HomeMy WebLinkAboutBuilding Heights-Residential 05L. K. McLean Associates, P.C.
437 South Country Road ,. Brookhavcn ,, New York · I 1719
1631) 286-8668 · FAX (631) 286-6314
EU(3ENE F. DALY, P E., P T.O.E.TM, PRESIDENT and C E O
R~YMOND (3 DiBiABE, P.E, P.T O E ~. EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
JOSEPH F. CLINE, P E., VICE PRESIDENT
ROY R. FULKERSON, P L S, VICE PRESlDENr
ALBERT T DAWSON, P.E, VICE PRESIDENT
CONSULTING ENGINEERS
Associates
CHRISTOPHER F DWYER
JAMES L DeKONING. P.E
ROBERTA STEELE, P E
May 10, 2005
Mrs. Patricia Finnegan Esq., Town Attorney
Town of Southold
53095 Route 25
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, N.Y. 11971-0959
SEQR for Proposed Town Code Change - Proposed local law "A Local Law in
relation to the Height of Buildings of Residential Structures" - Chapter 100.
LKMA Project No. 04010.006
Dear Mrs. Finnegan:
As requested by the Town of Southold, our office has reviewed the proposed action to be taken
by the Town of Southold as defined in the March 29, 2005 and April 12, 2005 Resolutions
received fi.om your office. The proposed local law to the Town's Zoning Code is classified as a
SEQRA Type II Project in accordance with Title 6 of the New York Code of Rules and
Regulations Parts 617.5 (c) (20, 27 and 28) [6 NYCRR Part 617.5 (c) (20, 27 and 28)]. As such,
the action is not subject to SEQR review.
(20) routine or continuing agency administration and management, not including ne**'
programs or major reordering of priorities that may affect the environment.
(27) adoption of regulations, policies, procedures and local legislative decisions in
connection with an), action on this list (of Type Il projects).
(28) engaging in the review of any part of an application to determine compliance with
technical requirements, provided that no such determination entitles or permits the project
sponsor to commence the action unless and until all requirements of this Part have been
fulfilled.
The revisions to the Code are intended to restrict excessive building by limiting the size of
residential buildings through use of a building height envelope criteria and addition of a new
building height definition. The action will generally serve to limit potential adverse
environmental impacts due to the restriction on building size that will be imposed. Individual
projects cannot be evaluated at this time. Additionally, this law modification applies to
residential buildings, therefore the SEQR Review Process shall not be required. Our office is
confident that adherence to the local codes and ordinances enacted by the Township will prevent
a project from creating adverse impacts to the environment.
· Founded itt 1950
Lih%%A
L. K. M~ean Associates, P.C.
CC: LKIVIA File Copy
If you should have any questions regarding the content of this evaluation by our office please do
not hesitate to contact this office directly.
Very Truly Yours
Christopher F. Dwyer
Associate
ELIZABET~ A~ NEY~-r.~
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRA2 OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
REi~ORD$ MAI~A~ OFFfCF_~
FREEDOM O~ II'IFO~L~,TION OFFICER
II. all, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southol~l, Now Yorl~ 11971
Fa~ (681) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CL~R.K
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS ]CO CERTI17Y THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 159 OF 2005
WAS ADOPTED AT ~ REGULAR MEETING OF THE $OUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON MARCH 29, 2005:
WHEREAS, there h~s been presented ~o thc Town Board of the To~ of Southold, Suffolk
County, New York, on the 29" day of March 2005 a Local Law ent/tled "A Lacal Law i~
relation to the Height of Buildia_gs of Residential Structures" now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Town Boanl cf the Town of Southold will hold a public heafir~ on the
aforesaid Looal Law at the Southold Tow~ Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold. New York, on the
10th day of .Mpv 2005 at 8:00 ~.m. at which dine all interested persons will be given an "
oppon'unity to be hcard.
The pro!5osed local law ent/tled: ~$ Local Law in relation to the Height, of Buildiags o~
Residential S~uctur~' r~ as follows:
LOCAL LAW N0. . 2005
A Local Law e~tifled "A Local Law in Rolation to tho Height of Bnildings of Res/dent/al
Structures",
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows:
L Purpose- To clarify and establish clear standards gov~niag the maximum bnild~rtg height of
r~sidential structures to further preserve the character of singlc-fam/ly nc. ighborhoods. Th~
changes will create a clear dvfinit/on for 'v~-Ieight of Bu/lding"~ create a separate definition for
"Flat and Iow-pitched Roof', establish a maximum building height for thy flat and low-pitched
mol, and crcate a height limit ofl~v~ty-eight feet on lots w/th a width seventy (70) fc~t or lcss.
Additionally, this law in~roduce~ a '%uilding height envelope law" which is designed to prevent
overcrowding and prevent the loss of open spacc, air, sunlight and privacy to neighbors. This
new law establishes a vordcal and hor/zontal bailding envelope based on the building se:back to
tho hca-est property line.
Chapter 100 o£the Zonir~ Code o£ thc Town of Southold/s hereby amended as £ollows:
100-13. Definitions.
B. Dc~uitions and Usages.
FLAT AND LOW-PITCH]SD ROO1~- Any roof that ha~ at)itch of less tha~ 4:12.
HBIGHT OF BUrY.DING - Tlxe vertical ~cv m~ ~m ~ av~age el~agcn of~e
~is~ n~ ~e ~j acent to ~e b~ befo~ ~y ~t~ or ~, ~ '~__ _~,~:-~* ~,~;~* ~f
~ to ~c low~ ~o~ of~ ~ves for fiat ~ low-pi~ed r~. ~d.to ~c M~ vo~ of
§I00-32.
The Bulk Schedule for P,~sidential Dis~icts is amended.ss attac~ed.
.~100-3& Buildin~ Hd~ht Eavelo0e.
A. Lot width of sevenW (70) feet or less_._ All build/ng~ on lots w/th/n the A-C, R-SO,
R-200 and R-400 districts sh~ll be set back from.all property liues so thst the height of
an)/~_ iht of the bufld~ng shall not cxcccd thc horizontal d/s ,t~,nce between thc nearest
property ~ and the closest eom. t.o.f the build/ng, on a ratio of 1:1 ~.
B. Lot width over ~ventv f~-t. when constmcti.i~nis on vacant lot only. AU buildings on lots
within the A-C, R-SO, 1~.-120, R-200_ and R-400 distrj.'..ct.s shall be met back from all
property l/nee so that th_e_hd~-ht of env voint of thc bu/Jdin~.~_~ha{! nc~ exce~l the
horizontal distance between the nearest V _ropertv I/nc and the closest u.o/nt oithe building.
ona 1:1 ratio:
C. Notwithstand/ug_ any uwv/sions to the conWarv, the max/mum hci_~ht l/m/t for all
_b_o/Idin~_ahall_not .exceed the maximum/n the bulk schedule.
VERTICAL
SET~ACK
YERT:ICAL
20'
LOT ~/I]]TH DVER 70 FEET
WITH EXI$'~[NG PRINCIPAL BUIL]]ING$
PYRAMID DIAGRAMS
ND
VERTICAL
SETBACK
r-r- ,
~ 100-~0A.5. Bu.ild/nz Hdzht Bnveloue
All bui!di~ on lots w/tb/n the P,-40 d/str/c~ ~hnll be _~. back/~om the prop~ a~ sct forth in
§100-34.
KL Severability.
If en¥ clausc, sentence, paragraph, section, or pm't of thh Local Law shall be adjudged by any
court o£competeut jut/sd/etlon ~o be/rival/d, ~hc judgmcl~t shall not e/~'ect the v/tl/d/ty of th/s
as a whole or any par~ thereof other than the pm't so decided to bc unconsfilufiond or inval/&
IV. Effective date
TMs Local Law sh-l! take eff~/mmed/ately upon filing with ~he Secretly of S~ate as provided
by law.
Stril~-tl~,'ough r~presents d~letion.
Underline represents insertion.
Elizabeth A. Neville
$outhold Town Clerk
ELIZABETH A. NISVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REG~Ti~.B OF ~[TAL STATIS~{CS
~8 ~AGE~NT O~CER
~EDOM OF ~O~TION O~I~R
OFFICE OF ~ TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF $OUTHOLD
Town I-LslI; 53095 Main P, oacl
P.O. Box 1179
/~vthold, New York 11971
Fax (651) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southold~ow~.northfork.ne~
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THR, FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO, 218A OF 2005
WAS ADOPTED AT ~ REGULAR MI~,~TING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON APRIL 12~ 2005:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of'he Town of $outhold h~r~by ~men& resohlfion
adopted at the March 29. 2005 moe~n5 to read as follows mid be it f~rther
RESOLVED that thc Town Board authorizes and directs thc Town Clerk to r~-transmit the
amended.proposed Local Law entitled ~A Loc. al Law in relation to the Help. hr of BuiIdtn~
of R~sidentlal Stmetares" m the Southold Town Planning Board and the ~afl'olk County
Department of Pla-ni~g for their reccmmaendafions and repo~.
WHEP,.~S, there has been presented 1o tho Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk
CotmW, Ne~v York, on the 29~h day of March 2005 a Local Law eniitled "A Local Law in
relati~ to tho Hdzht of Buildings qf Redd~m-ial Stmaures" now, therefore, be it
RESOLVED ~t ~ Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the
aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold~ New York, on the
10th day of May 2005 at 8:00 v.m. at which time all iaterested persons will be given an
opportunity to be heard.
The proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law in. relation to the Height of Bttildin~_ of
Residential Structures" reads as fonows:
LOCAL LAW HO. 2005
A Local Law entitled "A Local Law i~ Relation w the Height of Buildings of Residential
SB'ucture~'.
Bt/IT ENACTED bythc Town Board of thc Town of Southold, a~ follows:
I. Pu.,pos¢- To clmify and establish clear st~n~ governing the max/mum building height of
resideniial sm~ctuz~ To farthe~ preserve the characler of s/ngle-fsmily ndghborhoods. The
changes will create a clear de6~ition for'~-Iei?~at o£Bailding", create a separate definition for
'~Flat and Low-pitched Roof', osi:thlish a maximum building hd~ht for the/Iai and low-piWhcd
wof, and create a he/gh! limit of lvianty-oigh! feet on lots with a width sov~mty (?0) £eet or less.
Additionally, this law inlrodll~es a "bRildin§ height anvelope law" which is ~le~ig~ed to pr~cent
ov~rowding and prevent the loss of opan spac~ air, s~mli/gh~ ami privacy to ndghbors. This
new law establishes a vertical and ho~,ontal build!oS envelope based on the bl~ildi~g setback to
the nearest propa't'y line.
