Town of South Kingstown Zoning Board of Review Dimensional Variance Application

191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39

Prepared For: John and Michelle Savastano

Prepared By: Pimentel Consulting, Inc.

22 June 2020 PIMENTEL CONSULTING, INC. (401) 529-0647 – Cellular Edward Pimentel, AICP Tax ID No. 56-2331684 26 Avon Road on-line: [email protected] Cranston, Rhode Island 02905

SUMMARY of QUALIFICATIONS

Forward-thinking, pragmatic urban planning professional with twenty (20+) years of practical experience. Skilled in a variety of neighborhood and commercial planning and zoning activities, frequently in a supervisory or managerial capacity. Solid track records with proven effectiveness in, but not limited to, the following areas:

⇒ Zoning Boards of Review ⇒ Community Planning and Consulting ⇒ Planning Boards / Commissions ⇒ Subdivision Review and Planning ⇒ City / Town Councils ⇒ Superior Court ⇒ Code Enforcement ⇒ Residential, Commercial and Industrial Development

SELECTED EXAMPLES of ACCOMPLISHMENT

• Testified before numerous boards, commissions and councils on matters of residential, commercial, and industrial development, as well as changes / amendments to Zoning Ordinances and Comprehensive Plans.

• Testified before Municipal and Superior Court on matters of code enforcement and general land use planning.

• Authored various documents including Cost of Community Services Study, Revitalization Plans, Zoning Ordinances, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and the first Telecommunications Ordinance in the State of Rhode Island.

• Responsible for reviewing all development associated with the Quonset Point / Davisville Industrial Park, an approximately 3,500 acre industrial park, site of the former Sea Bee Navy Base, numerous mill rehabilitation projects, including Pocasset Mill, Johnston, RI (Comprehensive Plan Amendments).

• Responsible for reviewing numerous residential subdivisions, especially expert in the field of Comprehensive Permits (Affordable Housing). Work product cited by the Rhode Island Supreme Court.

• Represented clients before numerous Zoning Boards of Review throughout the State of Rhode Island, on a variety of variance and special use permit petitions, with a greater than 90% success rate.

• Extensive energy and renewable energy projects, including solar, wind and gas-fired eccentric generating assets. EDUCATION

MASTERS OF COMMUNITY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT University of Rhode Island - Masters Received 1994

University of Florida - Studied City Planning - 1991 / 1992

BACHELOR OF ARTS – URBAN AFFAIRS; MINORS IN MATHEMATICS AND PHILOSOPHY University of Rhode Island - BA Received 1990

ACCREDITATION: AMERICAN INSTITUTE of CERTIFIED PLANNERS – May 1996

PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE

Land Use Consultant PIMENTEL CONSULTING, INC. East Providence, Rhode Island

Zoning Officer CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE East Providence, Rhode Island

Consulting Town Planner TOWN OF BARRINGTON Barrington, Rhode Island

Town Planner TOWN OF WAYLAND Wayland, Massachusetts

Principal Planner TOWN OF NORTH KINGSTOWN North Kingstown, Rhode Island

Assistant Planner CITY OF EAST PROVIDENCE East Providence, Rhode Island

Planning Consultant NEWPORT COLLABORATIVE Newport, Rhode Island

Planning Intern CITY OF ORANGE CITY Orange City, Florida

RHODE ISLAND AIR NATIONAL GUARD

Plans and Implementation Communications Specialist Rhode Island Air National Guard 1995 – Retired 2013

Security Police Officer Rhode Island Air National Guard 1987 – 1990

CIVIC WGBH – Community Advisory Board Member Cambridge, Massachusetts 2000 - 2003

SPECIAL SKILLS AND TRAINING

• Fluent in Portuguese

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

Attorney John F. Kenyon has retained my professional land use planning and zoning consulting services on behalf of John and Michelle Savastano [hereinafter ‘Applicants’], in order to evaluate the proposed redevelopment of property located at 191 Lake Avenue for single-family purposes. It should be emphasized at the outset that the current proposal will realize greater neighborhood compatibility, considering the property is presently improved with a two-unit residence. Redevelopment necessitates dimensional relief in order to realize more appropriate land usage. Although, in one minor instance a slight setback increase will be realized, the majority of the redevelopment will actually improve overall pre-existing conditions. In light of the stated redevelopment proposal, I have conducted a thorough neighborhood analysis. In addition, I have reviewed the subject application and associated surveyed site plan, as well as the Town of South Kingstown, RI, Comprehensive Community Plan – 2014 Update – State Approved April 2014 [hereinafter ‘Comprehensive Plan’], Town of South Kingstown, RI, Draft 2019 Comprehensive Community Plan [hereinafter ‘Draft Comprehensive Plan’], Zoning Ordinance [hereinafter “Ordinance”], and respective state statutes. I offer the following conclusion(s) regarding the requested front-yard setback deviation, to realize redevelopment of the subject property for single-family purposes.

