R2A downzoning

[g***@yahoo.com]

Little Neck residents fight rezone
By John Tozzi
11/17/2005
Email to a friend Voice your opinion Printer-friendly

At least 150 people packed a standing-room-only meeting of the
long-dormant Little Neck Community Association Tuesday night in a
chaotic, sometimes hostile discussion of the proposal to downzone large
chunks of Little Neck and Douglaston using the new R2A zoning now in
place in Bayside, College Point and Cambria Heights.

Several audience members booed proponents of the zoning, yelling "we
don't want it!" and "you don't care about property values!" as
officials from the Department of City Planning and members of Community
Board 11 tried to explain the proposal on the table.

Advertisement
Joan Garippa, a member of CB 11 who led the meeting, said she revived
the Little Neck Community Association to inform residents of the
possible zoning changes and give them a venue to respond.

"The other civic associations felt that they wanted to limit
construction going on in the area," she told the meeting.

The current rezoning proposal, which is supported by eight civic
associations, would change 250 blocks of Little Neck and Douglaston,
mostly from R2 zones to R2A zones. R2A, created this year by the
Department of City Planning, is similar to the R2 single-family
detached zone, but places additional restrictions on building height,
lot coverage and bulk.

City planning officials said the goal of the rezoningÐthe first in the
area since 1961Ðis to keep new construction in line with the existing
character of residential neighborhoods.

"That's the overall goal: to ensure that we get stable, orderly
growth," said John Young, the director of the Queens office of City
Planning. To that end, the R2A zone sets the maximum height of a
house's perimeter wall at 21 feet and the maximum height of a house at
the highest point is limited to 35 feet, said Seth Myers, a project
manager for the Queens City Planning office, where no such limits exist
in R2 zones.

But Chris Petallides, an engineer and Little Neck resident who
presented a strong opposition to rezoning, said the restrictions of the
R2A zone threatened homeowners' rights to expand and would make most of
the houses in the rezoned area non-compliant.

"They're saying it's to maintain some kind of character," he told the
meeting. "I don't know whose character."

Petallides urged residents to sign petitions against the rezoning
circulating at the meeting.

"We have the power to stop this," he said.

Eliott Socci, the president of the Douglaston Civic Association whom
Garippa asked to speak, was met with loud boos and scattered applause
when he said he supported the downzoning. But he warned that with eight
civics already on board, opposition was unlikely to stop the proposal
and residents opposed should ask that their neighborhoods simply be
carved out and left alone.

"If you do not downzone and everyone around you does," Socci said, "you
will be the target of every developer in northeast Queens."

The meeting, held at the Community Church of Little Neck's Chapel Hall
on Little Neck Parkway, was advertised by a flier with a harsh
characterization of the rezoning. The flier promised the meeting would
explain "why Bayside R2A zoned homeowners now feel betrayed" and "the
real facts about your neighborhood's proposed R2A downzoning."

Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside), chairman of the zoning committee
and a leading proponent of the R2A downzoning, said by phone before the
meeting that the flier was "inflammatory."

"The flier is disgraceful," he said. "It has totally misinformation and
lies, and whoever is behind it should be ashamed of themselves," he
said. Avella said he was not invited and did not send a representative
to the meeting.

Reach reporter John Tozzi by e-mail at ***@timesledger.com or by phone
at 718-229-0300 Ext. 188.


©Times Ledger 2005

[g***@yahoo.com]

City to consider Glen Oaks rezone in Feb.
By Howard Koplowitz
11/17/2005
Email to a friend Voice your opinion Printer-friendly

Glen Oaks will be considered by the Department of City Planning for
stricter zoning regulations in February, Oscar Berenberg, president of
the Lost Community Civic Association, announced at the group's monthly
meeting Tuesday at MS 172.

Berenberg said it is virtually a lock that the agency will give the
go-ahead for Glen Oaks to close zoning loopholes under current R2
regulations, which allow developers to create a third floor on a
property, giving way to "McMansions." The proposed zoning, called R2A,
would require single-family detached homes to have a maximum height
restriction of 35 feet. Under R2, there is no height restriction.

