You are on page 1of 86

Housing New York

Mandatory Inclusionary Housing
Zoning for Quality and Affordability

November 2015

Housing New York
A Five-Borough, Ten-Year Plan
Housing New York is a comprehensive plan to build and 
preserve 200,000 units of high‐quality affordable housing 
over the next decade. The Plan will create opportunities for
New Yorkers with a range of incomes, from the very lowest 
to those in the middle class, and will foster vibrant and 
diverse neighborhoods.

DRAFT

Key Facets of

The Affordable Housing Crisis
 Gap Between Rents and Incomes
Over the past decade, average rents rose by more than 10% while wages stagnated

 High Rent Burden
55% of renter households are “rent-burdened” and 30% are “extremely rent burdened”

 Insufficient Housing Production
The marketplace is not meeting the needs of existing residents, let alone new ones

 Limited Supply of Affordable Units
Despite significant public investment, only a fraction of eligible New Yorkers served

 Population Growth
230,000 new residents arrived since 2010 and 600,000 more are expected by 2040

Housing New York:
Implementation
Create More
Affordable Housing

• Create 80,000 new affordable units
• Reform 421-a tax exemption program
• Improve zoning to promote affordability

Preserve Existing
Housing and
Prevent
Displacement

• Preserve affordability of 120,000
existing units
• Strengthen rent regulations
• Protect tenants facing harassment

Plan for and Invest
in Strong
Neighborhoods

• Collaboratively plan with communities
• Create Neighborhood Development
Fund
• Align planning with strategic
investments

DRAFT

Housing New York
Mandatory Inclusionary Housing

November 2015

What is Mandatory Inclusionary Housing?

A new proposal to use zoning to
require permanently affordable housing 
when future City Planning Commission actions 
encourage substantial new housing

6

Goals of Mandatory Inclusionary Housing
• Promote vibrant, diverse neighborhoods
• Ensure affordable housing in areas in which we are 
planning for growth
• Meet the needs of a range of low‐and moderate‐
income New Yorkers
• Ensure that program meets legal standards
• Apply program consistently 
• Support financial feasibility of housing creation

7

Financial Feasibility Assessment: Conclusions
BAE Urban Economics, an experienced affordable housing 
consultant, conducted an analysis for the City, and found that:
• There is a tradeoff between the percentage of affordable 
housing and reaching lower income levels
• Strongest housing markets can generally support a 
requirement for 20‐30% affordable housing
• Mid‐markets do not support this without direct subsidy, 
unless moderate incomes are targeted
• In weakest markets, direct subsidy is needed (with or 
without MIH)
• A 50% requirement is not financially feasible
8

Proposed Requirements Would Be
The Most Rigorous of Any Major U.S. City
For each rezoning, the City 
Planning Commission and City 
Council can apply:

Affordable
Monthly Rent 
for 2BR*

AMI

Income*

Sample
Occupation

40%

$31,080

Security Guard

$775

60%

$46,620

Paramedic

$1,150

80%

$62,150

School bus
driver + home 
health aide

$1,550

100%

$77,700

Teacher + retail 
salesperson

$1,950

120%

$93,240

Firefighter + 
server

$2,350

Option 1: 25 percent of housing 
at an average of 60% AMI 
Option 2: 30 percent of housing 
at an average of 80% AMI
Plus, in limited emerging or mid‐
market areas, an additional option 
may be added:
Workforce option: 30 percent at 
an average of 120% AMI (without 
direct subsidy)
Not available in Manhattan CDs 1‐8 

* For a household of three people
9

Key Features of Proposed Program
Other requirements
 Required units would be new, permanently affordable units
 Applies to developments, enlargements, or conversions > 10 units
Locations of affordable units
 On‐site, same building as market‐rate units, spread on at least half of the 
building’s stories, with a common street entrance and lobby
 On‐site, separate building, completely independent from the ground to the 
sky; would not stigmatize residents of affordable units
 Off‐site, different zoning lot located within the same Community District or 
within ½ mile
Other considerations
 Payment‐in‐lieu option for buildings of between 11 and 25 units 
 Requirements could be reduced or waived through BSA where they would 
make development infeasible (legal requirement for hardship relief)
10

