Date: II Meeting Began: Meeting Ended

L

L

Town of Southampton Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Minutes

Date: August 4, 20 II Meeting Began: 7:00 pm

Present:

Absent:

Herbert E. Phillips, Chairman Adam Grossman, Vice-Chairman Ann Nowak, Secretary Denise O'Brien David Reilly

Keith Tuthill Brian DeSesa

Also Present: Kathryn Garvin, Assistant Town Attorney Counsel, Zoning Board of Appeals

Kandice Cowell, Confidential Secretary Zoning Board of Appeals

Meeting Ended: 8:50pm

. I

The following decisions were rendered and filed in the Town Clerk's Office on August 5, 2011.

1.

2.

Gary H. Felsher, 81 Jule Pond Drive, Water Mill SCTM# 900-178-1-17.14. Granted with 5 members of the Board in favor. Decision #DO 12910

Maureen DeMarco, 20 Bay Drive, Hampton Bays SCTM # 900-269-2-14.3. Granted with 5 members of the Board in favor. Decision #DO 12911

Ann

Keith

3. 495 County Road 39, LLC, 495 County Road 39, Tuckahoe David SCTM# 900-158-1-28. Granted with conditions with 5 members of the Board in favor. Decision #DO 12912

4. JCJC Holding Co., 105 Flanders Road, Hampton Bays David

\ \..,'I

SCTM# 900-204-1-8. Granted with 4 members of the Board in favor. Denise O'Brien abstained. Decision #DO 12913

-r·: ,-····'

�-;: �_,-...... '-· .. ·

\_i_:

Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Minutes August 4, 2011 Page two of three 2Ci! AUG -5 Pil 2= 55

CASES HELDOVERIADJOURNED FOR THE AUGUST 18.2011 MEETING:;: c;: :_ 1.\ifiPTQ;-.� ' · �, (·.--·:-!r\:-

Do's Way, LLC Ann

Dan Justus David

Brian McGinness & Thomas Cannuscio Denise

DECISIONS FOR THE AUGUST 18. 2011 MEETING:

Peconic Bay Realty Corp.

Charles & Barbara Fridman (written submissions by 8/11/1 1)

Gail & Lynn Murcott (written submissions)

Denise

Adam

David

John A. Nickonovitz & Barbara Nickonovitz Brian

Pine Neck Realty Ann

Janet Finkel Ann

Gerard H. Piering Jr. (Coruscant LLC) Brian

Jeffrey & Mary Walsh, Jerome & Jacqueline Walsh (written submissions) Keith

AUM Holding, Corp. Adam

900-60-3-13.4 North Sea

900-231-3-3 Hampton Bays

900-122-1-42 Flanders

900-123-1-73 Flanders


900-189-1-15 Hampton Bays .


900-5-1-6 Noyack

900-88-2-39.1 Bridgehampton



900-166-2-43.3 Flanders

CASES RE-ADVERTISED FOR THE SEPTEMBER 1. 2011 MEETING:

Richard & Amy Semple Herb 900-1 04-1-3 Bridgehampton

CASES HELDOVERJADJOURNED FOR THE SEPTEMBER 1. 2011 MEETING:

Beach Properties, Inc. Keith

Alethea Leddy Brian

900-384-3-54 East Quogue

900-31 -1-30 North Sea

' ' • • ! � ; J � •

j

J

J

l

L

L

Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Minutes July 21, 2011 Page four of four

A motion was made by A-tJ ,J ttJO W A:� and seconded by ');Q f(J Cb 0 '6,l!c5/V approve and accept the minutes of the July 21, 2011 meeting.

, to

--"J/�,�...�./......;U;;._;;;;;[;,____:(,___f�) __________ members of the Board present,

in favor.

D/o = determination

P /p = postponement

Open=open

Re-adv. = re-advertise

Adj.= adjournment

Re-open = re-opened

/J_ri�. _ ),. r·, , ril 2: 55

L

L

L

Southampton Press- East and West - 7/21/11 Edition Minor Variance Review

The Southampton Press -Eastern and Western Editions Town of Southampton

Zoning Board of Appeals

PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 330 SECTION 164- I OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON ZONING LAW, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A MINOR VARIANCE REVIEW WITH WRITTEN COMMENTS ACCEPTED ONLY Wll..L BE HELD ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 2011 AT 7:00P.M., AT THE TOWN HALL OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, 116 HAMPTON ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK, TO CONSIDER [) THE FOLLOWlNG: * UkJ

. Richard & Amy Semple. 270 Pauls Lane. Bridgehampton. �=te{S SCMT# 900-104-1-3. Applicant requests relief from §330-115D(1) for a minimum side (T\ yard setback from 24 feet to 23 feet and total side yard setback from 60 feet to 53 feet for lJ /{ a proposed single family dwelling on a nonconforming lot and any other relief necessary.

IN THE EVENT OF A CANCELLATION OR A CONTINUATION OF THIS HEARING, ALL APPLICATIONS NOT HEARD WILL, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, BE HEARD

COMMENClNG THURSDAY AT 7:00 P.M., SEPTEMBER 1, 2011, AT THE TOWN HALL OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON.

HERBERT E. PHILLIPS, CHAIRMAN

·-·-. . - �

·- '- · '

... . · I

' � . -' . -

;·�= ·::n

I \.)l -;-)

ry \ . .J1 U1

-r-; ... -·" .. _.! I ' ' ; I ;

�--I

·' ,-r·: ._-

.... .

