New Flatbush Rezoning Proposal Gets It Right

Update, 2009-07-29: Flatbush Rezoning Proposal approved by City Council


477 Westminster Road, Ditmas Park West, one of hundreds of homes that will receive more protection with DCP’s revised draft
447 Westminster Road, Ditmas Park West

NYC’s Department of City Planning (DCP) provided the first view of their revised draft of the Flatbush Rezoning Proposal to Brooklyn’s Community Board 14 (CB14) on September 3, and more recently to the CB14 Executive Committee on September 18. I wasn’t able to sit in on any of the meetings, but I’ve spoken with folks who’ve seen the new proposal first hand.

The revised draft is covered in Flatbush Life, including a photo of the redrafted map:

After a presentation to the executive committee of Community Board 14 – which greeted the plan warmly – the Department of City Planning (DCP) is moving forward to certify the proposal, which will launch the formal approval process for the rezoning.

During the meeting, which was held in the board office, 810 East 16th Street, DCP received accolades from board members and area residents for reworking the plan to take into account neighborhood concerns.

Flatbush rezoning moving forward

I wrote a detailed report about the earlier draft that DCP presented to CB14 and at a public hearing back in June. From everything I’ve heard and seen about this second draft, they got it right. In general, lots that are 50×100 feet will get the R3X designation, while lots that are 40×100 will get R4A. This is a more tailored approach than the broad brush of R4A that was painted over Ditmas Park West and South Midwood in the first draft. (See my original post for complete details on these zoning designations.)

They really listened to the concerns of residents, went back and re-drafted to address them. The free-standing homes responsible for the physical character of this area of Flatbush will be protected. All of Flatbush will be protected against unlimited height residential development. There are new opportunities for commercial development, and incentives for affordable housing. It’s hard to find something to critique in this draft.

Related Posts

Flatbush Rezoning Proposal will define the future of Victorian Flatbush, 2008-06-13

Links

Flatbush rezoning moving forward, Flatbush Life, 2008-09-28
Rezonings for Flatbush, Canarsie Move Forward, Campaign for Community-Based Planning, 2008-10-06
Flatbush Rezoning Moving Forward, Ditmas Park Blog, 2008-10-07

Flatbush Rezoning Proposal will define the future of Victorian Flatbush

Update, 2009-07-29: Flatbush Rezoning Proposal approved by City Council
Update, 2009-03-02: DCP certified the proposal.


David Parish, DCP, describing the proposed rezoning for South Midwood
David Parish describing the proposed rezoning for South Midwood

Last night I attended Brooklyn Community Board 14’s (CB14) preliminary public hearing on the NYC Department of City Planning’s (DCP) rezoning proposal for the northern half of CB14, ie: Flatbush. I didn’t take a head count, but roughly 100 people turned out to attend the hearing in Public School 249’s uncooled auditorium. CB14 chair Alvin Berk informally explained the context and ground rules for the meeting, then officially called the hearing to order at 7:23. After the school guard kicked us out – gently, but firmly – after 9:30pm, conversations continued onto the school plaza and sidewalks. I didn’t get home until well after 10pm last night.


Some highlights:

  • One of the four major goals of the proposal is to preserve the existing free-standing single- and two-family homes that characterize the area. On this point, support seemed unanimous, although the terms detached, semi-detached, and attached were new to some in the room and is the cause of some confusion.
  • Not only Ditmas Park West, but South Midwood would be rezoned to R4A. This was the most troublesome part of the proposal at last night’s hearing; nearly all who spoke during the public comments section of the meeting (including me) opposed this particular zoning designation, for reasons explained below.
  • While current zoning puts many of these homes and streets at risk from development, the proposed rezoning may endanger even more.
  • Zoning is a blunt instrument. Currently available zoning designations are insufficient, or at least too coarse, to reflect and respect the existing housing stock in these neighborhoods.

My report will necessarily be incomplete. This was the first time I’ve ever attended a public hearing, so I had only a general idea of what to expect. I had not seen the details of the proposal prior to the meeting. My main purpose in attending the meeting was to learn more details. Unfortunately, there was no opportunity to study the large, detailed exhibits that DCP brought with them. There was only the presentation, and I was writing furiously to try to capture details as they were presented. I also had an opportunity to speak during the public comments section of the meeting. After I spoke, I was out of the room for a few minutes while I (unsuccessfully) sought water. I missed a few speakers during my absence.