Advertisement
The community will be considered at the same time as another Queens
neighborhood Ð Springfield Gardens.

"This is an ongoing cancer," Berenberg said, referring to developers
who try to build on every inch of land on a lot.

The civic used a structure at 82-66 263rd St. in Glen Oaks as an
example of how developers take advantage, albeit legally, of the
current zoning restrictions.

The new building has 11 rooms, four bathrooms, a fully furnished
basement and a built-in garage on a 40- by-100 foot lot, Berenberg
said, citing a flier from the structure's realtor, SHV Real Estate
Corp. in Bellerose.

Reema Sharma, the broker for the house, said the structure was a
"one-family" home.

But Robert Houdak, Queens County liasion for the city Department of
Buildings, said the house as built is not in any violation.

"Under the zoning resolution, if you're within 100 feet of the corner
(which the structure is), you're not required to have a backyard,"
Houdak said at the meeting. "It's ugly as sin, but it is legal," he
said.

Two residents who live on the same block as the property said they were
angered that the house was allowed to be built.

"I'm not happy about it," said one neighbor who noted that residents
dubbed the building "Motel 6" because of its many rooms.

"It just doesn't fit into the neighborhood," said 263rd Street resident
Anisha Cherian, 28, who has lived in Glen Oaks for 22 years.

"This one house we went after lock, stock and barrel," Berenberg said.

State Sen. Frank Padavan (R-Bellerose) has also taken up issue with the
building. In a letter he wrote provided by Berenberg, Padavan said the
state should look into the license of SHV Real Estate Corp. and the
company should be required to adhere to the law or lose its license
because taxes on the house were listed at more than $2,200 a year. He
also wrote to Magdi Mossad, the Queens Buildings Department
commissioner, demanding a breakdown of how the house came about and
layouts of the piping and electric insulation inside to see if the
structure could be illegally converted.

Residents also expressed their concerns on other development-related
issues, questioning the validity of permits posted on a construction
site and asking why developers who self-certify their work are not
vigorously monitored.

Jack Friedman, chief of staff for City Councilman David Weprin
(D-Hollis), explained to the meeting's attendees that the 16
zoning-related bills alone introduced in the Council by Weprin as well
as legislation from Councilman Tony Avella (D-Bayside), chairman of the
Council's Zoning and Franchises Committee, are being held up in the
Council's Housing and Buildings Committee because of politics.

He said City Councilwoman Madeline Provenzano (D-Bronx), chairwoman of
the Council Housing and Buildings Committee, "does not have a good
relationship" with Speaker Gifford Miller (D-Manhattan) and is
supported by Mayor Michael Bloomberg and the Republican Party, stopping
bills from reaching the Council floor for a vote. Some of the Weprin
bills include disallowing developers to self-certify work on a large
remodeling job and a minimum $250 fine that would escalate every day if
a building has more than one address listed on different entrances.

Reach reporter Howard Koplowitz by e-mail at ***@timesledger.com or by
phone at 718-229-0300, Ext. 173


©Times Ledger 2005

[g***@yahoo.com]

New zoning not kosher: boro Jews
By Zach Patberg
07/07/2005
Email to a friend Voice your opinion Printer-friendly

And it was going so well.

Ever since Fresh Meadows got its first taste of the newest restrictive
zoning measure, R2A, at a civic meeting earlier this month, residents
have all but given it a hero's welcome, saying it will save them from
the plague of oversized unsightly houses they expect any day now.

Advertisement
But in Flushing Heights last week, the R2A got no such welcome.

Unlike the cozy unity felt at the other civic gatherings, the meeting
inside Young Israel of Hillcrest was rich with strife as those
residents who were for the R2A were often drowned out by dissenters who
either saw the rezoning measure as too drastic or hated it all
together.

"I will make sure this process doesn't happen," vowed longtime Flushing
Heights Civic Association member Sandy Cohen, referring to the R2A,
which restrains big development by limiting wall height and lot
coverage. "It would be a disaster for this area. I can't build on my
house, but I want to see other people build. It looks better, raises
property value and, well, this is America!"

