HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-07/14/1994APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman
Serge Doyen, Jr.
James Dinizio, Jr.
Robert A. Villa
Richard C. Wilton
BOARD OF APPEALS
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Southold Town Hal
53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southol d, New York 11971
Fax (516) 765-1823
Telephone (516) 765-1809
MINUTES
REGULA~ MEETING
THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1994
7:15 p.m. Work Session (Reviews only - No action taken)
7:30 p.m. Call to Order by Chairman - Regular Session
A Regular Meeting was held by the Southold Town Board of
Appeals on THURSDAY, JULY 14, 1994 commencing at 7:30 p.m. at
the Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York 11971.
Present were:
Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman/Member
Serge J. Doyen, Jr., Member
James Dinlzio, Jr., Member
Robert A. Villa, Member
Richard C. Wi[ton, Member
l.inda Kowalski, ZBA Clerk-Secretary
I. The fo}lowing matters were held for PUBLIC HEARINGS.
Please also see verbatim transcript prepared under separate cover
and filed simultaneously with these Minutes for actual statements
and discussions. )
7:30 P.M. Appl. Nob 4250 - WILLIAM AND HELEN CHILDS.
Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III,~ Section 1:00-33C
based upon the March 29, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector for permission to locate accessory garage with
reducec~ front Yard set~)a~k(s)' on the corner i0t. The ~ubjeet
premises contains a total lot area of approximately 30,500 Square
feet and fronts along Brushes Creek~ Peconic Bay B°uieVard, and
Mesrobian Drive. Street Address: 1780 Peconlc Bay Boulevard,
Laurel, New York; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000~145-4-2.1
(prev. I & 2). Mr. and Mrs. Childs appeared in behalf of their
application. (See statements made and discussions held during
hearing in written transcript of hearing, prepared under separate
cover and attached for reference purposes.) This 'hearing was
recessed until August 11, 1994 pending, inspection of an alternative
location, when re-staked by owners, concerning the accessory
Page 2 - Minutes
ReguLar Meeting of July 14, 1994
Southold Town Board of Appeals
garage in the front yard with moro distant setbacks from Peconic
Bay Boulevard.
7:35 P.M. Appl. No. 4252 DENNIS R. and ANN L.
BANNON. Variance to the Zoning Ordinnuce, Article lllA, Section
100-30A.3, based upon the June 16, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from
the Building Inspector, for permission to locate proposed addition
with an insufficient rear yard setback. The subject promises
contsins a total lot area of appro~rimsIely 12,300 squaro feet and
is a corner lot. Location of Property: 855 Mary's Road, (a/k]a 645
Hamilton Avenue), Mattituck, N.Y.; County Tax Map .Parcel ID No.
1000-140-2-1. Officer Bannon appearod in behalf of
application. (See verbatim transcript for actual discussion. )
Following the hearing, deliverations and resolution was adopted
granting the applieation as applied. Continued on~ next page.
Page 3 Appeal No. 4252
Application of DENNIS R. B^NNON
Dec~sion Rendered July 14, 1994
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
Appeal No. 4252:
Upon Application of DENNIS R. and ANN L. BANNON. Variance
to the Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3,
based upon the June 16, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector, for pe~.ission to locate proposed
addition with an insufficient rear yard setback. The subject
premises contains a total lot area of approximately 12,300
square feet and is a corner lot. Location of Property: 855
Mary's Road (a/k/a 645 Hamilton Avenue), Nattituck, NY;
County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-140-2-1.
WHEREAS, a p,,blic hearing was held on July 14, 1994, at
which time any and all persons who desired to be heard were
heard and their testimony recorded <no opposition was
entered>; and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, Board Members hav~ personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, the present use and
building(s), and the surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premises in question:
(a) is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Naps as
District 1000, SeCtion 140, Block !, Lot l; known and
referred to as 855 Mary's Road ( 645 Hamilton Avenue),
Mattituck; and consisting of Lot 36 and the southeri~
two-fifths of Lot 35 on the preexisting Subdivision Nap of
Garden Heights;
(b) is nonconfo~,,ing as to total lot area containing
a total lot area of approximately 13,000 sq. ft., uniquei~
with frontage along three roads;
(c) is improved with a single-family, two-story frame
dwelling - with setbacks as more particularly shown on the
Page 4 - Appeal No. 4252
Application of DENNIS R. BANNON
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
survey prepared July 24, 1963 by Otto VanTuyl & Son, Land
Surveyors. The dwelling was built prior to 1957 the date
zoning was first enacted. The applicants purchased the
premises on September 19, 1975; and
(d) is regulated under Section 100-244B of the Zoning
Code pertaining to lots with less than 20,000 sq. ft. {as
enacted January 1989}.
2. By this application, appellants request approval for a
new addition in the westerly (rear) yard area. The new
addition is proposed at this time for an open deck and is
requested to be 29 feet at its closest point from the
westerly property line. Appellants have reserved the right
to enclose the deck in the future, by appropriate building
permit application, for possible additional livable floor
area. The proposed extension will not extend beyond the
established northerly line of the house.
