HomeMy WebLinkAboutZBA-01/11/1991 o��S�FFO�,�coG
f '
hy` yam►
APPEALS BOARD MEMBERS SCOTT L.HARRIS
y 2
Supervisor
Gerard P.Goehringer,Chairman
Charles Grigonis,Jr. �Q( �`�� Town Hall,53095 Main Road
Serge Doyen,Jr. P.O.Box 1179
James Dinizio, Jr. Southold,New York 11971
BOARD OF APPEALS Fax(516)765-1823
Telephone(516)765-1809 TOWN OF SOUTHOLD Telephone(516)765-1800
M I N U T E S
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 Southold 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.
t
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 r
f Regular Meeting
DELIBERATIONS/DECISION: Appl. No. 3973 :
Upon Application of JOHN AND ROSE MILAZZO "for Variances to
the Zoning Ordinance, Article XXIII, Section 100-239.4E {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, and
the surrounding areas; 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 11-1/21' 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 20,0.00 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. Ralf 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;
(c) 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 JOHN 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
pumps/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 (al-so
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)
1. 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. All 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 103 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- J.an,uar:y 17- ,-=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
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 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 safety,
health, welfare, comfort, convenience or order of the town, or
be adverse to neighboring -properties;
(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, as
conditionally noted below.
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 - JOHN AND GRACE FIORE. Paul
Southold Town Board of Appeals - 12- January 11 , A991 .
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 1.1_, 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 #3955, 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) {100-31A}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 816" ) 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 -15- 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 125.11 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 -16- 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) Plumbing installed for second kitchen, and
Board of Appeals -17- 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 second
kitchen and front yard setback.
2. OK from Principal Building Inspector.
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 plumbing 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 Attorneys
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 - 18- 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 -19- 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 sidesteps) .
23. It is the position of the Board that the variance is
substantial in relation to the requirements with a percentage of
360 (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 common
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 by way of unlocking doors or open doorways;
S. 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 -21 - 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
Southold Town Board of Appeals
/approved - Gerard Goehrin e
Chairman
RECEIVED AND FILED BY
THE SOUTHOLD TOWN CLMK
DATE f°lw?b'/� HOUR 3;/3-�M
67
Town Clerk, Town of Southold