Eli Siegel, 27, said he is one of only a few young residents living in
the neighborhood -- bordered by Utopia Parkway, Long Island Expressway,
Union Turnpike and 164th Street -- and warned that it would stay that
way if development was not allowed to progress.

"Right now many of my friends are at a crossroads about whether to move
to Manhattan, Queens or Long Island," he told the crowd of 120
residents. "But no one wants to move to a bunch of 2,000-square-feet
houses, especially those who are Orthodox like me who want large
families. It's going to dissuade young people from moving to Queens and
kill out communities like this."

As Orthodox Jews, Cohen and Siegel represent a group that typically
favors larger houses to accommodate their large families. And since
Flushing Heights has the highest Orthodox concentration in Fresh
Meadows, it is not surprising, area leaders say, that a
size-restricting zoning change would face opposition at a local
meeting.

Still, voices in favor of the change and critical of over-development
were heard. Resident Pearl Drebkin, for example, said she was "very
offended by all these McMansions" and suggested their owners "move to
New Jersey."

Said another: "This neighborhood is being transformed from boundary
line to boundary line into a neighborhood of McMansions."

Those on the fence with the issue agreed that out-of-character
development needed to be curbed, but said implementing the R2A was an
"overkill" - one that, as one resident warned, would "stamp the whole
neighborhood into one shape."

"We should address the broken part, not the whole machine," Gil Winokur
said.

The civic's vice president, Rory Lancman, who said he intentionally
held the meeting at the synagogue to ensure that residents
"acknowledged that the Orthodox community has a point of view on this
issue," said another meeting would be scheduled after the information
has "digested."

Reach reporter Zach Patberg by e-mail at ***@timesledger.com or by
phone at 718-229-0300, Ext. 155.

[g***@yahoo.com]

R2A will not be all it is made out to be
04/14/2005
Email to a friend Voice your opinion Printer-friendly

R2A and its recycled regulations as written in the March 14 City
Planning Commission report may not be the cure-all that many are hoping
for. While floor area exemptions have been eliminated, there are new
opportunities for abuse.

On the plus side, gone will be the high ranches with exempt first
floors that are built exclusively as illegal two-family homes. Also
gone will be the four-story colonials of which there are probably less
than 10 in all of Bayside.

Advertisement
However, most of the other homes built under current R2 rules will
continue to proliferate under R2A including prosaic shoe-box designs
with pink and orange brick. Worse yet, if enacted "as is," some R2A
homes will be bigger and uglier than those that are built now. While I
disagree with some R2A advocates who react with ill-mannered venom to
opposing points of view, I respect their passionate beliefs. What is
truly unfortunate is the apathy shown by what I consider to be the
silent majority.

As a builder and contractor, I meet with homeowners daily and my
impression is that two-thirds of the residents I encounter either don't
know about the rezoning issues or simply don't care. Obviously, that's
not very scientific and one of my biggest gripes throughout this entire
process has been the lack of fundamental research done in preparation
of the new proposals. So that's it. The City Council will cast its
votes and then reality will sink in. My guess is that within a year
disappointed rezoning proponents will be asking where's the beef in
R2A.

SETH DANIELS

Bayside


©Times Ledger 2005

[g***@yahoo.com]

Addressing certain non-truths about rezoning
03/31/2005
Email to a friend Voice your opinion Printer-friendly

Much has been said in the last several weeks about the Bayside
rezoning. Let's address some of the fallacies.

The rezoning enjoys overwhelming and anxious support, the only desire
being that it could have been done years ago. Please note that word:
Rezoning. The plan is not a downzoning, as some would have you
negatively believe, but an appropriate rezoning of 350 blocks in
Bayside, the largest and most notable attempt in over 40 years.

Advertisement
The rezoning has two goals. The first is ensuring areas of
predominantly single-family homes remain that way. Imagine the shock
when your sleepy tree-lined street overnight has an apartment building
in its midst because of a shortsighted and inaccurate zoning
designation having been applied years ago. The Bayside plan will make
certain single-family neighborhoods evolve appropriately as
single-family neighborhoods, and higher density areas likewise evolve
as higher density areas.

