Board of Trustees

MEETING NOTICE Village of Scarsdale A Work Session of the Scarsdale Village Board of Trustees is scheduled for Tuesday, November 10, 2020 at 5:00 PM. The meeting will be held via Zoom video conferencing service. Members of the public wishing to participate in the meeting can do so via online link at https://zoom.us/j/93183703358, or call into the meeting using 1-929-436-2866 and entering the Meeting ID 931 8370 3358. Agenda 1. Land Use: Bulk Review Committee - Presentation of Report to Mitigate Bulk in New Construction CS: 11-5-20 E-MAIL: Journal News (Lohud) Scarsdale 10583 Scarsdale Hamlet Hub Scarsdale Inquirer The Daily Scarsdale cc: Lobby Bulletin Board Village of Scarsdale Municipal Zoning Survey 2018 [Document subtitle] Village of Scarsdale Planning Department Elizabeth Marrinan, AICP, Village Planner and Shelby Miller, Assistant Village Planner 10-12-2018 pg. 0  Table of Contents Executive Summary…………………………………..pg. 1 Introduction………………………………………...…pg. 3 Setbacks………………………………………...……..pg. 5 Front Yard Setbacks………………………....…..pg. 5 Rear Yard Setbacks……………………………...pg. 7 Side Yard Setbacks………………………………pg. 9 Side on Corner Setbacks…………………………pg. 13 Height………………………………………………….pg. 15 Lot/Development and Building Coverage……………..pg. 17 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)………………………………..pg. 20 Interviews………………………………………………pg. 25 Appendix…………………………………………....….pg. 29 pg. 0  Executive Summary The Village of Scarsdale has wrestled with the “Bulky House Issue” for decades. It has proven difficult to define exactly what the “problem” is or to determine what specifically contributes to the appearance of bulk. Residents often answer “it looks too big,” or “it looms over its neighbors,” or “it is out of character with the neighborhood” when articulating the concern with a particular house. These responses are obviously difficult to quantify. As zoning techniques rely on quantifiable characteristics, regulating bulk is a challenging task. Various studies of the bulky house issue have occurred over the years and Scarsdale’s zoning code has been amended periodically to try to address these aesthetic concerns and protect neighborhood character; however the issue continues to be raised by the public, land use board members and elected officials. Recently, the Village Board asked staff to look at the zoning paradigms of single family residential development in other Westchester municipalities to see what zoning tools are used and to better understand the metrics and measures behind these zoning techniques. The idea was to research what other communities are doing to preserve neighborhood character. The survey included Scarsdale and eight other communities: Bronxville, Larchmont, Harrison, Hastings, the Town of Mamaroneck, the Village of Mamaroneck, Pelham Manor and the City of Rye. The survey analyzed the zoning ordinances of each of the communities. The tools which are commonly used to control the appearance of houses and neighborhoods are: setbacks, height, lot/development and building coverage and Floor Area Ratio. As noted throughout the survey, while the tools are fairly standard, zoning codes differ in many ways as to how those tools are measured and defined. Thus any municipal zoning survey cannot necessarily compare apples to apples, as zoning tools are modified to reflect each community’s historical development and built form. The survey found that Scarsdale’s metrics are generally comparable to or more restrictive than other communities, again with the caveat that the definitions and regulations differ from community to community. Further, the survey found that Scarsdale utilizes all of the zoning tools mentioned above, while other communities use some zoning tools but not others. Five other communities have FAR regulations for single family houses and only four other communities have established building coverage regulations, for example. pg. 1 While Scarsdale uses a wide variety of zoning tools, some communities have developed unique approaches or “twists” which have been described in the narratives. Several communities use “contextual approaches” in calculating setbacks, as does Scarsdale, and FAR. The City of Rye addresses FAR on “oversized” lots, that is lots that are larger than the zoning district, by reducing the FAR for the oversized portion of the lot. Larchmont has used a height-setback ratio for many years and recently added an FAR-setback bonus in certain instances. Of course, a variety of municipal characteristics such as the as-built form of a community, differences in topography, open space and environmental conditions, the age and type of the housing stock and age and size of the population all help to determine the applicability of any zoning tool to individual communities. The survey is intended to provide information and context for the various zoning techniques commonly used to protect community character. The survey is not intended to provide recommendations, but to describe the zoning tools Scarsdale and other communities use for consideration by Village Board and the public. pg. 2  Introduction In New York State, municipalities are given the power to adopt land use regulations designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of local residents in accordance with New York State General Municipal Law. The primary land use regulation tool is the power to “zone”, that is to control, the physical development of the community. Zoning