II. Chapt~ 100 oft~¢ Z~i.g Code of the Tova~ of Southold is h~'~by am~ded as follows:
§ 100-13. Dcfi~ilions.
B. Definitions and Usages.
FLAT AND LOW-Pr'fCHED ROOF- Any roof that has a vitch of less thsa 4:12.
HEIGHT OF BLTILDING -- The v~cical distance measured from the average elevation of the
existing ~latural grade adjacent to the bltilding, before any alteration or fill, '..~ '~-,~,. ~.~.....'- ~~- .... ~.v,... v.~
~ to the lowest point of the eaves for fiat and low-vitched roofs, and to the hi~_.hest voint of
tho ridge fqr other t'voe roofs.
§100-32.
The Bulk Sch~lulc for R~idential Districts is amended as attached,
$100-3,L BuildinR _Hight Envelon¢.
A. Lot width of seventy (701 feet or less. All builclln~ on lots within tho AC. R-80. R-120
R-200 and R-400 districts shall b~ set ba~k flora all wrov~'v linm so that the hoiMat of
any ~oint of the building sh~ll not exceed the holtzonlal distance betwee~ the nearest
vro~ert3t line and the close~ noint of the buildin? on a ratio of 1:1 ~.
B. Lot width ov~r sevenW feet. when conslmction is on vacant lot only. All buildings on lots
within tho A-G, R-t0, R-120, R-200 and R-400 diatrict~ shall b~ sot back from all
m~en'v lines so that the height of any ooim et'the builal-g shall not eXe..i~i the
horizontal distance bei'ween the nearest ~ro~ertv line and the close~nomt of the Imildine_
on a 1:1 ratio;
C, Dormers sr~ ~rmitted into vertical setbacks on all b~dines, not to exceed tweniv
fr~e verceat (25%) of ~ total roof lan~,th.
D. Notwithstanalnl any vrovision$ to the contrary, the m~imam he. ight limit for all
baildlll~s shall not exceed the maximall~ 1i~ 'die built sehed~e.
Elizabeth A, Neville
Southold Town Clerk
SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
PUBLIC HEARING
May 10, 2005
8:00 P.M.
HEARING ON "A LOCAL LAW IN RELATION TO HEIGHT
OF BUILDINGS OF
RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES."
Present:
Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton
Justice Louisa P. Evans
Councihnan John M. Romanelli
Councilman Thomas H. Wickham
Councilman Daniel C. Ross
Councilman William P. Edwards
Town Clerk Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Attorney Patricia A. Finnegan
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT there has been presented to the
Town Board of the Town of Southold. Suffolk County, New York, on the 29th day of March 2005 a
Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings of Residential Structures"
and
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a
public heating on the aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold,
New York, on the 10th day of May 2005 at 8:00 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be
given an opportunity to be heard.
The proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings of Residential
Structures" reads as follows:
LOCAL LAW NO. 2005
A Local Law entitled "A Local Law in Relation to the Height of Buildings of Residential Structures".
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows:
I. Purpose- To clarify and establish clear standards governing the maximum building height of
residential structures to further preserve the character of single-family neighborhoods. The changes
will create a clear definition for "Height of Building", create a separate definition/'or "Flat and Lo~-
pitched RooF'. establish a maximum building height for the flat and low-pitched roof, and create a
height limit of t~enty-eight feet on lots with a width seventy (70) feet or less.
Additionally. this law introduces a "building height envelope law" which is designed to prevent
overcrowding and prevent the loss of open space, air, sunlight and privacy to neighbors. This new law
establishes a vertical and horizontal building envelope based on the building setback to the nearest
property line.
II. Chapter 100 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as Follows:
§ 100-13. Definitions.
May 10, 2005 2
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
B. Definitions and Usages.
FLAT AND LOW-PITCHED ROOF- Any roof that has a pitch of less than 4:12.
HEIGHT OF BUILDING -- The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the existing
natural grade adjacent to the building, betbre an',', alteration or fill, tc
lowest point of the eaves for flat and low-pitched roofs, and to the highest point of the ridge for other
type roofs.
§ 100-32.
The Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts is amended as attached.
§ 100-34. Building Height Envelope.
A. Lot width of seventy (70) feet or less. All buildings on lots within the A-C, R-80, R-120~ R-
200 and R-400 districts shall be set back from all property lines so that the height of any point
of the building shall not exceed the horizontal distance between the nearest property line and
the closest point of the building, on a ratio of 1:1
B. Lot width over seventy feet, when construction is on vacm~t lot only. All buildings on lots
within the A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 districts shall be set back from all property
lines so that the height of an,,, point of the building shall not exceed the horizontal distance
between the nearest property line and the closest point of the building, on a l:1 ratio;
C. Dormers are pemfitted into vertical setback on all buildings, not to exceed twenty-five percent
(25°,/o) of the total roof length.
D. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, the maximum height limit for all buildings
shall not exceed the maximum in the bulk schedule.
Ma3,' 10, 2005 3
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
NON NON
LOT ~413TN 70 FEET OR LESS
ALL CBNgT~UCTIBN
1 to 1~
VERTICAL
SETBACK
35'
LOT SFIDTH OVER 70 FEET
',,WHEN CONSTRUCTION I£ ON VACANT LOT ONLY
1 ~:o i
VERTICAL
SETBACK
35'
20'
U'
NON
LOT WIDTH OVER 70 FEET
W~TH EXISTING PRINCIPAL 3UILDINOS
PYRAMID DIAGRAMS
NO
VERTICAL
SETBACK
May 10, 2005 4
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
§ 100-30A.5. Building Height Envelope
All buildings on lots within the R-40 district shall be set back from the property as set forth in §100-34.
III. Severabili~,.
If any clause, sentence, paragraph, section, or part of this Local Law shall be adjudged by any court of
competent jurisdiction to be invalid, the judgment shall not effect the validity of this law as a whole or
any part thereof other than the part so decided to be unconstitutional or invalid.
IV. Effective date
This Local Law shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State as provided by
law.
Strike-through represents deletion.
Underline represents insertion.
May 10, 2005 6
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
COUNCILMAN WICICHAM: I have notice that this has appeared on the Town Clerk's bulletin board
outside, it has appeared as a legal in the newspaper. We have a comment from the County of Suffolk,
"Pursuant to requirements, this is considered to be a matter of local determination." I have many other
communications on this but we thought that tonight it would be appropriate to hear from the people
who have come to address the Board on this first and the written communications can be recorded
aftenvards.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: At this point, we open the floor to the public to address the Town Board on
this public hearing. Yes, Ms. Oliva.
COMMENT FROM AUDIENCE
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually, Mr. Yakaboski, what I am doing actually is a suggestion that was
at the lhst public hearing that I thought was a good one by Mr. LaRocca that people who are able to be
here and may have schedules, to allow them to speak first and that is what, I am going to try that out
tonight but we will make sure it is read into the record. And you know, you are here for the launch of
me taking Mr. LaRocca's advice and actually enacting it here from the dais. You are here for history.
It was a good suggestion.
RUTH OLIVA: Good evening, Ruth Oliva, Chair of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We certainly
heartily, four-fifths of us at any rate, of the Zoning Board, really approve of this amendment to the
code and we hope that you will take this under consideration. This is basically addressed to those lots
that are 70 feet or less because there is a real problem. We have one case just in point, that is coming
up, just to give you an example, it is a 40 foot lot in an area that there are small lots. The person
wishes to build a home 2 ~5 stories tall with a side-yard setback of three (3) feet on each side. So you
can see the problem addressed. We just feel that this proposal will give a benchmark for the applicant
from which to start with. That he ~knows how far and how wide and how high he can go and then it is
up to him, whatever he wishes to do with his architecture.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Could you give that example again? The setback?
MS. OLIVA: The building wishes to be, it is a 40 foot lot...
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Forty foot wide.
MS. OLIVA: Right. The3: wish to build 2 % stories, so that means the height will be at least 30 feet
and the side yards will be 3 feet on each side .....
SUPERVISOR HORTON: And the homes on either side of that are what?
MS. O£IVA: There are homes on either side. It is in a community that all have fairly small lots but
people have taken into consideration their neighbors.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: So the homes on each side of that are not the same size as is being
proposed?
May 10, 2005 7
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Strnctures
MS. OLIVA: That is correct. So this is really what the purpose is and I think it gives the architects a
starting point and it gives us the ability not to have so many variances and theretbre the)' don't have to
go through the systems and drag it out, that they can get to build their houses in a more expeditious
manner, so we really heartily wish that you take this under consideration. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Ms. Oliva. Mr. Yakaboski?
GREG YAKABOSKI: Greg Yakaboski, Southold. Once again, thank you for the Board for this
opportunity. With respect to what Ru'th just had to say, I would respectfully disagree with Ruth.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Actually, if you don't mind. so we are not getting into rebuttal ....
MR. YAKABOSKI: I was just using it as a point of reference.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Alright.
MR. YAKABOSKI: The example which just came up, I have some other comments but the example
which just came up was that, look there is a problem. Here is the example of the problem, somebody
came in with a small lot with a three foot setback. They went to the ZBA to get a variance. That is an
administrative relief procedure. They didn't have to do that. Those people could have come in under
the non-conforming bulk schedule, not never been, did not have to go to the ZBA. The ZBA has the
right to turn them down. I don't see how that illustrates the problem, which kind of leads into what I
wanted to say about this. With respect to both of these laws, ill can, my comments can go to both...
SUPERVISOR HORTON: certainly.
MR. YAKABOSKI: .... public hearings? [ was looking for three things, one, what the problem was
and with respect to that maybe a few specific examples will be helpful just to work off of. Number
re,o, why this particular proposal solves the problem illustrated and number three, that the particular
solutions do not create additional problems or unforeseen problems. I was unable to access the local
law via the website tonight, it was just a malfunction going on. I don't believe it addresses setbacks, if
I am correct, Tom? When you read, you talked about a building envelope but not a setback envelope.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct.
