Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/11/1991APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman Charles G-rigonis, Jr. Serge Doyen, Jr. James Dinizio. Jr. Telephone (516) 765 - 1809 BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHOLD SCOTT L. HARRIS Supervisor Town Hall, 53095 Main Road P.O. Box 1179 Southold, New York 11971 Fax (516) 765-1823 Telephone (516) 765-1800 MINUTES REGULAR MEETING FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1991 A Regular Meeting was held by the Southold Town Board of Appeals on FRIDAY, JANUARY 11, 1991, commencing at 7:30 o'clock p.m. at the $outhold Town Hall, Main Road, Southold, New York. Present were: Gerard P. Goehringer, Chairman; Member Serge J. Doyen, and Member James Dinizio, Jr., constituting a quorum of the four-member board at this time. (Absent was Member Charles Grigonis, Jr. due to illness.) Also present was Board Secretary Linda Kowalski and approximately 45 persons in the audience. The Chairman opened the meeting at 7:30 p.m. and proceeded with deliberations/decisions in each of the following Matters: Appl. No. 3973 - JOHN AND ROSE MILAZZO (hearing was held and concluded on November 29, 1990); Appl. No. 3788 - SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. (hearing was held and concluded on November 29, 1990). (Continued on next page) Southold Town Board of Appeals -~- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appt. No. 3973: Upon Application of JOHlq AND ROSE MILAZZO for Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B {a/k/a 100-239d(B)} and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for permission to locate addition and reconstruction of dwelling structure with setbacks: (a) at less than the required 75 feet from the bulkhead, (b) at less than the required minimum 35 ft. rear yard at its closest point, and (c) at less than the required 10 ft. and 15 ft. minimum side yards, (d) at less than the total side yards required minimum of 25 feet. Existing dwelling structure is nonconforming as to the northerly side yard, the rear yard, and the setback from the bulkhead. Lot area and width are nonconforming in this R-40 Zone District. Location of Property: 9 Island View Lane, Greenport; County Tax Map Parcel No. 1000-57-2-20. WHEREAS, a public hearing (verbatim portion of the record) was held on November 29, 1990; and WHEREAS, and at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; WHEREAS, on December 13, 1990, all written portions of the record were acknowledged and concluded (closed); and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; WHEREAS, Board Members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question, its present zoning, the surrounding areas; and and WHEREAS, the Board made the following findings of fact: 1. By this application, appellants seek variances under Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B and Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for approval of the construction of a new dwelling with insufficient side yards at eight feet from the northerly property, at approximately three feet from the side entry/steps to the southerly property line, and 25 feet from the rear porch to the bulkhead (at its closest points), as more particularly Board of Appeals -3- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Decision: Appl. No. 3973 - MILAZZO, continued:) shown on the site plan prepared by Salvator A. Caradonna, R.A. (Drawing No. Al, revised December 21, 1990). 2. The premises in question is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 57, Block 2, Lot 20, contains a total lot area of approximately 8124 sq. ft., and has a frontage along a private right-of-way of 33 feet. The parcel is unique in physical shape, size and character, which lend to practical difficulties for construction of a new dwelling. 3. The dwelling which exists is proposed to be replaced with a 2,034 sq. ft. dwelling structure. Also proposed are a 200+- sq. ft. raised deck (el. 12) at the southeast corner of the proposed dwelling structure and an 8' x 11-1/2' side entry with steps with a setback of two to three feet from the southerly (side) property line. There is a 15' x 12' rear porch also proposed at the rear (southeast section) of the dwelling which is set back at 25 feet from the closest corner of the bulkhead. The actual foundation (without porches or deck) scales out to be 37 feet from the closest corner of the bulkhead and 45 feet from the southeast corner of the foundation to the bulkhead. 4. Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4B of the Zoning Code requires all buildings and structures located on lots upon which a bulkhead, concrete wall, rip-rap or similar structure exists and which is adjacent to tidal water bodies other than the Long Island Sound to be set back not less than seventy-five (75) feet from the bulkhead. 5. Article XXIV, Section 100-244B of the Zoning Code provides side yard relief to substandard lots containing less than 20,000 sq. ft., to not less than 10 and 15 feet, for a total of 25 feet for both side yards. 