regulations date back to 1916 when New York City adopted the first zoning ordinance in response to concerns about inner city overdevelopment and transportation improvements. The Village of Scarsdale adopted its first zoning ordinance in 1922. The legislative intent at that time described it as an “ordinance to establish building lines and to require all buildings hereafter erected to be with such limits, to regulate the character and location of buildings hereafter erected, to regulate and limit the height and bulk of such buildings and to determine the area of yards, courts another open spaces, to regulate and restrict the location of trades and industries and the location of buildings designed for specified uses and for such purposes to divide the village of Scarsdale into districts so as to promote the public health, safety and general welfare with reasonable consideration, among other things to the most desirable use for which the land of each district may be adapted, the peculiar suitability for particular use of a district, the conservation of property values and the direction of building development in accordance with a well- considered plan…” Since that time, the Village of Scarsdale has amended the zoning code to include additional regulations and to clarify and tighten existing regulations. The Village’s zoning paradigm includes the standard tools used by most municipalities to regulate development including front, rear, side and side-on-corner setbacks, height, building and lot coverage limits and floor area ratios. Municipal Zoning Survey This Municipal Zoning Survey includes a review of the zoning codes of Scarsdale and eight other Westchester municipalities: Bronxville, Larchmont, Harrison, Hastings, the Town of Mamaroneck, the Village of Mamaroneck, Pelham Manor and the City of Rye. 2010 Census information, the most recent available, indicate these communities vary in size from the Town of Mamaroneck with a population pg. 3 of 29,156 and 11,562 dwelling units (including multi-family units) to Pelham Manor with a population of 5,486 and 1,925 dwelling units. Scarsdale had a population of 17,166 and 5,647 dwelling units in 2010. Included in the Appendix is a table showing the 2010 population and number of dwelling units for each of the surveyed communities. Zoning is intended to protect community character and orderly development of a municipality. As such, while the tools are fairly standard, zoning codes reflect the individual and unique character of each municipality. Definitions differ, for example, as how height and setbacks are measured, what portions of a structure are included in FAR calculations or how lot development and impervious surfaces are measured. It should be clear from the outset, any municipal zoning survey cannot necessarily compare apples to apples, as each municipality has its own historical development and built form. The differences have been noted throughout the report. The survey looks at single family residential development regulations, focusing solely on the requirements for principal buildings. This is an attempt to inform the stated concerns of residents about “bulky houses”. What follows is a narrative description of each of the zoning tools analyzed, a table of the data collected from each municipality and a graph comparing that data among the municipalities. The data is organized by lot size, based on comparable Scarsdale zoning districts. In some cases, as noted on the tables, the surveyed municipality does not have a comparable zoning district size and/or does not use a particular zoning tool. To the extent possible, the narrative and the notes following the data tables attempt to explain the differences in measurements and calculations. Follow up phone conversations were conducted, where possible, with municipal officials of the surveyed communities to try to address the question as to how they perceive whether the local zoning paradigm successfully regulates single family residential development. The Appendix includes a the 2010 Census information noted above, a list of links to the zoning codes of each of the surveyed municipalities and the “Tables of Dimensional Requirements” or a summary sheet from each of the municipalities, where available. pg. 4  Setbacks Setbacks are a common zoning tool used by all of the surveyed municipalities. A setback is a required distance between a property line and a building. The purpose is to provide adequate light and air between structures and to provide an orderly streetscape which enhances a zoning district’s and the municipality’s community character. Front Yard Setbacks Front yard setbacks preserve and protect the streetscape, a neighborhood’s most visible public characteristic. Front yard setbacks also help to reduce the appearance of a building’s bulk from the street, as buildings appear smaller the further away they are located from the observer. In Scarsdale, the front yard setbacks increase as zoning districts increase in size (from 30 ft. in the 5,000 sq. ft. zoning district to 75 ft. in the 2 acre zone). In other municipalities, the front yard setback is the same across several zoning districts. All of the surveyed municipalities measure the front yard setback from the front property line which is the edge of the right of way. In the City of Rye, if a property abuts a right of way which is less than 50 ft. wide, the setback is measured from a line 25 ft. from the center line of