I
, Recommendation
INSTRUCTIONS
1. Return this completed form with any attachments to the Calendar Information Office, City Planning Commission, Room 2E at the above address.
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
2. Send one copy with any attachments to the applicant's representatives as indicated on the Notice of Certification.
APPLICATION # 080345 ZRK
In the matter of an application submitted by the Department of City Planning pursuant to Section 201 of the New York City Charter for an amendment to the Zoning Resolution that would apply the narrow street zoning provisions height, setback and floor area ratio to streets which are mapped as wide on the City map but share a similar character to other narrow streets in the area. These streets are pt Place,
COMMUNITY DISTRICT NO.
RECOMMENDATION
6
BOROUGH OF
. (x) APPROVE
( ) APPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS/CONDITIONS
( ) DISAPPROVE WITH MODIFICATIONS/CONDITIONS
( ) DISAPPROVE
EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATION - MODIFICATIONS/CONDITIONS
(X) RECOMMENDATION ATTACHED
( ) RECOMMENDATION TO FOLLOW
May 22, 2008
DATE
RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OFTHE ZONING RESOLUTION FOR 15 BLOCKS WITHIN CARROLL GARDENS 080345 ZRK
PUBLIC HEARING
On May 7, 2008 Borough President Marty Markowitz held a public meeting for the proposal by the Department of City Planning (DCP) to amend the zoning text for 15 blocks in
There were 33 speakers in favor of the application and ten speakers against· the application. Speakers in support included Council Member Bill de Blasio who noted that the proposal is the initial step to address out-of-context development given the special nature of these blocks until the anticipated downzoning is implemented. The council member cited that the
development pressures being faced in this community warrants the need for this proposal now. Representatives for Assemblywoman Joan Millman and Senator Martin Connor, the Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association (CGNA), the Carroll Gardens Coalition to Respectfully Develop (CORD), the Committee for Historic Integrity in Cobble Hill, and the South Brooklyn Neighborhood Alliance were among those in support of the proposal.
The current "zoning loophole," as it is perceived by community residents, concerns many of the supporters as it has allowed an increase in density due to the recent wave of development. Those in support believed that a correction to the zoning text is needed to prohibit excessive height and
bulk in order to support the quality-of-life that makes the neighborhood so desirable. Supporters believed that the proposed text change will allow the neighborhood to be regulated under more appropriate zoning provisions. Residents also showed concern about the impacts imposed on them due to the many developments, and they believe that this proposal would decrease the number of construction projects. Concern was expressed regarding the proposed density and height for the building under construction at
Supporters were aware that if this proposal is approved, many structures will become non-compliant. Many believe that the few instances where buildings would become non-compliant should not be a cause to undermine the proposal due to a hypothetical risk of displacement in the event of an extreme building destruction.
In an attempt to preserve the character of their neighborhood, area residents expressed that they were willing to forgo the extent of the allowable expansion to their property that the current zoning provisions will allow. It was noted that several supporters purchased in the area based on
•
the character of their homes being enough incentive and were unaware of the potential to enlarge their buildings. It was noted that a petition with 600 signatures was also submitted in favor of the proposal. Supporters are still seeking a follow-up rezoning to provide additional measures of preserving the neighborhood, including the many blocks that would not be affected by the proposed text change. Although a few supporters believed that the proposal was inconsistent (being that the block of Union Street between Smith and Hoyt Streets and Second Street between Hoyt and Bond Streets were omitted) their belief was based on these blocks sharing the characteristic of the signature garden areas within the mapped wide street area. Though, the overall goal of this proposal is sufficient enough to support despite these omissions.
The borough president received additional testimonies and petitions in
favor of this application that were not shared at the public hearing. The general consensus noted that this proposal seeks to curtail the spread of out-of-context development that is occurring throughout the neighborhood. Keeping the character intact along these blocks is paramount to some of the issues raised by those against the proposal. Subsequent documentation from CORD was submitted highlighting the amount of information and coverage pertaining to the text amendment proposal.
Those opposed to this proposal cited various reasons for their decision. A number of those who testified questioned the public process of the proposal. Many remarked that homeowners and tenants had little input and limited opportunities to voice their opinions. It was suggested that all property owners should be notified.