6. It is noted that in this Board's referral to the Soil and Water Conservation District of Suffolk County, evaluations of the property were conducted. Half of the parcel is established with sod cover and a number of trees; the other half is unprotected and shows signs of erosion. The grade slopes with three to eight percent slopes. The soil has been surveyed as Riverhead Sandy Loan RdB, and shows slight limitations for homesites, landscaping and sewage disposal fields, with a possible pollution hazard to the creek due to rapid permeability of the soil. It is the position of the board that the amount of relief requested as to not only side yards but as to the bulkhead set back is substantial. It is also the position of the Board that the uniqueness of the property does lend to the granting of minimal variances, and recommends that more than one plan be submitted if a future application is filed, with "building Board of Appeals -4- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Decision: Appl. No. 3973 - MILAZZO, continued:) envelope" locations (without the need for actual construction plans which are costly to the property owner). It is recommended that before filing a new application with our office, that septic systems and building envelope be established by the Southold Town Trustees, which have jurisdiction under the Wetlands Provisions - Chapter 97 of the Code of the Town of Southold, and the possibility of a second bulkhead-type barrier to be constructed between the building area and the wetlands to prevent run-off into the Creek. 7. It is the position of this Board that in considering this application: (a) the relief requested is substantial in relation to the code requirements, (variances in excess of 50 percent); (b) the relief requested is not the minimum necessary to afford relief, and there are alternative set backs available for appellants to pursue, with greater set backs and less relief from the standards applied; (b) the relief, if granted as requested, will not adversely effect the essential character of the neighborhood; (e) the difficulties are uniquely related to the property and are not personal in nature; (d) the variance will in turn be adverse to the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town and neighboring properties; (e) in view of all the above, the interests of justice will be served by not granting the relief as requested. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Goehringer, it was RESOLVED, to DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE the relief requested under Appeal No. 3973 in the Matter of JOHlq AND ROSE MILAZZO, WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Dinizio, consisting of a quorum of the entire four-member board at this time. This resolution was duly adopted. (Member Grigonis was absent due to illness.) ~Southold Town Board of Appeals -5- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3788 Upon application of SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. Variances to the Zoning Ordinance, Article X, Section 100-102: (1) for permission to establish convenience store use in conjunction with and accessory to the existing gasoline station use on this substandard parcel which contains less than 30,000 sq. ft. in lot area for each use, and (2) for interpretation as to the height limitation of accessory (canopy) structure, and (3) for approval of canopy structure in the front yard location. Location of Property: Corner of the Easterly Side of Factory Avenue and Northerly Side of the Main Road, Mattituck, NY; District 1000, Section 142, Block 1, Lot 27. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on November 1, 1990 and continued on November 29, 1990, in the Matter of the Application of SUN REFINING & MARKETING CO. under Appeal No. 3788; and WHEREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the 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. The premises in question is a corner lot with 150.0 feet along the east side of Factory Avenue and with 198.0 feet along the north side of the Main Road, in the Hamlet of Mattituck, Town of Southold, and more particularly identified on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 142, Block 1, Lot 27. 2. The subject premises contains a total area of 24,139 sq. ft., is located in the "B" General Business Zone District, and is improved with a 30' x 66' principal building and two gasoline service (concrete) islands, all as shown on Drawing No. Board of Appeals -6- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3788 - SUN REFINING & MARKETING Decision, continued) 13-1318 (Rev. 11) as updated October 29, 1990, prepared by Sun Refining & Marketing Company. 3. By this application, the appellant requests Variances: (a) to convert the existing principal building from gasoline sales and vehicle/engine repairs to gasoline sales and accessory convenience store for the on-premises sales of packaged food and nonfood items, without on-premises food services, incidental to and in conjunction with the existing gasoline service station use, and (b) for approval of the location of a new 30 ft. by 103 ft. canopy over new gasoline pu~ps/islands with its closest set-backs at 29 feet from the westerly property line along Factory Avenue and at 29 feet from the southerly property line along the Main Road, as shown on Drawing 13-1318-M (Rev. 2) dated September 14, 1988 (also revised May 7, 1990), at a height at not more than 18 feet above ground. 