LONG
ISLAND BUILDERS INSTITUTE
PRESENTATION TO BROOKHAVEN TOWN BOARD
FEBRUARY 8, 2005
(Revised February 9, 2005)
INTRODUCTION:
The Long Island Builders Institute (“LIBI”)
continues to be concerned with the proposed MF/PRC,
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Substandard
Overlay District code changes but appreciates the
opportunity to work with the Town Board and Planning
Commissioner to address our concerns. The latest
draft code proposal while moving in the right direction
in certain areas, still omits key factors in the
ability to sustain a vibrant economy with a healthy
building industry and the production of work force
housing and smart- growth communities. The purpose
of this document is to summarize our concerns in
order to produce a workable plan that will provide
adequate housing opportunities to all residents
of the Town of Brookhaven. We look forward to continuing
dialogue with both the Town Board and Planning Commissioner
to assist in the creation of a workable code.
MF/PRC RESIDENCE DISTRICT
GENERAL
COMMENTS:
1. Base densities need to be established in the
Secondary zone. In order to encourage development
of underutilized or inappropriate sites on major
roadways, one acre zoning is not appropriate from
a proper planning perspective. Similarly, the requirement
to provide open space to achieve density greater
is laudable but only above a realistic base density.
2. Cash in lieu of open Space: LIBI
supports the concept of providing cash contributions
to the Town’s Community Preservation Fund
as a means of providing for open space in addition
to the proposed TDR concepts. This cash contribution
will sustain the Town’s efforts to provide
funding for the acquisition of open space without
additional public financing through bond referenda
and transfer taxes. LIBI suggests a formula to calculate
these contributions as the amount (per acre) paid
by the Town for open- space land acquisitions on
a twelve month trailing average. In addition, credit
should be granted for open space preservation within
a proposed development.
3.
Grandfathering: The code must provide for “Grandfathering”
of existing MF/PRC zoned parcels where covenants
and restrictions have been filed. At our working
meeting of January 25, 2005, Supervisor LaValle
confirmed this inclusion.
4. FAR: The maximum permitted Floor Area Ratios
are too restrictive and will result in inferior
product or no building of work force and affordable
home. Please see the attached FAR chart. In addition,
common area recreation or accessory buildings should
not be included in FAR calculation.
5. Rental Apartments: Higher maximum density for
rental units than “for sale” development
will allow for creation of this housing type.
6. Setbacks: Setbacks, parking, separation distances
between buildings and recreational facilities should
be revised to allow MF/PRC developments in the Primary
and Secondary areas. Part of this problem is a result
of additional set back requirements and land area
needed to construct on-site sanitary facilities.
7. TDR transfer from any school district should
be permitted without town approval for transfers
to PRC units or MF units of two bedrooms or less,
transferred from detached single family home zones.
SUGGESTED
CODE REVISIONS:
85-76. Permitted Uses: Amend to include “flat”
units.
85-87: Site Location:
A. Primary Zone. Redefine “Main
Street Business District” in lower case letters
and to include all J-6 properties. Eliminate the
word “retail” from “inappropriately
zoned sites”. The Town Board should not limit
itself with respect to deciding inappropriate sites
and allow a greater pool of applications to consider.
B. Secondary Zone. Eliminate “public”
from “transportation services”. LIBI
suggests in the absence of public transportation,
the developer could provide private transportation
services. Eliminate the enumeration of specific
roadways and instead utilize the definition of “all
County, State and Federal roadways”.
C. Tertiary Zone. LIBI suggests a review of the
Pine Barrens Act and CGA mapping with respect to
the exclusion of the Compatible Growth Area (CGA)
from this classification. The CGA should be included.
85-81:
Minimum Lot Area:
A.
Minimum lot area should be 1 acre within the designated
primary zone.
B. Minimum lot area should be 8 acres within the
designated secondary and tertiary zones.
C. Provision to accommodate “add-on’s”
to pre-existing MF/ PRC properties with no minimum
lot area required.
D. Minimum lot area should be able to be waived
by Town Board upon it’s own motion or upon
application on a case by case basis.
85-82: Minimum width of lot throughout:
Eliminate the word “throughout”
in the above definition replace with “average”.
A. The minimum required lot width
within a designated Primary zone should be reduced
from two hundred (200) feet to one hundred (100)
feet.
B. The minimum required lot width within a designated
Secondary or Tertiary zone should be reduced from
three hundred (300) feet to two hundred (200) feet.
85-83: Minimum front yard setback:
A.
Second sentence: Replace with, “In the event
the lot area exceeds three (3) acres, the Town Board
(not the “Town of Brookhaven”) may increase
the minimum required front yard setback…”
B. Minimum required front yard setback within a
designated secondary and tertiary zone shall be
fifty (50) (not 75) feet.
85-84: Minimum required side yard and rear yard
setbacks.
Add provision for twenty five (25) feet within designated
primary zone and potential for further reductions
of side yard setbacks based upon surrounding properties.
85-86: Maximum permitted Floor Area Ratio (FAR):
A. Maximum permitted FAR should
be increased from 30 percent to 50 percent within
a designated primary zone.
B. Maximum permitted FAR should be increased from
25 percent to 40 percent within a designated secondary
or tertiary zone.
(see attached FAR analysis)
85-87.1:
Density (Maximum permitted units per acre).
A. Primary Zone. “Base density
shall be six (6) units per acre”.
1.
