The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6503 BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio, Jr. Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ken Schneider Sot~thold 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 11971 hnp://southoldtown.northfork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATIO~,at~.~.~Z MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 15, 2011 6~ ' "W'~'~''' Town Clerk ZBA FILE: #6503 NAME OF APPLICANT: Michael Greenly Marketing Pension Plan PROPERTY LOCATION: 1210 Cedar Birch Rd., Orient, NY SCTM#1000-20-3-12.1 SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this review falls under the Type II category of the State's List of Actions, without 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 August 4, 2011 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: The variance relief requested in this application is listed under the Minor Actions exempt list and is not subject to review under Chapter 268. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION' Subject property is a vacant lot consisting of 44,341 square feet. It has 270.00 feet of frontage on Cedar Birch Road, 158.50 feet on the south property line, 321.22 feet on the west property line and 150.00 on the north property line as shown on the survey dated July 23, 2010 prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin, III, LS. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variance under Article II Section 280-9 and the Building Inspector's July 6, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for Lot Recognition, which states "the identical lot was created by deed recorded in the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on or before June 30, 1983 and the lot conformed to the minimum lot size set forth in Bulk Schedule AA as of date of lot creation." 1) Lot depth is less than the required 175 feet. RELIEF REQUESTED: Applicant is requesting lot recognition with a lot depth of 158.50 feet where the code requires 175 feet. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: According to the attomey for the applicant, the entire area on the west side of this private road with the exception of this lot are improved and share the same or similar depth as the subject parcel. Also, it was clearly stated at the hearing, that the surrounding lots were merely deeded Page 2 of 3 September 15, 2011 ZBA File#6503 - Greenly SCTM# 1000-20-3-12.1 out many years past, without regard of the non-conforming depth of the parcel, which was not required at that time. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on September 1, 2011 at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and surrounding neighborhood, 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)(1}. Grant of the variance of will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The lot is similar in size to the majority of properties in the area. The property was shown on a 1977 property tax map in the same configuration as it exists today. An adjoining property received a variance for lot depth on 150 feet in 1983. Of the seven lots on the same side of the road, none of them conform to the 175 foot lot depth, this is the only unimproved lot on this side of the road. 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. This lot was created by deed and the adjoining property is improved as are the properties adjoining to the rear. There is no oppommity for this applicant to purchase additional acreage. 3. Town Law §267-b(3}{b)(3}. The variance granted herein is not substantial. It conforms to the existing neighborhood. The variance requested represents a 14% relieffrom the code. 4. 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. All improvements will conform with current requirements. 5. Town Law §267-b(3)(b}(5). The difficulty has not been self-created. The applicant purchased the parcel by deed on March 24, 1995 from Braddick/Braddick. On November 28, 1995, the Town passed Code 280-9, which no longer recognized the subject lot. 6. 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 a building lot, 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 Schneider, and duly carried, to GRANT~ the variance as applied for, and shown on the survey dated July 23, 2010 prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin, III, LS. Any deviation from the survey, site plan and/or architectural drawings cited in this decision will result in delays and/or a possible denial by the Building Department of a building permit, and may require a new application and public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals. 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 properly that may violate the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Page 3 of 3 - September 15~ 201 ! ZBA File#6503 - Greenly SCTM#1000-20-3-12.1 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. l/ore of the Board: Ayes: Members Weisman (Chairperson), Horning, Schneider. Goehringer. (Absent was: Member Dinizio) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Approved forfiling 7/°~°a /2011