The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6534 BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio, Jr. 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 11971 http://southoldtown.northfork.net ~ ~,~V~2} ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ~ '(~ I I' 39 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD *~ ~ t ' ~ Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-90~ ~B~ ~ : ~ ~012 F~GS, DELIBE~TIONS AND ~ET~mlNg~Otd Town ¢IerR- MEETING OF FEBRUARY 15~ 2011 ZBA FILE: 6534 NAME OF APPLICANT: Nicholas Gorgone SCTM~ 1000-76-2-30.1 PROPERTY LOCATION: 825 Smith Drive South (corner Te~ Place), Southold, NY 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 I1 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 January 12, 2012 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 DETERMINATION: 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 property is a non-conforming 15,000 sq. g. lot in a R-40 zone. It is improved with a one story dwelling and attached garage. It has 100.00 feet of frontage on Smith Drive South, 150.00 feet along the westerly property line, 100.00 feet along the northern property line and 150.00 feet of frontage on Terry Place as shown on the survey dated September 4, 2033 last revised Nov. 1,2011 prepared by Peconic Surveyors, PC. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variance from Article III Section 280-15 and Article XXIII Section 280- 124 and the Building Inspector's November 18, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for an accessory in-ground swimming pool at: 1) location other than the code required rear yard, 2) lot coverage more than the code required 20% maximum. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests variances to install an accessory in-ground swimming pool situated partially in the side yard where the code requires a rear yard location and for lot coverage of 24.3% where the code permits maximum lot coverage of 20%. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The subject property has a CO for the dwelling and the existing lot coverage is at 20.9%. The Board received two letters from neighbors opposing the variances requested and one of those neighbors testified at the Public Hearing in which he expressed concern over potential noise associated with the use of the proposed pool. At the hearing, the applicant was asked to bring the requested variances into more conformity with the code. On February 9, 2012, the agent for the applicant delivered a cover letter in which he proposed to reduce the size of the pool by two feet thereby eliminating the need for the side yard variance and to take measures to mitigate potential noise resulting from the pool use. He also provided documentation of two variances granted in the immediate neighborhood for excessive lot coverage: ZBA application # 6395 in which Page 2 of 3- Februmy 15, 2012 ZBA File#6534 - Gorgone relief was granted for 22% lot coverage for an addition to principal dwelling and ZBA application # 5816 which granted 23.3% lot coverage for a proposed in ground pool FiNDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on February 2, 2012 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 ofalternative reliefwill not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant's property is built out to the maximum lot coverage allowed. The swimming pool will be in the code required yard rear and not visible from either road. There is an in ground pool on the adjacent neighbor's property and there is precedent in the immediate neighborhood for non-conforming lot coverage for a swimming pool similar to what the applicant proposes as amended. 2. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(2}. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance for a side yard location. The applicant reduced the pool size to eliminate the side yard variance and by reducing the size of the swimming pool the excessive lot coverage will be less substantial. 3. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(3). The variance granted herein for the lot coverage is mathematically substantial, representing 19.5% relief from the code. However, the variance is mitigated by the amended application which proposes to reduce the lot coverage as applied for from 24.3% to 23.9% and eliminating the need for an additional variance by reducing the size of the swimming pool. 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 applicant proposes to install privacy fencing along the neighbor's lot lines and additional landscape buffering to screen the pool from view, and to mitigate noise by housing the pool mechanical equipment in a sound deadening enclosure. 5. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self-created. The applicant purchased this vacant lot and built his dwelling in its current location with the maximum lot coverage permitted. 6. Town Law §267,b. Grant of alternative relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an accessory in-ground swimming 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 (Chairperson), seconded by Member Dinizio, and duly carried, to DENY, as applied for, and GRANT ALTERNATIVE RELIEF as follows: 1. The swimming pool shall not be larger than 15' X 30' and shall be located in the code required rear yard. 2. All pool mechanicals shall be housed in a sound deadening enclosure. 3. Evergreen landscaping shall be planted between the swimming pool and the northern property line and continuously maintained. Page 3 of 3 - Februa~ 15, 2012 ZBA Fileg6534 - Gorgone CTM: 1000-76-2-30 1 4. The Lot coverage shall not exceed 23.9%. That the above conditions be written into the BuiMing Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued Before applvinl! for a building tJermit, the applicant or agent must submit to the Board of Appeals for approval and filing, two sets of the final survey, conforming to the alternative relief granted herein. The ZBA wi#forward one set of approved, stamped drawings to the Building Department. Failure to follow this procedure may result in the delay or denial ora building permit, and may require a new application and public hearing before the Zoning Board of Appeals'. Any deviation fi'om the variance(s) granted herein as shown on the architectural drawings, site plan and/or survey cited above, such as alterations, extensions, or demolitions, 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. ?ote of the Board: Ayes: Members Weisman (Chairperson), Schneider, Dinizio, Horning. Member Goehringer was absent, This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson Approved for filing 2~ //~ /2012