---;··r l I ) \._ ...

Southampton Press - East and West - 7/21111 Edition Regular Public Hearing

The Southampton Press -Eastern and Western Editions Town of Southampton

Zoning Board of Appeals

PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 330 SECTION 164- H OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHAiviPTON ZONING LAW, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WILL BE HELD ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 4, 2011 AT Ll. /'(} 7:00P.M., AT THE TOWN HALL OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON, 116 HAMPTON � vo

J

ROAD, SOUTHAMPTON, NEW YORK, TO CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING: �..:::>-\e(S 2.

3.

Do's Way LLC. 300 Noyac Road. North Sea. SCTM# 900-60-3-13.4. Applicant requests relief from §330-11.2(A) to allow a proposed accessory apartment to be located on a lot where neither the principle dwelling nor the proposed accessory apartment will be owner occupied and any other relief necessary.

Dan Justus. 5 High Road. Hampton Bays. SCTM# 900-231-3-3. Applicant requests relief from §330-llS(C) (continuance) for a minimum side yard setback from 16.7 feet to 9.4 feet and total side yard from 33.7 feet to 26.4 feet for a covered porch constructed without the benefit of a building permit. In addition, applicant requests relief from §330-115D(5) for an accessory side yard setback from 10 feet to 8.5 feet for a shed constructed without the benefit of a building permit on a.nonconforming lot and any other relief necessary. :

RE-ADVERTISED

CD

�\tl 4' Peconic Bay ·Realty Corp. 292 Royal Avenue. Flanders.

(j) SCTM# 900-123-1-73. Applicant appeals the Building Inspector's denial of the issuanc l of a Pre-Existing Certificate of Occupancy as provided for in §330-16SA and any other

J

LLI ( : _ ,_

t_t � cc:

relief necessary.

RE-OPEN

Gail & Lynn Murcott. 7 Bayview Avenue. Hampton Bays.

C2:J SCTM# 900-189-1-15. On April 7, 2011, by decision number 0012862, this Board granted the applicant lot coverage, side yard and pyramid relief for a proposed addition to � an existing residence. The applicant has requested that this application be re-opened to discuss additional pyramid relief for a proposal to raise the house.

IN THE EVENT OF A CANCELLATION OR A CONTINUATION OF THIS HEARING, ALL APPLICATIONS NOT HEARD WILL, WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE, BE HEARD

�OMME��G THURSDAY AT 7:00 P.M., SEPTEMBER 1 2011, AT THE TOWN HALL

N � ( OF THE TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON.

HERBERT E. PHILLIPS, CHAIRMAN

!:. _

J

TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON CHAIRPERSON

HERBERT E. PHILLIPS

Department of Land Management Zoning Board of Appeals

VICE-CHAIRPERSON ADAM GROSSMAN

l l 6 HAMPTON ROAD SOUTHAMPTON, J\TY 1 l 968 BOARD MEMBERS

Phone: (631) 287-5700 Fax: (631) 287-5754 ANNA THRONE-HOLST

TOWN SUPERVISOR

ANN NOWAK

KEITH TUTHILL

DAVID REILLY

BRIAN DESESA

DENISE O'BRIEN

SOUTHAMPTON TOWN ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA

August 4, 2011 ..... , )

. . . .

The Zoning Board of Appeals meeting is held in the Town Board Room, 116 Hampton 1 Road, Southampton. Applications are scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m., or shortly thereafter.\-j Applications may not be heard in the order as they appear on this agenda. Current agendas:- . may be viewed on the internet at the following address: www.soutlzamptontownnv.gov ;;

• CALL TO ORDER

• PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

• APPROVAL OF MINUTES

I > \J1 • I • ' \J\

**************************************************************************************

MINOR VARIANCE REVIEW SCTM -HAMLET

I. Richard & Amy Semple (appl. II 00090) Herb 270 Pauls Lane

900-104-] -3 Bridgehampton

Applicant requests relief from §330-115D(l) for a minimum side yard setback from 24 feet to 23 feet and total side yard setback from 60 feet to 53 feet for a proposed single family dwelling on a nonconforming lot and any other relief necessary.

NEW APPLJCA TIONS SCTM -HAMLET

2. Do's Way LLC (appl. 1100092) Ann 900-60-3-13.4 North Sea 300 Noyac Road Applicant requests relief from §330-1!.2(A) to allow a proposed accessory apartment to be located on a lot where neither the principle dwelling nor the proposed accessory apartment will be owner occupied and any other relief necessary.

3. Dan Justus (appl. II 00091) David 900-231-3-3 Hampton Bays 5 High Road Applicant requests relief from §330-115(C) (continuance) for a minimum side yard setback from 16.7 feet to 9.4 feet and total side yard from 33.7 feet to 26.4 feet for a covered porch constructed without the benefit of a building pemut. In addition, applicant requests relief from §330-115D(5) for an acc·essory side yard setback from I 0 feet to 8.5 feet for a shed constructed without the benefit of a building permit on a nonconforming lot and any other relief necessary.

-c - - · ·--. . : I

\1. ·-_...