The study area

The study area encompasses nearly all of the northern half of CB14. Here’s a detailed map of the study area provided by DCP.

Boundaries of the Study Area
DCP Flatbush Neighborhood Rezoning Study Area

This map of the existing zoning districts was also provided by DCP. To view the map more clearly, follow the link from the map to its Flickr page (just click the image), then select All Sizes > Original.

Existing Zoning
DCP Flatbush Neighborhood Rezoning Existing Zoning

Nearly all of the study area is zoned for residential use. The few commercial-only districts are at the edges. The C4-3 district at the southeast corner of the area is Brooklyn Junction, the intersection of Flatbush and Nostrand Avenues. The largest commercial area is the C4-2 district on the eastern boundary of the study area. This is bounded roughly by Flatbush and Bedford Avenues on the west and east, and Church Avenue and Cortelyou Road on the north and south. Important commercial/retail landmarks in this district include Sears and the Kings Theater.

Loew’s Kings Theater, Flatbush Avenue, just north of Beverly Road
Loew's Kings Theater, Flatbush Avenue

Most of the commercial space is provided as commercial overlays, shown with hatch marks on the map. You can see these along Nostrand and Flatbush Avenues, Church Avenue, Coney Island Avenue, Cortelyou Road, and Newkirk and Foster Avenues. The overlay that spans Newkirk and Foster Avenues at the Newkirk Avenue subway station is Newkirk Plaza.

589-597 Coney Island Avenue
589 (left), 591, 593, 595 and 597 Coney Island Avenue

Cortelyou Road, south side, looking west from Westminster Road
Cortelyou Road, south side, looking west from Westminster Road

Newkirk Plaza, looking south from Newkirk Avenue toward Foster Avenue. The subway cut is on the right of the photo.
Newkirk Plaza

Within the study area, there’s a wide range of density in residential districts, from R1-2 to R7-1. R1 through R5 are lower-density districts. R6 and R7 are medium-density. There’s also a wide range of housing types.

There are three landmarked historic districts typified by free-standing homes. You can easily locate these on the map by the R1-2 districts. From north to south, they are Prospect Park South, Ditmas Park, and the recently approved Fiske Terrace-Midwood Park. Midwood Park is the southernmost R1-2 area, and Fiske Terrace is the R2 area just south of that. Both R1-2 and R2 allow only single-family detached houses.

Our detached houses are not limited to the landmarked areas. The majority are not landmarked, occupying residential zones ranging from R2 to R6. Those in R6 zones – including those in my neighborhood of Beverley Square West – are at greatest risk.

Summary of the Proposal

The proposal is still only a draft, so all the specifics are still subject to change before the formal proposal, which kicks off the ULURP process. There are four major goals for the rezoning:

  1. Preserve the existing free-standing (detached) single- and two-family houses.
  2. Match new zoning to existing buildings as closely as possible without “under zoning”.
  3. Encourage creation of affordable housing through incentives.
  4. Create opportunities for commercial growth.

In rezoning projects, one of the things DCP looks at is “non-compliance”: does existing development on a site comply with what’s allowed by its zoning designation? Non-compliant and under-zoned describe the same situation: the former applies to the house, the latter to the zoning of the property. Non-compliant does not necessarily mean illegal. The conditions may have pre-dated the zoning; in a neighborhood of homes over 100 years old, they likely do. To understand non-compliance, we need to know the current zoning designation and what it permits.

Case Study: Beverley Square West

Beverley Square West is bounded by Beverly and Cortelyou Roads on the north and south, and the B/Q subway cut and Coney Island Avenue on the east and west. The homes here are detached, single- and two-family homes with peaked roofs, most of which were built in the late 1890s and early 1900s. Most of the lots are 50 feet wide by 100 feet deep.

308 Stratford Road, Beverley Square West
308 Stratford Road

This map shows the outlines of buildings on all properties in the area. The detached homes stand in contrast to row houses along the southern side of Cortelyou Road and the eastern side of Coney Island Avenue.

Single- and Two-Family Homes and existing Structures, Beverley Square West

Most of the area is zoned R3-2, with R6 zoned along the western and southern boundaries.

Existing Zoning, Beverley Square West
Existing Zoning, Beverley Square West

Neither R3-2 nor R6 match the existing character of the neighborhood. R3-2 allows not only detached homes but semi-detached homes – side-by-side – as well as fully attached homes, ie: rowhouses. R3-2 specifies a minimum lot width of 40 feet for detached houses, but only 18 feet for semi-detached or attached.

