HomeMy WebLinkAbout6578 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
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN
OF
SOUTHOLD
Tel. (631) 765-1809 · Fax (631) 765-9064 CT$ 2 3 2u ~'~'
FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION$;:h~oI;~;'~
MEETING OF OCTOBER 18, 2012
ZBA FILE: 6578
NAME OF APPLICANT: Alan Fidellow SCTM# 1000-128-6-1
PROPERTY LOCATION: 4030 Great Peconic Bay Blvd., (adj. to Great Peconic Bay) Laurel, 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 June 19, 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 June 22, 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 EXEMPT from Coastal Consistency Review.
The proposed new septic system is recommended as CONSISTENT with LWRP policy standards and therefore is
CONSISTENT with the LWRP.
PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: Subject property is improved with a one and a half story dwelling with
attached deck, an accessory structure, shed and a framed bath house. It has 108.10 feet on Great Peconic Bay
Blvd., 535.69 feet along the eastern property line, 118.57 feet on Great Peconic Bay and 551.46 feet along the
western property line as shown on the survey dated August 16, 2011 last revised August 14, 2012 prepared by John
T. Metzger, LLS.
BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for Variances from Article XXII Code Section 280-116(B) and Article IV
Section 280-18 based on an application for building permit and the Building Inspector's February 17, 2012,
amended August 16, 2012 Notice of Disapproval for partial demolition, reconstruction and addition to single
family dwelling, at; 1) less than the code required bulkhead setback of 75 feet, 2) less than the minimum side yard
setback of 15 feet, 3) less than the combined total side yards of 35 feet.
RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests variances to partially demolish, reconstruct and add a second floor
addition to the existing dwelling with a bulkhead setback of 30 feet to the as built deck where the code requires 75
feet, a single side yard of 5.7 feet and a combined side yard of 20.16 feet where the code requires 15 feet minimum
side yard and combined side yards of 35 feet.
Page 2 of 3 - October 18, 2012
ZBA File#6578 - Fidellow
CTM 1000-128-6-1
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: At the hearing on July 5, 2012 the Building Inspector was asked to clarify if
this application was a total demolition and reconstruction or a partial demolition, and to address the history of the
as built seaward deck and its setback from the bulkhead. The applicants were also asked about these two issues.
The Board requested an Amended Notice of Disapproval be obtained stating that the permit requested was for a
"partial demolition, reconstruction and addition" and citing the bulkhead setback from the rebuilt deck in addition
to the setback of the dwelling from the bulkhead. Based upon the amended 8/16/2012 Notice of Disapproval the
Board decided, by unanimous vote, to reopen the Public Hearing.. The Board received a letter dated October 1,
2012 from Joseph Fischetti P.E. explaining that the additional weight of the proposed second story addition will
have no adverse impact to the existing upper and lower bulkheads on the subject property. The Board also received
a letter dated August 2, 2012 from Donald G. Feiler, RA stating the soundness of the existing foundation
and first floor to support the proposed second floor addition.
AMENDED APPLICATION: During the first hearing, the applicant was asked to address the "as built" seaward
deck, which is closer to the bulkhead than the existing dwelling, and the extent of the proposed demolition. On
September 4, 2012, the Board received an Amended Notice of Disapproval dated 8/16/12 stating the setback of the
as built deck to the bulkhead as approximately 30 feet and the permit applied for as a "partial demolition,
reconstruction and addition".
FINDiNGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION:
The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on July 5, 2012 and October 4, 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, provided that the proposed first floor renovation and new
second floor addition can be accomplished without the need for a new foundation, demolition of the first floor, or
land disturbance to the bluff area. The Board recognizes that most of the dwellings along this section of the bluff
do not have conforming bulkhead setbacks. However, the applicant's dwelling is one of only two that is located
entirely within the 75 foot required bulkhead setback and, should a new foundation or first floor demolition be
required once construction commences, then the applicant must mposition their dwelling with a greater bulkhead
and side yard setbacks to better conform to the character of the neighborhood and the code requirements.
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 area variances, as applied for. However, should demolition be necessary, the
applicant can create a greater setback from the bulkhead, as well as more conforming side yard setbacks.
3. Town Law §267-b{3){b}{3). The variances granted herein are mathematically substantial, representing 51%
relief from present code requirements for the existing dwelling setback. Additionally, the single side yard setback
at 5.7 feet represents a 62% relief from the code and the non-conforming total side yards at 20.16 feet, represents
42% relief from the code. The bulkhead setback to the rebuilt deck of 30 feet represents an approximately 60%
reduction in code requirements. However, the location of the as built deck and existing footprint of the dwelling
will be maintained and both have existed in their present non-conforming locations since the 1950's.
4. Town Law §267-b{3)(b)(4} While significant evidence was not submitted to suggest that the variances as
applied for will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, the Board
recognizes that when demolition and new construction takes place on parcels fronting on the Great Peconic Bay,
greater conformance to the code by increasing the setbacks of dwellings from the bulkhead is essential to the
protection of both private property and the bluff. The applicant must comply with Chapter 236 of the Town's
Storm Water Management Code.
Page3of3 October 18,2012
ZBA File#6578 - Fidellow
5. Town Law §267-b(3)(b)(5). The difficulty has been self-created. The applicant's family 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 requested relief is the minimum action necessary to enable the applicant to
enjoy the benefit of a reconstructed existing home with new second story, provided that the first story can be
reconstructed in place and in kind without demolition, 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
GRANT: the variances as applied for as shown on the survey by Peconic Surveyors dated August 30, 2012, and
building plans, titled "existing conditions at the Fidellow residence" dated July 24, 2012, revised August 2, 2012
and the "as built deck plan" dated 9/4/2012 prepared by Donald G. Feiler, Architect.
CONDITIONS:
1. The applicant or their builder/agent must call the Building Department to schedule a mandatory inspection by the
Building Inspector once the existing roof and second floor system have been removed, and prior to any further
construction, to ensure that the existing foundation and first floor of the dwelling are able to sustain the load of the
proposed second story addition, as applied for.
2. Upon inspection as per condition number 1, if the Building Inspector determines that additional demolition and
re-construction/construction beyond the scope of this decision is necessary, a Stop Work Order must be issued and
the applicant must return to the Board of Appeals for further consideration as to whether they may leave the
dwelling in its present location or be required to move the dwelling to a location with more conforming bulkhead
and side yard setbacks.
3. The deck shall remain open to the sky.
That the above conditions be wrilten into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued.
.4 ny 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 aa' 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
jkature 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.
Fore of the Board Ayes' Members Weisman (Chairperson), Dinizio, Schneider, Homing. Absent was: Member Goehringer
This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0).
Leslie Kanes Weisman, Chairperson
Approved for filing / /2012