280-124, based on an ap- plication for build, ins perm/ and the Building Inspecior s December 8, 2009, updated May 27, 2010 Notice of Disap- proval concerning proposed deck add - t/on to a single-famgy dwelling at less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet. Property located at: 1380 Koke Dr.. Southdid SCTM#1000-87-5.18. /sting single-family dwelling, 1) l~ss than Vanston Rd., Cutchogue. SCTM#1000- lll-6-1g, NOTARY PU~LIC..$TATE OF NEW YORK No. 01-~tO6105050 y~~cation of ProperS: v600 Takaposha Road, (adj. to Corey ~arbor) Southold ~M 1~7~. Requests for Varianc~ under Sections Building Inspector's April 20, 2010 t/ce of Dhappr~val con.ming an ap- plication for recons~ucQon ~d s~ond floor addition, which new const~ction 1) less ~an the code-requffed mini- 2) less ~an 35 feet from ~e front lot 4) less ~ ~ feet for bo~ (~m- bin~) mh~ side y~d setback~ 5) e~ ~ ~dc I~tion of 20% m~umlo~ ~verage (b~ld~ area), in[o~adom $63~. (adj, from May ~, ~10 PH) Re- quest for Vari~ from Code $~Qon 280-70(i) based on an appl~tion for 2~9, updated March 4, 2010 Notice of Disapproval ~ncerning co-lo.t/on of wirel~s comm./cation tower, 1) tower g~anted of 90 feet;at 233~ Main Rd. and A~o~n~ f~m ~bBc He~g 30, 2010: ins to be heard at each hearing, ~or Each hearing will not st~t e~lier ~an designated above. ~lcs a~ ava~ble for review during regui~ b~ess hours you have questions, ple~e ~nmct our o~ at (631) 765-18~, or by em~: PE~ON ~75 M~ RoM (~ Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 Mailim, Address: 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 LEGAL NOTICE SOUTHOLD TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THURSDAY, JULY 29, 2010 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 267 of the Town Law and Town Code Chapter 280 (Zoning), 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~ JULY 29~ 2010: 12:00 P.M. - JOHN E. and SHARON I. WREN #6389 - Request for Variance from Code Section 280-124, based on an application for building permit and the Building Inspector's March 10, 2010, Notice of Disapproval concerning reconstruction and addition to single- family dwelling, at 1) less than the code required rear yard setback of 35 feet, 2) exceeding maximum lot coverage of 20%; at 225 Hippodrome Dr., Southold. SCTM#1000- 66-2-32. 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: Vicki. Toth~.Town. Southold.ny.us. Dated: July 1, 2010 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LESLIE KANES WEISMAN, CHAIRPERSON By: Vicki Toth 54375 Main Road (Office Location) 53095 Main Road (Mailing/USPS) P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 ZO...G BO^RD OF APPE^.S MAILING ADDRESS and PLACE OF HEARINGS: 53095 Main Road, Town Hall Building, P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 (631) 765-1809 Fax 765-9064 LOCATION OF ZBA OFFICE: Town Hall Annex at North Fork Bank Building, 1st Floor 54375 Main Road and Youngs Avenue, Southold website: http://southtown.northfork.net June 30, 2010 Re: Town Code Chapter 55 - Public Notices for Thursday, July 29, 2010 Hearing Dear Sir or Madam: Please find enclosed a copy of the Legal Notice describing your recent application. The Notice will be published in the next issue of the Times Review newspaper. 