FACTS

The subject property, being addressed 191 Lake Avenue, otherwise designated Assessor’s Plat 87-4, Lot 39, and containing approximately 41,219 square feet, is presently improved with a two-unit residence [hereinafter ‘Property’]. The referenced one-story, four-bedroom two-unit residence, has an approximate building footprint of 3,050 square feet. In addition, there is a detached approximate 528 square foot accessory garage and detached approximate 176 square foot accessory shed. Finally, there are several impervious improvements, to include a driveway and several walkways. Therefore, in total, inclusive of all building and impervious lot improvements, the property is presently approximately covered with 5,281 square feet, or 12.8%. Finally, the present residential structure is dimensionally non-compliant. Decking situated along the northeasterly corner of the dwelling, is situated approximately 14.9-feet off of the front property boundary. In addition, the accessory detached garage is situated within 14- feet of the front property boundary. The following illustrations, excerpted from the Town’s GIS and applicant’s submission package [Credit: James G. Flynn], respectively, detail existing Property conditions Town of South Kingstown Zoning Board of Review Page 2! of !10 Dimensional Variance Application 191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39 Town of South Kingstown Zoning Board of Review Page 3! of !10 Dimensional Variance Application 191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39 Redevelopment of the Property necessitates dimensional relief, due to the pre-existing placement of the two-unit residence and all detached accessory improvements. Albeit, a proposed covered deck will be situated in slightly closer proximity to the front property boundary than present decking, overall regulatory site conditions will realize improvement. Furthermore, and in the opinion of this land use consultant equally important, is the reduction in development intensity by reducing the two-unit to a single-family residence. Not only is overall activity level reduced (e.g., vehicular trips), but also environmental considerations, such wastewater usage. The following illustrations, as excerpted from Google Earth, illustrates present Property conditions from a street perspective. Town of South Kingstown Zoning Board of Review Page 4! of !10 Dimensional Variance Application 191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39 The Property is situated in the R20 - Medium High Density Residential District [hereinafter ‘R20 District’], defined pursuant to Section 101.A ‘Zoning Districts - Residential,’ of the Ordinance, in the following manner: Section 101 - Zoning Districts: “For the purpose of this Ordinance, the Town of South Kingstown is hereby divided into 18 zoning districts as set forth below. The specific purpose of each zoning district shall be as follows:”

R20 - Medium High Density Residential District: “This district allows a residential density of up to 2.2 dwelling units per acre. The lot sizes for single-household detached dwellings is 20,000 square feet. This district reflects the amount and type of development that al- ready has taken place, as well as areas into which future expansion would be appropri- ate. These areas should be considered a high priority for the provision of public water and sewer service and for general infrastructure upgrading. However, public sewer service in Matunuck, and Snug Harbor is not recommended. A waste water management approach for these areas is preferred. Mixed uses historically have developed and should be permitted to continue and to expand subject to strict environmental controls. A neighborhood center/village district approach should be taken for additional development in this district. Special care in site planning must be taken. However, such patterns of residential development can be economi- cally and environmentally sound. While the population density may be high, the existing phys- ical development is varied and extensive. Shopping districts, personal services, community facilities, and public water and sewer generally are available and convenient and support local residents as well as the region. This district is highly accessible and served by a well-devel- oped network of roads and public transit.”

The referenced zoning district is further substantiated by the Draft Comprehensive Plan - Map 7: Zoning and Future Land Use Map Analysis [Page 52], which illustrates that the subject property and all immediate blocks are classified ‘Residential Medium Density’. The referenced land use classification is defined pursuant to the Draft Comprehensive Plan in the following manner: Purpose: “To allow for medium density residential development, infill, and limited mixed-use activities, similar to existing patterns and densities surrounding village centers. A village centered approach to development should take place in such areas.”

Characteristics: “This district contains medium density residential use and an historic set of mixed-uses surrounding existing village areas. This district is highly accessible and served by an established network of roads and public transit. Water and sewer service are generally provided in this area with the exception of Matunuck and Snug Harbor.”

