They're At It Again

You read the papers and listen to the news and you wonder where the bottom is and how painful it's going to be when we hit it, assuming we have not hit it already.

And then you learn that yet another municipality - this time the Town of Oyster Bay - is looking to enact legislation that will stymie construction activity. Specifically, Town Councilman Anthony Macagnone - a carpenter by trade - is proposing to reduce the maximum gross floor area ratio allowed. In other words, the economy is down, workers are idle and consumers are sitting on their hands. What does government want to do? Discourage any kind of economic activity!

These are the worst of times for homebuilders and potential homebuyers. Home values are declining in the midst of a major financial crisis. The importance of maintaining solid values should be a top priority for all levels of government. During this credit crisis only the most credit worthy buyers can be approved for mortgages. The values of owned lots could be an important source of collateral and down payment for a mortgagor. Oyster Bay is reducing the value of buildable lots at precisely the wrong time.

Today’s housing market prefers homes of at least 3,000 sq ft due to existing lot prices and the fact that families are using their home as more than a bedroom. The overall effect of the size reduction would be to create a 1970s look to all new housing in a 2010 market. Innovation and architectural style and design would be inhibited.

Most of the Town has 7,000 square ft lots and the proposal has a lot coverage requirement of 25% max which would allow a 3,500 sq ft home (that’s 1750 sq ft x 2 floors). The proposal adds a floor area ratio (FAR). Within the FAR is the garage. The proposal drops the potential 3,500 sq ft to 3,200 sq ft. When you exclude a garage of 400 sq ft the maximum living space becomes 2,800.

LIBI understands the Town’s desire to avoid oversized homes on infill lots. Exclusion of the garage from the FAR would be one solution and this would allow a reasonably sized home, consistent with today’s market needs and modest sheds or outbuildings. Perhaps the Town could consider limiting this new requirement to infill lots and not new subdivisions or lots surrounded by larger properties where the size of the home is less important.

Any single sale of a new home generates employment and spending in the Town. For the sake of reducing home size for a few hundred square feet, an action that will inhibit buyers is pure folly in this recession. Simply state, the economy needs every new home sale that occurs.