EH Town Zoning Board of Appeals              Denise Savarese

              300 Pantigo Place              Telephone: (631) 324-8816

              East Hampton, NY  11937

 

EH Town Zoning Board of Appeals meeting of July 18, 2017
East Hampton, New York

 

 

I.              CALL TO ORDER

12:00 AM Meeting called to order on July 18, 2017 at Town Hall Meeting Room, 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, NY.

 

Attendee Name

Present

Absent

Late

Arrived

Chairman John P. Whelan

¨

¨

¨

 

Board Member Theresa Berger

¨

¨

¨

 

Board Member Roy Dalene

¨

¨

¨

 

Board Member Cate Rogers

¨

¨

¨

 

Board Member David Lys

¨

¨

¨

 

II.              CANCELLED PUBLIC HEARING:

III.              Michael Dioguardi

              TIME:              7:50:00 PM              APPLICANT:              Michael Dioguardi

              SIZE/LOCATION:              24,190 sq. ft., 2167 Montauk Highway, N/A, Amagansett (300-110-01-10)

              DESCRIPTION:              To add some new minor accessory structures such as fences, a handicapped-

              accessible parking space and accessible route and the relocation of some accessory

              structures including two (2) portable walk-in coolers and a trash compactor and a

              bar/countertop surface. Also proposed is the creation of a new parking lot on the

              western portion of the subject parcel along with associated fencing and vegetative

              screening.

              RELIEF SOUGHT:              A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to section 255-4-20 of the Town

              Code. Five (5) variances, one each of 54.5?, 54.5?, 90.5?, 56.5? & 64.4? from the minimum

              wetland setbacks of section 255-4-30 of the Town Code whereas setbacks of 45.5?,

              45.5?, 9.5?, 43.5? & 35.6? are proposed for an expanded parking lot, new fence along the

              western property line, new fence along the eastern property line, new handicapped

              accessible parking space and walkway, and a new roof overhang, respectively,

              whereas a minimum setback of 100? is required. A variance of 10? from the minimum

              side yard setbacks of section 255-11-10 of the Town Code whereas a setback of 0? for

              an expanded parking lot is proposed and a minimum setback of 10? is required.

IV.              SCHEDULED PUBLIC HEARINGS:

A.              Montauk Energy Storage Center

              TIME:              6:30:00 PM              APPLICANT:              Montauk Energy Storage Center, LLC

              SIZE/LOCATION:              19,726 sq. ft., 10 North Shore Road, N/A, Montauk (300-027-04-088.8)

              DESCRIPTION:              Site plan/special permit application has been made to construct a ~90? X 46? (4,154 sq.

              Ft.) Battery storage building and associated accessory structures, lighting,

              landscaping & access.

              RELIEF SOUGHT:              Three (3) variances from section 255-11-10 of the Town Code, including: a variance of

              24? from the front lot line as a minimum setback of 50? is required and a setback of 26?

              is proposed, a variance of 7? from the side lot line (eastern) as a minimum setback of

              15? is required and a setback of 8? is proposed, a variance of 11? from the rear lot line

              as a minimum setback of 25? is required and a setback of 14? is proposed.

              ZONING DISTRICT:              CI- Commercial Industrial Zone X Flood Zone

              SEQRA CLASS:              Unlisted

i.              Technical Analysis Memorandum

Technical Analysis Memo

             

              Lead Agency:              Planning Board

              Planner:              Eric Schantz

              Date completed:              May 18, 2017                            Site Plan                            X

              SEQRA class:              Unlisted              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location:              10 North Shore Road              Subdivision

              School District:              Montauk              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              CI: Commercial Industrial              Zone Change

              Overlay District:   N/A              Variance                             X

              Tax Map Number: 300-27-4-8.8              Natural Resources

     Applicant:                            Montauk Energy Storage Center, LLC                Special Permit                  X

                                          c/o William Boer                                                          Other: 

                                          TRC Environmental Corporation

                                          1200 Wall Street West

                                          Lyndhurst, NY 07071

             

              Telephone:                            (201) 508-6962

              FEMA ZONE:              X, X500

    Soil Type:              CuB: cut and fill land, gently sloping

              Map of Property:              N/A

              Size of Parcel:              19,726 sq. ft.

 

Project Description: 

Site plan/special permit application has been made to construct a ~90? X 46? (4,154 sq. ft.) battery storage building and associated accessory structures, lighting, landscaping & access.

 

Relief Requested:

Three (3) variances from section 255-11-10 of the Town Code, including: a variance of 24? from the front lot line as a minimum setback of 50? is required and a setback of 26? is proposed, a variance of 7? from the side lot line (eastern) as a minimum setback of 15? is required and a setback of 8? is proposed, a variance of 11? from the rear lot line as a minimum setback of 25? is required and a setback of 14? is proposed.

.

Property Conditions and History:

The property is situated along Second House Road (address as North Shore Road) in Montauk and is zoned CI: Commercial Industrial. Existing land uses on surrounding properties south of the MTA/LIRR right-of-way, which borders the subject parcel to the north, are entirely commercial, industrial or utilities. It contains an existing storage yard use with scattered piles of materials such as logs as well as a small shed and storage containers.

 

The Planning Board has reviewed the site plan for this project numerous times. They have declared lead agency status and have made a negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA and Chapter 128 of the Town Code. The Zoning Board of Appeals should read the EAF Parts II & III which gives a detailed explanation of their findings with regard to their review so far.

 

Planning Department Analysis and Recommendations for the Boards Consideration:

 

The proposed project will require multiple setback variances for the principal structure. These include:

 

?              A variance of 24? from the front lot line as a minimum setback of 50? is required and a setback of 26? is proposed

?              A variance of 7? from the side lot line (eastern) as a minimum setback of 15? is required and a setback of 8? is proposed

?              A variance of 11? from the rear lot line as a minimum setback of 25? is required and a setback of 14? is proposed

 

The need for variances, in part, arises from the irregular, triangular shape of the parcel and the fact that it is 19,726 sq. ft. in lot area whereas the minimum lot area for a lot in the CI: Commercial Industrial Zoning District is 40,000 sq. ft. However, despite this sub-standard lot size all applicable coverage limitations would be met. By letter dated January 12, 2017 the Planning Board found the general layout acceptable.

 

It was noted at that time that the rear yard of the property abuts the LIRR right-of-way and that therefore, the situating of the building within the required minimum rear yard setbacks will not cause a significant detriment to a neighboring property. This right-of-way ranges from 110? to 150? wide along the length of the subject parcel. On the other side of the LIRR right-of-way is a residential neighborhood along Navy Road. However, given the aforementioned distance between the nearest residence and the subject parcel as well as the difference in topography (the train tracks are elevated roughly 10? above the grade of the nearest residence) any adverse impacts upon these residences should be minimal.

 

The eastern property line abuts a parcel owned by LIPA/PSEG and is to most likely be the site of a new electrical sub-station to replace the one on Fort Pond. The applicants plan to connect the energy storage facility to the electrical grid of this sub-station. Given the relationship between these two sites and the nature of an electrical sub-station, which may very well be more industrial in appearance than the subject project, it is not anticipated that the proximity to the eastern side yard will result in any detriment to the sub-station property.

 

The property?s address is given as a North Shore Road address but is really on a section of road identified on most maps as Second House Road. The site and the principal structure would be visible to those driving along this road to the residential properties, resorts, and recreational open space (beach access points and Navy Beach) along Navy Road. As such the Planning Board sought to minimize the visual impacts upon this public roadway. The applicants originally proposed a row of black chokecherry (Alonia melanocarpa) along with three (3) eastern red cedars (Juniperus virginiana). The Board did not find this acceptable as the chokecherries were not tall enough in height to provide adequate screening and more importantly as they are deciduous and would not provide year-round screening. The applicants subsequently amended the plan to add taller evergreen screening along the front of the parcel which primarily consists of  4? - 6? tall Arborvitae (Thuja occidentalis). The Planning Board did not object to using Arborvitae but required that the alternative cultivar ?Green Giant? (Thuja standishii x plicata) be planted as it is more deer resistant than the standard type.

 

The Zoning Board of Appeals should also note that six (6) of the nine (9) nearest parcels along Second House Road and Industrial Road contain structures within the required 50? front yard setback. Although existing non-conformities are not a reason for the Board to grant variances, this is noted because it does not seem that the proposed location of the principal building on the subject parcel will be visually discordant with the surrounding area, which is also heavily industrial in appearance.

 

Ultimately, the applicants will need to demonstrate to the Zoning Board of Appeals that the project can meet the variance standards of the Town Code before the Planning Board can approve the project, should it choose to do so

 

Recommended Project Conditions:

 

1.              N/A

B.              William T. Bailey III

              TIME:              6:50:00 PM              APPLICANT:              William T. Bailey III

              SIZE/LOCATION:              7,021 sq. ft. (total), 71 Navy Road, Montauk (300-027-02-7.1)

              DESCRIPTION:              To raise the existing residence from approximately elevation 7.6? to elevation 12? and

              to construct additions of 52 sq. ft. and 19.11 sq. ft. within jurisdiction of freshwater

              wetlands, outside the towns pyramid line, and within side yard lot line setbacks.

              RELIEF SOUGHT:              Four variances and a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ?255-4-20 of the

              East Hampton Town Code are required for this application. Variances of 4?10? and

              approximately 18?9? from ?255-11-72D of the Town Code are required allow the

              western addition and raise the existing residence to be 4?10? and 18?9? outside of the

              Town?s pyramid regulations along the western side yard and southern rear yard lot

              lines. One variance of 35? from ?255-4-30 is required to allow the additions to be

              constructed approximately 65? from freshwater wetlands where a 100? setback is

              required. One variance of 3.73? is required from ?255-11-10 to construct the western

              addition 11.27? from the western side yard lot line where a 15? setback is required, and

              any other relief necessary.

              ZONING DISTRICT:              A Residence AE Flood Zone, elevation 10

              SEQRA CLASS:              Type II

i.              Technical Analysis Memorandum

Technical Analysis Memo

             

              Lead Agency:              (not applicable)

              Planner:              Tyler Borsack

              Date completed:              March 30, 2017              Site Plan

              SEQRA class:              Type II              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location: 71 Navy Road              Subdivision

              School District:              Montauk              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              A Residence              Zone Change

              Overlay District:     N/A              Variance              XX

              Tax Map Number: 300-027-02-7.1              Natural Resources

     Applicant:                            William T. Bailey III                                                           Special Permit   XX

                                          42 Westervelt Place                                                           Other:

                                          Cresskill, NJ 07626

             

              Telephone:                            201-674-1050

              FEMA ZONE:              AE 10 Flood Zone

              Soil Type:              Cut and Fill land, gently sloping

              Map of Property:              N/A

              Size of Parcel:              7,021 sq. ft. (total)

 

Project Description:

To raise the existing residence from approximately elevation 7.6? to elevation 12? and to construct additions of 52 sq. ft. and 19.11 sq. ft. within jurisdiction of freshwater wetlands, outside the towns pyramid line, and within side yard lot line setbacks.

 

Relief Requested:

Four variances and a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ?255-4-20 of the East Hampton Town Code are required for this application. Variances of 4?10? and approximately 18?9? from ?255-11-72D of the Town Code are required allow the western addition and raise the existing residence to be 4?10? and 18?9? outside of the Town?s pyramid regulations along the western side yard and southern rear yard lot lines. One variance of 35? from ?255-4-30 is required to allow the additions to be constructed approximately 65? from freshwater wetlands where a 100? setback is required. One variance of 3.73? is required from ?255-11-10 to construct the western addition 11.27? from the western side yard lot line where a 15? setback is required, and any other relief necessary.

