Bayville's Zoning Continued
The following is a continuation of the discussion under the “Bayville’s Zoning Should Follow Hamlet’s Lead”. Because of the holidays, and the emergence of other issues, I had neglected my portion of the discussion and so decided that a new entry was in order.
The entire point of zoning laws is to balance the rights of property owners with the rights of their neighbors and the rest of the community. I don’t know where you got “highest and best use” from, but the term most often used when addressing zoning issues is “reasonable return”. What if a property owner decides to build a house that covers 90% of his lot, is 4 stories high and extends right to the property line? Should that be permitted? Can I open an all night diner at my house? The answer to both those questions is; of course not. That is because over the years zoning laws have evolved to protect the community from these types of invasive uses and they have evolved democratically with public input at public hearings. They are intended to allow a community to steer its own development towards what is acceptable to the majority and protect our property values and quality of life from the more extreme land uses.
The market has changed dramatically in recent years. During the initial development of Long Island, developers would buy a large tract of land, subdivide, and put up modest sized houses for sale to the general public. The houses were modest both because that was what the public wanted and could afford, and because the cost of construction was proportionally much higher than the cost of the land. The developer would sell the houses and move to the next project and the development would become a community. The new homeowners would then make improvements and additions to the houses as their needs changed. The changes to the community were evolutionary and based on the needs of private citizens.
The undeveloped land is all but gone so developers have returned as redevelopers. They have come back and are basically operating their businesses in residential neighborhoods. They do this by buying properties that have modest houses or handyman specials on them, so that they can rebuild them to the maximum extent allowed. They are taking the affordable sector of the market and replacing it with the other extreme. In doing this they are not only taking the sun from the neighbors, but they are making it impossible for the upcoming generation to afford to stay in the community in which they were born. Starter homes have become developer bait and your sons and daughters are moving to North Carolina.
In order to address the lack of affordable housing and the mass exodus of our younger community members, some municipalities are adopting ways to make housing somewhat more affordable. In the Town of Oyster Bay, they have adopted “next generation” housing, which is basically modeled after “senior housing”. Unfortunately, there are only 3 ways to produce low-income housing: subsidize with public funds, cut construction costs (resulting in low quality buildings) or increase density. Most choose to increase density as the primary way to reduce cost, as is the case in Oyster Bay. Combined with the trend of larger houses on small plots, this has a huge effect on our infrastructure, environment and quality of life. Not to mention the fact that it relegates our children to living in low-income, apartment style housing. By reducing the allowable size of houses on smaller plots of land, we would be taking the most offensive end of the profit spectrum out of the equation so that maybe that modest sized house on the 50x100 lot would not be worth $100,00.00 more to the developer, who will rip it down, than it is to your daughter and her new husband. We are, after all, a community of families and not a commercial redevelopment zone.
By periodically reviewing and revising zoning laws, we bring them up to date to address the realities of current conditions thereby protecting the rights of the rest of the community. By pushing the envelope of current zoning laws, developers are forcing the hands of many municipalities to make these changes under pressure, usually due to public outcry brought on by one particularly offensive project. This often results in moratoriums and adoption of regulations that were developed under pressure. A more deliberate, proactive approach will produce better regulations without the necessity of a building moratorium.
Barry E. Lamb
Bayville
Curious, are you out there?
Or should I take the deafening silence to mean that you have conceded the debate and admitted defeat?
Reply to this
Defeat? NEVER! How do you expect me to find your response when you take over a month to reply and then play hide and seek with it? I seem to recall waiting for you to get into the more philosophical aspects of individual property rights.
Reply to this
Barry,
"Highest and best use" is a legal real estate term used in association with deeds and negotiations or contracts carrying the "implication" that such use will yeild the owner thereof, the highest sales price.It is always the purchaser's responsibility to research what limitiations may be placed upon said property in advance of purchase in terms of "limits of use".
