Officials answer 10 questions about NYC’s controversial zoning proposal

EDITOR’S NOTE: Tipping Point? is a journalistic initiative launched by Advance/SILive.com to inform Staten Islanders how NYC’s City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal could impact the borough. The plan, which will be voted on by the City Council this year, calls for significant zoning changes designed to spur development of new homes and apartments amid a citywide housing shortage.

STATEN ISLAND, N.Y. — With New Yorkers speaking out against a zoning proposal that would reshape the development of new housing across the five boroughs, city officials have unveiled a new document intended to quell the wave of concerns.

The Department of City Planning released a 12-page Frequently Asked Questions document responding to a host of residential concerns voiced during the public review period of the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity, a controversial citywide zoning reform proposal that calls for significant zoning changes to encourage the development of new homes and apartments amid a citywide housing shortage.

During the ongoing public review period, the administration has received significant pushback from lower-density parts of the city, including Staten Island’s community boards and elected officials, all of which have voiced serious concerns that the proposed reforms would change the character of the borough’s quiet, residential neighborhoods and exacerbate existing issues with the borough’s infrastructure.

The document features responses to dozens of the most common questions and concerns raised by residents during the public review process, including overdevelopment, insufficient infrastructure, the elimination of parking mandates, rising property taxes, declining property values and more.

Here’s a look at 10 of the most frequently asked questions about the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal and how the city is responding to those concerns.

For the full list of questions and answers, view the complete document here.

Does City of Yes eliminate one and two- family zoning districts?

While opponents of the proposal have repeatedly claimed that the changes would eliminate one and two-family zoning in reference to the potential allowance of accessory dwelling units (ADUs), the city noted that there would be no actual changes to the zoning designation of specific sites or neighborhoods.

“One- and two-family zoning districts will continue to exist. City of Yes for Housing Opportunity does not change the zoning designation of any site, it simply allows for a little more housing across all neighborhoods — and in low density areas, it does this in ways that won’t noticeably change a neighborhood’s look and feel,” according to the document.

Is City of Yes a “one-size-fits-all” proposal?

Any time a citywide proposal is introduced, Staten Islanders argue that these kinds of blanket policy changes may work well in other parts of the city, but fail to take into account the unique nature of the borough, which is less densely-populated and more car-dependent, due to a lack of connecting public transportation options.

“In its current form, the proposal does not make sense for Staten Island. Our communities and neighborhoods are, quite frankly, different from many parts of New York City. And, we prefer to maintain the existing character. The proposal may make sense in other parts of the city, but it does not make sense here, if we wish to preserve much of what we have,” said Borough President Vito Fossella.

City officials have pushed back on the claim that City of Yes for Housing Opportunity is a “one-size-fits-all” proposal, citing stipulations in some of the potential reforms that cater to the existing conditions in a given neighborhood.

“While City of Yes would help create housing across the whole city, it has been carefully crafted to match the existing character of each neighborhood where it would apply. For example, the Town Center Zoning and Transit-Oriented Development proposals would allow for 3-5 story apartment buildings on select sites in low-density neighborhoods that match the modest scale of older apartment buildings in these areas. That means in some areas, it would be only 3 stories, while in others, 4 or 5,” the document states.

Low-density districts don’t have the infrastructure to support new housing.

Many Staten Islanders have voiced concerns that the proposal would spur new housing development without a commitment to make infrastructure enhancements to accommodate the expedited influx of residents.

For example, the proposal to allow ADUs, like backyard cottages, basement apartments and garage conversions, has prompted serious flooding concerns that the change could not only endanger property, but cost residents their lives in the event of a major storm.

City officials pointed to the proposal’s extensive environmental impact review, which found that there would be no significant infrastructure impacts as a result of the potential changes.

“The Department of City Planning conducted a thorough environmental impact review of this proposal and found that it would not have a ‘significant adverse impact’ on water and sewer systems. New York City will continue to invest in its infrastructure, but the incremental difference if this proposal is enacted will not cause additional needs,” according to the document.

Will legalizing ADUs overcrowd quiet residential streets?

Some Staten Islanders have noted that many of the borough’s residents moved here from other parts of the city to live a more quiet life with additional space for their growing families and that the influx of housing from the proposed reforms, like ADUs, could jeopardize that.

“A lot of people came to Staten Island to get away from exactly what they want to push on the borough now. I’ve heard people say, ‘I came to Staten Island to have a better quality of life, more space. Not to be on top of each other. Not to be overcrowded like the other boroughs.’ Now you want to bring that scenario that people were trying to get away from to Staten Island,” said Ben D’Amato, land use chairman for Community Board 2.

City officials claim that their analysis and data from other cities with ADUs indicates this would not be a major issue.

“We expect that only a limited number of NYC homeowners would choose to create ADUs. [The Department of City Planning’s] analysis suggests that less than 1 in 200 eligible homeowners would build an accessory dwelling unit in any given year. This is supported by the experience of other cities and states that have already legalized ADUs, where overall less than 5% of eligible homeowners have chosen to build them,” the document states. “Moreover, accessory dwelling units would blend into their surrounding streetscapes, since they would be limited to 800 square feet and take the form of backyard cottages, attached in-law suites, basement apartments or attic conversions — many in buildings that already exist.”

We worked hard to downzone our neighborhood 20-30 (or even fewer) years ago, and the Department supported us then. Why are you changing direction now?

In the past, residents of various Staten Island communities, including Westerleigh, fought to downzone their respective neighborhoods to prevent overdevelopment and preserve the character of the quiet, residential streets.