 

Property Conditions and History:

The parcel is currently improved with a 1 story residence with concrete patios and walkways. All of the existing structures are depicted on the F. Michael Hemmer, LS, P.C. survey dated revised 4/2/16. The most recent C.O. was issued in 1999 for a ?1-story, frame, 1-family residence. Having one kitchen only with concrete patio, all erected before the adoption of zoning; & 71 sq. ft. 1-story addition to existing residence.? This parcel has not appeared before the Zoning Board previously.

 

Planning Department Analysis and Recommendations for the Boards Consideration:

The applicant is currently before the Board for approval raise up the existing residence from an elevation of 7.6? to 12? which would meet FEMA first floor requirements and to construct a new 52 sq. ft. addition on the west side of the existing residence within side yard lot line setbacks and a new 19.11 sq. ft. addition on the east side of the existing residence both within minimum wetland setbacks. The raising of the residence increases the nonconformity of the pyramid violations to 4?10? along the western side yard lot line and approximately 18?9? along the southern rear yard lot line. 

 

The existing residence was constructed prior to modern zoning and is preexisting nonconforming to several zoning codes including; pyramid, side and rear yard lot line setbacks, minimum wetland setbacks, and lot size. The raising of the residence to meet FEMA first floor requirements will increase the nonconformity of the pyramid violation to the rear of the property, by approximately 4.4?, and create a new pyramid violation along the western lot line. The property to the south which will have the greatest pyramid nonconformity, approximately 18?9?, is the LIRR/MTA property which the railroad runs through.

 

The applicant is proposing two small additions to the existing residence in addition to raising the residence to meet FEMA first floor elevations. The additions of 52 sq. ft. on the west side and an addition of 19.11 sq. ft. on the east side of the residence should have minimal impacts on the surrounding wetlands. The eastern addition is located approximately 65? from the freshwater wetlands to the east while the western addition is setback approximately 93.5? and on the opposite side of the existing residence. Both proposed additions are located outside of NRSP jurisdiction from the wetlands to the south. The addition on the west side is proposed 11.27? from the side yard lot line where a 15? setback is required and also is the point at which the greatest pyramid nonconformity from the side yard lot line is requested from, although the existing building would have required a similar pyramid variance as well. This addition is an extension of the existing nonconforming, to side yard lot line setbacks, portion of the residence and is only slightly closer to the side yard lot line than the existing structure because of the angle the building is set at relative to the property lines.

 

The wetlands within jurisdiction do not appear to be significant wetlands. These wetlands likely provide minimal habitat value and there is no indication that they hold any significance aside from their role in the retention of floodwaters, especially after storm events. The adjacent wetland to the east is influenced significantly from surrounding road runoff as well as several of the adjacent properties. The property across Navy Road to the north is the Town owned Navy Beach property. The subject property is just within jurisdiction of the dune crest bordering Fort Pond Bay to the north.

 

The applicants submitted an updated site plan included with their most recent building plans submission that shows the proposed additions; however, the provided survey does not depict the proposed additions and should be updated to include the additions prior to the public hearing or before the Board makes a decision on the application. The survey should also be updated to include any relevant information regarding the existing sanitary system in order for the Board to decide if a sanitary system upgrade is appropriate considering the additions to the residence and the potential increase in the intensity of use. Additionally, the provided building plans only show the pyramid line along the western side yard lot line and not the southern rear yard lot line. The new pyramid variance request was able to be deduced from the plans submitted but the Board may want the building plans updated to show the pyramid line along the rear of the property for the decision.

 

The Board should be aware of the preexisting nonconforming structures that extend beyond the property line and some which are located entirely on the LIRR property to the south. These structures are included on the most recent C.O. and there are no plans to change any part of them. Several of the properties in the area have preexisting nonconforming structures partially, or entirely, on the LIRR property. This is an area of Montauk the majority of which was improved prior to the establishment of zoning which is characterized as having small nonconforming lots squeezed between the LIRR property to the south and the road right-of-way and beach to the north.

 

The Zoning Board needs to decide if the application meets the variance standards in ?255-8-50. The applicant needs to show that the proposed project will not create a detriment to nearby properties, that the benefits cannot be achieved by some other method, that the project is not substantial, and will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions.

 

The applicant must demonstrate compliance with the NRSP standards of ? 255-5-51 of the Town Code in order to be eligible for the issuance of the requested NRSP. Specifically;

D. Preservation of natural resources. All structures and uses, other than coastal structures, shall be located on upland and shall be located so that no natural resource, feature, or system designated in ? 255-4-12 hereof will be diminished in size, polluted, degraded, or lost, or placed in peril thereof, in order to establish such structure or use.

The applicant must also demonstrate compliance with the general standards of ?255-5-40 of the Town Code. Specifically;

D. Compatibility. The site of the proposed use is a suitable one for the location of such a use in the Town, and, if sited at that location, the proposed use will in fact be compatible with its surroundings and with the character of the neighborhood and of the community in general, particularly with regard to visibility, scale and overall appearance.

K. Environmental protection. The natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes...

 

The Board should also look closely on how this application will set precedent for other properties in the neighborhood that also preexist zoning and contain several nonconformities. 

 

 

Recommended Project Conditions:

 

1.              Sediment control fencing consisting of staked straw bales or silt mesh fencing shall be erected in the location depicted on the attached Planning Department sketch dated 3/30/2017 to prevent sedimentation of the wetlands. The fencing shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control manual prior to the commencement and for the duration of construction activities.  The fencing shall be repaired or replaced as necessary to maintain proper function.

2.              The residence should be furnished with gutters and leaders to direct stormwater from roofs into one or more catchment basins. Said catchment basin or basins should have a combined volume (in cubic feet) equal to the surface area of the roof (in square feet), divided by six. Said catchment basin should be made available for inspection by the building inspector prior to backfill.

3.              All structures should be situated at least 2? above the seasonal high groundwater table.

4.              A copy of the Natural Resources Special Permit and the approved survey and building plans shall be available on the parcel at all times.

C.              Tonina Abplanalp

              TIME:              7:10:00 PM              APPLICANT:              Tonina Abplanalp

              SIZE/LOCATION:              29,828 sq. ft. (approx. upland total), 319 East Lake Drive, Montauk (300-007-02-06, 300-

              013-01-02)

              DESCRIPTION:              The reconstruction of a 4? x 112? fixed dock and 4? x 20? access ramp on a parcel of land

              containing tidal wetlands, beaches, coastal bluffs and surface waters.

              RELIEF SOUGHT:              A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ? 255-4-20 of the Town Code.

              ZONING DISTRICT:              A Residence X Flood Zone (upland)

              SEQRA CLASS:              Type II

i.              Technical Analysis Memorandum

Technical Analysis Memorandum

             

              Lead Agency:              (not applicable)

              Planner:              Brian Frank

              Date completed:              6/19/2017              Site Plan

              SEQRA class:              Type II              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location:              319 East Lake Drive              Subdivision

              School District:              Montauk              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              A Residence              Zone Change

              Overlay District:              Harbor Protection Overlay District              Variance

              Tax Map Number: 300-007-02-06, 300-013-01-02              Natural Resources

              Applicant:              Tonina Abplanalp              Special Permit: XX

              C/o Joel Halsey              Other:

              PO Box 5030

              Montauk, NY  11954

              Telephone:

              FEMA ZONE:              X Flood Zone (upland)

              Soil Type:              Bridgehampton silt loam, till substratum, 2 to 6 % slopes (BhB),

              Beaches (Bc)

              Map of Property:

              Size of Parcel:              29,828 sq. ft. (approx. upland total)

 

Project Description: 

The reconstruction of a 4? x 112? fixed dock and 4? x 20? access ramp on a parcel of land containing tidal wetlands, beaches, coastal bluffs and surface waters.

 

Relief Requested: 

A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ? 255-4-20 of the Town Code.

 

 

Property Conditions and History:

The property is improved with a two story residence and swimming pool.  The residence was originally constructed prior to zoning and the property was the subject of NRSP review in 2012 when a NRSP was issued to permit the replacement of the bulkhead on the property.  The work authorized by that permit has been completed and a Certificate of Occupancy for the new bulkhead was issued in September, 2016.   The most recent survey of the property was prepared by James Walsh Land Surveyor, revised 3/18/14.  The survey consists of the upland parcel (tax map 300-007-02-06) and a 1.6 acre underwater parcel on which the dock is located (300-013-01-02).  The owner of record of both parcels appears to be the Roboz Family Trust since January 2014.  The plans for the proposed dock are depicted on the single page Drew Bennett P.E. plan dated revised 4/29/14.  A draft ?Dock Construction Methodology? (undated) prepared by First Coastal Corp. is also contained in the file.  A permit for the dock reconstruction has been issued by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and is contained the Board?s file. 

 

 

Planning Department Analysis and Recommendations for the Board?s Consideration:

There is not a clear record of when the dock was constructed along the shoreline of the property.  The dock is first evident on the Town?s 1994 aerial photographs.  The survey accompanying the 1991 Certificate of Occupancy indicates an ?old dock structure? and the Principal Building Inspector has issued a determination that the dock is a preexisting coastal structure.  The functionality of the dock is difficult to determine from aerial photographs, but the structure is clearly dilapidated in 2010 images.

 

The Special Permit standards for docks (? 255-5-51H) only allows for the reconstruction or replacement of fixed docks when they are replacing lawfully preexisting fixed dock.  The Special Permit standards require new docks to be floating docks that are limited to a maximum length of 80?seaward of mean high water and a minimum water depth of 3? at mean low water at its seaward terminus.  This purpose of these standards is to minimize the disturbance to the water column and the benthic (bottom) habitat of near shore areas. Nearshore and littoral zone habitats are an important component of tidal ecosystems.  They are concentrated locations for the primary productivity that is the foundation of the ecosystem.  Healthy nearshore harbor bottoms are frequently rich in marine organisms including commercially important shellfish species and are often the location for rooted vascular plants such as eelgrass (Zostera marina), macroalgae and a refuge for developing fin fish. 

 

The subject property is a generally a poor location for a dock due to the extensive shallow water that extends far beyond the seaward terminus of the proposed dock.   Shallow, low wave energy locations are more sensitive to the adverse impacts that can occur in conjunction with docks and motorized vessels.  Fixed dock construction often results in short term disturbance to bottom sediments as a result of the pressure jets used for piling installation.  Long term impacts include the shading of the benthic habitat, changes to the circulation of currents and the direct and indirect damage to the bottom resulting from propeller scour.    Shallow, low wave energy locations are strong candidates for less structural alternatives to docks, such as the mooring and pulley systems encouraged by the Town Code.  Lake Montauk is a component of the Peconic Estuary Critical Environmental Area and this part of the harbor is within the New York State Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat.  The surface waters of the harbor, along with much of the shore line development, is located within a Scenic Area of Statewide Significance. 

 

If the requested NRSP is granted, the Board should consider placing great emphasis on the presence of a preexisting structure at the property.   The NYSDEC permit requires decking materials that allow 60% transmissivity of light (?thru-flow?) and by requiring the dock to be elevated 2? above the surface of the water.   Impacts can further be minimized by requiring all components of the dock to be composed of non-leaching materials as proposed in the draft construction methodology.  It should be noted that no additional mooring pilings or floating piers have been proposed and the Board should consider requiring an ?as built? survey of the completed structure prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.  Written notification should be provided to the Board no less than three business days prior to the commencement of construction activities and the completed structure should be inspected by the Board or their delegate prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

 

 

Recommended Project Conditions:

Refer to preceding paragraph.