\ I I

(_)

Southa mpton Town Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Agenda August 4, 2011 Page two of three

READVERTISED APPLICATIONS

!-"'f--( '\ ,-., ;r-'-; -- [-! \ !-I � J '···· --' '--! .' �- _/

4. Peconic Bay Realty Corp. (appl. 1100077) Denise 900-123-1-73 Flanders 292 Royal Avenue Applicant appeals the Building Inspector's denial of the. issuapce, of a Pre-Existing Certificate of Occupancy as provided for in §330-165A and any other relief !1,bt.e�sary.

NEW- ADJOURNED APPLICATIONS SCTM- HAMLET

Adjourned from the 2/17/11,3/3/11,417/11, 5/19/11, 6/16/11, and the 717/11 meeting:

5. Beach Properties, Inc. (appl. 1100012) Keith 900-384-3-54 East Quogue 25 Shinnecock Road Applicant requests relief from §330-84(D) (pyramid law) and §330-11 (residential district dimensional regulations) for a rear yard setback from 30 feet to 23 for the construction of a twostory dwelling on a nonconforming lot and any other relief necessary.

Adjourned from the 5/6/10,6/3/10,6/17/10,7/15/10, 9/16/10, 1017/10, 11/18/10, 116/11,2/3/11,417/11, 5/19/11, 6/16/11 and the 7/21/11 meeting:

7. Alethea Leddy (appl. 1000053) Brian 900-31-1-30 North Sea 39 Lake Drive Applicant requests relief from §330-84(D) (pyramid law) for a proposed 2"d story addition and a two-story addition to an existing residence on a nonconforming lot and any other relief necessary.

SCOPING SESSION SCTM- HAMLET

None scheduled for this meeting

HOLDOVER APPLJCA TIONS SCTM- HAMLET

Held over from the 717/11 meeting; adjourned from the 7/21/11 meeting:

8. Charles & Barbara Fridman (appl. 1100078) Adam 900-152-1-28 Hampton Bays 1 OA Dewey Lane Applicant requests from §330-11 (residential districts table of dimensional regulations) to allow a minimum side yard (western side) setback of 3.6 feet instead of the required 10 feet (after application of .4 relief) and a total side yard variance to allow total side yards of 24.6 feet instead of the 25 feet required (after application of .4 relief) and from §330-84D (pyramid law) to allow a dwelling to remain with 6,607.5 cubic feet in violation (4907.7 cubic feet of pre-existing violation) on a nonconforming lot and any other relief necessary.

Southampton To·wn Zoning Board of Appeals Public Hearing Agenda August 4, 2011 Page three of three

RE-OPEN

:-.,--(-·• -�\I--.. -: �-- 1 - 1- I I I �·---' .. -'L '/ --�_)

....... ,. ' ' '"" , . ' SCTM--H�JE.f: 55

9. Gaii&LynnMurcott David 900-189-1-15 HamptonBays 7 Bayview Avenue On April 7, 2011, by decision number DOI2862, this Board' granted the applicant lot coverage, side yard and pyramid relief for a proposed addition to an existing residence. The applicant has requested that this application be re-opened to discuss additional pyramid relief for a proposal to raise the house.

DECISIONS

Gary H. Felsher (Minor Variance) (written submissions)

Maureen DeMarco

Pine Neck Realty

495 County Road 39, LLC (written submissions)

JCJC Holding Co.

Ann

Keith

Arm

David

David

Jeffrey & Mary Walsh, Jerome & Jacqueline Walsh (written submissions) Keith

DATE CLOSED SCTM- HAMLET

7/21111 900-178-1-17.14 Water Mill

7/21/11 900-269-2-14.3 Hampton Bays

7/21111 900-5-1-6 Noyack

7/7/1 1 900-158-1-28 Tuckahoe

7/7/11 900-204-1-8 Hampton Bays

7/7/11 900-191-2-35 Hampton Bays

Suffolk County Tax Map Number: 473689 178.000-0001-017.014

Subdivision Map ofFordune at Flying Point Map No. 6975 OJ

Town of Southampton

Board of Appeals This is Not a Building Permit

DECISION NO. 0012910/Page I

DECISION NO. 0012910 DECISION DATE: August 4, 2011

VARIANCE IS HEREBY GRANTED

OWNER:

LOCATION:

DETERMINATION:

Gary Felsher

C/o Fgh Investments

6th Floor-east Wing

645 Fifth Ave

New York, NY 10022

N/W /C #8 Cannel Pond Court and Jule Pond Drive, Lot #11, Fordune, Flying Point.

) -�

' ) I

V':

- ; : .. > -j .. ::-> \..f]

\..f]

This Board grants the applicant relief from Section 330-11 (residential district dimensional regulations) for a principal front yard setback from 80 feet to 61.3 feet for a proposed one-story addition to an existing residence.

Pursuant to application, and survey and conditions as approved by the Board of Appeals.

- r ; ... �·· ..,.,

rn --.. ' . I ... -n. -----......

!Tr =---] '- --

NOTE: The holder of this variance is requested to familiarize himself with the ordinance under which said variance is granted. Any violation of the provisions of said ordinance shall render the offender liable !'or the penalties provided therein, and in addition thereto, may result in the immediate revocation of the building permit.

This notice must be kept on the premises until full completion of the work authorized.

PER

Herbert E. Phillips Chairman

ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON

In the Matter of the Application

Gary H. Felsher

�L11'1 fP� -5 Pil 2: 55 I •--'�'

- --. .. I .