3. The code requirement for the rear yard setback on a
nonconforming parcel of this size is set at a minimum of 35
feet for new construction, or at the established
nonconfo~,aity - which presently is shown to be 33 feet, as
built.
4. It is the position of the Board that the amount ,of
relief requested for a reduction from the present 33 ft.
setback to 29 feet due to the angle of the proposed deck
addition is not substantial. (No other relief appears to be
necessary for insufficient setbacks as shown on the sketch
prepared by the applicants in this application.)
5. In considering this application, the Board also finds:
(a) there is no valid public purpose which outweighs
the applicant's difficulties for a four-foot variance, and
the size of the deviation is de minimus;
(b) a substantial change will not be produced in the
character of the neighborhood;
(c) the difficulty cannot be obviated by some method
feasible for the applicant to pursue other than another
variance;
(d) in 'view of the manner in which the difficulty
arose and the fact that additional land area is not available
for placement of such an addition without a variance, the
Page 5~- Appeal No. 4252
Application of DENNIS R. BANNON
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
interest of justice will be served by allowing the three-foot
side yard reduction.
(e) the applicant's difficulties are not
self-created, and the location of the proposed addition is
most feasible as chosen, which is a rear yard rather than one
of the remaining front yards.
(f) the difficulties are uniquely related to the
layout and general character, shape and size of this parcel
and are not personal to the landowners}
(g) in considering all of the above factors, the
interests of justice will be served by granting this
four-foot reduction in the westerly yard, as requested.
Accordingly, on motion by Chainaan Goehringer, seconded by
Member Wilton, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT the requested reduction for a setback
of 29 feet in the westerly rear yard area for a new addition
to the existing dwelling, as requested.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Dinizio, Villa, and Wilton. This resolution was duly
adopted.
lk
Page 6 - Minutes
Regular Meeting of July 14, 1994
Southold Town Board of Appeals
PUBLIC HEARINGS, continued:
7:40 P.M. Appl. No. 4251 - MARILYN J. MORSCH. Variance
to the Zoning Ordinar~ce, Article IliA, Section 100-30A.3, based
upon the June 6, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building
Inspector, for approval of an "as built" wood deck addition with a
Side yard setback at less than the required 15 feet and less than
the total side yards required at 15 and 20 feet. The subject
premises contains a (conforming) total lot area of 40,409 square
feet in this R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone District. Property
Location: 630 North Sea Drive, Southold; County Tax Map Parcel
No. 1000-54-5-16. Following testimony, the hearing was declared
closed (concluded), pending deliberations and a determination
shortly after the hearings.
7:45 P.M. Appl. No. 4235 - KIM FALLON and CYNTHIA
SUTRYK. Re-Hearing pursuant to Resolution of Board of Appeals
adopted June 13, 1994 to re-consider and re-hear appellants'
variance application Under Article III, Section 100-33, based upon
the April 4, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building
Inspector, to locate accessory building/use in the front yard
area. Location of Property: 3200 Soundview Avenue, Mattituek,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel 1000-94-2-5. Following testimony, the
hearing was declared closed (concluded), pending deliberations and
a determination shortly after the hearings.
8:00 P.M. Appl. No. 4253 - JOHN and MARY WISSEMANN.
Variance based upon the June 16, 1994 N0tiee of Disapproval from
the Building Inspeetor for permission to construct accessory garage
building with an insufficient front yard setback at 580 Clearview
Road, Lot No. 49 and part of 47 on the Development Map of Cedar
Beach, Southold, N.Y.; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-90-4-
11.1. Following testimony, the hearing was declared closed
(concluded), pending deliberations and a determination shortiy
after the hearings.
9:05 P.M. Appl. No. 4254 - DEPOT ENTERPRISES, INC.
Variance is requesied under Article VII; SectiOn 100-7]~ (ref.
100-31C-4, 100-33) and under prior variance determined May 11,
1993 under Appeal No. 4157, for permission to modify the northerly
yard setback for an accessory ball court, Location of Property:
320 Depot Lane and 29325 Main l~oad, Cutchogue, N.Y.; County
Parcel No. 1000-102-2-12.1. Following testimony,, the hearing was
declared closed (concluded), pending deliberations/determination.
II. DELIBERATIONS/DECISIONS, as follow:
~age 7 - Appl. No. 4249-SE
^pplicatio~ of SANFORD ~ SUE B. HANAUER
Decisim~ Rendered July 14, 1994
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 4249-SE.
Application of SANFORD AND SUE HANAUER. This is a
request for a Special Exception to establish and operate a Bed and
Breakfast in accordance with the previsions of the zoning cede at
Article III, Section 100-31B(15), with owner-occupancy, and as an
accessory to the existing principal residence. Location of
Property: 4105 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel No. 1000-94-3-part of 1.7, also known 'and referred to
as Lot No. 9. on the Subdivision Map of Robert ~nd Jean Lenzer.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on June 8, 1994, at
which time all those desiring to be heard were heard, in support of
and in opposition to thi.~ application, ~nd their testimony
recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony
-nd documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the Beard members have personally viewed and are
familln~, with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the
surrounding a~eas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION: By this application, a
Special ExcePtion is requested for a "Bed and Break{~St" use on
the applicanis/owners' property Irnown as 4105 SoUndview Avenue,
Mattituck, New York, for the rental of two bedrooms over the
existing garage area for lodging and serving of breakfast to not
more ~h-n five casual and transient roomers.
