June 6, 2016
Progress Report to Larchmont Board of Trustees: Regulations Under Review/Progress/Results
A. Subdivision1 – Potential for Additional Homes
1. Reviewed: Extensive review of all potential future subdivision activity in the
Village, based upon
a. Individual lots: subdivide 1 lot into 2 or more lots
b. Collectively oversized lots: combining slightly oversize lots where consolidation and resubdivision could yield an additional lot or lots.
 Created a table with aerial photos, tax maps, photographs
taken in the field, street-view from Google Maps etc. illustrating the possible subdivision scenarios
 Evaluated the likelihood of these, according to a ranking system, of the realistic possibility of such subdivisions occurring,
utilizing judgment as to the economic incentive/disincentive
of doing so, and the impact of this on the present owners/occupants.
2. Progress: Complete. Tables and exhibits shared with Board of Trustees and
presented at a public meeting of the Board of Trustees.
3. Result/Recommendation: Conclusions reached were three-fold. (1) Realistically, the potential for substantial additional subdivision applications yielding
additional homes in the Village was limited. From a legally defensible and equitable basis more regulations, were not recommended. (3) Even if such regulations were enacted, the impacts (loss of historic homes, development incompatible with neighborhood character/design, and the overwhelming scale
of the new homes that could be built) would not be addressed by such regulations. Thus the focus of proposed regulations in the Village should be on addressing these latter issues, not the subdivisions themselves.
Finally, for the Village to better control and regulate future subdivisions, it is
recommended that the definition of “subdivision” in the Village Code be
amended to include 2 lot subdivisions, whereas at present that number is 3
lots.
It is important to note that the term “subdivision” within this memorandum is not used as
defined in the Village’s subdivision regulations, but, rather, is intended to include all instances
of creating at least one additional lot.
1
B. Scale of Houses from New Construction/Alterations/Additions
1. Reviewed: Extensive review of teardowns/replacement houses, and additions/renovations of existing homes in the Village, considered to be overwhelming in scale (“bulky houses”) and at odds with the size of homes in the
neighborhoods. Field visit photography, aerial photos/street-view, etc.
2. Progress: Complete. Photos and areas of concern shared with and discussed
at a public meeting with Village Board of Trustees.
-
Previous efforts to control scale were initially successful. The amendment
of a variety of bulk and design regulations 12 years ago did address concerns related to “bulky housing” However, recent teardowns/ replacements and expansions are not adequately controlling bulky houses. The
Village previously rejected utilizing restrictions on Floor Area Ratio (FAR),
used by many municipalities (including Scarsdale where such efforts were
pioneered), because of the substantial variation in lot size, home size and
design, and because such restrictions would have been ineffective in controlling bulky houses and would have had unintended adverse consequences. We recently revisited the issue, and once again we rejected the
sole reliance on FAR regulations for the same reasons. Other tried and
true “traditional” methods of controlling “bulky houses” were likewise reviewed and rejected.
3. Result/Recommendation: The conclusion was that a new method of controlling “bulky houses” has to be formulated to address the most egregious impacts of bulky houses, while at the same time, not becoming overly complex
to administer and enforce, and not allowing for loopholes that undermine the
overall objectives. The result was a set of proposed regulations that essentially requires that where new construction and/or alterations/additions increase
the FAR beyond a certain threshold, the required side yard setbacks on both
sides of the home also increase proportionally. For each of the One Family
Districts in Larchmont (R-5, R7-5, R-10, R-12.5, R-15 and R-30, a variety of
regulations were studied, and the impact of the regulations were examined
through statistical calculation and sketches. Variation in lot configuration (either wider or shallower lots), or in lot size (oversized lots in each district),
were included in the analysis.
The conclusion of the analysis is that the methodology holds a realistic probability of controlling the most egregious impacts of bulky houses, while not
unnecessarily curtailing both creativity and flexibly in design and still allowing
properties to accommodate substantially sized houses (especially in comparison to the FAR regulations adopted by other communities facing the same
problems). The proposed regulations would operate in the following manner:
2
a. When viewed form the street, the impact of increasing the setbacks
for houses that exceed a certain mass, creates narrower front façade
facing the street, reducing the public’s perception of the home’s size.
b. When viewed from the neighboring property when the side yard setbacks are increased, a greater separation between the home and its
neighbors (on both sides in the case of an interior lot are created),
reducing the perceived mass of the home to the neighbors and increasing privacy and green space in the intervening side yard.
c. While the regulations still allow substantially sized homes, ultimately,
the regulations would establish an upper limitation of the maximum
possible FAR in comparison to current regulations (where no FAR limitations exist). Under the current regulations, the full building envelope
(factoring in the limitations of mandated front, rear and side yard setbacks and height) are the only limitations on home size. Thus in the
zones which have smaller lot sizes (R-5, R-7-5, in particular), the regulations would not permit the complete filling of the building envelope,
yielding a massive home in comparison to those in the neighborhood.