MIH Is One of Many Tools That Work Together
• Strategic use of subsidy programs can 
reach incomes as low as 30% AMI
• Reform of State 421‐a tax 
exemption program will require  City Housing Subsidies
affordable housing in every rental 
building receiving benefits


More affordable housing
Broader range of incomes
No benefits for luxury condos 

421‐a 
Reform

Zoning for Quality  Mandatory 
and Affordability Inclusionary 
Housing

• Zoning for Quality and Affordability 
will promote senior and affordable 
housing, aid efficient use of housing 
subsidies and promote better buildings
11

Process for Establishing and Applying MIH
Community Board 
Borough President 
Borough Board review

60 days

City Planning 
Commission review

City Council review

approx. 60 days

50 days

Public land use review process (approx. 6 months)

Zoning Text Amendments to Establish the MIH Program
 Public review concurrent with Zoning for Quality and Affordability proposal
Application of Mandatory Affordable Housing in Neighborhoods
 For public and private applications to the City Planning Commission that 
encourage substantial new housing – each with its own full public review
• City‐initiated rezonings – e.g., East New York
• Private applications for zoning map changes
• Private applications for special permits that create substantial new 
residential density
12

For complete information, 
visit DCP’s website: 

nyc.gov/planning

13

Mandatory Inclusionary Housing Proposal

Q&A

14

Housing New York
Zoning for Quality and Affordability

November 2015

Goals

Affordability

Quality

Make zoning work better with
financial and other programs
to create more affordable
housing for a wider range
of New Yorkers

Encourage better buildings
that contribute to
attractive and livable
neighborhoods

16

ZONING FOR QUALITY AND AFFORDABILITY

What Does It Mean
for My Community?
• Proposal does not affect 
manufacturing districts (area in 
dark gray)
• In Community District 2: 
• Medium‐ and high‐density 
districts
• Inclusionary Housing 
Designated areas

ZONING FOR QUALITY AND AFFORDABILITY

What Does It Mean
for My Community?
• Proposal does not affect 
manufacturing districts (area in 
dark gray)
• In Community District 2: 
• Medium‐ and high‐density 
districts
• Inclusionary Housing 
Designated areas
• In large areas of CD 2, 
developments are subject to 
additional LPC review

18

ZONING FOR QUALITY AND AFFORDABILITY

ZQA

Quality

Affordability

Building Envelopes 

Street Walls

& Num. of Stories

Corner Buildings

Other Bulk Regulations

Setback Requirements

Inclusionary Housing

Building Envelopes
Uses & Mixing of Uses

Affordable Senior Housing 
& Care Facilities

Floor Area
Building Envelopes
Other Changes

Parking Requirements
19

Quality
1. Change rules that lead to flat, dull apartment buildings
to encourage visual variety and features common in
traditional apartment buildings
2. Encourage better ground-floor retail and residential
spaces and apartments with adequate ceiling heights

20

Quality
1. Change rules that lead to flat, dull apartment buildings
to encourage visual variety and features common in
traditional apartment buildings

21

QUALITY

Key Elements of the Proposal
In medium‐ and high‐density contextual districts:
• Allow buildings to set back a few feet from the 
sidewalk and provide garden areas in front of the 
building
• Allow more flexibility for courtyards, bay windows, and 
other features typical of the city’s older buildings
• With targeted changes to setback and coverage 
requirements, allow better interior layouts and reduce 
blank walls
Bleecker St and Perry St

22

QUALITY

Key Elements of the Proposal
In medium‐ and high‐density contextual districts:
• Allow buildings to set back a few feet from the 
sidewalk and provide garden areas in front of the 
building
• Allow more flexibility for courtyards, bay windows, and 
other features typical of the city’s older buildings
• With targeted changes to setback and coverage 
requirements, allow better interior layouts and reduce 
blank walls
23

