Yet another natural resources special permit has been requested from the town’s Zoning Board of Appeals, this time for 57 Harbor View Lane, a waterfront property off Three Mile Harbor in Springs. A public hearing on the project was held last week.
The owner, Lance Sutter, would like to demolish his 1,600-square-foot cottage, built before zoning laws were established in 1957, and build a 2,160-square-foot house with a terrace, covered porch, and new sanitary system. Besides the requested special permit, five variances are needed. Mr. Sutter has owned the parcel since 2014.
A natural resources special permit is usually triggered by wetlands proximity, in this case because construction would occur within 150 feet of wetlands. In the case of many of the old houses along Three Mile Harbor, there is no easy way to rebuild without encroaching on that setback.
In a technical analysis prepared by Brian Frank of the planning department, the town’s chief environmental analyst, he writes that “the property is severely constrained by its small size and proximity to the shoreline. The property lacks a building envelope that could conform to the minimum 100-foot wetland setback for structures.”
Because of that constraint, Mr. Frank argued that the property was a “poor candidate” for an increase in building coverage. While a 2,160-square-foot house is not “Hamptons Big,” Mr. Sutter is requesting the maximum amount allowed for his tiny parcel.
Britton Bistrian, speaking for the applicant, said that despite that, his request only amounted to 200 square feet of extra building area than what currently exists on the lot (including a shed, which would be removed).
“The value of establishing the maximum practical buffer to protect the tidal wetlands as well as the surface waters of Three Mile Harbor cannot be overstated,” wrote Mr. Frank.
At the public hearing, Denise Savarese, a Z.B.A. member, showed a series of photos of the property. “It’s literally right on Three Mile Harbor,” she said. “It’s a very pretty property. Heavily vegetated.”
Ms. Bistrian said it was impossible to add onto the existing house because through the years, a series of small rambling additions were made and “renovating or adding onto the structure at this point didn’t make sense.”
“There’s no area on this parcel where you could build anything that doesn’t require a variance,” she said. She acknowledged that the hardship was self-created, but said Mr. Sutter would revegetate, create a buffer to the wetland where none currently exists, and move the new residence away from the property line. The house size would increase, but because a shed would be removed, the lot would see no increase in gross floor area.
“The primary feature you want to protect in this application is Three Mile Harbor,” Mr. Frank told the board. He noted that the applicant was seeking the maximum floor area without having to apply for a building coverage variance, and he worried about setting a precedent among the many similar properties along the harbor.
While the public hearing did not see an angry crowd speaking in opposition, one neighbor, Cynthia Brown, submitted a letter that highlighted the changing times and the challenges faced by today’s zoning board.
“I am 83 years old,” she wrote, “and, as a baby, my parents rented the house currently at 64 Harbor View Lane. In 1976 we bought the small house at 55 Harbor View Lane (now 2 Outlook Avenue). To build a deck back then we had to get permission to remove one tree and stay within the appropriate setbacks. The extent and arrogance of these requested variances are appalling, and I hope the zoning board will not grant these requests.”
