HomeMy WebLinkAbout6539 BOARD MEMBERS
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
James Dinizio, Jr.
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 SOUTHOLD
Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064
RE ,EWED
lO'.
IAR 2 2 2012
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATI(/~~I
MEETING OF MARCH 15, 2012 - t athold Town
ZBA FILE: 6539
NAME OF APPLICANT: Robert V. Longo
PROPERTY LOCATION: 220 Sound Avenue (adj. to Long Island Sound), Peconic, NY
SCTM: 1000-67-1-8
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 January 24, 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 Feb. 28, 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 INCONSISTENT with LWRP policy standards
and therefore is INCONSISTENT with the LWRP. Although the proposed action is INCONSISTENT with LWRP
Policy Standards, the LWRP Memorandum states "Maintaining existing development structures in hazard areas
may be warranted for: (d) sites where relocation of an existing structure is not practical." In recognition of the fact
that the applicant proposes to reconstruct an existing single family dwelling located in a well-established sound
side neighborhood, albeit on a parcel and in a neighborhood bisected by the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line, the
LWRP Coordinator also states "The "as built" residential structure does not functionally require a location on the
coast and is not water dependent. Although due to lot size, configuration, and area of unbuildable lands located on
the lot, the relocation of the structure is not feasible."
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The Applicant's property is a 21,023 sq. ft. waterfront pamel in the R-40
Zone. The northerly lot line measures 51.48 feet along Long Island Sound. The easterly lot line measures 426.57
ft. along an adjacent residential property. The southerly lot line measures 50 ft. along Sound Ave., and the westerly
lot line measures 414.34 ft. along other adjacent residential property. A large portion of the parcel is seaward of
the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line (CEHL) leaving 4350 sq. ft. of buildable land. The parcel is improved with a
single family dwelling, as shown on the site survey drawn by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., dated May 26, 2011, and
revised Dec. 20, 2011 to show the existing lot coverage of 53% of the total buildable land.
Page 2 of 3 - March 15, 2012
ZBA File#6539 - Longo
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Article XXIll Section 280-124 and the Building
Inspector's December 29, 2011 Notice of Disapproval based on an application for building permit for "as built"
demolition and re-construction of a new single family dwelling at: 1) less than the code-required front yard setback
of 40 feet, 2) less than the code-required minimum side yard setback of 15 feet; 3) less than the code mquimd
combined side yard setbacks of 35 feet; 4) more than the code permitted maximum lot coverage of 20%.
RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests variances to make proposed alterations and additions to the
existing single family dwelling. Although all such proposed construction will occur within the existing footprint of
the non-conforming structure, the overall extent of the proposed construction has been determined to be a
demolition, and m-construction of the building. The applicant requests a variance 1.) for a front yard setback of
25.3 feet, where 40 feet is required by Town Code, 2.) a variance for a single side yard setback of 6.7 feet, where
15 feet is required, 3.) a variance for a combined side yard setback of 15.7 feet, where 35 feet is required, and 4.)
a variance for a lot coverage of 53% of total buildable area, where 20% is allowed by Code.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The file contains a letter from the adjacent easterly neighbor, dated Feb. 23,
2012, expressing support for the applicant's proposed construction. The applicant was asked to bring the plan into
more conformity with the code. On March 7, 2012 the Board received a revised survey showing a reduction in the
lot coverage from the requested 53% to 44% by removing some decking and shed~
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 variances will not produce an undesirable change in the character of
the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The applicant proposes the reconstruction of an existing
single family dwelling on the existing building footprint. The applicant's parcel is situated in a well established,
and fully developed sound side residential neighborhood consisting of 25-30 single family dwellings, that are
almost entirely located on parcels which are characterized by long, narrow rectangular lots very similar to the
applicants parcel. A significant number of the principal structures in the overall neighborhood do appear to have
nonconforming front yard and side yard setbacks, and although the actual number of nonconforming residences has
not been determined, it is reasonable to note that these nonconformities are characteristic of the neighborhood. The
10 improved parcels immediately adjacent to the waters of Long Island Sound, including the applicant's parcel, all
appear to be constrained to some extent in buildable areas by the transecting of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line
(CEHL) through these waterfront properties. Therefore it would not be unusual for these developed properties to
have excessive, existing lot coverage, because the CEHL reduces the buildable area on each affected parcel.
2. Town Law §267-b(3){b){2). The benefit sought by the applicant or cannot be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than area variances. The proposed reconstruction on the building
footprint of the existing nonconforming structure can not proceed without the requested front yard and side yard
variances. Nor can the reconstruction proceed without a variance for lot coverage, since the existing structure
exceeds the Code allowed lot coverage because of the location of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line.
3. Town Law §267-bO)(b)(3). The variances granted herein are mathematically substantial. The existing, and
proposed 25.3 ti. front yard setback is +34% relief from Code required 40 fi. The existing, and proposed 6.7 fi.
single side yard setback is +55% relief from Code required 15 fi. The existing, and proposed 15.7 fi. combined
side yard setback is +55% relief from Code required 35 fi. The existing, and proposed 53% lot coverage is 62%
relief from Code allowed 20% lot coverage because the CEHL reduces the 21,023 sq. ft. parcel to 4350 sq. Ii. of
Page 3 of 3- March 15, 2012
ZBA File#6539 - Longo
CTM: 1000-6%1-8
buildable area. As a result of the CEHL, of the eight other similarly developed existing homes along Sound
Avenue, six exceed the code permitted lot coverage, two of which exceed the amended lot coverage of 44%
proposed by the applicant (SCTM 67-1-5 at 46% and SCTM 67-1-7 at 58%). Moreover, all proposed
reconstruction will be within the existing nonconforming building foot print.
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 will not build seaward of the Coastal Erosion Hazard Line, and will provide on site storm water
containment as required by Code.
5. Town Law ~267-b(3}{b)(5). The difficulty has not been self-created but is related to the pre-existing,
nonconforming status of the structure on this property, and to the close proximity of the CEHL which greatly
reduces the total buildable area of the property.
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 a newly reconstructed single family 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 Homing, seconded by Member Goehringer, and duly
carried, to;
GRANT., the variances as applied for as to the front yard, minimum and total side yard setbacks, and shown on the
survey drawn by Peconic Surveyors, and dated May 26, 2011, last revised March 2, 2012 showing the percent of
existing and proposed total lot coverage after the construction is completed.
DENY~ the lot coverage request of 53% and;
GRANT ALTERATIVE RELIEF~ for lot coverage of 44% maximum as shown on the survey drawn by Peconic
Surveyors, and dated May 26, 2011, last revised March 2, 2012 showing the percent of existing and proposed total
lot coverage after the construction is completed.
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, setbacl~ 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
nonconformiO;.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Weisman (Chairperson), Goehringer, Schneider, Dinizio, Horning.
This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0)
Lesfle Kanes '~Yeism~'n, Chairperson
Approved for filing ,_~ /o~d /2012