QUALITY

Street Wall Rules Today
Little flexibility 
permitted for design 
articulation, resulting in 
flat façades

Buildings “line up” 
with the wrong part 
of neighboring 
buildings

24

QUALITY

Street Wall Rules With Proposal
Allow flexibility for 
traditional elements 
like bay windows

Ensures street wall 
lines up properly 
with neighboring 
buildings

25

QUALITY

Setback Rules Today

Rear setback squeezes 
upper‐story floor plates, 
discouraging ground level 
front setbacks

Front setback 
requirement forces 
many buildings to be 
built right at property 
line

Zoning makes 
courts and 
courtyards 
difficult to create

Rules encourage 
building closer to the 
street than adjoining 
buildings
26

QUALITY

Setback Rules With Proposal

Rear setback made 
optional to improve 
layouts, encourage 
ground‐level front 
setbacks

Flexibility in depth 
of front setback 
enables ground‐
level setbacks and 
better layouts

Improved court and 
street wall rules 
encourage building 
articulation and variety

Street wall aligned with 
adjoining buildings 
27

Zoning for Quality & Affordability (Part I)

Q&A

28

Quality
1. Change rules that lead to flat, dull apartment buildings
to encourage visual variety and features common in
traditional apartment buildings
2. Encourage better ground-floor retail and residential
spaces and apartments with adequate ceiling heights

29

QUALITY

Goal: Encourage better ground-floor retail and
residential spaces and apartments with adequate
ceiling heights

In medium‐ and high‐density contextual districts:
• Allow limited additional height if buildings provide 
taller ground floors 

Housing
New York

80’

Zoning for Quality
and Affordability 10’
If not used on ground floor
- Maximum height stays the same

85’
~2’

=>13’

Second floor must be 13’ above grade
30

QUALITY

Examples of bad buildings in Community District 2 that we don’t want

Low ground floor, 
blank streetwall

22‐24 Downing St
31

QUALITY

Examples of bad buildings in Community District 2 that we don’t want
255 Hudson St

Ground floor units 
front directly on 
sidewalk, at eye level
22 Renwick St

482 Greenwich St

32

QUALITY

Goal: Encourage better ground-floor retail and
residential spaces and apartments with adequate
ceiling heights

In medium‐ and high‐density contextual districts:
• Allow limited additional height if buildings provide 
taller ground floors 
• Introduce a cap on the number of stories

33

QUALITY

Where the change 
does not apply:
• Proposal does not affect 
manufacturing districts (area in 
dark gray)
• No change for market‐rate 
development (area in light 
gray)
‐ R6
‐ R7, C6‐1, C4‐5, C2‐6, C1‐6
‐ R7X/M1‐5

34

QUALITY

Where the change 
applies:
• Proposal does not affect 
manufacturing districts (area in 
dark gray)
• No change for market‐rate 
development (area in light 
gray)
‐ R6
‐ R7, C6‐1, C4‐5, C2‐6, C1‐6
‐ R7X/M1‐5
• Allow additional height in 
other areas if taller ground 
floors are provided. (area in 
orange)

35

QUALITY

Where the change 
applies:
• Allow additional height in 
other areas if taller ground 
floors are provided.
• Proposal affects 
contextual districts and 
non‐contextual districts 
differently

Hudson Sq.

36

QUALITY

Option 1:

Option 2:

37

QUALITY

Contextual Districts

Contextual Districts
Basic Residential 
Modifications 
(Assuming a Qualifying 
Ground Floor)

Contextual 
Existing
Districts
R6A
C4‐4A, C1‐
6A 
(R7A)
C6‐2A 
(R8A)
C6‐3A 
(narrow) 
(R9A)
C6‐3A 
(wide) 
(R9A)

Proposed 
(stories)

Height 
Difference

70’

75’ (7)

5’ (0)

80’

85’ (8)

5’ (0)

120’

125’ (12)

5’ (0)

135’

145’ (14)

10’ (1)

145’

155’ (15)

10’ (1)

38

QUALITY

Contextual Districts
Far West Village
‐ Area mostly built‐out
‐ Protected by historic district on the 
east

In a fully built out area, the actual 
applicability is very limited.

