Trustees Consider Effectiveness of FAR Building Regulations

In response to residents' concerns about the size of new homes that appear to be popping up all over town, the Land Use Committee of the Scarsdale Board of Trustees agreed to take a look at the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) regulations that were adopted by the Village in 2002 and re-examined in 2006-7. This code regulates the size of new homes and renovations built in the village.

On Tuesday January 20, 2015, Village Planner Elizabeth Marrinan invited architect George Jones, of George Jones Associates who was previously with the Environmental Simulation Center who helped to formulate the original regulations.

Jones told the group that when the original law was drafted, it was not expected to make big changes to home development in Scarsdale -- rather it was intended to offer modest regulation of bulk. He showed the group the following quote from former Mayor Kronlein to illustrate the trustees' intent at the time:

"Big is not necessarily bad and small is not necessarily good. It (FAR) recognizes good design and provides flexibility by permitting a bonus or additional square footage if certain design guidelines are followed. Design factors other than size that contribute to the perception of bulk include shape and massing, roofline, the façade, the location of the garage as well as landscaping. If the house design can successfully hide or mask it bulk the bonus can be earned."

They therefore drafted regulations involving a system of penalties and bonuses that offered rewards in terms of increased space for certain design features and penalties for others that were thought to increase the appearance of bulk.

For example, under the 2002 guidelines, underground garages were penalized while above ground garages earned the builder a bonus. At the time, there was a perception that an underground garage would result in a taller house and an increased appearance of bulk. Also penalized were basements that extend more than three feet above grade and floor to ceiling heights above 14 feet. Oversized dormers would cause attic space to be counted in the floor air ratio equation, while limiting the size of the dormers would allow attic space to be omitted from the equation. Dormered areas above garages were also omitted from the floor area equation as well as basements, explaining why so many new homes today have garages with dormers and fully finished basements extending the entire span of the house. Increasing the side yard setback could also yield a reward of increased square footage.

Initially it appeared that the FAR regulations were causing a modest decrease in home sizes. In the 2006-7 study, experts found that home sizes decreased by 5% while the amount of development remained steady. The 2006-7 found that there was a universal dislike of the design guidelines that were originally accompanied FAR, and they were subsequently abandoned.

Jones then ran through a series of simulations showing the effects of the FAR regulations on an array of homes. He demonstrated how the adjustments mandated by FAR impacted home design and the appearance of bulk.

It was questionable whether or not FAR had been effective. Homes that previously had detached garages in the back of the property or a garage underneath the home were replaced with homes with two car garages with dormered roofs facing the street. Since builders receive bonuses for above ground garages and dormered attics they use that feature over and over again. While detached garages in the back of the house and underground garages are not visible from the street, the new two-car front-facing garages seem to increase rather than decrease the appearance of bulk.

Also discussed were requirements for corner lots, where builders can place the front of the house on the side of the lot, and minimize the setback from the street. While in most areas the setback from the street for the front of the lot is 30 feet, with the side yard setback is 10-15 feet. By facing the front of the house on the side yard, developers can build even bigger homes on corner lots.

Following the simulations, Jones drew a few conclusions:

-Overall, FAR improved the appearance of bulk by 3.3%
-It was marginally to moderately effective at limiting bulk.
-The FAR appear to be more effective on smaller lot that larger lots
-It is possible FAR regulation may have unintended consequences and in some permits may actually increase the appearance of bulk.

In the discussion that followed, Trustee Brodsky noted that though FAR was intended to limit home sizes, in the intervening years FAR has defined not only the maximum home size but the minimum size as well – as builders construct the maximum size homes allowable on the properties that they develop.

What are some alternatives to FAR? Jones reviewed several approaches taken by other municipalities to regulate the appearance of bulk.

A contextual approach would involve surveying existing homes in various zones in town and drafting laws that regulate building size and setbacks to conform to the existing housing stock in the neighborhood. Jones warned against this approach saying that it was not used widely because it is difficult to define the extent of a neighborhood and make contextual decisions on what should be allowed. Marrinan said, "It would be tough to regulate because it would depend on the neighborhood – and other houses on the street. At the time (2002) we thought it was overly complicated."

Form based zoning has become popular as it provides certainty but is inflexible and is often written to regulate styles which can change relatively rapidly. Using this system, laws are writing to define which architectural features can be included including porches, shutters, gables etc. Commenting on form based zoning, Trustee David Lee said, "We are trying to regulate bulk or volume and open spaces between houses. We don't want to regulate style because we don't know what it should be."

Two additional approaches to regulating bulk including defining a pyramid-shaped or angled building envelope in which the home needs to be contained, or using a
"volume" approach, which simply defines the ratio of the volume of the home to the size of the lot to ensure that home sizes are appropriate to lot sizes. Though it was agreed that it would be easy to do this calculation, this approach does not take setbacks and siting into consideration and laws would need to be written to assure that homes are setback from the street and from neighboring homes. Trustee Bill Stern spoke in favor of the volume approach, saying, "I think a ratio of the house footprint to the lot size would take care of a lot of it."

What about simply omitting the loopholes including the bonuses for garages, dormers and setbacks? Would the original code without these "give backs" to builders result in less bulky projects? Jones answered yes – but BAR member Farley Baker disagreed, saying, "I like the design guidelines. Let's keep those but decrease the allowable floor area."

The meeting spanned over two hours and at the conclusion it was evident that this complex issue does not have an easy, one-size fits all solution.