AIA's Zoning Tweaks Draw Heat
Brooklyn Downtown Star has an article about how the American of Institute of Architects’ push to change the city’s zoning text—which has flown under the radar of many community boards and was fast-tracked into ULURP a public-review process similar to ULURP—is being opposed by the City Council’s top dog in terms of zoning, Councilman Tony…
Brooklyn Downtown Star has an article about how the American of Institute of Architects’ push to change the city’s zoning text—which has flown under the radar of many community boards and was fast-tracked into ULURP a public-review process similar to ULURP—is being opposed by the City Council’s top dog in terms of zoning, Councilman Tony Avella of Queens. The institute’s changes would increase lot coverage on smaller lots and allow taller max base heights for some buildings in R6 through R10 zones. City Planning has certified AIA’s proposed zoning changes but the architects didn’t have to conform to the typical ULURP process requiring that community boards be notified of zoning changes and be given 60 days to respond to proposals. Avella, who chairs the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee of the Council’s Land Use Committee, is pissed that AIA (whose members stand to profit from the changes) held private meetings with City Planning prior to being certified and that the proposal wasn’t required to come before community boards. I think it is a disgrace that the AIA didn’t reach out to any community groups, said Avella, who held a press conference about the matter last week. I’m also disappointed that City Planning didn’t do more outreach. This whole process seems backwards. The proposed changes have been shown to some community boards, including Brooklyn’s CB7, which was not impressed by the presentation an AIA lobbyist made last month. They say the changes are designed to improve the art of architecture, said Aaron Brashear, a CB7 member and cofounder of the Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Heights. Even if that were the case, they still did a poor job of due process.
Councilman Demands, Architect Group Declines [Brooklyn Downtown Star]
Tony Avella, Civics Blast Zoning Text Amendment [Times Ledger]
AIA Proposed Zoning Tweaks: Beware the Domino Effect [Brownstoner]
I’m a neighbor like everyone else. Also, I understand, at least basically the zoning regs. I also understand, a little deeper, economics. The Community Boards are merely a platform for the NIMBY’s. Someone has to speak up for building buildings and I for one am glad AIA is pushing it with the City Council. None of the community boards do anything except reject proposals. Everyone who values their property shares an interest with the “developers”.
Looks like City Planning might not hear it until 2/27, so there’s more time for CBs to review it.
that was meant as a 😉
Not sure what the heck :; is as an emodicon, “taking a smoke?”
-ccgh
Thanks for the clarification. And yes, it would have been nicer, at least in Bklyn, if more than 3 CBs had taken this up before the Borough Board vote last night.
But we can’t be everywhere :;
-ccgh
Not at all, ccgh. I also understand lay-people, some of whom are on community boards, that DO understand zoning, urban design and the public review process. I apologize if it seemed that I was lumping everybody into the few categories that I mentioned.
That said, many of the objections that I have heard (that is, from listening first-hand to lay-people) are based on misconceptions, despite the real criticisms that can be made. And I am sorry, but I have little sympathy for community boards that, upon receiving a text amendment in the mail but no corresponding request to present, don’t have the gumption to call somebody and arrange for one. (These community boards are not to be confused with those that took the bull–pun intended–by the horns.) My high-horse is only a Shetland pony (but he’s really cute.)
“I understand lay-people that don’t have the expertise to really evaluate the proposed amendments”
gman, I would not not underestimate us “lay-people,” and the architects in our community who had issue with AIA’s and DCP’s process and the nitty-gritty of the deceptive proposed amendments. Nor “reactive” CBs, that we’re actually being “proactive.”
I’d suggest getting of your high horse and listen to us “lay-people” for a few minutes. But, I guess the AIA is above that, right?
-ccgh
…and another thing, Avella complains that the AIA met privately with City Planning prior to certification. Applicants always meet with City Planning before applications are certified. As chair of the Zoning and Franchises Subcommittee, Avella has to know this.
I understand lay-people that don’t have the expertise to really evaluate the proposed amendments and I understand community residents who have been burned in the past and are now distrustful. But I cannot help but write off a lot of Avella’s comments as little more than posturing by a long-shot mayoral candidate.
Per Planning, this is going through “a public review process similar to ULURP but are not subject to the same ULURP clock that applies to rezonings.”
I do not understand Avella’s statement that many community boards did not know about this proposed text amendment and therefore did not vote on the issue. Text amendments are always sent to the community boards that would be affected by revised zoning text. Is the councilman accusing City Planning of not following its standard protocol?
I agree that the AIA should have offered to make presentations. But when they didn’t, shouldn’t community board district managers picked up the phone and made those arrangements. I don’t think the AIA told any boards they would not present. Are community board’s really this reactive?