4. For the record, it is noted that under previous Action of this Board under Appl. No. 1225 rendered January 2, 1969, a Special Exception was granted for a gasoline service and indoor repair station. 5. In considering this application, it is the understanding of the Board Members that the items to be sold would include small variety store items, such as packaged and canned foods, magazines, refrigerated items, microwaved items, and the like. 6. The following information is also noted for the record: (a) the premises has continuously for the past 22 years been used as an office for sales of gasoline and other incidental merchandise, with small engine/vehicle repairs within the enclosed three bay areas of the principal building, and gasoline sales at the pumps; (b) the use as a convenience store is to be used accessory and incidental to the gasoline-service station and not as a separate principal use or business establishment; (c) the existing vehicle lifts and (three) bay areas will be eliminated and replaced with the accessory convenience store use; (d) the principal building will not be enlarged without prior approval of the Board of Appeals by subsequent application; Board of Appeals -7- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3788 - SUN REFINING & MARKETING Decision, continued) (e) also noted is the interpretation of the board, as requested by the applicant, in that the subject canopy structure is an accessory structure, limited to the 18-ft. maximum height requirement {and not the height limitation for a principal building at 35 feet}, and subject, of course, to the rules as apply to accessory structures. 7. In considering this application, the Board also finds and determines: (a) the subject parcel is surrounded by other properties to the north, west, east, and south of the Main Road which are also located and used as regulated by the General Business "B" Zone District; (b) the variance, as conditionally noted below, is the minimum necessary to afford relief; (c) the accessory use as authorized will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; (d) the difficulties are unique, are not due to the general conditions of the neighborhood, and are not personal in nature; (e) there is no other method feasible for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (f) the relief as conditionally granted will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of this district or of adjacent use districts; (g) the safety, health, welfare, comfort, convenience and order of the Town will not be adversely affected by the proposed business use and its location; (h) in light of all of the above, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variances requested and as conditionally noted below. Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief requested for permission to convert the existing principal building for sales of gasoline and related items, together with an accessory convenience store, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Board of Appeals -8- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3788 - SUN REFINING & MARKETING Decision, continued) i. No cooking, except by portable microwave; 2. No food preparation (must be pre-packaged - including cold cuts and sandwiches); 3. No table service or seating for public use; 4. No signs advertising the convenience store use, except by approval of the Board of Appeals; 5. Ail engine/vehicle repairs and/or car washing services must cease; 6. No drive-thru or (window) drive-in services (convenience store); 7. Convenience store sales shall be limited to self-service (including vending machines, refrigerators); 8. Convenience store is permitted only as an accessory use incidental to the principal use as a gasoline service station (as proposed herein) and within the principal building only, and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to GRANT a Variance for the canopy structure of a size 30 ft. by i03 ft., 29 feet from the westerly property line (along Factory Avenue) and 29 feet from the southerly property line (along the State Highway), provided that the canopy structure not exceed 18 feet in height in the front yard area, as applied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Dinizio. (Absent was: Member Grigonis due to illness.) This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -9- January 11,_1991 Regular Meeting Then, the following public hearings were held: 7:35 p.m. Appl. No. 3995 GREGORY FEGOS. The Board held over the hearing until 8:37 p.m., when Mr. Fegos arrived. (See 8:37 p.m. notations.) 