I I " '�;: . .. ;?TG� , .: r·-- �---:

FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION

Based upon the application, all documents contained in the Board's file, the observations of this Board member following an on-site inspection �f the premises, the Zoning Board of Appeals finds and determines as follows:

1. Applicant requests relief from Section 330-11 (residential district dimensional regulations) for a principal front yard setback from 80 feet to 61.3 feet for a proposed one-story addition to an existing residence and any other relief necessary.

2. Subject premises consist of a parcel containing approximately 83,894 square feet situated at 81 Jule Pond Drive, Water Mill, Town of Southampton, New York. The parcel is zoned R-80 and is a conforming lot. Premises are identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as parcel #900-178-1-17.14.

3. This Board finds the subject application to be a Type II action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act

(SEQRA) and relevant provisions of the Town Code. A negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA is hereby made.

4. In order for this Board to grant applicant the requested relief, the applicant must demonstrate, pursuant to Section 330-166(C) of the Town Code, that the proposed variance meets the standards set forth in that section, as well as the standards set forth in Section 267-b of the New York Town Law.

5. This is a minor variance review; thus, no public

hearing was held.

The applicant seeks to construct a one-story addition to an existing residence. The property is a corner lot. The addition is proposed for the side facing Channel Pond Court.

L

L

L

According to the application, the addition will contain two bedrooms, and the property is fully screened with a privet hedge.

The application states that the addition with be �virtually imperceptible to the neighbors," that the adjacent property on two sides is a drainage area, and that the property is

�significantly separated from all neighbors." The amount of

relief requested is minor in nature and character.

6. Based upon the evidence and testimony presented, it

is the conclusion of this board that denial of the requested

variance would serve no useful purpose and that the benefit to

the applicant from granting this variance outweighs any detriment

to the community.

7. Therefore, in the interests of justice and for the reasons set forth herein, this board grants applicant relief from

Section 330-11 (residential district dimensional regulations) for

a principal front yard setback from 80 feet to 61.3 feet for a

proposed one-story addition to an existing residence as shown on

a survey by Squires, Holden, Weisenbacher & Smith, last dated

June 24, 2011, which was submitted with the application and is

incorporated herein. The grant of the variance is subject to such other permits as the applicant has heretofore acquired or may

otherwise be necessary for the proposed variance.

: _, r : __ )

-

:r�� ,,··:: \,j"')

I \ .. n

-�

I -- ; r-y ; --1 :-:) .. - :... L'1

Vl

-li -··.)

: I I ,�� .. ' ...... I

fl-i <-· ;-rJ -; '--


Subdivision Map of Edwin-Barbara Zemsky Map No. 9764 OJ

Town of Southampton

Board of Appeals This is Not a BuiLding Permit

DECISION NO. 0012911


OWNER:

LOCATION:

DETERMINATION:

Dennis De Marco

20 Bay Dr

Hampton Bays, NY 11946-2722

South side #20 Bay Drive, Hampton Bays

DECISION NO. 0012911/ Page I

DECISION DATE: August 4, 2011

,, :. j }

' - 1

-c..-j

I �..,..,

' . . ) l. • .ll \...'1

This Board grants the applicant relief from Section 330-11.2F (accessory apartment special standards) for

lot area from 30,000 square feet to 20,005.86 square feet for a proposed efficiency (studio) basement apartment. Relief is also granted from Section 330-11 (residential district dimensional regulations) for a front yard setback from 40 feet to 34.5 feet for an existing wood deck and relief from Section 330-76(D) (placement of accessory buildings & structures) and Section 330-83(C) (yards) for a deck in the required

front yard.


-r-, _ . ....., --: : I

.--.. I '- -rr. -•,::-i"Ti ·-

NOTE: The holder of this variance is requested to familiarize himself with the ordinance under which said variance is granted. Any violation of the provisions of said ordinance shall render the offender liable for the penalties provided therein, and in addition thereto, may result in the immediate revocation of the building permit.

This notice must be kept on the premises until fit!/ completion of the work authorized.

PER


ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS

TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON

;"'I ''�•"' c· F" I..·Ji, r.'Ja - � 11 2= 55

·, , ...... • I . , •

.. . _ ·�. -.·� �· �; �/'.:.�·�PTC<-.: --------------------------------------------------------------------------��){

In The Matter of The Application of

Maureen DeMarco DECISION

SCTM#-900-269-2-I4.3 (Application # II 0008I)

---------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------){

FINDINGS AND DETERMINATION

Based upon the application, all documents contained in the Board's file, the observations of this Board member following an on site inspection of the premises, the Zoning Board of Appeals finds and determines as follows:

I. Applicant requests relief from 330-II.2(F) (accessory apartment special standards) for lot area from 30,000 square feet to 20,055.86 square feet for a proposed efficiency (studio) basement apartment. In addition, applicant requests relief from 330-11 (residential district dimensional regulations) for a front yard setback from 40 feet to 34.5 feet for an existing wood deck and relief from 330-76(D) (placement of accessory buildings and structures) and 330-83 (C) (yards) for a deck in the required front yard and any other relief necessary.

2. Subject parcel is a conforming lot and is 20,055.86 square feet in size and is located at 20 Bay Drive in the Hamlet of Hampton Bays, Town of Southampton, New York. The subject parcel is located in an R-20 Zoning District and is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as parcel: District 0900, Section 269, Block 02, Lot 14.3.

