The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6538 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.north fork.net ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOVVN OF SOUTHOLD Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 ,:l. : Oj MAR 2 2 2012 FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINA~~.. t~. ~ MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 4Southold Town Ci~rk ZBA FILE: 6538 NAME OF APPLICANT: 9105 Skunk Lane, LLC SCTM#1000-104-3-18.1 PROPERTY LOCATION: 9105 Skunk Lane (adj. to Little Creek and Dredged Canal) Cutchogue, 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 11 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: 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 January 30, 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 property is a vacant lot containing 78,729 sq. ft. with 40,442 sq. ft. of buildable area and is conforming in the R-40 Zone District. It has I00.00 feet of frontage on Bay Avenue, 587.33 feet along the west property line, 294.22 feet on Little Creek (dredged canal) and 402.00 on the east property line as shown on the site plan prepared by Mark Schwartz and Assoc., Architect dated January 18, 2012. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Article III Code Section 280-13(C)4(b), Section 280- 15(F) and Article XXII 280-105A, and the Building Inspector's December 20, 2011, amended January 19, 2012 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit to build a tennis court with fence surround on a vacant lot, at: 1) use of a tennis court is not permitted on a vacant lot (without a principal dwelling), 2) accessory structures at less than the code required principal setback of 50 feet, 3) tennis court fence at more than the code permitted maximum height of 4 feet in a front yard. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests variances to construct an accessory tennis court on a vacant parcel, where the code requires that accessory uses be incidental to a principal dwelling; a front yard setback 30 feet from the road where the code requires accessory structures located in a front yard to meet the principal setback which is 50 feet on the subject parcel; and a fence height requested of 6.5 feet in the front yard where the code allows a maximum fence height of four feet in a front yard. Page 2 of 3 - March 15, 2012 ZBA File#6538 -9105 Skunk Lane, LLC CTM: 1000-104-3-18.1 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: A public hearing was held on the proposed accessory tennis court on the subject parcel on February 2, 2012. At that time the applicant requested two variances (construction of an accessory structure on a vacant lot and non-conforming fence height). The hearing was adjourned to March l, 2012 at the agent's request at which time the agent for the applicant submitted an amended Notice of Disapproval requesting a third variance for a non-conforming front yard setback to accommodate the driveway design/location proposed in the applicant's landscape plan. The applicant owns three adjoining properties, two of which contain principal dwellings. The undeveloped subject parcel is located between the applicant's two developed lots. At the March hearing, the agent was asked to bring the plan into conformity with the code by merging the subject property with either one of the applicant's residentially developed lots. The agent stated that this was not what the applicant wanted to do because they may wish to construct a dwelling on the vacant subject parcel in the future. When asked about creating code conformity by relocating the tennis court to either one of the applicant's adjoining residentially developed properties, the agent stated that the only acceptable location from the applicant's point of view is the location being proposed.. FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on February 2, 2012 and 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 variances will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The granting of an accessory structure (tennis court) on this vacant land would be setting a precedent that violates Town Code Section 280-15(F), which mandates no accessory structures are permitted without a principal dwelling. 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 is the owner of the adjoining properties on both sides of this vacant lot and could locate the accessory tennis court on either parcel. Additionally the applicant could merge the vacant lot with either adjoining pamel and not violate the Town Code. 3. Town Law 1~267-b(3)(b)(3). The variances requested herein are mathematically substantial, representing 100% relief from the code regarding an accessory tennis court on vacant land; 40 % relief for the proposed front yard setback; and 62.5% relief for the proposed fence height. The Board finds that these substantial requested variances are not justifiable when the applicant can build a tennis court that can conform to the code by either lot merger, re- location, or the construction ora principal dwelling on the subject parcel.. 4. Town Law §267-b{3)(b)(4) Evidence has been submitted to suggest that the proposed variances in this residential community will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood because of their substantial non-conformity from the code which is contrary to what the Board can reasonably grant without setting an undesirable precedent within the town. 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 purehase. 6. Town Law §267-b. Denial of the requested relief is the minimum action necessary and adequate to preserve and protect 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 Page 3 of 3 - March 15, 2012 ZBA File#6538 9105 Skunk Lane, LLC CTM: 1000-104-3-18.1 DENY~ as applied for. 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 right to substitute a similar design that is de minimis in nature for an alteration that does not increase the degree of nonconformity. l~ote of the Board: Ayes: Members Weisman (Chairperson), Goehringer, Schneider, Dinizio, Homing. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). £ Leslie Kanes Weisman', Chairperson Approved for filing ~/40 /2012