One point raised by speakers against the proposal noted that many buildings exceed the proposed street wall height of 45 feet. As a result, future building enlargements and new construction would not be able to achieve the continuity of established street wall heights that in certain areas are at least 50 feet in height. An additional concern was expressed that the reduction of floor area potential would be a loss of value and a financial burden to owners of homes and other small buildings. One speaker defined the economic burden as a loss of $600,000. Without additional income, it was suggested that it might be hard to retain affordable rents for existing tenants. It was believed that a more appropriate solution would be to merely cap the overall height to the proposed 55 feet or even 60 feet without the burden of a street wall setback or reduction of floor area. While another speaker believed that it was appropriate to prohibit towers, the zoning should not prohibit building extensions in the rear of buildings (Note: many rear yards are greater than the required depth of at least 30 feet).
A speaker described finding homes in dismal conditions, with rotting joist and an older, less desirable type of masonry construction. These buildings were considered as candidates most likely to collapse. Some opposition
was based on the possibility of a building becoming legally non-complying and one day collapsing or being severely damaged to a point where reconstruction of such non-compliant bulk would not be permissible. It was believed that in such a circumstance, some tenants would not be able to be accommodated in the reconstruction of their buildings if the floor area cap
-2-
was reduced as proposed.
Another point of opposition cited that the basis for "wide" and "narrow" street zoning differences were linked to the ability to provide light and air, therefore, these "wide" streets do not warrant a reduction in building height and bulk.
It was noted that
Subsequent to the hearing, a speaker against the proposal provided additional information suggesting that the floor area be changed from the proposed 2.2 floor area ratio (FAR) to 2.43. Such floor area is permitted in the Zoning Resolution for R6 districts when lots are within 100 feet of a "wide" street within Manhattan Community Districts 1 through 8. An additional submission suggested that if the proposal became effective, an unintended outcome could be more high-rise development. This is because a developer can achieve more residential floor area than the proposed 2.2 FAR by constructing 13 stories which results in 2.43 residential floor area times the lot area. It was believed that skyline views would serve as an incentive to build taller.
An additional speaker suggested that it was inappropriate for members of Community Board 6 to go on record as it is scheduled to first consider taking a position on May 14, 2008.
CONSIDERATION
Background
In 1987 Quality Housing contextual zoning regulations became effective. For the R6 zoning district, development could continue pursuant to the reg u I ati on s fro m 1961 thoug h Qua lity Housi ng provid ed 0 pti 0 na I mea ns to
-3-
the character of their homes being enough incentive and were unaware of the potential to enlarge their buildings. It was noted that a petition with 600 signatures was also submitted in favor of the proposal. Supporters are still seeking a fOllow-up rezoning to provide additional measures of preserving the neighborhood, including the many blocks that would not be affected by the proposed text change. Although a few supporters believed that the proposal was inconsistent (being that the block of Union Street between Smith and Hoyt Streets and Second Street between Hoyt and Bond Streets were omitted) their belief was based on these blocks sharing the characteristic of the signature garden areas within the mapped wide street area. Though, the overall goal of this proposal is sufficient enough to support despite these omissions.
The borough president received additional testimonies and petitions in
favor of this application that were not shared at the public hearing. The general consensus noted that this proposal seeks to curtail the spread of out-of-context development that is occurring throughout the neighborhood. Keeping the character intact along these blocks is paramount to some of the issues raised by those against the proposal. Subsequent documentation from CORD was submitted highlighting the amount of information and coverage pertaining to the text amendment proposal.
Those opposed to this proposal cited various reasons for their decision. A number of those who testified questioned the public process of the proposal. Many remarked that homeowners and tenants had little input and limited opportunities to voice their opinions. It was suggested that all property owners should be notified.