2. SITE LOCATION: The premises in question is located
along a private right-of-way which extends from the easterly end of
Sound View Avenue, Mattituck, as more particulariy shown on the
survey map last dated October 17, 1985, prepared by Howard W.
Young, Land Surveyor.
3. LAND & BUILDINGS: The October 17, 1985 survey and ~n
in.~pection by the Board Members shows that the subject premi.~es is
Page 8- Appl. No. 4249-SE
Application of SANFORD & SUE B. HANAUER
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
improved with a principal two-story (single-family) dwelling and
separate gal~age area connected by breezeway-type construction,
with setbacks at 194.4 feet 'from the front property line along the
private right-of-way, 74.4 feet from the westerly side property
line, and 20 feet from the easterly side property llne. Parking
for at least five (5) vehicles is available.
4. PERMITTED ZONE: This property is presently located in
the ~R-80" Residential Zone District and h~/s an area of 2.8 acres.
The principal use of the premines is and has been for single-family
dwelling occupancy, which would not be changed by this proposed
Accessory "Bed and Breakfast Use.~
5. USE STATUS: Certificate of Occupancy No. Z-16211 dated
September 29, 1987 has been submitted for the record showing that
a private one-family dwelling and two-car garage and decks exist in
conformity with all the requirements of the applicable provisions
of the law for which the certificate was issued. The certificate
was issued to the applicants-owners, Sanford and Sue Hanauer,
who acquired the property on June 25, 1984.
6. INTENT OF SECTION 100-31B(15): In considering this
application, the Board Members personally visited the site and
personally viewed the layout of the dwelling, the garage ,,nit, and
the proposed Bed and Breakfast bedroom area over the garage
unit. The Beard found that the location of the proposed Bed and
Breakfast bedroom area over the garage does not meet the code
definition of ~single-family unit" is not attached as an integl~l
family unit. The : B & B ~rea is distinctly separated by a .large
breezeway and does not qualify as part of the "dwelling unit~ due
to the breezeway. Since, the breezeway connection and the garage
building do not meet the building construction stmndar~ls for a
Hvable floor area and does not encompass the entire liv;ng area of
the family unit, the preposed location of the bed and bx~9~kfast
rc~ m.~ were found not to be a fundamental part of the famliy Hvlng
unit. As such, this preposal does not meet the intent of thi.~
zoning code to p!aee the bed and breakfast rooms, for renting and
transient use, Within the "owner-occupied" dwelling unit.
7. .The .Board further l~mds and determines that, due to its
proposed loca~tion a~tmrt fre~m~ t~h.e living unit: (l) "t~e ]~rop°sed
use will ez~a~e- a Change axzecting the orderly and reasonable use
of legally established uses of adjacent properties' or of properties
in adjacent use di.~tz-iets; (2) the proposed use will affect the
safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the
Town; (3) the use will not be compatible with its surrou~dinga
and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in
general, paz~icularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall
apPcaz~ance. Additionally, the Board has also. considered Section
100-264, subsections (a) through (p) of the Zoning Code.
· Page 9 - Appl. No. 4249-SE
Application of SANFORD & SUE B. HANAUER
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
Accordingly, on motion by Member Dinizlo, seconded by
Member Villa, it was
RESOLVED, to DENY (without prejudice) the applicants'
request for a Special Exception for a proposed Bed and Breakfast
Use, as shown on the plans submitted with this application, for the
reasons stated above.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Dinizio, Villa and Wilton. )
Nay: Member Doyen and Chairman Goehringer. This resolution
was duly adopted (3-2).
Page 10 - Appeal No. 4235
Matter of KIM FALLON and CYNTHIA SUTRYK
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
Appl. No. 4235 (REHEARING).
Matter of the Application of KIM FALLON and CYNTHIA
SUTRYK. Re-Hearing pursuant to Resolution of Board of Appeals
adopted June 13, 1994 to re-consider and re,hear appellants' variance
application under Article-III, Section 100-33, based upon the April 4,
1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building Inspector, to locate
accessory building/use in the front yard area. Location of Property:
3200 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck, NY; County Tax Map Parcel
1000-94-2-5.
WHEREAS, an application was made for a rehearin~ of Appeal
No., 4235 by Cynthi.~ Sutvyk, and a resolution was unanimously adopted
at a public meeting held on June 13, 1994, granting the applicant's
requesting-for a rehearing for the reasons stated therein; and
WHEREAS, after due notice, a public hearing and rehearing was
held on July 14, 1994, at which time all those who desired to
be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board ha.~ carefully cen.~idered aH testimony and
documentation submitted concerning thi.~ application; and
WHEREAS, Board Members have pereonally viewed and a~e
familiar with the premi.~es in question, its present zoning, and the
surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following f"mdings of fact:
1. The 4235
rehearing a
from :Article
.y, uue [O ml.~uncIel~nolngs Oetween the applicants, the Cbai~-man and
Board Members at the prior hearings pertaining to a restriction or
non-restriction on the nnmber of anlm~ls to be homsed and permitted
under the zoning ordinance and/or the'variance determination. The
aPPlication for a building permit upon which thin appeal is based shows
*hat the accessory (barn) building is proposed to be situated in the
northerly (front) yard area. -
Page ll- Appeal No. 4235
Matter of KIM FALLON ~nd CYNTHIA SUTRYK
· Decision Rendered d u l ¥ ~,41994
2. For the record, a determination was rendered on June ~,
1994 by thi.~ Board grsnting a conditional variance for the location of
an accessory barn building and horse corral area, for the housing of
two horses. This is a rehearing and new determination under that
application.
