EH Town Zoning Board of Appeals              300 Pantigo Place

                            East Hampton, NY  11937

              Regular Meeting              www.ehamptonny.gov

 

              ~ Minutes ~              Denise Savarese

                            (631) 324-8816

 

Tuesday, May 9, 2017              6:30 PM              Town Hall Meeting Room

 

I.              CALL TO ORDER

6:30 PM Meeting called to order on May 9, 2017 at Town Hall Meeting Room, 159 Pantigo Road, East Hampton, NY.

 

Attendee Name

Organization

Title

Status

Arrived

John P. Whelan

Town of East Hampton

Chairman

Present

 

Theresa Berger

Town of East Hampton

Board Member

Present

 

Roy Dalene

Town of East Hampton

Board Member

Present

 

Cate Rogers

Town of East Hampton

Board Member

Present

 

David Lys

Town of East Hampton

Board Member

Present

 

Denise Savarese

Town of East Hampton

Secretary

Present

 

Beth Baldwin

Town of East Hampton

Asst. Attorney

Present

 

II.              WORK SESSION:

III.              EXTENSION OF TIME:

A.              Sean MacPherson

SCTM #300-32-7-31

 

15 Miller Avenue, Montauk - Member Berger made a motion to approve the Extension of Time - Member Lys seconded. All members were in favor.

B.              Jean Lee & David Yamner

SCTM# 300-174-2-7

 

87 Cliff Road, Amagansett - Member Lys made a motion to approve the Extension of Time - Member Dalene seconded. All members were in favor.

C.              Elena Lesser Bruun

SCTM# 300-103-5-28.1

 

47 Waters Edge Run, Springs - Vice Chair Rogers made a motion to approve the Extension of Time. Member Berger seconded. All members were in favor.

D.              Richard Morris

SCTM# 300-20-3020

 

16 East Lake Drive, Montauk - Member Berger made a motion to approve the Extension of Time - Member Lys seconded. All members were in favor.

E.              Ann Marie Lieberman

SCTM# 300-32-7-10

 

46 Seaside Avenue, Montauk - Member Berger made a motion to approve the Extension of Time. Member Lys seconded. All members were in favor.

IV.              BOARD DETERMINATIONS:

A.              Safe Harbor Retreat LLC

SCTM# 300-135-1-9

 

26 Bull Run, East Hampton - Relief sought is three variances from Section 255-11-10 of the Town Code to convert a roughly 3.9 acre property in a residential zoning district containing a two story single family residence and associated accessory structures into a semi public facility. Public Hearing held March 7th 2017. Public Hearing and record left open indefinitely for a Continuation Hearing.

 

Re: Letter from Jeffrey Bragman dated March 27th 2017 - Board directed Denise Savarese to forward a letter to the applicant requesting additional Traffic Study information.

B.              Esther Rubin

SCTM# 300-141-2-1.3

 

29 Wood Oak Lane, East Hampton

 

Modification Request: - To Delete condition H 3 (a) of the Determination filed December 7th 2016 - Board declined to entertain a Modification Request. Board instructed Denise Savarese to forward a letter to the applicant.

C.              Zdzienicki

SCTM# 300-54-2-9

 

6 Terry Road, East Hampton

 

Modification Request regarding clearing which is presently over what was allowed in Determination - Board declined the request for Modification. Board instructed Denise Savarese to forward a letter to the applicant.

D.              Valentino

SCTM# 300-48-8-10.5

 

17 Fairview Road, Montauk

 

Letter and revised plans received from Biondo & Hammer dated May 4th 2017 -

In a vote of 3-2 the Board elected to not entertain applicant's request to revise the project and re-open the Public hearing. Board instructed Denise Savarese to forward a letter to the applicant.

 

 

 

 

 

V.              BOARD DECISIONS:

A.              John & Paula Easevoli

SCTM# 300-106-1-21

8 Bay View Avenue, Amagansett

 

Relief sought is a modification of the Board's determination filed December 15th 1971. To delete the condition of the Board's 1971 determination requiring an accessory structure containing a bedroom and bathroom to not contain a kitchen. Public Hearing held April 25th 2017 - Public Hearing and written record was closed.

 

Board tabled making a Determination

B.              William Shea

SCTM# 300-175-3-15

8 Bay View Avenue, Amagansett

 

RELIEF SOUGHT: A Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Section 255-4-20 of the East Hampton Town Code and four variances are required for this application. Variances of approximately 9 ft. and 11 ft. from Section 255-11-72D of the Town Code are required to allow the residence to be outside of the Towns pyramid regulations by approximately 9 ft.  along the northern property line and approximately 11 ft. along the southern property line. Two variances of 42 ft. and 31 ft. are required to allow the decking and residence to be located 58 ft.  and 69 ft. from freshwater wetlands where 100 ft. setbacks are required, and any other relief necessary. Public Hearing held April 25th 2017. Public Hearing and record closed.

