Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-03/28/2002 SPECAppEAI~S BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. G0ehringerl Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Oilando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING THURSDAY, MARCH 28, 2002 Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.nor thfork.net A Special Meeting of the SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD OF APPEALS was held at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971, on Thursday, March 28, 2002 commencing at 6:45 p.m. Present were: Gerard P. Goehrlnger, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora, Member Ruth D. Oliva, Member Vincent Orlando, Member. Also present from the office staff was Board Secretary Linda Kowalski. Absent was: George Homing, Member 6:45 p.m. Chairman Gerard P. Goehrlnger called the meeting to order. AGENDA ITEM I: STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY {SEQRA) REVIEW/RESOLUTION. (None). The Board proceeded with the first item on the Agenda (Item It), as follows II. DELIBERATIONS/DECISIONS: The Board deliberated on the following applications. Please see official Findings, Deliberations and Decision, with the Board's Action incorporated into these Minutes as though fully written and set forth herein; the originals have been filed with the Office of the Town Clerk. Copies of the official determinations, as filed, are attached to this set of Minutes: Denial with Grant of Alternative Relief with Condition(s): iAppl. No. 5104- MARTIN KOSMYNKA. An addition with in-ground swimming pool. 1985 Pine Tree Road, Cutchogue; 98-1-11.2. Appl. No. 5074 - CYRIL LUKEMAN, JR., et al. Application to replace an existing nonconforming habitable accessory building (studio/shop) which will have an insufficient rear yard setback and lot coverage at 22+- percent, also construction is arranged, intended or designed to be used, in whole or in part, as a one-family dwelling, and not more than one dwelling is permitted at 550 Village Lane, Orient; Parcel 25-1-10. Appl. No. 5034 - RUST FAMILY PARTNERSHIP. Page 2 Minutes March 28, 2002 Special Meet~g Southold Town Board of Appeals Approvals with Condition(s): Appl. No~ 5073 -JOHN AND CATHERINE McDONALD. Garage location. 1235 W~nneweta Road, Cutchogue. Appl, No, 5076 --NEVIO and OLGA BLASKOVIC. Front yard at less than 35 feet from the right~of'way'~ to the southwest of the property and rear yard setback at less than 35 feet. 580 Willbw Point Road, Southold; 56-5~29; Lot 26, Map (~f Willow Point. Approval without Conditions: Appl. No. 5080 ? THOMAS FITZPATRICK. Dwelling with a front yard setback at less than ti~ Code requirement of 50 feet, at 1030 C earv ew Avenue, Southo d; Parce 89-3-11.3. Reversal of Decision issued by the BuildinCl Department: Appl. No. 5079 - FRANK and ELIZABETH MURPHY. Second kitchen with one-family use status; additiOn with front yard variance relief, at 600 Bayer Road, Mattituck; 139-3-18.1. (No other determinations were rendered at this time.) II1. PUBLIC HEARINGS: The Board opened and held each of the following hearings: 7:05 p.m. Appl. No. 4962 - ROGER J. and LESLIE WALZ. This is a request for a Variance under Article XXIV, Section 100-242A, based on the Building Inspector's May 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval regarding the proposed second-story addition to existing dwelling. The reason stated in the Notice of Disapproval states that the existing structure has a nonconforming setback of less than 10 feet and 15 feet on the side yards, and as a result, the addition of the second-story represents an increase in the degree of nonconformity. 2505 Old Orchard Road, East Marion; 37-6-5. (Previous hearing was concluded on November 29, 2001, and reopened at the request of applicants for further discussion regarding need for variance.) Eric J. Bressler, Esq. and the applicants, Mr. Roger Walz and Mrs. Leslie Walz, spoke in support of their application. Opposing the application was Mr. Ralph Marti n, with Mrs. Martin, who was also present. (Please see written transcript of statements, prepared separately, for actual hearing discussions.) After receiving testimony, motion was offered by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Orlande, and duly carried, to close the hearing. This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). (Member Horning of Fishers Island was absent and excused.) Page 3 - Minutes March 28. 2002 Special Meetiog Southold Town Board of Appeals III. PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued: 7:5! p.m. AppL No. 5058 - PETER & VAL LEONIAK -(Hearing continued from February 28, 2~102) This is ~ request for Variances under Zoning Code Sect o~s 100-30A.3 and 100-31 based on the Building Inspector'S November 29, 2001 Amended Notice of Disapproval. The appl cant proposes Par~ls I and 2~ each with less than 40,000 sq. ft. in size. Pa~;cel #1 will also contain les~ than i25 ft. of lot width (frontage), and includes the existing accessory garage on a lot, presently vacant and without a principal use. Location: 2040 P ne Tree Road, Cutchogue; 1000- 98-1-15, !6 and 17 (approx. 1.5 acres as exists). William Goggins, Esq. spoke in behalf of the applicant, Mrs. Le~ni~k, who Was also present. Opposing the applicaiion were Abigai A Wickham ,lient, Dr. Thomas Cottral. (Please see written transcript of statements, discussions.) A question was raised byMr. Goggins as s were not included in the merger, and he was .re-directed to the · ' testimony and discussing the previous request of the the Planning Board, motion: was made by recess to hearing to June 20, 2002. ig Tortora, Oliva, Orlando. (Member .) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0~). End ofheadngs. IV. CANCEL .I-~ TION OF Agenda Item IV regarding possible deliberations of open matters. The Chairman resCfi~duied pending deliberation matter~ to the next meeting of the Board (Kace LI, Nicovic). V. CANCELLATION OF Agenda Item V-A. The Chairman canceled this agenda item which was reqUesting a Resolution to Amend Reso ution adopted March 21, 2002, to calendar the following continuation of hearings for Special Meeting of Tuesday, April 30th, instead of April 25th: Appl. No. 5071 - Walter Teresko and E. McGrath. (Continuation of hearing) Appl. No. 5077 and 5078 - Theodore and Angela Laoudis. (Await alternative from Applicant prior to continuation of hearing). VI. CANCELLATION OF Agenda Item VI. There was no Executive Session held. The Chairman adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:15 p.m. Gerard P. Goe~[~el~, Chairman ~ ~/ Respectfully submitted, Lifida 'l gx~'PEAI,~,S BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehrknger. Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631 765-1809 http: southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 28. 2002 Appl. No. 5104- MARTIN KOSMYNKA Parcel: 98.-1-11.2. BASIS OF APPEAL: Building Department's Notice of Disapproval dated February 20, 2002, denying a' permit'for an addition with in-ground swimming pool. for the reason that Section 100-244B of the Zoning Code requires a setback of 10 feet en one side yard and 15 feet or the other side yard. for a minimum total side yard area of 25 feet. AREA VARIANCE REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a new swimming pool attached tO the dwelling with a setback of three feet on the west side of the house instead of the code requirements. The total side yards are proposed at seven feet. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 21, 2002, at which time wdtten and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: PROPERTY FACTS: Applicant's property contains 16.306 sq. ft. in area and is located on the easterly side (House #1985) Pine Tree Road in Cutchogue. The properly is improved With a single-family dwelling and structures as shown on the survey prepared by Kenneth H. Beckman. revised January 11. 2002. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: N ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVIEW STANDARDS SET FORTH N TOWN LAW 267B-3 "AREA VARIANCES." THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. AS WEIGHED AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH. SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BY SUCH GRANT. AND DETERMINES THAT: I Grant of the area vanance as requested wiJ! produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed addition would extend toward the adjacent lot leaving a setl~ack of three feet. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasibte for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance because the applicant desires a pool area due to the medical need requiring constant physical activity. Page 2 - March 28, 2002 Appl. No. 5104 - M. Kosmynka Parcel 98,~1~1 t .2 at Cutchogue 3. The variance requested i$: substantia! and represents a seven-foot reduction in the code requirement of 10 feel and total reduction Of a combined side Yard setbacks. 4. The variance granted will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that this variance will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The applicant has agreed to accept alternative relief with conditions. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable applicant to enjoy the benefit of a swimming pool attached to the dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhooc and the health safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION ACTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors, and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law, motion was offered by Member Orlando, seconded Dy Chairman Goehringer, and duly carried, to: DENY the application as applied for, and GRANT alternative relief for setbacks from the easterly side property line at six (6) feet at its closesl point and nine (+/-) feet at the opposite point. SUBJECT to the following CONDITION: That the walkway, if placed, shall be located only on the south side and extended from front to rear. This action does not authodze or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject properzy that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (Chairmam. Tortora. Oliva. and Orlando. (Member Homing of Fishers Island was absent as authorized.) This E~erard P. Goehringer. Chairr~an .APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman Lydia A. Tortc ra George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando Somhold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 httl:/southoldtown.northfork.net BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTFiOLD FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 28. 2002 Appl: No. 5074 - CYRIL LUKEMAN, JR., ET AL. Parcel: 25.- 1-10. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's January 14, 2002 Notice of Disapproval regarding applicant's building permit application to reconstruct and replace an accessorY building, which contains a nonconforming studio/shop of the owners' family. The reasons stated in this determination are: (1) that Section 100-3tA.1, only one one-family dwelling on each lot, ant that the proposed construction is arranged intended or:d~signed t(~ I~e used, in whole or in part, as a dwelling, and (2) that Section 100-242B state~ that reconstruction of more than 50% of a nonconforming building due to fire or other damage must conform to the bulk schedule. Section 100-244B does not permit lot coverage in excess of 20 percent of the total lot area for building coverage and does not allow a setback at one foot from any property line. APPLICANTS' REQUESTS: Applicants are requesting replacement of an existing nonconforming ~tudio/~hop accessory building, as shown in the set of design plan dated 4/26/dl/5/18/01 pCepared by Penny Lumber. Also requested are: (a) lot coverage of 22 percent of the to~al Io( area! (for all building area on site); and (b) setbacks at one foot from the rear and side property lines. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public headng on this application on March 21 2002, at which time wdtten and oral evidence was :)resented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and the area. and other evidence. the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the northwest side (House #550) Village Lane, Odent. The property is approximately .30 of an acre ~mproved with a single-family dwelling, and shown on the November 14, 1967 survey prepared by Rodedck VanTuyl and Son. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVIEW STANDARDS SET FORTH IN TOWN LAW 267B-3 "AREA VARIANCES," THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. AS WEIGHED AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BY SUCH GRANT. AND: DETERMINES THAT: Page 2- March 28, 2002 Appl No. 5074- C. Ldkeman Parcel 25.-1-10 at Odent 1. Grant of the area variance as applied for will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The reconstruction of the accessory building will have a rear and side yard setback of one foot to both adjacent lots. The alternative setback granted herein is available and reduces the nonconformity of the former structure, allowing more conformity with the code reouirement. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. The applicant wishes to rebu d on the existing footprint, with the historic cement ramp leading to the entrance of the original Darn structure. 3. The variance requested is substantial an~: would not allow applicant to repair or maintain the building without moving onto the neighbor's property. 4 The variance granted will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted [o suggest thai this variance will r~ave an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and the applicant has agreed to accept alternative relief. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new accessory workshop building, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering al of the above factors, and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law, motion was offered by Member Orlando. seconded by Member Oliva. and duly carried, to DENY applicant's 'equest at one foot from the property line. and to ALTERNATIVELY GRANT relocation of the new accessory non-habitable studio/shop building by moving it five feet to the rear. five feet to the side. and to APPROVE ~ne lot coverage at 22 percent of the total lot area, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1) That the bathroom area is permitted to contain, and shall be limited To, a three-quarter size lavatory facility to include the following: a sink with running water, a commode or toilet a standing shower with hot and cold water to be used in conjunction with the family's work shop and summer beach activities. (similar to the use of the former building. ) Page ~- March 28, 2002 Appl No. 5074 C, Lukeman Parcel 25.-1-10 at Orient 2, That the height of the building shall not exceed 18 feet to the ridge. This acbon does not authorize or condone any current or future use se[pack or other feature of the subject property that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Memoers Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora. Olive, and Orlando. (Member Homing of Fish~c_rs-4slaqd was absent as authorizedJ This Resolution was duly adopted ~4-..~'"-'~ ./2 ~ ~ .~-/'Gerard P. Goehring~r, ChaiCman / ~ =~PPEA 'L'S BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 htrp://southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 28, 2002 Appl. No. 5073 - John E. and Catherine McDonald Parcel: 104-12-12.2 Street and Location: 1235 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue PROPERTY FACTS: The subject property is composed of a wooded lot on 33,323 sq. ft. in an R-40 zone according to a map, originally surveyed August 13, 1997 by John C. Ehlers, amended March 24, 2000 and January 25, 2000. The property has two front yards on the corner of Vanston Road and Wunneweta Road in Cutchogue. The property is improved by a two-story home within the code's required front yard setbacks. BASIS OF APPEAL: The Building Department Notice of Disapproval dated January 11, 2001 denying a permit to construct an accessory garage on a non-conforming 33 323 square foot lot in the R-40zone is not permitted pursuant to Article Ilia Section 100- 30A.4 which states that Accessory buildings shall be located in the req uirad rear yard. AREA VARIANCE REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a 20 foot by 20 foot, two-car garage in the front yard facing Vanston Road. REASONS FOR THE BOARD ACTION: N ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVIEW STANDARDS SET FORTH IN TOWN LAW 267B-3 "AREA VARIANCES," THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT F THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. AS WEIGHED AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH. SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BY SUCH GRANT. AND DETERMINES THAT: 1 .Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable character in the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. The vanance involves the construction of a 20 foot by 20 foot garage in the front yard. The applicant is restricted because the septic system is located in the rear yard and there is not enough room on the south side of the applicants property which slopes to Wunneweta Road. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than an area variance. The only other yard area. other than the yard which contains the sanitary system, ~s a side yard which would also require variance relief, The property faced two streets (two front yards) and a very limited rear yard 3. The variance is not substantial because the lot is wooded, and the lot slopes toward Vanston Road. The garage will be located at least 50 feet from the easterly property line. at least forty (40) feet from the front line facing Vanston Road (also the zoning code Page 2- March 28 2002 Appl. No. 5073 - J. and C. McDonald 1000-103-12-12.2 at Cutchogue minimum required for a principal building, and the garage will be sufficiently screened from view by mature trees during most of the year. 4. The difficulty was self-created when the applicant became aware of the layout and size of the Iotat the time of purchase. 5. The variance granted will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There are numerous examples of similar garages located in front yard areas in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested vadance is the minimum necessary and adequate to enable applicant to enjoy the benefit of a two car garage, while preserving and protecting the character of the 'neighborhood and the health safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION ACTION OF THE BOARD: n considering all of the above factors; and applying the balancing test under NewYork Town Law. motion was offered by Member Oliva. seconded by Chairman Goehdnger, and duly carded, to GRANT the variance as applied for with the condition that the garage be used only for accessory storage purposes. This action does not authorize .or condone any current or future use. setback or other feature of the subject property that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members .~ehringer~airm~"_~or~ng,, Oliva, and Orlando. This Resolution was d~ adopte~-0). / z~P. Goehringer, (~l~'airmar(-- /' _APPEA{~S BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax 631) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http: 'soatholdtown.northfork.ne~ FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 28, 2002 Appl. No. 5076- NEVIO and OLGA BLASKOVIC. Parcel: 56.-5-29 BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's January 15, 2002, Notice of Disapproval under Section 100-33 and Section 100-244B regarding applicants' request for a building permit to locate a new dwelling, for the reason that: (al a portion of which wilt be less than 35 feet from each the front yard and rear yard property lines; and (b) the new dwelling location wilt effect the location of an existing frame shed, resulting in a front yard location instead of a rear yard location. The Disapproval also makes references to the three front yards. APPLICANTS' REQUEST/AREA VARIANCE: Applicants wish to demolish the existing dwelling and construct a new 3.000+- sq. ft. dwelling further south on the property, proposing: (a) a setback of the new dwelling at 20 feet from the property line/right--of- way to the west, (b) a rear yard setback of ' 5 feet and 22 feet Also. applicants propose to maintain the existing accessory frame shed in its fronl yard ocation. (Ref: survey/site mar) dated June 6. 2001. updated November 21. 2001 prepared by John T. Metzger, L.S.) FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 21 2002. at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based u oon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and the area. and other evidence. the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. PROPERTY DESCRIPTIO kl: The applicant's property is located on the southerly side (House #580l Willow Point Road. Southold also referred to as Lot 26 on the filed Map of Willow Point. The property is improved with an existing single-family dwelling located approximately 32 feet from Willow Point Road 24.9 feet from the westerly property line. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE .REVIEW STANDARDS SET FORTH IN TOWN LAW 267B-3 "AREA VARIANCES" THE BOARD HA:S CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED AS WEIGHED AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH. SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BY SUCH:GRANT AND DETEP~MINES THAT: 1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an unoesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The property contains three front Page 2 - March 28, 2002 Appl. No. 5076 - N, and O. Blaskovic Parcel 56.M5-29 at S~uthold yards and the parcel is pie shaped, Due to flood zone requirements and Iow contours, the new dwelling is confined to a limited, specific area in which to locate construct the new dwelling. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area vanance, The proposed location of the new dwelling will meet the minimum requirements for the other setbacks. The shed exists and is in a reasonable location; to relocate it would cause it to be placed on Iow ground area. This project is similar to other dwellings in the area. This lot has an unusual shape and a ow elevation of five feet, which limits the available area for any type of construction, 3. The vanance granted herein is not substantial Only two small corners of the building fall within the required 35 feet minimum front yard setback and 35 feet rear yard setback. The shed can only be placed in the front yard due to the shape of the lot. and has existed for some time. 4. The alleged difficulty has been self-created when the applicant became aware of the size and purchased the property, 5. The vanance granted will not have an adverse effect or mpact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that this variance will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood 6. Grant of the requested variance ~s the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable applicant to enjoy the benefit of a new dwelling and enjoy the existing shed, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the commumty. BOARD RESOLUTION ACTION OF THE BOARD: in considering all of the above factors, and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law, motion was offered by Member Oliva. seconded by Member Tortora, and duly carried, To APPROVE. the area variances, as applied for. This action does not authorize or condone any currenl or future use. setbacK or ether feature of ~ne subject properzy thai violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses. setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in [his action. Page 3 - March 28 2002 AppL No. 5076 - N. and O. Blaskovic Parcel 56.-5-29 at Southold Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, Oliva. and Orlando, (.Member Homing of Fishers Island was absent as aCbo._rized.) This :~erard P. Goehringer, Chairman.~ .APPEA4kS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer. Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Horning Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631 765-9064 Telephone t631) 765-1809 http: southoldtown.northfork.net FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 28. 2002 Appl. No. 5080- THOMAS FITZPATRICK. Parcel: 89.-3-1'1.3 BASIS!OF APPLICATION: Building Department's January, 16, 2.002 Notice of :DiS~tPlSf°val issued under section 100-30A.3. regarding agpliCant's request for a building r)ermit to construct and locate a new dwelling at less than 50 feet from the front property line. AB~EA VARIANCE ~REQU ESTED: Applicant is requesting to locate a new dwelling at 40 fe&ffrom the frontproperty line at its closest point as shown on the survey map prepared byAnthony Lewandowski. LS. dated December 13, 2000. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on March 21 2002. at which time wdtten and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and the area, and other evidence. the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the southeast side fHouse #1030) on Clearview Avenue. Southold. The property is unimproved and contains one acre in size. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVIEW STANDARDS SET FORTH IN TOWN LAW 267B-3 "AREA VARIANCES." THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT IF THE VARIANCE tS GRANTED, AS WEIGHED AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH. SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY 3Y SUCH GRANT, AND DETERMINES THAT: 1. Grant of the area vanance wilt not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The proposed setback is similar to those existing in this established residential neighborhood. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. A reduced front yard is necessary due to the wetlands on the applicant's lot. 3. The variance granted herein is not substantial The relief is a 10-ft reduction from the 50-ft front yard requirement. Page 2 - March 28, 2002 App]. No. 5080 - T. Fitzpatrick Parcel 89.-3-11.3 at Southold 4. The variance granted will not have an adverse effecl or impact on the physical or environmental conditions ~n the neighborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted [o suggest [hat this variance will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. A from yard variance is necessary to increase the setback from the sensitive wetlands and the adjacenl Iow lying land and designated area regulated as a flood zone. 5. Grant of the req Jested variance is the minimum action necessary and ade¢ uate to enable applicant to enjoy the benefit of a qew dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION ACTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors, and applying th6 balancing test under New York Town Law motion was offered by Member Orlando, seconded by Member Tortora. and duly carried, to GRANT the application as applied for. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use setback or other feature of [ne subject property tl~at violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses. setbacks an~: other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (Chairman's, Tortora Oliva. and Orlando. (Member Homing of Fishers I~arFd~-~'C)se~t-~a-d-t~ori~ This Resolution was duly adopted ~~ ~.