MR. Y.~K?d3OSKI: So my first question to the Board would be, why was, there are two bulk
schedules. All a bulk schedule does is say as-of-right your setbacks and your lot coverage, that kind of
thing, under the law. There is a conforming bulk schedule and non-confomfing bulk schedule. Since
we are talking about small lots, mostly going to the non-conforming bulk schedule. One example, the
one concrete example that I know that comes to mind is there is a house up towards Horton's Point
lighthouse, there is a big house up there on the right, people talked about that a couple of years ago it
was going up and it would be nice to have the dimensions fbr that just to talk about it but it seems to
me that one of the problems there was, or anywhere is that people are upset about, is that the non-
conforming bulk schedule which I cannot recite off the top of my head, Mike Verity is in the back or
Pat might have it, there are short setbacks or excuse me, not very big setbacks for a small lot. It might
be that some of the problems which, I don't know what they are, which are tbstering these laws to be
May 10, 2005 8
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
proposed, would really be more appropriately solved by looking at that non-conforming bulk schedule
and what the as-of-rights setbacks are. Because they are awfully tight to the property line, if memoD'
serves. I don't remember the exact dimensions on a small lot. So people, don't think I am picking on
small lots, there is not much smaller lot than mine. But so we will start there. One, I think it will be
helpful for this Board, it must have happened for the planners, for Mike Verity, for somebody to put
forth two or three concrete examples of the problem, just illustrating them, just to hear the setbacks; so
when you are looking at the solutions, what would actually be allowable, what was the problem, what
x~,ould be allowable? Number two, so again, I don't ~know the exact problem we are trying to solve and
therefore I can't answer my second question which is to see if this solution, proposed solution, solves
that problem. It is a little difficult under the cun'ent facts as they are put forth. Dan, Bill, the rest of
the Board, I don't know, I don't want to call people individually and talk off the record somewhere
about proposed legislation. I ¥iew it a little differently, I will just agree to disagree with the Board
members. You come here, you ask the Board-our managers, what is going on, what is the problem?
They illustrate it for us, they give the facts. It is a little disappointing being on this side of the fence
and you realize how difficult it is, both from a time point and knowledge point, gathering the facts, to
put together information so you can make valid, on the point comments to the Board in response at a
public hearing such as this. I brought it up before, I bring it up again, it would be very helpful for you
folks to consider just putting some concrete facts out there, some concrete examples. Here is the
problem we are trying to solve. Here are the dimensions, what is going on, here are a couple, three or
four real life examples, cross out the names; there we go. I xvill go right down to creating additional
problems. One additional problem would be, it would seem to me and I do not know the answer to
this, there are an awful lot of small lots in town, just the way the town developed; it seems to me that
this law would add to the non-confomfity of a lot of those lots and a lot of those structures. Tenfold.
You are talking Captain Kidd's Estates, you are talking all down by Bayview, you are talking by Ole
Jule Lane in Mattituck, you are talking all throughout Greenport. You are probably talking the
majority of the town is affected by this law. Probably nine out of ten people, ninety-nine out of one
hundred people do not ~know, realize, that their property is affected by this law right now. And I just
urge you folks up there to be real careful before you put forth a law, excuse me, before you enact a law
which is going to affect ten, twenty, excuse me, ten to fifteen thousand people in town, that you know
your facts, you can articulate clearly, succinctly what the problem was, why the solution is here
because now you are getting to non-conforming and again, Mike and Pat can probably in a more recent
example can answer better than I. John Romanelli, I know a lot of people call him, I am sure other
constituents call you folks. A fire in a non-conforming building, if it destroys a certain amount, all ora
sudden it can't be re-built. So by creating this non-conforming, you have existing houses which I
believe might not be able to be rebuilt. It would have to come to the ZBA to get rebuilt. They are
going to have to, they are required, they fall under different building department guidelines when they
COlne in for different plans and projects. I can't articulate, I don't have those laid out in front of me,
again a specific example could provide that. Number two, I go into comprehensive planning in the
town. A lot has been made and Josh has talked a lot about, your entire tenure here, about affordability
of the town. It is one of the main tenets of the comprehensive planning of the town. And I would urge
this Board to talk to your planners, bring your planners in, talk to everybody, I am surprised Philip
Beltz isn't here and the rest of the folks who deal with affordable housing. There has been tremendous
focus on getting, helping people bu.',' new, ney, people who haven't bought, buy houses. There is a
much larger constituency who fits within that affordable population group who is already here in town.
A lot of folks might be fighting to stay in town, you are looking at space issues; both for living and
storage space. They are looking at value issues for appraisals processes, maybe new loans,
May 10, 2005 9
Public Heating-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
refinancing. Things like this. And probably a lot of issues I can't think of right now. And I do not
think, by Philip Behz not being here, [ think it shows, I am not going to make any assumptions, I
would just hopefully that this Board if asked could say, 'hey xve looked at how this affected affordable
population' or households xvhich fit within this criteria and we looked, we took that into account.
Because this is probably going to affect most of your folks on those small lots, in the small houses,
perhaps non-confornfing houses. Again, I would urge the Board not to vote on this tonight unless they
have some specific property examples that you could show and show how, what the problem was and
how this proposed law solves that problem. If you can't show that, you talked about it earlier, about
Vinnie LaRocca, you are trying to allow people who are here to come up and speak fight away before
you read all the written communications. Take into account that they took time out of their busy days
to be here. Along that same vein, I think these folks deserve, it would be helpful, helpful, helpful to the
community, to the people you represent, I think, to have specific examples and facts and put those in
front of the people and just show, lay it out....here is what is going on.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay.
MR. YAKABOSKI: I am not here trying to be antagonistic.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: You have made that point.
MR. YAKABOSKI: You know. ....
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Here, Mr. Yakaboski,
MR. YAKABOSKI: I didn't interrupt you, sir. Unbelievable. And again on that point with respect to
the SEQRA, I think it is urn, I wished that the Board had held offon the vote on the SEQRA, again just
(inaudible) looked at the comprehensive planning aspect of it, not that something that something would
have turned up before or not turned up but again just from a decision making process to look at it.
That is all.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Mr. Simon. Mr. Yakaboski, this is not a place to go back and
forth ....
MR. YAKABOSKI: Step up to the plate when somebody interrupts and just say so...
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Mr. Yakaboski, I am saying something now.
MR. YAKABOSKI: Thank you.
MICHAEL SIMON: Michael Simon, speaking for himself and also as a member of the Zoning Board
of Appeals. I was aware of the possibility of this, what I think much needed piece of legislation,
before I had any idea that I would be in any sense an officer of the Town of Southold. And I was
listening to the remarks of the previous speaker ....
May 10, 2005 10
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
SUPERVISOR HORTON: I am going to step in now, and say this forum is to address your comments
on specific legislation and not rebut each other. I tried to make that clear to Mr. Yakaboski and I am
going to lay the ground work now.
MR. SIMON: Okay. I will then address the consequences of the legislation as I have read the
legislation. Conceruing the effect on making houses more non-conforming for one thing, it
specifically limits this rule to building on vacant lots. Not on lots which are all ready building but
furthem~ore and I think it is worth addressing the argument~ if not the maker of the argument, that if
there were going to be concern about making properties non-conforming, there never would have been
any zoning in this town at all. The houses that are non-conforming, most of them, were built before
there was a zoning code. So they were created as non-conforming when the zoning code was enacted.
There might be a desire in one possible world for everyone to have full information about how this
would work with a variety of t.~qpes of houses, not necessarily actual houses but how this would play
itself out. And that people are perhaps at a disadvantage at a hearing like this because they don't have a
list of actual scenarios, on the other hand, when one talks about the effects on other considerations
such as affordable housing, in the absence of some argument to show how this xvould have some
discernible effect on these other very important issues but of which are not the primary aim of this
piece of legislation, I am not sure how useful those uses are. I would support the laws for the simple
reason that I am aware and have been aware for some time is of properties being built cheek by jowl
near other houses and being built higher than they would be under this law. I happen to live next door
to a house on, I have a piece of property less than a quarter of an acre, as many of the house, the lots in
New Suffolk are. There happens to be a one-half acre lot adjacent to mine. It was empty. Because it
is more than 40,000 square feet. there was a five foot setback required for an accessory building.
Result is five feet from my property line, there is a 25 foot high accessory building, which would not
have been built under this law. couldn't have been built at that time, the idea of having a relationship
between setbacks and height of building is certainly germane with regard to xvhat it looks like or what
it feels like to be IMng up against a windmvless wall. five feet from the edge of one's rather small lot.
And I think that is going to be the case throughout the town. And l don't understand frankly, and 1
haven't heard anything or read anything one way or the other how this is going to affect the salability
of lots or the possibility of affordability of lots, those things, they work in very different directions but
I suppose that one might argue that anything that made the hamlet more attractive, more uni fled, might
increase the demand for property in this town and unfortunately one of the by-products of that is it
moves in the opposite direction from the affordability issue. And the only response I think that could
be made is that this piece of legislation is not about affordability. We do need legislation concerning
affordability, I have not been shown that this is it but that is not an argument against enacting it.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you. Would anybody else care to address the Board on this public
hearing? Yes, sir, Mr. Strang and you will be next, Mr. Dinizio.
GARRETT STR_&NG: Good evening ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for acknowledging my time
here. AfeTM things I would like to address, specifically...
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Your name and place of residence?
May 10, 2005 1 l
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
MR. STRANG: I'm sorry. Garret Strang, architect, Southold and a resident of Southold as well. I
would like to address specifically the item that is in front of the Board at the moment, in front of the
audience here tonight. I have some questions as well as some points I would like to make. But I
would like to open it by sort of echoing a comment that was made by Mr. Yakaboski with respect to
small lots and small homes and the restrictions that this legislation would place upon them. It would
generally in many case, not in all cases but in many cases, prohibit a home from being expanded upon
vertically, which may be the only option available to the owner to increase his living area as his family
or their family grows. There are a fair number of young families in the community, who bought
modest homes because they could afford them. They are at a point in their lives where they may be
outgrowing their homes and need to expand them. If they can't because of this legislation, it puts them
in an unfortunate position of one, having to sell that home and trade-up to another home which in
doing uniquely puts them in a position of having to pay the 2°,~, tax that we have for the preservation of
land which is a burden to them to have to incur that cost, or the alternative to leave Southold Town to
find another place to live where they can get the house that they need. So that is just a thought that
came up that I thought should be given some consideration. With respects to the specifics of the
legislation, as I read it, I had some thoughts that I would like to share and as I said, some questions.
With regard to definitions, it is my position that low pitch roofs really should by definition be those
that are a pitch of 2 on 12 or less, not 4 on 12. I don't really think a 4 on 12 pitch is a low pitch roof.