the street. Front yard “averaging” is a contextual zoning approach which permits a house to be set back no further than the average setback of neighboring houses, despite an established front yard setback. This approach is intended to ensure a balanced and harmonious streetscape. The front yard averaging technique is permitted in Scarsdale and in two of the municipalities surveyed: Larchmont and Pelham. Each municipality defines the “neighboring” properties differently: Scarsdale (generally properties within 200 ft. on same side of the street). Larchmont (the nearest 4 lots on same side of the street). Pelham (adjoining properties on same side of the street). pg. 5 Table 1: Front Yard Setbacks 2 acres 1 acre 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,500 5,000 (a) Scarsdale 75 50 40 40 30 30 30 Bronxville N/A N/A N/A 25 N/A N/A N/A Larchmont (a) N/A N/A 30 30 30 30 30 Harrison 75 40 30 N/A N/A 30 25 Hastings N/A N/A 40 N/A 30 25 N/A Mamaroneck Town N/A N/A 40 40 30 30 N/A Mamaroneck Village N/A N/A 25 25 25 25 20 Pelham Manor (a) N/A N/A 40 35 35 N/A 20 City of Rye (b) N/A 35 35 N/A 30 N/A 25 *N/A means the municipality does not have a zoning district of this size Notes: (a) Front Yard averaging is permitted in Scarsdale, Larchmont, and Pelham. (Scarsdale: 310- 15; Larchmont: see dimensional table in appendix; Pelham: 210-33A) (b) In the City of Rye, wherever a required yard abuts a street less than 50 feet wide, the minimum yard dimension(s) are measured from a line 25 feet from the center line of said street. (see dimensional table in appendix) Graph 1: pg. 6  Rear Yard Setbacks Rear yard setbacks are designed to provide adequate separation between buildings and to allow light and air to reach all buildings. Scarsdale is one of the few surveyed municipalities which has a standard rear yard setback requirement in all zoning districts. In addition, Scarsdale is the only municipality which requires a greater rear yard setback for two story structures (30 ft.) than for one story structures (25 ft.), as is shown on Table and Graph 2. Larchmont has a Height – Setback ratio which has been in place for many years. In zoning districts over 10,000 sq. ft., the rear and side yard setbacks must be increased by ½ ft. above the minimum required for each two feet a house exceeds 20 ft. in height. In smaller zoning districts this reduced to ½ ft. of increased setback for each three ft. in height above 20 ft. The maximum permitted height is 30 ft. As discussed later, in Larchmont as in Scarsdale, the height of a house is measured from the average existing or proposed grade, whichever is lower, to the mid-point of the ridge and the eaves. pg. 7 Table 2: Rear Yard Setbacks 2 acres 1 acre 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,500 5,000 Scarsdale (1 Story) 25 25 25 25 25 25 25 Scarsdale (2 Story) (a) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Bronxville N/A N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A N/A Larchmont (b) N/A N/A 40 30 25 25 25 Harrison 100 50 25 N/A N/A 25 30 Hastings N/A N/A 40 N/A 30 25 N/A Mamaroneck Town N/A N/A 40 25 25 25 N/A Mamaroneck Village N/A N/A 30 30 30 30 25 Pelham Manor N/A N/A 25 25 25 N/A 25 City of Rye N/A 60 50 N/A 30 N/A 30 *N/A means the municipality does not have a zoning district of this size Notes: (a) Scarsdale requires a greater rear yard setback for a two story structure. (310-43) (b) Larchmont has a height-setback ratio. (381-34 C) Graph 2: pg. 8  Side Yard Setbacks Side yard setback requirements, like the rear yard setback, are intended to provide adequate space, air and light for each building. Obviously, on smaller properties, 10,000 sq. ft. and below, the side yard setbacks are often smaller. All of the surveyed municipalities regulate the side yard setbacks; however some provide a minimum requirement for each side and others provide a minimum requirement for one side and a total requirement for both sides. Scarsdale, Bronxville and Pelham Manor require a minimum side yard setback which applies to each side. The other surveyed municipalities require a minimum side yard setback for one side and a minimum total for the two side yards added together. This approach allows for greater flexibility in siting the house. For example, in the 5,000 sq. ft. zoning district in Scarsdale, 10 ft. are required for each side yard, an effective total of 20 ft. In Larchmont, in the same sized zoning district, a minimum of 6 ft. is required; however the total of the two side yards must be 16 ft. It should be noted that Larchmont’s Height-Setback Ratio, discussed under Rear Yard, also applies to side yard setbacks when the house exceeds 20 ft. in height. As noted in Table and Graph 3, for the purposes of comparison, the two side yards have been added together for a required total for Scarsdale, Bronxville and Pelham Manor. Both Scarsdale and Larchmont link additional floor area to increased side yard setbacks; i.e. setbacks which are greater than the minimum required. In Scarsdale, the FAR regulations incentivize increased side yard setbacks by permitting a limited amount of additional floor area above a base maximum. This is known as the “side yard setback bonus”. For each foot a house is set back above the required setback, an additional 100 sq. ft. of floor area is allowed above the base maximum. The bonus is capped at 700 sq. ft. in the larger zoning districts and 400 sq. ft. for the smaller districts. In Larchmont, increased