The base floor-to-area ratio (FAR) for R3-2 is .5, or 50%. A typical lot is 50′ wide by 100′ deep, for a total lot area of 5,000 square feet. 50% of that is 2,500 square feet, the maximum permitted floor area for a building with a flat roof. R3-2 also carries an attic allowance, which encourages preservation and development of homes with peaked roofs, of .1, for a total FAR of .6. Since the typical lot area here is 5,000 square feet, 50 x 100, and 60% of that is 3,000 square feet, a house with 3,000 square feet or less is compliant with the .6 FAR. Our house, for example, is 2,750 square feet, as it’s been since it was converted from a single-family to a two-family home in the 1930s, during the Great Depression of that era.

R6 is a medium-density designation and allows for much denser development, typified by this new condo building recently completed at the corner of Stratford and Cortelyou Roads.

1103 Cortelyou Road

The R6 districts are at greatest risk from being torn down for new development. In Ditmas Park West, several homes have already been lost to teardown. To achieve the first goal of the rezoning project, preservation of the existing detached homes, the new zoning must allow only detached houses. Zones which permit only such housing are R3A, R3-X, R4A, and R5A. To preserve the scale of the neighborhoods, the new zoning must come close to the existing FAR of the homes already built. Both R3A and R3-X share the .6 FAR of R3-2. R3-X has the larger minimum lot width, at 35 feet. Of currently available zoning designations, R3-X comes closest to what’s already in place in Beverley Square West. In fact, the current draft of DCP’s zoning study proposes R3-X for both Beverley Square West and East.

Case Study: South Midwood

A house in South Midwood
House in South Midwood

Many of those attending the meeting seemed to be from South Midwood, one of the many neighborhoods that comprise the “Victorian Flatbush” part of Flatbush. The current and proposed zoning for this neighborhood provides a good case study for what’s at stake: the risks to the area from current, inappropriate zoning; the strategies DCP employs when trying to select new zoning most likely to be approved; and the issues with the new designation DCP selected. Also, it’s the only section of the presentation for which I got some usable photographs.

This neighborhood was developed at the turn of the 20th Century, before zoning existed. When the current zoning was established in 1961 (more or less), over 45 years ago, there was little consideration for what was already in place, and whether or not the new zones fit the existing context.

Ditmas Park West and South Midwood, the areas to be rezoned R4A, have a mix of zoning, the majority of which is R3-2. As explained above, R3-2 allows a FAR of .6: .5 base, plus an attic allowance of .1. R4A allows a .9 FAR: .75 base, plus a .15 attic allowance. The R4A FAR of .9 is an increase of 50% over what’s permitted today. It’s this large increase in FAR that raises concerns for residents in these two neighborhoods, who are concerned it will open the door for expansion and enlargement of existing homes, or new development, out-of-scale with the existing homes.

South Midwood, Current Zoning
South Midwood, Current Zoning

South Midwood, Proposed Zoning
South Midwood, proposed rezoning

Another house in South Midwood
A house in South Midwood

DCP’s rationale for proposing R4A over R3-X comes back to the issue of under-zoning. They look at the existing buildings to see whether or not they are compliant with the current zoning. When rezoning, they try to assign a new designation in which 75-80% of existing structures would be compliant. This numeric goal arises from practical and political considerations: they want to minimize objections to the rezoning proposal from property owners concerned that their options for expanding or enlarging their homes are being restricted.

However, the situation here is different. By DCP’s calculations, only 51% of existing homes in South Midwood are compliant with the FAR of their current zoning, mostly .6 FAR in the R3-2 district. But the homeowners here are not complaining about lack of expansion options. They are concerned for the future character of their neighborhood caused by an increase in FAR of 50%.

This is one reason why I referred to zoning as a “blunt instrument” at the beginning. There’s no zoning designation which permits only detached houses with a FAR between .6 and .9. To reach their goal of 75-80% compliance – a threshold determined by political efficacy, not a legal mandate – DCP has to leap to the next available FAR of .9 in R4A. But this leap has generated opposition which the threshold was intended to avoid. An intermediate total FAR, of .75 say, which would be an increase of only 25% instead of 50%, would be a better fit and would not receive the same level of opposition. Barring creation of a new zoning designation, residents speaking at Thursday’s meeting called for a new designation of R3X, maintaining the status quo, instead of R4A, which would open up the neighborhood to out-of-scale development.