39

QUALITY

Contextual Districts
Far West Village
‐ Area mostly built‐out
‐ Protected by historic district on the 
east

In a fully built out area, the actual 
applicability is very limited.

40

QUALITY

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R6, R7
R7 Equivalents

No Change

41

QUALITY

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R8
R8 Equivalents:


C6‐2
C6‐2M
C1‐7

Basic Residential 
Modifications 
(Assuming a 
Qualifying Ground 
Floor)
Zoning 
Districts
R8 (narrow)
R8 (wide)

Existing  Proposed  Height 
QH (stories) Difference
105’

125’ (12)

20’

120’ 125’ (12)

5’
42

QUALITY

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R8
R8 Equivalents:


C6‐2
C6‐2M
C1‐7

Basic Residential 
Modifications (Assuming a 
Qualifying Ground Floor)

Zoning Districts Existing QH

Proposed 
(stories)

Height 
Difference

R8 (narrow)

105’

125’ (12)

20’

R8 (wide)

120’

125’ (12)

5’

43

QUALITY

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R8
R8 Equivalents:


C6‐2
C6‐2M
C1‐7

Basic Residential 
Modifications (Assuming a 
Qualifying Ground Floor)

Zoning Districts Existing QH

Proposed 
(stories)

Height 
Difference

R8 (narrow)

105’

125’ (12)

20’

R8 (wide)

120’

125’ (12)

5’

44

QUALITY

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R8
R8 Equivalents:


C6‐2
C6‐2M
C1‐7

Basic Residential 
Modifications (Assuming a 
Qualifying Ground Floor)

Zoning Districts Existing QH

Proposed 
(stories)

Height 
Difference

R8 (narrow)

105’

125’ (12)

20’

R8 (wide)

120’

125’ (12)

5’

45

QUALITY

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R9
R9 Equivalents:

C2‐7
C6‐3

Basic Residential 
Modifications (Assuming 
a Qualifying Ground 
Floor)
Zoning 
Districts

Existing  Proposed 
QH
(stories)

Height 
Difference

R9
(narrow)

135’

145’ (14)

10’

R9 
(wide)

145’

155’ (15)

10’

46

QUALITY

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R9
R9 Equivalents:

C2‐7
C6‐3

Basic Residential Modifications 
(Assuming a Qualifying Ground 
Floor)

Zoning 
Districts

Existing QH

Proposed 
(stories)

Height 
Difference

R9 (narrow)

135’

145’ (14)

10’

R9 
(wide)

145’

155’ (15)

10’

47

QUALITY

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R10
R10 Equivalents:

C6‐4
C6‐4M

Basic Residential 
Modifications (Assuming 
a Qualifying Ground 
Floor)
Zoning 
Districts

Existing 
QH

Proposed 
(stories)

Height 
Difference

R10
(narrow)

185’

195’ (19)

10’

R10 (wide)

210’

215’ (21)

5’
48

QUALITY

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R10
R10 Equivalents:

C6‐4
C6‐4M

Basic Residential Modifications 
(Assuming a Qualifying Ground 
Floor)

Zoning 
Districts

Existing QH

Proposed 
(stories)

Height 
Difference

R10 (narrow)

185’

195’ (19)

10’

R10 (wide)

210’

215’ (21)

5’

49

QUALITY

Hudson Sq. Changes
Basic Residential 
Modifications (Assuming 
a Qualifying Ground 
Floor)
Hudson Sq.
Existing
(R10A)

Proposed 
Height 
(stories) Difference

narrow

185’

195’(19)

10’(1)

wide

290’