side yard setbacks are required based on house size and zoning district. The zoning code provides a “threshold” FAR for each zoning district. For every 100 ft. of FAR in excess of the “threshold”, both minimum side yard setbacks must be increased by ½ ft. The required increased side yard setbacks are capped for each zoning district. pg. 9 Pelham Manor links increased side yard setbacks to topography and height when a house is built on a vacant lot, or where more than 50% of an existing house is removed or destroyed or for additions of over 500 sq. ft. In these cases, a special use permit is required from the Zoning Board of Appeals which must determine whether there is a “complimentary relationship” between a building’s height and setback. In addition, if the top of the foundation wall is more than 7 ft. higher than the adjacent property, measured at the property line, the house shall be set back an additional 5 ft. from each side yard for each story above the first floor. pg. 10 Table 3: Side Yard Setbacks 2 acres 1 acre 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,500 5,000 Min. Total Min. Total Min. Total Min. Total Min. Total Min. Total Min. Total Scarsdale (a) (c) 30 60 20 40 15 30 15 30 10 20 10 20 10 20 Bronxville (a) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Larchmont (b) N/A N/A N/A N/A 12 30 10 25 10 25 10 22 6 16 Harrison 50 100 20 40 15 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A 10 20 5 15 Hastings N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 50 N/A N/A 12 30 8 20 N/A N/A Mamaroneck Town N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 40 10 30 10 25 10 20 N/A N/A Mamaroneck Village N/A N/A N/A N/A 20 45 15 35 10 25 8 20 6 14 Pelham Manor (a) N/A N/A N/A N/A 15 30 10 20 10 20 N/A N/A 10 20 City of Rye N/A N/A 20 50 15 40 N/A N/A 10 25 N/A N/A 8 20 *N/A means the municipality does not have a zoning district of this size Notes: (a) Scarsdale, Bronxville and Pelham Manor have minimum setbacks for each side. For the purposes of comparison the minimum is multiplied by 2 to create a total setback requirement. (b) Height setback ratio (381-34 C) (c) Side yard setback bonus (310-104) pg. 11 Graph 3: pg. 12  Side on Corner Setbacks Corner properties are very visible with facades facing two or more streets and, as such, can be difficult to regulate. Most of the surveyed communities have established side on corner setbacks which are equivalent or close to the front yard setbacks so, in essence, a corner property has two “front” yards. This a standard urban design concept which preserves and maintains the streetscape on each street. In Scarsdale, Bronxville and, in certain cases, in Larchmont, the property owner can determine which side of a corner lot is the front yard. In Hastings and in the Town of Mamaroneck, the owner selects the rear yard. In the Village of Mamaroneck, the owner can choose to use the required front yard setback on both sides, or can choose a contextual approach, averaging the setbacks of adjacent properties. The contextual or averaging approach is also used in Larchmont and Harrison. In the City of Rye, the side on corner setback must be at least 1/5th of the lot width, but no greater than the required front yard setback. pg. 13 Table 4: Side on Corner Setbacks 2 acres 1 acre 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,500 5,000 Scarsdale (a) 65 40 30 30 20 15 15 Bronxville (b) N/A N/A N/A 30 N/A N/A N/A Larchmont (c) N/A N/A 30 30 30 30 30 Harrison (c) 50 40 (d) 30 N/A N/A 15 15 Hastings (d) N/A N/A 40 N/A 30 25 N/A Mamaroneck Town (d) N/A N/A 40 40 30 30 N/A Mamaroneck Village (e) N/A N/A 25 25 25 25 20 Pelham Manor (f) N/A N/A 25 25 25 N/A 25 City of Rye (g) N/A 35 35 N/A 30 N/A 25 *N/A means the municipality does not have a zoning district of this size Notes: (a) Owner chooses which will be front and the side on corner (310-53) (b) One side not less than 30’ and the other not less than 15’. (310-9 D(1)) (c) Contextual approach or same as front yard setback. (see dimensional tables in appendix) (d) Same as front yard. Owner chooses which is the rear yard. (Hastings:295-20 F; Mamaroneck Town: 240-54) (e) Same as front yard setback or owner can choose to use contextual approach. (342-15.1) (f) One side not less than 15’ and the other not less than 25’ (210-34 B) (g) At least 1/5 the lot width but not more than the front yard setback. (see dimensional table in appendix) Graph 4: pg. 14  Height All of the surveyed municipalities regulate the maximum permitted height of single family houses and range from 28 to 35 ft.; however the method of measuring height differs. In all but one community, the maximum permitted height is the same across all zoning districts. In the City of Rye, the maximum permitted height is higher in the larger zoning districts. The method of measuring height differs between communities. In Scarsdale, the height is measured from the average existing or final grade, whichever is lower, to the mid-point of the roof (i.e. the midpoint between the roof ridge and the top plate of the wall). The City of Rye and the Town of Mamaroneck measure height from the average finished grade to the midpoint of the roof. The Village of Mamaroneck measures height from the existing grade to the midpoint of the roof. Bronxville measures height from the finished grade along the front façade to the midpoint of the roof. Hastings and Pelham measure from the existing grade to the top of the house. Due to