 

Board made a Determination

C.              Lucy Victoria Phillips

SCTM# 300-131-8-12

72 Shore Road, Montauk

 

RELIEF SOUGHT: A Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Section 255-4-20 of the East Hampton Town Code and three variances are required for this application. Variances of 58.2 sq. ft. , 75 sq. ft., and  25 sq. ft. from  Section 255-4-40 of the Town Code are required to allow the proposed second story addition to be located 41.8 sq. ft., the relocated walkway to be approximately 25 sq. ft., and  driveway expansion to be approximately 75 sq. ft.  from the dune crest where 100 sq. ft.  setbacks are required. Public Hearing held April 25th 2017. Public Hearing closed and record left open till May 2nd 2017 for a copy of the deed.

 

Board made a determination

D.              Star Develoipment Realty Holding Corp.

SCTM# 300-13-3-24

197 East Lake Drive, Montauk

 

Relief sought are three variances and a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Sections 255-4-20, 255-4-40 and 255-4-30 to allow an existing approximately 1,077 square foot brick patio with walls and an approximately 49 square foot hot tub to remain within jurisdiction of bluffs and tidal wetlands. Public Hearing held April 4th 2017 - Public Hearing closed and record left open for ten days for neighbor response.

 

Board made a Determination

E.              Sandra Leong - Robert Gelfond

SCTM# 300-175-7-4

261 Marine Blvd. Amagansett

 

Relief sought is a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Section 255-4-20 and six variances pursuant to Section 255-4-30, 255-11-10, 255-11-72D to demolish an existing residence, swimming pool, decking and sanitary system and construct a 5,074 square foot two story residence with swimming pool, decking, extension for the existing walkway, relocated driveway, with a new sanitary system within jurisdiction and setbacks of freshwater wetlands, dunes, and beach vegetation. Public Hearing held April 4th 2017. Record left open for one week to submit a construction protocol for retaining wall and septic system.

 

Board made a Determination

F.              Kevin A. and Tina Felix

SCTM# 300-23-4-2

128 Runnymede Drive, Springs

 

Relief sought is a Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Section 255-4-20 of the Town Code to construct a 770 square foot second story addition with sanitary upgrade within jurisdiction of wetlands and bluffs. Public hearing held April 4th 2017 - Public Hearing closed and record left open for ten days for neighbor response and submission from the engineer on septic grading and a photograph of the bulkhead.

 

Board made a Determination

G.              87 Abrahams Landing LLC

SCTM# 300-150-4-17

87 Abrahams Landing, Amagansett

 

RELIEF SOUGHT: One variance of 1ft from Section 255-11-72D (Pyramid) is required to allow the residence to be constructed outside of the towns pyramid regulations, and any other relief necessary. To allow an approximately 428 sq. ft. garage to remain outside of the town's pyramid restrictions. Public Hearing held May 2nd 2017 Public Hearing and record closed.

                 

Board made a Determination

H.              Gary Symansky

SCTM# 300- 28-2-26

78 South Fairview Avenue, Montauk

 

A Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to Section 255-4-20 of the East Hampton Town Code and one variance is required for this project. One variance of 4 ft., from Section 255-4-30 of the Town Code, is required to allow the shed to remain 96 ft. from freshwater wetlands where a 100 ft. setback is required, and any other relief necessary. Project description to allow an approximately 96 sq. ft. shed to remain within jurisdiction and setbacks of freshwater wetlands. Public Hearing held May 2nd 2017 Public Hearing and record closed.

 

Member Berger made a motion to re-open the Public Record to accept response from a neighbor. Member Lys seconded. All members were in favor.

 

Member Berger made a motion to close the Public Record - Member Lys seconded. All members were in favor.

 

Board tabled making a Determination

I.              Kazlow

Letter received from Joel Halsey dated May 2nd 2017 - requesting the record be extended and left open till May 23rd 2017.

 

Member Lys made a motion to extend the record till May 23rd 2017 - Member Dalene seconded. All members are in favor.

VI.              MINUTES APPROVAL:

A.              May 2nd 2017

Member Lys made a motion to approve the Minutes of May 2nd 2017 - Member Dalene seconded. All members were in favor.

VII.              RESOLUTIONS

A.              Thomas Walsh

Vice Chair Rogers made a motion to deny the application. Member Berger seconded. All members were in favor.

 

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

_____________________________________                                  

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                     DETERMINATION

 

THOMAS WALSH

SCTM #300-77-5-3.1

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE:              February 28, 2017

                                

PRESENT:                            JOHN 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 A. SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

                                          BRIAN FRANK, Chief Environmental Analyst

                                          DREW BENNETT, Engineer for Applicant

                                          THOMAS WALSH, Property Owner

 

                     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 construct an approximately 659 sq. ft. addition and pergola onto an existing residence and to demolish an existing cottage and construct an 1,194 sq. ft. two story residence with a 326 sq. ft. screened porch, 346 sq. ft. second story deck  and 120 sq. ft. patio on a parcel of land adjoining tidal wetlands and surface waters.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT:

              A Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ?255-4-20 and three variances from ? 255-4-30 (wetland setbacks), ? 255-3-75 [Harbor Protection Overlay District (HPOD)]; ? 255-11-10 (Dimensional Regulations) of the Town Code and any other relief necessary. The following wetland setback variances are necessary where a 100? setback is required: (1) & (2) Variances of 54.4? & 45.6? are required to construct the addition and pergola 45.6? & 43? respectively from wetlands; (3), (4) & (5) variances of 26?, 40? & 45.1? are required to construct the 2nd residence, porch and patio 74?, 60? & 55.9? respectively from wetlands; (6) an approximately 4.1? side yard variance is required to construct the pergola 5.2? from the southern side yard lot line where a 9.3? setback is required and (7) a variance is required to allow the property to temporarily increase the amount of clearing allowed in the HPOD.