Allowed Uses: “Residential at a density of up to 2.2 dwelling units per acre including duplexes and single-family dwelling units are allowed.”

The Property is likewise located within the ‘Village of Matunuck,’ pursuant to the Draft Comprehensive Plan - Map 1: Villages [Page 33]. ‘Villages’ are uniquely detailed, due to their historical pattern of development and typical presence of requisite infrastructure. This observation is not merely opinion, but regularly acknowledged throughout the Comprehensive Plan [Pages Intro 4 - 6]. Town-Wide Vision Statement - “South Kingstown will continue to be a village-based, rural tradition residential community with three primary assets…The Town will endeavor to Town of South Kingstown Zoning Board of Review Page 5! of !10 Dimensional Variance Application 191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39 maintain a sustainable quality of life that limits growth based on the capacity of natural resources and public infrastructure…and will restrict development to appropriately scaled construction in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Town recognizes the strength and importance of its residents and will consider quality of life issues in its decision-making processes.” [Pages Intro-4 - Intro-5]

Village Summary - “Each village in South Kingstown is unique and planning efforts should seek to acknowledge and account for these unique environments. The following summaries regarding the villages in South Kingstown have been provided through the ongoing development of Village Plans along with the report An Inventory and Analysis of the Village and Rural Qualities of South Kingstown. The identity of these areas is especially important as the Town is faced with increased development pressures and the associated propensity for “sprawl." (See Map 2.1 Villages)”

The results of the personally prepared neighborhood analysis [results presented below] corroborate neighborhood compatibility. The ‘Village’ concept is expressly defined below, as excerpted from the Draft Comprehensive Plan [Pages 35 - 37]: Village-Centered Pattern of Development - “Each of the eleven villages of South Kingstown is unique and planning efforts should seek to acknowledge and account for these unique environments. The following descriptions of villages were developed from existing Village Plans for Peace Dale, Wakefield, Kingston, West Kingston and Matunuck along with the report, “An Inventory and Analysis of the Village and Rural Qualities of South Kingstown,” developed in 1998. The village-centered pattern of development in South Kingstown, particularly in Wakefield, Peace Dale, and Kingston, has defined the historic pattern of development in the community, residential zoning and well-established conservation efforts.”

Summer Colonies - “Matunuck is a predominantly rural area along the south beaches and coastal ponds. The village of Matunuck is largely characterized as a summer vacation community consisting of small businesses, a church/chapel, the town beach, outdoor recreational opportunities, and approximately 1000 summer beach homes. Small farms, large estates, historic homes, and modern residential developments surround the village…”

PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT Construction of a two-story, four-bedroom single-family dwelling, with a somewhat of similar footprint to the pre-existing residence, is proposed. There will be some slight increase in decking along the northeasterly corner of the residence. In addition, a distinctive difference is the introduction of a second-floor. All on-site detached accessory improvements, to include all impervious improvements, will be removed. An attached, three-car accessory garage, with an approximate footprint of 988 square feet, will likewise be introduced. However, unlike present conditions, there will be no other impervious lot improvements. All driveway, walkway and patio surfaces will be comprised of stone. Therefore, in total, lot coverage will approach approximately 4,400 square feet, or 10.7%. This is an overall significant reduction of approximately 881 square feet, or 2.10%. To reiterate, this is a quite reasonable proposal Town of South Kingstown Zoning Board of Review Page 6! of !10 Dimensional Variance Application 191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39 (comparatively speaking), given overall lot size and surrounding neighborhood residential character. Another important point, is the introduction of a state-of-the-art wastewater treatment system. The described improvements are illustrated below, as excerpted from the Applicant’s submission package [Credit: James G. Flynn].

The applicant is balancing introduction of a reasonably sized, water-front residence, with proximity to the coast-line and proximity to the front-yard property boundary. Although, full dimensional compliance will not be achieved, resulting overall front-yard setback(s) will actually realize an improvement over existing conditions. The sole exception being the northeasterly decking that will slightly encroach further into the front-yard setback, however this is not true living area, being used seasonally. This land use consultant would contend that front-yard setback is more-so for purposes of maintaining neighborhood character and promoting safe sight distances. This is evidenced by the fact that almost all communities mandate that average alignment be maintained, whenever a new residence is introduced. Sight distances are a non- issue, considering this is the last property on the block. Furthermore, there are few surrounding residences in the immediate block, and their placement is unique to say the least. Therefore, alignment, is similarly a non-issue. Maintaining an appropriate distance from the coast-line is Town of South Kingstown Zoning Board of Review Page 7! of !10 Dimensional Variance Application 191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39 the primary objective, followed by front-yard setback compliance. This is a very reasonable proposal given existing property conditions and overall development objectives.

NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS

An extensive analysis of the immediate neighborhood has been prepared to evidence neighborhood compatibility. The neighborhood analyzed is inclusive of all properties bordered by Washington Street to the north, Central Street to the west, Community Drive to the south, and the coast-line to the east. In total, 69-lots were reviewed. However, five (5) of the referenced properties are unimproved and therefore excluded, resulting in a total of 64 residentially improved parcels considered in the following analysis. The results of the analysis detail that only 30% of the overall neighborhood comply with the requisite lot area requirement. Actually, were one to solely consider the pre-existing non-conforming parcels, those that comprise over two-thirds of the overall neighborhood, average actual lot area is almost one-half the regulatory requirement. Why this is such a vital factor, is because lot area has a direct correlation on resulting building envelope. A parcel that on average is one-half the size the required land area, has a corresponding diminished building envelope. And yet, almost all of the referenced parcels are residentially improved. Therefore, it is more than safe to assume that numerous residences fail to comply with requisite setbacks. Although, neighborhood deficiencies are not the all-deciding factor when considering further dimensional departure, they do provide a vital role in regard to concluding neighborhood compatibility. One final point in regard to assuring and maintaining neighborhood character, is the architectural make-up of said neighborhood. As evidenced by the results of the neighborhood analysis, more recent redevelopment, minimally over the last 20-years, has realized residences of greater stature, mirroring the subject proposal.

ZONING ORDINANCE CONSISTENCY

The dimensional variances sought are simply resulting from both pre-existing structural and lot conditions, as well as desire of the applicant to realize a reasonably sized waterfront residence that averts impacting the proximate coast-line. The resulting dimensional deviations are referenced below. Portions of the dwelling (i.e. decking) and accessory attached garage will encroach into the front-yard setback, conditions that are pre-existing and will be mollified to some degree. The Applicant has proposed a reasonably sized dwelling, while reducing some and slightly increasing on a singular pre-existing setback deviation.

The following “Dimensional Comparison” table illustrates the proposed development’s consistency with all dimensional requirements. Town of South Kingstown Zoning Board of Review Page 8! of !10 Dimensional Variance Application 191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39

Dimensional Comparison Table

Requirement Subject Proposal R20 Zoning District Lot 39 Minimum Lot Area

Single-Family 20,000 sf 41,219 sf [NOTE: Land usage being reduced from Two-Unit 40,000 sf a two-unit to a single-family] Minimum Lot Frontage / Width 100-feet 300+ feet

Minimum Front-Yard Setback 35-feet 9.9-feet [Attached decking to residence]

16.7-feet [Attached accessory garage]

[NOTE: Attached decking is presently situated 14.9-feet]

[NOTE: Accessory detached garage is presently situated 14-feet] Minimum Rear-Yard Setback 35-feet 77.2-feet

Minimum Side-Yard 15-feet Well in excess of 100-feet – Easterly Setbacks Property Boundary

43.4-feet – Westerly Property Boundary Maximum Building 25% 10.70% Coverage [NOTE: Property is presently covered upwards of 12.80%]

In regard to the variance(s) sought, the applicant must provide evidence to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board of Review confirming the presence of hardship and that failure to obtain the relief requested will ultimately cause the petitioner to suffer hardship amounting to more than a mere inconvenience. The criteria for determining hardship are clearly outlined in Section 907.A. 1(a-d) and Section 907.A.1.f. The stated criteria will be discussed individually in greater specificity below. Town of South Kingstown Zoning Board of Review Page 9! of !10 Dimensional Variance Application 191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39 • Section 907.A.1.a - “That the hardship from which the applicant seeks relief is due to the unique characteristics of the subject land or structure and not to the general characteristics of the surrounding area; and not due to a physical or economic disability of the applicant, except where necessary to provide reasonable accommodation to applicants with physical disabilities addressed in the Rhode Island Fair Housing Practices Act, the United States Fair Housing Amendments Act of 1988 (FHAA), the Rhode Island Civil Rights of Individuals with Handicaps Act, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA).”