And I will, a little bit further on here I will give you an idea of why I think that really is the case. I also
think that with respect to building heights that the building heights by definition really should parallel
or adopt the New York State building construction code definition of building heights so there is a
continuity there between zoning and when, the code requirement of the State of New York. With
respect to the building height for a low-pitch roof or a fiat roof, as I read the proposal it makes
reference to that this would be measured from grade to the lowest point of the eave and my feeling is
that it really should be to the highest point of the eave on a low-pitched roof because the example I will
site is this; if you had a building that you were allowed to be at 28 feet to the lowest point of the eave,
with a low-pitched roof and by the definition that is proposed, a 4 on 12 pitch, once that building
exceeded 21 foot in width, you would be already over 35 feet in height, compared to a building with
another type of roof that would be limited to 35 feet. So you could exceed that 35 feet in height
following the definition and what is spelled out here on a 4 in 12 pitch, starting at 28 feet at the low
end going to whatever height you want to. There is no limit as I see it in this legislation, on a low-
pitched roof. So I think that is something that may need to be looked at a little further. Another
question or a question I had is, I know in the pyramid part of this law there is a reference to dormers
but as far as calculating building height, there is no reference to how dormers impact on a building
height. Are the dormers considered in the building height, are they not considered in the building
height? So I think that is an open issue, as least as I read it. I may not be reading this accurately, so I
think it might be in need of some clarification. The other thing that I see also is that if you compare a
fiat or low-pitch roof building to a building with an other type of roof, a gable roof or gambrel roof, hip
roof~ this square box building with a flat roof or low-pitch roof at 28 feet height, even if that were
meant to be the height that it could be maximum, compared to a pitched roof with 35 feet to the ridge,
visually has much more impact, that box, it has much more visual impact and physical impact than
does a pitched roof. So again, Iarn not sure that that's what the intention of this legislation is.
Because we are almost making people, if they want more space, then build a fiat roof and get away
from the traditional character that we have here in Southold Town of the pitched roof because you can
get more bang for your buck with a fiat roof than you can if you went with a gable roof. Now, I would
like to move into the height restriction aspect of things, and just preface this~ I am admiring the fact
May 10, 2005 12
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
that this legislation is being entertained and I know there has been a lot of effort put forth by both the
Board, the Zoning Board and other members who had input in this and I admire them for that and I
think we are probably heading in the right direction but I do think it needs some more help. So that
being said, I believe that height restrictions on buildings should be proportionate to the lot dimensions,
not necessarily the lot area. The disparity, as I see it, is basically if we look at it very simplistically of
this cut-off point of 70 feet, that if you have a lot of 70 feet, you have this rule, if you have a lot that is
71 feet you have that rule. You could in essence build a taller structure on a 71 foot lot next to the
structure you could build on a 70 foot lot. Example being a building, let's say they both have 10 foot
side yards, so they are meeting code, okay? And if we apply the pyramid law, the house on the 70 foot
lot could be build up 15 feet in height, yet if he had 7l feet, he could go up 20 feet. So it is kind of not
fair just for the one foot differential. So what I am thinking or my way of thinking is possibly they
could be considered to apply a ratio or proportionate ratio instead of this, and eliminate this 70 foot
line thing. And just say that the setback would be if a lot, based on a setback, if the setback of a
building was 15 feet or less, you could use a 1:1 toot ratio and if it was greater than 15 feet, you
could use the 1:1 ratio and forget about how wide the lot is. Just put it in place that way, I think it
would be fairer because then you wouldn't have one building looming over another, they would be
more in keeping, more compatible. So, the question that I have, is there going to be or has there been
consideration given to any exemptions for buildings that are in the flood zone and as such are required
to be elevated above grade, above the base flood elevation? Because in some instances, you could
have buildings that have to come up four or five or six feet above grade before they can even start their
structure and they could be seriously adversely impacted by the pyramid law. So I don't know if there
has been any consideration giYen to that. And am I correct in understanding that additions to pre-
existing structures on lots over 70 feet in width are basically exempt from the pyramid status? That
they can go vertically up providing they are meeting the setbacks?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: ,And as it reads, yes.
MR. STRANG: That is the way it reads. Well, would there be exemptions then with, for structures
less than 70 feet? Because we have a lot of houses in the villages and hamlets or whatever that are and
narrow lots and again, their only way to go up or the only way to expand is to go up and if they are not
on a lot that is over 70 feet wide, they are going to be not able to expand. So, once again, there needs
to be some more consideration given to that. A thought, I noticed that dormers, back to the dormer
issue, dormers are allowed provided or allowed to be exempted from the pyramid section up to 25
percent of the roof area. I think more appropriately, 50 percent. It should be 50 percent, because 25
percent of the roof area for a dormer makes it in some instances, especially again on smaller homes,
would make that dormer totally ineffective and xxouldn't make any sense and I don't think 50 percent
dormer area on a roof is excessive, proportionately to the building. And one other question I had, is
there any height restrictions being proposed for the remaining residential districts that are not sighted
in this legislation, as well as our commercial districts, marine districts and other districts? Or are those
buildings not going to be under any height restrictions?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: There is nothing in legislative fon-n but I can tell you that size and height
and setback tbr general is an active discussion with the Board.
MR. STIL&NG: Okay. Because again, I think there were two or three residential zones that aren't
addressed in here that I think maybe should be in some capacity or another and as I wrap up in
May 10, 2005 13
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
sunm~ary this particular situation, I don't know if the Board would consider implementing in this
change or in this code change, a grace period or phase in for projects that are presently in being drawn
up for clients or people who are planning on building, they may be nearing completion of drawings and
have invested a fair amount of time, effort and finances in having their building or home designed, that
may find out that the3, can't build that home if this is a 'boom, drop the gauntlet' type of a legislation.
So, I don't know if there is a way that they could document by making an application to the Building
Department showing that they are substantially along with their project but not yet 100 % complete, to
meet the application process of the Building Departlnent. So, I think that would be a hardship to
people as well. And I thank you for your attentiou.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thauk you for your comments, Mr. Strang. Appreciate it. Would anybody
else care to address the Board'.> Mr. Dinizio.
JAMES DINIZIO, JR.: James Dinizio Jr., Greenport, New York. I am also a member of the Zoning
Board. I am the fifth. Now, I will tell you, one thing is, anything in this law, any house that is
affected by this law should not be seen by the Zoning Board, ever. The Zoning Board has no extra
teeth, whatsoever, in anything that has been affected by this law. Because it deals with conforming
uses and conforming setbacks and you are lowering those conforming setbacks, okay? So, I hold no
extra teeth in this, other than to say to you that the example ora 40 foot lot with three foot setbacks is
not a valid excuse for this law. It has absolutely nothing at all to do with this law. You should take
that into consideration.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: If I could ask a question of you because you are a member of the ZBA, the
example that was given of the three foot setback and the 40 foot lot, is it your contention that this law
v~ouldn't affect that?
MR. DINIZIO, JR.: No.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Okay.
MR. DINIZIO, JR.: This law deals with conforming uses. Now, the example that was given to you is
a three foot setback. That is non-conforming, it is a completely different part of the law. Okay? And,
although it doesn't fall under any different rules other than there is a Board that listens to their reasons
for wanting to build so close to the property tine and we have taken care of that, many times. I can tell
you today, two days from now, my Board is going to consider a house that is going to be m~o stories
tall, nine feet away from the property line, running 42 feet along the property line. Now, that is a
whole lot more obtrusive than this is, on a 70 foot lot. I just wanted to ask you a question, to see if this
makes any sense to you at all. You are, in your purpose saying to us here in the town that .,,'our reasons
for this is to prevent over-crowding. Now, a 70 foot lot has a 10 foot setback, as does a 100 foot lot.
As does any lot that is less than, I forget, 80,000 square feet? Whatever it is. I am just trying to figure
out how you prevent over-crowding when the setback is going to be the same? You are going to have
two houses that are 20 feet apart~ in those particular, in any instance, that are conforming. You are
saying to the house that is the 70 foot lot, they cannot build a second story. You are saying to the
house that is on a 100 foot lot that they can. But how do they gain any more privacy or how do you
gain any less overcrowding because they're still going to be 20 feet apart? That is really, this, there is,
you are not controlling anything here. It seems to me that you are just picking on people who have 70
May 10, 2005 14
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
foot lots. Now, it doesn't make any sense to me how. number two, they are going to gain anymore
open space. It is the same thing. If you have a 35 foot house, that is 10 feet away from your property
line, it is going to be just as obnoxious to the person next door who has a 70 foot lot as it does a 100
foot lot. You don't gain anything from it, okay? No more air. Or I don't kno'.'., maybe you have
measured it, no more air is going to move in between those two houses because it is still 20 feet. You
have done nothing to set those houses apart. Give me a second. Same with sunlight, same with
privacy. I understand where you are trying to get at but honestly, this whole thing came about because
of people who were wanting to expand their non-conformings, okay? This doesn't address that.
Okay? This doesn't give the Board, my Board. any concrete set of guidelines from you that says that if
you are three feet, you can't go more than 15 feet high. You are four feet, you can't go more than 16
feet high. Okay? That is how this all came about, is the decision made by (inaudible) and [ believe
was made wrongly because the Zoning Board is supposed interpret the code. In order for you to
interpret the code, it has to be in the code. Okay? Nov< the Zoning Board made this decision. No one
could figure it out. So, do you knox,,, how we explain it to theln? We give them our decision. Well, if
it is not in the law, if it is not in our code; then it shouldn't make any sense to them. Walz decision
'.,,'as made up by the Zoning Board, three foot setbacks, it was the most horrendous thing you ever
wanted to see. The guy wanted to go two stories high, three feet away from the property line. I would
never do that to my neighbor. But we have no guidelines, we can do what we '.'.'ant to do and basically,
we do. And I can tell you, it is not, there is no conformity in our decisions, in my opinion. If you are
going to do something, this is not it. You have to give direction, you have to give something in our
code that tells people when they read the code, that that Walz decision exists. Okay? That is what you
have to look at. Here, like I say, you still are going to be 20 feet apart, no matter whether that lot is 70
feet or 100 feet. so it really doesn't make a difference. The3' are not gaining anything in open space or
air or sunlight, the3: are not gaining anything. All you are saying is 70 foot lots can't have a two sroO'
house. And number one, how many lots does this affect? Does anybody have any idea? I mean, this is
the Town, we deal with zoning, we deal with lots. We should know this. And Tom, I am going to say
it. yeah, why don't you find out and send each one of those people just a little card telling them you are
considering devaluing their property and let them come here and make their comments. Because I
took this notice offthe board, I see nothing in here about donners. So, nmybe people came in and they
looked at that board and I lmow you changed it because I sa'.'.' it in my own papers but you know, I am
part of the town. I am on the Zoning Board. I read everything. I ask you not to consider this tonight.
