Editorial: Requiring surveys
Without a broader perspective, it may seem unsurprising, if not a little dull, that the Zoning Board of Appeals is talking about requiring applications for variances to include surveys to show exactly what setbacks will be needed if an addition, a pool, a garage or any other proposed structure were built on a parcel.
The fact is it’s astonishing this is up for debate at all. As the Zoning Board has discovered in the Pike case, granting variances with only a vague idea of where things will be on a parcel is an invitation to endless headaches — from angry neighbors and the need for additional variances to expensive lawsuits.
ZBA Chairman Doug Matz has wisely recommended that the board ask the town to require surveys with zoning applications. Surveys are legal documents prepared and certified by licensed professionals to show, precisely and in scale, exactly what’s on a property, where structures are located relative to lot lines and where proposed structures will be sited.
How can any Zoning Board grant setback variances when its members don’t know exactly how big they must be? Mr. Matz is right. The zoning code cannot be observed and enforced without a requirement for surveys when variances are sought.
If the town wants to make sure people of modest means can apply for variances, it should put its money where its mouth is and provide a small fund for applicants who can prove they lack the money to pay for surveys — in which case one might wonder how they could afford the pool, tennis court, garage or addition that’s making variances from the zoning code necessary in the first place.
Owning property, and making improvements to it, requires a respect for the rights of neighbors and the community as a whole. In the end, that’s what requiring a survey for zoning applications is all about.
Another idea the Zoning Board discussed last week makes less sense: rezoning inns and bed-and-breakfasts located in residential zones so they are all in their own special “hotel” zones. That sounds like “spot” zoning, an illegal legislative trick that favors one group of property owners over another. Imagine the reaction of a homeowner to the news that he or she now lives next to a commercial hotel zone. The town might as well throw out its residential zoning standards if it’s going to put every inn into its own special nook with separate rules that ease the way for expansion.
Every town has its pre-existing, non-conforming businesses. Most towns have very clear rules that specify the limits for expanding those businesses and the circumstances under which they must be considered abandoned. Town Attorney Laury Dowd and a town committee have been working to clarify Shelter Island’s rules. A basic concept contained in them should remain in place: changes to non-conforming businesses should be reviewed and judged on a case-by-case basis. And when non-conforming businesses fail, they should be considered abandoned after a reasonable period of inactivity.
Let’s stop reinventing the wheel. Let’s have rules and let’s enforce them.