~_~ //,,Ge~rd P. Goehringer, Chairman ~EA%S BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora G~orge Homing Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (631~ 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 htrp://southoldtowmnordffork.net FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING HELD MARCH 28. 2002 Appl. No. 5079- FRANK AND ELIZABETH MURPHY Parcel 139.-3-18.1 BASIS OF APPEAL: Building Department's Notice of Disapproval dated January 22, 2002, denying a permit to make additions and alteration to an existing single-family dwelling pursuant to Article III Section 100-31B stating that such addition would change the use to a two-family dwelling and Section 100-244 that the proposed addition would have a front yard setback of 35 ft. instead of the code-required 40 ft. minimum. AREA VARIANCE REQUESTED: Applicant wishes to construct a new addition to the exist ng single-fami y dwe ling in order to accommodate their needs, and the needs of daughter, son-in-laW, and grandchild who live together as a:family in this small two-story dWellihg. The hew additior~ Would maintain the 35 ft. setback of the existing house. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on this application on March 21, 2002, at which tirde wdtten and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant: PROPERTY FACTS: The subject property contains 25.700 sq. ft and is located on the east side of Bayer Road in Mattituck. The property s a corner lot with 157' frontage on Bayer Road and 118' and 115' on Conklin Road. t is improved with applicant's single- family residence and detached garage, according the site plan prepared by DA Architecture. dated January 22. 2002 1. The master bedroom in the existing single-family residence is located on the second floor of the residence, which is increasingly difficult to access via the stairway for Mr. and Mrs. Murphy, who are both of retirement age. Their daughter, son-in-law and grandchild live with them. and the Murphy's want to help their daughter and care for their grandchild and their daughter in turn, wants to be able to help and care for her parents. Zl'he addit On Will make it possible for the family rd live together. The new addition wil create a ground level master bedroom, bath. living area and kitchen that would be easily accessible for the senior Murphy's. The existing part of the house would remain with the original kitchen for use by their daughter, grandchild and son-in-law. 2. Mr. Murphy testified that he does not wish construct the addition for the aurposes of establishing a two-family dwelling. He so~e intent is to be able to accommodate the needs of his family un(]er one roof. The board believes tiqat the addition is an expansion Page 2- March 28, 2002 Appl. No. 5079- F. and E. Murphy Parcel 139-3-18.1 at Mattituck of a single-family dwelling for one family use, The board does not believe that the addition constitutes a two-family use. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: On the basis of testimony presented, materials submitted and personal inspections, the Board makes the following conclusions of law: 1. Grant of the area vadance will not produce an undesirable chanqe in the character of the neiqhborhood or a detriment to nearby properties Tke addition is modbst in Si?e and will maintain the existing 35 ft. front yard setback of the existing dwelling. The proposed set back the will not appear out-of-keeping with the front yard setbacks of nearby residences. 2. The benefit souqht by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant's house haS an existing, established front yard setback of 35 ft. on Bayer Road. In order to maintain to overall exterior appearance of the front of the residence, a variance is required for the new addition. 3. ]-he area variance aranted herein is not substantial and represents a 5-foot reduction in the code's 40-foot minimu 'n front yard set back. 4. The alleqed difficulty has not been self-created. The property comalns three front yards, two of which the applicant is n conformance with. The existing dwelling has a nonconforming setback of 35 feet. and no addition maintaining the existing setback is possible without a variance. 5. The variance aranted will not qave an adverse effect or imoact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neiahborhood or district. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that this variance will nave an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessarv and adequate to enable the aDolicant to enjoy the benefit of a second kitchen as a single-family dwelling, while oreserving 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 aDplying the balancing test under New York Town Law 267-B motion was offered by Member Tortora seconded by Chairman Goehringer, and duly carried to: REVERSE [ne Building Department's January 22, 2002 determination that ~ne propose(] addition will cnange the use of the existing single-family dwelling to a Page 3 - March 28, 2002 Appl. No. 5079 F. and E. Murphy Parcel I39-3-18.1 at Mattituck two-family dwelling, and the Board hereby DETERMINES the proposed addition ~s for a singl~fami[y dwelling; and further, GRANTS the setback variance as aDolied for. authorizing a front yard setback of 35 ft. at it closest point from Bayer Road, This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property thai violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses, setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora. Oliva. and Orlando. (Member Horning of Fishers Island was absent as authorized.) This Resolution was duly adopted (4-0). ~ ~ j~-) , · ~PEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard R Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortom George Hornint . Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orlando Southold Town Hall 53( 95 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold. New York 11971~0959 ZBA Fax 631/765-9064 Telephone (631/765-1809 http://southoldtown.northfork.ner BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD FINDINGS. DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF MARCH 21 2002 Appl. No. 5067 - CHRISTOPHER AND IRENE VtTTL Parcel: 54.-5-45.9 BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's December 4, 2001 Notice of Disapproval for the reason that applicants' proposed additions and alterations to existing dwetlJng will aave a rear yard setback of less than 50 feet as required by Zoning Code Section 100-30A.3. AREA VARIANCE REQUESTED: Applicants are requesting permission to ocate a propgsed sunroom, spa and deck areas at 28.1 feet and 29.8 feet from the rear property line, at its closest points north to south respectively. The additions are proposed to extend 25 feet at the rear of the house and for a length 67+- feet as shown on the site map #98-30OB) prepared by Joseph A Ingegno. L.S. dated May 28, 1998. revised December 5. 2001. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on February 21. 2002, at which time written and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and the area. and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property consists of a total area of 89,116.558 sq. ft. with 169+- feet of width, along the north side of Soundview Avenue. vadable depth along the west and east sides, of 398+- ft. and 410+- feet, and a width at the north end of the property of 237.93 feet. The dwelling is situated with a rear yard setback as exists of 52.6 feet at its closest point. 295 feet from the front (southerly) lot line, 105.5 feet from the east side line. and 49.4 feet from the west side line. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVIEW STANDARDS SET FORTH IN TOWN LAW 267B-3 "AREA VARIANCES." THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED. AS WEIGHED AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH. SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BY SUCH GRANT, AND DETERMINES THAT: 1. When considering this application, the Board questioned the applicant about the vast yard area in front of the dwelling on this property. The dwelling in its present location establishes the available yard area in which to add extensions. Even though the Mrs. Vitti stated at the hearing that when she and her husband purchased the properzy (June Page2 March 21, 2002 Appl. No. 5067 C. and I. Vitti 54:-5-45.9 at Southold 1998'}, they did not build or plan the location of the house as exists and felt it was not in ~ne best ioca[ion. Grant of the requested 28+- rear yard variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of [ne neighborhood or detrimenl to nearey properties. The decks, spa and sunroom addition by its size, will be unreasonaply close to the rear property qe. Applicants properzy is very ~arge n s~ze and has land area available for planning future new construcuon. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. 3. The variance requested granted for a full 25' extension s substartial The relief reeuested is a 40% reduction of the code's required 50 ft. setback. The alternative relief is a 24% reduction and is the minimum necessary. 4. The applicants' situation existed at the time the proper~y was purchased and therefore is self-created. 5. The variance granted will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district if located with a 40% reduction of the code's requirement. The property adjacent just north of applicant's properzy is at least one-half of the size of applicant's property, and the applicant is able to locate an addition for a sunroom and deck in other yard areas, or to join the northerly land area. which Mrs. Vitti states she owns. As an alternative, the Board has agreed to allow a 37.6 ft. rear yard setback, which meets 76% of the requirement, for a 16'6" extension instead of a 25 ft. extension at the rear of the dwelling. No evidence has been submitted to suggest that the alternative relief will have an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 6. Grant of the requested variance is the m~nim um action necessary and adequate to enable applicant to enjoy the benefit of an addition for a sunroom with two deck areas at the rear of the dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and tlqe health safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION ACTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors, and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law. motion was offered by Chairman Goehringer seconded by Member Oliva, and duly carried, to To DENY the relief requested at 29.1 ft. from the northerly lot line, and to ALTERNATIVELY GRANT a setback of 37.6 feet. after reducing the addition to 16'6" (deck-sunroom addition at the rear of the dwelling) adding 8.5 to the rear setback f29.1 feet + 8.5 = 37.6 ,. SUBJECT to the CONDITION that the deck areas remain open to the sky. Page 3 - March 21. 2002 Appl. No. 5067 - C. and I. Vitti 54.