It needs much, much more work and it needs more work by people who understand the ramifications
of a decision like this. You not only, with the 70 foot lots but you are changing the dimensions of a
house by your 30 foot rule, 35 foot tall rule. People will never see that. They still are going to see in
the code 35 feet and look at a house that was built under the code and say 'I want a house just like
that.' Where the peak of the roof goes 42 feet because it is measured from a difl?erent distance. They
are never going to Lnow this. This is only going to happen when poor Mike Verity has to tell them.
You know, sitting down there in Town Hall. you knox'.', I am sorry, you can't have this house that you
just spent $20.000 on plans for. Well, why not? My neighbor has it. No, because we changed the
rules. And honestly, I see no good reason for changing the rules. This Town, you know, when you are
talking about the heahh and the welfare of the community, you are talking about the whole community.
Not just some neighbors that are upset about having a larger house than theirs being built in their
neighborhood because they are not used to it. The house that was mentioned up there at Horton's. [
understand it went for a million and a half or a million two. [ don't see where it devalued that
neighborhood in any way. I mean, certainly they got a lot of money for that house. And I am just
hoping that maybe you would reconsider, drop this whole thing. We are not benefiting in any way
May 10, 2005 15
Public Hearing-lteight of Buildings of Residential Structures
from this. But the Zoning Board does, honestly, needs a lot of direction from the Town concerning
that Walz decision and it is because there are so many ways you can interpret something, there are so
many lots that you can look at. And if we don't have an5' guidance at all from the Town Board, then
we are just going to continue to grant variances or not grant variances based on each individual
circumstance and you know, the Town Board, if they see a problem, they should be fixing it. And like
I said, if you look at, I mean, I got oft'the Board right after that, I was offfor two years. When I came
back, we had people standing up in this very room, ! don't knox',' why I am here. They had no idea
why they were here, other than Mike Verity told them to come here. And finally, we had them, they
put on there 'due to the Walz decision' It shouldn't be a decision of the Zoning Board bringing people
here, it should be a decision of the Town. Should be 3'our, the Board's decision bringing people to the
Zoning Board to ask for variances. Not a decision by the ZBA. Alright, I have bored you with that
enough but I hope that you should reconsider this. Thank you very much.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Dinizio. Would anybody else care to address the Board on
this...? Yes, Mr. Goodale.
BOB GOODALE: My name is Bob Goodale, I am from Mattituck. I have a small lot, I have another
small lot, I would like to build on it like I did with this one. I mean, I have to notify my neighbors,
everyone all around the block and no,,,,' there just is going to be one larger layer of bureaucracy upon it.
Please don't give me an,vmore bureaucracy. We have laws, they are in place, let's work with them.
Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank yOtL, Mr. Goodale. ,are there any other comments from the floor on
this public hearing? Yes, Ms. Gould.
JENNIFER GOULD: My name is Jennifer Gould, I live at 1820 Truman's Path in East Marion and I
live on a 40 foot lot. Forty feet wide. I am very much in favor of the proposed law, I think from my
reading of it and Mr. Ross, please correct me if I am wrong, it applies to both non-conforming and
confom~ing lots. By that I mean, if you have a building that exists and it has confomfing setbacks, the
la~ applies to it ....
SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct. That is, your question...
MS. GOULD: On my lot, my structure is non-conforming. I have a setback on one side of six feet and
the other side, 12. The law still applies to me.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: That is correct.
MS. GOULD: And it should. Now, it said here and I read it in the newspaper and conversation that it
is going to create a mass system of non-conformity. I think, I have done Freedom of Informations on
the ZBA zonings on similar properties such as mine because I am in the process of a ZBA hearing
right now and what you will find on most small lots, less than 70 feet, is that they already are pre-
existing, non-conforming when they are that size. It is just the way they were built. And the purpose
of this law, it is all in the eyes of the beholder but to me it preserves my property values if I know the
house next door, when they want to re-build, that the ridge isn't going to be higher than 28 feet. I have
a one and a half story house. My ridge is 20.5 feet and you can stand up in my second floor, I mean,
May 10, 2005 16
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
this is not a hardship. People have talked about hardships tonight. If you have a hardship, I can't see
why you can't have a vertical expansion if you have a conforming 20 foot setback. As I understand
this law, it means if you have an existing structure at 30 feet, your roof has to start going in. How is
that a hardship? But if it is a hardship, if you are in a situation where you are pre-existing, have a five
foot side yard and you want to go up a second story and up this law, it will be 7.5 feet, so you would
go to the ZBA. These people are already going to the ZBA and as Ms. Oliva said, this is providing the
ZBA with a bencl~nark for those variance situations. So most of these lots that are less than 70 are
going to be in the ZBA an3avay. If they are not, it is not going to be a hardship on them because if you
could start a roof at 30 feet, how is that a hardship when the nmx is 35 feet now? The problem under
the current code now is there is no clear definition of where that 35 feet is and that is the point of the
law. But I think there is a lot of misconception and maybe we do need some examples. In the next
hearing, I am going to be happy to give you an example about the problems under our current home
with accessory buildings. Thank you.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Ms. Gould. Are there other comments from the floor on this?
Yes, Mr. Niekles.
JOHN NICKLES, JR.: Good evening, John Nickles, Jr. Southold. I love houses. I am a real estate
broker. I pay attention to them, I look at the lines of their roofs, I look at the proportions of the
setbacks that they have, the proportions to their neighbors. This is something that I think is very
important, it is going to have a big impact on the town and if the Town Board decides that they have to
do something to make homes more proportional to their lot sizes, I think there is another way to do it.
This isn't it. Architecturally. I think the main problem that you are dealing with here, this law is going
to affect mostly lots under 70 feet. It is also going to affect in a big way, lots that are just over 70 feet
and just up to 100 feet. Anybody that has a conforming lot, which is 150 feet wide is not going to have
any problem with this law. I agree with that. So any new subdivision, there is not really going to be
any problem. I think there are some lots out there, they are 150 feet wide and people are not going to
build them probably even 30 feet from the side yard. So I think that a pyramid law really is not going
to have any effect on these conforming properties. It is all of the existing non-conforming properties
which is probably most of the stock out there that this is going to effect. I probably spent way too
much time on this because I have been coloring your diagrams, figuring out actually driving around
town, looking at different types of house styles and 'hey. would that fit under this proposal? That
might, would that one, probably not.' But beyond that, I think when you look at this proposal
architecturally, the main thing that you are changing here, besides considerations for height, is you are
changing the shape of your buildable area. I have a problem with that, architecturally. I don't know if
there are other architects out there that would agree with my point of view but I think when you get on
your smaller lots and you force everything to grow underneath a shape like this instead of a shape like
this, you are forcing gables to face the street. You are discouraging ridges to run left to right and
gables to face the side yards. You are forcing people to, if they are going to build a gabled roof house,
to grow that house on whatever size lot it is, underneath this p.vramid. And [ think that is problematic.
Now, if you take my little diagram here and the easiest way to look at is to just, this is a 50 foot wide
lot as an example. You have your yellow areas which are the minimum setbacks on a lot this size,
presuming it is less than 20,000 square feet. That is ten and 15. And where the orange is, that is what
the current building envelope looks like now and what this proposal is going to do is basically draw
sort of a lopsided p3,q'amid through this. Now, people are going to be able to go to the Building
Department and say. 'okay. m~ minimuln is ten and my maximum is 15. I will do 12 ~'~ - 12 ',5. [ can
May 10, 2005 17
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
center it. It's not really that big ora problem.' But as you take your. as you move this line across here
for your lot width, watch how this think shrinks. So ,,,,'hen you get to, actually when you get to 35 feet
wide as a lot width and you have your 15 foot setback and your 10 foot setback, by the code, without
going to the ZBA, you are going to be allowed to build basically a 10 foot v`'ide house. However, it
will still be able to go 28 feet high. It is problematic. I know that that's not what you guys want to do.
l hope not. I think there is probably a better way to go about it. Mr. Strang talked about the idea of
addressing lot width when it comes to, it sounded like he was talking about proportion of you know, lot
v`'idth proportional to height. I think that the Town Board should look into something like that,
something that doesn't say. hey. it is going to be this shape or it is going to be that shape. That is one
of my problems with the lax,,'. 'You hear me talking about property tights a lot. I am not really going to
do a lot of property rights stuff tonight. I think that the architectural considerations and some of the
things with the non-conformities and what that is going to do to the town are bigger issues. But ! do
have to mention a couple. If you look at the heights and setbacks, you have got three different
scenarios. What I would like to see is, 1 would like to see the law treat people equally. Now this law,
in an attempt to not make so many of these properties non-confomfing as I read it, I think that was
what the intention was-that was a good intention; all lots over 70 feet with existing principal buildings
will be exempt, no vertical setback. That's good but people that have the lots under 70 feet and are
vacant or have a house on them, they are not exempt. That is problematic to me. There is a lot of
these tiny, little lots. You have your minimum non-conforming setback in the Town of Southold is 10
feet. Let's talk a little bit about the reason why [ think we are coming to this point. The Zoning Board
of Appeals is looking for some direction from the Town Board, obviously, I think and to say that this is
going to address that, ! mean, the Town Board could put in its intention, this law is meant to be a guide
for the Zoning Board of Appeals, under no circumstances or they would have to be really hardship
circumstances, if you are inside of a non-conforming setback, then you ought to be able to be able to
have relief from the code. The Toxvn Board could do that now, by the way, as the code is v`'ritten,
without changing the building heights, without creating a pyramid law. I am going to go back to some
of the architecture. Like I have said, I spent too much time on this. I went around and I took a lot of
pictures, I am going to give them to the Board. And I will just go sort of in order of some of the photos
that I took of houses that I know will be affected by this law. This is a histotic house, it is 2 doors west
of the American Legion in Southold on Route 25. This lot is 78 feet wide. Nov,', I did my best guess
estimation. It was either the little short line underneath because on 70 feet or wider, your pyramid is
45 degrees, it is not l:1 [5, it is 1:, so here is one example. So, even if this line is incorrect and this
line out here, we are still cutting these comers off. Your 70 foot wide lots, this is not going to be non-
conforming the way the code is written. I like that, it is one of the things I do like about it but the
problem that I have with it is il' v`,e get on these smaller lots, you are going to eliminate these type of
roof lines. You are going to force the roof lines to either have the comers cut offthem or for people to
face their gables tov`'ard the street so they can fit the house there. I will just go through them. Here is
a house on Town Harbor Lane, right around the comer from my office. I am just showing it because I
wanted to give you perspective of the house with the neighbor. This is the house, this is the neighbor.