Related Posts

Flatbush Rezoning Proposal, May 23, 2008
Preserving Livable Streets: DCP’s Yards Text Amendment, November 7, 2007
Victorian Flatbush at risk from inappropriate zoning, October 23, 2007
State of Flatbush/Midwood, October 5, 2007
Landscape and Politics in Brooklyn’s City Council District 40, February 14
NASA Earth Observatory Maps NYC’s Heat Island, Block by Block, August 1, 2006

Important DCP Links

Residence District Zoning Explained
Table comparing R1 through R3 (PDF)
Table comparing R4 through R5 (PDF)
DCP Zoning Glossary

Other Links

South Midwood Residents Association
Brooklyn Community District 14 Profile (PDF)

Flatbush Rezoning Hearing Tonight

This is a reminder that CB14’s preliminary public hearing of DCP’s proposed zoning changes for the northern half of CB14, ie: Flatbush, is tonight at 7pm at Public School 249 at the corner of Caton Avenue and Marlborough Road.

Related Posts

Flatbush Rezoning Proposal, May 23, 2008
City Planning Commission Unanimously Approves Green Initiatives, April 2, 2008
Victorian Flatbush at risk from inappropriate zoning, October, 2007

Flatbush Rezoning Proposal

Update, 2008.06.13: Read my report from the preliminary hearing.


457 Rugby Road, Ditmas Park West, Flatbush, Brooklyn
457 Rugby Road, Ditmas Park West

This was just a bullet in my listing of upcoming local events earlier this week. CB14 has scheduled a preliminary public hearing of DCP’s proposed zoning changes for the northern half of CB14, ie: Flatbush, for Thursday, June 12, 2008 at 7pm at Public School 249 at the corner of Caton Avenue and Marlborough Road.


CB14 just released additional information about the study area:

Brooklyn Community Board 14 has scheduled a preliminary public hearing to receive public input in the matter of the New York City Department of City Planning’s Flatbush Neighborhood Study proposes to make certain changes to the zoning map in the Flatbush section of Community District 14, which includes Coney Island Avenue to the west, Caton Avenue/Parkside Avenue/Clarkson Avenue to the north, Bedford Avenue/Nostrand Avenue/East 32nd Street to the east, and the LIRR tracks to the south.

I’ve sketched a preliminary map of the study area based on this description and the boundaries of CB14.

View Larger Map

At the hearing, the Department of City Planning will make a presentation on the changes currently under consideration. Following this preliminary public hearing, the Department of City Planning will submit a formal zoning map amendment for certification under the City’s Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). After which, Community Board 14 will hold a final public hearing to receive comment on the application.

DCP won’t publish maps or other details until their formal submission of the proposal to the ULURP process. Here’s what I know abut the latest draft of the proposal:

  • My neighborhood of Beverley Square West would be largely rezoned from its current R3-2 and R6 to R3X.
  • Ditmas Park West would be rezoned from R3-2 and R6 to R4A.

DCP’s justification for the R4A designation is that a larger percentage of existing structures within DPW would comply with R4A than R3X. Residents of DPW have started on online petition to call for the R3X designation instead:

We, the residents of Ditmas Park West and its environs, petition the City Planning Commission to adopt the R-3X designation as they consider rezoning. This would allow only one and two family detached homes and limit the floor-area-ratio to 50 percent. We feel this is the ideal designation to preserve our neighborhood as built.

I agree. I signed the petition with the following comment:

R-3X more accurately reflects the built environment of Ditmas Park
West (DPW) than either the existing R3-2 or the proposed R4-A. It
would also be consistent with the R3-X proposed for Beverley Square
West, where I live, which lies immediately north of DPW on the other
side of Cortelyou Road.

I believe that DCP’s measure of “compliance” is based largely on lot widths and existing expansions of homes, even if those expansions were not done in compliance with the zoning already in effect. In addition, with the Yards Text Amendment, the difference in zoning between R3 and R4 will have impacts not just on housing construction but on open space between buildings and the streetscape, properties which define neighborhood character at least as much as the homes themselves.

If you would like to speak at the public hearing, you may pre-register for time by calling the District office at 718-859-6357. You may, in addition, register at the hearing on the evening of June 12th.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call the Community Board 14 District office at 718-859-6357.

