The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7094 BOARD MEMBERS �*®f SOUS Southold Town Hall Leslie Kanes Weisman,Chairperson Vy® 53095 Main Road•P.O.Box 1179 h® l® Southold,NY 11971-0959 Patricia Acampora Office Location: Eric Dantes Town Annex/First Floor,Capital One Bank Gerard P.Goehringer 54375 Main Road(at Youngs Avenue) Nicholas Planamento lyMum � Southold,NY 11971 http://southoldtownny.gov ECEIVED ' ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Tel.(631)765-1809•Fax(631)765-9064 EP 2 20" 1"uth4ol'd Town Clerk FINDINGS,DELIBERATIONS AND DETERMINATION MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21,2017 ZBA FILE 7094 NAME OF APPLICANT: Chelsea and Anthony Chalone PROPERTY LOCATION: 440 Cedar Drive, Mattituck,NY SCTM No. 1000-106-10-20 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 not required to be referred to the Suffolk County Department of Planning under Administrative Code Sections A14-14 to`23. LWRP DETERMINATION: The relief, permit, or interpretation requested in this application is listed under the Minor Actions exempt list and is not subject to review under Chapter 268. PROPERTY FACTS/DESCRIPTION: The subject property is a non-conforming 15,000 sq. ft. parcel located in R- 40 Zoning District. The property measures 100.00 feet fronting Cedar Drive along the easterly property line, measures 150.00 feet along the southerly property line, measures 100.00 feet along the westerly property line and measures 150.00 feet along the northerly property line. The property is improved with a one story frame dwelling, an attached wood deck and an "as-built" addition shown as a concrete foundation as shown on a survey prepared by Howard Young, L.S. revised June 16, 2017. The survey also notes that the parcel was created as part of a subdivision entitled, Mattituck Development Corporation, filed with the Suffolk County Clerk's Office on May 1, 1923. BASIS OF APPLICATION: Request for a Variance under Article XXIII, Section 280-124; and the Building .Inspector's June 19, 2017, Notice of Disapproval based on an application for a permit to construct additions and alterations to an existing single family dwelling in conjunction with Building Permit No. 41688; at: 1) proposed additions less than the code required minimum front yard setback of 35 feet; at: 410 Cedar Drive, Mattituck, NY. SCTM#1000-106-10-20. RELIEF REQUESTED: The applicant requests a variance to legalize a 495 sq. ft. addition to a single family dwelling which creates insufficient front yard setback of 33.9 feet, where the code requires a 35 foot minimum front yard setback. The applicants have already completed the construction since they were issued a.building permit No. 41688 on May 31, 2017 to legalize an"as-built" deck addition and to construct a conforming one-story addition and alterations to the to the north western side of their home. The code.requires a 35 foot setback from the front yard property line. I c i Page 2, September 21, 2017 #7094, Chalone SCTM No. 1000-106-10-20 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: The Notice of.Disapproval indicates that this variance application is the result of additions permitted by the Building Department by permit issued on May 31, 2017, but was improperly constructed. Accordingly, following a foundation inspection, the Town's building inspector determined that the improvements did not meet the required front yard setback. The Notice of Disapproval was then issued on June 19, 2017. The applicant's legal representative submitted a letter dated September 5, 2017 including exhibits, which listed matters to be considered by the Board when making their decision as outlined by Town Law. I FINDINGS OF FACT/REASONS FOR BOARD ACTION: The Zoning Board of Appeals held a public hearing on this application on September 7,2017at 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: i f 1. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(1). Grant of the variance will not produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties. Cedar Drive is a narrow unpaved isolated road. The majority of the homes on the road have similar setbacks to what the applicant proposes/has built The existing home is currently setback 31.8 feet from the front yard property line, which is more non-conforming than the 33.9 foot setback that is requested 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 an area variance. The applicant could have complied with the code required front yard setback when the building permit was issued. However, the foundation was improperly installed so a variance must be obtained. The addition is setback at 33.9 feet, which is very close to the required 35 feet. 3. Town Law 4267-b(3)(b)(3). The variance granted herein is not mathematically substantial, representing 3.1% relief from the code. 4. Town Law k267-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 must comply with Chapter 236 of the Town's Storm Water Management Code. 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 4267-b. Grant of additions and alterations to a single family dwelling is the minimum action necessary and adequate to enable the applicants to enjoy the benefit of a larger home for their growing family while preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community. i RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD: In considering all of the above factors and applying the balancing test under i New York Town Law 267-13, motion was offered by Member Goehringer, seconded by Member Dantes, and duly carried, to GRANT the variance as applied for, and shown on a survey prepared by Howard M. Young, L.S., last revised June 16,2017. i i f Page 3, September 21, 2017 #7094, Chalone SCTM No. 1000-106-10-20 SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: The Applicants must obtain a Certificate of Occupancy from the Building Inspector and submit same to this Board. That the above conditions be written into the Building Inspector's Certificate of Occupancy, when issued. Any deviation from the survey, site plan and/or architectural drawings cited in this decision will result in delays jand/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 variances)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. i Pursuant to Chapter 280-146(B) of the Code of the Town of Southold any variance granted by the Board of Appeals shall become null and void where a Certificate of Occupancy has not been procured, and/or a subdivision map has not been filed with the Suffolk County Clerk,within three (3)years from the date such variance was granted. The Board of Appeals may, upon written request prior to the date of expiration, grant an extension not to exceed three (3) consecutive one (1)year terms. I Vote of the Board: Ayes:Members Weisman (Chairperson),Dantes, Planamento, Acampora and Goehringer. This Resolution was duly adopted (5-0). Leslie Kan6s Weisman Chairperson Approved for filing /2017 r I