The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6542 BOARD MEMBERS Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson James Dinizio, Jn Gerard P. Goehringer George Homing Ken Schneider Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road · EO. 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 SOUTItOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 FINDINGS, DELIBERA TI ON S AND DETE RiVIlNA~t~ MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 ,~outl RE.CEIVED _ rid Town cl'erk ZBA FILE: 6542 NAME OF APPLICANT: Patricia Mele and Cheryl Christiano SCTM#1000-115-12-16 PROPERTY LOCATION: 1200 (aka 1140) Deep Hole Drive (adj. to Deep Hole Creek) Mattituck, 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 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 February 28, 2102 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: This application was referred for review under Chapter 268, Waterfront Consistency review of the Town of Southold Town Code and the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program (LWRP) Policy Standards. The LWRP Coordinator issued a recommendation dated February 27, 2012. 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. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Subject parcel is improved with a one and a half story single family dwelling on a non-conforming lot located in the R-40 zone district. It has 50.00 feet of frontage on Deep Hole Drive, 250.00 feet along the south property line, 50.25 feet on Deep Hole Creek, and 245.00 feet along the north property line as shown on the survey dated November 20, 2011 prepared by Kenneth M. Woychuk, L.S. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Article XXIII Section 280-124 and Article XXII Section 280-116 and the Building Inspector's January 6, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for demolition and reconstruction, including first floor additions and new second story at:: 1) less than the code required minimum side yard setback of 10 feet; 2) less than the code required combined side yard setbacks of 25 feet; 3) less than the code required minimum bulkhead setback of 75 feet. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests variances for demolition and reconstruction of their dwelling requiring minimum and total side yard setbacks of 9.7' and 19.5' where the code requires a minimum of I0 feet and total combined of 25 feet. Additionally they are asking for relief of 68.7' setback from the bulkhead where the code requires a bulkhead setback of 75 feet. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: During the hearing, the applicant was asked to bring the plan into more conformity with the code. On March 5, 2012, the applicant submitted a plan increasing the single side yard Page 2 of 3 - March 15, 2012 ZBA File#6542 - Mele/Christiano setback to a conforming 10 feet with a total side yard of 20.1 feet. Additionally the applicant's agent submitted the Suffolk County Health Department setback standards for septic tanks to a slab foundation and the amended plans conform to those requirements. FiNDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 1, 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 of the amended variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Many of the homes on the road are situated on non-conforming lots and have undergone considerable renovations. The requested amended setbacks are similar to other homes located on the waterfront. 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. The applicant was asked to bring the requests into more conformity with the code. The amended plans reduced the side yard requests to a minimum side yard conforming to code and a total side yard of 20.1. The change on the water side of the dwelling will be a second story deck over a larger porch which is maintaining the current setback that has existed on this property since prior to zoning. 3. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(3). The variance granted for the total side yard setback herein is mathematically substantial, representing 20% relief from the code. The variance granted for the bulkhead setback herein is not mathematically substantial, representing 8% relief from the code. However, the applicant reduced the number of variances requested by conforming to the code for the minimum side yard setback. Additionally, the septic system was updated two years ago and in order to conform to the total side yard setback the septic system would have to be relocated thus incurring a costly expense to the property owner. 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. 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 amended application is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicant to enjoy the benefit of an updated larger dwelling with attached garage 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 bulkhead setback as applied for; and shown on the revised plan dated last revised 3/5/12, prepared by Natalie Niemann, R.A. noted as pages S-1, A-1 through A-4. DENY the side yard setbacks as applied for and GRANT ALTERNATIVE RELIEF as follows: the minimum side yard setback shall be conforming and the total side yard setbacks shall be 20.1 feet as shown on the revised plan dated last revised 3/5/12, prepared by Natalie Niemann, R.A. noted as pages S-l, A-1 through A-4. Page 3 of 3- March 15, 2012 ZBA File#6542 - Mele/Christiano CTM: 1000-115-12-16 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(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 rightto 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 Wetsman (Chairperson), Goehringer, Schneider, Dinizio, Horning. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0~. Approved forfiling 3 /.~t9 /2012