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE: 31,501 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 209 Three Mile Harbor Hog Creek Hwy.  

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: Three Mile Harbor

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:  #300-77-5-3.1

 

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: A Residence

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: Harbor Protection Overlay District (HPOD)

 

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 255-5-50 (Natural Resources Special Permit) of the Town Code.

 

 

F.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

1.              The subject premises are located along the southeastern shoreline of Three Mile Harbor.   The property is improved with an approximately 1,400 sq. ft. one story residence and one story detached cottage (labeled ?boat house? on the survey), both constructed prior to the adoption of zoning.  This property was the subject of Zoning Board review in 2014 when an application was presented to the Board to replace the boat house with a 1,676 sq. ft. residence.  That proposal was not formally acted upon by the Board after a January 28, 2014, public hearing for the application.  The current proposal is depicted on a George Walbridge Surveyors survey dated revised 5/24/16.  The building plans for the addition to the existing residence were prepared by DB Bennett (5 pgs.) revised 4/21/14 and stamped received by the Board on 5/05/15.  The building plans for the new residence were prepared by Kyle Ruhs Architectural Design (2 pgs.) 3/20/14, also received by the Board on 5/05/15.  All of the construction is proposed landward of more than 110 linear ft. of bulkheaded shoreline and, therefore, appears to be out of the jurisdiction of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC).  The most recent Certificate of Occupancy (CO) was issued on May 31, 2013.  The property appears to have been acquired by the current owner in June, 2011.

 

2.              The property is non-conforming to a variety of zoning parameters including the lot area and width requirements of the A Residential zoning district, all of the Town?s wetland setbacks for structures, sanitary systems and clearing, bluff crest setbacks for structures and clearing, the number of residential uses permitted on a property, side yard setbacks, pyramid height restrictions and the clearing restrictions of the Harbor Protection Overlay District.  The application proposes the abandonment of the existing water supply well (located within the existing residence) and the installation of a new well in the southeast corner of the property.  A new sanitary system has been proposed to serve both residences, the location and profile of which are depicted on the most recent survey of the property.  Comments from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS) dated 6/28/16 suggest that the design appears acceptable, pending NRSP approval.

 

3.              The Planning Department believes that the application is a poor candidate for the requested NRSP and variances and the application should be denied.  The property is severely non-conforming to a variety of zoning parameters and the intensification of development proposed will increase many of these non-conformities.  The boat house is severely dilapidated and it is unclear if or when it was last actively used as a residence.  A residential property does not appear to lose, or abandon, a second residential use regardless of length of time the second residence has been uninhabitable.  However, the right to re-establish a second residence on the property remains subject to the requirements of the zoning code, or in the alternative, the variance standards of ? 255-8-50 in addition the Special Permit standards of ? 255-5-40 and ? 255-5-51 of the Town Code.  The wetland setback variances for the second residence do not appear to be the minimum and the Board should evaluate these substantial variances closely.  The street front setback (in this case the ?rear? yard because the property is waterfront) for a principal structure is 15? and the residence has been proposed approximately 103? from Three Mile Harbor-Hog Creek Road.

 

4.              The proposed sanitary system would replace two disposal systems apparently consisting of single cesspools, possibly lacking septic tanks.  The components of the system including an ejector or pump, and their separation to the groundwater table are depicted on the most recent survey.  Although the system would consist of contemporary components and design, the second unit of residential density and the system?s location as close as 42? from surface waters diminishes the pollutant removal capacity of an upgraded waste disposal system.  The sanitary system location may be driven, at least in part, by the location of neighboring water supply well.   Public water supply mains do not appear to be available in this area.  The Board needs to assess the impact of the establishment of the second residence on the established character of the neighborhood.  The existing clearing on the property comprises 22,204 sq. ft. on a parcel where the maximum allowed would be 10,753 sq. feet.   A clearing boundary is depicted on the survey around the perimeter of the proposed sanitary system and the Planning Department has estimated this area to comprise about 2,800 sq. feet.  The application proposes to revegetate this area to maintain the pre-existing clearing at 22,204 sq. ft. and the application proposes to replace the existing paved driveway with crushed quartz.

 

5.              The addition proposed on the existing residence is more consistent with ?typical? variance requests for this area of Three Mile Harbor shoreline.  The residence is one-story with a garage below.  Based upon information from the applicant, the existing residence comprises 1,400 sq. feet.  The entire residence and proposed addition are located within 100? of surface waters and the proposed 659 sq. ft. addition constitutes an approximate 47% expansion of non-conforming square footage.     The addition appears to consist of one-story with an open piling foundation according to the Bennett building plans.  The property appears to be eligible for the reduced side yard setbacks of ? 255-1-43D (1) which reduces side yard setbacks to the product of 0.16 of the lot width or approximately 9.32 feet. 