Hasting’s hilly topography, the code includes diagrams to describe how to measure height on sloped properties. Harrison measures height from the average finished grade, measured along a line offset 10 feet from the periphery of the building or structure, to the top of a flat roof or of a mansard roof or the average height of a pitched roof. Larchmont measures height as Scarsdale does, from the existing or proposed grade, whichever is lower, to the midpoint of the roof and has a maximum permitted height of 30 ft. As noted above in the discussion of setbacks, Larchmont has established a “height-setback ratio” which requires a single family house to be set back beyond the minimum required side and rear yard setbacks above a certain height. In the larger zoning districts (10,000 sq. ft. and above), the maximum height of a one-family residence in the side and rear yards, measured at the minimum required yard setback, shall not exceed 20 feet above the unfinished average grade along the facade. Thereafter, the height of such building may be increased by two feet for each additional one-foot distance provided from the minimum required yard setback line. In smaller zoning districts this reduced to ½ ft. of increased setback for each three ft. in height above 20 ft. pg. 15 Table 5: Height 2 acres 1 acre 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,500 5,000 Scarsdale (a) 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 (b) Bronxville N/A N/A N/A 35 N/A N/A N/A Larchmont (g) N/A N/A 30 30 30 30 30 Harrison (d) 30 30 30 N/A N/A 30 30 (e) Hastings N/A N/A 35 N/A 35 35 N/A Mamaroneck Town (c) N/A N/A 35 35 35 35 N/A (f) Mamaroneck Village N/A N/A 35 35 35 35 35 (e) Pelham Manor N/A N/A 35 35 35 N/A 35 City of Rye (c) N/A 32 32 N/A 28 N/A 28 *N/A means the municipality does not have a zoning district of this size Notes: (a) Scarsdale measures height from the proposed final grade or the existing grade, if that is lower, to the midpoint between the ridge and the top plate of the wall. (310-2) (b) Bronxville measures height from the average finished grade to the midpoint between the eaves and the highest point only from the grade facing the street. (310-3) (c) The City of Rye and Mamaroneck Town measure height from the average finished grade to the midpoint between the eaves and the highest point. (Rye: 197-1; Mamaroneck Town: 240-4) (d) Harrison measures height from the average finished grade, measured along a line offset 10 feet from the periphery, to the average height of a pitched roof. (235-4) (e) Hastings and Pelham Manor measure height from existing grade to the top of the structure. (Hastings: 295- 5; Pelham: 210-15) (f) Mamaroneck Village measures height from the average existing grade to the midpoint between the eaves and the highest point. (342-3) (g) Larchmont measures height from preexisting or proposed grade, whichever is lower, to the average distance between the eaves and the ridge. Note there is a height setback ratio. (381-34) Graph 5: pg. 16  Lot/Development and Building Coverage Lot and building coverage requirements are another common zoning tool designed to balance development with open space on a given property. The intent is to preserve neighborhood character, limit environmental impacts such as stormwater run-off and tree removal and avoid over development. Coverage is calculated as a percentage of the total lot area of a property. All of the surveyed municipalities regulate coverage to differing degrees with differing definitions of lot, building and development coverage. Lot or development coverage typically includes buildings, structures, paved areas, driveways, walkways, patios, pools, tennis or sports courts, man-made improvements and impervious surfaces. Building coverage typically includes the footprint of the buildings on a property. Scarsdale and Hastings regulate both lot and building coverage. Scarsdale also has more restrictive lot coverage requirements for wetlands controlled properties; however the building coverage limits are the same for wetlands and non-wetlands properties. Bronxville has an open space requirement and a building coverage requirement. Larchmont and the Town of Mamaroneck only regulate lot coverage. Although Harrison regulates lot coverage, it is defined as the maximum percentage of the total lot area occupied by main and accessory buildings. Pelham Manor regulates development coverage which includes all buildings, structures, paved areas and other improved surfaces on a site including areas covered with gravel or crushed stone to support vehicles, pools, ponds, fountains patios, decks and gazebos. The Village of Mamaroneck regulates building coverage only, although the Village is considering adding a lot coverage requirement. The City of Rye regulates lot coverage on floodplain properties over a certain size and has an open space requirement for multi-family buildings. pg. 17 Table 6: Lot/Development Coverage 2 acres 1 acre 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,500 5,000 Scarsdale 20.00% 30.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 40.00% 45.00% Bronxville (a) N/A N/A N/A 50.00% N/A N/A N/A Larchmont 35.