The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6502 BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio, Jn Gerard iZ 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 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net RECEIVED ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS q" ~ c~'-51 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD NOLY 9 2011..- o. Tel. (631) 765-1809o Fax (631) 765-9064 ~~. ~_ffe2~/ff~, FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETE~I~TION MEETING OF NOVEMBER 3, 2011 aouthold Town Clerk ZBA FILE: 6502 NAME OF APPLICANT: Thomas R. & Wendy L. Carley PROPERTY LOCATION: 350 Wampum Way (Tepee Trail), Southold, NY SCTM# 1000-87-2-29 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 2, 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 relief, permit, or interpretation 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 parcel is improved with a single family dwelling, it contains 22,179.76 sq. ft. It has 130.29 feet on the north property line, 195.08 feet along Teepee Trail, 105.65 feet on the radius and 213.14 feet on Wampum way as shown on the survey dated July 7, 2006 prepared by Nathan Taft Corwin, II1, LS. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variance from Code Article XXIII Section 280-124 and the Building Inspector's July 8, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for additions to a single family dwelling at: 1) less than the code required front yard setback of 40 feet, 2) less than the code required rear yard setback of 50 feet. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant is proposing additions and alterations to the existing dwelling with a front yard setback of 22 feet where the code requires 40 feet and a rear yard setback of 31.3 feet where the code requires 50 feet. The proposed additions consist of a 227.87 sq. ft. enclosed porch and a 135 sq. ft. deck at grade. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The applicant received a variance from the Board of Appeals in 2008 for an open porch entrance addition with a front yard setback of 28.2 feet FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application October 6, 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: Page 2 of~- November 3,2011 ZBA File#6502 - Carley CTM: 1000-87-2-29 1. Town Law l~267-b{3)(b)(1). Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The subject parcel contains three front yards and the dwelling has existing in its location on the property since 1972. The proposed construction is in keeping with the neighborhood. 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. The existing house is located in a non-conforming location with three front yards any addition would require a variance. 3. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(3). The variances granted herein are substantial. The front yard setback request represents 45% relief and the rear yard setback represents 38% relief from the code. However, it is not substantial when considering that the current non-conforming rear yard setback is 31.3 ft where 31.8 ft is being proposed and the current front yard setback is 34 ~ where 22 ft is being proposed. 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. The subject property is relatively flat with no drainage issues 5. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self-created. The applicant purchased the parcel after the Zoning Code was in effect and it is presumed that the applicant had actual or constructive knowledge of the limitations on the use of the parcel under the Zoning Code in effect prior to or at the time of purchase. 6. Town Law §267-b. Grant of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of alterations and additions to existing dwelling 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 Weisman (Chairperson), and duly carried to, GRANT., the variance as applied for, and shown on the site plan dated 7/1/11 prepared by Robert Bassolino, Architect. 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 ora 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 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, Dinizio, Horning. (Absent was: Member Schneider) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Approved for filing /[ / ~7/201 l /