The Property has long been improved with a two-unit residence, a much more intensive and intrusive land use than the proposed single-family residence. Furthermore, the referenced residence has long failed to comply with requisite front-yard setbacks, both in regard to the principal structure itself, as well as accessory detached garage. The proposed redevelopment will realize a reduction by razing the present detached garage and constructing an attached garage, said reduction decreasing from a 14-foot setback to an 16.7-foot setback. This is a 8% reduction in the overall pre-existing dimensional deficiency. The secondary front-yard setback deviation is in regard to existing decking, referenced decking slightly encroaching further into said setback. The difference is minimal and solely in regard to seasonal usage of the referenced decking improvement. The ultimate goal is to balance setback compliance, while averting coast-line impact by distancing physical improvements. Although, there is neither an existing nor proposed lot coverage deficiency, redevelopment will nevertheless realize improved environmental conditions. Reduced coverage realizes less drainage and overall runoff.

Therefore, the resulting dimensional deficiencies clearly result from both pre-existing lot and structural improvements. And yet, an improved front-yard setback in regard to the accessory garage is being realized without the need for reducing proximity to the coast-line.

• Section 907.A.1.a - “That said hardship is not the result of any prior action of the applicant and does not result primarily from the desire of the applicant to realize greater financial gain.”

All existing lot and physical conditions well pre-date the ownership of the present applicant. The applicants principal desire is full enjoyment of one’s property. They desire a residence that reflects waterfront living, while realizing neighborhood compatibility. They intend this to be their primary residence, and not for investment purposes. Town of South Kingstown Zoning Board of Review Page 10! of 10! Dimensional Variance Application 191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39 • Section 907.A.1.c - “That the granting of the requested variance will not alter the general characteristic of the surrounding area or impair the intent or purpose of this Zoning Ordinance or the Comprehensive Plan of the Town.”

There will clearly be no impact on either the immediate residences, or neighborhood in general, as corroborated by the results of the extensive neighborhood analysis. The Applicant is merely seeking to use the property in the least intrusive, most regulatory appropriate manner possible, that reflects the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Further Comprehensive Plan consistency is furnished below.

Goal 1: “The valued sense of place and community represented in South Kingstown’s existing housing stock and traditional village development patterns will be enhanced.”

Policy 1.1 “Raise awareness of housing needs throughout the community.”

Policy 1.2 “Discourage future residential growth which contributes to monotonous suburban-style subdivisions and encourages a high quality of design in the creation of new neighborhoods. The process of growth must be directed towards the creation of communities and directed away from urban sprawl.”

Policy 1.6 “Support appropriately scaled housing, in a variety of types and sizes and serving households with a variety of income levels.”

• Section 907.A.1.d - “That the relief to be granted is the least relief necessary.”

It is apparently clear that the subject proposal complies with all four (4) criteria, and to deny the requested relief will cause the petitioner to suffer hardship amounting to more than a mere inconvenience pursuant to Section 907.A.1.f. A denial will maintain status quo conditions; retention of a more intensive and intrusive land use that continues to realize several similar front-yard setback deviations. In contrast, an approval will reduce density and intensity to single-family levels, while also reducing some degree of front-yard setback dimensional deficiency.

CONCLUSION

To reiterate, the proposed redevelopment will only realize great neighborhood improvements, by reducing overall property density and intensity. This is all being accomplished, while maintaining appropriate separation from the proximate coast-line. The proposed dwelling will fit in perfectly with the dwellings already present, as evidenced by the results of the self-prepared ‘Neighborhood Analysis.’ The relief sought is clearly the least relief necessary, for it is directly resulting from conditions that are beyond the control of the applicants. Finally, the relief sought will most assuredly result in hardship amounting to more than a mere inconvenience if denied. In fact, it will result in maintaining status quo conditions. NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS 191 Lake Avenue Assessor’s Plat 87-4 - Lot 39 R-20 Zoning District

No. of Living Plat/Lot Lot Area Address Dwelling Style Beds Stories Footprint (sf) Coverage Area (sf) Year Built

87-4 - 39 41,219 191 Lake Avenue Two-Units 4 1 3,676 8.92% 2,146 1963 SP 0.946

87-4 - 40 20,473 59 Cove Street Single-Family 3 1 2,318 11.32% 2,336 2018 0.47 Colonial

93-1 - 27 20,038 Cove Street Unimproved 0.46

86-3 - 97 6,098 167 Washington Street Single-Family 3 1 1,224 20.07% 920 1950 0.14 Ranch