This house has probably been there since the 20's or the 30's. Beautiful, old house. Wouldn't be able
to build it under your law. As you can see. it is fairly obvious. I don't need a survey, the property line
is right in the middle of the driveway somev`'here. Here is a better look at the house. You would be
discouraging this type of property. And maybe if you cut this ridge that runs left to tight off, you may
be able to fit that type of house on the property, take away this part. Once again, gables facing the
road. Lined up, over time. hnagine that, one after the other. Here is another house, Youngs Avenue.
It is less than 100 feet wide. I think it is certainly v`'ider than 70 feet. Dray`, a 45 degree angle through
May 10, 2005 18
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
the comer of this house. Once again, is it non-conforming? Not under this law. Can you build this
again on a similar property? Probably not. Hortons Lane, another house, same concept. Some of the
nice amhitecture in the Town of Southold, I love old houses. This used to be Dr. Campbell's house,
my childhood doctor. Comer of Main Road and Oaklawn Ave. Can you build it? This is a comer lot,
so in all fairness, yeah, they would probably have to go to the ZBA anyway, because they have got two
front yards but look at the architecture, look at, try to figure out if something like this would fit under a
pyramid. [ doubt it would. Here is a great house, this is an old house they just renovated on 'Fucker's
Lane. They paid 290 for it. It was a terrible house, a beautiful house but the house was a gut job. It
had a lot of bad things going on inside. But they got their building permit, they renovated it. [t is on a
small lot. It is less than ',q acre. It is less than 70 feet wide. This is something we are trying to
discourage. I mean, I can go on and on. I just want to go through the rest of them. There is only a
couple more. Pequash Road, I have always loved this house. It is a cool house. It is a design, I think
it would be great if more people built these kind of houses in the Town. It is probably about a 70 foot
wide lot. So under either scenario, there is going to be either a sharp line going through the roof, the
top part of the roof or through the middle of the house. So if this is less than 70 feet, this house is non-
conforming. Just so you lo~ow. Most of this stuff is estimation but I have been in the business 10
years now, I haYe got a pretty good eye for these things. It is probably a ten or 15 foot setback, you
can see how the two driveways are split. Very common. Once again, the ridge runs left to fight, tough
to do under a pyramid. New Suffolk, Ne,,,,' Suffolk is a charming little town. People love it. People
are going to try to expand their houses over time, I think a lot of us would like to see things stay the
same. It is sentimental. Sometimes we look at progress and we don't think it is progress but, here is a
little house on King Street, 50 lbot wide lot. Can't build it, non-conforming. New Suffolk, here is a
little house on 4th Street, less than 50 loot wide lot. Can't build it, non-conforming. Here is a house
fight next door, cute little house. But I don't 'know if I xxould want every house to look like that on the
street. Probably can build it, under your proposal. And it might be conforming to your proposed
legislation. So, what I am worried about, largely, is architectural. And I really don't want to see that
the Town change the shape of the building euvelope. [ think it is problematic. I think that there are
some issues in regard to sunlight, I mean, there is some validity to that. But drive down through the
Village of Greenport. There are plenty of 28 to 35 foot houses and even more and they are on 50 foot
or 55 foot lots. Every one of those lots iu the Village of Grcenport, you know, in the heart of the
Village between First and Fifth or Sixth. For the most part. I would have to say it is probably 90
percent or better. ~M~d you know, certain times of the day, there is no sunlight there. ! understand that
the people have the little house next door and noxv all of a sudden you have a 2 !,5 story house. I
understand where people are coming from but what I want to avoid is, make every house gable faces
the street. It is not an ugly house but this type of law, the smaller the lot gets, the more that becomes
the only option they can do. Here is something that ran in the newspaper last December, some people
may remember it or may not, this is something, I have never visited this house. I got it out of a real
estate magazine. I knew that there was a pyramid law in Quogue and there is just nobody that would
design a house like this unless there was a regulation telling them that they had a height restriction. So
I gratuitously drew my 45 degree line, because that is what it is over there and look, it fits very well
with the sideyards. And this house grew underneath the code. No doubt in my mind. Got an entryxvay
here. They couldn't even reall,~ get a second story, so they created some kind of multi-level scenario
and there is probably a finished basement area down under here. But this house grew underneath the
pyramid. I would hate to see that happen out here. There are a lot of small lots that could develop in
that way. And here is a house in Southold. This is probably part of the reason why we are going to
look at building heights, setbacks. This is a beautiful, old house. It happens to be right on the property
May 10, 2005 19
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
line. They used some expensive plantings to screen the property. I don't know, it is not bad. But I
guess people are trying to avoid things like this. This house I think is four or six feet from the property
line. It is in Mattituck. Drove past it, noticed it. Neighbors house is just out of the picture, it is a one
story house but this house didn't have to be as close to the side yard as it did. I am sure the Zoning
Board of Appeals decided that on the merits of the application, that is what they should do but [ know
there are a lot of people that don't think that is a great idea. A while back I had asked Supervisor
Horton to consider a proposal and pass it along to the Board. I think he did. A lot of what the
problem is that you are not sure how to treat these properties that have these pre-existing setbacks,
because so many of them do. They are three feet from the side yard, they are six feet from the side
yard. I and some of my colleagues came up with a way to address these properties. The code says you
can have 35 feet high. The minimum setback in town anywhere on a residential property is ten. You
have these little houses on 40 foot wide lots, 30 foot wide lots, 50 foot wide lots, maybe they are three
feet away. I propose that you create something called a building height multiplier. You take the
maximum height allowed in the district, the minimum setback allowed, divide the maximum height by
the minimum setback. In this case it would be 35 divided by 10. 3.5 would be your building height
multiplier. That means for every foot from your side yard, by right, you can go up 3.5 feet. Now, I
heard somebody say something that this is going to have less applications going to the ZBA. This is
going to have more applications going to the ZBA if this law goes through. If you adopt this proposal,
you xvill have less applications going before the ZBA and you will have a concrete reason why certain
properties that are preexisting, which is a lot of them that have preexisting setbacks and a rationale on
what the limit ought to be. A mathematical sort of reverse pyramid off of your setbacks, actually. It
creates an imaginary line ['rom that point up in the sky, 35 feet up and 10 feet from the side yard down
to the side yard. So that would be a way to regulate these properties. I would like to see it start with
this because a lot of the problems I think that people are addressing are addressing these building
permits that are going before the Zoning Board of Appeals and they are saying, well, you know let's go
35 here. And I can see that there is, there is a rationale and there is very good reasoning why people
that live next door do not want to see a 35 foot high wall, three feet away. And this would be a way to
deal with that. Those are my comments for now. Thanks.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Thank you, Mr. Nickles. Would anybody else care to address the Board on
this specific hearing? (No response) We will close this hearing.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Josh, should we read some of the...?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Oh, yes. Prior to closing the hearing, even those these notices are
incorporated into the record, actually what I ask you to read is the Planning Board notation.
COUNCILMAN WICKHPdVI: This is a note from the Planning Board dated May 9th. "The Planning
Board offers the following comments and recommendations at this time: 1. A height of 22 feet is
excessive for accessory structures and should remain at 18 feet. 2. It is not clear whether or not the
height limitation of 22 feet for accessory, structures is applicable to agricultural structures. (Actually,
these comments have to do with both of the public hearings tonight.) 3. The new restrictions for
accessory structures are applicable to properties in the R-40 Zoning District as described in the purpose
section of the legislation. However, the text of Section 100-33 fails to include the R-40 Zoning
District and should be amended accordingly. 4. The Planning Board supports the concept of
preventing excessive massing of residential structures. Therefore, with respect to the height limitations
May 10, 2005 20
Public Hearing-Height of Buildings of Residential Structures
for residential structures, the Planning Board has no objections to the Local Lax'.' as proposed.
However, additional ne,,'.' legislation is needed to address the issue of existing nonconforming
structures. An existing structure should be allowed to maintain the existing setback without the need
to obtain a variance as long as the degree of nonconformity does not increase. If you have any
questions or need further assistance." We have in addition other letters that are quite lengthy. I don't
knoxv if it is necessary to read them into the record tonight?
SUPERVISOR HORTON: No. We will just make sure they are incorporated as part of the record.
COUNCILMAN WICKHAM: Some very thoughtful responses. Some pictures.
SUPERVISOR HORTON: Very helpful, actually. So we will close the hearing and we '.'.,ill move to
the next hearing, which ','.,as scheduled for 8:05 P.M.
Southold Town Clerk
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (6311 765-6145
Telephone ~631) 765-1800
sout holdtown.nort hfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 303 OF 2005
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON MAY 10, 2005:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby authorizes and directs
Supervisor Joshua Y. Horton to retain L.K. McLean Associates to conduct a SEQRA
review on the proposed Local Laws entitled "A Local Law in relation to Size, Height and
Setbacks for Accessory Buildings" and "A Local Law in Relation to Height of Buildings of
residential Structures"~ for the sum of $400.00 pursuant to their proposal.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax ¢631) 765-6145
Telephone ¢631) 765-1800
southo]dtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 304 OF 2005
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON MAY 10, 2005:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby determines that the
proposed amendment to Chapter 100 of the Town Code "A Local Law in Relation to
Height of Buildings of Residential Structures" is classified as a Type II action pursuant to
SEQRA rules and regulations, and is not subject to further review under SEQRA.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWIq CLERK
R E GIST RAI~3X~ITAL tSTATISTICS~- ~
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone ~631) 765-1800
southoldtown.nort hfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 12, 2005
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Toxvn Board of the To~m of Southold will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the aforesaid
Local £aw on May 10. 2005. at 8:00 pm, the Local Law is entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings
of Residential Structures".
Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience. Thank
Attachments
cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning
Village of Greenport
Town of Riverhead
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Assessors
Southold Town Building Department
Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Clerk
Long Island State Park Commission
Town of Shelter Island
Town of Southampton
Southold Town Trustees
Southold Town Board of Appeals
DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southotd, New York 11971
Fax 163D 765-6145
Telephone ¢631 ~ 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 12, 2005
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the aforesaid
Local Law on May 10, 2005, at 8:00 pm, the local Law is entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings
of Residential Structures". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience. Thank
you.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Clerk
Attachments
cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning Long Island State Park Commission
Village of Greenport Town of Shelter Island
Town of Riverhead Town o f Southampton
Southold Town Planning Board Southold Town Trustees
Southold Town Assessors Southold Town Board of Appeals
Southold Town Building Department
Signature, Received By
Date:
DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
~CM~RIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall. 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone [63D 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 12, 2005
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the To~xm of Southold will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the aforesaid
Local Law on May 10, 2005, at 8:00 pm, the Local Law is entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings
of Residential Structures". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience. Thank
you.
