Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSimon Eisinger_114869625723Southold Zoning Update - Full Responses Name: Simon Eisinger Respondent ID: 114869625723 Q1: General Feedback: Do you feel the proposed zoning updates reflect the needs of your community? Yes / I'm glad to see an effort to provide and maintain affordable housing. Definition of "Impervious" should be more specific. There are many permeable ground treatments which are superior to concrete or asphalt pavement, and these should be encouraged by recognizing the, as better than impervious. Eg. gravel may become compacted, but is still more permeable than asphalt. Permeable pavers are preferable to concrete. Q2: Land Use & Zoning: Do these updates make sense for how you want to see land used in Southold? No Q3: Which zoning rules or land-use changes—if any—don’t work for you? The Gross Floor Area Restrictions for smaller residential lots makes no sense: 280- 44.O(2)(a)i through 280-44.0(2)(a)iii should be eliminated, and the existing bulk regulations should determine allowable FA. Q4: Housing & Affordability: Do the updates support the kind of housing you believe Southold needs? Yes Q5: What—if anything—would make housing options better for you and your neighbors? No response Q6: Natural Resources & Environmental Protection: Do these updates adequately protect Southold’s natural resources, such as water, wildlife, and woodlands? No Q7: If not, what else would you like to see in the zoning code for environmental conservation? Site planning guidelines could discourage plans that break-up uninterrupted green space by grouping houses away from the road frontage. Q8: Community Character & Historic Preservation: Do these zoning updates help retain the character of the Southold you know and love? Yes Q9: If not, what do you think could be improved to preserve Southold’s unique charm? No response Q10: Traffic, and Safety. Do the proposed zoning updates adequately address concerns related to traffic congestion and pedestrian safety? No response Q11: If not, what changes would you recommend to improve or prevent further traffic congestion and improve pedestrian safety in Southold? No response Q12: Support for Agriculture: Do the zoning updates provide sufficient protections for Southold’s farming industry and farmland preservation? No Q13: If not, what changes would you suggest to further support agriculture and prevent the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses? More farmland preservation measures that would compensate farmers for restrictive easements preventing the development of farmland. Q14: Economic Development: Will the proposed zoning changes foster sustainable economic development while balancing environmental and community concerns? No response Q15: If not, how could the zoning updates better support the local economy and businesses? No response Q16: Additional Comments I would like to propose two small changes to the zoning: 1. Proposed Section 280-41.C(2) addresses the location of accessory buildings and structures in residential districts, mandating that such structures must be located in the required rear yard. There are many very deep lots in Southold, especially along Main Road. I would propose that lots deeper than 400' should be be exempt from the rear yard requirement, provided that any accessory structure is at least 150' from the front of the lot, while maintaining side and rear yard setbacks per the Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts. 150' should be far enough from the public right-of-way that there is nothing objectionable about such a structure's position. Additionally, in the case of a flag lot, the rear yard requirement should be waived, provided the structure is beyond the rear lot line of the lot in front. 2. The second recommendation would go into the newly proposed Section 280-40. Existing section 280-13.A.2(c) (Use Regulations) specifically allows "Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses..." As currentl;y proposes, 280-40 does not permit such a structure. I propose that a small storage structure (garden shed) of up to 100 sf should be permitted on otherwise vacant Residential land, provided that it is without plumbing, and subject to the same bulk regulations as as other principal buildings. Although "Barns, storage buildings, greenhouses ... and other related structures" are have been listed as permitted uses, the code AS CURRENTLY INTERPRETED does not allow the erection of storage sheds or barns on residential lots, as these are automatically considered to be "accessory" structures. The very small footprint proposed here guarantees that the structure cannot be used as a residence or for parking a vehicle, and is consistent with the size of accessory structure that can be built without a permit. The ability to erect a small storage shed would facilitate the maintenance of vacant land, which is to the benefit of the entire community as well as the landowner. Q17: Demographic & Contact Info. Click this link to enter your email if you'd like to receive updates on meetings and future drafts. Simon Eisinger / simon@led-nyc.com / Orient Q18: Are YOU responding as a: Resident