3. This board finds the subject application to be Type II action under the state Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and relevant provisions of the Town Code. A negative declaration pursuant to SEQRA is hereby made.

4. In order for this Board to grant applicant the requested relief, application must Demonstrate, pursuant to Town Law Section 267-b that:

J

J

J

L

L

L

A. Whether any undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the area variance.

B. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other �� method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. 1

Vl

C. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.

:rJ I I • : I ! ,--.........._, I I

... _,

_.-< __

ill D. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or� t�pact on � CJ

physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district. :. : "'

E. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created, which consideration shall be relevant to the decision of the board of appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the variance.

5. At the public hearing that was advertised, the applicant provided proof of posting and mailing. There was no opposition to this application.

6. At the public hearing held herein testimony was offered:

A. The subject property is a conforming lot. There have been no previous variance applications or appe�ls made in regard to the subject property.

B. The relief sought through this application is from 330-11.2(F) (accessory apartment special standards), 330-11 (residential district dimensional regulations), 330-76(D) (placement of accessory buildings and structures), and 330-83(C) (yards). This requested relief is for an accessory (studio) basement apartment and a front yard deck.

C. The granting of the variances will not affect the character of the neighborhood, nor affect the health, welfare or safety of the area.

7. With regard to this application, testimony was received by this Board that the applicant wishes to add a basement studio apartment and receive the relief necessary for a deck, which is located in the front yard. This Board notes that there is a 50-foot wide vegetation/ conservation buffer located in the rear yard. The applicant also gave testimony that the residence is owner occupied.

The Accessory Apartment Law works within the Master Plan by providing regulatory incentives that allow for affordable housing, which this town is in need of.

It is the fmdings of this board that there will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor will there be a detriment to nearby properties by the granting of the requested relief. The benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by some other method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, and the requested relief should not be considered substantial.

This Board finds that proposed relief will not have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. One might consider the alleged difficulty to be self-created, which consideration was relevant to the decision of the Board of Appeals, but shall not preclude the granting of the requested relief.

8. Therefore, in the interest of justice and for the reasons set forth herein, this Board grants the applicant relief from 330-11.2F (Accessory Apartment Special Standards) for lot area from 30,000 square feet to 20,055.86 square feet for a proposed efficiency (studio) basement apartment. Relief is also granted from 330-11 (residential district dimensional regulations) fora front yard setback from 40 feet to 34.5 feet for an existing wood deck and relief from 330-76(D) (placement of accessory buildings and structures) and 330-83(C) for a deck in the required front yard.

Plans for the accessory apartment were submitted by the applicant from Mark Knotoff Associates, Dated May 30, 2001.

This was last shown on a survey by Kenneth M. Woychuk, L.S., Dated March 25, 2011.

The granting of this variance is subject to such other conditions of other permits or approvals that the applicant has heretofore acquired or would be otherwise necessary for other proposed variances.

S�mitted by tr) .�-:�·

L'") '

--

;:.-: (�

c--� r .' ,_::::. ( £"-'-:: �

.... ·-: . �

.. ' .. ·- .-

August 4, 2011

Keith S. Tuthill

J

J

J


Town of Southampton

Board of Appeals This is Not a Building Permit

DECISION NO. D012912


OWNER: 495 County Road 39 LLC

C/0 Robert G Smith

204 Little Fresh Pond Rd

Southampton NY 11968

DECISION NO. 0012912/Page I

DECISION DATE: August 4, 201 I

) --!

. ; )

) �

:--f'"': (, ')

I \._,

-:-?

r:y l...n o-

LOCATION: North east corner # 406 Magee Street and County Road 39, Southampton

DETERMINATION:

This Board grants the applicant relief from Section 330-205(B) to the extent that the applicant is granted permission to erect a 32 suqare foot freestanding directory sign some ten feet from the front property line a.nd where the front setback of the building to which the sign relates is 22.7 feet from the front property line, with the sign is to be located approximately 25 feet east of the western wall of the one story principal building. The grant of the foregoing relief is conditioned upon the applicant removing all existing non-conforming and/or illegal signs and the applicant acquiring all required Certificates of Complianc and

Certificates of Occupancy as contemplated by Southampton Town Zoning Code Section 330-205(B). The foregoing variance shall expire should the site be redeveloped at a future date or if significant changes or alterations to the proposed sign be made at a future date.


-u --· !-:{ .�, '

n-. -::..-� "'

!Ti ·-; \. __



PER


TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ---------------------------------------------------->< In the Matter of the Application of 495 County Road 39, LLC. 495 County Road 39, Tuckahoe, NY

SCTM: 900-158-1-28 ----------------------------------------------------)(

ZOII AUG -5 PN 2: 56

Application No. 11 00076

The Applicant is the owner of a one acre commercial property located in the Highway Business Zoning District at 495 County Road 39, Tuckahoe, New York, designated as SCTM 900-158-1-28, on which is located a one story principal building, one story accessory building with carport, one story shop, and garage, all of which are depicted on a survey prepared by Squires, Holden, Weisenbacher, & Smith, last revised January 11, 2011.

The Applicant proposes, as is set forth in the aforementioned survey and in its application, to erect a 32 square foot freestanding directory sign some ten feet from the front property line where the front setback of the building to which the sign relates is 22.7 feet from the front property line. The sign is to be located approximately 25 feet east of the western wall of the one story principal building.