 

6.              According to East Hampton Town Code ?255-3-71,

 

[t]he purpose of the Harbor Protection Overlay District is to maintain or improve surface water quality in East Hampton's major harbors, creeks and ponds, including Accabonac Creek, Fort Pond (including the arm of Fort Pond north of Industrial Road), Georgica Pond, Great Pond (Lake Montauk), Hog Creek, Napeague Harbor, Northwest Creek, Northwest Harbor, Steppingstones Pond, Three Mile Harbor, Tuthill Pond and Wainscott Pond. The district is also intended to maintain or improve wildlife habitat in these areas and to maintain or restore these waterways as closely as possible to their natural condition, so that the Town's citizens and visitors can continue to enjoy and appreciate their natural values. The Harbor Protection Overlay District will help prevent the entry of stormwater runoff into the Town's waters; gradually require the upgrading of out-moded or inoperable septic systems; preserve important indigenous vegetation; reduce impacts from residential and commercial swimming pools; and upgrade standards for fuel storage tanks. East Hampton's waterways are among the Town's most prized features. They support bountiful shellfish and finfish resources, offer prime habitat for local wildlife and offer residents and visitors a place to swim, fish, hunt, boat, observe wildlife and enjoy scenic beauty and tranquility. The overlay district will help preserve these important benefits for future generations.

 

The Board finds that this project, as a whole, fails to promote the general purposes of the Harbor Protection Overlay District. Applicant is proposing to increase a long list of nonconformities on the property and the property does not allow for significant mitigation that would offset these additional nonconformities. The property?s location on Three Mile Harbor along with a significant portion of this property bounded by the bulkheading of the Shagwong Marina limits the ability for the wetlands to provide necessary pollution removal and buffering capacity. As noted by the Planning Department at public hearing, Three Mile Harbor is a significant Town resource with a number of important designations, including but not limited to, being a component of the Peconic Estuary. The scale of the project on a highly constrained lot with a significant number of nonconformities and limited ability to mitigate the impacts fails to promote the general purposes of the Harbor Protection Overlay District

 

7.              The Board finds that granting the requested variances will cause an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or create a detriment to nearby properties. The Board finds the project to be overly aggressive on such a highly constrained lot. The second residence will be more than tripling in size.

 

8.              The Board finds that the requested variance is substantial. The applicant is requesting to increase the first residence (located closest to the water) 659 sq. ft. This is a 47% increase of a residence that is significantly nonconforming to multiple zoning requirements with no available mitigation. While an upgraded sanitary system is valuable, the system?s proposed location 42? from the surface waters diminishes the pollutant removal capacity of an upgraded waste disposal system. The second residence (located closest to the street) is proposed to increase from approximately 300 sq. ft. to 1,194 sq. ft., more than triple the size. This would be a significant increase on any lot, let alone a lot with such unique and highly sensitive environmental constraints. As approximately one third of the property is hardened, there is no ability to buffer the runoff into the surface water caused by the increase in non-permeable surfaces.

 

9.              The Board finds that granting the requested variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Applicant?s is proposing a large scale project on a highly environmentally constrained lot that increases a number of the existing nonconformities on the property. While upgrading the septic system is important on this lot, its proposed location 42? from the surface waters limits the overall benefits of the new system. Moreover, the inability to provide mitigation that would offset the impacts of the additional lot coverage makes this project a poor candidate for the relief requested.

 

10.              The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the requested area variance.  The Board finds that a smaller project with less destruction the entire property would be a better alternative for this highly sensitive property. Applicant is requesting a large number of variances for a significantly constrained lot. Not only is this property constrained by the location of the wetlands, but also by its narrow width, which is nonconforming to the zone, and lack of public water. The scale of the project proposed does not consider the overall sensitivity of this lot.

 

11.              The Board finds that this project, as proposed, does not promote the relevant purposes set forth in ? 255-1-11 of the Town Code as is required pursuant to ?255-5-51. Specifically, the Board finds that the applicant?s project fails to promote the public interest in promoting the preservation of wetlands and the furtherance of clean water, which are significant to the community. Three Mile Harbor is a critical Town resource and the scale of the project will result in negative impacts to the harbor. 

 

12.              The Board finds that the proposed project is contrary to the purposes set forth in the Town Code for protecting the Town?s natural resources as is discussed in ?255-4-10 of the Town Code. As noted within this section of the Town Code, the Town?s natural resource regulations, such as the natural resources special permit requirements found in ?255-5-51, provide protection to important natural resources, which are threatened by the Town?s growth, and that constitute important physical, social, scenic, aesthetic, recreational and economic attributes of the Town. Specifically, the Board finds that applicant?s project does not support the goals found in ?255-4-10A. ?255-4-10A states the following,

 

[T]he protection of wetlands, watercourses, tidal waters, and marine habitat from damage caused by pollution, turbidity, siltation or direct destruction, thereby protecting stocks of fish, shellfish and other marine organisms, as well as the wildlife and vegetation which depend upon these resources for their survival.