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% 45.00% 47.50% 50.00% Harrison (b) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hastings N/A N/A 25.00% N/A 35.00% 40.00% N/A Mamaroneck Town N/A N/A 35.00% 35.00% 35.00% 35.00% 35.00% Mamaroneck Village N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Pelham Manor N/A N/A 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% N/A 45.00% City of Rye (c) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *N/A means the municipality does not have coverage regulations or a regulation for a lot of this size Table 7: Building Coverage 2 acres 1 acre 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,500 5,000 Scarsdale 7.33% 10.66% 18.50% 20.67% 25.00% 28.00% 30.00% Bronxville N/A N/A N/A 25.00% N/A N/A N/A Larchmont N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Harrison (b) 10.00% 15.00% N/A N/A N/A 20.00% 25.00% Hastings N/A N/A 15.00% N/A 25.00% 30.00% N/A Mamaroneck Town N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mamaroneck Village N/A N/A 35.00% 35.00% 35.00% 35.00% 35.00% Pelham Manor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A City of Rye (c) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A *N/A means the municipality does not have coverage regulations or a regulation for a lot of this size Notes: (a) Bronxville requires 50% of a lot to remain open space. (310-9 H) (b) Harrison defines lot coverage as building coverage. (see dimensional table in appendix) (c) Rye regulates lot coverage on floodplain properties. (197-13.1 B) pg. 18 Graph 6: Graph 7: pg. 19  Floor Area Ratio (FAR) Floor Area Ratio is the ratio of the total floor area of the buildings on a property to the total lot area. Primarily used for commercial development, in recent years more municipalities are applying FAR as a zoning tool to regulate single family residential development. The Village of Scarsdale adopted FAR regulations in 2002 after a two year study. The stated goal of the Scarsdale FAR regulations is to control the perception of bulk from the street. Five of the surveyed communities also use FAR to regulate single family houses: Bronxville, Larchmont, the Town of Mamaroneck, the Village of Mamaroneck and the City of Rye. All but one of these communities, the City of Rye, regulate FAR by lot size. The City of Rye provides a maximum FAR for each zoning district which is then calculated based on lot size. Typically, the FAR decreases as a lot gets larger. For example, the base FAR for a 5,000 sq. ft. lot is 0.43 (or 2,150 sq. ft.) in Scarsdale and 0.62 (or 3,100 sq. ft.) in Larchmont. On a one acre lot, the FAR in Scarsdale is 0.1552 (or 6,760 sq. ft.) and 0.32 (or 13,939 sq. ft.) in Larchmont. In Scarsdale, FAR does not apply to properties which are larger than 1.75 acres. The method of determining what is included in the calculation of FAR differs in each community, due to differences in local community character, the built environment and the individual issues affecting a community when the legislation is discussed and adopted. Basements are generally excluded. In Scarsdale, Larchmont and the Village of Mamaroneck, basements are excluded except where the exposed basement wall exceeds a certain height. In the City of Rye, 25% of the basement is counted where the grade has been reduced to create an exposed wall over a certain height. Attics are also generally excluded where the floor to ceiling height is less than a certain height. In Scarsdale, attics are excluded unless the dormers exceed 30% of the width of the front façade and are closer than 5 ft. to the edges of the rear façade. In Bronxville, the attic is included if the dormers exceed 30% of the width of any façade. In Scarsdale on smaller lots, the lesser of 250 sq. ft. or the size of a garage is excluded and on larger lots the lesser of 400 sq. ft. or the size of the garage is pg. 20 excluded. This does not apply to basement garages where the exterior wall facing the front exceeds a certain height. The Village of Mamaroneck, in 2016, amended the FAR regulations to include garages, which had been excluded, in the calculations. As noted earlier, both Scarsdale and Larchmont link FAR to side yard setbacks to attempt to limit the perception of bulk and increase the space between homes. In Scarsdale, the FAR regulations incentivize increased side yard setbacks by permitting a limited amount of additional floor area above a base maximum. Known as the “side yard setback bonus”, an additional 100 sq. ft. of floor area is allowed above the base maximum for each foot a house is set back beyond the required side yard setback. The “bonus” is capped at 700 sq. ft. in the larger zoning districts and 400 sq. ft. for the smaller districts. In Larchmont, increased side yard setbacks are required based on house size and zoning district. The code provides a “threshold” FAR for each zoning district. For every 100 ft. of FAR in excess of the “threshold”, both minimum side yard setbacks must be increased by ½ ft. For example, the threshold for a 5,000 sq. ft. lot is 2,500 sq. ft. Anything above that number triggers the increased side yard setback up to the maximum permitted FAR of 3,100 sq. ft. In Scarsdale and in Bronxville, properties with a gross floor area above a certain limit are subject to additional land use board review. In Scarsdale, properties with over 15,000 sq. ft. of floor area require a Special Use Permit from the Board of Appeals. In Bronxville, houses over 7,500 sq. ft. are subject to Site plan review by the Planning Board. The review is limited to siting of the house on the lot and landscaping. The Town of Mamaroneck has a contextual component to the FAR which permits house to exceed the maximum permitted FAR by using the average FAR of