Bayville's Zoning Should Follow Hamlet's Lead
This past Tuesday, a hearing was held at the Oyster Bay Town Board meeting regarding proposed changes to current zoning laws in the Hamlet of Oyster Bay and possibly the entire Town. At the hearing, results of a study done by Fredrick P. Clark Associates were presented to the board. These proposed changes are a direct result of community concern regarding over development, over sized houses, and the common practice of developers demolishing older homes to sub-divide and re-develop land. This concern led to the formation of Save the Jewel by the Bay and a moratorium on residential construction for over a year while the study was conducted. Save the Jewel has been credited with bringing about these proposed changes through their signature style of cooperative activism that should be a model for any group looking to lobby for changes in their community. They, as well as the Town Board, should be commended for their efforts.
The Northender.com has a very good article this week about this meeting. If you are not subscribed to the Northender.com, you should probably consider doing so. The link to the story is: www.northender.com/feature_story_details.jsp?id=696
Many of the regulations proposed in the study are not unlike regulations being adopted by municipalities across Long Island. Two of these regulations are becoming more and more common and are designed to control the size and configuration of houses based on the property they are built on, and to limit the adverse effects on neighboring properties. They are the Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, and the Height Setback Ratio and are briefly discussed in the Northender.com article. These regulations are very effective in controlling the construction of large box shaped houses and result in houses with second stories that are slightly set back from the first story building line. This, in turn, results in more time and effort being spent on architectural design.
Another change that is being discussed, is the adoption of a more comprehensive tree ordinance for the Town. The current tree ordinance was described by the consultant as “administrative in nature”. Basically this means you fill out a form, pay a fee, and the permit is issued without review or provisions for mitigating the effects of the lost trees. Some of the elements being discussed for the new ordinance are mandatory tree replacement, preference for native tree species and a review process, especially when part of a building permit or subdivision.
These proposed changes, and just as importantly the process that brought them about, should serve as a model for other communities. Bayville is badly in need of similar changes that are tailored specifically for Bayville. I am told that the Planning Board has discussed ways for addressing over development and would like to see these ideas and others discussed further so that they can evolve into a comprehensive plan that addresses the needs of this community. I also think that, particularly with the pending sale of the St. Gertrude’s property, a moratorium should be considered and adopted prior to any subdivision of the property. I am looking forward to comments on this entry.
Barry E. Lamb
Bayville
I was astonished to hear a builder state that no one would buy a house with fewer than 4 bedrooms anymore. He implied that it would be a hardship if homeowners were prevented from expanding their property. I wonder how many of the "bungalows on the beach" in Bayville have 4 bedrooms and if they are not selling as a result?
Caroline S. DuBois
Oyster Bay Cove
Reply to this
Dear Caroline,
The builder's comments reflect the desire of the average consumer seeking to purchase "new construction" and what provides purchasers with the greatest return in terms of resale down the road. A 4 BR, 2 1/2 bath home is more "standard" and "desireable" than a 3 BR, 1 1/2 bath home. Comparing new construction to the pre-1938 cottages which were built here is comparing apples and oranges.
As far as Bayville following TOB, I think it is the other way around. Because Bayville is an Incorporated Village, it has had zoning laws since 1938. Zoning was upgraded in the 80's and many of the features Barry listed above are already in place here. We have an Environmental Conservation Commission who are sticklers about tree elimination/replacement. We have an Architectural Review Committee. We have side-yard and front & rear set-back restrictions and we have a 28' height limit already in the Code. I see absolutely no reason to impose a moratorium on building, especially attempting to target a specific piece of property which I believe would be considered discriminatory. When the time comes for the St. Gertrude's property to be sub-divided, it will have to go through the established process, just as the Cotell property did in the past.
Reply to this
Curious,
While you and I definitely don’t agree on this subject, I appreciate both your position and a well thought out post that opens the subject to debate. I hope that you continue to represent those views. A topic that is opened to discussion without opposing views is pretty much me talking to myself.
It is true that the zoning code was amended in the 80’s, which included up-zoning several areas. The changes went a long way towards addressing the concerns that stemmed from a zoning code (1938) that was developed and enacted when land was dirt cheap in relation to the cost of constructing a house and Bayville was primarily a summer community. Back then it wasn’t uncommon for municipalities to include laws that set standards for the minimum square footage of a new home (1500-sq. ft. was common) in order to keep the area from becoming too downscale.
In the 80’s the cost of land soared and Bayville had evolved into a year-round residential community. The result was increasingly larger houses with more bedrooms being built on building lots that were originally sized for summer cottages. The effects of increased density on parking, infrastructure and quality of life is too vast to discuss in this reply, but obviously they were profound enough to warrant changes to the code. The administration at that time (I believe it was Mayor Siegel) is to be commended for having the foresight to make these changes.