 

 

D.              39 Hoppin LLC

              TIME:              7:30:00 PM              APPLICANT:              39 Hoppin LLC

              SIZE/LOCATION:              7,320 sq. ft., 39 Hoppin Ave, Map No. 2730; Oceanside at Montauk Map of Lot 221,

              Montauk (300-031-02-02)

              DESCRIPTION:              To construct a 1,411 sq. ft. residence with 673 sq. ft. of decking and a new sanitary

              system on a parcel of land within wetland jurisdiction

              RELIEF SOUGHT:              A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ? 255-4-20 and four variances

              from ?255-4-30 (wetland setbacks) and a 2 ft. 1 in. variance from 255-11-72D (Pyramid

              Law) of the Town Code and any relief necessary.  Variances of 51.1 ft. and 59.1 ft. are

              required to construct the residence and deck 49.9 ft. and 40.9 ft. from the wetland

              where a minimum 100 ft. setback is required. A 19 ft. clearing variance is required to

              clear vegetation within 31 ft. of the wetland where a minimum 50 ft. setback is required.

              An 85 ft. variance is required to install the sanitary system 65 ft. from the wetland

              where a 150 ft. setback is required.

              ZONING DISTRICT:              B Residence, AE Flood Zone, elevation 11 &12

              SEQRA CLASS:              Type II

i.              Technical Analysis Memorandum

Technical Analysis Memo

             

              Lead Agency:              (not applicable)

              Planner: Lisa D?Andrea             

              Date completed:              April 12, 2017              Site Plan

              SEQRA class: Type II              Sub Waiver

              Physical Location:              39 Hoppin Ave.              Subdivision

              School District:              Montauk              Special Permit

              Zoning District:              B Residence              Zone Change

              Overlay District:                  Variance              XX

              Tax Map Number: 300-031-02-02              Natural Resources

     Applicant:                  39 Hoppin LLC                                                        Special Permit   XX

                              c/o Joel Halsey

                            PO Box 5030

                            Montauk, N.Y., 11954                                                              

                                                                                                                                                                                        

              Telephone:              (631) 668-7332             

              FEMA ZONE:              AE11 & AE 12

              Soil Type: Bridgehampton silt loam, till substratum, 2-6% slopes             

              Map of Property:              Map No. 2730; Oceanside at Montauk Map of Lot 221

              Size of Parcel:              7,320 sq. ft.

 

Project Description:  To construct a 1,411 sq. ft. residence with 673 sq.ft. of decking and a new sanitary system on a parcel of land within wetland jurisdiction

 

Relief Requested: A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ? 255-4-20 and four variances from ?255-4-30 (wetland setbacks) and a 2 ft. 1 in. variance from 255-11-72D (Pyramid Law) of the Town Code and any relief necessary.  Variances of 51.1 ft. and 59.1 ft. are required to construct the residence and deck 49.9 ft. and 40.9 ft. from the wetland where a minimum 100 ft. setback is required. A 19 ft. clearing variance is required to clear vegetation within 31 ft. of the wetland where a minimum 50 ft. setback is required. An 85 ft. variance is required to install the sanitary system 65 ft. from the wetland where a 150 ft. setback is required.

 

Property and History:

The parcel is vacant, densely vegetated and disturbed.  The applicant is proposing to construct a residence with a deck and a Hydro Action sanitary system. The owner acquired the property in September 2015.

A Phase 1 Archaeological Investigation was conducted and no pre-historic or historic artifacts were encountered. The report did not recommend further archaeological work. The project will require New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) approval.

All proposed structures are depicted on a James P. Walsh L.S. survey dated revised January 8, 2017 and the Greenberg Residence Building Plans (6 pages) dated June 7, 2016. An additional page A-03 ( ? in.= 1 ft. scale) to depict compliance/non-compliance to the Pyramid Law was received by the Board on October 25, 2016. The TF Engineering PLLC  Hydro Action sanitary system plan for 39 Hoppin Ave., dated revised December 9, 2016 was received by the Board on December 20, 2016.  NYSDEC comments and requirements for the proposed project dated January 23, 2017 were received by the Board on February 1, 2017.

 

 

 

 

 

Planning Department Analysis and Recommendations for the Board?s Consideration:

The premises are located within the ?Ditch Plains? area of Montauk, which is located southwest of Lake Montauk.  The area is characterized by high-density residential development in which the subdivisions, and much of the construction in the area, occurred prior to the Town?s adoption of zoning in 1957 or the Natural Resources Special Permit standards and setbacks established in 1984.    The area contains extensive freshwater wetlands that are part of a complex drainage system in which much of the surface and groundwater flows into the southern end of Lake Montauk.  Many of the freshwater wetlands in the area have been filled, ditched, culverted and even relocated in conjunction with the construction of the roads and residential improvements.

The wetland pertinent to this application is on the adjacent Town owned parcel to the west. It was acquired by the Town in 1997 but efforts by the Town to purchase it go as far back as 1974. It is a Class 1 NYSDEC regulated wetland which is the highest quality ranking for a freshwater wetland.  This wetland is an important component of the largest watercourse in the Ditch Plains watershed.  Large amounts of water flow through this watercourse. Water flows north within the unopened right-of-way of Otis Road and is culverted beneath Benson Drive.  Water flow continues in an easterly direction and is again culverted beneath the State Boulevard prior to discharging into southern Lake Montauk.

The wetlands are very disturbed along the edges, however, high quality native vegetation is present towards the interior.  Winterberry holly (Ilex verticillata), High bush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum), Cinnamon fern (Osmundastrum cinnamomeum), and Carex  sedges ( Carex spp) were all documented during the flagging of this wetland. Wetlands such as this one provide essential habitat for wetland dependent plants and animals within the dense residential development of Ditch Plains.

The importance of this largest watercourse in Ditch Plains and its associated wetlands has been recognized by the Town for some time.  Six parcels have been acquired by the Town to protect this watercourse and wetlands (an aerial photograph will be sent under another cover).  51 Otis Rd. (SCTM No. 300-031-03-33) was acquired by the Town in 1988.  Most of these properties were acquired by the Town before a dedicated funding source such as Community Preservation Fund (CPF) was available.

Ditch Plains is in the Montauk Subwatershed 7. A Subwatershed as defined in the Montauk Watershed Management Plan is ?considered to be a collection of catchment areas which share a common drainage into Lake Montauk?.  Subwatershed 7 is characterized as generating the most run-off within the entire watershed for basically two reasons: it is large in size and it has almost a total absence of the sandy soil types necessary for good drainage.  Increased development increases the amount of total hard surface area.  As a result stormwater runoff  volume and flow rate  through the watercourses increases.  Overall water quality suffers from ever increasing nitrogen amounts and sediments that ultimately course their way into Lake Montauk.    It is this non-point pollution from the Ditch Plains watershed and its tributary system that is most likely a significant contributing factor to the poor water quality and high pollution concentrations in the southern end of Lake Montauk.

The applicant acquired this property in 2015 and should be aware of its constraints. It is located in AE11 and AE12 flood zones. In addition to being highly flood prone and constrained by wetlands, it is substandard in regards to lot size and frontage within B zoning further limiting the type and locations of structures that can be constructed in compliance with zoning setbacks.

The proposed project requires substantial variances from all of the Town?s minimum wetland setbacks. The sanitary system requires a 56% variance, the residence requires a 50% variance,  the deck requires a 41% variance and the clearing a 38% variance.  Permitted building coverage is 20% and this project proposes a 15% building coverage. Total lot coverage permitted is 50% and this project proposes about 24% coverage. 

The parcel is vacant and densely vegetated. The applicant proposes to clear within 31 ft. of the wetland, which as stated above, requires a 38% variance.  The original application submitted for this project proposed a 50% clearing variance but the NYSDEC has delineated a Limits of Clearing, Grading and Ground Disturbance (LCGGD) line  that the applicant must adhere to in order to get a NYSDEC approval. Adherence to this LCGGD line will reduce the clearing variance required and reduce the overall clearing on the property. The clearing will be reduced from 91% to 84% or about a 500 sq. ft. reduction from what was originally proposed.   However, 84% clearing is still a substantial amount of clearing on such an environmentally sensitive parcel.  Removal of vegetation with established, extensive root systems will likely exacerbate the drainage and flooding problems already inherent in the neighborhood.  It appears the NYSDEC  will require some kind of revegetation plan. The applicant has, to date, not offered  any revegetation to offset the intensity of development on this parcel. The applicant should provide a detailed clearing and grading plan including whether any fill will be necessary for dry well installation.

The applicant is proposing to install  a ?Hydro-action? aerobic treatment  sanitary system. The purpose of an aerobic treatment system is to aid in nitrogen reduction of the effluent before being discharged into the ground.

Groundwater and surface water quality are very much at risk from pollution not just in Montauk but throughout East Hampton.  It has been determined that waste water treatment and disposal systems have been contributing to the degradation of our surface waters and groundwater. It has, therefore, become apparent that there is a  need to design sanitary systems that can be constructed and operated to prevent degradatio  of both groundwater and surface water quality.

Suffolk County Health Department (SCHD) has launched a pilot program  that includes 5 different aerobic treatment sanitary systems installed in various locations throughout Suffolk County. SCDH has been assessing each system for performance in reducing nitrogen.  So far, it appears that only two designs of aerobic treatment sanitary systems have been approved for residential use.

The aerobic treatment systems are designed to improve the quality of the effluent entering into the ground but they do not address or improve other water quality issues that might exist on or around the property. This property is in an AE11 and AE12 Flood Zones. The groundwater is an average of 3 ft. below ground surface. As mentioned above, the high density residential development, the low elevations, high water table, and poor drainage in Ditch Plains all play a role in the surface (Lake Montauk) and groundwater quality. The aerobic treatment system will not alleviate other environmental issues such as stormwater runoff and flooding potential on this property.

The intent of the new aerobic treatment systems is to  reduce the degradation of both groundwater and surface water quality.  The new system reduces the amount of nitrogen that exits the sanitary system. It does not eliminate the release of this and other pollutants that result from normal residential use.  The Planning Department wants to stress that these systems should not be used as a reason to accommodate the construction of larger structures and increased development especially in environmentally sensitive areas.  This application has not yet been approved for the Hydro-action system and may not be approved.  The use of these systems for residences is in its infancy and not enough data have been compiled to determine just how effective these systems are or will be. They require a good deal of maintenance, power to run the equipment and consistent use to be effective.  Seasonal residences may not be ideal for these type of systems. If these systems do prove to be effective, it is possible that within the next several years SCHD will require all new construction to have aerobic treatment systems.

The Planning Department feels that the proposed development exceeds the environmental constraints of the property and does not support the application as proposed.  The wetland setback variances are all substantial. The overall clearing is substantial.  The Planning Department?s opinion is that because of the severity of the constraints on the property a reduction of both the square footage and building coverage is warranted. Elimination of the open floor plan could result in a more compact design and reduced building coverage.  The lot should only be developed in proportion to its constraints. A concrete slab foundation is proposed. The Planning Department also recommends that the residence be constructed on pilings because of the small lot size and the large volume of water moving through the watercourse on the adjacent property to the west. In a storm and flooding event, the piling foundation would allow for unrestricted water movement.

The Planning Department also recommends that the driveway/parking area should be constructed according to the regulations outlined in ? 255-3-75 Harbor Protection Overlay District (HPOD). The regulations are designed to protect the wetlands from harmful substances, changes in pH, etc that could impact the ecology of these sensitive areas. These wetlands, as mentioned above are an important part of the largest watercourse in Ditch Plains and warrant the greatest protection. The water that flows through this wetland eventually works its way into the surface waters of Lake Montauk.

The applicant must demonstrate compliance with the General Permit Standards of ? 255-5-40 as well as the NRSP standards of ?255-5-51 and the Variance Standards of ? 255-8-50 D of the Town Code in order to be eligible for the NRSP and variances requested.  The Board must determine whether compliance to the permit and variance standards have been met when deciding whether to approve this project.