3. The premises in question is located in the Agricultural-
Conservation Zone District and contain.~ a total ares of five and 5.32
acres. Thi.~ parcel is improved with two foundations, one for a new
single-family pursuant to Building Permit No. 21929Z issued 3/4/94, and
the other~ for the subject accessory barn (for which no permits have
been issued) located north/northwest of the dwelling foundation under
construction. A survey dated and received May 3, 1994 shows the
dwelling under construction a di.gtanco of 176+- from the essterly front
property llne (from the inner edge of a private right-Of-way) and 122+-
feet from the southerly property line. Using the surveyor's scale, the
dwelling foundation is 310+- feet from the clesest northerly .line and
170+- feet from the westerly property line, at its closes~ points.
4. For parceis of this nature with a private right-of-way
extending the entire depth (483.46 feet) of the property as well as
frontage along a town road (Sound View Avenue of 119.13 feet), the
property is considered a corner lot with. two front yards. Section
100-232 provides that the rear yard may be defined as "one yard other
than the front yard to be a rear yard, and the other or other side
yards .... " It is the position of the Board that the layout of the land
as a corner lot lends to the difficulties in locafing a permitted a
accessory barn structure with corral area while at the same time meeting
the yard and setback regulations and apprePriate distances for housing
of the horse(s).
~5.~ For record purPOses, it is noted that this building is
prepose.~l ro~_ accessory Use incidental to and used by the residents and
occupants of thi.~ dwelling_ and rn~,, not
~ ..u~ .p .u~?os?s. ~y the grant of this variance, this building, as
.ca~e~ m me [rent yard, may not be enlarged, re-located, or othe~r~ise
er~.a - exceP$ bY additional application and formnl ~eview of the
~oar.d o.f.~p?eais and subject to further complianco with the' codes in
errec~ a~ rn~t future time
6. The use of the accessory barn is proposed for horses, which
pursuant to Section 100-31(C-8) is a permitted accessory use, proVided
that such animals shall not be housed within forty (40) feet of any lot
llne, The proposed building and corral area s~ructure are shown to
also be in conformance with the maximum height requirements pertinent
to accessory structures at eighteen (18) feet. (See code definition
"height">.
Page 12- Appeal No. 4235
Matter of KIM FALLON and CYNTHIA SUTRYK '
Decision Rendered July l~ 1994
7; The hearing record is lengthy and confirms opposition fr~m
owners of the adjacent (adjoining) parcels on the north and south sides
of the applicants' property, and other concerns - some related to this
project and some unrelated. Full consideration has been made of the
entire hearing record by Board Members, and additional rostrietions
relating to the use and location of this barn and horse corral area have
been made a condition of thi.~ variance. The neighboring residences to
the north are approximately 120 feet from the proposed horse corral area
and more than 260 feet between the accessory barn and other residences
(north). The rear yards of the northerly neighboring parcels
immediately abut the applicants' northerly front yards. The corral area
and barn are for housing and keeping of the owners' two horses and a
pony.
8. It is the position of the Board in considering this
application that:
(a) the circumstances are uniquely related to the
property - particularly since the code defines two yard areas to be
front yards;
(b) the relief is not substantial in relation to the
requirements and will be distant from neighboring buildings and
neighboring properties; the setbacks at its closest point is to the
westerly property line at 54+- feet;
(c) the variance requested does not involve an increase of
dwelling t~nlt or use density, and the use of the premises shall romain
residential;
(d) the relief requested ~ not cause a substantial
effect on available governmental facilities since the st~ueturo is a
permitted use under' Section 100.31C, and will be used only incidentally
to the residents and occupants of the dwelling;
~urs ...... (e).. th~.re is an alter~n~ ative available for the applicant to
u~ o~y to~,ca.u~ g. tn~e accessory, barn and torrid area in the limited
yara -wmcn as that area closest to the southerly dwelling (Dr. R
Hariri) without a variance; '
(f) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the
safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the town, or
be adverse to the neighbo~ng properties since additional requirements
have been imposed fo~ cemp]~ce find extra efforts by the prop
ertY
owner.
Page 13- Appeal No. 4235
Matter of KIM FALLON and CYNTHIA SUTRYK '
Decision Rendered July, 14 1994
NOW, THEREFORE, on motion by Member Dini~io, seconded l~y
Member Wilton, it was
RESOLVED, to RESCIND the previous Resolution of this Board
adopted June 8, 1994 under Appeal No. 4235; nnd BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, to GRANT "a variance as requested under Appeal
No. 4235 to locate a 24 ft. by 22 ft. accessory building in the
northwesterly front yard area not closer than 54 feet from the westerly
property line and 120 feet from the rear yard property of Parcel No.
