AIA Kills Drive for Zoning Text Amendments
The American Institute of Architects has withdrawn “from formal consideration” its proposed zoning text amendments, according to a post on Queens Crap. The AIA’s push for the amendments—which would’ve increased lot coverage on smaller lots and allowed taller maximum base heights for some buildings in R6 through R10 zones—were criticized by some (most vocally, Queens…
The American Institute of Architects has withdrawn “from formal consideration” its proposed zoning text amendments, according to a post on Queens Crap. The AIA’s push for the amendments—which would’ve increased lot coverage on smaller lots and allowed taller maximum base heights for some buildings in R6 through R10 zones—were criticized by some (most vocally, Queens Councilman Tony Avella) on the grounds that the tweaks hadn’t gotten enough of a public airing. In a letter to Planning Chair Amanda Burden, AIA’s past and present NYC presidents wrote that they “regret that these suggestions will not come to public hearing at the Commission or at City Council, but strongly urge that efforts go forward to identify and correct inconsistencies and deficiencies in the Zoning Resolution.”
AIA Text Amendments Withdrawn! [Queens Crap]
AIA’s Zoning Tweaks Draw Heat [Brownstoner]
Increasig lot coverage was a bad idea but facade height alignment is a good idea.
Most noteable is R6b, which has a maximum 40ft streetwall – used by DCP to be in context with brownstones. However, most brownstone facades are 42ft-46ft so the infil development is out of character.
Ew, cut me to the quick with your anonymous comments. Roll and burn shmucks. This proposal screwed the pooch for community-based planning.
Windsor Terrizen
CCGH = NIMBY
Queens Civic Congress is the foremost community group in Queens and proves rather effective at building coalitions. Some of the foremost activists enjoy leadership roles there.
“DCP didn’t volunteer to make presentations on the yard and street tree text amendments”
That is the point. text amendments are not full ULURPs.
Thank you for clarifying what I was saying.
Nite.
re: item C ^above^
-and DCP didn’t volunteer to make presentations on the yard and street tree text amendments, so your point here is…?
A. that zoning reso does not apply to text changes. I checked. With the BP’s office and DCP.
B. the Borough Board did vote YES, with substantial recommendations on all 6 of the texts.
C. AIA made presentations to 18, not 30 CBs and only after the CBs asked for them. They did not do it voluntarily. I was there.
D. again, this was not a typical ULURP so they were not required to bring it to the CBs, nor did the CB’s Land Use Committee have to take it up. Again, check that reso again.
Enough back and forth. We all know they screwed up, could have handled it better and now have withdrawn the app. Hopefully they will have listened to the BP’s recommendations and those from the CBs and CBOs.
If so, then they might actually be doing the City a service , and not just their clients. And that’s the bottom line here folks. $$$
The Brooklyn Borough Board voted 16 yea, 6 nay, 3 abstentions to approve the text amendments with modifications. Not quite sure who exactly “ccgh” is referring to.
Wrong as usual ccgh. See section § 201 of the City Charter.
“Applications for changes in the zoning resolution may be filed by any taxpayer, community board,” etc… and “the commission prior to taking action upon any such application shall refer it to the affected community boards or borough boards for a public hearing and recommendation.”
The AIA brought it to you and about 30 other CBs to review pursuant to the due process described in the charter and you denied it because they didn’t bring it to you sooner. But more importantly you denied it because your a MORON!