                  

The Board finds that the applicant?s project does not sustain the Town?s goals of preserving the waters of Three Mile Harbor. Rather, the Board finds that granting a natural resources special permit for this project would negatively impact the waters of the harbor. The 47% increase of additional gross floor area to the first residence, which is located directly on the harbor and tripling the size of the second residence, which is only 60? from the harbor, will negatively impact surface water quality by increasing impervious surfaces within the setbacks of a significant town resource. Moreover, while an upgraded sanitary system is valuable, the system?s proposed location 42? from the surface waters diminishes the pollutant removal capacity of an upgraded waste disposal system and the narrow shape of the lot limits the ability to mitigate these impacts.

 

13.              The Board also finds that the applicant has not demonstrated that the proposed project is in conformance with the standards set forth in ?255-5-40 of the Town Code.  This property has a long list of nonconformities that would only be exacerbated by the proposed project. While the lot itself is nonconforming, it can also be distinguished from the neighboring lots because of its extensive northern boundary along Shagwong Marina. This boundary extends the surface waters of Three Mile Harbor more than halfway through the length of the lot. Also, considering the boundary is bulk headed, runoff from this property goes directly into the surface waters of the harbor. Therefore, while the applicant?s proposed total lot coverage is below the maximum, the Board cannot look at the generic total lot coverage calculations as if this were a basic lot without environmental constraints and nonconformities.  The Board also finds that adequate buffering and screening cannot be accomplished to offset the proposed improvements. This is due largely to the location of the existing first residence and the bulk heading along the northern property line. Vegetative buffers are vital to filtering runoff and pollution from entering the surface waters of the Three Mile Harbor.

 

14.              Pursuant to Town Code Section 255-5-51D of the Town Code, the Board finds that there are reasonable alternative designs for the proposed project that would minimize disturbance of the natural features of the property.

 

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 DENIED:  A Natural Resources Special Permit pursuant to ?255-4-20 and three variances from ? 255-4-30 (wetland setbacks), ? 255-3-75 [Harbor Protection Overlay District (HPOD)]; ? 255-11-10 (Dimensional Regulations) of the Town Code are denied. The following wetland setback variances are denied where a 100? setback is required: (1) & (2) Variances of 54.4? & 45.6? are required to construct the addition and pergola 45.6? & 43? respectively from wetlands; (3), (4) & (5) variances of 26?, 40? & 45.1? are required to construct the 2nd residence, porch and patio 74?, 60? & 55.9? respectively from wetlands; (6) an approximately 4.1? side yard variance is required to construct the pergola 5.2? from the southern side yard lot line where a 9.3? setback is required and (7) a variance is required to allow the property to temporarily increase the amount of clearing allowed in the HPOD.

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK DENIED: To construct an approximately 659 sq. ft. addition and pergola onto an existing residence and to demolish an existing cottage and construct an 1,194 sq. ft. two story residence with a 326 sq. ft. screened porch, 346 sq. ft. second story deck and 120 sq. ft. patio on a parcel of land adjoining tidal wetlands and surface waters.

 

 

 

ALL CONCUR:

 

JOHN WHELAN, Chair

CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

DAVID LYS, Member

ROY DALENE, Member

THERESA BERGER, Member

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Applicant

 

 

 

 

 

 

B.              Alexandra & Bernal Vargas

Member Dalene made a motion to deny the application. Member Berger seconded. Member Dalene and Chairman Whelan were in favor. Member Lys dissented.

 

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

_____________________________________                                  

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                     DETERMINATION

 

ALEXANDRA & BERNEL VARGAS

SCTM #300-128-1-19.2

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE:              January 17, 2017

                                

PRESENT:                            JOHN WHELAN, Chair

                                          DAVID LYS, Member

                                          LEE WHITE, Member

                                          ROY DALENE, Member

                                         

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

                                          DENISE A. SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

                                          BRIAN FRANK, Chief Environmental Analyst

                                          LAURIE WILTSHIRE, Agent for Applicant

                                          BAILEY HECK, Architect 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 Lys of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION:

To construct an approximately 1,464 sq. ft. two-story addition with 1st and 2nd story decking to a residence on a parcel of land containing dune land and beach vegetation.

 

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT:

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

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE: 40,146 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 336 Cranberry Hole Road 

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: N/A

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Amagansett

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:  #300-128-1-19.2

 

 

 

 

C.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: A 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 255-5-50 (Natural Resources Special Permit) of the Town Code.

 

 

F.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

 

1.              The premises are improved with an approximately 2,529 sq. ft. two-story residence and swimming pool initially constructed subsequent to NRSP review by the Zoning Board in 1987.   The application also proposes the relocation of the sanitary system from the north side of the residence, where the addition is proposed, to the northeast corner of the property.   The existing and proposed improvements are depicted on the Saskas Surveying Company survey dated revised 2/17/17.  The corresponding floor and elevation plans were prepared by BHH Architects (6 pgs) dated revised 5/18/16 and stamped received by the Board on 6/16/16.  The property appears to have been acquired by the current owner in 2009. 