/

/

50

QUALITY

Residential Ground Floors Today

Ground floor units 
front directly on 
sidewalk, at eye 
level

51

QUALITY

Residential Ground Floors With Proposal

Exempt accessibility 
ramps from FAR to help 
raise ground‐floor units 
above street level

Ground floor units elevated 
above sidewalk and set 
back so planting can be 
provided

52

PROPOSAL

Current Rules – Commercial street

Tight height limits 
produce low ground 
floors, often too short 
for quality retail 
space

53

PROPOSAL

With Proposal – Commercial street

5’ height increase allows 
ground floor that 
supports retail and 
enlivens streetscape

54

Zoning for Quality and Affordability

Concerns/Questions raised:

55

Zoning for Quality & Affordability (Part II)

Q&A

56

Affordability
1. Support the creation of Inclusionary Housing
2. Help seniors remain in their communities by making it
easier to provide affordable senior housing and care
facilities
3. Free up resources to create more affordable housing by
enabling cost-effective, transit-accessible affordable
housing

57

Affordability
1. Support the creation of Inclusionary Housing

58

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

What is Inclusionary Housing?
The voluntary Inclusionary Housing (IH) program today provides 
two optional floor area incentives in exchange for the creation 
or preservation of affordable housing, on or off‐site, pre‐
dominantly for low‐income households. 
‐ In Inclusionary Housing designated areas, a bonus of 33% of 
floor area can be obtained for providing 20% as affordable 
housing. 
‐ In R10 districts, IH program provides a floor area bonus of up 
to 20% for the provision of affordable housing.
59

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

Where in CD 2?
Special Hudson Sq. District                                   R10 Districts

60

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

Why Does Zoning Need to Change?
• Tight Building Envelope: 
– Special Hudson Sq. District: when buildings participate in the 
Inclusionary Housing Program, zoning today already allows 
additional height, but the building envelope is still too tight on 
narrow street.
– R10 District and C6‐4 Districts: when buildings participate in the 
Inclusionary Housing Program, zoning allows more floor area but 
does not allow additional height to fit the floor area.

This results in less participation in the program, and 
less affordable housing
61

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

What is changing to support the creation
of Inclusionary Housing?
• When buildings participate in the Inclusionary 
Housing program, consistently allow additional 
height so that the allowed floor area could be built.

62

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

Hudson Sq. Changes

On‐Site Inclusionary Housing

Existing Existing  Proposed 
w/o IH w/ IH (stories)

narrow 
street

Wide 
street

185’

230’ 235’ (23)

290’

/

Additional 
Height 
Difference

5’

/

63

INCLUSIONARY HOUSING

R10 Envelope
Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R10
R10 Equivalents:

C6‐4
C6‐4M

On‐site Inclusionary 
Housing
Additional 
Zoning 
Proposed  Height 
Existing
Districts
(stories) Difference 
(stories)
R10
(narrow)

185’

235’ (23)

40’ (4)

R10
(wide)

210’

235’ (23)

20’ (2)
64

Zoning for Quality & Affordability (Part III)

Q&A

65

Affordability
1. Support the creation of Inclusionary Housing
2. Help seniors remain in their communities by making it
easier to provide affordable senior housing and care
facilities

66

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Why Does Zoning Need to Change?
• Aging Population: Population 65 years and older is 
projected to increase 40% by 2040 – over 400,000 
additional seniors
• Dated zoning does not recognize today’s spectrum of 
senior housing and care facilities, such as 
o independent living
o assisted living
o nursing care

• In medium and higher density districts: affordable senior 
housing is allowed more floor area, but zoning doesn’t 
allow room for it all to fit in a well designed building
67

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Due to funding constraints, 
affordable senior housing 
and long‐term care 
facilities are rarely built on 
private land without direct 
public subsidies, especially 
in high value areas.
Only one existing senior housing 
facility in Community District 2

68

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Goal: Help seniors remain in their communities
• Allow today’s spectrum of senior housing and care facilities, 
alone or mixed:
o independent living
o assisted living
o nursing care