 

 

Recommended Project Conditions:

 

1.              Project limiting fencing consisting of 4? plastic safety or snow fence shall be erected in the location depicted on the attached Planning Department sketch dated April 10, 2017 adapted from the approved survey to limit the clearing of vegetation and land disturbance.  The fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction activities and replaced as necessary when damaged, dislodged, deteriorated or upon request of the Building Department or a delegate of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 

 

2.              Sediment control fencing consisting of staked straw bales orsilt mesh fencing shall be erected in the location depicted on the attached Planning Department sketch dated April 10, 2017  adapted from the approved survey  to prevent sedimentation of the wetlands. The fencing shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control manual prior to the commencement and for the duration of construction activities.  The fencing shall be repaired or replaced as necessary to maintain proper function.

 

3.              The Board, or their delegate, prior to the issuance of a building permit, should inspect the project limiting fencing and straw bales for adequacy.

 

4.              The use of a piling foundation should be fully evaluated by the applicant and the Board to reduce the adverse impacts associated with clearing and grading in proximity to a significant watercourse.

 

5.              The sanitary system should be approved by SCHD prior to the issuance of a building permit.

 

6.              A detailed grading, drainage, and clearing plan should be prepared by a qualified design professional to attenuate all surface water produced on the property. 

 

7.              An Article 24 Freshwater Wetland permit should be obtained from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project.

 

8.              The residence should be furnished with gutters and leaders to direct stormwater from roofs into one or more catchment basins. Said catchment basin or basins shall have a combined volume (in cubic feet) equal to the surface area of the roof (in square feet), divided by six. Said catchment basin shall be made available for inspection by the building inspector prior to backfill.?

 

9.              The driveway composition and any drainage structures should be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.  The completed driveway and drainage structures should be inspected by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

 

10.              All structures should be situated at least 2? above the seasonal high groundwater table.

 

11.              A copy of the Natural Resources Special Permit and the approved survey and building plans shall be available on the parcel at all times.

 

V.              WORK SESSION:

VI.              POSSIBLE ADMINISTRATIVE APPLICATIONS:

A.              Carol Nye

SCTM# 300-28-5-29.3 - 155 South Essex Street, Montauk

 

One-story framed construction, mud room and a porch

VII.              BOARD DETERMINATIONS:

VIII.              BOARD DECISIONS:

A.              Montauk Properties

SIZE/LOCATION:              51,308 sq. ft., 183 Edgemere Street, N/A, Montauk (300-027-03-14)

DESCRIPTION: To legalize a number of already-built accessory structures and additions, install a new sanitary system, install new drainage, and modify the lighting and landscaping.

RELIEF SOUGHT:              A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to section 255-4-20 of the Town

Code. A total of twenty-one (21) area variances are requested. Ten (10) variances are               requested from the minimum wetland setbacks of Section 255-4-30 of the Town Code

and eleven (11) variances are requested from the minimum yard setbacks of Section 255-11-10 of the Town Code, and any other relief as may be necessary.             

ZONING DISTRICT:              B Residence Zone X Flood Zone

SEQRA CLASS: Type II

B.              Joseph & Courtney DeSena

SIZE/LOCATION: 17,187 sq. ft. (total), 137 Edgemere Street, Montauk (300-028-04-02)

DESCRIPTION: To demolish an existing residence and construct a new 3,525 sq. ft. two-story

residence, sanitary system, swimming pool with decking and to replace two floating docks with a new 4? x 20? fixed dock on a parcel of land containing surface waters.

RELIEF SOUGHT: A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ? 255-4-20, variances from ?

255-4-30 (minimum wetland setbacks) of the Town Code and any other relief necessary.  The following variances are required: (1) a 12.2? variance is required to allow the swimming pool and associated patio to be constructed 87.8? from wetlands where a 100? setback is required and (2) a 10? variance is required to locate the sanitary  leaching pool approximately 190? from the shoreline wetlands where a 200? setback is required.  The new residence has been proposed 110? from the wetlands.ZONING DISTRICT: B Residence Zone X Flood Zone

SEQRA CLASS: Type II

IX.              MINUTES APPROVAL:

A.              June 27th 2017

B.              July 11th 2017

X.              RESOLUTIONS

A.              Alan Kazlow

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

_____________________________________________                                  

             

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                                                 DETERMINATION

 

ALAN KAZLOW

SCTM # 300-175-03-16

_____________________________________________

HEARING DATE: March 21, 2017

                                

PRESENT:                            JOHN P. WHELAN, Chair

                                          DAVID LYS, Member

                                          ROY DALENE, Member

                                          THERESA BERGER, Member

 

ALSO PRESENT:              ELIZABETH L. BALDWIN, ESQ., Counsel to the Board

                                          TYLER BORSACK, Planning Department

                                          RICHARD A. HAMMER, ESQ., Agent for Applicant

                                          ALAN KAZLOW, Applicant

                                                                                                                             

                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD

 

              The findings of fact and determination made herein are based upon the application, the evidence received at the public hearing before the Board, all documents contained in the Board's files and which were received prior to the close of the hearing, and the inspection and field report made by Member Lys of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:  To allow an existing approximately 223 sq. ft. screened porch addition and an approximately 290 sq. ft. deck addition to remain within side yard lot line setbacks and freshwater wetland setbacks.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT:

Five (5) variances from the East Hampton Town Code and a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ?255-4-20 of the East Hampton Town Code are required for this application. Two (2) variances of 0.3?, from ?255-11-10 of the Town Code, are required to allow the decking and screened porch to remain 9.3? from the southern side yard lot line where 9.6? setbacks are required. One (1) variance of 8.6?, from ?255-11-10 of the Town Code, is required to allow the decking to remain approximately 1? from the northern side yard lot line where a 9.6? setback is required. Two (2) variances of 68? and 63.2?, from ?255-4-30 of the Town Code, are required to allow the decking to remain 32? and screened porch to remain 36.8? from freshwater wetlands where 100? setbacks are required, and any other relief necessary.

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE:   9,492 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 29 Beach Lane

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: N/A

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Amagansett

5.              FILED MAP NAME:  Beach Hampton

6.              FILED MAP NUMBER: 1287

7.              DATE OF MAP FILING: June 28, 1939

8.              BLOCK NUMBER IN FILED MAP: Section 3

9.              LOT NUMBER IN FILED MAP: 16, 17 & 18

10.              SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION:  #300-175-03-16

 

 

 

 

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: B Residential

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: N/A 

 

D.              SEQRA DETERMINATION

 

1.              SEQRA CLASSIFICATION:  Type II

2.              LEAD AGENCY:  N/A

3.              DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE:  N/A   

4.              DATE OF DETERMINATION:  N/A

 

E.              STANDARDS FOR BOARD REVIEW

 

1.              In order to be eligible for issuance of the requested Natural Resources Special Permit, applicant must show that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of ?? 255-1-11 and 255-4-10 of the East Hampton Town Code and satisfies the criteria set forth in ?? 255-5-40 and 255-5-51 (Natural Resources Special Permit) of the Town Code.

 

2.              In order for this Board to grant applicant the requested area variance, applicant must demonstrate that the requirements of Town Law ? 267-b 3 have been met. The Board is to ?take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall also consider (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the grant of an area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.?  The Town Law also directs the Board, in granting area variances, to ?grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.?

 

3.              The standards set forth in Town Code ? 255-8-50 (D) paraphrase the requirements language of Town Law ? 267-b 3:

 

a)              the benefit to applicant from grant of the requested variance outweighs any detriment which grant of the variance will cause to the general health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the Town as a whole; and

 

b)              the variances sought are the minimum variance necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing applicant to request an area variance, while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the general health, safety, and welfare of the Town as a whole.

 

4.              The Board finds that grant of part of the instant application will be consistent with the requirements of both Town Law ? 267-b and Town Code ? 255-8-50.

 

 

F.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

1.              The subject premises are improved with a single-family residence, decking and screened porch.  The property is located within the Beach Hampton subdivision along Beach Ave., in Amagansett.  The survey depicting the existing improvements was prepared by George Walbridge Surveyors, P.C., dated last revised May 11, 2017, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 11, 2017.  The corresponding engineering plans were prepared by T.F. Engineering, PLLC, dated May 3, 2017, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 11, 2017. 

 

2.              The applicants are requesting approval to allow an existing deck addition to remain 1? and 9.3? from the side yard lot lines and to allow the deck addition and an existing screened porch to remain 32? and 36.8? from freshwater wetlands. 

 

3.              The wetlands within jurisdiction of the property consist of substantial cranberry marsh with a very diverse plant population including extensive areas of obligate wetland species, saturated soil conditions and areas of standing water that appear to persist throughout much of the growing season.  These wetlands can be expected to provide all of the benefits typically associated with high quality freshwater wetlands including the provision of high quality habitat for wetland dependent species of plants and wildlife, nesting, forage and cover for resident and migratory wildlife species, the retention and attenuation of floodwaters prior to surface and groundwater recharge, aesthetic values and opportunities for scientific research and education. 

 

4.              The majority of the Board finds that granting the requested variances to allow the decking and screened porch to remain 68? and 63.2?, respectively, from the wetlands will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. The majority of the Board also finds that allowing the screened porch and decking to both remain 9?3? from the southern property line will not cause a detriment to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. The structures have been in place for nearly 25 years without any complaint from the neighbors or obvious detrimental impact to the wetlands.

 

5.              The majority of the Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the requested variances to allow the decking and screened porch to remain 68? and 63.2?, respectively, from the wetlands and 9?3? from the southern property line. Due to the size of the lot and location of the wetlands any additional structure would require wetland setback variances. Moreover, the variance requests for the decking and screened porch from the southern property line are de minimis and have no impact on the neighboring property to the south.       

 

6.              The majority of the Board finds that although the requested variances to allow the decking and screened porch to remain 68? and 63.2?, respectively, from the wetlands may be considered substantial, they are the minimum variances necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing the applicant to request the area variances.  The Board finds that the variance requests for the deck and screened porch from the southern property line are not substantial.

 

7.              The majority of the Board finds that granting the requested variances to allow the decking and screened porch to remain 68? and 63.2?, respectively, from the wetlands or 9?3? from the southern property line will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. A scenic easement on eastern portion of the property mitigates any impacts the deck and screened porch has on the wetlands. Moreover, the addition of leaders and gutters will also mitigate impacts to the wetlands.             

 

8.              The majority of the Board finds that the need for the variance is self-created. The Board finds however, that although the need for the requested variances to allow the decking and screened porch to remain is self created, this need, although relevant to the Board?s decision does not preclude the granting of the requested variances.  Town Law ?267-b(3)(b)(5). 

 

9.              The majority of the Zoning Board finds the nature of the proposed use will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes of the Town of East Hampton Zoning Law as described by ? 255-1-11 of the Town Code. 

 

10.              The majority of the Board finds the lot area to be sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the existing deck and screened porch. A scenic easement on the eastern side of the property offsets the impact of the additional structures on the property.   

 

11.              The majority of the Board finds that the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties because the existing deck and screened porch have been in existence for over 25 years without any complaint from the neighbors.  

 

12.              The majority of the Board finds that adequate buffer yards can and will be provided as  the southern side yard variances request is de minimis and no impact to the neighbors has been identified in 25 years.   

 

13.              The majority of the Board finds that the characteristics of the site are such that the existing deck and screened porch may be introduced without undue disturbance or disruption to important natural features. The screened porch and the decking have been in existence for over 25 years with no identified impact to the wetlands. The majority finds that the deck on the northern side of the property can and should be modified to eliminate the need for a variance from this Board.             

 

14.              The majority of the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from grant of the requested variances to allow the decking and screened porch to remain 68? and 63.2?, respectively, from the wetlands and 9?3? from the southern property line outweighs any detriment which grant of the variances will cause to the general health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the Town as a whole.

