Village of Lloyd Harbor, NY Site and Building Permit Review Board

The Village Board of Trustees hereby finds that excessive uniformity or dissimilarity, inappropriateness and poor quality of design and the improper placement or inadequate screening of structures within the Village and along its shorelines adversely affects the environment and community by creating a visual or ecological detriment. These visual and ecological detriments impair the beneficial use of real property in such areas, impair the stability and value of both the improved and unimproved real property in such areas, prevent the most appropriate development of such areas, produce a degeneration of the property and aesthetic character of such areas and impair the proper relationship between the taxable value of real property in the community and the cost of municipal services provided therefor. These detriments, singly and in combinations, result in a deterioration of conditions affecting the health, safety, morals and general welfare of the inhabitants of the community. It is the purpose of this article to prevent these and other harmful effects by instituting a review procedure for all building permit applications to the Village prior to their review by the Building Inspector pursuant to the state building code.

A.

Every completed application for a building permit for the construction of any building within the Village of Lloyd Harbor, or for the reconstruction or alteration of any building, including any additions thereto, which would affect the exterior appearance of such building, shall be referred by the Building Inspector to the Site and Building Permit Review Board of the Village for review. Such referral shall be made within 21 days of the date that the completed application is received by the Building Inspector, provided that such application conforms in all respects to all other applicable laws and ordinances, including but not limited to § 205-73 of this chapter. The referral shall be made prior to the Building Inspector's review of the plans and drawings as required by the state building code and shall be made in conformity with this article.

B.

A stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) consistent with the requirements of Chapter 171, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control, shall be required for site plan approval. The SWPPP shall meet the performance and design criteria and standards of Chapter 171, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control. The approved site plan shall be consistent with the provisions of Chapter 171, Stormwater Management and Erosion and Sediment Control.

[Added 12-17-2007 by L.L. No. 7-2007[1]]

[1]

Editor's Note: This local law also provided for the redesignation of former Subsection B as Subsection C.

C.

In order to assist applicants in designing and locating structures in harmony with this chapter, the Site and Building Permit Review Board may adopt such preapplication review procedures as it deems necessary and expedient.

A.

The Site and Building Permit Review Board, in conformity with the purposes and standards of this article, shall review and approve, with or without conditions, or it shall disapprove any building permit application referred to it pursuant to § 205-33. The decision of the Site and Building Permit Review Board must be by a majority vote of its full membership or the unanimous vote of any subcommittee it may appoint, and its findings and decision shall be recorded in the minutes of the Board filed with the Village Clerk. The Site and Building Permit Review Board shall disapprove any permit where it finds that the proposed construction, reconstruction or alteration would be so detrimental to the surrounding properties or the community as to provoke one or more of the harmful effects set forth in § 205-32 above, by reason of:

(1)

Excessive similarity to any other structure or structures existing or for which a permit has been issued or to any other structure included in the same permit application, or any structure located on a contiguous lot, or structure located on lots on the same street within 1,000 feet of the subject site, in respect to one or more of the following features of exterior design and appearance: substantially identical facade; substantially identical size and arrangement of either doors, windows, porticos or other openings or breaks in the facade facing the street, including reverse arrangement; or other significant identical features, such as but not limited to material, roofline and height or other design elements. A finding of excessive similarity shall state not only that such similarity exists but further that it is of such a nature as to be expected to provoke one or more of the harmful effects set forth in § 205-32 and that the finding is not based on personal preference as to taste or choice of architectural style.

(2)

Excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness in relation to any other existing structure, or structure for which a permit has been issued, or to any other structure included in the same permit application, or any structure located on a contiguous lot and structure located on lots within 1,000 feet on the same street of the proposed site, in respect to one or more of the following features: inappropriate relationship to the contours, shape or natural characteristics of the site; inappropriate location of features incorporated into the structure, including but not limited to windows or air-conditioning equipment, or of features ancillary to the structure, including but not limited to patios or refuse storage areas; and other significant design features, such as materials, quality of construction or architectural design. Before the Site and Building Permit Review Board makes a finding of excessive dissimilarity or inappropriateness, it shall conclude that one or more of such dissimilarities or inappropriateness exist and further that such dissimilarities or inappropriateness are of such a nature as to be expected to provoke one or more of the harmful effects set forth in § 205-32, and further, that the finding is not based on personal preference of Site and Building Permit Review Board members as to taste or choice of architectural style.

(3)

Inappropriate building site selection or location of improved surfaces including driveways, or excessive site disturbance in relation to the surrounding environmental, ecological, natural, other features of the subject and neighboring lands, including but not limited to topography, vistas, existing patterns of tree and shrub growth, property lines, and accessibility or proximity to wetlands, preserves, historic sites or areas.

B.

The Site and Building Permit Review Board shall examine, review and approve or disapprove applications for permits for swimming pools, tennis courts and other structures as to the screening and placement of the same. A landscaped strip 10 feet wide, planted and maintained with the appropriate number and species of nondeciduous plants, with an actual height of at least six feet above the natural grade when installed, is the preferred screening method between the pool or court and the abutting property. However, the Site and Building Permit Review Board may approve alternate conditions if:

(1)

There is existing landscaping on the lot between the pool or court and the property line(s) equal in effectiveness, height and density to the required evergreen screening.

(2)

There is a preexisting six-foot-high opaque fence or wall on the lot between the pool or court and the property line(s), which is totally owned and controlled by the lot owner and which is in conformity with applicable fence height regulations, provided that the Site and Building Permit Review Board further finds that the increased height of matured evergreen screening is not necessary to screen the pool or court from the view of the abutting property.

(3)

The existing topography of the lot where the pool or court is to be located, relative to the topography of the abutting property, is such that the pool or court will not be within the view of the abutting property, provided that the Site and Building Permit Review Board further finds that it is reasonable to expect that this topographical relationship will not be adversely altered in order to facilitate future development of either property.

(4)

The soil conditions where the landscaping strip would be required to be installed are such that the evergreens cannot be expected to survive or to properly mature, provided that the Site and Building Permit Review Board further finds that the pool or court cannot be reasonably placed in another location with suitable soil conditions, and further provided that a preexisting six-foot-high opaque fence or wall which conforms to applicable fence height regulations exists between the property line and the pool or court in place of the landscaped strip.

(5)

The property line which would otherwise be screened is along the Long Island Sound, Cold Spring Harbor, Lloyd Harbor or Huntington Bay, and provided that the Site and Building Permit Review Board further finds that the landscaped strip is not necessary to screen the pool or court.

(6)

Conditions exist which are not specifically covered in Subsection B(1) through (5) above, but which are of a similar nature, provided that the Site and Building Permit Review Board further finds that approval of the waiver will not be inconsistent with the spirit and intent of this section or less protective of the view from the abutting properties.

No building permit shall be issued by the Building Inspector unless it first has been approved by the Site and Building Permit Review Board.