One point raised by speakers against the proposal noted that many buildings exceed the proposed street wall height of 45 feet. As a result, future building enlargements and new construction would not be able to achieve the continuity of established street wall heights that in certain areas are at least 50 feet in height. An additional concern was expressed that the reduction of floor area potential would be a loss of value and a financial burden to owners of homes and other small buildings. One speaker defined the economic burden as a loss of $600,000. Without additional income, it was suggested that it might be hard to retain affordable rents for existing tenants. It was believed that a more appropriate solution would be to merely cap the overall height to the proposed 55 feet or even 60 feet without the burden of a street wall setback or reduction of floor area. While another speaker believed that it was appropriate to prohibit towers, the zoning should not prohibit building extensions in the rear of buildings (Note: many rear yards are greater than the required depth of at least 30 feet).
A speaker described finding homes in dismal conditions, with rotting joist and an older, less desirable type of masonry construction. These buildings were considered as candidates most likely to collapse. Some opposition
was based on the possibility of a building becoming legally non-complying and one day collapsing or being severely damaged to a point where reconstruction of such non-compliant bulk would not be permissible. It was believed that in such a circumstance, some tenants would not be able to be accommodated in the reconstruction of their buildings if the floor area cap
-2-
was reduced as proposed.
Another point of opposition cited that the basis for "wide" and "narrow" street zoning differences were linked to the ability to provide light and air, therefore, these "wide" streets do not warrant a reduction in building height and bulk.
It was noted that
Subsequent to the hearing, a speaker against the proposal provided additional information suggesting that the floor area be changed from the proposed 2.2 floor area ratio (FAR) to 2.43. Such floor area is permitted in the Zoning Resolution for R6 districts when lots are within 100 feet of a "wide" street within Manhattan Community Districts 1 through 8. An additional submission suggested that if the proposal became effective, an unintended outcome could be more high-rise development. This is because a developer can achieve more residential floor area than the proposed 2.2 FAR by constructing 13 stories which results in 2.43 residential floor area times the lot area. It was believed that skyline views would serve as an incentive to build taller.
An additional speaker suggested that it was inappropriate for members of Community Board 6 to go on record as it is scheduled to first consider taking a position on May 14, 2008.
CONSIDERATION
Background
In 1987 Quality Housing contextual zoning regulations became effective. For the R6 zoning district, development could continue pursuant to the regulations from 1961 though Quality Housing provided optional means to
-3-
develop. Such regulations provide for distinct differences based on
w h e the r 0 r not the d e fin e d s t re e t wid t hat I e a s t e qua I s 7 5 fee t, w h i chi s defined as "wide" as' opposed to a "narrow" street, which is defined as less than 75 feet in width. Primary differences are that development along "wide" streets have a residential FAR of 3.0, a building height limit of 70 feet, street wall height limit of 60 feet, required street wall setback of 10 feet and allow the extension of the ground floor of a building to cover the entire rear yard up to a height of 23 feet without regard to the type of community facility use. In contrast, along "narrow" streets, developments can achieve a residential FAR of 2.2, a building height limit of 55 feet, street wall height limit of 45 feet, required street wall setback of 15 feet, but restricts an extension of the building to cover the entire rear yard to community facility uses such as hospitals, schools and houses of worship.
For Carroll Gardens, streets meeting the definition of "wide" include: Court Street, Hamilton Avenue, Hicks Street (Brooklyn-Queens Connecting Highway); First through Fourth Places between Henry and Smith Streets; Union, President, Carroll and Second Streets between Smith and Hoyt Streets; and, Third Street, east of Smith Street. The application before the borough president would classify the following as "narrow" streets, except for properties within 100 feet of Court Street: First through Fourth Places between Henry and Smith Streets; President, Carroll and Second Streets between Smith and Hoyt Streets. Approximately 80 to 85 percent of the affected lots are developed not more than 2.2 FAR.
On May 14, Community Board 6 voted to recommend approval of the zoning text proposal.
Community Participation
Regarding the alleged lack of community participation in the process, the borough president believes that the turnout from the community at his public hearing demonstrated significant awareness amongst area residents. The number of people in attendance was one of the most highly attended land use hearings held by the borough president. While there is always more that can be done to have area residents become aware of the ongoing process, the borough president was very pleased by the number of people that gave up their personal time to provide testimony and stay to listen to what other speakers had to say. The borough president notes that it is often the case that even more residents will become alerted of the participation process as the application proceeds to the City Planning Commission hearing, which might be scheduled to receive testimony on June 4 at the earliest. Additional opportunity for public participation would occur at a later date when the City Council's Land Use Subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises holds its public hearing. The borough president expects the number of residents who are aware of this proposed text change application will grow substantially by the time the final public
hearing occurs. As the proposal moves forth, community residents are
welcome to contact the borough president's staff for technical considerations pertaining to the proposed rezoning.