Second is to check the infestation of the supersized, non-contextual
McMansion. And let's not mince words here. These obscene buildings only
achieve their bloated size through the misuse of the lowest-story floor
area exemption of the zoning resolution. They are the result of certain
developers, builders and architects knowingly abusing the law, and
unfortunately the Buildings Department, well aware and informed of the
problem, living up (or down) to its pathetic reputation by bending over
backwards to accommodate said developers and their ill-gotten profits.

What a sham. In short, McMansions should never have been built and
never should be built according to the letter and intent of the law.
The rezoning's new R2A designation disallows the exemption, so future
construction must contextually be closer in size to existing stock.
Let's remember, too, that McMansions, due to sheer bulk, foster illegal
apartments or extended occupancy, thus burdening services, schools,
parking availability, etc. And sadly, due to the exorbitant, ill-gotten
prices McMansions command, the middle class is priced out of even an
attempt at homeownership in Bayside. Under R2A, developers won't be
able to pock the landscape with McMansions. Don't shed a single tear.

Naysayers shout the public was not properly involved or informed and
that the plan did not enjoy proper disclosure in that it changed
significantly near the end of community board review. Certainly the
process was messy, but the fact of the matter is, the intent of the
rezoning, neighborhood stability and proper growth, never changed and
was well-known and vociferously sought for years.

It was the mechanics of the plan, overlooked by big-picture
bureaucrats, that sharp-eyed civic leaders such as Henry Euler
understood to be in grave error and worked diligently to change. Anyone
who cared to be educated on the rezoning certainly was. The very
purpose of the community review period was to grant that time to wed
the well-publicized intent with appropriate zoning language to make it
work properly. That was accomplished.

What of real estate values? Fear mongers claim that under the rezoning,
home values will drop precipitously. At the community board vote in
January, one flak for the AIA even went so far as to say Bayside would
become a ghost town should the rezoning go through. Believe that remark
and I suggest you buy a bridge from the next person who tries to sell
you one.

Will Bayside, 25 minutes on the main line from an increasingly
overcrowded Midtown, see a drop in real estate value? Never. If you
bought a home in 2000 it has now at least doubled in value and will
continue to increase. And interestingly, the greatest jump in value has
been for smaller-lot homes. A typical 1,800-square-foot home on a
4,000-square-foot lot now averages conservatively around $650,000.
Under the rezoning plan, a greater variety of building shapes are
allowed and homes can be expanded moderately.

In areas of typically larger lots around John Golden and Crocheron
Park, the R1-2 district will halt subdivisions and the lion's share of
owners want the designation. A couple of years ago, a developer would
likely chance paying more for these properties than an individual or
family buyer, to attempt huge profits after subdivision and fraudulent
McMansion building, profits never shared with the original seller.

Now, due to economic forces and demand these properties are sought by
individuals because they have the greatest opportunity for expansion as
single homes. And that's profit denied the developers, reaped only by
the seller.

Lastly, the ludicrous and desperate claim was posited that the
Asian-American community was particularly left out of the rezoning
process. How do we know this to be untrue? For one, no member of the
Asian-American community has made that claim. Moreover, Bayside is a
community with extremely active, vocal civic associations and by all
accounts one of the most dedicated, involved and inclusive community
boards. They are all open and receptive to any ethnicity, bar none. To
even infer otherwise is to race-bait and should be lent no credence
whatsoever.

The Bayside rezoning is necessary, long overdue and will secure these
beautiful neighborhoods for all, and that means all, who cherish them.

BRIXTON DOYLE

Bayside Civic Database

[g***@yahoo.com]

For answers in zoning debate just drive to Flushing North
03/31/2005
Email to a friend Voice your opinion Printer-friendly

I disagree with the editorial "Beware easy answers in the zoning
debate" in the March 24 edition of the paper, which asks that residents
in R2 zoning districts consider the economic impact of the R2A zoning
change will have on developers and property owners.