 

15.              The majority of the Board finds that the 8.6? variance request to allow the existing deck to remain 1? from the property line where 9.6? is required is a substantial variance. Even though the deck has been in existence for some time now, the Board finds that the applicant can modify the deck in a manner that will still serve the needs of the applicant while eliminating the need for a northern side yard variance request.

 

 

 

G.              DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION

 

              For the reasons set forth herein, the Board makes the following determination with respect to the application:

 

1.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL GRANTED:  

A Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ? 255-4-20 of the Town Code and two (2) variances of 68? and 63.2?, from ?255-4-30 of the Town Code, are granted to allow the decking to remain 32? and screened porch to remain 36.8? from freshwater wetlands where 100? setbacks are required. Two (2) variances of 0.3?, from ?255-11-10 of the Town Code, are granted to allow the decking and screened porch to remain 9.3? from the southern side yard lot line where 9.6? setbacks are required.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL DENIED:

One (1) variance of 8.6?, from ?255-11-10 of the Town Code, is denied to allow the decking to remain approximately 1? from the northern side yard lot line where a 9.6? setback is required.             

 

3.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK APPROVED: 

To allow an existing deck and screened porch to remain 68? and 63.2?, respectively, from the wetlands and 0.3? from the southern property line.

 

4.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK DENIED:

To allow an existing deck to remain within the side yard setbacks of the northern property line.

 

H.              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

              Grant of the specified variances is specifically conditioned upon compliance with the conditions set forth in this section of the determination.  All improvements shall be made, built, or installed in accordance with the survey and plans described below.

 

1.              APPROVED SURVEY:  See below.        

 

2.              APPROVED BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS:  N/A

 

3.              APPROVED DRAINAGE PLANS: Prepared by TF Engineering, PLLC dated May 3, 2017 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 11, 2017.

 

4.              ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND TIME LIMITATIONS:

 

a.              Applicant shall submit a revised survey eliminating the need for a side yard setback variance from the northern property line and shall submit a letter in writing from the chief building inspector stating that modifications to the existing deck no longer require a variance.

 

b.              The residence shall be furnished with gutters and leaders to direct stormwater from roofs into one or more catchment basins. Said catchment basin or basins should have a combined volume (in cubic feet) equal to the surface area of the roof (in square feet), divided by six. Said catchment basin should be made available for inspection by the building inspector prior to backfill.

 

c.              The applicant shall revegetate the northwest portion of the property with native plant species.  The Board or their delegate shall inspect the revegetation prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 

 

d.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Building Permit no more than thirty-six (36) months from the date of filing this determination.

 

e.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy no more than eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance of a building permit.

 

f.              A copy of the Natural Resources Special Permit, the approved survey, and the approved building plans shall be available on the parcel at all times.

 

I.              VALIDITY OF APPROVAL

 

If any condition of this determination is not met, or is not met within the prescribed time period, all approvals, permits, or authorizations granted hereby shall be deemed void and of no effect.

 

THE BOARD VOTES TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE DECKING TO REMAIN 1? FROM THE NORTHERN SIDE YARD LOT LINE WHERE A 9.6? SETBACK IS REQUIRED.

 

THE MARJORITY OF THE BOARD VOTES TO APPROVE THE NRSP AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCES AS FOLLOWS:

 

1)              Two (2) variances of 0.3?, from ?255-11-10 of the Town Code to allow the decking and screened porch to remain 9.3? from the southern side yard lot line where 9.6? setbacks are required.

 

2)              Two (2) variances of 68? and 63.2?, from ?255-4-30 of the Town Code, are granted to allow the decking to remain 32? and screened porch to remain 36.8? from freshwater wetlands where 100? setbacks are required.

 

 

CHAIRMAN WHELAN DISSENTS TO GRANTING THE NRSP AND REMAINING FOUR (4) VARIANCES 

 

Dated: July 18, 2017

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Richard A. Hammer, Esq.

B.              Cynthia Rowley

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

_____________________________________                                  

             

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                     DETERMINATION

 

CYNTHIA ROWLEY

SCTM # 300-32-4-20

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE: May 16, 2017

                                

PRESENT              :              JOHN P. WHELAN, Chair

                                          CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

DAVID LYS, Member

                                          ROY DALENE, Member

                                          THERESA BERGER, Member

                                         

ALSO PRESENT:              ELIZABETH L. BALDWIN, ESQ., Counsel to the Board

                                          DENISE SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

                                          BRIAN FRANK, Chief Environmental Analyst

                                          RICHARD A. HAMMER, ESQ., Attorney for Applicant

                                          JOHN ALTERS, Neighbor

                                                                                   

                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD

 

              The findings of fact and determination made herein are based upon the application, the evidence received at the public hearing before the Board, all documents contained in the Board's files and which were received prior to the close of the hearing, and the inspection and field report made by Member Berger of this of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION:

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:  To demolish an existing one-story residence and sanitary system and construct a new 1,375 sq. ft. two-story residence with 1st & 2nd floor decking and new sanitary system on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT: A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ? 255-4-20 and variances from ? 255-4-40 (Minimum wetland setbacks) of the Town Code and any other relief necessary.                The following wetland setback variances are required: (1) & (2) Variances of 90? and 95? are required to construct the residence and decking 10? and 5? respectively from wetlands where a 100? setback is required; (2) a 144? variance is required to install a new sanitary system 6? from wetlands where a 150? setback is required and (3) clearing is proposed adjacent and within the wetlands where a 50? setback is required. 

 

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE:  20,319 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 69 Seaside Avenue

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: N/A

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Montauk

5.              FILED MAP NAME:  Seaside Shores

6.              FILED MAP NUMBER: 1518

7.              DATE OF MAP FILING: January 2, 1947

8.              BLOCK NUMBER IN FILED MAP: 602

9.              LOT NUMBER IN FILED MAP: 30

10.              SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION:  #300-32-4-20

 

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: B Residence

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: N/A

 

D.              SEQRA DETERMINATION

 

1.              SEQRA CLASSIFICATION:  Type II

2.              LEAD AGENCY:  N/A

3.              DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE:  N/A   

4.              DATE OF DETERMINATION:  N/A

 

E.              STANDARDS FOR BOARD REVIEW

 

1.              In order to be eligible for issuance of the requested Natural Resources Special Permit, applicant must show that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of ?? 255-1-11 and 255-4-10 of the East Hampton Town Code and satisfies the criteria set forth in ?? 255-5-40 and 255-5-51 (Natural Resources Special Permit) of the Town Code.

 

2.              In order for this Board to grant applicant the requested area variance, applicant must demonstrate that the requirements of Town Law ? 267-b 3 have been met. The Board is to ?take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall also consider (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the grant of an area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.?  The Town Law also directs the Board, in granting area variances, to ?grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.?

 

3.              The standards set forth in Town Code ? 255-8-50 (D) paraphrase the requirements language of Town Law ? 267-b 3:

 

a)              the benefit to applicant from grant of the requested variance outweighs any detriment which grant of the variance will cause to the general health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the Town as a whole; and

 

b)              the variances sought are the minimum variance necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing applicant to request an area variance, while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the general health, safety, and welfare of the Town as a whole.

 

4.              The Board finds that grant of the instant application will be consistent with the requirements of both Town Law ? 267-b and Town Code ? 255-8-50.

 

F.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

1.              The property is currently improved with a 988 sq. ft. one-story residence with 180 sq. ft. of decking that was constructed pursuant to Zoning Board review in 1976 according to the Certificate of Occupancy issued in 1976.  The most recent survey, depicting the existing conditions and proposed improvements was prepared by James Walsh Land Surveyor dated revised 10/11/16, stamped received 10/27/16 and the corresponding building plans were prepared by Lindal Cedar Homes (7 pgs) also received by the Board on 10/27/16.  Also received on 10/27/16 is a site plan of the proposed improvements and sanitary system details prepared by the Raynor Group engineering firm (dated revised, 10/04/16).  This project requires approvals from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) and the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS).

 

2.              The property is located on the northwestern corner of Seaside Avenue and Miller Avenue, both unpaved private roads.  With the exception of the existing driveway location, the residence is completely surrounded by freshwater wetlands located within 15? of the structure.  The sanitary system is located southwest of the residence and encroaches several feet into the delineated wetland.  A small deck in the southwestern corner of the property, constructed without permits is proposed to be removed.  The subject premises are located within one of the most complex and hydraulically active sub-watersheds within the Lake Montauk watershed.  Surface and groundwater from the southern portion of the West Lake Drive area north of Montauk Highway flows south and east through a complex network of streams, marshes and swamps to the southeast along either side of Seaside Avenue, and then from west to east along Miller Avenue where some of the water seeps through the coastal bluff south of Miller towards the ocean; but much of the water flows north through wetlands and streams within the densely developed Ditch Plains community and discharges in the southern end of Lake Montauk.   The southern end of Lake Montauk is closed to shellfishing and as a bathing beach due to elevated levels of coliform bacteria that are used as indicators of water pollution.

 

3.              This property is among the most severely constrained by wetlands as any improved property reviewed by the Zoning Board over the past twenty years or more.  The 988 sq. ft. residence contains a roof overhang that increases the footprint of building coverage to 1,288 sq. feet.   The proposed footprint (coverage) comprises 868 sq. ft. (10.1%) and nominally increases the wetland setbacks on all sides except the southeast corner where a deck is proposed.   The existing total coverage, which presumably includes the non-permitted deck, is proposed to be reduced from 1,823 sq. ft. to 1,206 sq. feet (14%).   The new residence is proposed on a slab foundation and the 1,375 sq. ft. residence comprises a roughly 39% gross floor area increase over the existing 988 sq. ft. house.

 

4.              It is the Planning Department?s opinion that footprint reduction, along with other mitigation measures, makes the application reasonable for the Board to consider the proposed size increase.  However, the environmental constraints of the property are extreme and unique; the potential for severe short and long term adverse impacts to the wetlands is very high.  The wetlands completely surround the residence with very limited room for construction equipment and workers.  The location of the property on the corner of an unpaved, private road increases the constraints for the staging of construction materials and equipment.  The greater the duration that construction activities occur on the property, the greater the likelihood of significant wetland impacts.   The high clay content of the soils increases the potential for soil compaction to further decrease the permeability of the soils, increasing the flooding potential.

 

5.              Test hole data from the new sanitary system location indicates that clean sand, required for proper sanitary system installation, is located 49? below grade. The test hole location indicates standing water at a depth of 6? below the surface (elevation 9.2? above sea level) but significant standing water within the wetlands suggests the potential for a water table much closer to the surface in other portions of the property.  According to the Planning Department, the application proposes to remove the existing sanitary system and this property may be a better candidate for abandoning the sanitary system in place and in accordance with SCDHS regulations to minimize the extent of excavation in such proximity to the wetlands. 

 

6.              The Planning Department recommends establishing a scenic easement in the eastern portion of the property to facilitate the conservation of their multiple values in perpetuity.  Applicant was originally proposing a slab foundation for the residence. Although the property is not located in a Velocity Flood Zone as defined by FEMA, the Planning Department suggested it may be an excellent candidate to place the residence on an open piling foundation to the reduce the need for grading around the foundation. The applicant revised her application to accommodate this suggestion by the Planning Department.

 

7.              The Planning Department strongly encouraged the Board to obtain a detailed construction protocol, time line for anticipated construction activities and a detailed grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed design professional prior to any approval. The construction protocol should provide a detailed plan for removing the existing residence, abandoning or removing the existing sanitary system, construction of the residence and preparing the location of the new sanitary system for installation.  The grading and drainage plan should clearly depict all proposed grades, all drainage structures, their design volumes and the separation to the groundwater table of all subsurface structures.  The drainage plan should also address an existing culvert currently located south of the residence.  The high groundwater table, volume of flowing water and fine texture of the soils result in a high potential for sedimentation of the wetlands as long as intensive construction activities are occurring.  Consequently, the Planning Department recommends the construction protocol include an anticipated time line of construction activities and provisions for protecting the wetlands if construction activities are suspended for a significant length of time.   The applicant submitted a construction protocol to the Board, stamped received, on May 12, 2017.