1000-94-2-3 (now or formerly Kavlaris as per survey), and SUBJECT TO
THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The use of the barn and corral area shall be limited to an
accessory use personal to the landowners and not for profitable or
commercial use;
2. The the accessory barn is limited to stalls for only two
horses and a pony (or three horses, or three ponies); moro than three
will require a further hearing for roconsideration, after a new,
subsequent application.
3. Any and ail manure shall be stored and disposed of in a
proper manner so as not to cause odor, fly infestation or other
adversity to neighboring landowners.
4. There shah be no horse training services or riding
instruction.~ by the landowners (such as a riding academy-type use)
to non-rosidents at the property;
5. The 100 ft. by 90 ft. horse corral (fenced area) shah be no
closer than 120 feet to the northerly property line at its closest
point, no closer than 200 feet to the easterly property line,
no closer th_an 40 feet to the westerly prOpe~.~y llne, and shall not
be located south of the dwelling foundation area.
6. The a.,ecesso_ry playhouse building now situated in the front
yard and presenuy Under construction shall .be located to a proper
position in the requi~d rear yard prior to the issuance Of any building
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Hessrs. Goehringer, Dinizio,
Doyen, Villa, and Wilton. This reslution was duly adopted.
~Page 14 - Appeal No. 4251
Application of MARILYN J. MORSCH
DeciSion Ren,dered July 14, 1994
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
Appeal No. 4251:
Application for MARILYN J. MORSCH. Variance to the
Zoning Ordinance, Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.3, based upon
the June 6, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the Building
Inspector, for approval of an "as built" wood~ deck addition with
a side yard setback at less thsn the required 15 feet and less
than the total side yards required at 15 and 20 feet. The
subject premi-ges contains a (conforming) total lot area of
40,409 square feet in this R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone
District. Property Location: 630 North Sca Drive, Southold,
NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-54-5-16.
WHEREAS, a public hcaring was held on July 14, 1994, at
which time all persons who desired to be hcard were hcard and
their testimony recorded Eno opposition was received); and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, the present use and
building(s), and the surrounding arcas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. The premi.~es in question:
(a) consists of a size of 40,409 sq. ft. with 100 ft.
frontage along North Sea Road, Southold, and is located in the
R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone District;
(b) is improved with a single-family, one-story frame
dwelling structure with additions, all as shown on the survey
dated March 15, 1994, prepared by Pecouic Surveyors, P.C.
which shows the principal building setbacks at 5.0 ,feet between
the "subject" attached deck and the westeriy property llne, 20.0
feet from the easterly side property Hne and an existing wood
deck, approximately 68 feet from the rear property line, and
270+- feet from the front property line.
.Page 15- Appeal No. 4251
Application of MARILYN J. MORSCH
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
2. By this application, appellants, by their attorney,
request approval for a reduction in the westerly side yard
setback from the required 15 feet to the existing five (5)
feet. The total setbacks for both side yards are also reduced
from the required 35 feet to 20 feet, as built and shown on the
March 14, 1994 survey submitted with thi.~ application.
3. It is the position of Board Members that the ~mount of
relief requested is substantial in relation to the requirement,
being a variance of 10 feet for the subject deck addition, or a
variance of 66%.
Aecordingly, on motion by Chairman Geehringer, seconded
by Member Dini~io, it was
RESOLVED, to GRANT the requested reduction of ten feet
from the westerly side property llne for the deck extension, "as
built," with a setback at five (5) feet, SUBJECT TO THE
FOLLOWING CONDITION:
1. There be no further side yard reductions to less than
that requested at 5 on the west side and 20 on the east side,
for total side yards at 25 feet;
2. The deck remain as built and not be roofed or enclosed
in ~ny manner;
3. There'be no adverse lighting - all lighting must be
shielded to the ground to prevent annoyance or glare onto
neighboring properties.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehrirrger, Doyen,
Dinizio, Wilton and Vi]la. This resolution was duly adopted.
· Page 16 - Appeal No. 4253
Application of JOHN AND MARY WISSEMANN
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 4253'.-
Application of JOHN AND MA;R~-~ WISSEMANN. Variance
based upon the June 16, 1994 Notice of Disapproval from the
Building Inspector for permi.~sion to construct accessory goamge
building with an in.~uffleient front yard setback at 580 Clearview
Road, Lot No. 49 and part of 47 on'the Development Map of Cedar
Beach, Southold, NY; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-90-4-
Lot 11.1. The subject promi.~es is a waterfront parcel containing
a total lot area of appro~mately 45,000 sq. ft. (ineludlng low
land subject to flooding) and is defined as a corner lot fronting
along Clear View Road and a private right-of-way to the north.
WHEREAS, after due notice, a public hearing was held on
July 14, 1994, and at said hearing all persons who desired to be
heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered aH testimony
and documentation submitted concerning thi.~ application; and
WHEREAS, BOard Members have personally viewed and are
familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, and the
surrounding areas; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact:
1. This is an appeal of a Notice of Dieappreval issued by the
Building Inspector m which the applicant has applied for a
building permit for a detached accessory storage building located
in a front yard area.