87-4 - 7 6,098 173 Washington Street Single-Family 2 1 1,404 23.02% 848 1954 0.14 Ranch

87-4 - 8 23,958 181 Washington Street Single-Family 2 1.75 1,285 5.36% 1,092 1930 0.55 Cape Cod

87-4 - 11 23,087 209 Washington Street Single-Family 2 1 2,021 8.75% 1,403 1930 0.53 Ranch

87-4 - 37 26,136 210 Lake Avenue Single-Family 3 2 2,582 9.88% 2,869 1988 0.6 Contemporary

87-4 - 12 39,204 188 Lake Avenue Single-Family 5 2 2,039 5.20% 2,197 1904 0.9 Colonial

93-1 - 26 22,216 174 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 3 3 1,184 5.33% 2,566 2016 0.51 Cape Cod

1 93-1 - 28 8,712 179 Park Avenue Single-Family 2 2 2,000 22.96% 1,269 2015 0.2 Contemporary

93-1 - 29 5,663 180 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 2 1 1,052 18.58% 816 1940 0.13 Ranch

93-1 - 30 8,276 186 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 2 1 1,385 16.73% 1,064 1972 0.19

93-1 - 31 33,977 196 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 2 2 1,402 4.13% 1,236 1972 0.78 Contemporary

86-3 - 157 67,954 15 Howard Circle Single-Family 5 1.5 4,656 6.85% 3,740 1985 1.56 Cape Cod

86-3 - 135 6,098 166 Washington Street Single-Family 3 1 960 15.74% 864 1969 0.14 Ranch

86-3 - 136 6,098 172 Washington Street Single-Family 3 1 1,225 20.09% 960 1968 0.14 Ranch

87-4 - 6 6,098 178 Washington Street Single-Family 3 2 1,210 19.84% 1,768 2001 0.14 Colonial

87-4 - 5 6,098 184 Washington Street Single-Family 2 1 783 12.84% 768 1950 0.14 Ranch

87-4 - 4 6,098 190 Washington Street Single-Family 2 1 783 12.84% 768 1950 0.14 Ranch

87-4 - 3 6,098 194 Washington Street Single-Family 2 1 1,104 18.10% 864 1966 0.14 Ranch

87-4 - 2 26,572 210 Washington Street Single-Family 3 2 2,890 10.88% 1,958 1964 0.61 Conventional

86-3 - 155 116,305 22 Howard Circle Single-Family 4 2 3,415 2.94% 3,558 1991

2 2.67 Contemporary Zone: R-200

86-3 - 134 38,768 18 Howard Circle Two-Units 4 2 2,559 6.60% 2,312 1987 and 156 0.89 Colonial Zone: R-200

86-3 - 133 17,860 Washington Street Unimproved 0.41

86-3 - 131 12,197 120 Washington Street Single-Family 2 1 1,636 13.41% 1,324 1968 0.28 Ranch

86-3 - 130 12,197 106 Washington Street Single-Family 4 2 1,363 11.18% 1,506 1981 0.28 Contemporary

86-3 - 129 6,098 98 Washington Street Single-Family 3 2 1,764 28.93% 1,140 1968 0.14 Ranch

86-3 - 106 12,197 101 Washington Street Single-Family 3 1.5 1,258 10.31% 1,669 2007 0.28 Cape Cod

86-3 - 104 12,197 111 Washington Street Two-Units 4 1.5 1,816 14.89% 1,805 1850 0.28 Cape Cod

86-3 - 103 6,098 121 Washington Street Single-Family 2 1 1,073 17.59% 724 1947 0.14 Ranch

86-3 - 101 12,197 129 Washington Street Single-Family 1 1 738 6.05% 612 1951 0.28 Ranch

86-3 - 100 6,098 139 Washington Street Single-Family 3 1.25 1,144 18.76% 1,447 1997 0.14 Cape Cod

86-3 - 98 16,988 155 Washington Street Single-Family 4 1.5 856 5.04% 986 1930 0.39 Cape Cod

86-3 - 95 16,988 150 Lake Avenue Single-Family 3 2 2,019 11.88% 1,573 1900 0.39 Colonial

3 86-3 - 94 11,326 138 Lake Avenue Single-Family 1 1.5 1,506 13.30% 970 1984 0.26 Contemporary

86-3 - 92 22,216 126 Lake Avenue Single-Family 4 1.75 1,755 7.90% 1,512 1900 0.51 Colonial