-4-
Add itiona I Streets for Consid eration
The borough president acknowledges testimonies seeking to modify the application to include
percent have floor area in excess of what is permitted for development along defined "narrow" streets. Ultimately, the pending comprehensive rezoning will provide another opportunity to determine the merits of more restrictive zoning for a portion or the entirety of the street. Meanwhile, it is likely that inclusion would not be technically feasible should the City Planning Commission and then City. Council adopt the proposal with or without modifications. The borough president notes that residents of this block could attempt to develop a largely unified voice indicating whether they would like to benefit from a follow-up text amendment that adds
Regarding testimony seeking to add
Street Wall Height
The borough president received testimonies seeking an exception to the "narrow" street wall height limit of 45 feet in the proposal. Though the street wall building height limit is proposed to be 45 feet, the Zoning Resolution provides an allowance 'for a building parapet to exceed such height by 4 additional feet. Thus, the actual building wall height along the gardens is nearly the same as the height of 50 feet suggested as the prevalent condition on certain blocks on "Place" streets. In addition, the Zoning Resolution permits for building obstructions within the street wall setback area. For R6 development pursuant to "narrow" streets, approximately half of the width of the street wall is permitted to be built to 55 feet without setback. This bulk allowance provides further means to provide cornice continuity.
Unless the City Planning Commission and City Council are prepared to make an exception for lots fronting on these Carroll Garden streets, new developments and building additions will need a special bulk permit in order to match the existing top of building cornice heights of adjacent buildings that would become legal non-compliant if this proposal is adopted. The "narrow" street applicability is meant to be an interim measure until the comprehensive zoning designation contextual remapping for the neighborhood is achieved. It then begs a question of whether it makes sense to allow a waiver of the setback for a few years only to then have it
-5-
more than likely superseded by a more restrictive street wall height of 40 feet for blocks that merit downzoning to the height limit of 50 feet. For the north side of
Rear Yard Extensions
In this neighborhood, between 80 to 85 percent of the properties would have floor area that does not exceed the proposed permitted residential floor area. It is likely that many of the properties will have enough excess development rights to extend into the rear yard for one or more floors.
The borough president anticipates that if the proposed rezoning is adopted, future construction in the neighborhood would be more likely the result of a homeowner pursuing an improvement, as opposed to a developer
maximizing bulk on an under-built lot.
Possible Displacement Due to Building Destruction
For residences of 3 or more families, the Zoning Resolution only permits the complete reconstruction of legal non-compliant floor area if less than 75 percent of such floor area is destroyed. 1- and 2-family homes may recreate non-compliant floor area, though no new non-compliance is
permitted. Based on the proposed rezoning, approximately 15 to 20
percent of the properties would exceed the proposed 2.2 FAR according to R6 development regulations pursuant to "narrow" street width. It was alleged that because of the method of construction and age of these buildings, several buildings may have framing and bearing walls that are functioning at substantially less strength than when originally constructed, thus the threat of collapse appeared possible. In that regard, concern was expressed that households paying what might be deemed affordable rents but not having the ability to pay significantly more for rent, would be displaced if landlords could not recreate prior floor area of what would become legally non-compliant buildings. Whether or not a severely damaged building beyond that 75 percent standard happens to be compliant or legally non-compliant, it appears that the more likely outcome is
that landlords will opt to provide a relocation stipend or find tenants an alternative apartment. Apparently, it is a rare occurrence for tenants to bring the landlord into court to attempt to obtain relocation into a substantial reconstruction.