Attachments
cc:
Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Clerk
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Village of Greenport
Town of Riverhead
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Assessors
Southold To~vn Building Department
Long Island State Park Commission
Town of Shelter Island
Town of Southampton
Southold Town Trustees
Southold Town Board of Appeals
e~'ei~ed Bf' "~ U
DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO
SOUTHOLD TO'~VN CLERK
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTI:C&R OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF [NFORMLATION OFFICER
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 12, 2005
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (6311 765-6145
Telephone ~631 ~ 765-1800
southoldtown.nor t h fork.net
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the aforesaid
Local Law on May 10, 2005, at 8:00 pm, the Local Law is entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings
of Residential Structures". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience. Thank
you.
Attachments
Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Clerk
Suffolk County Department of Plmming
Village of Greenport
Town of Riverhead
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Assessors
Southold Town Building Department
Long Island State Park Commission
Town of Shelter Island
Toxvn of Southampton
Southold Toxvn Trustees
Southold Town Board of Appeals
S i g n a~u r e ,~ ~ e~x~d 'B~
Date: ~/] ~L/tg~
DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REI ;[STI:L, kR OF VITAL STATIST[CS
M.~q.R IAGE OFFICER
RI,X'ORDS I~L, kNAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
$outhold, New York 11971
Fax 163D 765-6145
Telephone (6311 765-1800
southoldtown.nort h fork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 12, 2005
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the aforesaid
Local Law on May 10, 2005, at 8:00 pm, the Local Law is entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings
of Residential Structures". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience. Thank
Attaclunents
cc:
Elizabeth A. Neville
Toxvn Clerk
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Village of Greenport
Town of Riverhead
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Assessors
Southold Town Building Department
Long Island State Park Commission
Town of Shelter Island
Town of Southampton
Southold Town Trustees
Southold Town Board of Appeals
DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
APR 1 2 2005
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTi~i.R OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
FFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 12, 2005
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631~ 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown, nort hfork.net
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the aforesaid
Local Law on May 10, 2005, at 8:00 pm, the Local Law is entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings
of Residential Structures". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience. Thank
you.
Attachments
cc:
Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Clerk
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Village of Greenport
Town of Riverhead
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Assessors
Southold Town Building Department
Long Island State Park Commission
Town of Shelter Island
Town of Southampton
Southold Town Trustees
Southold Town Board of Appeals
~-gnature, Received By~
Date:
DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOV(N CLERK
REGISTtL~kR OF VITAL STATISTICS
M.~RRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS NL~AGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631i 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 12, 2005
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a PUBLIC HEARiNG on the atbresaid
Local Law on May 10, 2005, at 8:00 pm, the Local Law is entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings
of Residential Structures". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and remm to me at your earliest convenience. Thank
yOU,
Attaclunents
Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Clerk
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Village of Greenport
Town of Riverhead
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Assessors
Southold Town Building Department
Long Island State Park Commission
Town of Shelter Island
Toxvn of Southampton
Southold Town Trustees
Southold To~vn Board of Appeals
Si B
DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RET~D TO
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REG[STP~AR OF V[T.~L STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631~ 765-6145
Telephone ~ 631 ) 765-1800
southoldtown.nort h fork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 12, 2005
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the aforesaid
Local Law on May 10, 2005, at 8:00 pm, the Local Law is entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings
of Residential Structures". Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience. Thank
you.
Attachments
cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning
Village of Greenport
Town of Riverhead
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Assessors
Southold Town Building Department
Signature, Received By
Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Clerk
Long Island State Park Commission
Town of Shelter Island
Town of Southampton
Southold Town Trustees
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Date:
DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax 163D 765-6145
Telephone (631 i 765-1800
sout holdtown.north fork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 12, 2005
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Toxvn of Southold will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the aforesaid
Local Law on May 10, 2005, at 8:00 pm, the Local Law is entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings
of Residential Structures". Please sigma the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience. Thank
Attachments
cc;
Elizabeth A. Neville
To~vn Clerk
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Village of Greenport
Town of Riverhead
Southold To~vn Planning Board
Southold Town Assessors
Southold Toxvn Building Department
Long Island State Park Commission
Town of Shelter Island
Town of Southampton
Southold Town Trustees
Southold Town Board of Appeals
?Tt/Od-c tx rt ~4e/,~.q,. ~ Date:
Signatt~r[, Received B~ "--
DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTI~kR OF VITAL STATIST[CS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York ! t97 !
Fax (631~ 765-6145
Telephone 1631) 765-1800
sout holdtown.nort h fork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
April 12, 2005
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a PUBLIC HEARING on the aforesaid
Local Law on Ma.,,' 10, 2005, at 8:00 pm, the Local Law is entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Iteight of Buildings
of Residential Structures".
Please sign the duplicate of this letter and return to me at your earliest convenience. Thank
Attachments
cc: Suffolk County Department of Planning
Village of Greenport
Town of Riverhead
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Assessors
Southold Town Building Department
Signature, Receix ed By
Elizabeth A. Neville
Town Clerk
Long Island State Park Commission
Town of Shelter Island
To~vn of Southampton
Southold Town Trustees
Southold Town Board of Appeals
Date:
APR 1 3 2005
-- ~APPEAL$
DUPLICATE TO BE SIGNED AND RETURNED TO
SOUTHOLD TOWN CLERK
PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS
JERILYN B. WOODHOUSE
Chair
WILLIAM J. CREMERS
KENNETH L. EDWARDS
MARTIN II. SIDOR
GEORGE D. SOLOMON
To:
From:
PLANNING BOARD OFFICE
TOVCN OF SOUTHOLD
MEMORANDUM
Elizabeth A. Neville, Town Clerk
Jerilynn Woodhouse, Planning Board Chairperson
MAILING ADDRESS:
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, NY 11971
OFFICE LOCATION:
Town Hall Annex
54375 State Route 25
(cor. Main Rd. & Youngs Ave.)
Southold. NY
Telephone: 631 765-1936
Fax: 631 765-3136
RECEIVED
10 2005
Southold Town Clerk
Date: May 9, 2005
Re:
Planning Board Comments/Recommendations Re:
"A Local Law in relation of the Height of Buildings of Residential
Structures"
"A Local Law in relation to the Size, Height and Setbacks for Accessory
Structures"
As requested, the Planning Board has reviewed the legislation in reference to the
above-captioned Local Law proposals, which are subject to a pubic hearing on
May 10, 2005. The Planning Board offers the following comments and
recommendations at this time:
1. A height of 22' is excessive for accessory structures and should remain at
18'.
2. It is not clear whether or not the height limitation of 22' for accessory
structures is applicable to agricultural structures.
The new restrictions for accessory structures are applicable to proper/ies
in the R-40 Zoning District as described in the Purpose section of the
legislation. However, the text of Section 100-33 fails to include the R-40
Zoning District and should be amended accordingly.
The Planning Board supports the concept of preventing excessive
massing of residential structures. Therefore, with respect to the height
limitations for residential structures, the Planning Board has no objections
to the Local Law as proposed. However, additional new legislation is
needed to address the issue of existing nonconforming structures. An
existing structure should be allowed to maintain the existing setback
without the need to obtain a varianceO as long as the degree of
nonconformity does not increase.
If you have any questions or need further assistance,
Enc.
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
COUNTY OF SUFFOLK
SUFFOLK COUNTY EXECLmVE
RECEIVED
~A¥ - 6 2005
April 29, 2005
Town Clerk
Town of Southold
Applicant: Town of Southold
Zoning Action: Amended resolution #218A "Height of
Buildings of Residential Structures"
Public Hearing Date: 5/10/05
SCPC File No.:
SD-05-04
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to the requirements of Sections A 14-14 to 23 of the Suffolk County Administrative
Code, the above referenced application which has been submitted to the Suffolk County Planning
Commission is considered to be a matter for local determination as there is no apparent significant
county-wide or inter-community impact(s). A decision of local determination should not be
construed as either an approval or disapproval.
Very truly yours,
Thomas Isles, AICP
Director of Planning ~,~
{,,'~Andrew P. Fre engq, A1C~
Principal Planner
APF:cc
RE: P. EI.~ 8:00 PM, May 10, 2005
~o,wthotd Town ClerJ
Donald Alberto, Archite¢6 ,41,4
PO Box 1224
$outkold, N.Y. 11971-1224
68 Hlghland Avenue
Port Woskl~gton, N.Y., 11~0
May 6, 2005,
Elizabeth Neville
Town Clerk
Town of Sonthold
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
PO Box 1179
Southold,, N.Y. 11971-1179
RE: Proposed Local Laws: Accessory Buildings and Height of Buildings
Dear Town Cleric Elizabeth Neville:
I am not able to attend the public hearing on May 10, 2005 for the proposed changes to the Town Zoning
Code, however I hope my concerns can be read into the transcripts of the public hearing.
I am writing as a Town of Southold homeowner as well as a design professional with experience in zoning
law. From 1994 to 1998 1 was Building Commissioner for the Town of North Hempstend where I was
instrumental in writing several zoning laws that addr~vssed overbuilding. Since 1998 1 have held the
position of Superintendent of the Building Depamnent for the Village of North Hills. I also have an
architeotural practice speciali~6ng in residential design.
Over the past year I have had numerous conversations with the Building Depamnent regarding the
construction of an accessory structure by a developer behind my house at 415 Blue Marlin Drive. Alfl~ough
labeled a garage on the approved plans, it was built with a full second story with windows on two sides. It
will obviously be used as occupancy of some kind. The Building Department has explained that its bulk
meets Town Code and until such time as the seeund floor is used it is in compliance. (see _~,~hed photos).
The present accessory structure code allows buildings to be too high. On several occasions visitors to my
residence have stated "I did not know the Town allows two houses on one lot". There is a problem with the
zoning code when such massive accessory smactures with future uses are allowed to slip through the local
law. Furthermore, it will lead to future problems for the Town when a property Owner proceeds with an
illegal use in such slzuctures.
I am in sU'ung support of lowerin~ the maximum height to fue ridge of an accessory sU'ucture so that it will
be limited to a one-story smactore. The proposed law of 22 feet to the ridge is still high enough to build a
second story. I recommend a maximum height to ridge of 16 feet with no dormers allowed. This will make
it impossible to sneak in a second floor (except for a small storage attic).
May 6, 2005 page 2
Town Clork Elizabeth Neville:
In regards to "building height envelope law" I believe this is an effective way of minimiz'mg the inmision
of excessive bulk on adjoining properties, and I encourage the adoption of the law as written with one
reservation, the maximum height of lhe building. I agree with lhe change to file definition of lhe height to
be the highest point on a building. I am concerned that 28 feet may be too reslrictive to architectural design
and may encourage more use of flat roofs. Please consider a maximum height of 30 feet.
