"Bulky Houses" on a Diet?
What's Being Proposed for Larchmont Code - What's Been the Reaction

by Judy Silberstein

View Poll Results Draft Proposed Zoning Code: May 9 April 15 Draft : Shows Current Code

(April 28, 2003) On May 1, a Village of Larchmont moratorium on the issuance of zoning variances is set to expire. The Village Board of Trustees is seeking to modify existing codes to better balance the interests of residents wishing to expand their homes with those of the immediate neighbors and others who may be impacted by the building. The Board had hoped to have a modified code in place before the end of the moratorium, but has decided to take at least until May 19 to deliberate further on the modifications.

The proposed changes to the code defy simple summarization or quick resolutions. Various minor nips and tucks in the code are under consideration by the Board to tighten up regulations and slim down the height, width and mass of home additions and new construction.

At the past two meetings, on April 21 and 28, the Board heard from its planning consultant and from an assortment of current and past members of the land use boards, professional architects with local practices, and a few "just residents."

PROPOSED CHANGES

At the April 21 meeting, planning consultant Joseph Ferrucci, from the firm of Phillips Preiss Shapiro Associates, attempted to boil down the complex set of changes into six major steps involving treatment of: half-stories, building height, projections into yards, attached garages, and required setbacks. In general, the revised code encourages the building of homes that appear less bulky by moving the mass of the house closer to the center of the building and the lot. Additional details debated at length during meetings before the Planning Commission covered definitions of corner lots and accessory buildings. (See Planning OK's "Bulky House" Changes)

IMPACT OF PROPOSED CHANGES

The particular set of recommendations reflects a tour of Larchmont and discrete inspections of approximately fifty properties that have been the subject of complaints or were otherwise deemed problematic. A major goal of the code revision is to preclude future problems like those found in the “flawed fifty.”

Planning Board member Mike Edelstein asked the central question, “If the revisions are made, how many of these bulky homes would not have been constructed?”

Mr. Ferrucci, answered, “In one way or the other, the fifty would have been impacted.” He mentioned, for example, that one back yard addition would have been lowered.

To further demonstrate the effect of the new code, on April 28 Mr. Ferrucci brought a set of illustrations prepared by associate Elizabeth Jordan which compare what can be built now to what could be built under the revised regulations. Figure 1 and 2 show an existing home with dotted lines representing the current "building envelope," or maximum allowable space for adding on.

1. CURRENT CODE: The dotted line shows the maximum size and shape of building allowed under the existing code.	2. CURRENT CODE: Front (top) and Side (bottom) view of home built to maximum allowed under the existing code.

3. PROPOSED: Backyard and third floor additions would be reduced by set back requirements.

4. PROPOSED: New homes could not fill the entire "building envelope." The largest home would appear less "boxy."

REACTIONS TO PROPOSALS

The proposals have generated considerable commentary at earlier public hearings of the Planning Commission and before, after and during Village Board meetings; however, most of the commentators have been members of Larchmont's land use boards or professional architects with local practices. Though supportive of the code revision process, the professionals have cautioned against overly restrictive provisions, particularly those governing additions on smaller or sloping lots. Further, they favor approaches that minimize the need to request zoning variances.

The three residents who spoke at the April 28 Board meeting and others in the audience had each been impacted by additions to a neighbor's house and were supportive of tighter regulations.

Gerry Goldberg, a resident who confessed to having difficulty following the technical details of the discussion, urged the Board to take its time and to consider the preservation of light, air, and green spaces in Larchmont's neighborhoods. She argued for a clear code that left decisions up to the land use boards, rather than to neighbors confronting one another.

A call for stricter codes came from an Oak Bluff resident, John O'Gorman, who reported unsuccessful attempts to limit his neighbor's construction projects, despite his appeals to the Zoning Board.

Walter Bogner of Mayhew Avenue, previously chairperson of the Board Acrchitectural Review, was looking for greater restrictions on houses in the R7.5 district where lots are approximately 75 by 100 feet. "The two-story, rear additions are the greatest source of friction between neighbors," he said. Homes tend to have driveways and garages on one side so the additions may appear uncomfortably close to neighbors on the other side. Architect Arthur Wexler, on the other hand, was looking for greater flexibility in the R7.5 zone and also in the smaller R5 lots.

After the meeting, Bruce Macfarlane who lives on Stuyvesant Avenue, noted that, "It's my impression, from conversations with friends in the Village, that the bulky house issue is on most people's minds." He disagreed with some comments from some of the professionals at the Board meeting. "Among my friends," he added, "People are against bulky houses. Most are strongly in favor of limiting the expansion size through the zoning code rather than leaving it to the discretion of the architect."

Mayor Ken Bialo recognized the extent of community interest and displayed a two-inch thick sheaf of related correspondence received by the Board in recent weeks. However, he was leery of taking too much additional time, particularly at Board meetings, to hash out details of a new code.

As a compromise between those wanting more time and those seeking to finish the job expeditiously, the Board settled on additional meetings for further detailed discussions coupled with a "firm" date of May 19 for voting on the zoning code. The Village Clerk will have information on dates, times and locations of the extra meetings.