2. The premises in question is located in the R-40
LoW-Density Residential Zone District and contain.~ a total area of
45,000+- sq. ft. This lot area is a merger of the old lots on
the Map of Cedar Park, referred to as Lot 49 and part of Lot 47
(as combined).
3. The applicants' survey map of April 13, 1994, prepared by
Roderick VanTuyl, P.C. shows an existing one story, single'family
dwelling structure set back 37 feet from the northerly front
property llne along the private right-of-way, and set back 91+-
feet from the northwesterly front property llne along Clear View
Page 17-Appeal No. 4253
Application of JOHN AND MARY WISSEMANN
Decision Rendered July 14, ]994
Road. The subject premi.~es is a waterfront parcel having frontage
along Sandpiper Basin for which there is a setback distance
between the ordinary highwater mark and the roar deck of 36 feet,
at its closest point.
4. Proposed by this application is a 24 ft. by 24 ft.
accessory garage in a front yard area which use will be for Storage
purposes incidental and accessory to the applicants -owners
residence.
5. The rear yard for this particular parcel layout is that
area closest to the highwater mark. This parcel is a corner 10t
with two front yard areas. (Corner lots are permitted to establish
a rear yard in one of the remaining two side yards). The Board
Members agree that the dit'ficulties in locating an accessory
storage building are uniquely related to the land for the reason
that the rear yard is not feasible due to the nature of the low
elevation~ and land subject to flooding, and the highwater mark.
6,. Also noted is the fact that this building is proposed for
accessory use incidental to the residence nature of the property
for storage of the owners' miscellaneous items, lawn equipment and
the like. The applicant is aware that this building may not be
used, eniarged, or in the future converted for gainful purposes
(such as living area, rental for non-owner storage, etc.), and/or
not used as a separate principal use.
7. The proposed building will be in conformance with the
height requirements {one-story and less than 18 feet in height}.
8'- It is the position of the Beard in considering this
application that:
(a) the circumstances- are uniquely related to the
property and there is no method feasible for appellant, to pursue
other than- a variance - particularly since the property does
technically have two "front yards" - to the north of the ~xisting
residence, and the remaining yard areas are not large enough and
are not feasible, as noted above;
(b) the relief is not substantial in relation to the
requirements and will be at a distance of 19 feet frOm the front
property line, to the north, at its closest point;
(c) the variance requested does not involve an increase
of dwelling unit oi' use density;
Page ~8- Appeal No. 4253
Application of JOHN AND MARY- WISSEMANN
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
(d) the relief requested will not cause a substantial
effect on available governmental facilities since the structure is
for storage purposes incidental to the residence;
(e) the relief requested is not unreasonable due to the
uniqueness of the property and the immediate area;
(f) the variance will not in turn be adverse to the
safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience, or order of the
town, or be adverse to neighboring properties;
Accordingly, on motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by
Member Wilton, it was
RESOLVED, to DENY the location requested for the requested
accessory building with a setback at 12 feet from the property
line, and BE IT FURTHER
RESOLVED, to GRANT ALTERNATIVE REI.IEF, approving the
location of the requested accessory building at 19 feet from the
front property line, at its closest point to the north of the
residence, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
1. The building remain at one-story height, as proposed in
this request;
2. The building may be adjusted in size to 22' x 24' to gain
the extra two feet that are necessary to meet the 19 ft. setback
distance from the front property line;
3. The building shall be rotated, on an angle parallel with
the right-of-way property line to gain the distance needed to meet
the 19 ft. minimum front yard setback near the existing concrete
wall;
4. The exterior siding of the accessory building shall be
aesthetically pleasing and conforming to the natural surroundings
of the area;
5. There shall be no utilities, as proposed in this request;
6. The accessory building shah be screened with lattice work
and green ivy or similar perennial and plantings to camouflage
building - adding new evergreens, and/or maintain existing
evergreens, where needed to fill gaps, at least every three feet.
Ali screening shall be continuously maintained at all times.
7. No lighting shall be permitted which would be adverse or
Page 19- Minutes
Regular Meeting of July 14, 1994
Board of Appeals
(Appl. No. 4253, WISSEMANN, CONTINUED:)
glare onto neighboring properties.
vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Dinizio, Villa, Wilton,
Doyen and Goehringer. This r~solution was duly a'dopted
ACTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS
Appl. No. 4254.
Application of DEPOT ENTERPRISES, INC. Variance is
requested under Article vii, Section 100-?1C (ref. 100-31C-4,
100-33) and under prior variance determined May 11, 1993 under
Appeal No. 4157, for permission to modify the northerly yard
setback for an accessory ball court. Location of Property: 320
Depot Lane and 29325 Main Road, Cutchogue, NY; County Tax
Map Parcel ID No. 1000-102-2-12.1. Subject premlaes is zoned
Residential-Office (RO) and contains a' total lot area of 1.6+-
acres.