§330-205(8) of the Code of the Town of Southampton provides that a freestanding sign is permitted provided that the sign is set back from the front property line a minimum of 20 feet and where the building to which the sign relates is set back a minimum of 40 feet from the front property line. The Applicant seeks variance relief from these provisions of the code.

In its application and during testimony offered by the Applicant's representative, Richard Mathew, Esq. of Southampton, at a Public Hearing held on July 7, 2010, the Applicant established that that the proposed sign, except for the setbacks issue, otherwise complies with the pertinent provisions of the sign code. In addition, an on site inspection of the premises, and of the surrounding area, established that there are a number of similarly situated signs along that portion of County Road 39 that are of similar dimensions and which are located in a similar proximity to the roadway and to the buildings to which they relate. This inspection also established that the location of the proposed sign should not pose a hazard to those travelling on County Road 39, or to those exiting from the premises onto County Road 39. Finally, the present preexisting location of the one story principal building makes finding a conforming location for the proposed sign impractical, if not virtually impossible.

J

In addition, Mr. Mathew represented that should the variance request be granted, J all presently existing nonconforming and/or illegal signs will be removed, as it is the · . . . ·.·

� L

-

c.:

L

intention of the Applicant to bring the premises into conformity with the requirements of the code as it relates to signage. /i�l r ,� r 1r- �- ..... . 1 C c.•J I . 1(1 - .) t_•, 2 56 • "' � l i :

The Zoning Board of Appeals is in receipt of correspondence from the Suffolk County Planning Commission in which that entity stated that this application is one for local determination. The Zoning Board of.Appeals is also."'�P--r�ceipt of a Referral Report from the Planning Board of the Town Of Southampton,: dated July 7, 2011, wherein that board offered no objection to the proposed variance but did request that any variance be conditioned upon the removal of any non-conforming signs and that the variance be null and void should the sign be changed, business use be changed, or the site be redeveloped at a future date. The Planning Board also noted that the sign is subject to their review and approval and that it would require that the sign conform with the applicable design standards. Finally, the County Road 39 Study Advisory Committee submitted comments with respect this application with those comments addressing, primarily, the style and design of the proposed sign. As noted, the design standards of the sign will be subject to the Planning Board's review and are better addressed in that forum.

Based upon the application, the testimony offered at the Public Hearings, all documents contained in this Board's file, and the observations of this Board member following an on site inspection of the premises, the Zoning Board of Appeals finds and determines as follows:

1. The Applicant is entitled to the relief requested as the benefit to the applicant far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the neighborhood or community;

2{:-�:That the relief sought is in accord with the considerations of Town Law §267-. b(3)(b) in that the requested variance(s) will not produce an undesirable

,. ·change to the character of the neighborhood, the benefit sought cannot be achieved by another feasible method, the variance(s) are not substantial, the

· variance(s) will not have an adverse impact upon the environment, and the �.-alleged difficulty was not self created.

Therefore, in the interests of justice and for the reasons set forth herein, this Board grants the Applicant relief from the provisions of Southampton Town Zoning Code §330-205(B) to the extent that the applicant is granted permission to erect a 32 square foot freestanding directory sign some ten feet from the front property line and where the front setback of the building to which the sign relates is 22.7 feet from the front property line, with the sign is to be located approximately 25 feet east of the western wall of the one story principal building as depicted on a survey prepared by Squires, Holden, Weisenbacher, & Smith last revised January 11, 2011, which was submitted with the application and is incorporated herein.

The grant of the foregoing relief is conditioned upon the applicant removing all existing non-conforming and/or illegal signs, the applicant acquiring all required

(� L!_j >· [_lJ ( .....

' '.._.__.,.I 1 ' : �-! .. -! r· .. �-

L.J_

Certificates of Compliance and Certificates of Occupancy as contemplated by

J Southampton Town Zoning Code §330-205(8), and to the conditions of any other permits and/or approvals as the applicant has heretofore acquired or may otherwise be ... • necessary for final approval.

The foregoing variance shall expire should the site be redeveloped at a future date or if significant changes or alterations to the proposed sign be made at a future date.

Dated: August 4, 2011

Submitted by:

'0 tf\ ;:.:_..� I

..___. <: c'J 1-[Y- i

-� I ,_

b.-: . _,_ ( r,._,,

.. tf''\ '

I ('..!:)

1.:.

:=:.J ( -··

....,.::::z; ' . ; . �

c::·;, • • • J ;

, ......

J

J

i L


Town of Southampton Board of Appeals This is Not a Building Permit

DECISION NO. 0012913


OWN ER: JCJC Holding Company Inc PO Box 65

Eastport. NY 11941-0065

DECISION NO. 0012913/ Page I

DECISION DATE: August 4, 2011

�'�) C?2

� c.:: GJ

I \....'1 :::�

! ·,j �

-�-, •• .\_j ;--;-� : ' l ,--..., I , ..... �-· rr: -- ---·

r·---; ! ' 1 ;-� \Jl "---'

� LOCATION: 106 Flanders Rd, Route 24, Hampton Bays · -; :=-?

�--D-E-

T-E

RN.U---N

-A

_T

_I_ O _

N_: ________________________________________________________ �

L

This Board grants applicant's request for a use variance to allow (i) a landscape and horticultural service business, and (ii) the lease of two office spaces within said building, on a property located in the Country Residential 120 Zoning District.