Drafted in 1961, R2 district regulations were "designed to provide a
suitable open character for single-family detached dwellings at low
densities." The regulation worked fine until, I guess starting in the
early '90s, developers discovered cash-cow loopholes that allowed them
to construct homes much larger than intended by literal R2 zoning
rules.

Advertisement
We've all seen the results - three-story brick or stucco boxes crowding
the lot lines. Design, of course, is subjective, but once developers
demolish a perfectly sound home, the first thing they do is cut down
all trees and build an oversized, typically ostentatious creation with
the front yard paved for parking.

Developers ignore the existence of modest, and in many cases
well-designed, older homes in the surrounding neighborhood. This lack
of consideration and design sensibility, fired by profit motive and a
hot real estate market, has alienated community residents who now have
to live in the shadow of oversized homes and deal with increased
traffic and parking problems. The R2A zoning revision, widely supported
by residents and community leaders, is intended to plug the loopholes.

As far as the editorial's contention that owners of existing homes will
see a reduction in property value, consider this: R2A may actually
increase property values. An important consideration for potential
buyers is the "street scene." An architecturally compatible mix of
well-designed homes on tree-lined streets with cars out of sight is a
plus for most buyers - a drive into Flushing North that has experienced
almost no change tells the story.

And buyers of modest homes in the new R2A zone will be more willing to
commit to a fair asking price because they won't have to worry about a
three-story, oversized box being built next door that will reduce their
property's privacy, light and value.

Profit motivated developers and the "me-me-me" people don't care about
us. Why should we worry about them?

GIL DILLON

Whitestone


©Times Ledger 2005

[g***@yahoo.com]

What a Bayside builder has to say on rezoning
11/26/2004
Email to a friend Voice your opinion Printer-friendly

Bayside is my home. My family has been here since 1948. I've owned and
restored old movie star's homes in the neighborhood including those of
W.C. Fields and Norma Talmidge.

I'm also a builder.

Advertisement
Some say that my profession precludes me from commenting on the
rezoning issues because I have a vested interest. I won't deny that.
However, I also love Bayside. I care about how the community evolves,
especially architecturally. As a resident, I'm 100 percent for zoning
reform, provided that it's done correctly. We all know one-family R2
zoning is full of loopholes that allow for the construction of
oversized homes. However, anybody who thinks that the present proposal
under R2A and R1-2 redistricting is a solution is sadly mistaken.

Although we've been hearing about rezoning for some time, the actual
proposal was created in secrecy by a select group of individuals with
virtually zero input from the local residents. It is also evident that
some of those individuals who have backed the proposal, including city
Councilman Tony Avella, have little understanding of the zoning
technicalities and will suffer the voters' backlash if the present R2A
proposal is approved.

We all agree that many new homes are too tall. R2A doesn't adequately
address this. The proposal pushes basements and cellars lower into the
ground but then gives back building height by allowing new homes to
have enormous sloping roofs in order to gain a 20 percent floor area
bonus. Is this a solution? No. All it does is hamstring architects with
regard to design, forcing them to utilize steep roofs in order to
maximize living area.

Buyers do want more living space. But it can be better employed in the
basement as opposed to a 20 percent increase under an enormous roof.
Rather than pushing cellars further below grade, creating dungeon-like
spaces, more desirable basements should be allowed to stay high enough
out of the ground permitting larger windows with greater natural
illumination and ventilation.

There is no need to provide a substantial floor area increase under
high, sloping roofs which ultimately raise the height of construction.
Besides, these high sloping roof lines may have been in style 40 years
ago but the new multicultural community wants more design options.

I'm not suggesting to allow buildings completely out of context, but
also don't try to legislate taste. Limit the size of the new homes but
don't force people to build what was in vogue generations ago.

R2A also doesn't address side yards. New homes can be as little as five
feet from your property line. This, too, should be increased.
Coincidentally, R2A encourages the construction of detached garages
right on top of the side and rear lot lines. Forget about even a
five-foot buffer from your house. You'll be staring out your window at
a brick wall. But then again, that's the case with the present zoning
laws, so where's the change?

And what about certain R2 lots which are designated for R1-2
redistricting? R1-2 means 60 feet of minimum lot width requirements
instead of the existing 40-foot requirement. This is meant to protect
large lots from subdivisions.