In my humble opinion, we already have sufficient zoning restrictions within Bayville that we do not need to constrain them further. They are reasonable. If you want to exceed those restrictions, you must get a variance. If the community objects to the variance, the owner must refine the application to meet existing code. If it ain't broke, don't fix it! Because once you start tweaking with a working system to appease people who don't happen to "like the look of a certain kind of house", it's really gonna fall apart. Just my opinion.
Reply to this
well that's not exactly true. the ZBA has indeed granted variances even though the community objects. And once they grant a variance, they are in effect creating a new standard by which builders or homeowners can then expect their own variances to be granted in similar situations.
Reply to this
y.a.r.-
I disagree that a new standard has been created, as the original code is still in place. When such an event occurs, it only means that the opposition did not present a strong enough case to convince the ZBA to rule in its favor.
Let's not forget, OJ went free. Imho, that was an aberration of justice, yet it doesn't mean that the system is broken. Aberrations happen, but hopefully, they are the exceptions and not the rule.
Reply to this
I guess this forum is dead, huh?
Reply to this
Don't be ridiculous - we're in this for the long haul.
I've been exceedingly busy these last few weeks (months)- for one thing I am working on a nomination for the Mill Neck Bay Marina to be acquired under the Nassau County Bond Act. I'll be posting something in the next week or two, hoping to get some letters of support written.
The Northender has coverage of the OB Hamlet zoning laws that just passed:
http://www.northender.com/northend_news_details.jsp?id=823
These types of laws are being adopted all over Long Island. The only question is how much damage is done to each community before they take a stand. Communities that didn't act in time have been completely converted into stucco and brick Mcmansions. Parts of the Great Neck peninsula, the Country Club area of Roslyn - these are areas where the developers found lax zoning regulations and high profits and have redeveloped nearly every parcel of land. Once they build enough of these things, they reach a kind of critical mass and the existing homeowners no longer want to live there, so they in turn sell to developers. The result is the community is replaced - not just the houses, but the people as well.
Barry
Reply to this
Barry,
Personally, I'm glad that those new restrictions don't affect Bayville. Obviously SOMEBODY is buying those homes in Roslyn and Great Neck, I don't see sales prices tanking there, despite the Roslyn school scandal. But since this is the Bayville Blog, I'm curious if you are going to push for greater restrictions here in our Village or be satisfied with the Code as it exists.
Reply to this
Somebody is buying those homes and the prices are rising dramatically, but not because the community is more desirable, but because the developers have taken the modest homes and turned them into mcmansions. The developers are the ones profiting from this not the original residents. The residents have only profited from the overall rise in real estate prices, but these are their homes and if they sell they still need someplace to go.
I would absolutely endorse more restrictions for Bayville. In fact, in August of '05 I presented the Mayor and the Board of Trustees with a letter requesting that they consider doing exactly that. It was in response to an application to subdivide a lot by creating a flag lot, and to their credit, they immediately passed a law prohibiting flag lots. Unfortunately the other restrictions I suggested were not adopted (FAR and Height/Setback etc.).
These restrictions will not stop development, just restrict them somewhat. The zoning laws we have in place evolved under a different economic environment.
Reply to this
Barry,
Flag-lots were always frowned upon and required a variance for a subdivision, due to lack of frontage. However, I agree, tightening up the zoning in that case was a good thing.
As I have stated, I disagree with the FAR and more severe Height/setback restrictions. I think the Village is wise to keep its otherwise rather prudent zoning laws AS-IS. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Reply to this
I agree with Barry, the key here is to eliminate over-development. Builders and Architects in Bayville seem to take advantage of every inch of property available, solely for their own financial gain. The ZBA does tend to permit multiple variances. The height and set back restrictions absolutely need tightening up, but more importantly, the ZBA needs to UPHOLD these restrictions. Speaking of height restrictions, why didn't the board enquire why the NCPD antennas are so much taller than the antenna that are already up there? If approved, this new height will set the bar for future applicants.
Reply to this
Y.A.R. -
You said:
"Builders and Architects in Bayville seem to take advantage of every inch of property available, solely for their own financial gain."