The economics between the 80’s and 2006 have changed every bit as much as they did between 1938 and the 80’s. At this point land has become so expensive that it is very often profitable for developers to buy a modest sized house and knock it down to make room for a building that utilizes every square inch that is allowed by the code. The results can be seen all over the village. Massive houses on small plots that block sunlight from reaching the neighbors’ property. The only people who profit from this are the developers. Everybody else pays.
The regulations that I discussed in this entry are not included in Bayville’s zoning regulations. Height limits and minimum setbacks are not the same thing as a Height/Setback Ratio and maximum lot coverage is different than a Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The Height/Setback Ratio is like an inclined plane drawn from the property line and extending upward and toward the middle of the property through which the building cannot extend. The effect is that, at the minimum setback, you cannot build to the maximum height and would have to set the second floor back from the first. The FAR limits the maximum square footage so as to discourage houses that occupy the maximum lot coverage on the first floor with an identically sized second floor. The result of this layout is a giant, box shaped building.
To be continued in comment below.
Reply to this
In August of 2005, I submitted a letter Mayor Seigel and the Board of Trustees asking them to consider these regulations and other zoning controls. This was in connection with an application that was being considered by The ZBA and The Planning Board to subdivide a lot in a way that would result in the creation of a “flag lot”. To the credit of the Mayor and Board, they acted immediately to stop the creation of flag lots by adopting a law prohibiting them. They also requested that the Planning Board to consider other ways to control overbuilding, but as of yet have not adopted any other recommendations.
At this point these other measures need to be considered and discussed in a public forum.
Barry E. Lamb
Bayville
Reply to this
Barry,
I am sure you are aware, but for those who are not...there is a public notice posting in IGA regarding a zoning issue. I read it quickly and do not remember the address but the meeting is December 13th and it is for a parcel of land to be subdivided into two non-conforming plots.
Creation of non-conforming lots only detract from the value of the homes around them and thus the neighborhoods. Bayville needs to be more proactive and change its ways now. It is a little too late to change zoning (i.e. outlawing the flag lots) when there is no more land to make into flag lots. It is post humorous, thus even though their actions were immediate in changing the zoning, they were too little too late for other lots.
Barry, always appreciate your posts. They are very well written. Thanks.
Margaret
Reply to this
Margaret,
"Post humorous" - does that occur after one has died laughing? LOL!
Barry,
It appears that you support what you described as the Height/Setback Ratio over FAR. I have to question the wisdom of this sort of limitation on architecture, as it would eliminate the construction of traditional Colonials, by far the most popular model of home. It would also prohibit canterleavering, a feature of many hi-ranches. With the ever rising cost of land and construction, home buyers want the most living space they can get for their ever shrinking dollar. No one wants to lose sunlight, but that is something you should take into consideration as a future possibility if you buy a home next to an empty lot. I disagree that only the builder profits. With the sort of limitation you propose, the value of existing Colonials will increase due to a limited number being resold and no new ones being built. This would be an example of supply and demand at its most basic level.
Reply to this
I would like to add one more comment, and this addresses the issue a little more broadly concerning property rights in America in general. One of the privileges of owning property in this country grants individuals the right to not only "peaceful enjoyment" but also "highest and best use" of their property. We must be very careful when giving government the right to rescind privileges we currently hold, as the chances of ever getting them back again would be slim to none.
I am opposed to flag lots. I was driving in Greenvale yesterday in a development where very expensive "boxlike" homes of which you speak are built in a double row, flag lots with this loooooooong driveway shooting out. A guy came flying down the driveway and almost hit me.
Reply to this
Curious,
I just wanted to let you know that I have not forgotten our debate - I have just not had time to give it the attention I think it deserves. Please stay tuned, I will do my best to resume shortly.
Barry
Reply to this
Curious,
I’m going to do this in a series of posts to address each of your points. The first thing I need to do is be sure that everyone understands what we are talking about. If I don’t achieve this and anyone would like some clarification, please let me know.
It’s not that I favor height/setback over FAR. They work best when both are adopted in a well-balanced formula because they both limit different aspects of over building. Height/setback is designed to limit the “alleyway” effect between houses and allow sunlight and air to reach the property next door. FAR is designed to limit the total square footage allowed on a given property in a way that encourages, or at least allows for, a variety of architectural designs. The present way to limit square footage is through lot coverage.
Let’s take a 100x100 lot as an example. At the current 25% lot coverage limit, if a developer wants to tear down an existing, modest sized home, in order to maximize square footage, and in turn profit, he would build the first floor at 2500 sq. ft. and build the second floor exactly the same size. The result would be a 5,000 sq. ft. home on a 10,000 sq. ft. lot that is shaped like a box with a roof. This is a huge house for a lot this size and calculates out to a Floor Area Ratio of 0.50 or 50% (5,000 sq. ft. house / 10,000 sq. ft. lot). Now let’s take the same lot with a FAR restriction of 0.38. With this in place, the developer would still be able to build a box, if this was his architectural preference, but he would be limited to 1,900 sq. ft. per story or 3,800 sq. ft.. More likely they will choose to replace the lure of gross square footage with some degree of curb appeal. The result would be, for instance, a first floor of say 2,300 sq. ft. and a second floor that is set back from the first measuring 1,500 sq. ft. for the total of 3,800 sq. ft. (they won’t leave a single square foot of floor area if they can help it – which is what necessitates these regulations in the first place). This will require the designer to actually put some thought into the design and aesthetics of the house.
