Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSteinbugler, Margaret 7.2025 Margaret Steinbugler PO Box 345 Southold, NY 11971 (860) 490-1582 July 18, 2025 To the Southold Planning Department: Thank you for your tremendous, super-Herculean work on the zoning updates currently in process. Just reviewing parts of the code has been a big task for me and makes it clear that this project overall has been a massive effort. I so appreciate your dedication and focus on this major project. Please consider these comments and suggestions on the proposed changes to the Town's Zoning Code: Definitions Inconsistency between "Personal Services" and "Service Business" Uses In the proposed code, "Personal Services" are defined as "The provision of personal grooming or the care of a person's apparel, including, but not limited to, laundry (not including self-service Laundromat or dry cleaning services) services, manicurists, tanning salons, beauty parlors, barbershops, spas, and similar uses." "Service Business" is defined as "An establishment for the provision of a skilled service, personal labor, or expertise instead of a physical product. Examples include but are not limited to hair salons, spas, personal training, massage therapy, law firms, accounting firms, and computer repair." Personal Services are proposed to be allowed in CB, RB-II, T, Island Marine and Industrial districts Service Business use is proposed to be allowed in CB, RB-II, HMU-I, HMU-II, Island Marine and Industrial districts and by special exception in T. The main difference is that Personal Services are not permitted in HMU-I and HMU-II while Service Business uses are permitted in HMU-I and HMU-II. Beauty parlors and spas and included in "Personal Services" and hair salons and spas are included in "Service Business" uses, so it is ambiguous if hair salons, beauty parlors, and spas are or are not permitted in HMU-I and HMU-II. Barbershops appear to be prohibited in HMU-I and HMU-II, but hair salons are allowed — not sure this makes sense. I suggest taking a close look at these two definitions and clarifying the permitted uses and districts. Lot Coverage and Impervious Surface Proposed code includes "poorly permeable constructed surfaces such as gravel and stone..." in the calculation for lot coverage. I fully support including the area of patios and decks at grade in the calculation of lot coverage— it does not make sense to me that a deck one foot above grade counts toward lot coverage while a deck or patio at grade does not. However, I suggest re- considering changing the definition of lot coverage to exclude semi-permeable surfaces like gravel and stone. First, from a drainage perspective, such semi-permeable surfaces are preferable to impermeable concrete or blacktop, and to include semi-permeable as part of lot coverage may have the unintended consequence of encouraging greater use of fully impermeable surfaces, since the latter are generally perceived to be lower maintenance. Second, since many residential parcels in town (25%?) are below 0.25 acres, expanding the definition of lot coverage to include semi-permeable surfaces will result in many more residential parcels being non-conforming for lot coverage and may result in many more homeowners needing to apply to the ZBA than would have been previously unnecessary. Non-conforming Uses and "Grandfathering" I support the re-zoning of several parcels currently in use for what will become non-conforming uses, such as: • Lucas Ford in Southold hamlet on Horton's Lane from General Business (motor vehicle sales by special exception)to Rural Business II (vehicle sales and rental not permitted) • Mullen Motors in Southold hamlet on Main Road from General Business (motor vehicle sales by special exception)to Hamlet Mixed Use II (vehicle sales and rental not permitted) • BP gas station in Peconic hamlet on Rt. 48 from General Business (gas service stations allowed by special exception) to Rural Business II (fueling / charging station not permitted) However the proposed language on non-conforming uses in non-residential districts allows such non-conforming uses to continue indefinitely unless changed to a use similar or more restrictive, with ZBA approval, or unless the use changes or is replaced by a conforming use (i.e., once the non-conforming use is abandoned, it cannot be re-established). I suggest that the language on non-conforming uses in non-residential districts be modified to extinguish the non-conforming use if the parcel and its `grandfathered' non-conforming use is offered for sale, without success, for some period of time — perhaps 3 or 5 years. A long period of a parcel and its non-conforming use being on the market without a sale suggests that the grandfathered use may not be viable in that location. Further, the prospect of losing the grandfathering may motivate the owner to sell to avoid losing the non-conforming use, thereby preventing unoccupied businesses or commercial uses from languishing unoccupied indefinitely on the market. Specific Parcel(s) 1. M-II zoned parcel in Southold hamlet at the corner of Hobart and Terry Lane in the Founders Landing neighborhood, currently used by Sea Tow: Formerly M-II allowed fish processing by special exception, under the