I find this to be a rather odd statement. Only builders and architects in Bayville? Clearly not. But on the other hand, since the professions you mention consist of designing plans for construction commissioned to be built obviously by SOMEONE (fewer and fewer builders are building on 'spec') what do you propose? That they do it for free? Of course they are providing their services for financial gain. To put that forth as though it is a 'BAD' thing, is rather ridiculous.
God isn't making any more land, and while it is in the best interest of neighborhood values and the environment to try and preserve whatever open spaces can be relegated to the parks/preserves category, those properties that already fall clearly in the privately owned residential category that comply with current zoning, should not be subjected to more rigorous restrictions.
Reply to this
Bayville needs stricter standards and a ZBA willing to upholdthem, guess we'll have to agree to disagree
Reply to this
I covered the debate in TOB over the zoning changes, and plenty of people felt the town/hamlet did not have the right to dictate style choices for additions to homes for instance, or the many draconian changes to the zoning laws that were requested. Nonetheless, it passed, mainly because those who want something usually come out and vote, and those who don't wait until it's too late, not realizing what they might lose (or gain).
Personally I'd hate to see Bayville be so restrictive. Though I hate the house near me that is a tiny thing jacked up 20 feet, with i-beams in view underneath, he had the right to do it.
The zoning laws are reasonable, and to punish everyone who does or will live here because none of us likes developers seems silly.
There is a story in Oyster Bay about a person who wants to save all trees actually going to a recently puchased home daily, sitting under the trees and even hugging them, because said person heard the new owners were re-landscaping. I'd have called the police. And- did the person know whether the trees were healthy? No. Did this person just pay $3/4 of a million for the house? No.
What interests me, is how many people who do want this have followed the laws? I know of people here in Bayville who have turned single family homes into 2 & 3 family dwellings where it is illegal, and who have put up quick extensions first and asked later. If these things have not been enforced, why would anyone think new laws would be? Let's keep it honest, above board, and hope neighbors ask one another before they turn their houses into Cat in the Hat domiciles.
Just some thoughts.
Reply to this
Hi Barry,
Any idea where to find Bayville's on-line codes? bayvillevillagehall is no longer live and I can't seem to find and zoning or building dept info at all on the new site....any ideas?
Thanks!
Reply to this
Under the Fairness Doctrine, President Obama ordered the Bayville website shut down. There was too much transparency that evidenced actual cost savings. You will now be directed to funnel any of your questions to the Department of the Interior which of course, will have to clear your inquiries with the DEC, the EPA and the Truth Commission. Then, OF COURSE after going through all of the new and CHANGED appropriate channels and under the new more "transparent" FOIL legislation The One signed, you can get the information you seek.
Aren't you happy you voted for BHO, EE?
Reply to this
Hello Barry, nevermind... I found the link, thanks!
Reply to this
I just read the agenda for the village meeting tonight. They are holding a public hearing to change section 80-49b of the village code. This law deals with apartments over businesses - it says that they are not allowed. I guess they want to change the law so that the building planned to replace the Poseidon restaurant can go forward.
It seems to me that there are apartments over businesses. They may have been existing when the original code was passed in 1980.
Reply to this
Woody,
I would speculate that any apartments that currently exist over businesses would be grandfathered - this modification would apply to any business construction from this day forward.
Reply to this
"Grandfathered" is what I meant to say. I was unable to attend last night's meeting so I don't know the outcome.
Reply to this
They ammended the section to state apartments are allowed on 2nd floor of building in commercial buildings. They said they are reviewing the zoning laws and making changes, I find it a little fishy that if they are supposedly reviewing all the zoning laws why have they only deiced to change this one. Hmmm what is comming down the pipeline, that we don't know about yet.
Reply to this
has anybody heard about the bldg commissioner for the town of oyster bay unilaterally implementing new bldg height restrictions without a town
law or resolution having been passed? Basically, you design your house in accordance with the law as written, but then when you go to submit your plans they tell you that your plan doesn't comply with new height restrictions which the commissioner just made up. A clerk at the bldg dept said that they get about 30 angry calls each day. Supposedly, a few of the supervisors had a meeting with him to tell him he can't do this.
Reply to this