7:40 p.m. Appl. No. 3989 - ROBERT J. and NORMA E. SIEBER. Rudolph H. Bruer, Esq. appeared in behalf of the applicants. The public hearing was held. (See transcript of hearing prepared under separate cover and attached for future reference.) After the hearing, the Board adopted the following findings and determination. (Continued on next page) .Southold Town Board of Appeals -10- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appeal No. 3989: Application for ROBERT AND NORMA SIEBER. Variance to the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIV, Section 100-244B for approval of deck/patio construction with a reduced front yard setback. (The lot is nonconforming as to area and width in this R-40 Zone District.) Location of Property: 4945 Main Bayview Road and the easterly side of Smith Drive North, Southold, also referred to as Lots 83 & 84 on the subdivision Map of "Goose Neck"; County Tax Map District 1000, Section 76, Block 2, Lot 20. WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on January 11, 1991 in the Matter of the Application of ROBERT AND NORMA SIEBER under Appeal No. 3989; and W~EREAS, at said hearing all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the Board has carefully considered all testimony and documentation submitted concerning this application; and WHEREAS, the 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. The premises in question is a corner parcel lot fronting 150.0 feet along the westerly side of Smith Drive North and 100.0 feet along the north side of Main Bayview Road in the Hamlet and Town of Southold and is referred to as Lot Nos. 83 & 84 on the Map of Goose Neck. 2. The subject premises is nonconforming as to lot area in this R-40 Zone District containing a total lot area of 15,000 square feet and is improved with a single-family dwelling set back 34.9 feet from Smiths Drive North and 35.4 feet from Main Bayview Road (exclusive of step areas). 3. By this application, appellant requests a variance for the construction of: (a) a raised patio/deck entry of a size 10 ft. by 12 ft., and (b) a raised side patio/deck of a size 14 ft. by 24 feet, both as shown on Page 2 of the sketched maps submitted with the application. The raised patio entry reduces the front-yard setback to 25 feet from Main Bayview Road (at its closest point), and the patio/deck along the north (side) of the dwelling maintains the same front-yard setback at 34.9 feet. 4. For the record, it is also noted: Southold Town Board of Appeals -]]- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting Decision, continued: Appl. No. 3989 - SIEBER) (a) that Article XXIV, Section 100-244B provides relief to nonconforming lots having a lot area of less than 20,000 square feet in the front yard to not less than 35 feet, (b) that a Certificate of Nonconforming Premises was issued (no date furnished to William E. and Elsie Young for this dwelling and land. 5. In considering this application, the Board also finds that the relief requested: (a) will not be adverse to the essential character of the neighborhood; (b) will not in turn be adverse to the health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of be adverse to neighboring properties; safety, the town, or (c) will not increase dwelling unit density or cause a substantial effect on available governmental facilities; (d) is the minimum necessary to afford relief; (e) cannot be obviated by another method feasible to appellant to pursue, other than a variance; (f) in considering all of the above factors, the interests of justice will be served by granting the variance, conditionally noted below. as Accordingly, on motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, it was RESOLVED, to GRANT the relief as requested under Application No. 3989, as noted in paragraph 3, supra, provided the deck/patio entry remain open and unroofed, as applied. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Doyen and Dinizio. (Member Grigonis was absent.) This resolution was duly adopted. (PUBLIC HEARINGS, Continued:) 7:43 p.m. Appl. No. 3991 - JOH/q AND GRACE FIORE. Paul Southold Town Board of Appeals -12- January ll, 1991 Regular Meeting Caminiti, Esq. appeared in behalf of the applicants. (There was no public opposition during the hearing.) The transcript of hearing was prepared under separate cover and attached hereto for future reference. The Board concluded the hearing, reserving decision and deliberations until a later time. 7:49 p.m. PAMELA ANN CONLON. Mr. and Mrs. Conlon appeared. The transcript of hearing was prepared under separate cover and attached hereto for future reference. The Board concluded the hearing, reserving decision and deliberations until a later time. 7:54 p.m. PUDGE CORP. Appl. No. 3984. Mr. James Gray, Sr. appeared in behalf of the application. The transcript of hearing was prepared under separate cover and attached hereto for future reference. The Board concluded the hearing, reserving decision and deliberations until a later time. 8:02 p.m. Appl. No. 3996 - STANLEY WERNICK. Mr. Lawrence Feeley of Ward Associates appeared in behalf of the applicant. The transcript of hearing was prepared under separate cover and attached hereto for future reference. The Board concluded the hearing, reserving decision and deliberations until a later time. 8:10 p.m. Appl. No. 3998 - HENRY AND MARY RAYNOR. Mr. Henry Raynor appeared in behalf of the applicants. The transcript of hearing was prepared under separate cover and attached hereto for future reference. On motion by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, to recess this application until February 22, 1991, pending receipt of the Town Engineer's inspection report and receipt of a single-and-separate search concerning this parcel dating back to 1957. Vote of the Board: Ayes: (All) Members Doyen, Grigonis, and Goehringer. This resolution was duly adopted. 