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on July 14, 1994, at
which time any and ali persons who desired to be heard were
heard and their tesiimony recorded <no opposition was submitted
during the hearing>; and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning thia application; and
WHEREAS, the Board members have personally viewed and
al~ familiar with the premiaes in question, its present zoning,
and the surrounding are~s; alld
WHEREAS, the Board m~ade the following findings of fact:
1. By this application, appellant requests a reduction in
the northerly yard setback for the repositioning of the existing
double volleyball court, which volleyball court with outdOor
Hghting was previously considered by the Board of Appeals under
Appeal No. 4157 on April 22, 1993. The setbacks for the
proposed repositionlng of the double volleyball court are
proposed to be reduced by eight feet from the original 22 ft.
setback.
2. The most recent (June 6, 1994) site plan map was
prepared by Anthony W. Lewandowski, Land Surveyor. Shown
on this site plan is the new proposed addition which was
considered under Special Exception No. 4244. That addition is
proposed at 92 feet from the westerly front property llne and
86+- feet to the northerly property line, which would protrude
'Page 20- Appl. No. 4254
Matter of DEPOT ENTERPRISES, INC.
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
onto the volleyball court area. The number of parking spaces is
shown on the June 6, 1994 site plan to be proposed at 45. There
are an existing buffer between the northwesterly parking area
and Depot Lane of approximately 12-112 feet in depth and buffer
area north of the Parking area at approximately ten (10) feet in
depth. The playground area, or fence enclosure, must be
removed. The frontage of the subject property along the Main
Road is 149.39 in length, and along Depot Lane 173.13 feet.
3. The subject premi.~es is known as 320 Depot Lane (and
293'25 Main Read), Cutchogue, Town of Southold, ~New York,
contains a total area of 1.63+- acres, and is located in the
Residential-Office Zone District. The recreational building is
and has been used for health-club business and office use, since
its inception in 1985, when the property was zoned B-Light
Business. (Prior to receiving a Special Exception 1985 the
building was used as a dwelling and offices. )
4. At thi~ ~ime, the main boJldlng is under review for a
final Certificate of Occupancy pertaining to a portion of the
areas converted in 1985 from office and]or residential to its
present use and pertaining to the restricted use of the second
floor. Simultaneously peliding with thi.~ application is an
amended site plan review before the Town Planning Beard
pertaining to the new addition. (Note: .A site plan map dated
4-6-84 was approved previously and signed by the Chairman of
the Planning Board on 7-19-85; also a temporary Certificate of
Occupancy was issued by the Building Inspector on November 6,
1987 for the recreation center' under No. Z16374, with a notation
that the second floor be non-habitable. )
5. In con.~idering thi.~ application, the Beard also finds
and determines:
(a) that the essential character of the neighborhood
will be not altered' with a reduction in the setback of eight
feet;
(b) that the relief as requested is the minimum
necessary to afford relief to the applicants;
(c) the difficulties claimed do not violate the
setback schedule in the Zoning Code pertaining to accessory
structures Since the setback from the rear property llne exceeds
the 20 ft. requirement;
(d) that there is no other alternative available which
is feasible for appellants to pursue for the volleyball court, as
noted above;
· Page 21 - Appl. No. 4~.54
Matter of DEPOT ENTERPRISES, INC.
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
(e) in considering all of the above factors, the
interests of justice will be served by granting the relief
requested, as cenditionally noted below.
Accordingly, on motion by Chairman Goehringer, seconded
by Member Doyen, it was
RESOLVED, that permission is hereby GRANTED for the
8+- ft. setback reduction adjustment in the location of the
volleyball court at the northerly setback, as requested.
Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Dinlzio, Villa and Wilton. This resolution was duly adopted.
Page 22 - Appl. No, 4247SE
Application of HUGH AND CAROL CONROY
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION
Appl. No. 4247(SE).
Application of HUGH T. and CAROL L. CONROY. This is a
request for a Special Exception to establish an Accessory. Apartment
in conjunction with the owner's occupancy within existing residence
as authorized under Article III, Section 100-30A.2B and Section
100-31B(14) of the Zoning Code. Location of Property: Westerly
side of Gin Lane, Southold, NY; also referred to as Lot #2 on the
Subdivision Map of Bay Haven flied in the Suffolk County Clerk's
Office as Map 2910; further identified on the County Tax Maps as
1000-88-3-6.
WHEREAS, after due notice, a public hearing was held on. June
8, 1994, at which time aH persons were given an opportunity to be
heard and their testimony considered; and
WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony
and documentation submitted concerning this application; and
WHEREAS, the Board made the 'following Findings of Fact:
1. By this application, appellant is requesting a Special
Exception to the Zoning Ordinance, Article III, Section 100-3lB,
Subsection 14, for approval of a proposed Accessory Apartment in
the existing principal building as more particularly shown on the
sketched map and floor plan submitted under this application.
2. The premises in question is located in the R-40
Low-Density Residential Zone District and contains a total lot area
of approximstely 40,000 sq. ft. with 300.0 ft. frontage along the
westerly side of Gin Lane, Southold. This parcel is also shown on
the "Map of Bay Haven at Southold", part of Lot No. 1, acquired
by the applicant-owners on August 30, 1988 by deed at IAber
10689, page 338.