properties within 300 ft. The City of Rye includes a calculation for properties which are oversized for the zoning district. The FAR is reduced to ½ for the portion of the lot which is 150 – 250% of the minimum lot area and further reduced to ¼ of the portion of the lot which exceeds 250%. pg. 21 The Village of Mamaroneck, in response to community opposition to several subdivisions, adopted revisions to the existing FAR code in 2016. The changes included basing the FAR calculation on lot size, as Scarsdale does, not zoning district. In addition, the FAR limits were decreased, garages were included in the calculations and basements were included where the exterior wall exceeds 3 ft. pg. 22 Table 8: FAR maximum 87,120 43,560 20,000 15000 10000 7500 5000 Gross Gross Gross Gross Gross Gross Gross Max Floor Max Floor Max Floor Max Floor Max Floor Max Floor Max Floor FAR Area FAR Area FAR Area FAR Area FAR Area FAR Area FAR Area Scarsdale N/A N/A 0.1552 6760.5 0.26 5200 0.29 4350 0.35 3500 0.38 2850 0.43 2150 Bronxville N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.27 5400 0.32 4800 0.37 3700 N/A N/A N/A N/A Larchmont N/A N/A 0.32 13939.2 0.37 7400 0.42 6300 0.52 5200 0.57 4270 0.62 3100 Harrison N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Hastings N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Mamaroneck Town N/A N/A 0.19661 9028 0.281 5620 0.334 5110 0.43 4340 0.505 3788 0.55 2750 Mamaroneck Village N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.27 5400 0.32 4800 0.37 3700 0.42 3150 0.53 2650 Pelham Manor N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A City of Rye N/A N/A 0.15 6534 0.2 4000 N/A N/A 0.3 3000 N/A N/A 0.45 2250 *N/A means the municipality does not have FAR regulations or a regulation for a lot of this size Note: see narrative for explanation on how each municipality is measured. pg. 23 Graph 8: Graph 9: pg. 24  Interviews In follow up interviews with municipal officials, it is clear the “bulky house issue” is not a uniform concern. In Hastings, for example, there are few new houses or large additions and single family development is “not a huge problem”. In Pelham Manor, there have been occasional concerns, but the neighborhood character has been maintained with relatively little local regulation. In contrast, in Larchmont, where like in Hastings and Pelham Manor, there are also few tear downs and new homes, the issue crystalized around a particular application, the community imposed a moratorium and ultimately adopted FAR regulations. In the Village of Mamaroneck, opposition to several subdivisions led to changes to the existing FAR regulations. A common theme in the interviews is, as one official stated, “Architects are creative and will find a way to expand if that’s what the client and the market desire”. Village of Hastings The issue of bulky houses has not been a major concern in the Village of Hastings; however the Village does not see a large number of tear downs or subdivisions annually. Much of the housing stock is old and, in some cases, developed prior to certain zoning provisions were adopted. They see a few variances requested from lot and building coverage. The Village has not adopted FAR regulations. Other issues such as multi-family development regulations and waterfront re- development are current concerns. Village of Larchmont A controversial proposal for a tear down and a subdivision were the basis of changes to the Village of Larchmont’s zoning code which were made in 2016. The primary change was the adoption of FAR regulations which established FAR limits based on lot area, counted basements where the exterior wall exceeds 2 ft. and provides a limited exclusion of basements under 2 ft. and excluded most attics where the floor to ceiling height is under 5 ft. In addition, the code provides for a FAR-setback ratio which requires an increased side yard setback when the FAR exceeds a certain “threshold” established for each zoning district. (See FAR chapter). According to local officials there have been only a few new houses built since the code was amended and thus it was early to see how successful the changes have pg. 25 been. Some neighbors feel the changes haven’t gone far enough. One official noted, “once you give people boundaries, they find a way to push them.” The amendments apply to new houses and additions. There has been an increase in FAR-related variances. The application process has become more complicated and additional staff has been retained to help with the overall land use process, not just the FAR changes. Village of Mamaroneck The issue of subdivisions and the resulting large houses has been a concern in the Village of Mamaroneck. In 2016, the Village adopted changes to the existing FAR code including changes to the method of calculating FAR, the inclusion of garages as well as basements with exterior wall heights which exceed 3 ft. The zoning code was also changed to include a “contextual approach” for side on corner setbacks which allows the owner to select the front yard and the street line yard which is determined by averaging the street lines of properties within 150 ft. According to local officials they were “walking the fine line of allowing older single family houses to be renovated and grow while discouraging new bulky development.” While the changes to the code are only two years old, local officials felt they had seen some success, as the houses in recent subdivisions were more