1) Before July 14th: Please send the enclosed Legal Notice, with both a Cover Letter including your telephone number and a copy of your Survey or Site Plan (filed with this application) which shows the new construction area or other request, by CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED, to all owners of property (tax map with property numbers enclosed), vacant or improved, which abuts and any property which is across from any public or private street. Use the current owner name and addresses shown on the assessment rolls maintained by the Town Assessors' Office located at Southold Town Hall, or Real Property Office at the County Center, Riverhead. If you know of another address for a neighbor, you may want to send the notice to that address as well. If any letter is returned to you undeliverable, you are requested to make other attempts to obtain a mailing address or to deliver the letter to the current owner, to the best of your ability, and to confirm how arrangements were made in either a written statement, or during the hearing, providing the returned letter to us as soon as possible; AND not later than July 21st: Please either mail or deliver to our office your Affidavit of Ma lin.q (form enclosed) with parcel numbers, names and addresses noted, and furnish to our office with the green/white receipts postmarked by the Post Office. When the green signature cards are returned to you later by the Post Office, please mail or deliver them to us before the scheduled hearing. If any envelope is returned "undeliverable", please advise this office as soon as possible. If any signature card is not returned, please advise the Board during the hearing and provide the card (when available).' These will be kept in the permanent record as proof of all Notices. 2) Not Later July 21st: Please make arrangements to place the enclosed Poster on a signboard such as cardboard, plywood or other material, posting it at your property for seven (7) days (or more) until the hearing is held. Securely place the sign on your property facing the street, no more than 10 feet from the front property line bordering the street. If you border more than one street or roadway, an extra sign is available for the additional front yard. Please deliver or mail your Affidavit of Posting for receipt by our office before July 27, 2010. If you are not able to meet the deadlines stated in this letter, please contact us promptly. Thank you for your cooperation. (PLEASE DISPLAY YOUR HOUSE NUMBER ALWAYS). Very truly yours, Zoning Appeals Board and Staff Encls. NOTIC OF HEARING The following application will be heard by the Southold Town Board of Appeals at Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold: NAME WREN, J. & S. #6389 MAP # 66-2-32 VARIANCE SETBACK & LOT COVERAGE REQUEST RECONSTRUCT ADDITION DATE: THURS, JULY 29, 2010 12:00 PM If you are interested in this project, you may review the file(s) prior to the hearing during normal business days between 8 AM and 3 PM. ZONING BOARD-TOWN OF SOUTHOLD 765-1809 STATE OF NEW YORK) ~A~,/~O 0~' A ¢ ¢~///)~'; ) SS: COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) '%°,o~-4(S'- Karen Kine of Mattituck, in said county, being duly sworn,.says that she is Principal Clerk of THE SUFFOLK TIMES, a weekly newspsper, published at Mattituck, in the Town of Southold, Coun~ 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 ~ week(s), successively, commencing on the 15~ day of July, 2010. 'Prihcipal Cle~ day of Sworn to before me this ~'/.,~ 2010. i ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD: NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of (Name of Applicants) CTM?arcel#1000- ~6 - ~2-- ~t2- COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) , New York, being duly sworn, depose and say that: ~/ Pgst Office in~,~14.P.3D(h~ ,/~tqew York, by CERTIlVlED MAIL RE ' . p~ ~ . . . , TURN RECEWT QUESTED, a true copy of the at/ached Legal lqot~ce m prepmd envelopes addressed to ~vi.Ur~e~}_t o~w~, e, rs~own on t~he, c~urre .nt gsessment roll verified from the official records on file me Le-,/.