3. The subject premises is improved with a one snd
one-half-story framed dwelling structure with lower garage area.
The setbacks of the principal building footprint are shown to be
52+- feet from the front property llne, 63+- feet to 'the northerly
side property line; 163+- feet from the southerly side property
line, and 48+- feet to the rear westerly property line, all at
°Page25- Appl. No. 4247
Application of HUGH AND CAROL CONRO¥
Decision Rendered July 14, 1994
occupy-the balance of the dwelling or one (1) year from the date of
said demise, whichever sbal! first occur.
Building
annually.
1) This conversion shall be subject to inspection by the
Inspector and Renewal of Certificate Of Occupancy
m) The existing building which is converted to permit
thig accessory apartment shah h~ve a valid Certificate of
Occuapncy issued prior to January 1, 1984.
n) The existing building, together with thls accessory
apartment, shah comply with aH other requirements of Chnpter 100
(Zoning) of the Town Code of the Town of Southold.
o) This conversion for the accessory apartment shah
comply with all other rules and regulations of the New York State
Con.~truction Code and other applicable codes.
2. The side entrance shaH, however, be Hmited to a deck or
platform area not exceeding a size of 10 ft. by 10 ft., plus stairs
to the second floor;
3. The side stairway entrance and platform deck area shah
remnln open and urrroofed (or, in the alternative, a rear stairway
may be permitted instead of at the side location for the stairs);
4. There shah be no other outside stairway for either unit,
other than the single outside stairway requested.
5. This conversion shmll be subject to inspection by the
Building Inspector and renewal of a certificate of occupancy and]or
certificate of compliance annually, with a written notice furnished
to the Chairman or Clerk of the Board of Appeals. for updated,
recordkeeping purposes.
Vote of the Beard: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen,
Dinizio, and Wilton. (Nay: Member Vilia - felt that this project
was against the character of this planned community and established
development.) This resolution was duly adopted (4-1).
'Page 24 Minutes
Regular Meeting of July 14, 1994
Southold Town Board of Appeals
III. RESOLUTIONS/MISCELLANEOUS:
A. Inquiries:
1. From Stephen L. Ham, Esq. for proposed new project
which tony affect lot-line variance granted Re: McGeeney and
Rodenbach, property at Fishers Island. Both letters and ZBA
draft response was approved, as follows:
·.. Stephen L. Ham III, Esq.
45 Hampton Road
Southampton, NY 11968
Re: Your Letters of July 12th and July 13, 1994
Inquiry Concerning Properties of McGeeney & Rodenbach
Dear Mr. Ham:
Our office has reviewed your communications with reference to
a new proposal to file an application. It does appear that
the project will be not conforming with the zoning code and
which will not conform to the lot-line variance and pending
Pr-division application before the Planning Board, however,
more information will be necessary - which is reviewed through
an appeal process and public hearing oniy.
Zoning, as you may know, does not encourage more th~u one
dwelling on a parcel, or new construction near a dividing
property llne, particularly where there are two different
property owners.
You may follow the same course of procedupr as other
applicants by filing an application with:the Building
Department, obtaining an appropriate Notice of Disapproval,
and .filing an appeal with the Board of Ap, peals ~in order that a
public hearing maY be held and full review made. Not only
will a new variance application be necessary, it may also be
necessary for us to Propen the lot-line varia,!ce application
since the circumstances are changing. (The lot-line variance
pprviously rendeprd does not change the normal proceduPr
Prquiprd for appeals on building and zoning matters.)
In checking with Robert Kassner of the Planning Board office
today, we were informed that you may need to re-file new
maps with the changes, since their approval was based upon
the two buildings being removed...
'Page 25 - Minutes
Regular Meeting of July 14, 1994
Southold Town Board of Appeals
(Agenda Item III-A(2)).
2. Re: Matassoni and Valentine. Building Department
has received an application to locate an accessory gazebo structure
in lieu of the dwelling originally proposed, and asks whether ZBA
will require a modification of its determination for a gazebo
in.~tead of a dwelling. The Board Members were all agreeable to
the modification.
B. Calendar Updates/Reminders confirmed (ms of today's
date):
1. Committee f0~r Code Reviews to meet Tues, 7/19.
2. ZBA Regular Meeting August to be 8/11.
C. A copy of the sample "Notice of Posting" was shown to the
Board Members. Prin~ng of same was recommended, and one
original is to be furnished to the applicants for posting by them
at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. (A purch~.~e order was
pending with the Supervisor and Accounting Offices for approval on
the order. It was expected that the Notices would be printing by
the supplier in about 30 days.
D. Proposed "merger analysisn prevision. Comments were
expected to be received by Board Members for recommendations or
suggestions by the August 11, 1994 meeting.
There being no other business properly coming before the
Board at this time, the meeting was declared adjourned. The
meeting adjourned at approximately 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~ ' a Kowalsld, Clerk f./~.~
,/'/// //-~/~// Board of APpea~
~/ Approve~' 8111/9~ CEI D FInD
//' ~E SOU~OLD TOWN C~K ~
Town Clerk, Town of Southold
t