• Align as‐of‐right floor area for affordable senior housing & 
care facilities
• Allow adequate bulk for the permitted floor area to fit in a 
well designed building
• Allow accessory facilities such as indoor recreation space and 
laundry rooms as a permitted obstruction in the 30‐foot‐deep 
required rear yard as other community facilities.
69

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Goal: Help seniors remain in their communities
• Allow today’s spectrum of senior housing and care facilities, 
alone or mixed:
o independent living
o assisted living
o nursing care

• Align as‐of‐right floor area for affordable senior housing & 
care facilities
• Allow adequate bulk for the permitted floor area to fit in a 
well designed building
• Allow accessory facilities such as indoor recreation space and 
laundry rooms as a permitted obstruction in the 30‐foot‐deep 
70
required rear yard as other community facilities.

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

What FAR Is Proposed for Affordable Senior 
Housing and Care Facilities? 
23‐147 

23‐14

24‐111

23‐90

Community 
Facility: Nursing 
Inclusionary 
Home and 
Housing
Health Related 
FAR
Facilities 
(current)

PROPOSED 
23‐147
Proposed for 
Affordable 
Independent 
Residences*  for 
Seniors and
Senior Long 
Term Care**

Non‐profit 
residences for 
the elderly 
(current)

Residential 

Distri
ct 

Max FAR

Max FAR

Max FAR

R6 

3.90

(2.43, 3.0)

2.43

2.42, 3.60

3.90

R7 

5.01

(3.44, 4.0)

3.44

3.60, 4.60

5.01

R7A  

5.01

(4.0)

4.00

4.60

5.01

R8  

6.02

6.02

7.20

7.20

R8A 

6.02

6.02

7.20

7.20

R9 

7.52

7.52

8.00

8.00

R9A 

7.52

7.52

8.50

8.50

R10

10.00

10.00

12.00

12.00

R10A

10.00

10.00

12.00

12.00

Max FAR

No change

Allow the 
same FAR as 
IH
71

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Goal: Help seniors remain in their communities
• Allow today’s spectrum of senior housing and care facilities, 
alone or mixed:
o independent living
o assisted living
o nursing care

• Align as‐of‐right floor area for affordable senior housing & 
care facilities
• Allow adequate bulk for the permitted floor area to fit in a 
well designed building
– Contextual districts
– Non‐Contextual districts: To receive the higher floor area, proposal 
requires use of contextual, Quality Housing building envelope
72

• Allow accessory facilities such as indoor recreation space and 

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Envelope Changes

Contextual Districts
Quality Affordable Senior 
Mods
Modifications

Additional 
Propose Propose
Height 
Contextual Existin


Difference 
Districts
g
(stories) (stories)
(stories)
R6A
70’ 75’ (7) 85’ (8)
10' (1)
C4‐4A, C1‐
80’ 85’ (8) 105’ (10) 20' (2)
6A (R7A)
R7X 
125’ 125’ (12) 145’ (14) 20’ (2)
C6‐2A 
120’ 125’ (12) 145’ (14) 20' (2)
(R8A)
C6‐3A 
(wide)  145’ 155’ (15) 175’ (17) 20' (2)
(R9A)

73

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R6

Quality
Mods

Affordable Senior 
Modifications

Additional 
Zoning  Existi Proposed  Proposed  Height 
Districts ng (stories) (stories) Difference 
(stories)
MX‐6

R6 
(narrow  55’
street)

55’ (5)

85’ (8)

30’  (3)

R6 (wide 
65’
street)

65‘ (6)

85’ (8)

20’  (2)

74

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R7‐2
R7 Equivalents:



C6‐1
C4‐5
C2‐6
C1‐6

Quality
Mods

Affordable Senior 
Modifications
Additional 
Zoning  Existi Proposed  Proposed  Height 
Districts ng (stories) (stories) Difference 
(stories)
R7 
75’ 75’ (7) 105' (10) 30’ (3)
(narrow)
R7 
75’ 75’ (7) 105' (10) 30' (3)
(wide)