Related content

City Planning Commission Unanimously Approves Green Initiatives, April 2, 2008
Victorian Flatbush at risk from inappropriate zoning, October, 2007

Links

There’s an article in Flatbush Life, but the new Your Nabe Web site is not making it available. Boycott all Murdoch media.
Flatbush Rezoning Push Not Sitting Well With Some Locals, Brownstoner, May 23, 2008
Rezoning Victorian Flatbush, Ditmas Park Blog, May 21, 2008

Preserving Livable Streets: DCP’s Yards Text Amendment

2008-04-30: Approved!
2007-11-15: Added link to DCP Zoning Glossary.


Illustration of Front Yard Planting from DCP’s proposed Yards Text Amendment online presentation
At tonight’s CB14 Public Hearing, this is sure to be one of the items on the agenda. On September 17, NYC’s Department of City Planning (DCP) released a proposal to amend zoning regulations to address, for the first time, the extent of paved and planted areas on private property:

The new regulations would prevent excessive paving of front yards by requiring that a minimum percentage of all front yards be landscaped. They would also prohibit steeply pitched driveways in front yards and encouraging rear yard garages to maximize plantings. Excessively tall fences and steps in front yards would also be prohibited. The zoning would clarify definitions of side and rear yards to provide predictability and ensure that all homes have adequate open spaces. Together with the Department’s initiative requiring the greening of commercial parking lots this package of regulations will enhance the attractiveness of neighborhood streets, mitigate storm water run-off and reduce surrounding temperatures while furthering Mayor Bloomberg’s goals for a greener, greater New York.
Press Release

The Department of City Planning in proposing amendments to the Zoning Resolution relating to yard regulations for residential developments. Although the current regulations prescribe minimum requirements relating to location and size of yards, they generally do not deal with the amount of paving and planting in the yards [emphasis added]. In addition, the current regulations are in some cases unclear and do not deal with fences and steps.
Yards Text Amendment, DCP

This will potentially provide huge collective benefits to individual homeowners, neighborhoods, and the city:

  • Improved streetscape livability, promoting community and economic sustainability
  • Reduced storm drainage and combined sewer outflow
  • Improved community health, eg: from reduced asthma rates
  • Reduced energy costs, especially for summer cooling and air conditioning

This proposal is a first step toward providing some protections. However, it can only work if the underlying zoning is appropriate. Most of the freestanding homes in what’s known as Victorian Flatbush are zoned R3-2, which permits semi-detached row houses, or R6, which is for 6-story townhouses with a continuous street wall. An R2X designation has been used in other down-zoning initiatives, would appropriately reflect the built environment, and provide even more protections if DCP’s proposed changes are approved.

Looking south down Westminster Road in Beverley Square West
Looking south down Westminster Road

Million Trees NYC outlines the economic, tangible, and intangible benefits of NYC’s urban forest:

  • Urban trees help offset climate change by capturing atmospheric carbon dioxide in their tissue, reducing energy used by buildings, and reducing carbon dioxide emissions from fossil-fuel based power plants. Our City’s trees store about 1.35 million tons of carbon valued at $24.9 million. In addition, our trees remove over 42,000 tons of carbon each year.
  • Urban trees capture rainfall on their leaves and branches and take up water, acting as natural stormwater capture and retention devices. Street trees intercept 890.6 million gallons of stormwater annually, or 1,525 gallons per tree on average. The total value of this benefit to New York City is over $35 million each year.
  • Trees remove dust and other pollutants from the air. In fact, one tree can remove 26 pounds of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere annually, the equivalent of 11,000 miles of car emissions. Our trees remove about 2,200 tons of air pollution per year, valued at $10 million annually.
  • According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, urban forests reduce urban temperatures significantly by shading buildings and concrete and returning humidity to the air through evaporative cooling.
  • By using trees to modify temperatures, the amount of fossil fuels used for cooling and heating by homeowners and businesses is reduced. Our City’s street trees provide $27 million a year in energy savings.
  • New York City’s urban forest provides habitat – including food and shelter for many species of birds, insects, and other wildlife, as well as environmental education resources for New Yorkers of all ages.
  • Over the years the City has invested millions in its urban forest. Trees provide $5.60 in benefits for every dollar spent on tree planting and care.
  • A significant link exists between the value of a property and its proximity to parks, greenbelts, and other green spaces. Smart Money magazine indicated that consumers value a landscaped home up to 11.3 percent higher than its base price. Street trees provide $52 million each year in increased property values.
  • The greening of business districts increases community pride and positive perception of an area, drawing customers to the businesses.
  • There is growing evidence that trees help reduce air pollutants that can trigger asthma and other respiratory illnesses. Green spaces also encourage physical activity – a healthy habit for any New Yorker.