-5-45.9 at Southold This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property or adjacent land that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses setbacks and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringe~ To o~ra, H~~a~ ///J~erard P_ Goehdnger, C~aairm~n, //"-~ 'EALS BOARD MEMBERS rd P. Goehringer, Chairman Lydia A. Tortora George Hornmg Ruth D. Oliva Vincent Orhmdo BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Southold Town Hall 53095 Main Road EO. Bux 1179 Southold, New Yurk 11971-0959 ZBA Fax (63 l) 765-9064 Telephone (631) 765-1809 http://southoldtown.uorthfork.net FINDINGS, DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION CORRECTED April 15, 2002 DECISION RENDERED MARCH 28, 2002 Appl. No. 5034 - Rust Family Partnership Parcel: 111.-14-34 BASIS OF APPLICATION: Building Department's October 2, 2001 Notice of Disapproval regarding applicant's request for a building permit to locate an addition to the dwelling with a setback of 15 feet from the front property line and at 64+- feet from the bulkhead, at its closest points. The reasons stated in the Notice is that the front yard is required to be a minimum of 50 feet under Section 100-244B, and the bulkhead setback is required to be a minimum of 75 feet under Section 100-239.4B, and the addition does not meet these minimum requirements. AREA VARIANCE REQUESTED: Applicant requested: (a) an Interpretation as to whether or not this is a side yard instead of a front yard, (b) an area variance for the proposed addition(s). The northerly end of the addition would extend 31 feet from the northwest side of the dwelling, leaving a setback of 15 feet from an area depicted as a "lane" or right-of-way (ref. applicant's survey). The addition will have a length of 63 feet which includes an open porch. The entire addition is shown at a minimum of 64 feet from the bulkhead. FINDINGS OF FACT The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on December 13, 2001, January 24, 2002, and February 28, 2002, at which times written and oral evidence was presented. Based upon all testimony, documentation, personal inspection of the property and the area, and other evidence, the Zoning Board finds the following facts to be true and relevant. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: The applicant's property is located on the southeast side of Wunneweta Road in Cutchogue and is more particularly shown on the survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors Map 00-148, surveyed September 11, 2000, revised October 3, 2001. REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REVIEW STANDARDS SET FORTH IN TOWN LAW 267B-3 "AREA VARIANCES," THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT IF THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED, AS WEIGHED AGAINST THE DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY AND WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMMUNITY BY SUCH GRANT, AND DETERMINES THAT: Page 2 - March 28, 2002 Appl. No. 5034 - Rust Family Partnership Parcel 111 .-14-34 at Cutchogue 1. Grant of the area variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. The applicant's property consists of 1.4+- acres, and there are other lots which contain dwellings also of a similar size. The addition can be shielded from the property to the north by landscaping. Aisc by testimony from the neighbor's attorney, the houses are about 50 ft. apart including the existing footpath between the properties. 2. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, due to the location of the established driveway and the existing sharp elevation adjacent to the dwelling. 3. The alleged difficulty has not been self-created 4. The variance granted will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district due to the size and shape of the properties in the surrounding area and the size and layout of applicant's property. 5. Grant of the requested variance is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable applicant to enjoy the benefit of an addition to the existing dwelling, while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety, and welfare of the community. BOARD RESOLUTION ACTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors, and applying the balancing test under New York Town Law, motion was offered by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Member Orlando, and duly carried, to DENY the relief requested for a 15 ft. setback, and to ALTERNATIVELY GRANT a 20 ft. minimum setback at its closest point to the northwest property line, and 64+- feet from the bulkhead as applied for, SUBJECT to the following CONDITION: An appropriate landscape screening shall be provided and properly maintained in good condition at all times, by the owner, to be located along the northwesterly side of the addition, and the Board reserves the right to review the type and location of screening before a Certificate of Occupancy is issued. This action does not authorize or condone any current or future use, setback or other feature of the subject property that violates the Zoning Code, other than such uses, set- Page 3 - March 28, 2002 Appl. No. 5034 - Rust Family Partnership Parcel 111 .-14-34 at Cutchogue backs and other features as are expressly addressed in this action. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Members Goehringer (Chairman), Tortora, and Orlando. (Member ©liva abstained from vote.) (Member Horning of Fishers Island was absent as authorized.) This Resolution was duly adopted (3-0). Note for the record: With regard to applicant's request for an Interpretation, the Board was not able to garner re~~r ,,, ~~ the votes required for a I'n rpret ' GG ,,~)~rard P.'~Goehri g ' ~