Exception. Add the following: Maximum permitted
density may be increased to twelve (12) units per
acre for projects where one hundred percent (100%)
of the proposed units are maintained as affordable
“or workforce” units in accordance with
Town of Brookhaven guidelines.
2. Exception. Allow the Town Board to decide “inappropriately”
zoned sites rather than limit the definition to
“commercial (retail)” sites.
B.
Secondary Zone. “Base density shall be four
(4) units per acre”. It is LIBI’s position
that to develop one unit per acre on a major roadway
is not appropriate and will not encourage development
of these sites. Establishing a base density of four
(4) units per acre is more realistic and less dense
than existing, Residence C district. Thereafter,
in order to achieve additional density, open space
or moderate income homes should be provided.
Furthermore, in the last code draft,
base density was pegged at two (2) units per acre
with a multiplier of four (4) units per acre of
preserved land.
It
is also imperative to include Exceptions in the
Secondary Zone (similar to Primary) for providing
affordable homes and redevelopment of inappropriately
zoned and underutilized sites.
e.g.:
1. Exception: Maximum permitted density may be increased
to eight (8) units per acre where one hundred (100%)
percent of the proposed units above base density
are maintained as affordable or work-force housing.
2. Exception: Maximum permitted density may be increased
to eight (8) units per acre which involve the redevelopment
of inappropriately zoned sites, consistent with
the Town of Brookhaven Comprehensive Plan guidelines.
C.
Tertiary Zone. “Base density shall be two
(2) units per acre”. One half (½) acre
zoning in these areas seems appropriate.
Similar
Exceptions should apply.
85-87.2:
Transfer of Development Rights. See “General
Comments” 2. above with respect to cash payments
to the Town Community Preservation Fund in lieu
of land acquisition.
85-87.3:
Affordable Housing.
A.
No comment
B. In evaluating the proposed code, LIBI notes that
with bonus densities granted, affordable or work
force housing would equal approximately 33% of total
density. If so, LIBI supports this section. It is
critical to the success of this policy to distinguish
between affordable and “work force”
homes.
85-87.4: Recreational facilities. Tertiary Zone.
Required amenities should be specified as appropriate
to the scale of the development.
85-87.5:
Time limitations on construction. Require site plan
application within one (1) year of zone change and
provide for commencement of construction within
two (2) years of site plan approval. In the event
these specified time limits are not met, change
“shall” to “may” with respect
to Town Board review.
OTHER
COMMENTS:
1. Credit should be given for open space dedicated
on the subject property plus any other parcel that
is dedicated to the town as open space even though
same is not identified as open space in the community
preservation fund or compatible growth area. Town
should not require land acquisitions in the compatible
growth (See Pine Barrens Act).
2. Pine Barrens TDRs should continue
to be transferred to MF/PRC zoning based on the
current code ratio of 2:1 in mf and 3:1 in PRC or
the above mentioned multiplier, whichever is higher.
3. Recreational area requirements
in primary and secondary must be relaxed and credit
must be given for public amenity added in tertiary.
Parking and separation distance between buildings
must be reduced to 1.5 per dwelling unit and 23
feet between buildings respectively.
4. Definition of affordable should
match definition of Suffolk County work force housing
commission to coordinate review and approval process.
(120% of median income) or Sonyma guidelines.
5.
The code should provide for the will of the Town
Board to hear applications for MF/PRC that do not
meet the strict definition or other requirements
of the Primary, Secondary and Tertiary zones which
may be appropriate for moderate density housing
Respectfully submitted.
February 10, 2005
SUBSTANDARD
LOT OVERLAY DISTRICT AND
TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHT
COMMENTS:
1. LIBI does not agree with the adverse impacts
listed in the purpose section 85-372. The bulk of
these lots exist in neighborhoods already built-up
on lot sizes which were rendered substandard by
zoning amendments in the eighties, which required
larger lots than the overwhelming majority of those
already built in the existing communities. Open
space is valuable when maintained in pristine condition.
a pattern of small parcels, which are under maintained
and neglected located between houses, invite refuse
disposal and is not “open space”. All
single and separate lots must obtain the approval
of the Suffolk County Health Department before any
house can be built. Development of substandard lots
adds to the stock of reasonably priced homes and
to the job creation and economic stimulus of the
town.
2. In addition to creating a development
rights bank LIBI assumes the town will permit direct
transfers of these rights between property owners.
In order to facilitate such transfers the town,
upon adoption, should inform all property owners
of lots in the overlay district that partial development
rights certificates can be issued by the town.
3. Homebuilders should be given
an option of paying a sum to the town as a payment
in lieu of transfer to help the town acquire such
development rights directly from the property owner.
4. Exemption for lots granted by
Board of Zoning Appeals should be grandfathered
for two years after code adoption to allow for time
to obtain building permit and substantial construction.
5. All rights acquired by the TDR
bank will not be extinguished and hundred percent
(100%) of such rights will be available for TDR
transfers under the new code provisions.
6. Eliminate condemnation from town
board authority.
7. Planning Board approval for transfers
out of their zoning district is a requirement, which
will inhibit transfers. A better approach would
be to prohibit the use of transferred rights from
a more intense district to a less intense, but to
allow all others. The planning board or town board
in the case of rezonings could review the proposed
development rights proposed to be transferred when
processing applications.
8. Lots 40 x 100 and 50 x 100—how
handled by Town? The pro-rata TDR is based on what?
9. This plan is not workable and
the existing single and separate provisions should
remain unchanged.