Looking south down Stratford Road in Beverley Square West
Stratford Road, East side, looking south from Slocum Place
Stratford Road, East side, looking South toward Slocum Place

To reach the goal of one million new trees planted in NYC over the next decade, 40% – 400,000 trees – will have to be planted on private property:

The City of New York will plant 60% of trees in parks and other public spaces. The other 40% will come from private organizations, homeowners, and community organizations.

  • Street Trees: 220,000
  • Parks: 280,000
  • Capital Projects and new Zoning Requirements: 100,000
  • Private Partners: 400,000

About Million Trees NYC

We also need to preserve the existing urban forest, much of which is in private hands, and, with no legal protections, at risk. The proposed zoning amendments would provide much-needed protection in the form of restrictions and incentives.

East side of Rugby Rd, looking north from Church Av, in Caton Park
East side of Rugby Rd, looking north from Church Av, in Caton Park

I had sent this article to myself to write about it when it first appeared. Just getting around to it now. It got caught in a “draft”. (I’m sick today, I have an excuse.)

Lawns, manicured bushes and a riot of flowers have helped distinguish the borough’s streetscape, enhancing the livability of its communities and giving almost a county-in-the-city aura to many blocks.

However, in recent years, that trend has shifted. Front yards in many areas have been paved over, and blooms have been replaced by parking pads, as ever-increasing population density combined with an up-tick in the number of cars per family has made a guaranteed parking spot something of a holy grail, with portions of residential neighborhoods morphing into something akin to a concrete jungle.

[The Department of City Planning (DCP)] has proposed an amendment to the city’s zoning resolution that would require that a certain minimum percentage of all front yards be landscaped, based on the length of the property’s street frontage.
Parking it here has many people angry, Flatbush Life, October 18, 2007

[goo.gl]

Related Posts

Victorian Flatbush at risk from inappropriate zoning, 2007-10-23
Carolina Silverbell: One of a Million, 2007-10-09
State of Flatbush/Midwood, 2007-10-05
How Much is a Street Tree Worth, 2007-04-09
Landscape and Politics in Brooklyn’s City Council District 40, 2007-02-14
NASA Maps NYC’s Heat Island, 2006-08-01

Links

DCP: Yards Text Amendment Home Page, Press Release, Full text (PDF, 26 pages), Online Slide Show (25 pages, PDF version available)
DCP: Green Initiatives (including the Yards Text Amendment)
DCP Zoning Glossary
Million Trees NYC

Victorian Flatbush at risk from inappropriate zoning

Updated 2007.11.15: Added link to DCP Zoning Glossary and definitions of selected zoning terms used in the post.


A comment on Ditmas Park Blog open thread, Landmarking Pro and Con, led me to begin writing a lengthy response, which I thought I’d post here instead.

The area’s R1 and R2 zoning already prohibits anything but a detached single-family house.

I’ve written about this issue several times before on this blog.

Only Prospect Park South, Ditmas Park, West Midwood, Midwood Park, and Fiske Terrace – maybe a third of Victorian Flatbush in area, if that – are covered by R1 and R2. The rest is mostly R3-2. The most at-risk are the R6 zones; there have already been several teardowns along Stratford Road in Ditmas Park West that I’ve seen and photographed.

Zoning only addresses physical properties, such as setbacks, curbcuts, building height, Floor-to-Area Ratio (FAR), and so on. You can still rip off all architectural details, stucco over the entire woodframe house, add faux quoins, brick in the porch, add picture windows, and top it off with a six-foot rolling gate stainless steel barricade. Only landmarking can protect the street character of a neighborhood.

Check DCP for an index of all Zoning Maps. South Midwood is on map 23a; the rest of Victorian Flatbush is on 22c. DCP includes an explanation of basic residential zoning regulations on their Web site.

Related Posts

State of Flatbush/Midwood, October 5
Illegal Conversions Kill, September 24
Another reason to loathe real estate brokers, April 6
Four Borough Neighborhood Preservation Alliance Recommending Brooklyn Neighborhoods, March 23
Landscape and Politics in Brooklyn’s City Council District 40, February 14
NASA Earth Observatory Maps NYC’s Heat Island, Block by Block, August 1, 2006

Links

DCP: Residence District Zoning Explained
DCP Zoning Glossary