The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6523 BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio, Jr. Gerard E Goehringer George Homing Ken Schneider Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · RO. 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 ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809o Fax (631) 765-9064 FINDINGS, DELIBE~TIONS AND DETE~INATION MEETING OF DECEMBER 15,2011 ZBA FILE: 6523 NAME OF APPLICANT: Barbara Davy and Elizabeth Fan:ell CTM: 1000-42-1-2 PROPERTY LOCATION: 620 (aka 200) West St. (comer Madison Ave.), Greenport, NY SEQRA DETERMINATION: The Zoning Board of Appeals has visited the property under consideration in this application and determines that this Nview 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 Nov. 16, 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 Nview under Chapter 268. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION.' The Applicants' property is a 18,498 sq. ft. parcel in the R-40 Zone. The northerly lot line measures 123.32 feet. The easterly lot line measures 150 feet along Madison Ave. The southerly lot line measures 123.32 feet along West St. The westerly lot line measures 150 feet. The property is improved with a single family dwelling, an in ground pool, and an accessory shed, as shown on the site survey drawn by John C. Ehlers, Land Surveyor, last revised July, 18, 201 lto show the location of the "as built" nonconforming sections of stockade fencing cited in the Bldg. Dept. Oct. 21,2011 Notice of Disapproval. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variance from Article XXII Code Section 280~105 and the Building Inspector's October 21,2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for an "as built" fence, at; 1) mom than the code required maximum height of four (4) feet when located in the front yard. RELIEF REQUESTED: The Applicant proposes to construct an "as built" 6 foot high stockade fence in a from yard area, when Code specifies that a fence located in a front yard shall not exceed four feet in height, therefore the Applicant requests a variance for fence height that is two feet taller than that allowed by Code. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The owners of the property recently replaced sections of stockade fencing in front yard areas similar in height and kind to the sections that had existed on this parcel for a number of years, since before the current owners purchased the property in 2001. The property has two front yards along the well travelled, and busy intersection of Madison Ave. and West St. The owners maintain that the purpose of the six foot high fencing, in addition to providing for the fencing required to surround an in ground pool, is to provide a degree of privacy not obtainable with a four foot high fence which is permitted by Code in front yard areas. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: Page 2 of 3 December 15, 2011 ZBA File#6523 Davy/Farrell CTM: 1000-42-1-2 The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on December 1,201 l, at which time written and oral evidence were presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, an assessment of the character of the neighborhood, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be tree 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. A similar stockade fence existed in front yard areas of this property for numerous years with no objections from any neighbors. The approximately 48 feet length of six foot high stockade fencing along West St. is setback about 70 feet from that front property line. The fencing, and the approximately 80 feet of six foot high stockade fencing along Madison Ave. are located in the functional side yard and rear yard areas of this property, in relation to the front entrance located on West St., and such fencing would be considered legally permitted by Code where it was built, if the property had only one designated front yard. 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 Code permitted fence height of four feet in a front yard area does not provide the same degree of privacy and screening for their swimming pool from within view of a busy street, as is offered by a six foot high fence. 3. Town Law ~267-b(3)(b)(3). The variance granted herein is mathematically substantial. However, it's mitigated by the fact that it replaced an identical fence of the same height that had been in place for many years. 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. No trees were cut, and no grading of land was necessary when the replacement fencing was constructed. 5. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self-created because, although similar fencing had existed in its place for many years, the Applicants did purchase the pamel after the Zoning Code was in affect, and it is presumed that the Applicants had actual or constructive knowledge of the limitations on the use of the parcel under 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 to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of the privacy for a swimming pool that is provided by a six-foot high stockade fence, 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 Homing, seconded by Member Weisman (Chairperson), and duly carried, to GRANT, the variance as applied for, and shown on the site survey drawn by John C. Ehlers, Land Surveyor, last revised July, 18, 201 lto show the location of the "as built" nonconforming sections of stockade fencing cited in the Bldg. Dept. Oct. 2l, 2011 Notice of Disapproval. 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 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. Page 3 of 3 December 15, 2011 ZBA File#6523 - Davy/Farrell CTM: 1000-42-1-2 Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Weisman (Chairperson), Goehringer, Dinizio, Horning, Schneider. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). Leslie' Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Approved for filing /,~2.//~ /2011