86-3 - 90 22,216 104 Lake Avenue Single-Family 3 1.75 1,868 8.41% 1,682 1910 0.51 Conventional

92-2 - 177 16,988 45 Central Street Single-Family 3 1.75 3,370 19.84% 2,906 1988 0.39 Contemporary

92-2 - 176 11,326 115 Lake Avenue Single-Family 4 1.25 1,284 11.34% 1,482 1938 0.26 Cape Cod

92-2 - 149 16,988 104 Lake Avenue Single-Family 3 1.5 2,396 14.10% 2,529 1910 0.39 Bungalow

92-2 - 106 4,792 104 Community Drive Single-Family 2 1 738 15.40% 676 1953 0.11 Conventional

92-2 - 105 9,583 112 Community Drive Single-Family 3 1 1,344 14.02% 1,146 1950 0.22 Ranch

92-2 - 104 31,799 121 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 3 2 3,166 9.96% 4,116 2012 and 136 0.73 Colonial

92-2 - 103 4,792 140 Community Drive Single-Family 2 2 2,125 44.35% 1,879 2006 0.11 Contemporary

92-2 - 102 10,019 148 Community Drive Single-Family 2 1 772 7.71% 560 1968 0.23 Ranch

92-2 - 101 10,019 158 Community Drive Single-Family 3 1 1,340 13.37% 1,020 1950 0.23 Ranch

92-2 - 100 27,443 164 Community Drive Single-Family 3 2 2,680 9.77% 1,536 1945 0.63 Contemporary

4 93-1 - 32 17,424 195 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 3 1 1,676 9.62% 1,020 1970 0.4 Ranch

93-1 - 25 16,988 175 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 3 2 3,354 19.74% 2,795 2010 0.39 Contemporary

92-2 - 139 11,326 159 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 3 1.75 1,468 12.96% 1,618 1983 0.26 Cape Cod

92-2 - 138 11,326 151 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 3 1.25 836 7.38% 782 1941 0.26 Bungalow

92-2 - 137 16,988 131 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 3 2 2,020 11.89% 2,104 1940 0.39 Conventional

92-2 - 175 11,326 Lake Avenue Unimproved 0.26

86-3 - 96 33,541 147 Lake Avenue Single-Family 4 1.75 1,656 4.94% 1,576 1920 0.77 Colonial

92-2 - 194 22,216 154 Park Avenue Single-Family 4 2 3,566 16.05% 4,062 1985 0.51 Contemporary

92-2 - 174 22,216 Park Avenue Unimproved 0.51

92-2 - 173 16,988 118 Park Avenue Single-Family 3 1 1,333 7.85% 848 1965 0.39 Ranch

92-2 - 172 11,326 100 Park Avenue Single-Family 4 1 1,196 10.56% 940 1955 0.26 Ranch

92-2 - 150 18,295 107 Park Avenue Single-Family 3 1 2,172 15.28% 1,428 1920 0.42 Ranch

Single-Family 1 1 624 496 1920

5 Cottage

92-2 - 145 16,988 127 Park Avenue Single-Family 3 2 2,275 13.39% 2,860 1990 0.39 Colonial

92-2 - 144 16,988 135 Park Avenue Single-Family 4 1.75 1,402 8.25% 1,424 1900 0.39 Conventional

92-2 - 142 22,216 147 Park Avenue Single-Family 4 2 2,168 9.76% 2,166 2018 0.51 Colonial

92-2 - 141 22,216 150 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 2 1.75 1,580 7.11% 1,579 1900 0.51 Conventional

92-2 - 143 5,663 142 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 3 2 1,428 25.22% 1,999 1960 0.13 Conventional

92-2 - 147 16,988 120A Atlantic Avenue Two-Units 5 1 2,184 12.86% 1,972 1951 0.39

92-2 - 135 10,454 135 Atlantic Avenue Unimproved 0.24 Town of SK

92-2 - 134 11,326 103 Atlantic Avenue Single-Family 4 2 1,539 13.59% 1,456 1916 0.26 Colonial

92-2 - 146 8,712 119 Park Avenue Single-Family 3 1.5 1,024 11.75% 1,392 1900 0.2 Conventional

Total: 1,243,475 193 98 114,669 105,639 Average: 18,021 3 2 1,792 9.87% 1,651

Total Residentially

6 Improved: 1,161,582 Average: 18,150

7