Therefore, the issue of not being able to accommodate tenants on
site where the damage is so extensive appears to be a theoretical discussion as opposed to a practical discussion. The borough president believes that adjacent construction poses the greatest risk for a catastrophic outcome to buildings in the neighborhood. The proposed action is likely to reduce the number of properties that might otherwise be attractive for developers to demolish or substantially alter the existing buildings. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action is anticipated to further safeguard existing buildings from harms way. Thus, the borough president believes that households with affordable rents are less likely to
-6-
suffer from such circumstances.
Appropriateness of
The borough president disagrees with the representation that the proposed text change is not appropriate given the ample light and air resulting from the extensive distance between buildings. This change is intended as an interim measure until a slightly more restrictive zoning map change initiative can be implemented. Therefore, it is anticipated that at least a significant amount of the affected area would be changed to a district with a height limit of 50 feet. Though such districts are more often associated with street qualifying as "narrow" widths, there are nearby examples such as Third and Ninth Streets and Sixth Avenue in Park Slope and, Clermont, Clinton and Vanderbilt Avenues in Clinton Hill, where the R6B zoning
district designation with its height limit of 50 feet were deemed appropriate
by the City Council, despite being along a "wide" street. Given the rapid
pace of out-of-context development occurring in
The borough president applauds the developer of
proposed text change in the context of the added cost considerations for construction over the subway structure.
Property Value
The borough president believes that the potential loss of property value must be weighed against the public benefit. Consideration must be also given to the fact that this has been historically a residential neighborhood at largely the same building heights existing today as when the neighborhood was developed prior to the turn of the twentieth century. It appears that the vast majority of community residents value the character and quality-of-life associated with
-7-
more than likely superseded by a more restrictive street wall height of ~: feet for blocks that merit downzoning to the height limit of 50 feet. Fo~ the north side of
Rear Yard Extensions
In this neighborhood, between 80 to 85 percent of the properties would have floor area that does not exceed the proposed permitted residential floor area. It is likely that many of the properties will have enough excess development rights to extend into the rear yard for one or more floors.
The borough president anticipates that if the proposed rezoning is adopted, future construction in the neighborhood would be more likely the result of a homeowner pursuing an improvement, as opposed to a developer
maximizing bulk on an under-built lot.
Possible Displacement Due to Building Destruction
For residences of 3 or more families, the Zoning Resolution only permits the complete reconstruction of legal non-compliant floor area if less than 75 percent of such floor area is destroyed. 1- and 2-family homes may recreate non-compliant floor area, though no new non-compliance is
permitted. Based on the proposed rezoning, approximately 15 to 20
percent of the properties would exceed the proposed 2.2 FAR according to R6 development regulations pursuant to "narrow" street width. It was alleged that because of the method of construction and age of these buildings, several buildings may have framing and bearing walls that are functioning at substantially less strength than when originally constructed, thus the threat of collapse appeared possible. In that regard, concern was expressed that households paying what might be deemed affordable rents but not having the ability to pay significantly more for rent, would be displaced if landlords could not recreate prior floor area of what would
become legally non-compliant buildings. Whether or not a severely
damaged building beyond that 75 percent standard happens to be compliant or legally non-compliant, it appears that the more likely outcome is
that landlords will opt to provide a relocation stipend or find tenants an alternative apartment. Apparently, it is a rare occurrence for tenants to bring the landlord into court to attempt to obtain relocation into a substantial reconstruction.
Therefore, the issue of not being able to accommodate tenants on
site where the damage is so extensive appears to be a theoretical discussion as opposed to a practical discussion. The borough president believes that adjacent construction poses the greatest risk for a catastrophic outcome to buildings in the neighborhood. The proposed action is likely to reduce the number of properties that might otherwise be attractive for developers to demolish or substantially alter the existing buildings. Therefore, implementation of the proposed action is anticipated to further safeguard existing buildings from harms way. Thus, the borough president believes that households with affordable rents are less likely to
-6-
homes to raise their families. The borough president suspects that when the family was ready to move on, homes were typically sold to families seeking the building as their residence. As the neighborhood started to become more attractive for investment, some buildings were converted to cooperative and condominium developments and others became investment properties.