Besides financially discriminating against the owners of the few
oversized lots remaining, the effect on development will be the
opposite of that intended. Under a revised R2A proposal (as opposed to
one under review), an existing 100 feet by 100 feet lot can be
subdivided with two 2,500-square-foot homes totaling 5,000 square feet.

Under R1-2, the lot will be unsubdividable but an 8,000-square-foot
house can be built on that lot. Why? Because R1-2 would still allow an
entire floor to be exempt from floor area. Come to think of it, add a
4,000-square-foot cellar on to that house, and now you have a
12,000-square-foot building on that lot. What sense does that make?

By the way, these oversized lots are also extremely susceptible to
community facility abuses. If the owners can't sell them for the
purpose of subdivision, then why not to sell them to a not-for-profit
group that can truly build a colossal structure?

Let's get this right. R2A can be much better. There are some very
simple recommendations that can lower the height of houses, stop floor
area abuses, create more space between homes, limit the size of
building footprints, and also satisfy new home buyers. Unfortunately,
these recommendations will never be heeded if the local politicians and
City Planning have their way.

They are looking to accelerate the normal rezoning timeline. Winter is
approaching when builders are least active, but city government wants
Bayside rezoned by February. Why the rush? Maybe too many people who
don't live in our neighborhoods want to take credit for a fictitious
reform. The emperor has no clothes and this will be apparent if the
present rezoning application is approved.

SETH DANIELS

Bayside

[g***@yahoo.com]

The pointy roof is so stupid:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/bayside/r2a.pdf

[g***@yahoo.com]

Bayside Rezoning - Approved
Proposed Zoning


The principal components of this change are as follows:

* New Floor Area Regulations Regarding the Exemption of
Lowest-Floor Space that Includes a Garage: Under current R2 provisions,
space on the lowest floor of a house may be deducted from zoning floor
area if it meets certain defined criteria, such as whether it contains
a garage. Maximum use of this allowance has resulted in new buildings
substantially larger than surrounding ones, and clearly not matching
the traditional neighborhood context. The proposed R2A designation
would include revised floor area definitions and allowances to limit
the amount of deductible square footage for a floor containing a
garage. Using guidelines adapted from the recent Lower-Density Growth
Management initiative, the new R2A designation would allow the
exemption of only the floor area used for the garage, and only up to a
maximum of 300 square feet-either for a garage in the house itself or
as a separate garage building on the same lot.

* New Height, Setback and Yard Regulations: Under the current R2
designation, building bulk is determined in part by the zoning
district's height and setback regulations. Current regulations allow
a front wall height of 25 feet, at a distance of 15 feet from the front
property line. The maximum height of the front wall and the maximum
overall building height are determined by the Sky Exposure Plane, which
starts at a height of 25 feet and rises one foot vertically for each
foot the front wall or building portion is set back from the front yard
line. No absolute maximum height is established. These height and
setback provisions have resulted in new buildings substantially
out-of-scale with surrounding ones in terms of building size and
profile. The proposed R2A district would include revised height and
setback regulations to reduce the maximum height of any building wall
to 21 feet. At a height of 21 feet, sloping planes would project inward
from all sides of a structure, up to an absolute maximum of 35 feet at
the ridgeline. In addition, under the proposed R2A designation, one
minimum 20-foot side yard would be required on all corner lots.

* New Floor Area Restrictions and Lot Coverage Regulations: Under
the current R2 regulations, floor area calculations permit the
deduction of any attic floor space where the ceiling height is less
than eight feet. This encourages roofs with a lower slope, and has
resulted also in new buildings substantially out-of-scale with
surrounding ones in terms of building size and profile. As originally
planned, the R2A proposal set a 20 percent limit as the maximum amount
of exempt square footage beneath a pitched roof. This exemption has
been eliminated, along with other floor area exemptions generally
allowed for residences including mechanical equipment, such as boilers
and HVAC, and bulkheads for stairs and elevators. Lot coverage limits
would be established at a maximum of 30 percent, which would include
any separate garage structure on the lot.