8:19 p.m. Appl. No. 3999 - FRANK SAWICKI. The applicant's nephew, Mr. Joseph Sawicki (Jr.), appeared with Mr. Frank Sawicki. The transcript of hearing was prepared under separate cover and attached hereto for future reference. The Board concluded the hearing, reserving decision and deliberations until a later time. 8:37 p.m. Appl. No. 3995 - GREGORY FEGOS. Mr. Fegos appeared at this time (late due to tonight's snow storm). The Chairman reopened the hearing, which was recessed earlier this evening. Motion was made by Mr. Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it withdraw the earlier motion to recess this hearing. Vote of the Board: Ayes: All. The transcript of hearing was prepared under separate cover and attached hereto for future reference. The Board concluded the hearing, reserving decision and deliberations until a later time. Southold Town Board of Appeals -13- January ll, 1991 Regular Meeting 8:40 p.m. Appl. No 3990. CHOLOWSKY/CASOLA. J. Kevin McLaughlin, Esq. appeared with Michael Cholowsky, the applicant. Numerous opposition was received (see transcripts of hearing prepared under separate cover and attached hereto for reference). In light of the snow storm, the hearing was recessed until February 22, 1991. Motion was made by Chairman Goehringer, seconded by Mr. Dinizio, and duly carried, to continue this hearing until the February Regular Meeting of this Board. 9:05 p.m. Appl. No. 3993 - KENNETH L. EDWARDS. (No appearances.) The Board concluded the hearing, reserving decision and deliberations until a later time. POSTPONEMENT: Appl. No. 3699 - MITCHELL MARKS. The Board consented to an adjournment of this hearing until the February hearing calendar, as requested today by the applicant due to the snow storm. DELIBERATIONS commenced with regard to the application of AURICHIO & SBLENDIDO under Appl. No. 3955. (Continued on next page). Southold Town Board of Appeals -14- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3955: Upon Application for DOMINICK SBLENDIDO & A. AURICHIO for an Interpretation regarding second kitchen facilities and its relation to single-family verses two-family uses, and a variance for addition with an insufficient frontyard setback. Location of Property: 185 Inlet Lane, Greenport, NY; County Tax Map Parcel ID No. 1000-43-04-037. WHEREAS, Application 93955, is made under the Zoning Ordinance of the Town of Southold, Chapter 100, for: (1) an interpretation of Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2(A1), referring to Article III, Section 100-31A(1), and with reference to the Town Building Inspector's issuance of a Notice of Disapproval dated May 29, 1990 for a permit to construct an addition to existing one-family dwelling on the following grounds: "...Under Article IIIA Section 100-30.3 and under Article XXIII, Section 100-230(A) construction has insufficient front yard setback; Also under Article IIIA, Section 100-30A.2A(1) {100-3iA}A, Permitted Uses (1) One-Family Detached Dwelling Not to Exceed One (1) Dwelling on Each Lot {A Two-Family Dwelling Is Not A Permitted Use.} Action Required by the Zoning Board of Appeals..."; and (2) an area variance for the construction of approximately 17' wide x 15.5' long (radius of 8'6") front entry {open and unenclosed}, extending 15.5 feet (along a tie line) from the front of the dwelling structure to the front property line along Inlet Lane, as shown on both building construction plans prepared by Argyle Architectural Services; WHEREAS, said application makes specific reference to property of DOMINICK SBLENDIDO AND OTHERS situated along the West Side of Inlet Lane (House ~185) in the Hamlet of Greenport, Town of Southold, County of Suffolk, and more particularly designated on the Suffolk County Tax Maps as District 1000, Section 43, Block 4, Lot 37; Board of Appeals -]5- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3955 - SBLENDIDO & AURICCHIO Decision, continued:) WHEREAS, members of the Board viewed the property and are familiar with the current zoning designation of "Low-Density R-40 Residential"; WHEREAS, after due notice, public hearings were held by the Board of Appeals on July 25, 1990, September 26, 1990, Novem- ber 1, 1990, and November 29, 1990, at which time the verbatim portion of the record was concluded; (the written portion of the record concluded January 11, 1991); WHEREAS, at said hearings all those who desired to be heard were heard and their testimony recorded; and WHEREAS, the record and all testimony have been carefully considered, and the following pertinent facts noted: 1. The subject premises comprises an area of 12,289 square feet with 125.71 ft. frontage along the westerly side of Inlet Lane, in the Hamlet of Greenport. 