It was only in the last few years that buildings were only a portion of the real estate commodity being sold as values for floor area has nearly doubled. Thus, any remaining development rights, has a value that has been encouraging the construction of building extensions and in some cases, total building reconstruction. For buildings not built to the full potential of the existing zoning, the property values in a strong market reflect development potential. Recently, buildings for sale have appeared to be very appealing to developers to offer even more money than the home would be worth without the development potential, thus driving up the cost of purchasing as a potential new homeowner. If zoning rights are reduced, there may be a loss of property value. Buildings that become legal non-compliant will be sold based on the built floor area while buildings with remaining floor area potential might still be sold for more value than just the building itself. However, it appears that many who reside in
Floor Area Ratio
Subsequent to the public hearing, testimony was provided by a resident of
The text change is meant to be an interim measure meant to ward off excessive development until the community can obtain a contextual
r e z 0 n i n g . Bas e don r e c en t pre 5 e rv at ion - bas e d r e z 0 n i n g sun d e r t a ken by DCP in the neighborhoods of Clinton Hill, Fort Greene and Park Slope, a subsequent R6B zoning map designation is likely to be given consideration. If the modification to 2.43 as suggested by an opponent to the proposal
-8-
was placed into effect, significantly more non-compliance from what is permitted by the R6B district could result. Evaluation for a subsequent downzoning could be compromised for some blocks within Carroll Garden if more buildings exceed the bulk standards of a proposed rezoning. If DCP were to deem it inappropriate to downzone to R6B, the next alternative contextual zoning district permits the same residential floor area and height of the existing R6 district according to "wide" street development. This is exactly what has been expressed by the majority of the community as what needs to be changed. Therefore, the borough president questions whether it is in the community's best interest to have an interim reduction of floor area to 2.43 times the lot areas when it might result in more developments substantially in excess of the floor area associated with further
Downzoning.
INCENTIVE FOR HIGH-RISE DEVELOPMENT
Subsequent to the public hearing, testimony was provided by a resident of Second Place suggesting that limiting contextual floor area to 2.2 FAR would encourage developers to construct pursuant to standard zoning regulations in which the maximum achievable FAR of 2.43 requires the construction of at least 13 floors. The borough president acknowledges that being able to offer for sale apartments with skyline views is an attractive incentive to consider constructing taller buildings despite the higher costs often associated with such development. There are a few examples in the southern section of Carroll Gardens near Hamilton Avenue where developers are taking advantage of this as-of-right zoning opportunity to construct ten percent more floor area. In order to take advantage of such height, the developer must provide an ever increasing amount of open space on the lot.
According to these height-based regulations, more floor area than the proposed contextual-based 2.2 FAR, where building lot coverage can be up to 60 percent of interior lots, is achieved once a developer considers constructing an 8-story building. In that case, the FAR is 2.3, though building coverage is limited to 29 percent of the lot. For 9-stories, the FAR is 2.35 and building coverage limited to 26 percent; 10-stories, the FAR is 2.38 and up to 24 percent; 11-stories, the FAR is 2.4 and up to 22 percent; 12-stories, the FAR
is 2.42 and up to 20 percent; and, 13-stories, the FAR is 2.43 and up to 20 percent. The typical Carroll Gardens lot does not appear to be of adequate size to construct an economically viable building even if it were practical to assume the construction of one unit on a floor, given the need to provide elevators and stairs for emergency egress. Multiple properties would need to be assembled. For analysis purposes, DCP uses a standard of properties being built to less than half the permitted floor area to be considered worth a developer's effort to demolish a reconstruct based on the maximum permitted floor area. Given the price that homes command in Carroll Gardens, it is unlikely that a developer could afford to acquire enough consecutive underbuilt properties on the blocks that are subject to the proposed zoning text change. Therefore, the borough president believes that the concern brought
to his attention most likely could be considered by the developer of 360 Smith Street. The borough president does not believe that this is sufficient basis to modify the proposed FAR of 2.2 to deter the construction of high-rise buildings throughout the area where the regulations are proposed to be modified.
-9-
RECOMMENDATION
Be it resolved that the Brooklyn Borough President, pursuant to Section 201 of the New York City Charter, recommends the approval of this application by the City Planning Commission and City Council to amend the zoning regulation text.
-10-
posted by CORD @ 4:47 PM
<< Home