 

8.              The Board finds that granting the requested variances will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. Applicant is replacing an existing residence on a highly constrained lot. All lots in this subdivision are similarly constrained and the proposed project will not impact the existing character of Seaside Avenue.

 

9.              The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the requested area variances. Due to the constraints of the lot and the failing septic system the proposed project is the best alternative for the property. The project will bring the property up to modern standards and reduce impacts to the wetlands.

 

10.              The Board finds that although the requested variances may be considered substantial, they are the minimum variances necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing the applicant to request the area variances.  Applicant?s project will reduce coverage on the property and consolidate the footprint. An new sanitary system will replace a failing system which will provide an overall environmental benefit to the property.

 

11.              The Board finds that granting the requested variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.  The environmental conditions in the neighborhood should improve as result of this project. A new sanitary system, which is replacing a failing system, will offset any detrimental impacts that may be created by the increase in gross floor area. Moreover, applicant?s ability to stage construction on a neighboring lot will minimize impacts to the wetlands on the subject property.

 

12.              The Board finds that the need for the variances is self-created. The Board finds however, that although the need for the requested variances is self-created, this need, although relevant to the Board?s decision does not preclude the granting of the requested variances.  Town Law ?267-b(3)(b)(5). 

 

13.              The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from grant of the requested variances outweighs any detriment which grant of the variances will cause to the general health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the Town as a whole.

 

14.              The Zoning Board finds the nature of the proposed use will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes of the Town of East Hampton Zoning Law as described by ? 255-1-11 of the Town Code. 

 

15.              The Board finds the lot area to be sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the proposed improvements. The existing coverage on the property is 1,288.64 sq. ft. and the applicant is proposing to reduce coverage to 868.4 sq. ft., which will improve conditions on the lot. Total lot coverage is also be reduced as a result of this project.

 

16.              The Board finds that the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties as no impact to adjacent properties is anticipated from the construction of the proposed project.

 

17.              The Board finds that the characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced without undue disturbance or disruption to important natural features. Applicant is the owner of a neighboring parcel, 78 Seaside Avenue, which will allow the applicant to use this property to accommodate an overflow staging area during construction at the subject property. The proposed project will reduce the existing coverage and consolidate the footprint on the property, while also slightly reducing setbacks to the wetlands. Moreover, an new sanitary system will replace a failing septic system, thereby improving the overall environmental conditions on the lot.

 

 

G.              DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION

 

              For the reasons set forth herein, the Board makes the following determination with respect to the application:

 

1.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL GRANTED:   A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ? 255-4-20 and variances from ? 255-4-40 (Minimum wetland setbacks) of the Town Code and any other relief necessary.                The following wetland setback variances are required: (1) & (2) Variances of 90? and 95? are required to construct the residence and decking 10? and 5? respectively from wetlands where a 100? setback is required; (2) a 144? variance is required to install a new sanitary system 6? from wetlands where a 150? setback is required and (3) clearing is proposed adjacent and within the wetlands where a 50? setback is required. 

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK APPROVED:  To demolish an existing one-story residence and sanitary system and construct a new 1,375 sq. ft. two-story residence with 1st & 2nd floor decking and new sanitary system on a parcel of land containing freshwater wetlands.

 

H.              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

              Grant of the specified variances is specifically conditioned upon compliance with the conditions set forth in this section of the determination.  All improvements shall be made, built, or installed in accordance with the survey and plans described below.

 

1.              APPROVED SURVEY:  Survey prepared by James P. Walsh, L.S. dated last revised October 11, 2016, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on October 27, 2016.     

 

2.              APPROVED BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS:  Building Plans prepared by Lindal Cedar Homes dated last revised  April, 27 (no year) and stamped received by the Zoning Board on October 27, 2016.

 

3.              APPROVED SANITARY PLANS: Prepared by The Raynor Group, P.E. & L.S. PLLC. dated last revised October 4, 2016 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on October 27, 2017.

 

4.              APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PROTOCOL: Prepared by The Raynor Group, P.E. & L.S. PLLC dated March, 2017, stamped received by the Zoning Board on March 27, 2017 and later amended by letter dated May 11, 2017 stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 12, 2017.

 

5.              ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND TIME LIMITATIONS:

 

a.              Project limiting fencing consisting of 4? plastic safety or snow fence shall be erected concurrent with the clearing boundary approved by the Board adapted from the approved survey or site plan to limit the clearing of vegetation and land disturbance.  The fencing shall be maintained for the duration of construction activities and replaced as necessary if damaged, dislodged or upon request of the Building Department or a delegate of the Zoning Board of Appeals. 

 

b.              Sediment control fencing consisting of staked straw bales within the perimeter of the project limiting fencing referenced above to prevent sedimentation of the wetlands. The fencing shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the New York State Standards and Specifications for Erosion and Sediment Control manual prior to the commencement and for the duration of construction activities.  The fencing shall be repaired or replaced as necessary to maintain proper function. 

c.              Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Board, or their delegate, shall inspect the project limiting and straw bale fencing for proper installation.

d.              Applicant shall install and maintain fencing around the dewatering area.

 

e.              The Board, or their delegate, prior to the issuance of a building permit, shall inspect all fencing and straw bales for adequacy.

 

f.              The clearing of vegetation and the filling, grading or re-contouring of the property should be strictly limited to the boundaries established by the Board and any proposed grading depicted on a survey or engineer?s grading plan approved by the Board.

 

g.              The approved construction protocol shall be followed throughout the duration of construction activities. Any changes to the construction protocol shall be reviewed and approved, in writing, by the Zoning Board.

 

h.              The existing topography, as depicted on the approved survey, shall be maintained.

 

i.              Applicant shall abandon, not remove, the existing sanitary system in accordance with Suffolk County Department of Health Services standards.

 

j.              The Town Engineer shall inspect the culvert on the property prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

 

k.              If applicant, at anytime during construction activities, no longer owns or maintains the use of the property located at 78 Seaside Avenue, Montauk, applicant shall contact the Zoning Board and request a modification for a revised construction protocol.

 

l.              A scenic easement shall be placed over the wetlands in the eastern portion of the property.  The easement, along with the approved survey depicting the location of scenic easement shall be submitted in acceptable form to the Zoning Board of Appeals Office for approval by Counsel to this Board, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The Town Board must accept and the applicant must file with the Suffolk County Clerk?s Office the scenic easement.  The original easement shall be returned the East Hampton Town Clerk?s Office. Proof of filing must be presented to the Zoning Board before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

 

m.              Copies of the same, with proof of recordation shown thereon, shall be returned to the Town Clerk prior to the issuance of a building permit.

 

n.              The sanitary system shall be installed in the location and to the specifications indicated on the approved survey and engineering site plan under the direction of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services.

 

o.              A revegetation plan that indicates the locations, species, size and spacing shall be submitted to the Board for approval prior to the issuance of a building permit.   The plan shall be implemented and inspected by the Board or their delegate prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

 

p.              All structures should be situated at least 2? above the seasonal high groundwater table.

 

q.              The driveway should be composed of only of a clean, local, water-pervious quartz gravel surface.

 

r.              The applicant shall prepare and submit a declaration of covenants and restrictions, incorporating the provisions of the appropriate paragraphs of this determination in standard form acceptable to and approved by Counsel to this Board.  The said declaration shall provide for its modification or termination only upon the approval of the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals, after a public hearing held on ten (10) days? notice.  Said declaration, after approval by counsel, shall be recorded at the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk. 

 

s.              An Article 24 Freshwater Wetland permit or statement of non-jurisdiction should be obtained from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) prior to the issuance of a building permit for this project. 

 

t.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Building Permit no more than thirty-six (36) months from the date of filing this determination.

 

u.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy no more than eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance of a building permit.

 

v.              A copy of the Natural Resources Special Permit, the approved survey, and the approved building plans shall be available on the parcel at all times.

 

I.              VALIDITY OF APPROVAL

 

If any condition of this determination is not met, or is not met within the prescribed time period, all approvals, permits, or authorizations granted hereby shall be deemed void and of no effect.

 

ALL CONCUR

 

JOHN WHELAN, Chairperson

CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chairperson

DAVID LYS, Member

ROY DALENE, Member

THERESA BERGER, Member

 

DATE: June 20, 2016

                           

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Jonathan Tarbet, Esq.

             

             

C.              Herrmann

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

_____________________________________                                  

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                                   DETERMINATION

 

MARTIN HERRMANN

SCTM # 300-32-017-06

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE: May 16, 2017

                                

PRESENT:                            JOHN P. WHELAN, Chair

                                          CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

DAVID LYS, Member

                                          ROY DALENE, Member

                                          THERESA BERGER, Member

                                         

ALSO PRESENT:              ELIZABETH L. BALDWIN, ESQ., Counsel to the Board

                                          DENISE SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

                                          LISA D?ANDREA, Planning Department                           

                                          RICHARD E. WHELAN, ESQ., Attorney for Applicant

                                          DAVID RHODES, Applicant?s Engineer

                                          DENNIS SISCO, Neighboring Property Owner

                                          ROSANNA SISCO, Neighboring Property Owner

                                          SUSAN BRIERLY, Agent for Applicant

                                                                     

                            FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD

 

              The findings of fact and determination made herein are based upon the application, the evidence received at the public hearing before the Board, all documents contained in the Board's files and which were received prior to the close of the hearing, and the inspection and field report made by Member Berger of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: 

To construct a 2,376 sq. ft. two- story residence with 642 sq. ft. of first and second story decks, a front porch of 40 sq. ft., a balcony over the entry that is 66 sq. ft., a roof deck (including stairs) 513.5 sq. ft., a driveway (including retaining walls) that is 2,620 sq. ft. and sanitary system on a parcel of land with freshwater wetlands.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT:

A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ?255-4-20, three (3) variances from ?255-3-30 (wetland setbacks), and a variance from ?255-11-72D of the Town Code. Variances of 3.5 ft. and 38.1 ft. are required respectively to construct the decks and retaining wall 96.5 and 61.9 ft. from the wetland where a minimum 100 ft. setback is required. A 59.4 variance is required to install the sanitary system 90.6 ft. from the wetlands where a 150 ft. minimum setback is required. A 4 ft. 6 in pyramid variance is requested.

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE:  40,000 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 26 Seaside Avenue

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: N/A

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Montauk

5.              FILED MAP NAME:  Seaside Shores

6.              FILED MAP NUMBER: 1518

7.              DATE OF MAP FILING: January 2, 1947

8.              BLOCK NUMBER IN FILED MAP: N/A

9.              LOT NUMBER IN FILED MAP: 28 and 29

10.              SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION:  #300-32-07-06

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: B Residence

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: N/A

 

D.              SEQRA DETERMINATION

 

1.              SEQRA CLASSIFICATION:  Type II

2.              LEAD AGENCY:  N/A

3.              DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE:  N/A   

4.              DATE OF DETERMINATION:  N/A

 

E.              STANDARDS FOR BOARD REVIEW

 

1.              In order to be eligible for issuance of the requested Natural Resources Special Permit, applicant must show that the proposed action is compatible with the purposes of ?? 255-1-11 and 255-4-10 of the East Hampton Town Code and satisfies the criteria set forth in ?? 255-5-40 and 255-5-51 (Natural Resources Special Permit) of the Town Code.