2. The premises prior to early 1989 was improved with a 29' wide x 25' deep 1-1/2 story frame house set back 30 feet from the front property line along Inlet Lane. Also existing during this time period were 5' x 6' front and rear stoops which under the provisions of the zoning regulations {Section 100-230C(2)} were excluded from the building area and setback requirements provided each unenclosed entry remained at 5' x 6' or less in size. (See survey dated November 7, 1977 prepared by Roderick VanTuyl, P.C.) 3. On March 14, 1989 an application for a building permit was received by the Building Department; and on March 16, 1989, a building permit was issued for "an addition to an existing one-family dwelling." Although the permit was issued for a proposed addition, the dwelling structure was completely reconstructed and an entire new second floor added with new basement construction. The addition was being constructed as a "mirror image" of the initial dwelling unit. The building plan with mirrow unit included: (a) a second kitchen, (b) a second dining room, (c) a second full bath, (d) a second living room, (e) a second foyer and stairway to the upper and lower levels, (f) second, separate heating utility systems and separate fuel tank hook-ups, (g) separate passageways and separate front entrances/doors, (h) plumbing systems for the utilization of two separate kitchen areas, (i) vertical party walls and separate entrances similiar to that of a duplex or townhouse. 4. On December 5, 1989, a stop work order was issued by the Building Department on the following grounds: · Board of Appeals -]6- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3955 - SBLENDIDO & AURICCHIO Decision, continued:) (a) No foundation inspection (b) No second survey (c) Not being built as per plans submitted (d) Appears to have insufficient front yard setbacks (e) Cannot build a 2-family dwelling in a R-40 Zone, and the conditions under which work would be permitted to be resumed were: 1. Submit a new survey showing all setbacks and houses within 300' - same side of street. 2. New plans showing all details-"Stamped." 3. Eliminate 2-family dwelling. 4. Pay the new fee. 5. On December 6, 1989, the amended building plans changing the words "kitchen," "dining room" and "living room" to "library" and "great room," (with plumbing not shown in these rooms), were received by the Building Department together with payment of an additional filing fee of $293.40 (total paid 535.10); on December 11, 1989 a survey map showing setbacks of structures within 300 feet of the subject premises was received by the Building Department. 6. On December 12, 1989, the Building Department was furnished with a signed statement from the builder, Argyle Construction by James B. Argyle, indicating that it agrees to stop all work on the front steps "until a variance has been approved," and on December 12, 1989, this Stop Work Order was lifted at 9:30 p.m. (See Building Department inspection record.) 7. On December 19, 1989, the Building Department inspected the damp-proofing of the foundation and chimney footing, and required a survey. 8. On May 25, 1990, an inspection request was made but the building inspector did not have access. Inspections were made on May 7, 1990 and on May 14, 1990 and the inspection record denotes "...plumbing installed for a second kitchen --not on plan .... " 9. On May 29, 1990 the subject Notice of Disapproval was issued by the Building Department; and on June 1, 1990, a Stop Work Order was issued on the following grounds: (a) Construction has insufficient front yard set back. (b) Not being constructed as per plans submitted. (c) Plunubing installed for second kitchen, and Board of Appeals -]7- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3955 - SBLENDIDO & AURICCHIO Decision, continued:) the conditions which work would have been permitted to be resumed were: 1. Approval from Zoning Board of Appeals for kitchen and front yard setback. 2. OK from Principal Building Inspector. second 10. On June 22, 1990, this application was filed with the Board of Appeals for an interpretation concerning the construction plans submitted and rejected by the Building Inspector, and for the above-mentioned front yard variance(s), The hearings were held and extensive testimony and documentation submitted, both pro, con and otherwise. 11. It should be noted that during this appeal proceeding, a letter dated October 2, 1990, was forwarded to the Building Inspector's Office from Mr. Cardinale, attorney for the property owners of the subject parcel, indicating that the owners would remove the plualbing from the wall of the "great room" if this would allow the lifting of the Stop Work Order, pending the outcome of the Z.B.A. determination. As of this date, the Stop Work Order has not been lifted, and the plumbing has not been removed. ZONING INTERPRETATION 12. During 1987 and on several occasions prior thereto, the issue of plumbing and electrical facilities to a secondary kitchen area was considered by the Board of Appeals, as well as the Town Attorney's Office and Town Board. A written request was made by the Executive Administrator/Inspector of the Building Department as to what restrictions