Now, those same residents fear their previous efforts may be all for naught.

“We worked very hard to [downzone] over many decades. And now in a couple of months time they’ll have undone that plus more and not really have the proper review of what that really means. And it’s obvious that what it means is devastation,” said Mark Anderson, president of the Westerleigh Improvement Society.

Officials said these proposed reforms are now necessary due to the city’s housing production failing to keep up with population and job growth over the years, resulting in the housing crisis it faces today.

“As this crisis has gotten progressively worse, it has become clear that many of NYC’s zoning regulations – some enacted in the 1960s and some enacted more recently – have restricted housing production and exacerbated this crisis, as detailed in our recently-released ‘rezoning lookback reports,’” according to the report. “City of Yes for Housing Opportunity would alleviate this housing shortage by making it possible to build a little more housing in every neighborhood – but crucially, in ways that are attuned to local context and wouldn’t noticeably change a neighborhood’s look and feel.”

How will legalizing ADUs affect property values or taxes?

Some residents have expressed concerns that the allowance of ADUs could drive down their property value if their neighbors decide to build them or increase their property taxes if they decide to build their own.

However, City Planning said that the additional dwellings have historically had a minimal impact on nearby property values and that property taxes may be impacted, but only slightly.

“Extensive research and evidence from other cities and states shows that ADUs do not have significant effects on the property value of nearby homes. If you choose to add an ADU, your assessed taxes may increase slightly, because New York property taxes are largely based on the value of what is constructed. However, there are caps on how much your property taxes can increase each year, and the largest property tax increases come from moving between ‘tax classes,’ which adding an ADU would not do,” according to the document. “Ultimately, each homeowner will decide whether a possible, slight tax increase is a worthwhile tradeoff for the value of extra housing space or rental income.”

Will development on green space mean that flooding will get worse?

Some Staten Islanders have voiced concerns that allowing ADUs could have unintended environmental impacts to flood mitigation, as the construction of these units would likely eat into existing grass and greenery, worsening the recurring flooding issues that have plagued borough residents for decades.

“Worldwide, everyone is getting more frequent and more intense storms, so you need some open space to absorb that, but now they want to replace grass with concrete,” said Carol Donovan, president of the Richmondtown and Clarke Avenue Civic Association. “How did we go from a city and a country and a world that’s talking about a climate crisis and decide let’s forget it now? We’re forgetting about the open space that we need.”

City officials noted that this proposal would not impact any land that couldn’t already legally be paved over and that many of these ADUs would be better equipped to handle excess stormwater than most existing buildings.

“This proposal would not allow new development on parkland and would not allow new development on any private property that could not already be paved over. In fact, many newer buildings enabled by this proposal would be subject to the ‘unified stormwater rule,’ meaning they would be held to a higher standard for drainage and runoff than older buildings,” according to City Planning.

If we lift parking mandates, won’t we go back to competition for street parking and congestion?

With Staten Island being, by far, the city’s most car-dependent borough due to its lack of mass transit options — most notably the absence of a subway line connecting to the rest of New York City — the proposal to remove off-street parking mandates for new residential developments has been seen as a major no-go for many borough residents.

Local residents, many of whom live in multi-car households, claim that removing these mandates would make it increasingly difficult to find street parking in neighborhoods where residents already struggle to find a spot.

City officials have argued that requiring off-street parking with each new development takes up valuable real estate, is costly to construct and drives up rent prices.

In the FAQ document, City Planning noted that existing parking will remain in place and placed the onus on developers to continue providing parking even if city law no longer requires them to.

“Lifting parking requirements would not cause parking to disappear; it just means that developers of new projects could choose to provide less parking than what the current rules require. Today, many buildings include more parking than is legally mandated, meaning that they are likely to continue building to what residents need, not the minimum by law. In essence, City of Yes says: if you already have parking, keep it! If you want more, build more,” according to the document.

Will City of Yes create enough housing to make a meaningful difference in housing costs?

Some residents have expressed skepticism that the proposed reforms and subsequent new developments will actually drive down housing costs, as although developers will be encouraged to build more, there are few stipulations that would require them to be listed at lower, more affordable price points.

City officials claimed that each new unit will contribute to decreased housing costs, though they failed to provided concrete data or historical examples to support that claim.

“Over the years and decades ahead, City of Yes will allow for the creation of a significant number of new homes that will help alleviate our devastating housing shortage. Every new home makes a difference in bringing down housing costs, and this would be the most pro-housing set of zoning changes in New York City history – the first time that every neighborhood would add a little more housing,” the document states.

The Department of City Planning doesn’t listen to community board input. Why should we engage with this process?

A common concern voiced every time a citywide proposal enters the public review process is the belief by residents that the city does not actually take their feedback into consideration and will simply push through its agenda regardless of community opposition.

City Planning disputed this claim, noting that the second City of Yes proposals — which focused on economic development and was approved earlier this month — was amended to reflect community feedback, with several of the initial provisions removed prior to its passing.

“DCP takes substantive community board feedback very seriously, and we hope community boards will engage deeply with the proposal. That’s why we’ve shared component-by-component worksheets with community boards and the public – to help organize your input and help us understand what New Yorkers support or want modified With the prior citywide zoning proposal, City of Yes for Economic Opportunity, both the City Planning Commission and City Council made modifications in response to thoughtful community board feedback. The City also made commitments to address input that came up during the public review process that could not be addressed within the scope of the zoning proposal itself. We hope that the public review process for City of Yes for Housing Opportunity will be similarly productive,” according to the document.