Sorry. No ​“Hardship”

FWIW,

I know this house diagram because its all over East Rock. Its @ a 1000 square foot floor plate for floor 1, 2 and attic, but building and zoning discounts the attic floor mathematically to about 60-70% of the total because there's insufficient head height at the base of the roof slope to some interior distance. Nevertheless, New Haven is riddled with habitable space in attics. It's perfectly reasonable do a one bedroom shotgun diagram in a space like this.

The ZBA is correct that the financial issues aren't a hardship. I have no idea if the existing physical characteristics of a house (which one wouldn't want to dramatically alter for fear of losing its historic character...in this case the entire roof would need to be altered) would be considered a hardship? Maybe KMcCarthy could answer that?

Interesting, that Mr. Peak of the NHI describes the honest homeowner as "slinking away". I'm impressed that Mr. Casano is going about this the right way, through the BZA. New Haven has many illegally constructed apartments that were never discussed with zoning officials, as they well know.

@celardoor and @robn: Good points both....those who do this work without asking get away with it nearly 100% of the time. Those who make a reasonable ask get shot down by the city and the smeared by the press (using verbs like crammed and slunk away is steering the audience not informing)

I actually didn't even realize the min. 1000sqft rule existed in the residential zones.
The vast majority of the older 2 and 3 family homes do not conform, including mine.
Almost all 1-bedroom apartments in these zones are under 1000sqft, and even most 2-bed, 1 bath units are as well. I rent out a spacious, family-friendly 2bed, 1bath unit that comes in at 975 sqft, with private storage and laundry (not included in sqft because its in the basement). Legal unit, existed well before this rule.

Given the supposed concern about "affordable housing," it seems like this rule should be revisited. Most single people and couples with up to 1 child living in an urban area do not need nor expect over 1000sqft, especially in these older multi-family homes where you often get a porch and yard too.

Allowing owners to split a large unit into 2 smaller units, or convert unused attic space into a standalone unit, results in more affordable apartments in desirable neighborhoods. I understand that was not the intent of this owner, but its something to think about.

"Cram" is the wrong word too. Many 3-4 family homes in New Haven are only around that 2800-3000 sqft mark, and many of them have had the basements converted to apartments to achieve that square footage. Was there something else going on here? Lack of egress from the proposed apartment?

If you want lower rents, one way would be to change this dumb rule and let landlords provide smaller apartments if that is what the market wants. As noted, there are many very nice apartments in East Rock that are smaller than this (they pre-exist the rule or else just ignored it).

This rule is nothing other than a way of trying to keep East Rock as a place for the relatively rich. Let's get rid of it.

Actually, the word "physical" does not appear in the statute allowing for variances. The ZBA routinely grants variances for bona fide financial hardship, i.e., when the zoning regulations prevent a parcel from having an economic use. But Trachten is right on the substance of the case. You are not entitled to a variance simply so you can make more money from a property.

NHVCyclist, much of the housing in East Rock and across the city pre-dates zoning. As a result, it is grandfathered from the minimum unit size provision.

Kevin - I know, I own one of them. Its 100% legal due to being grandfathered in. But that's the thing - does that 1000 sqft line in the zoning regulation make sense?
Many of the new apartment buildings have apartments well under 1000 sqft, and we know those are cross-shopped with East Rock homes by renters. Like I said, most single people, couples with 1 child, or a group of 2 roommates, do not need nor expect 1000 sqft in urban living, especially in older multi-family homes that often include separate basement storage and a yard.

And that brings up another point - allowing a 3rd apartment in that house would not be "out of character" for the neighborhood. We all know there are way nuttier usages/sliced-&-diced homes in New Haven - including in that part of East Rock.

Not that it matters, but this particular individual wasn't trying to make "more money." He was just trying to break even (retain current rental apartment in owner-occupied home) while also converting an under-utilized space (attic? basement? article doesn't give detail) into what sounds like an in-law apartment for an aunt to live rent-free.
That said, it shouldn't matter whether money is being made or not. I'm just curious as to the overall logic, regardless of the owner's motives.

I believe the zoning language states that the average size of apartments needs to be a minimum of 1,000 sq ft. That means that within a given property some units can be under 1,000 sq ft so long as the overall average apartment size is above that. I think the idea behind the language is to encourage a mixture of unit types and sizes as well as provide some minimum level of living standard (in terms of square footage). I could be wrong, but this is my interpretation of the language. Having said that, in many cases, it would make sense to allow for an average of less than 1,000 so ft per unit in a multi-unit property like a three-family house.

I own a multi-family down the street from this particular house so I'm pretty familiar with how houses like this are divided up into different apartments. It seems to me that assuming this guy was able to create the front-and-back safe egresses, it wouldn't have been out of line to approve the creation of a small apartment on the third floor. I had no idea there was a 1000 sq. ft. minimum for such things. I've been in tons of third-floor apartments in East Rock that couldn't possibly meet that requirement -- darling little garrets. (Hot in summer, but, well, that's life.)

I wonder if perhaps a solution to this, which would be legal, if not ideal from all possible perspectives, would be to finish the third floor as living space, creating a duplex of the second and third floors. Then the guy would be sharing a big apartment with his aunt. I don't see how this would be an issue. It would not provide for the total privacy of a third unit, but it would create a space in which the aunt could live comfortably (assuming she can handle the stairs). I don't think this kind of work-around should be necessary -- I think the guy should be able to make the third apartment, assuming he's gonna do it right -- but I can't see any reason why he couldn't build a room or two and a bathroom in the third floor. Who's harmed by this? If I had the money, I'd do it in my house, which has an unfinished third floor.
What am I missing?

Eva,

I suspect that the Owner lives on the first floor and is renting the second to a stranger. Were that reversed (or if a stranger wanted his aunt as a roommate), what you describe would be legal. In fact, Vision Appraisal lists the attic of this house as taxable so if its not already finished space, Mr Cusano is getting ripped off.

NHVCyclist, I would be fine with eliminating the minimum unit size provision. It was adopted at a time when households were much larger. But a large part of the rationale for zoning is to preserve property values. I suspect a proposal to eliminate the minimum or allow substantially smaller units would engender opposition. This was the case when a developer proposed converting a building in Wooster Square to micro-apartments.

More generally, the zoning ordinance and its statutory counterpart are badly outdated. They are predicated on the belief that density and mixed uses are bad. Mayor Harp had proposed that the ordinance be rewritten. While there have been several positive amendments, they have been fairly small scale.

I agree with JH and KM that the purpose is preservation of property value and living conditons (we don't want a return to tenement living.) There is also and issue of parking, but one must assume, if there is already taxable living area in the attic, that that occupancy has already been accounted for. The issue of habitable units in attics could simply be solved by making a zoning regulation specifically tailored for the circumstance of an attic with around 600-700sf of useable space and limiting approval of separate units therein to (1) one bedroom, single occupancy unit. To be respectful of neighbors, I would also make approval of a new separate unit contingent upon adjacent neighbors signing off on it.

Esbey states: "This rule is nothing other than a way of trying to keep East Rock as a place for the relatively rich".

Let's get rid of the name East Rock for this neighborhood. Nicoll Street is actually in the "Goatville" neighborhood. The real estate barons, developers and Yale have taken away the "Goatville" name for their own selfish reasons. Wake up, no other New Haven neighborhood has lost it identity.