 

2.              The property was created as part of a minor subdivision in 1985 that established a 50? scenic easement adjacent to the northern lot line and over a secondary dune in the eastern portion of the property.  The subdivision also established a driveway easement in the eastern portion of the property and a pedestrian access easement to the shoreline of Gardiners Bay on the north side of Cranberry Hole Road.  The relocation and enlargement of the sanitary system requires the approval of the Suffolk County Department of Health Services (SCDHS).

 

3.              The property is characterized by pristine secondary dune land beyond the existing clearing limits.  This dune land is a protected natural feature as defined in ? 255-4-10 of the Town Code, and consequently, a NRSP is required for any construction or disturbance to this feature.   Cranberry Hole Road is one of few remaining areas of the Town where there is extensive pristine dune land vegetation and this dune land contributes significantly to the character of this neighborhood.  Many of the plant species that grow in this habitat are restricted to native dune land soils with their rapid drainage, low nutrient levels and their symbiotic dependence upon micorrhizal fungi.  These species and the undulating dune features on which they form cannot effectively be created by landscaping techniques and the most effective measure of conservation on privately owned parcels in these areas is to limit land clearing to the minimum area practical. This dune land habitat has become less common throughout Long Island and the Mid-Atlantic region. Among the dominant vegetation are beach heather (Hudsonia tomentosa) and bearberry (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi), an evergreen ground cover species forming a dense carpet across large areas of the parcel.

 

4.              The parcel is located within in a Scenic Area of Statewide Significance (SASS) the Peconic Estuary Program?s Montauk Critical Natural Resources Area (PEP-CNRA). The property is located approximately 125? north of the boundary of a Locally Significant Coastal Fish and Wildlife Habitat. Napeague State Park, consisting of more than 136 acres, adjoins virtually all of the properties along Cranberry Hole Road to the south.  The Planning Department notes in its Technical Analysis Memorandum dated 11/28/16, the Board should evaluate if the scale of the proposed addition will result in undue disturbance to the protected natural features of the dune land and beach vegetation on the property.  In order to be eligible for the NRSP, ?255-5-40 (K) of the Town Code requires that ?the proposed use may be introduced there without undue disturbance or disruption of important natural features, systems or processes?? Section  255-5-51(D) further requires that ?All structures? 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 addition as proposed will increase building coverage from 1,596 sq. ft. to 2,681 sq. ft. (68%).  Land clearing has been proposed 5? from the northwest corner of the addition and may not be realistic.  The Planning Department noted that the existing clearing limits and area calculations do not appear to be accurate and it appears that virtually all of the land located within the wire fence, partially located within the scenic easement, is cleared of native vegetation.

 

5.              The Board notes a portion of the pool fence is located within the scenic easement and is in violation of said easement. The fence should be relocated out of the scenic easement.

 

6.              The majority of the Board finds that the project, as proposed, does not promote the relevant purposes set forth in ? 255-1-11 of the Town Code. Specifically, the project fails to promote the preservation of dune land and beach vegetation.

 

7.              The majority of the Board finds that the lot area of the subject premises is not appropriate for the proposed improvements.  The subject property is characterized by pristine secondary dune land which provides the unique character to Cranberry Hole Road. Any proposed improvements on this property should be compacted in order to limit lot coverage. The addition, as proposed, will increase lot coverage from 1,596 sq. ft. to 2,681 sq. ft. (68%). The majority of the board finds that the proposed project is not compact and does not minimize lot coverage on the property.

 

8.              Pursuant to Town Code Section 255-5-51D of the Town Code, the majority finds that there are reasonable alternative designs for the proposed project that will minimize disturbance to the duneland. The project can be redesigned to reduce the overall total lot coverage and reduce the overall sprawl of the project. This area of East Hampton is unique. The parcel is located within a Scenic Area of Statewide Significance (SASS) and the Peconic Estuary Program?s Montauk Critical Natural Resources Area. Maintaining the existing character is paramount in this area. To maintain the existing character, according to the Planning Department, preserving the existing protected vegetation is vital. A smaller, more compact addition design would provide applicant with the additional living space while preserving the most amount of vegetation. 

 

9.              The majority of the Board finds that the proposed project does not provide adequate environmental protection and that the natural characteristics of the site are such that the proposed use cannot be introduced without undue disturbance to the dune land and beach vegetation. (See, ?255-5-40(K)).The majority notes that the vegetation on this property is the defining characteristic of the area and is a protected natural feature pursuant to ?255-4-10. The parcel is located within a Scenic Area of Statewide Significance (SASS) and the Peconic Estuary Program?s Montauk Critical Natural Resources Area. The environmental sensitivity of the parcel requires that minimal disturbance to the environmental features, specifically the vegetation, be a part of any proposed application. The Planning Department notes in its Technical Analysis Memorandum dated November 28, 2016, ?[t]hat Cranberry Hole Road is one of the few remaining areas of the Town where there is extensive pristine dune land vegetation and this dune land contributes significantly to the character of this neighborhood.? The Board finds that this application does not provide for minimal disturbance because the proposed project, while not requiring variance, is sprawling.  While the Board acknowledges the scenic easements on the property do protect a portion of the property, the existing easements do not offset the proposed additional development of this parcel. Similarly, as noted by the planning department, revegetation is not sufficient mitigation here as revegetation cannot effectively mimic the benefits of the pristine dune land vegetation.