PER


ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TOWN OF SOUTHAMPTON ----------------------------------------------------------x In the Matter of the Application of JCJC Holding Company, Inc. 105 Flanders Road (Route 24) Hampton Bays, New York SCTM #900-204-1-8 ----------------------------------------------------------x

FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS

DECISION

Based upon the application and all the documents contained in the Board's file, including testimony and evidence received at the public hearings, the Zoning Board of Appeals finds and determines as follows:

Applicant seeks a use variance to permit (i) a landscape and horticultural services business and (ii) the lease of two office spaces within said building, on a property located in the Country Residential 120 (CR 120) Zoning District.

BACKGROUND

The subject premises are located at 105 Flanders Road (Route 24 ), in the hamlet of Hampton Bays, Town of Southampton, County of Suffolk, and State of New York. The property is identified on the Suffolk County Tax Map as #900-204-1-8, and is approximately 0.927 acres in size (about 40,372 square feet). The parcel is located in the Country Residence 120 Zoning District ("CR 120") and as such, is nonconf�rming with respect to size. Regarding use, the property benefits from Certificate of Occupancy No. 7590, dated December 22, 1970, for "New York State Police Barracks." This use was recognized by a Town Board resolution in 1970, and the property was leased by the property owner, Flocee Estates of Hampton Bays, Inc., to the New York State Police, as police barracks until 2008. As such, the premises boast an existing 3,354 square foot commercial office building and a 34-space parking lot. Applicant acquired the premises by deed dated June 9, 2003.

SEORA

This Board, by resolution, preliminarily classified applicant's proposed project as an "Unlisted Action," and coordinated SEQRA, where it was determined that the Central Pine Barrens Joint Planning and Policy Commission (the "Commission") would assume Lead Agency1 status. By resolution dated June 15, 2011, the Commission adopted a Negative Declaration pursuant to SEQRA for the Project.

1 By resolution dated January 6, 2011, this Board preliminarily classified the project as an "Unlisted Action" and coordinated SEQRA. On January 13, 2011 , the Town of Southampton Planning Board adopted a resolution stating that it wished to assume lead agency status with respect to SEQRA review,

J

J

J

L

L

L

The following testimony regarding the requested use variance was submitted at the hearings before the ZBA:

. . . . '' . ,� !'

James Calise, member of applicant JCJC Holding Co., Inc., and· Timothy S. McCulley, Esq., attorney for the applicant, testified and submitted written submissions indicating that applicant is seeking a use variance to allow a highway business use at its property located at 1 05 Flanders Road, in a Residential Zone (CR 120). Specifically, applicant seeks to use the property for (i) a landscape and horticultural services business, and (ii) two tenant offices.

By way of background, Mr. McCulley explained that applicant purchased the subject parcel in 2003 and that prior to said purchase, despite being in a residential zone, the parcel was allowed to be developed as a New York State Police Barracks by Town Board resolution dated April 7, 1970. As such, the parcel has been improved since 1970 with a 34-space parking lot and a two story brick building (with a footprint of 1600 square feet), designed to accommodate offices and jail cells, used 24 hours a day. According to Mr. McCulley, the property is an isolated site that, after being built, was restricted in the early 1990s from any further building and designated within the Pine Barrens Core Preservation Area. As such, Mr. McCulley stated that applicant's property is unique as it is surrounded by the Sears Bellows Park, a 979 acre park which may be accessed by traveling west from the parcel to Bellows Pond Road, with no residential houses adjacent to or across the street.

Mr. McCulley stated that there is no longer a need for the police barracks, and it is not feasible for the property to be used in a way that conforms to zoning. Mr. McCulley added that there is no reasonable way to convert the existing improvements into a residential house as the building is situated only 60.9 feet from a state highway on a major route from Hampton Bays to Riverhead. Further, he testified that the demolition of the parking lot alone would cause major disruption to the core preservation area.

Finally, Mr. McCulley summarized that none of the permitted or special exception uses listed in the CR 120 Zoning District, either business or non-business, are available at this property. The use of a dwelling at the site, whether one family or two, is not feasible since it would require a complete renovation of the existing structure, including the demolition of the asphalt parking lot, simply to start with a one acre vacant lot. Mr. McCulley offered a report from David L. Wimpelberg and James R. McLauchlen, of Hamptons Appraisal Service Corporation, dated November 24, 2010, to

only if the Suffolk County Pine Barrens Commission did not wish to assume lead agency status. By resolution dated March 3, 2011, the ZBA stated that it had no objection to the Pine Barrens Commission assuming lead agency status with regards to the SEQRA review. 2The application herein was originally heard and closed at the Board's December 2, 2010, meeting. Thereafter, the hearing was re-opened and adjourned at the January 6, 2011, meeting in order to coordinate SEQRA review.

2

0 LLJ �> �JJ ,. .....

: \ '"--'' l • = ��-= cc

substantiate this. This report details that the special exception uses are not available to the applicant due to a variety of factors including (i) the size of the lot, which is too small for among other things, a camping ground, church, beach club, bus passenger shelter, transportation center, nursing . home, philanthropic, fraternal, educational institutional office, hospital, animal husbandry, plant nursery, or winery, (ii) the configuration of the lot which is too small for a nursery school or child daycare, or (iii) the need for a particular use at this location, such as a park, playground, fire station, library, or museum, and (iv) the logistics of the proposed use, such as a school, cemetery, yacht club, wireless tower, agricultural or animal husbandry use. This report summarized that such uses were discouraged, impractical, and would result in a return of investment that would be "low at best, and likely negative given current market conditions."