there would be for kitchens, dining rooms, bathrooms, etc. and for a definition of "one dwelling unit" under the Southold Town Zoning Code, with copies of this request being furnished to the Town Attorney's Office. It is noted that by letter dated October 23, 1987, Special Town Attorney Francis J. Yakaboski advised the Building Department to abide by the intent of the zoning code of the Town of Southold that there are to be no two-family homes constructed (except as may be authorized by special exception or in certain zone districts), and that the Building Department must act vigorously to prevent two-family construction by disapproving plans indicating the presence of two kitchens under the provisions of the zoning code. 13. On January 8, 1988, an Interpretation was made by the Board of Appeals of the term "one dwelling unit." The interpretation provides as follows: SECTION 100-12 - DEFINITIONS. "Any building, or portion thereof, forming a Board of Appeals -]8- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3955 - SBLENDIDO & AURICCHIO Decision, continued:) single habitable unit and containing not more than one kitchen and/or cooking facility shall be deemed a "dwelling unit" under the Southold Town Zoning Code. This definition under the "...Code precludes more than one kitchen and/or cooking facility in a one-dwelling unit, and accordingly, a plan submitted through your office which shows intent to install plumbing facilities for a second kitchen area must be denied .... " 14. Based upon the purpose and intent of the zoning code provisions, and this interpretation and clarification, an application to the building inspector with plans showing intent to install facilities for a second kitchen area must be, and in this instance had been, disapproved. Although a remedy may be available to the applicant by way of an application for a variance requesting permission to install the subject facilities for a second kitchen in a principal dwelling structure, the applicants herein made it clear that they chose to request an interpretation, and not a variance to install the subject plumbing facilities and/or second kitchen. (This was the reason the legal notice was modified during publications in the official newspapers.) 15. This interpretation and clarification still remains in effect and has not been modified by this board. 16. It should be noted that the building, as shown on the plans, also does have vertical party walls and separate private entrances to two separate areas of the building construction, similar to that of a duplex or townhouse (which may contain more than one dwelling unit and are not uses permitted in this R-40 Low-Density Residential Zone District). 17. It is the position of this Board that although the use of the dwelling structure may be proposed for single-family occupancy, the physical layout of the new dwelling construction is for a duplex or additional living unit with separate utilities, entrances, facilities, etc. It is the intent and purpose of the zoning ordinance in the Town of Southold not to permit a second kitchen or separate living quarters, or separate plumbing and heating utilities for separate living quarters, without an application to the Board of Appeals to consider the purposes and intent of the separate connections or units under question, to review the construction plans, and determine whether the construction plans meet the requirements for single-family or two-family construction. · Board of Appeals -]9- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3955 SBLENDIDO & AURICCHIO Decision, continued:) FRONT-YARD SETBACK CONSIDERATION 18. This consideration is concerning that portion of the application requesting approval of the front entry with a reduction to 18.4 feet from the front property line. 19. By survey map prepared December 11, 1989 by Peconic Surveyors, P.C., it is determined that the set-backs of the principal buildings within 300 feet of the property are 31.4 feet, 30.0 feet, 18.0 feet and 34.4 feet (exclusive of the subject parcel and exclusive of entry with steps containing less than 48 sq. ft. in area, or 6' x 8' in size). The average of the above-referenced principal building setbacks is 28.5 feet. The unroofed front entry as proposed herein is approximately 210 sq. ft. in area (inclusive of three possible steps) and appears to be more than 24 inches above grade. The set-back reduction of 18.4 feet is with steps along the side, rather than the front of the entry. 20. Section 100-230(A) of the Zoning Code permits relief in the front yard setback to be that average of those estab- lished within 300 feet of the property on the same side of the street. In this instance, the principal building set-back would be permitted at 28.5 feet (plus a step area up to 30 sq. ft., or 5' x 6' in size). The normal front yard setback for a new principal dwelling for the subject parcel would otherwise be 35 feet (without neighboring nonconforming front yard setbacks within 300 feet) for this nonconforming lot. 21. It is noted for the record that the dwelling structure before its removal, as indicated by the 1977 survey map, was set back at 30 feet from the front property line, and the dwelling consisted of a size 29 feet wide by 25 feet in depth. 