~ssessors, or t ) c:ounty Keal Property Office _, for every property which abuts attd is across a public or prtvgie street, · ' or vehicular right-of-way of record, surrounding the appli6ant's property. Sworn to before me this /q4~ day offS(} , 206~ L3 (Notary Public) CONNIE u. BUNCH Notary Public, State of New Yor~ No. 018U6185050 Qualified in Suffolk County Commission Expires April 14, 20f.~ ~PLEASE list, on the back of this Affidavit or on a sheet 0f paper the lot nmnbers next to the .owner names and addresses for which notices were mailed~ Thank you. Ms. Jeanne Pinto ~.~4 .......... :iii'Ir, ~ I72 HIIlair Circle ~ ~hite Plains, NY 10605 II ~ T~,P~Is. JI §n KutFr4,A~r Is~To ~0 Talmadge Gate ~'~'x~ ;etauket, NY 11733 07/14/2010 =o T~,' · ~5,71 ru ~.~tjeffrey and Carol Hafer -- =' [......31 Harbor Road :=r~ ~Port: Washington, NY 11050 r'~ (Endor~ment Required) C~ (E~omement Required) n~ To~ ~lena C, ast;llano~.~ /~,209-33 2~t~ Ave ~ I~ layside, NY 11360 03'/14/2010 ru ~ (E~dorsement Required) $5,71 SE ['~'~,~ Cottonwood Rd. [~-~-~,: ~ort Washington, NY 11050 postage LL Certified Fee ru r-~ Retum Receipt Fe~ ~ (Endorsement Required) *~2.~0 r'-t Res dctad Dellve,~ Fee ~ (E~or~ment Required) ~ ~00 Jay Street Apt, 21H [~;~-~ Irooklyn, NY 11201 ii~j3a/~~2o10 $2.30 AsPO Box 877 outhold, NY 11971 Postmark S2.30 H~ uCAim a~{ri~ta s l~.tTo {'0 Box 3504 ~;~'~-~ dew Hyde Park, iY 11040 cr PO B¢ · Completeifemsl .~,and3.~oceml:~~ item 4 if Restflofed Delivery hi d~. · Print Y~lr name and addm~ on the revere so thet we can tatum the card to you. or on the trent If spane pernuts. Grace LeWis PO Box 877 South•Id, NY 13.971 '~". A~cle~umber PS Form 3811, Februa~ 2004 7009 2820 [] R~glm~d 0 r~red Mall ,c. ~at~ of ~lh~ 0 Expro~ Mei~ [] Return Receipt for Merchandise r'3 C.O.D, 4. Restricted Oalive~ (Ex~a Fee) i-i yee 0002 5983 8812 · Complete Mms 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Resthnted Delivepj Is desired. · Print your name and address on the mvame so that we can return the card to you; · Attach this card ~ the back of the mailpleca, or on the front if space permits. 1, Article Addressed to: Ms. Jeanne Pinto 72 HIIlair Circle White-Plains, NY 10605 [] Addressee (Printed Name) , C. Date of Dellve~ D. Isdelk~addreeadlf~fmmlteml? [~Yes If YES, enter delivery addre~e hal•w: r-i No [] ~ M~I [] Registered [] Insured Mall r~ Expose Mall 0 Retum Receipt for Merchandise DYes Domestic Return Receipt ~ · Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. · Pdnt your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece~ or on the front if space permits. 1. Articie Addressed to: Jeffrey and Carol Hafer 31 Harbor Road Port WashinCton, NY 11050 JUL 1 5 Zulu [] Registered t for Merchandise [] Insured Mall [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? {Exba Fee) [] yes 7009 2820 0002 5983 8751 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt · Complete item 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Deliver/is desired. · print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permffs. 1. Art~c~ Ad~ to: Elena Castellano /~r 209-33 26th Ave (~( Bayside, NY 113 ~6~ ~ ~' ~;. Article Number li~ent D. isdellve~yeddressdlffemntfromiteml? []yes If YES, enter delivery address below [] No [] Certified Mell [] Expmse Mell ~ [] Registered [] Retum Receipt for Merchandise ~ [] Insured Mell [] C.O.D, ~ 4. ReStdcted ~lve~? (Exlm Fe~) [] Yes 7009 2820 0002 5983 8768 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt · Complete Items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item ,4 if Reet~ed Delivery is desired. ~ print your name and address on the reverse so tha~we can return the card to you. · Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space perm[ts. ' ~-. 