 

2.              In order for this Board to grant applicant the requested area variance, applicant must demonstrate that the requirements of Town Law ? 267-b 3 have been met. The Board is to ?take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall also consider (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the grant of an area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.?  The Town Law also directs the Board, in granting area variances, to ?grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.?

 

3.              The standards set forth in Town Code ? 255-8-50 (D) paraphrase the requirements language of Town Law ? 267-b 3:

 

a)              the benefit to applicant from grant of the requested variances outweighs any detriment which grant of the variances will cause to the general health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the Town as a whole; and

 

b)              the variances sought are the minimum variances necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing applicant to request an area variance, while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the general health, safety, and welfare of the Town as a whole.

 

4.              The Board finds that grant of the instant application will be consistent with the requirements of both Town Law ? 267-b and Town Code ? 255-8-50.

 

F.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

1.              The parcel  is vacant and comprises approximately 40,000 sq. ft., is situate on seaside Ave. in Montauk, is in B Residential zoning and the soil type present on this parcel is Fine Loamy Sand  and Bridgehampton silt loam, till substratum as per Suffolk County Soil survey. The owner purchased the property in July of 2015.

 

2.              The State Historic Preservation Act Determination concluded that the proposed project will not impact registered, eligible or inventoried archaeological sites or historic structures. The premises are highly constrained by freshwater wetlands that occur in the southern and northern portions of the property. The property is included in the Peconic Estuary Montauk Critical Natural Resources Area (CNRA) and is in the Montauk Watershed.

 

3.              This area of Montauk is part of a complex watershed that eventually discharges into the southern end of Lake Montauk, which is closed for beach bathing and shell fishing because of elevated levels of coliform bacteria. The presence of coliform bacteria are indicators of water pollution.  The soils throughout the Seaside Avenue area exhibit poor drainage and the region is prone to chronic flooding and drainage problems.  The wetlands on the premises play an important role in the retention of the floodwaters that contribute to the poor drainage of the area as well as the dissipation of pollutants and nutrients that eventually make their way into Lake Montauk.

 

4.              It appears that the applicant has acquired a New York State Department of Conservation (NYSDEC) permit to construct a single family dwelling with decks and a driveway with a bridge over the wetland to access Seaside Ave. The restrictions in the permit are that the bridge ?must be either a single span or constructed on pilings. The abutments must be located outside of the wetland as shown on the approved plans. If pilings are to be used, the minimum number of pilings must be used. No fill besides the pilings is permitted in the wetland. Decking of bridge must be a minimum of 18? above the wetland and surface with an open grate material that allows for light penetration.?

 

5.              On December 2, the Board received the 26 Seaside Ave. Driveway /Bridge Plan by TF Planning PLLC dated November 22, 2016. The Town Engineer has examined the plans and recommends that a sign be placed at the bridge entrance posting the maximum load capacity of the bridge.  He also recommended that the driveway should not be crushed bluestone because of the proximity to the wetland. He recommends the driveway be composed of ? in. quartz gravel.

 

6.              The Board should take note that the proposed retaining wall could be 10 ft. in height and the construction of the driveway will require a substantial amount of grading.  Great care to protect the wetlands in the north that are subject to siltation from the grading and construction of the retaining wall and driveway should be taken. The staked strawbales and siltation fencing needs to be firmly installed and maintained over the course of the construction process.

 

7.              The Gross Floor Area of the proposed house is 2,376 sq. ft.  The building coverage is 1,458 sq. ft. Total lot coverage is 4,296 sq. ft. or about 16.45%.  It appears that all structures have been positioned so as to minimize the variances required. The house meets the minimum 100 ft. setback. The decks, retaining wall and sanitary system require variances. The sanitary system requires a substantial variance of 59.4 ft.

 

8.              The applicant has proposed a 15,000 sq. ft. scenic easement  150 ft. deep and 100 ft. in width that would cover the wetland in the southern portion of the property and a provide a substantial buffer for the wetlands as well. The Planning Department applauds this scenic easement as mitigation for the project but it also recommends that a scenic easement 70 ft. in depth and 82 ft. in width be placed over the wetlands in the northern portion of the property. These scenic easements will help to assure the future protection of the wetlands by establishing protected vegetative buffers around them.  They will help offset the intensity of the use of the parcel and will provide multiple environmental benefits.  The vegetative buffer within the scenic easements will provide a quality habitat for wildlife.  The vegetation within the scenic easements will help to intercept non-point pollutants such as sediments, suspended and dissolved solids, nutrients associated with fertilizers and other chemical compounds that adversely affect the water quality.  The root system of the vegetation helps to dissipate water during periods of flooding.

 

9.              The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story residence with decking, a porch, a balcony, roof deck, driveway with retaining walls and a sanitary system.  The most recent survey of the property was completed by Saskas Surveying Company, P.C., dated last revised May 24, 2017, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 31, 2017.  The corresponding construction protocol was revised by Due East Planning Design and Permits and TF Engineering, dated last revised May 23, 2017, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 31, 2017.  The Bridge Plan, prepared by TF Engineering, dated last revised May 22, 2017, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 31, 2017. 

 

10.              The Board finds that granting the requested variances will not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed residence will be in character with other homes along Seaside Avenue.  The Board finds no detrimental impacts to nearby properties will result from granting the requested variances.

 

11.              The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the requested area variances.  The premises are highly constrained by freshwater wetlands that occur in the southern and northern portions of the property.  The proposed residence meets all setback requirements; however, there are no alternative conforming locations on the parcel to locate the sanitary system.    

 

12.              The Board finds that granting the requested variances will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.  The applicant will establish a 15,000 sq. ft. scenic easement 150 ft. deep and 100 ft. in width that would cover the wetland in the southern portion of the property and a 5,740 sq. ft. scenic easement, 70 ft. in depth and 82 ft. in width, will be placed over the wetlands in the northern portion of the property provide a substantial buffer for the wetlands as well.  The scenic easements will help to assure the future protection of the wetlands by establishing protected vegetative buffers.  They will help offset the intensity of the use of the parcel and will provide multiple environmental benefits.  The vegetative buffer within the scenic easements will provide a quality habitat for wildlife.  The vegetation within the scenic easements will help to intercept non-point pollutants such as sediments, suspended and dissolved solids, nutrients associated with fertilizers and other chemical compounds that adversely affect the water quality.  The root system of the vegetation helps to dissipate water during periods of flooding.    

 

13.              The Board finds that although the requested variance may be considered substantial, they are the minimum variances necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing the applicant to request the area variances.  All proposed structures have been positioned as to minimize the variances required.  The proposed residence is minimal in size and will not loom over neighboring properties.  The total lot coverage is proposed to be 4,296 sq. ft., or 15.45%, where 13,056 sq. ft., or 50% is permitted.     

 

14.              The Board finds that the need for the variances is self-created. The Board finds however, that although the need for the requested variances is self-created, this need, although relevant to the Board?s decision does not preclude the granting of the requested variances.  Town Law ?267-b(3)(b)(5). 

 

15.              The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from grant of the requested variances outweighs any detriment which grant of the variances will cause to the general health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and the Town as a whole.

 

16.              The Zoning Board finds the nature of the proposed use will be in harmony with and will promote the general purposes of the Town of East Hampton Zoning Law as described by ? 255-1-11 of the Town Code. 

 

17.              The Board finds the lot area to be sufficient, appropriate and adequate for the proposed improvements. The proposed residence is modest will not interfere with the enjoyment of neighboring properties. The total lot coverage is proposed to be 4,296 sq. ft., or 15.45%, where 13,056 sq. ft., or 50% is permitted.       

 

18.              The Board finds that adequate buffer yards and screening can and will be provided to protect adjacent properties and land uses from possible detrimental impacts of the proposed use as the applicant will establish two (2) scenic easements to provide vegetative buffers to the wetlands and will help to reduce runoff from the property.

 

19.              The Board finds that the proposed use will not prevent the orderly and reasonable use of adjacent properties as no impact to adjacent properties is anticipated from the construction of the proposed project.  The vegetation within the scenic easements will help to intercept non-point pollutants such as sediments, suspended and dissolved solids, nutrients associated with fertilizers and other chemical compounds that adversely affect the water quality.  The root system of the vegetation will help to dissipate water during periods of flooding.

 

20.              The Board finds that adequate provision can and will be made for the collection and disposal of stormwater runoff, as the Board will require that all roof runoff be directed by leaders and gutters into subsurface drywells. Also, the Board will require, as a condition of approval, that additional vegetation be added along the western property line from topographic mark 30 to topographic mark 38 as depicted on the approved survey.

 

21.              The Board finds that the characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use may be introduced without undue disturbance or disruption to important natural features.  Potential detriment to the wetlands on the subject parcel will be offset by the mitigation measures set forth below.    

 

22.              The Board finds that the proposed project, constructed in accordance with the proposed mitigation measures set forth below, promote the public interest in adequately preserving the freshwater wetlands located on the subject parcel. 

 

G.              DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION

 

              For the reasons set forth herein, the Board makes the following determination with respect to the application:

 

1.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL GRANTED: 

A Natural Resources Special Permit (NRSP) pursuant to ?255-4-20, three (3) variances from ?255-3-30 (wetland setbacks), and a variance from ?255-11-72D of the Town Code are granted. Variances of 3.5 ft. and 38.1 ft. are granted respectively to construct the decks and retaining wall 96.5 and 61.9 ft. from the wetland where a minimum 100 ft. setback is required. A 59.4 variance is granted to install the sanitary system 90.6 ft. from the wetlands where a 150 ft. minimum setback is required. A 4 ft. 6 in pyramid variance is granted.

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK APPROVED: 

To construct a 2,376 sq. ft. two- story residence with 642 sq. ft. of first and second story decks, a front porch of 40 sq. ft., a balcony over the entry that is 66 sq. ft., a roof deck (including stairs) 513.5 sq. ft., a driveway (including retaining walls) that is 2,620 sq. ft. and sanitary system on a parcel of land with freshwater wetlands.

 

H.              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

              Grant of the specified variances is specifically conditioned upon compliance with the conditions set forth in this section of the determination.  All improvements shall be made, built, or installed in accordance with the survey and plans described below.

 

1.              APPROVED SURVEY:  Prepared Saskas Surveying Company, P.C., dated last revised May 24, 2017, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 31, 2017. 

 

2.              APPROVED BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS:  The corresponding construction protocol, revised by Due East Planning Design and Permits and TF Engineering, dated last revised May 23, 2017, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 31, 2017.  The Bridge Plan, prepared by TF Engineering, dated last revised May 22, 2017, and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 31, 2017.

 

3.              APPROVED REVEGETATION PLAN: Prepared by Due East Planning, dated 5/18/17 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on 5/31/17.

 

4.              APPROVED BRIDGE PLAN: Prepared by TF Engineering dated 5/23/17 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on 5/31/17.

 

5.              APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PROTOCOL: prepared by Due East Planning Inc. & TF Engineering, PLLC dated 5/23/17 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on May 31, 2017.

 

6.              ?APPROVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT SKETCH:  Dated December 1, 2016, and adapted from the Saskas Surveying Company, P.C. survey, dated last revised October 15, 2016. 

 

7.              ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND TIME LIMITATIONS:

a.              Project limiting fencing with staked straw bales shall be erected and maintained to limit land disturbance and prevent sedimentation of the wetlands in the location depicted on the Planning Department sketch dated December 1, 2016 (referenced above) prior to the commencement and for the duration of construction activities.

 

b.              The Board, or their delegate, prior to the issuance of a building permit, shall inspect the project limiting fencing and straw bales for adequacy.

 

c.              The clearing of vegetation and grading shall be strictly limited to a boundary established and elevations depicted on the approved survey.

