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…
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]
“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.
If the city owns the front yards , why dont the clean then on street cleaning day?
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…
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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.)