proposed zoning fish processing will be permitted as-of-right. Reconsider allowing fish processing as-of-right in this relatively dense residential area. Same parcel, formerly M-II allowed a ferry terminal by special exception while proposed M-II allows a transportation terminal as-of-right. Reconsider allowing a transportation terminal in this otherwise relatively dense residential area. Consider making this parcel M-I. Peconic and Southold Hamlet Changes from RR to R40 and R80 I support the re-zoning of these parcels from RR to R40 and R80 in Peconic and Southold: • Seven (?) parcels on the LI Sound on west end of Salt Marsh Lane, from RR to R40 • The Cove condominiums on Main Bayview Road from RR to R40 • The parcel south of the Main Road in Southold hamlet in the area of East Beixedon Road and Frost Road from RR to R80 2 Southold Hamlet Changes I support the proposed change of zone from LI to T for the parcel at the northeast corner of Travelers and Horton's Lane currently occupied by an historic home. This makes much more sense for this parcel which has residential uses across the street and residential office uses across the railroad tracks. I support the proposed change of zone from Hamlet Business to Transitional for the parcels north and south of Main Road on the eastern edge of the area formerly zoned HB (approximately east of Town Harbor Lane on the south side of Main Road and starting further east on the north side of Main Road). I support the proposed change of zone from LI to T for the parcel at the northeast corner of the LIRR tracks and Boisseau Avenue. Affordable Housing Consider allowing two-story ADUs, subject to all other requirements such as height, set backs, sanitary, etc. Consider allowing an existing home to be made into a two-family home (looks like this is already permitted?) House Size Establish a maximum house size regardless of lot size. I recommend 10,000 square feet. Countryside Stewardship Incorporate the principles of the 1991 US/UK Countryside Stewardship Exchange report into the Town's zoning. Among the 11 recommendations was the advice to "Put on a map all natural resource lands and say these should not be developed but protected for all time. Show the productive farmland you would like to see stay in farming. Designate boundaries around your village sand hamlets beyond which growth should not occur." Among six areas of agreement and/or need identified was "Economic development based on the existing resources of the area: farms, scenic areas, recreation, fishing and tourism, in a way that enhances rather than detracts from the community." (emphasis added). I would suggest that a corollary of this vision would be to explicitly prohibit various attractions that exist elsewhere and do not currently exist in the Town of Southold: large hotels, more golf courses, water parks, amusement parks, luxury spas, sports arenas, casinos, racetracks, and the like. Such attractions can be found in many other places; the principles of countryside stewardship suggest that Southold's rare and unique natural, agricultural, rural, historic, and maritime character should be carefully preserved rather that converted to such "attractions" that are readily available elsewhere. Traffic Establish a criterion for approving development proposals that disallows any development project that is predicted to cause deterioration in level of service for any intersection under any circumstance. le, intersection levels of service are limited to current levels without further deterioration. Fines The proposed zoning code section 280-87, Enforcement and Penalties, Part C, Fines for Offenses, includes the dollar value of fines for offenses directly in the code. The Town Board has recently undertaken the effort to remove the specific values of fees and fines from the 3 existing Town Code so that changes to such fees and fines can be made via Town Board resolution rather than requiring a change to the zoning code and associated notification and public hearing. I recommend re-considering the inclusion of fine dollar values directly in the code, which increases the difficulty of modifying the values to keep up with inflation and other factors, unless including their values in the code is necessary to impose fine values greater than those allowed by NYS Municipal Home Rule Law. Swimming Pools Consider greater restrictions on in-ground swimming pools, which continue to rapidly proliferate. Consider: Increasing minimum pool setbacks Requiring a minimum lot size for a pool, such as 0.5 acres or 1 acre. Imposing an absolute maximum pool size, regardless of lot size. Suggestions Beyond Chapter 280: Chapter 275, Wetlands and Shoreline Increase bluff setbacks from 100 feet to any value greater, even if it is just 105 feet. The 100- foot bluff setback has been substantially undermined over the years by many ZBA-granted variances for reduced setbacks and by permits issued by the Trustees allowing reduced setbacks. As a result, the 100-foot setback is practically unenforceable. Establishing a new baseline that renders prior precedents irrelevant will allow both the ZBA and the Trustees to hold the line against continued incursions. Thanks for considering these ideas. Best regards, Margaret Steinbugler 4