« Out Of The Closet Wednesday Food & Drink Round-Up »
March 21, 2007
The Vestigial Zoning of Carroll Gardens
In last week's Courier article about the down-zoning movement in Carroll Gardens, there was mention of a zoning peculiarity that was news to us:
The neighborhood’s most unique feature – front yard gardens – present “down-zoning” advocates with particular challenges. The quirky nature of the gardens make it possible for potential new developers to construct new buildings with greater floor area ratios than normally allowed – in some cases bumping it up for 2.2 to 3.0. That’s because the gardens are actually considered public property and part of the street under archaic New York City codes that go back to the 19th century. Lot lines go from building to building on 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th places. City fathers ostensibly left the gardens under the purvey of the Department of Transportation in the event that the streets needed to be widened.
We're a little confused by the part about lot lines going from building to building. Does that mean that a property owner gets the benefit of including his yard, the street and the neighbors yard for the purpose of calculating FAR? A little help please.
Rezoning Advocates Home In On High Density Problem [Carroll Gardens Courier]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/767
Comments
What's stated above doesn't make a lot of sense. If the lot lines are from buiding to building, that would imply that the front gardens are not included in the lot area and thus not part of FAR calcs. The properties would gain the benefit of using their front gardens privately but would not own them outright.
Posted by: jigman at March 21, 2007 8:44 AM
I agree, this isn't very clear. We own one of those brownstones, and my understanding was that the city DOES own the front property, although it is still included in the property deed. But the article seems to be implying that by not owning the property, the FAR is higher, which is something I've never heard before.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2007 8:54 AM
I think that by considering the garden as public property it can turn a narrow street into a wide street (due to front yard's addidtion to the street) which in turn hikes up the FAR to 3.0
Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2007 8:55 AM
What does FAR stand for and is there a website to determine how to calculate it? Is there a website bythe DOB which tells you how much FAR there is for a specific house?
Posted by: Interested at March 21, 2007 9:07 AM
I think anon 8:55 is right. So not sure how this affects whole neighborhood - since only certain blocks have the 'gardens' and those garden blocks east of Smith are landmarked.
Certainly doesn't sound would have any effect on the building pictured in question.
BTW, Brownstoner, seems like your computer time stamp needs to be updated. Seems to be an hour early.
Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2007 9:10 AM
I think it means floor area ratio and it means how many square feet can be built on a lot, and the number is determined by zoning regs. There are quirks in deeds--deeds in other neighborhoods indicate that the city owns up to the front door, even while delineating the areaway, but, as an above poster noted, this seems to lessen, not increase, allowable FAR
Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2007 9:11 AM
The front yards in CG are definitely not part of the owner's property and cannot be applied against FAR. However, I have heard about "wide street" triggering an FAR increase: can anyone provide a reference to the NY code on this? (Either the specific section, or the term of the art that I can search for.)
Posted by: Tim at March 21, 2007 9:26 AM
Typically, wide and narrow street designations determine the height and setbacks for buildings. In extremely large scaled developments, I can see where you might be able to utilize more available floor area, but I've never seen a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) be "bumped" up due to a property existing on a wide street. I believe the originator of the text is confusing two separate issues.
Posted by: jigman at March 21, 2007 10:24 AM
here's a link to the city planning website if you want to read up on your residential zoning:
http://nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/zone/zh_resdistricts.shtml
Posted by: es at March 21, 2007 10:46 AM
Jigman is correct, wide vs. narrow street influences zoning only in terms of height of street wall and required setback. FAR (floor area ratio) is based only on the lot area, and the lots aren't any bigger due to the front yards being a city easement. Lot lines in this area starts at the exterior face of building, and extend to the rear lot line that separates rear yards.
So basically I think the writer of this article is full of shit
Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2007 11:46 AM
Anon 8:55 is indeed correct. The higher Floor Area Ratio of 3.0 can be used because these streets are considered 'wide streets' that are technically over 75 ft. in width (the place streets vary, but are about 116 ft wide including the 'front yards'. The property lines of these houses begin at the face of the buildings and extend to the rear of the lots. For FAR using the Quality Housing Program, see Zoning Resolution Section 23-145:
http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/zone/art02c03.pdf
(page 20-21). Look under R6* for wide street zoning outside of Manhattan (FAR 3.0), R6 (without asterisk) for narrow street zoning outside Manhattan (FAR 2.2), and R6** zoning in Manhattan (FAR 2.43).
And when will Property Shark stop using 2.43 as the FAR on all R6 parcels? They are plain wrong!!! All my Brooklyn clients come to me thinking they have 2.43 FAR when they usually have only 2.2!
Posted by: Smartytect at March 21, 2007 11:50 AM
I stand corrected. Smartytect has found the answer!
My guess is that if this area is indeed landmarked as one commenter stated, City Planning will decide to zone it R5 or R5B instead of R6, thus alleviating the wide street kickback.
Posted by: jigman at March 21, 2007 1:02 PM
Thanks Jigman. Probably City Planning will go with R6B with a 2.0 FAR. This is what most of Park Slope has done. You end up with contextual housing much like what is existing. R5 and R5B have sideyard requirements that don't work with the existing context, but who knows...
Posted by: Smartytect at March 21, 2007 1:20 PM
If the city owns the front yards , why dont the clean then on street cleaning day?
Posted by: Anonymous at March 21, 2007 6:06 PM
"R5 and R5B have sideyard requirements that don't work with the existing context"
Yes, this is true, but I live on a block in the recently rezoned South Slope which was re-zoned to R5B and none of the properties comply with side yard requirements. But this existing non-compliance can remain a non-compliance. Anyway, we'll see what happens soon I'm sure.
Posted by: jigman at March 22, 2007 10:02 AM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.