The other benefits of the regulations are preliminarily thought to include the
following:
a. Simplicity: Other FAR regulations are often complex, with added complexities related as to what is included in the calculation of Floor Area
Ratio [basements (?), attic space (?), enclosed porches (?), attached
garages (?), detached garages (?)]. The proposed regulation would include all finished spaces whether above or below ground, in an attic
or in detached buildings.
b. Loopholes: The application of traditional FAR regulations sometimes
results in a smaller house below the mandated FAR threshold to be
built, but which still appears overly large (from a streetscape view)
and too close to and looming over neighboring properties. The proposed regulations would not allow either. At the same time, creating
variation and articulation in facades, rooflines, design, etc. – similar
to what other FAR regulations typically require – would still be required, and for the same reasons.
Attached is an outline of the proposed regulations, tables illustrating
the changes to side yard setback as FAR increases, along with
sketches illustrating the impact on building footprint. In order to get a
better understanding of the visual impacts of the proposed regulations, 3-D drawings (sketch-up) will be provided to the Village for re3
view. Thereafter a more detailed set of regulations will be drafted for
consideration by the Village Board of Trustees.
C. Historic Preservation
1. Review: In concert with the Village Attorney, reviewed the potential to
add Historic Preservation regulations to the Village Code as a means of
protecting historic resources.
2. Progress: The Village Attorney has provided a synopsis of what would
be involved and the potential effectiveness of such regulations in addressing this issue.
3. Result/Recommendation: Awaiting feedback from Board of Trustees
before proceeding with any further analysis or proposed regulations.
D. Height/Limitations/Excavation/Retaining Walls
1. Review: Reviewed all three of these issues, which appear to be interrelated, as follows:
-
Height: Whether the permitted height limitations are adequate to
negate overly tall homes from being developed, and the way height
is measured under the current law.
-
Excavation: Whether current regulations adequately control the following: (1) significant changes in the natural grade (excessive excavation and export of soil, or conversely excessive filling and importation of soil), which has the potential for adverse impact on the
neighbors; (2) excessively tall buildings that loom over neighbors;
(3) exposure of high retaining walls to the street or neighboring
properties; (4) generating a large number of trucks trips involved in
soil movement during the construction period; (5) the appearance
of substantial changes to natural topography along with associated
impacts of stormwater runoff/flooding of adjacent properties; and
(6) excessive loss of existing trees and vegetation.
-
Retaining walls: Absence of regulations that control the length, location, height and appearance of retaining walls necessary to accommodate significant changes in grade.
4
2. Progress: Field visits and photography of existing housing stock and
recent approved development in the Village undertaken, which gave
rise to the identification of the potential issues indicated in #1 above.
Additional analysis of the existing regulations, and the necessity of
adding regulations to ameliorate such problems are yet to be undertaken.
3. Result/Recommendation: Given the potential for substantial adverse
impacts of these interrelated issues, we recommend further analysis
and the drafting of regulations to address these issues.
E. HVAC Equipment/Generators
1. Review: The placement of large HVAC cabinets and generators in the
front or side yards of single family homes have the potential for adverse visual and noise impacts.
2. Progress: A preliminary review of how other communities have enacted
regulations that allow homeowners to add these accessory structures
in a way that addresses these impacts has been undertaken.
3. Result/Recommendation: We recommend the Village adopt effective
regulations enacted in other similar communities and will draft proposed amendments to the Village Code for enactment.
F. Stormwater Regulations
1. Review: The Village Attorney has recommended adopting amendments
to further control the impacts stormwater runoff on the neighbors (potential flooding from overland flow and seepage into basements), and
on the environment (stormwater runoff quality controls and flooding
downstream). We concur. However, limitations of the amount of impervious coverage on individual single family lots is also recommended,
both for stormwater runoff control, as well as to maintain adequate
green space and vegetation on properties.
2. Progress: Identification of the issue, but no further analysis of what
proposed regulations should be put in place has been undertaken.
3. Result/Recommendation: Add limitations on the percentage of a single
family lot that may be covered by impervious surfaces to the list of bulk
regulations.
5
G. Design Requirements
1. Reviewed: A reexamination of the designs standards adopted 12 years
ago is necessary to determine any shortcomings or loopholes.
2. Progress: A very preliminary review has been undertaken to date.
3. Result/Recommendation: Consultation with the Board of Architecture
Review will be necessary to revisit the effectiveness of the existing
regulations as well as to supplement the proposed amendments to
FAR/setbacks regulations to control the impacts of bulky houses.
J15353
6