Mr. McCulley also added that the granting of the use variance will not change the character of the neighborhood, particularly in light of the fact that any development of vacant property within this neighborhood, even residential, is not permitted under the Pine Barrens regulations. Instead, Mr. McCulley asserted that the proposed use . would have little impact on the neighborhood since it would require no physical change to the project site or existing parking conditions, and no expansion or modification to the building. In fact, the proposed use would be less intensive than the prior use of the property. Lastly, Mr. McCulley added that applicant's issue is not a self-created hardship since the property was developed specifically for the police barracks use in 1970 and then was thereafter restricted by the Pine Barrens regulations.

This Board is in receipt of a resolution adopted by the Central Pine Barrens Commission dated June 1 5, 2011, granting applicant a hardship exemption for a change of use to permit the existing building within the Core Preservation Area of the Central Pine Barrens to be used as a contractor business office and permit the leasing of two office spaces within. Specifically, the Commission found a hardship existed at the site and granted an exemption for the proposed change in use, subject to the filing of various covenants and restrictions,3 together with additional conditions, including the installation of a split rail fence on the "edge of clearing," the removal of unused wireless antenna on the building, and compliance with dark sky initiatives.

This Board is also in receipt of a Planning Board Referral Report dated December 2, 201 0, stating that the proposed use is not appropriate for the zoning district, and a ref«<gal report _ _sJated December 16, 2010, recommending, among other things, that the appltcant arne� :J';he application to propose an office with no outdoor storage of any type. Lastly, this B<fai4 is in receipt of a letter from Suffolk County Department of Planning dat� Novemb§! �t9, 2010, stating that this matter is a decision of local determination.

, _

1f\ zcc--. � · ... . '.:. ·

3 Publant to the ci_t?�mission 's findings, the following must be included in a Covenant and Restriction: (i) the ret�ntion oftlie;existing 1 1 ,8 1 3 square feet of natural vegetation in its current state; (ii) no change in lan®_se on the p�ict site; (iii) no change in zoning on the project site; (iv) no expansion of the existing buildmg, uses, or facilities, (v) the development granted by the Commission is a general office use in the existing building. Any other development requires Commission approval. However, this statement does not constitute an approval or recommendation thereof.

3

J

I .J

J

L

L

L

DISCUSSION

In order to grant the relief requested pursuant to New York State Town Law §267-b(2)(b), applicant must make a showing that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. Specifically, applicant must demonstrate that for each and every permitted use Ull,der the Town Code for the CR 120 Zoning District: a) the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence; b) the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique and does not apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood; c) the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood; and d) the alleged hardship has not been selfcreated.

When addressing the first use variance standard, applicant is required to demonstrate by competent financial evidence that it cannot realize a reasonable return from each of the uses permitted in the applicable zone. To meet this standard, the applicant here relies on the testimony and reports presented by its attorney Timothy McCulley, Esq., and on the report prepared by Hamptons Appraisal Service Corporation. As discussed more fully above, this report concluded that after analyzing the lot's size, location, and existing improvements, "it would not be considered desirable or feasible for the property to be utilized in conformance with a use permitted in the CR 1 20 Zone." This Board agrees. The subject site is already developed and can be used, without modification or expansion, for the requested use. As such, this Board finds that applicant has provided a basis to warrant the granting of a use variance as it relates to an inability to realize a reasonable return.

Applicant has also provided sufficient proof that the alleged hardship relating to this parcel is in fact unique. The parcel is nonconforming as to size and fronts on a State Highway. While the zoning is residential, the lot is fully developed to accommodate state police barracks, and has housed such a use for the past forty years with the permission of the Town Board. After such development, in 1 993, the Long Island Pine Barrens Protection Act was adopted, preserving the surrounding area and restricting any building whatsoever. As such, the parcel is surrounded by vacant woodlands, with no residential houses adjacent to or across the street from the parcel, making it unique in its past use, and present configuration.

Similarly, this Board finds that the requested variance will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, since the changes to the site are minimal, and the proposed use is less intense than what was previously permitted. Lastly, the alleged hardship was not self-created. The property was developed in � �}Q_ fQ� , the . ��t�J�olice Barracks with the permission of the Town Board. Thereafter� : 'the .: surrounding neighborhood was preserved and taken into public ownership.

4

9 (" :? " · ' ::J \J • • J

r i ·- · r i -j , �· , · · w · � i I I -1 . \ � --} --1 ;-: '-- -� . I ·. ; --� \·--� ·-- : ·..._. ;

0 I I I > LLJ ( ... , . ...__. I 1 ; L-' I

c.r:

CONCLUSION

Therefore, in the interests of justice and for the reasons set forth herein, this Board grants applicant's request for a use variance to allow (i) a landscape and horticultural services business, and (ii) the lease of two office spaces within said building, on a property located in the Country Residential 120 Zoning District

Dated: August 4, 201 1

L'l i

5

AViD REILY

•

..

j

J

Documents

Date: II Meeting Began: Meeting Ended