 

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 DENIED: 

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

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK DENIED:

To construct an approximately 1,464 sq. ft. two-story addition with 1st and 2nd story decking to a residence on a parcel of land containing dune land and beach vegetation.

 

CONCUR:

 

     JOHN WHELAN, Chair                                                       

     CATE ROGERS, Vice-Chair

     ROY DALENE, Member                           

     THERESA BERGER, Member

 

DISSENT:              

 

DAVID LYS, Member             

 

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

              Laurie Wiltshire, LPS

              Bailey H. Heck, BHH  Architects

 

 

C.              Lisa & Robert Gerbino

Member Lys made a motion to deny the application. Member Dalene seconded. All members were in favor.

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

_____________________________________                                  

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                     DETERMINATION

 

LISA & ROBERT GERBINO

SCTM #300-172-3-38.7

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE:              February 28, 2017

                                

PRESENT:                            JOHN 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 A. SAVARESE, Legislative Secretary

                                          TYLER BORSACK, Planning Department

                                          ANDREW E. GOLDSTEIN, ESQ., Attorney for Applicant

                                          ROBERT GERBINO, Property owner and Applicant

                                          BRITTON BISTRIAN, Agent for 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 Lys of this Board.

 

A.              PROJECT DESCRIPTION

 

1.              PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: To allow an existing slate pool patio to remain within rear yard lot line setbacks.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT: One variance of 9.8? is required from ?255-11-10 of the Town Code to allow the slate pool patio to remain 10.2? from the southern rear yard lot line where a 20? setback is required.

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE: 21,018 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 3 Old Station Place 

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: N/A

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Amagansett

5.              FILED MAP NAME: Old Station Place

6.              FILED MAP NUMBER: 9605

7.              DATE OF MAP FILING: November 28, 1994

8.              BLOCK NUMBER IN FILED MAP: N/A

9.              LOT NUMBER IN FILED MAP:  6

10.              SUFFOLK COUNTY TAX MAP DESIGNATION:  #300-172-3-38.7

 

 

                                                                                       

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 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 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 variance sought is the minimum variance necessary and adequate to alleviate the difficulty causing applicant to request 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.

 

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 subject property is located on located on Old Station Place off of Atlantic Avenue, in Amagansett. The property is improved with a 4,122 sq. ft. two story residence with porches, patios, decking, swimming pool with associated pool house and patio, and a 522 sq. ft. detached garage. The most recent C.O. was issued on the property in 2014 for a ?2,273 sq. ft. first floor, 1,849 sq. ft. second floor, frame, two-story, one family residence having one kitchen only and containing six bedrooms total with 1,793 sq. ft. low level with one of the bedrooms, 387 sq. ft. covered front porch, 274 sq. ft. covered rear porch, 654 sq. ft. rear patio, 215 sq. ft. second floor deck and 165 sq. ft. side patio, 800 sq. ft. gunite swimming pool with spa, drywell and 552 sq. ft. one story detached garage?. This property has not appeared before the Zoning Board previously.

 

2.              The applicant is proposing to allow an existing slate swimming pool patio to remain within the southern rear yard lot line setbacks. The patio is associated with a swimming pool which was constructed in conjunction with a building permit issued in January of 2014 and was issued a certificate of occupancy in August of 2014.

 

3.              According to the attached memorandum in support of the application, the previous owner (the builder) installed the pool patio which is before the Zoning Board after closing on the sale of the residence to the current owners. The applicant then obtained a building permit in order to construct the pool house that is located on the property. It was not until they went to obtain an updated Certificate of Occupancy when it was discovered that the previously constructed patio was within the required setbacks. The Board has received a letter from the neighboring property to the east, 52 Atlantic Avenue, in support of the application. An agent for the neighbor to the south (Lot 5), who would be most affected by the grant of the variance, spoke out against the granting of the variance at the public hearing.

 

4.              The Board finds that granting the requested variance will create a detriment to nearby properties. The reason setbacks are doubled for pool patios are to mitigate the noise impact to neighbors caused by the use of the pool and patio. Applicant is requesting a 51% variance along the entire length of the patio. Moreover, the applicants have not presented the Board with any unique circumstances explaining why they cannot comply with the Town Code. There is area along the north side of the pool that can accommodate the same amount of pool patio without requiring a variance from the Board. The Board notes that the neighbor most affected by the patio spoke out against granting the variance.

 

5.              The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than the requested area variance. Applicant can relocate the same square footage of pool patio to the north side of the pool. There are no wetlands or other environmental features on this property that limit the location of a pool patio. 

 

6.              The Board finds that the requested variance is substantial. The applicant is requesting a 51% variance for the entire length of the pool. The applicant has not provided the Board with a persuasive explanation for requiring such a large variance. The pool patio can be relocated to the north side of the pool and would not require a variance.

 

7.              The Board finds that the need for the variance is self-created. While the Board is sympathetic to the how the patio was installed, this is a new house that can and should comply with all dimensional setbacks.

 

8.              The Board finds that the benefit to the applicant does not outweigh the detriment which grant of the variance will cause to the general health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or the Town as a whole.