Thank you for Oae consideration of these requests.
Sincerely,
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS M.~NAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Apfil19,2005
Re: Reso. # 218A regarding proposed Local Law in
relation to "A Local Law in relation to the Height of
Buildings of Residential Structures" of the Code of the
Town of Southold
Thomas Isles, Director of Planning
Suffolk County Department of Planning
Post Office Box 6100
Hauppauge, New York 11788-0099
Dear Mr. Isles:
The Southold Town Board at their regular meeting on April 26, 2005 adopted the above
amended resolution. Certified copy of same is enclosed.
Please prepare an official report defining the Planning Commissions recommendations with
regard to this proposed local law and forward it to me at your earliest convenience. This
proposed local law has also been sent to the Southold Town Planning Board for their review.
The date and time for the public hearing is 8:00 PM, Tuesday, May 10, 2005. Should you have
any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
Enclosures
cc: Town Board
Town Attorney
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VITAL ~TATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (631) 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
Apfil19,2005
Re: Reso. # 218A regarding proposed Local Law in
relation to "A Local Law in relation to the Height of
Buildings of Residential Structures" of the Code of the
Town of Southold
Jerilyn B. Woodhouse, Chairman
Southold Town Planning Board
Southold Town Annex
Southold, New York 11971
Dear Ms. Woodhouse:
The Southold Town Board at their regular meeting on April 26, 2005 adopted the above
amended resolution. Certified copies of same are enclosed.
Please prepare an official report defining the Planning Boards recommendations with regard to
this proposed local law and forward it to me at your earliest convenience. This proposed local
law has also been sent to the Southold Town Planning Board for their review. The date and time
for the public hearing is 8:00 PM, Tuesday, May 10, 2005. Should you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk
Enclosures
cc: TownBoard
Town A~omey
LI~GAL NOTICE to,,.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC Bulk ~' 'ule for Rc4denlial I)isldCls
ltEARING ....,,
NOTICE IS HEREB,' District ~c , r4o k , r-,~,, a-:oo r-~,,I, ,.o rr m) rc,i,,, ~ eamib
the 29tit dax t;t' March 2005 a x~ailuble
Local La,x-entitled "A Local
FURTHER GIVEN thai the
Southo[d. Ncxk ~3rk. on the
~ at (vhicb time all interest-
~be >roi~sed local la~x
relation to the Heieht of
2005
Resl~dential Slructures"~
BE IT ENACTED b3 the
Southold~ as [bllo~s:
I. Purpose- To clari~k and belbre any alteration or fill, ~ buildines, not to exceed twen-
....... ....gt ~ ............ root tV-five~ercent (25%) of the
establish dear standards'gox- ~gr flat aag mangarg r88~ ~::g tbta[ roof[eneth.
cmin~ the maximum buildin~ ,..;~k, ~
hei~ of residential stmcmr~ :~; t,~c :n:an .... e ............. D. Notwi~standing an~
to tunher prcsc~e the charac .............. = ............ tv- provisions to the contras,, thb
tcr of single-thmiiv neighbor- ra~:~g, to the lowest ooint of maximum height limit ~br all
hoods. The cbanec~ willcreate the eaxes tbr flat arid Iow- buildings shallnot exceed the
a clear defioitioh for "Heieht pitched roofs, aBd to the hi~h- maximfim in the bulk scbed-
of Building'. create a se~afitte est point of the ridee for omer ult.
definton tor"Flat and Lox~- ~ ( 100-30A.5. BuildJn~
pitched RooW. establish a ~100-32. Hei~htEt~xelopc ~~_.. s~x~c~
maximum buildim, hcieht lbr Fhc Bulk Schedule lbr A~ buildines on lots x~itbin
~ Residential Districts is amcDd- the R-40 dish'ict shall be set
the fiat and Ioxx~tcbea rool~
t~entvci~htlbctt~nlotswitha ~100-34. Buildin~ [tei~ht fo~bin(100-3~.
widtb-sev)ntx 170} l~et or less. Enxdope. - Ill. Se~erabilit).
Additionalf3. this law intro- A. Lot width ol'seventx ~70) IF ans clause, sentence.
l~et or less. All buikti~i,,, ~ )ara~ra~h. ,ection, or part of L ~.. t I
duceSlope laxxa "building,. x~ luchqsbeiebtde~im~cdCnx C-to lots x~itbin thc A-(', R-8~, - t ~ s ~ Loca Law shall be ~"
)rcxcntnscrcrosxdin~z~dwc_ 120, R-20OandR-4OOdi,tricts adjndged by ans court of
sunlight and )rl~acx [o neigh- crt5 lines so that thc height of inxalid, th~ Lid~nlent shall ;~ ~ VERTICAL
bors.'lhis new I~ ~stabli~hc, an~ *oint of thc buildin~sha[l not cl't~c[ the kahdit) ol this
a ~crtical and I~orizontal build- not exceed thc hor zont~l di~- la~k as a whole or an5 part
propert~ line. point of thc building, on a ratio or invalid.
II. -Chaptc~ I00 of the oF1:[ ~:. I~. Efl~ctinedate
Zonine Code cfi' the lb~n of B- Lot width over sexenty I'his local Law shall take
South~ld i~ hcrcb5 amended fbcl, ~hen construction is on efl~ct immediately tlpoll iii-
as tblloxxx: vacant lot 01115'. All buildings ing x~ith thc Secre~at~ of State
¢ 100-1~. Definition~. oa lots within the A-C, R-gl). as provided by law. -
B. Definitions and Usages. R-120, R-200 and R-400 dis- Strikc-throdgh represents :~ . a~'~'e V[~Tm~L
FLAT AND LOW- triers shall bc set back from deletion.
PITCIIED ROOF- An~ root' all *ropcrt5 Enos so that the Underline repre~eBts inset-
that has a pitch of less than he ~ ~t of an5 po nt of the tion.
4:12. builditm sitall ilot exceed the Dated:March 29. 2005 ' k
HEIGHT OF BUILDING horizotftal di>taocc between BY ORDER OF THE TOWN .'ETH
~hc xcrtical distance incas- the nearest pr.opertv line aod BOARD OF IHE TOWN OF
Lu'ed l?om the axeragc ciera- thc closest point of thc build- SOUFttOL[) PY~MID
tion of thc existin~ natural in~, on a 1:1 ratio; Elizabeth Neville
grade adjacent to tb~boilding. C. Dormers are t*ennitted Town Clerk
into vertical setback on all IX414051694)
ELIZABETH A. NEVILLE
TOWN CLERK
REGISTRAR OF VIT.~L STATISTICS
MARRIAGE OFFICER
RECORDS MANAGEMENT OFFICER
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION OFFICER
Town Hall, 53095 Main Road
P.O. Box 1179
Southold, New York 11971
Fax (631) 765-6145
Telephone (63D 765-1800
southoldtown.northfork.net
OFFICE OF THE TOWN CLERK
TOWN OF SOUTHOLD
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE FOLLOWING RESOLUTION NO. 218A OF 2005
WAS ADOPTED AT THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE SOUTHOLD TOWN BOARD
ON APRIL 12, 2005:
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold hereby amends resolution #159
adopted at thq March 29~ 2005 meeting to read as follows and be it further
RESOLVED that the Town Board authorizes and directs the Town Clerk to re-transmit the
amended proposed Local Law entitled "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings
of ResidentiallStructures" to the Southold Town Planning Board and the Suffolk County
Department of Planning for their recommendations and reports.
WHEREAS, there has been presented to the Town Board of the Town of Southold, Suffolk
County, New York, on the 29th day of March 2005 a Local Law entitled "A Local Law in
relation to the Height of Buildings of Residential Structures no , therefore, be it
RESOLVED that the Town Board of the Town of Southold will hold a public hearing on the
aforesaid Local Law at the Southold Town Hall, 53095 Main Road, Southold, New York, on the
10th day of May 2005 at 8:00 p.m. at which time all interested persons will be given an
opportunity to be heard.
The proposed local law entitled, "A Local Law in relation to the Height of Buildings of
Residential Structures reads as follows:
LOCAL LAW NO. 2005
A Local Law entitled "A Local Law in Relation to the Height of Buildings of Residential
Structures".
BE IT ENACTED by the Town Board of the Town of Southold, as follows:
I. Purpose- To clarify and establish clear standards governing the maximum building height of
residential structures to further preserve the character of single-family neighborhoods. The
changes will create a clear definition for "Height of Building", create a separate definition for
"Flat and Low-pitched Roof', establish a maximum building height for the flat and low-pitched
roof, and create a height limit of twenty-eight feet on lots with a width seventy (70) feet or less.
Additionally, this law introduces a "building height envelope law" which is designed to prevent
overcrowding and prevent the loss of open space, air, sunlight and privacy to neighbors. This
new law establishes a vertical and horizontal building envelope based on the building setback to
the nearest property line.
II. Chapter 100 of the Zoning Code of the Town of Southold is hereby amended as follows:
§ 100-13. Definitions.
B. Definitions and Usages.
FLAT AND LOW-PITCHED ROOF- Any roof that has a pitch of less than 4:12.
HEIGHT OF BUILDING -- The vertical distance measured from the average elevation of the
existing natural grade adjacent to the building, before any alteration or fill, ~4~h/-glt~-po~ff
reefs, to the lowest point of the eaves for flat and low-pitched roofs, and to the highest point of
the ridge for other type roofs.
§100-32.
The Bulk Schedule for Residential Districts is amended as attached.
00-34. Building Height Envelope.
A. Lot width of seventy (70) feet or less. All buildings on lots within the A-C, R-80, R-120,
R-200 and R-400 districts shall be set back from all property lines so that the height of
any point of the building shall not exceed the horizontal distance between the nearest
property line and the closest point of the building, on a ratio of 1:1 Vz.
B. Lot width over seventy feet, when construction is on vacant lot only. All buildings on lots
within the A-C, R-80, R-120, R-200 and R-400 districts shall be set back from all
property lines so that the height of any point of the building shall not exceed the
horizontal distance between the nearest property line and the closest point of the building,
on a 1:1 ratio~
C. Dormers are permitted into vertical setbacks on all buildings~ not to exceed twenty
five percent (25%) of the total roof length.
D. Notwithstanding any provisions to the contrary, ~ the maximum height limit for all
buildings shall not exceed the maximum in the bulk schedule.
Elizabeth A. Neville
Southold Town Clerk