1. A~ticle Addressed to: [] ~gent . a(,;,~ ~ffemnt fmCn Item 17 t-1 yes YES, enter delivery address below: ~ No Ms. Joan Kuchner 10 Talmad Setaul~et, NY 117.'* Sew~e Type ri C,e~1~ed Mell [] Express Mell [] Reglste~d r'l Return Receipt f°r Merchandise [] Insured Mall [] C.O.D. 4. Re~.tcted Delhm~j"t (Extra Fee) []yes 2' /~allcle Number 7009 2820 0002 5983 8799 PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-o2-M-fa4~ · Complete Rams 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Item g if Restricted Delivery Is desired. · Print your name and eddre~s on the reverse so that we can return the cad to you. · Attach this card to the back of the maJlplece; or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: Bruno and Alma Ilibassi PO Box 3504 New Hyde Park, NY 11040 ~y (P~nte~ Neme) [] Agent [] N:ldre~ee C, Date of Dai~very D. Isdellve~yaddmesdiffem~fmr~lternl? DYes ff YES, enter delivery address below: UNo E~ ~l~um R~caipt for Merchandise 4. Restricte~f-Daiive~ (Extra Fee) [] Yes 2. Article Number (Tmnsfe~ from sen4ce Iab~ PS Form 3811, February 2004 7009 2820 0002 5983 8805 Domestic Return Receipt · Complete Rems 1, 2, and 3. Also complete Rem 4 if Restfldted Delivery is desired. · Print ~;our name and address on the reverse ac that we can tatum the card to you. · Attach thit, Lard to the back of the mallplane, or on the front if space permits. 1. Afficle Addmesed to: Michael and Erin C. Warlan 100 Jay Street Apt. 21H Brooklyn, NY 1~.201 If YES, enter delivery address below:f [] ,No ~ 3. Sen~lee'lype [] Certified Mall I-I Express Mall [] Re~;o~,,,~ [] Return Reselpt for Mercflandlse [] Insured Mail [] C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery? ~ Fee) r'l Yes 2. Altlcle Num.ber ~-~a~-?,,:.,,~ 7009 2820 0002 5983 PS Form 3811, February 2~04 Domestic Return Receipt 8782 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD:NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of (Name of Applicant) AFFIDAVIT OF SIGN POSTING Regarding Posting of Sign upon COUNTY OF SUFFOLK) STATE OF NEW YORK) New York, being duly ewom, depose and say that: Onthe Jd'deyof ,20~Olpersonallyplaced the Town's official Poster, with the date of hearing and nature of my application · noted thereon, securely upon my property, located tan(lO) feat or closer from the street or right-of-way (driveway entrance) - facing the street or facing each street or right-of-way entrance;* and that I hereby confirm that the Poster has rejne, i.ned in place f_or ~,~ven days prior to the date of the subject headng dat~ be SWOrn to before me this day o~d. , 20Jl'O. {Note~ Public) CONNIE D BUNCH Not,ap] Public, Stete of New ~ork Oual~( ~0.~ B-U6,185050 *near the entrance or driveway entrance of my property, as the area most visible to passersby, Office Location: Town Annex/Fa'st Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 Mailing Address: 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 April 7, 2010 Mr. Thomas Isles, Director Suffolk County Depadment of Planning P.O. Box 6100 Hauppauge, NY 11788-0099 Dear Mr. isles: Please find enclosed the following application with related documents for review pursuant to Article XIV of the Suffolk County Administrative Code: ZBA File #~389 Action Requested: Within 500 feet of: Owner/Applicant: WREN Setback and lot coverage ( ) State or