 

d.              Applicant shall submit a revised survey depicting additional revegetation along the western property line from the 30 foot topographic line to the 38 foot topographic line prior to issuance of building permit.

 

e.              The parcel shall be revegetated in accordance with the species, sizes and spacing indicated on the approved revegetation plan prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.

 

f.              Scenic easements shall be established over the wetlands as depicted on the Planning department sketch dated December 1, 2106 (referenced above). The easements, along with the approved survey depicting the location of scenic easement shall be submitted in acceptable form to the Zoning Board of Appeals Office for approval by Counsel to this Board, prior to the issuance of a Building Permit. The Town Board must accept and the applicant must file with the Suffolk County Clerk?s Office the scenic easement.  The original easement shall be returned the East Hampton Town Clerk?s Office. Proof of filing must be presented to the Zoning Board before a Certificate of Occupancy can be issued.

 

g.              The applicant shall prepare and submit a declaration of covenants and restrictions, incorporating the provisions of the paragraphs (h), (i) & (j) of this determination in standard form acceptable to and approved by Counsel to this Board.  The said declaration shall provide for its modification or termination only upon the approval of the East Hampton Town Zoning Board of Appeals, after a public hearing held on ten (10) days? notice.  Said declaration, after approval by counsel, shall be recorded at the Office of the Suffolk County Clerk.  Copies of the same, with proof of recordation shown thereon, shall be returned to the Town Clerk prior to the issuance of a building permit.

 

h.              The house shall be furnished with gutters and leaders to direct stormwater from roofs into one or more catchment basins. Said catchment basin or basins shall have a combined volume (in cubic feet) equal to the surface area of the roof (in square feet), divided by six. Said catchment basin shall be made available for inspection by the building inspector prior to backfill.?

 

i.              All structures shall be situated at least 2? above the seasonal high groundwater table.

 

j.              The driveway composition and any drainage structures shall be reviewed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a building permit.  The completed driveway and drainage structures shall be inspected by the Town Engineer prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

 

k.              Permission, in writing, from the Superintendent of Highways for all work and vegetation within the Town? right of way shall be submitted to the Board prior to issuance of a building permit.

 

l.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Building Permit no more than thirty-six (36) months from the date of filing this determination.

 

m.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy no more than eighteen (18) months from the date of issuance of a building permit.

 

n.              A copy of the Natural Resources Special Permit, the approved survey, and the approved building plans shall be available on the parcel at all times.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I.              VALIDITY OF APPROVAL

 

If any condition of this determination is not met, or is not met within the prescribed time period, all approvals, permits, or authorizations granted hereby shall be deemed void and of no effect.

 

ALL CONCUR

 

JOHN WHELAN, Chair

CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

DAVID LYS, Member

ROY DALENE, Member

 

Dated: July             , 2017

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Susan Brierley, Due East Planning

             

             

D.              Zuccotti

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

_____________________________________                                  

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                     DETERMINATION

 

GIANNA and MILENA ZUCCOTTI

SCTM #300-63-04-06

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE:              May 23, 2017

                                

PRESENT:                            JOHN P. WHELAN, Chairman

CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

                                          DAVID LYS, Member

                                          ROY DALENE, Member

                                          THERESA BERGER, Member

                                         

ALSO PRESENT:              ELIZABETH L. BALDWIN, ESQ., Counsel to the Board

DENISE A. SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

JAMES KOMMER, Planner

                                          LEONARD ACKERMAN, ESQ., Attorney for Applicant

                                         

                     FINDINGS OF FACT AND DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD

 

The findings of fact and determination made herein are based upon the application, the evidence received at the public hearing before the Board, all documents contained in the Board's files and which were received prior to the close of the hearing, and the inspection and field report made by Vice-Chair Rogers of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:

                                                    To allow the existing pool patio to remain within the rear yard lot line setback

                                               and to allow the existing pool equipment to remain within the side yard lot line

                             setback.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT:

The following two (2) variances from ? 255-11-10 (Table III) and ?255-11-89 of the Town Code are requested: (1) A 3.2? variance is required to allow the pool patio to remain 16.8? from western (rear) lot line where a 20? setback is required; and, (2) A 7.9? variance is required to allow the pool equipment to remain 12.1? from the northern (side yard) lot line where a 20? setback is required, and any other relief necessary.

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE: 31,734 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 791 Springs Fireplace Road  

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: N/A

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Springs

5.              FILED MAP NAME: N/A

6.              FILED MAP NUMBER: N/A

7.              DATE OF MAP FILING: N/A

8.              BLOCK NUMBER IN FILED MAP: N/A

9.              LOT NUMBER IN FILED MAP:  N/A

10.              SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION:  #300-63-04-06

 

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: A5 Residence

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: N/A

 

 

D.              SEQRA DETERMINATION

 

1.              SEQRA CLASSIFICATION:  Type II

2.              LEAD AGENCY:  N/A

3.              DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE:  N/A   

4.              DATE OF DETERMINATION:  N/A

 

E.              STANDARDS FOR BOARD REVIEW

 

1.              In order for this Board to grant applicant the requested area variances, applicant must demonstrate that the requirements of Town Law ? 267-b 3 have been met. The Board is to ?take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant. In making such determination, the Board shall also consider (1) whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the grant of an area variance; (2) whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance; (3) whether the requested area variance is substantial; (4) whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; and (5) whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not necessarily preclude the granting of the area variance.?  The Town Law also directs the Board, in granting area variances, to ?grant the minimum variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community.?

 

2.              The standards set forth in Town Code ? 255-8-50 (D) paraphrase the requirements language of Town Law ? 267-b 3:

 

a)              the benefit to applicant from grant of the requested variances outweighs any detriment which grant of the variance will cause to the general health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the Town as a whole; and

 

b)              the variances sought are the minimum variances necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing applicant to request area variances, while at the same time preserving and protecting the character of the neighborhood and the general health, safety, and welfare of the Town as a whole.

 

3.              The Board finds that granting the instant application will be consistent with the requirements of both Town Law ? 267-b and Town Code ? 255-8-50.

 

 

 

 

F.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

1.              The property is currently improved with a two story residence with brick patio, driveway, garage, arbor with brick patio, four sheds, pool with brick patio and pool equipment. The most recent certificate of occupancy was in 1988 for a ?Two-story, one-family residence having one kitchen only, two frame sheds, one gazebo all erected before the adoption of zoning, 360 sq. ft. garage, 800 sq. ft. vinyl swimming pool with no decking?. Prior to that, a Certificate of Occupancy was issued in 1975 for a ?10? x 20? arbor and 2 story, one family residence having one kitchen only and two frame sheds and one gazebo all erected before the adoption of zoning?. All of the improvements can be found on the George Walbridge Surveyors, P.C. map dated last revised October 3, 2016. The property appeared before the Zoning Board once previously in July of 1980, under the former owners, John & Susan Zuccotti.

 

2.              Situated on the west side of Springs Fireplace Rd, the property is an A5 Residence in the Springs Historic District. The 31,734 sq. ft. property is 100% cleared, when as per ? 255-2-60A  <http://ecode360.com/10414572?highlight=clearing%20clearing,water%20recharge,recharged,recharges,clearing,cleared,waters,water>only 10,000 sq. ft. + (lot area x 25%) is permitted, but the nonconforming clearing predates and is largely unchanged since the establishment of the district. Aerial images show a vinyl pool on the property since 1984, which was replaced in 1996-1997 with a gunite pool as well as the addition of a brick pool patio and pool equipment. The replacement of the pool and addition of the brick patio and pool equipment was carried out without the benefit of a building permit. The addition of the brick patio put the combined pool and patio within the required 20? setback as per ? 255-11-10 (Table III) and ?255-11-89E of the Town Code at 16?8? from the western (rear) lot line. The installation of the pool equipment at a distance of 12?1? from the northern (side yard) lot line was also within the aforementioned 20? required setback for pools, pool decks and equipment. In the application the applicant proposes to ameliorate possible noise disturbance from the pool equipment through the construction of an enclosure for said equipment.

 

3.              The Board finds that granting the requested variance does not cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties.  The pool patio and pool equipment are protected from outside views by existing mature vegetation which also reduces the noise pollution created by the pool equipment.  The subject structures are modest and are not visible from the roadway and therefore do not disturb the historic character of the neighborhood.  The neighbors most effected by the location of the pool patio and pool equipment submitted letters to the Board in support of the application.     

 

4.              The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant with regard to the location of the swimming pool and pool equipment, cannot be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the requested area variances.  The patio is in the best location to provide easy and safe travel around the swimming pool.  The pool patio and pool equipment were originally installed in 1996/1997 and moving the structures to more conforming locations may actually cause a detriment to the surrounding area. Moreover, no detriment to the character of the neighborhood will be compromised. The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment which grant of the variances will cause to the general health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the Town as a whole.

 

5.              The Board finds that although the requested variances may be considered substantial, they are the minimum variances necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing the applicants to request the area variances.  The pool patio does not interfere with the enjoyment of neighboring parcels and is protected from outside views by existing vegetative screening.  The variance for the pool patio is a minimal 16% variance while the pool equipment requires a 44.5% variance.  The location of the pool patio and pool equipment will not cause further impact than the conforming pool.  At the request of the Board, a pool enclosure, as depicted on the Planting Plan dated May 30, 2017, was added to the project

 

6.              The Board finds that granting the requested variance will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.  The subject parcel does not contain any sensitive wildlife habitats, unique landforms or bodies of water including wetlands.  The pool patio and pool equipment are protected from outside views by existing vegetative screening. Moreover, additional screening will be added along the northern corner of the property to offset any impact by the pool equipment.          

 

7.              The Board finds that the need for the variances is self-created.  The Board finds however, that although the need for the requested variances is self-created, this need, although relevant to the Board?s decision does not preclude the granting of the requested variances.  Town Law ?267-b(3)(b)(5).  The Board, however, does note that the pool patio and pool equipment were installed around the same time as the Town?s law was revised, which then required pool accessory to meet double setbacks.

 

G.              DISPOSITION OF APPLICATION

 

              For the reasons set forth herein, the Board makes the following determination with respect to the application:

 

1.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL GRANTED: 

The following two (2) variances from ? 255-11-10 (Table III) and ?255-11-89 of the Town Code are granted: (1) A 3.2? variance is granted to allow the pool patio to remain 16.8? from western (rear) lot line where a 20? setback is required; and, (2) A 7.9? variance is granted to allow the pool equipment to remain 12.1? from the northern (side yard) lot line where a 20? setback is required.

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK APPROVED:

                             To allow the existing pool patio to remain within the rear yard lot line setback

                                               and to allow the existing pool equipment to remain within the side yard lot line

                             setback.

 

H.              CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

 

              Grant of the specified variances is specifically conditioned upon compliance with the conditions set forth in this section of the determination.  All improvements shall be made, built, or installed in accordance with the survey and plans described below.

 

1.              APPROVED SURVEY:  Prepared by George Walbridge Surveyors, P.C., dated last revised October 3, 2016.   

 

2.              APPROVED BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS:  N/A

 

3.              APPROVED PLANTING PLAN:  Prepared by D.B. Bennett, P.E., P.C., dated last revised May 30, 2017 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on June 5, 2017. 

 

4.              ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND TIME LIMITATIONS:

a.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a building permit for the pool patio no more than thirty-six (36) months from the date of filing of this determination.

b.              Applicant shall apply for and obtain a Certificate of Occupancy no later than twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of the building permit.

 

I.              VALIDITY OF APPROVAL

 

If any condition of this determination is not met, or is not met within the prescribed time period, all approvals, permits, or authorizations granted hereby shall be deemed void and of no effect.

 

ALL CONCUR:

 

 

Dated: July 27th 2017

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Leonard Ackerman, Esq., Attorney for               Applicant