75

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R8
R8 Equivalents:


C6‐2
C6‐2M
C1‐7

Quality
Mods

Affordable Senior 
Modifications
Additional 
Propose
Proposed  Height 
Zoning  Existi

(stories) Difference 
Districts ng
(stories)
(stories)
R8
125’ 
105’
145’ (14)
20’ (2)
(narrow)
(12)
R8 
125’ 
120’
145’ (14)
20’ (2)
(wide)
(12)

76

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R9
R9 Equivalents:

C2‐7
C6‐3

Quality
Mods

Senior Modifications

Additional 
Zoning  Exis Proposed  Proposed  Height 
Districts ting (stories) (stories) Difference 
(stories)
R9
135’ 145’ (14) 175’ (17) 30’ (3)
(narrow)
R9 
145’ 155’ (15) 175’ (17) 20’ (2)
(wide)

77

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Envelope Changes

Non‐Contextual Districts

R10
R10 Equivalents:

C6‐4
C6‐4M

Quality
Senior Modifications
Mods
Additional 
Zoning 
Proposed  Proposed  Height 
Existing
Districts
(stories) (stories) Difference 
(stories)
R10
(narrow)

185’

195’ (19) 235’ (23)

40’ (4)

R10
(wide)

210’

215’ (21) 235’ (23)

20’ (2)

78

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Restrictive envelope 
encourages flat facades 
and no street wall line‐up

Existing envelope 
cannot accommodate
permitted floor area

Existing R7A envelope on narrow street, interior lot

Existing
79

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Additional two stories 
allows permitted floor 
area to be 
accommodated

More flexible envelope 
allows for improved street 
wall articulation and line‐up

80

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Goal: Help seniors remain in their communities
• Allow today’s spectrum of senior housing and care facilities, 
alone or mixed:
• Align as‐of‐right floor area for affordable senior housing & 
care facilities
• Allow adequate bulk for the permitted floor area to fit in a 
well designed building
• Allow accessory facilities such as indoor recreation space and 
laundry rooms as a permitted obstruction in the 30‐foot‐deep 
required rear yard as other community facilities.

81

AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING

Goal: Help seniors remain in their communities
• Allow today’s spectrum of senior housing and care facilities, 
alone or mixed:
• Align as‐of‐right floor area for affordable senior housing & 
care facilities
• Allow adequate bulk for the permitted floor area to fit in a 
well designed building
• Allow accessory facilities such as indoor recreation space and 
laundry rooms as a permitted obstruction in the 30‐foot‐deep 
required rear yard as other community facilities.
• Removes restrictions that limit height on narrow lots to 
maximize the potential for affordable senior housing.
82

Zoning for Quality & Affordability (Part IV)

Q&A

83

PROPOSAL

What Wouldn’t the Proposal Do?
Goal: Maintain rules that work well today,
including the essential rules of “contextual” zoning
districts and lower-density zoning districts
• No additional market‐rate floor area
• No provisions that encourage tear‐downs
• No elimination of any contextual zoning district, or re‐mapping of any 
zoning district
• All projects in historic districts or landmarked buildings remain 
subject to review by the Landmarks Preservation Commission
• No reduction in the amount of green or open spaces required for 
buildings
• Proposal would not produce dramatic changes in development in any 
neighborhood
84

Public Review Process
Community Board 
Borough President 
Borough Board review

60 days

City Planning 
Commission review

City Council review

approx. 60 days

50 days

Public land use review process (approx. 6 months)

The proposed changes will go through the City’s public land use 
review process
• Concurrent with review for Mandatory Inclusionary Housing 
proposal

85

QUALITY AND AFFORDABILITY

For complete information, including Community 
District profiles showing which parts of the proposal 
would apply in individual areas,
visit DCP’s website: 

nyc.gov/planning

86