County Road (X) Waterway (Bay, Sound, or Estuary) ( ) Boundary of Existing or Proposed County, State, Federal land. (X) Boundary of Agricultural District ( ) Boundary of any Village or Town If any other information is needed, please do not hesitate to call us. Thank you. Very truly yours, Encls. Leslie K. Weisman ZBA Chairperson // BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio Gerard E Goehringer George Homing Ken Schneider http://southoldtown.north fork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 * Fax (631) 765-9064 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road o P.O. Box 1179 Southold, NY 11971-0959 Office Location: Town Annex/First Floor, Capital One Bank 54375 Main Road (at Youngs Avenue) Southold, NY 11971 December 6, 2010 Meryl Kramer, Architect P.O. Box 683 Greenport, NY 11944 Re: ZBA File#6389 - Wren Dear Ms. Kramer: Transmitted for your records is a copy of the Board's December 2, 2010 Findings, Deliberations and Determination, the original of which was filed with the Town Clerk regarding the above application for variances. Before commencing any construction activities, a building permit is necessary. Please be sure to submit an application along with a copy of this determination to the Building Department. If you have any questions, please call the office. Sinc~,erely( ~ r Vicki Toth Encl. Cc: Building Dept. WREN RESIDENCE - EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS ~" = 1'-0" 3-3-08 M E R Y L K R A M E R WREN RESIDENCE - EAST & WEST ELEVATIONS ~" = 'ILO" 3-3-08 M E R Y L K R A M E R 455 MAIN STREET PO. 80X 683 GREENPORT, NY li[944 1ST FLR ,,, BOTTOM OF EXIST CLG JOIST 2 WREN RESIDENCE - PARTIAL BUILDING SECTION 1/4" = 1'-0" 7-29-10 M E R Y L K R A M E R a r c h i t e c t 455 MAiN STREET P.O. BOX 6B3 GREENPORT, NY 11944 e31-477-B736 % EXISTING BUILDING COVERAGE DATA DESCRIPTION AREA X LOT COVERAGE EXIST, HOUSE 992 SCl. ft. 9.1~ EXIST. PORCH 286 sq. ft. 2.6% EXIST. GARAGE 584 sq. ff. 5.5~ TOTAL 1.662 sq. ft. 15.2~ PROPOSED BUILDING COVERAGE DATA DESCRIPTION AREA % LOT COVERAG EXIST. HOUSE 992 sq. ff. 9.1% PROP. ADDITION 1.246 sq. ff. 11.4% TOTAL 2.258 sq. ff. 20.5~ ?EST HOLE DATA HOLE DUG BY THIS OFFICE ON JANUARY 5. 2010) SURVEY OF LOT 2 BLOCK 7 MAP OF BEIXEDON ESTATES FILE No. 1472 FILED MARCH 16. 1946 $ITUATE SOUTHOLD TOWN OF $OUTHOLD SUFFOLK COUNTY, NEW YORK S.C. TAX No. 1000-66-02-52 SCALE 1"=50' MAY 16, 2007 FEBRUARY 24-. 2010 ADDED PROPOSED ADDITIONS AREA = 10.944 sq. ft. 0,251 (mc. 1. ELEVA]]ONS ARE REFERENCED TO AN ASSUMED DATUM EXISTING ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN THUS: JJY_J3 2. MINIMUM SEPTIC TANK CAPACITIES FOR 5-6 BEDROOM HOUSE IS 1.500 GALLONS. 1 TANK; 8' DIA.. 5' HIGH 5. MINIMUM LEACHING SYSTEM FOR 5-6 BEDROOM HOUSE IS 400 sq ff SIDEWALL AREA. 2 POOLS; 8' DEEP, 8' dia. 4. THE LOCATION OF WELLS AND CESSPOOLS SHOWN HEREON ARE FROM F1ELD OBSERVATIONS AND/OR DATA OBTAINED FROM OTHERS. 5. EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM STRUCTURES SHALL BE PUMPED CLEAN AND REMOVED IN ACCORDANCE WITH S.C.D.H.S. STANDARDS. 6. THIS PROPERTY IS IN FLOOD ZONE X FLOOD ZONE INFORMATION TAKEN FROM: FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP No. 56103C0158H ZONE X: AREA~ rJ~iEJ~MINED TO BE OUT~IDE THE 0.2~ ANNUAL CHANCE FLOOOPLAIN. PROPOSED FUTURE 50X EXPANSION POOL PROPOSED 8' DIA. X 8' DEEP LEACHING POOL PROPOSED 1.500 GALLOH SEPTIC TANK CE_RTIFIED TO: JOHN E. WREN RECEIVED SHARON WREN APR 6 ZOIO '~'d~B;5OA~D OF APPEALS Nathan 'r-'a-ft Z orwin III Land Surveyor flue Su~y~ - sa~vw~ - ~ut~ ~ - C(mstr~ tmout PHOE (6~1)727-2090 Fax (631)727-1727