22. The amount of relief requested as to the front yard provision of the zoning code for a principal building in this Residential Zone District is 10.1 feet (variance from the required 28.5 feet, to 18.4 feet (with side steps). 23. It is the position of the Board that the variance is substantial in relation to the requirements with a percentage of 36% (10.1 feet less than the requirement); however, under Article XXIII, Section 100-230C, permits an unenclosed entry not more than 6' wide by 8' out from the front wall of the building, and such portico shall be ignored in computing the average setback. Since this is an unenclosed entry, the relief needed is of a lesser degree. Board of Appeals -20- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3955 SBLENDIDO & AURICCHIO Decision, continued:) OTHER CONSIDERATIONS 24. In considering the requested set-back relief, the Board determines: (a) that although that area of front entry is not excessive in size from the normal 48 sq. ft. entry permitted by code and those entries generally existing on the same side of the street, the set-back as a whole is substantial in relation to the requirements; (b) the practical difficulties are self-created and are not unique to the property; (c) there is no alternative for appellant to pursue other than a variance; (d) that the grant of the front-yard set-back for this entry is not adverse to neighboring properties. 25. In considering the physical construction of the dwelling structure, the Board determined that mitigation measures were necessary to convert the structure to single- family construction by structural alterations, as noted, infra. RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD ACCORDINGLY, on motion by Mr. Dinizio, seconded by Mr. Doyen, it was RESOLVED, that the plans, as disapproved by the Building Inspector, are interpreted to be of "two-family construction" and the following structural modifications shall be made to comply with single-family construction: 1. In order to comply under the zoning code concerning single-family construction, the entrances must have one co~non door unit. Existing front doors must be removed and replaced with either one single front door or two doors side-by-side, with one fixed (or both opening) to a common foyer open to both stair wells; 2. Second floor deck (south side) may not have access to first floor by way of a stairwell; 3. Existing oil tanks situated in the rear of the dwelling must be shielded (screened) by a fence of non-chainlink type material on three sides; 4. The basement divider must have free, open access from both stair wells byway of unlocking doors or open doorways; 5. Basement divider (block wall) must contain unlocked opening/unlocked door (standard size with a minimum of 32 inches in width) so as to gain access to either side of the basement area. This access door must remain unlocked; Board of Appeals -2]- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting (Appl. No. 3955 - SBLENDIDO & AURICCHIO Decision, continued:) 6. Hallway walls must remain open without benefit of doors or partitions for all rooms (except the bathroom area and lavatories); 7. No pocket doors (or walls without access to a room, except for closets); 8. Not more than one kitchen area or cooking area shall be permitted in dwelling; 9. No structural partitions or barriers that will separate different portions of the house between rooms (such as different living areas similar to two-family or duplex-type construction, including the basement). Also, area between Great Room and Living Room, including both stair wells, shall remain open at all times free of any closures; 10. Screening be provided for outside fuel tanks on all sides; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, to grant a variance for the construction of the front entry with a setback of not less than 18.4 feet, inclusive of steps, and as shown on the December 6, 1989 survey prepared by Peconic Surveyors, P.C. SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: 1. The subject entry area shall remain unroofed and not enclosed; 2. No new construction or steps shall be built reducing the requested front yard setback to less than 18.4 feet - (The 18.4 ft. front yard setback is inclusive.); 3. Screening and appropriate landscaping must be provided, with one to three ft. high bushes, on both sides of the front entry. Vote of the Board: Ayes: Messrs. Goehringer, Dinizio and Doyen. (Member Grigonis was absent due to hospitalization). This resolution was duly adopted. Southold Town Board of Appeals -22- January 11, 1991 Regular Meeting At this point in time, the Chairman declared the meeting adjourned. A Special Meeting was tentatively set by the Board Members for FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 1991 at 6:45 o'clock p.m. Respectfully submitted, Linda F. Kowalski, Secretary ~ /~-h ~-~ Southold Town Board of Appeals /4%pprove - Gerard 1~. Goehrin~e~ / Chairman 3'~1TM RECEIVED AND FILED BY THE SOUTH©LD TOWN CLERK DATE /~/~/?~ HOUR Y//~/~ Town Clerk, Towa of :Sout~old