March 19, 2001 -- The New York Times
In Suburbs, They're Cracking Down on the Joneses
By LISA W. FODERARO
EASTCHESTER, N.Y., March 16 - Suburban communities are grappling with a
new quandary as houses continue to mutate into ever-larger forms: how big is
too big, and what can suburban communities do to try to rein in the
monster house next door?
In recent years, oversized homes - labeled "McMansions" by some - have
spread from spacious gated enclaves to close-in suburbs, where they often
dwarf their neighbors. Now, town officials, urban planners and irate
neighbors in suburbs across the country are scrambling to find ways to
rewrite zoning codes to restrict the size of new houses and additions to
existing houses.
The result is pitting neighbor against neighbor and town against resident,
while taxing the ingenuity of municipalities that often lack the tools, or
will, to limit house size. And it is leading to drawn-out battles that fray
nerves.
"When you look out your doorstep and see houses that are 2,200 square feet,
that presents a certain picture," said Jim Cavanaugh, supervisor of
Eastchester, a town in Westchester County with older houses. "Suddenly,
when there might be houses that are twice that size, people feel closed in
and the neighborhood doesn't seem as open and airy."
In late 1999, Eastchester imposed a building moratorium and charged a
committee with reviewing the town's zoning code. Like many towns and
villages, Eastchester had limited house size only through generous setback
rules, which require the sides of a house to be a certain number of feet
from the property's borders. The town first imposed minor limits on size
four years ago, but last fall it brought out the hacksaw, making further
reductions.
"We recognize that the market today is for larger homes, and we want to keep
Eastchester part of the market, but we don't want to allow these gargantuan
houses," Mr. Cavanaugh said.
The ascendancy of the megahouse reflects a nationwide trend, one that began
in California in the late 1980's and spread in the last decade. United
States census information shows that the average size of a new single-
family house sold in 1999 was almost 10 percent larger than it was a decade
earlier, while the average yard size was 13 percent smaller. As a result,
from Pasadena, Calif., to Newton, Mass., zoning laws have been amended with
the aim of controlling housing bloat through complex restrictions, including
floor- area ratios, demolition limits and upper-story setbacks.
Land-use experts and neighbors watching from behind picket fences say the
impulse to put the maximum amount of house on an eighth or quarter of an
acre disrupts the visual rhythm of an older street, sort of like planting a
sequoia in a cherry grove.
In the village of Scarsdale, N.Y., the Committee for Historic Preservation
has received applications to raze 15 houses since July, and the committee
members, required to hew to specific criteria, have approved all but two.
One of the two - and a current flashpoint - is a 1920's colonial-style house
on a half acre at 270 Fox Meadow Road. The owners, a builder and an
investor, want to tear it down and replace it with two new houses, each
larger than the original. Last Monday, the village's Board of Architectural
Review denied the partners permission to demolish the house. But with
subdivision approvals already in hand, the owners are now appealing to the
Village Board, which has overturned decisions by the Architectural Review
Board in the past.
Everyone is girding for an extended fight.
"One reason people move to Scarsdale is the open green spaces," said Robert
F. Schoetz, a 32-year-old Manhattan transplant who lives across the street.
"This destroys the neighborhood."
Responding to the spate of subdivisions, the Scarsdale Village Board
recently rezoned four areas of the village to increase minimum lot sizes.
In the meantime, the village is re-examining its zoning code, considering an
approach that would cap total square footage but would also include area
bonuses for design features like tucking the garage in the back of the
house.
Of course, plenty of people want big houses, complete with soaring arched
windows and spacious great rooms, hence their popularity. And not everyone
is convinced that aesthetics is the only thing at issue in the disputes.
Alfred A. Gatta, Scarsdale's village manager, suggests that the fury of
neighbors does not always hinge on questions of scale and character. "No one
wants a house bigger than theirs, and they scream," he said. "Down deep,
the thinking is, `I don't want anyone to have a house better than mine.' "
The potential for conflict was a motivating force in Pelham Manor, a village
in lower Westchester County where only a few houses had grown uncomfortably
large through additions. Last year, the Village Board amended its local
zoning code to limit the footprint of a house, as well as that of a
swimming pool or detached garage, to a certain percentage of the lot.
"You'd rather have the ordinance on the book than try to do it after the
horse is out of the barn," Mayor John S. Kiernan said.
Nearby, the village of Mamaroneck recently took steps to restrict footprint
and square footage. Before the law was enacted, someone could build a
14,000-square-foot house on a half acre. Now, the maximum size allowed on
that lot is 7,000 square feet. And the amount of house allowed on a quarter
acre has shrunk from 7,000 square feet to 4,500 square feet.
But the restrictions would not prevent the very houses that led to the
zoning changes in the first place, like two homes on Frank Avenue that tower
over their neighbors. The mayor of Mamaroneck, Deborah Chapin, said the
village still needed to do more work on the issue. "I don't think we can
rely only on a mathematical formula," she said. "We need to give the
Architectural Review Board objective criteria about the surrounding
neighborhoods so that we don't end up with houses that are out of
character."
In the New York region, the phenomenon is certainly not limited to
Westchester County. In North Hempstead on Long Island, the Town Board
attacked the issue in late 1999 on several fronts: reducing allowable
height, increasing setbacks on sideyards and lowering caps on total house
area for most lots, among other things. In New Jersey, a few pioneering
towns placed limits on overall size years ago, only to return with tougher
zoning amendments later, as the borough of Demarest did in 1996.
In Connecticut, the town of Greenwich took action in late 1998, imposing
limits on overall square footage in its two- and four-acre zones for the
first time. Previously, builders had to adhere only to setback
requirements. Now, a new house on two acres cannot exceed 7,800 square feet,
while a new house on four acres cannot exceed 11,000 square feet. In all
other residential zones, the town trimmed the maximum floor area of new
homes by 10 percent.
Builders are wary of the toughening postures of municipal boards. In
Scarsdale, Shlomo Freidfertig, a developer who hopes to tear down two
houses and replace them with six, said that by crimping house size, local
governments were contradicting consumer demand and meddling with home
values.
"I am frustrated," said Mr. Freidfertig, a resident of Scarsdale for 21
years. "Our home is our asset, our future, our retirement, and when you
come in and put a restriction on a piece of property, it's interfering with
people's rights and reducing the value of the property."
Mr. Freidfertig voiced a common rationale among builders: that the values of
existing houses rise when a larger one is built. "Those neighbors opposed
to my subdivisions are going to benefit the most because I'm bringing the
whole neighborhood up," he said.
Try telling that to Ken Gogarty, who now sees a tall brick house from his
backyard in Dobbs Ferry, N.Y. where he used to see woods. The new house on
Shady Lane, at 3,054 square feet, is only 20 percent larger than the raised
ranches and other houses nearby. But because it was built on a bluff, it
looms over its neighbors.
"It looks like a public school in New York City," said Mr. Gogarty, a
construction manager whose own 19th-century Victorian seems doll- sized by
comparison. "It's depressing. It makes me feel like moving."
Planning experts say a weakening economy could slow the numbers of large new
houses being built. But they caution that the pressures will continue.
"Basically, what people want is almost like a free-standing condo where they
don't have attached walls," said Lester D. Steinman, director of the Edwin
G. Michaelian Municipal Law Resource Center of Pace University in White
Plains. "It's funny because the whole concept of going to suburbia
originally was to have a little bit of open space."
