Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Variances topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant frames family need as ZBA worries over 28% lot-coverage request at Lands End Lane
Summary
Diane Ravich told the Southampton ZBA on July 16 that she needs a larger, modern home for multi‑generational use; board members expressed concern the requested 28.8% lot coverage could set a precedent and asked for design concessions and clearer documentation before a decision.
Diane Ravich testified to the Southampton Zoning Board on July 16 that the waterfront property at 4 Lands End Lane—held in her family since the 1960s—needs a new two‑story residence with a garage and covered porches to serve a growing, multi‑generational household.
Daphne Vaughan of Surfside Environmental Planning described the project as demolition of a one‑story residence and construction of a 2,206‑square‑foot footprint house with four bedrooms, a garage/storage area and covered decking. Because the lot is undersized (9,039 sq. ft. in an R‑40 district), the applicant requests multiple variances: a principal rear-yard setback from 35 feet to as little as 26 feet, total side yards reduced to 22.5 feet, lot coverage increased from 20% to 28.8%, and a pyramid relief of 815 cubic feet for a northeastern sky-plane encroachment.
Vaughan provided the board with historical records (a 1962 certificate of occupancy to a family member and a May 6 conservation‑board permit) and explained that the plan was designed to minimize pyramid impact and maintain the property’s footprint while modernizing systems. Board members repeatedly focused on the lot‑coverage increase: one member calculated the change as a roughly 40% increase relative to the 20% allowed and said that cumulative approvals like this could alter neighborhood character if similar relief is subsequently approved for other lots.
The board asked the applicant to consider concessions—reducing covered decking or porches, explaining how the house could be reconfigured to limit coverage, and providing examples of comparable variances in the immediate area. Neighbors in attendance expressed support for Ravich’s family use and praised the proposed design’s sensitivity to the site. The board did not reach a final decision; members were split on the coverage request and directed the applicant to return with modified plans and clearer comparative evidence.
The conservation board’s permit and a vegetated buffer requirement were discussed as mitigation measures; the board emphasized that lot coverage calculations must include roofed structures (decks and porches with roofs) when assessing relief.