The height/setback ratio would be in addition to this and would ensure that if the designer wanted to stack the two stories in the same exterior plane, he could not do so at the minimum setback. This protects the property next door from being cast into the permanent shadow of the developer’s greed. If they want to stack the stories they will have to design it slightly further off the property line.
None of this precludes the construction of colonials or any other style of house, although it may rightfully preclude them from a 50x100 existing lot. What it will do is steer the design away from the style that has become so overwhelmingly prevalent – Modern Maximum Gross Floor Area.
I’ll address the balance of property rights through zoning in my next post.
Barry
Reply to this
Hi Barry,
Well, I understand your example, but I'm afraid I disagree with your desire to reduce the lot coverage regulations currently in place. While I agree with you that a 5,000 sq. ft. house (actual living space closer to 3,800 sq. ft. once you discount for a 2 car garage, walls and staircase)sounds large when you pose it the way you did, the fact remains that 7,500 sq. ft. of the lot is still open land. If a builder set the foundation in the middle of the lot, this would still allow a 25' setback, 25' sideyards and 25' rear yard. While my personal preference would be for a larger rear yard, I do not feel that a 25' greenbelt around a house poses a "threat" to neighborhood values or indicates poor planning practices.
Reply to this
Let me just add that I would have to look up the current rear yard setback requirements, I am sure they are different if you are in B versus E, for example. Barry, if you know off hand what the rear setback is for whichever section falls into the 100 x 100 zone in your example, please provide it, as I think it would be influential to the discussion.
Reply to this
Where's that Barry? Put DOWN the egg nog and please finish those interesting thoughts of yours!
Reply to this
Curious,
There is no zone in Bayville that has a 100’x100’ minimum lot size, I used that size to make the calculations easier to follow. We do, however, have a Residence C zone, which has a minimum lot size of 7,500 sq. ft. or 75’x100’. Many of these areas were re-zoned from 50’x100’ in 1985 which resulted in the creation of many existing, non-conforming 50’x100’ lots. To give you an idea of how much the marketplace has changed, the code requires a minimum dwelling size of 1,200 sq. ft. in this zone but does not address a maximum size, except through lot coverage.
The problem with building houses on these lots that are sized to the maximum legal limit is more with the side yard setbacks than the rear or front yard. In this case the front and rear yard setbacks are 25’ while the side yard minimum is 8’ with an aggregate of 20’. At a 28’ maximum height, plus whatever is allowed to meet flood zone requirements, if a builder stacks two stories at the minimum setback, the result is the alleyway effect that I mentioned earlier.
Take a look at a house that is being built on Franklin Ave. right now. Unfortunately, the pictures don’t do it justice and I would encourage you to take a look for yourselves.
Bayville Zoning Example
The first photo shows the alleyway effect. Now imagine another house with the same proportions on the lot to the right.
The second and third show a perfect example of the “architectural design” that is prevalent when the builder’s only criteria is maximum floor area. The sides have no detail and the roof has very little pitch in order to reduce building height, resulting in a building that is box shaped and blocks out sunlight from the neighbor’s property and reduces any view that they may have had, to a view of a wall.
To my knowledge, this house was built in compliance with all zoning and without any variances. Adding restrictions to the Height/Setback Ratio and FAR would work to encourage some thought to aesthetics and help protect the property rights of the adjoining property owners
Barry
Reply to this
Barry,
That appears to be an extremely attractive house, I do not see the same problems you see with it. Off hand I'd say it would sell for around $750,000. Sorry.
And while you seem to be concerned with the "property rights of the adjoining property owners", you never addressed an individual's right to "highest and best use", as you promised.
Reply to this
Interesting post and thanks for sharing. Some things in here I have not thought about before.Thanks for making such a cool post which is really very well written.will be referring a lot of friends about this.
Dodecanese
Reply to this
Hi, I must say that you have made some good points in the post. I performed searches on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog. Thanks for sharing this information.
Reply to this
If you want your life to be a magnificent story, then begin by realizing that you are the author and everyday you have the opportunity to write a new page
Reply to this
When you read this collection of quotes on overcoming failure, one message will echo loud and clear: do not accept failure!
Reply to this
Do not look back on happiness or dream of it in the future. You are only sure of today; do not let yourself be cheated of it.
Reply to this
Life has meaning only if one barters it day by day for something other than itself.
Reply to this
Life is like dancing. If we have a big floor, many people will dance. Some will get angry when the rhythm changes. But life is changing all the time.
Reply to this