AIA Proposing Changes to Contextual Zones
From Aaron Brashear, Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Hts.
[email protected]
While I cannot speak on behalf of CB7, where as a member I obtained this info (though it is in the public forum) on a ULURP introduced by the NY Chapter of the AIA for “changes” the zoning code that will affect all of us in the future, I feel the need (prior to CB7 having any voice on the matter) to share it with the CCGH group, select individuals and some elected officials. I speak for myself, Mic and I think the CCGH, not on behalf of the Board.
Just this Friday I received a copy of a ULURP application introduced to City Planning in June of 2007 from the NY Chapter of the AIA outlining “text amendments” they would recommend for New York City’s zoning code, application #N080110ZRY.
Website: http://www.aiany.org/committees/PlanningUrbanDesign/zoning
At face value it seems appropriate for the AIA to make suggestions (or demands) for changes as building in the City evolves (or devolves, depending on your POV), I do not think of this ULURP as a positive step.
At it’s core, under the ruse of having more “contextual nature to the street scape of the 5 boros and flexibility for better design,” the AIA has made recommendations that fly in the face of what the majority of the contextual rezonings in the city have attempted to accomplish: lower density and lower height which equal more light and air.
Some of the recommendations outlined affect the following:
Lot coverage, base street wall heights (maxing out with a 25% increase in some cases!, in R6B we go from a max street wall of 40′ to 50′, no set back needed), lose many rear yard and side yard obstruction requirements (such as balconies), great bulkhead size on roofs beyond the contextual zoning, etc. Thank God it did not affect FAR, but perhaps that will be next year’s recommendation…
The basic read is while the FAR cannot change, building height can be pushed in lieu of bulk, which in an R6B situation (and up) our lower street wall, thus the lack of a looming building from the street, goes up 10′ rather than a set back. So much for that lower (not low enough in my opinion) 40 ft. street wall.
I am disturbed this is not having a full public review, like a normal ULURP. There was a public hearing back in June and it has been calendered for the Borough President’s review and public forum for THIS MONDAY, 11/19 at Borough Hall, 6:00pm (not sure where it is on the agenda, I plan on being there). The CB did not receive this info until Nov. 5 and all public comment must be into CPC by January 7, 2007. The fact that the CB has not had adequate notice to review this ULURP and comment/hold a public forum (normally the case) is disturbing, but I will allow our Board Chair and Land Use committee figure that angle out. I will speak on behalf of myself as a private citizen and perhaps the CCGH.
PLEASE take time to visit the AIA’s website to review the plan and more over, download their PDF presentation, which clearly show the end result of a F.U. to the rezoned areas of the city. Their own diagrams say a 1000 words.
The PDF presentation is a MUST READ: http://www.aiany.org/planningurban/AIA_Text_Amendments_Presentation.pdf
I hope to see some of you there Monday. In the meantime, read about the ULURP, and let’s make sure to let our local elected officials, CPC, and the Mayor’s office know that AIA’s plan is a total slap in the face of the recent rezoning and a potential threat to future rezonings such as out own local zoning review in Sunset Park! Taller or wider does not fit contextually in what we fought so hard to acheive!
For direct criticism (or questions) to be sent to the AIA, the overview letter suggests contacting Laura Manville at the AIA, [email protected]
See also:
Brownstoner: http://www.brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/2007/11/aia_trying_to_u.php
The Gowanus Lounge: http://gowanuslounge.blogspot.com/2007/11/zoning-amendments-might-produce-bigger.html