suitable to the surrounding neighborhoods; however the new developments were only slightly less controversial. There is some evidence that the number of FAR- related variance requests have increased. Village of Pelham Manor The issue of large houses has not been an ongoing problem in the Village; however there have been occasional concerns raised about specific homes. The Village has a “panoply of beautiful architecture” which is not due to governmental regulation, according to a local official. Pelham Manor does not have FAR regulations, nor does it have an architectural review board. He noted that one application for a large house which was built on a “double lot” uphill from its neighbor triggered a change to the zoning code which required a greater side yard setback if the foundation wall is greater than 7 ft. higher than the neighboring property, measured at the property line. He also noted that the Zoning Board of Appeals has special permit authority when a new house is built on a vacant lot, or if more than 50% of an existing house is destroyed or if there is an addition of more than 500 sq. ft. These applications are rare; there were 3 teardowns in Pelham Manor this year. pg. 26  City of Rye The City of Rye has also had concerns regarding “bulky houses” over the years. The issue there, as in Scarsdale, has been the difficulty in defining the problem. There have been attempts with changes to the FAR and other zoning regulations over the years which have not necessarily resulted in the community being satisfied. For example, after months of discussion, a recent change to the code merely shaved 6 inches from the headroom in the attic for the purposes of calculating FAR. It is unclear how this change has impacted the community. The fact is the code may regulate the amount of floor area; but it really cannot regulate what is important to the observer: the aesthetics of bulk and scale. One relatively recent change attempted to limit the height of houses by limiting the first floor elevation to 3 ft. above the existing grade. While this has had the intended effect of keeping the height of houses down, it pushes the houses further underground and has resulted in other, unintended, impacts such as increased rock and soil removal and stormwater management problems during and after construction. pg. 27 pg. 28 Appendix 2010 Census Data………………………………………….pg. 31 Links to the Zoning Code of each surveyed municipality…pg. 32 Dimensional Tables Village of Scarsdale………………………………….pg. 33 Larchmont……………………………………………pg. 34 Town of Harrison…………………………………….pg. 36 Town of Mamaroneck………………………………..pg. 37 Village of Mamaroneck………………………………pg. 38 City of Rye…………………………………………...pg. 40 pg. 29 pg. 30  2010 Census Data Total Housing Population Units* Scarsdale Village 17,166 5,647 Bronxville Village 6,323 2,430 Larchmont Village 5,864 2,215 Harrison Village 27,472 8,956 Hastings-on-Hudson Village 7,849 3,270 Mamaroneck Town 29,156 11,562 Mamaroneck Village 18,929 7,512 Pelham Manor Village 5,486 1,925 Rye City 15,720 5,957 *Includes single and multi family units pg. 31 Links to the Zoning Code of each municipality Bronxville: https://ecode360.com/9450363 Larchmont: https://ecode360.com/7083146 Harrison: https://www.ecode360.com/8314019 Hastings: https://ecode360.com/10991363 Mamaroneck Town: https://ecode360.com/9160708 Mamaroneck Village: https://ecode360.com/7712654 Pelham Manor: http://www.pelhammanor.org/building-zoning/pages/village-code Zoning is section 210 City of Rye: https://www.ecode360.com/6977013 pg. 32 Village of Scarsdale Residential Setbacks Zone AA-2 A-1 A-2 A-2A A-3 A-4 A-5 Sect. Lot area 2 Acres 1 Acre 20,000 15,000 10,000 7,500 5,000 310-14 sq. ft. sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft sq. ft Frontage 250 ft. 150 ft. 100 ft. 100 ft. 70 ft. 60 ft. 50 ft. 310-15 Height* 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 35 ft. 310-25 Setback Front 75 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 310-35 Front on State Rd 85 ft. 60 ft. 50 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 310-40 Rear (2 story) 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 310-43 Rear (1 story) 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 310-43 Side 30 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 310-51 Side on Corner 65 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 20 ft. 15 ft. 15 ft. 310-53 Side on State Rd. 75 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft. 25 ft. 310-56 Access. Bldgs. Rear 15 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft 5 ft 4 ft. 4 ft. 310-47 Side** 20 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 10 ft. 5 ft. 4 ft. 4 ft. 310-47 Side on Corner 60 ft. 50 ft. 40 ft. 40 ft. 30 ft. 30 ft. 25 ft. 310-47 * As measured to the midpoint between the ridge and the top plate of the wall (see Secs. 310-2 thru 310-25) ** These setbacks apply when the accessory building is 100 ft. or more back from the front property line. In Zone AA-1 thru A-2. In Zone A-2A they apply when 80 ft. or more back from the front property line. In Zone A-3 thru A-5. In Zone A-2A they apply when 60 ft. or more back from the front property line. Note: 1. For setbacks in new subdivisions see Sec. 310.59. 2. For existing nonconforming structures built prior to April 1, 1947 see Sec. 310- 96 B. pg. 33 Larchmont pg. 34 pg. 35 Town of Harrison pg. 36 Town of Mamaroneck pg. 37 Village of Mamaroneck pg. 38 pg. 39 City of Rye pg. 40 pg. 41 pg. 42