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 DENIED:  One variance of 9.8? is required from ?255-11-10 of the Town Code to allow the slate pool patio to remain 10.2? from the southern rear yard lot line where a 20? setback is required.

             

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK DENIED: To allow an existing slate pool patio to remain within rear yard lot line setbacks.

 

ALL CONCUR

 

              JOHN WHELAN, Chairman

              CATE ROGERS, Vice Chair

              DAVID LYS, Member

              ROY DALENE, Member

              THERESA BERGER, Member

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

       Andrew Goldstein, Esq.

       

 

D.              James Donohue

Member Berger made a motion to approve the application. Member Lys seconded. All members were in favor.

 

 

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF EAST HAMPTON

_____________________________________                                  

In the Matter of the Application

 

            of                                                                                     DETERMINATION

 

JAMES DONOHUE

SCTM #300-17-1-37.2

_____________________________________

HEARING DATE:              March 7, 2017

                                

PRESENT:                            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

                                          ERIC SHANTZ, Planning Department

                                          JAMES DONOHUE, Applicant/Property Owner

                                         

                     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 allow an existing approximately 375 sq. ft. deck to remain within front yard lot line setbacks.

 

2.              RELIEF OR APPROVAL SOUGHT: One variance of 8.4? from ?255-11-10 of the Town Code is required to allow the second story deck to remain 11.6? from the western front yard lot line setback where a 20? setback is required, and any other relief necessary.

 

B.              PROPERTY SIZE & LOCATION

 

1.              LOT SIZE: 8,860 sq. ft. (total) 

2.              STREET LOCATION: 97 Tuthill Road 

3.              CONTIGUOUS WATER BODIES: N/A

4.              HAMLET OR GEOGRAPHIC AREA: Montauk

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:  #300-17-1-37.2

 

B.              ZONING INFORMATION

 

1.              ZONING DISTRICT: B Residence

2.              ZONING OVERLAY DISTRICT: N/A

C.              SEQRA DETERMINATION

 

1.              SEQRA CLASSIFICATION:  Type II

2.              LEAD AGENCY:  N/A

3.              DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE:  N/A   

4.              DATE OF DETERMINATION:  N/A

 

D.              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.

 

E.              ADDITIONAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:

1.              The subject property is located on the northeast corner of Fleming Road and Tuthill Road, in Montauk. The property is improved with an approximately 1,580 sq. ft. two story residence with decking, shed, and outdoor shower. The most recent C.O. was issued on the property in 1988 for a ?704 sq. ft. first floor, 768 sq. ft. second floor of one-family residence having one kitchen only and 186 sq. ft. wood deck. This property has appeared before the Zoning Board once previously.

 

2.              The applicant is proposing to allow an existing approximately 375 sq. ft. deck to remain within front yard lot line setbacks. The parcel before the Zoning Board has two front yards, fronting on both Fleming road and Tuthill Road. The variance request is from the western front yard lot line from Fleming Road.

 

3.              Because of the irregular shape, small lot size, location of existing structures, and two front yard lot lines, constructing a conforming deck addition may have been difficult in order to achieve the needed result on this property. The applicants point out in the application that the deck is well screened from the road and meets a 20? setback from the edge of pavement, where it is setback from the property line 11.6? requiring the variance.

 

4.              The Certificate of Occupancy issued on July 28, 1988 mentions a 186 sq. ft. wood deck that may have been on the west side of the residence, which the subject deck replaced/was added to. However, the survey attached to the C.O. in the Towns records is not for the subject parcel so the exact location of the existing deck cannot be verified. Aerial images from 2001 show an unknown structure on the west side of the residence as well as a small entrance deck on the south side, which is also shown on the survey associated with this application.

 

5.              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 deck is well-screened from the road and applicant actually meets the 20? setback from the edge of the pavement.

 

6.              The Board finds that the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some method other than an area variance. The unique shape of the lot and the existence of two front yards on this property make the need for the variance necessary 

 

7.              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 applicant to request the area variances. Due to the additional space between the property line and the edge of pavement, the deck appears to meet setbacks.

 

8.              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. No natural resources have been identified on this property.           

 

9.              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). 

 

F.              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:  One variance of 8.4 from ?255-11-10 of the Town Code is required to allow the second story deck to remain 11.6? from the western front yard lot line setback where a 20? setback is required, and any other relief necessary.

 

2.              DESCRIPTION OF WORK APPROVED: To allow an existing approximately 375 sq. ft. deck to remain within front yard lot line setbacks.

                                

G.              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 George Walbridge Surveyors, P.C. dated revised April 8, 2016 and stamped received by the Zoning Board on September 12, 2016.    

 

2.              APPROVED BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS:  N/A

 

3.              ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS AND TIME LIMITATIONS:

a.              Applicant shall either obtain written approval from the Superintendent of Highways allowing the portion of the wall depicted on the survey that extends into the road right of way to remain or have it removed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.

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

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

 

H.              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, Chairman

              CATE ROGERS, Vice Chair

              DAVID LYS, Member

              ROY DALENE, Member

              THERESA BERGER, Member

 

Dated: May 9th, 2017

 

cc:                Building Department

              Planning Department

       Applicant