FAR mystery house

7 heusted

7 Heusted Drive

7 Heusted Drive, Old Greenwich, reports a pending sale, $1.795 million. The listing, and the tax card, show 3,206 sq.ft. in the main house and a 792 sq.ft. cottage, on an 0.11 – acre lot in the R-12 zone. By my math, the R-12 FAR ratio of .315 for 1 4,791 sq.ft. parcel is 1,509 sq. ft., so how it swelled to 3,998 feet is beyond me, but there you have it.

No garage, and no where to put one, but for this little money, what do you expect?

8 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

8 responses to “FAR mystery house

  1. no problemo (as long as you keep your weight in check):

  2. Anonymous

    I’ve always wondered this as well too. They did use the trick of keeping the third floor ceilings slightly blow 7 feet. But even with that in mind it is perplexing to understand how they were able to keep so much square footage. Not to mention the coverage ratio issue.

    My theory on this is as follows. We know they did a renovation and this is not a knock down. I also believe the lot next door was originally part of this property my theory is that when the far numbers were calculated it was based on the next door property is well. And in the end someone made a mistake and allowed the house to be renovated rather than new construction

    If you don’t touch the footprint of the house then as far as I know you do not need to go through planning and zoning. If you look at the original house it has a gable roof and they converted to mansard in order to gain a third floor.

    Also I think when you do a lot split they only look at setbacks in footprints and not a surly the square footage of the existing structure. I don’t know if this is true but that is my theory

  3. Anonymous

    I believe originally this property and the one next door were one property. The owners built this house. Then subdivided the lot and built the house next door.

    • But the original lot was just 0.23 acre, or 10,000 sq. ft. in a 12,000 sq. ft. minimum zone – how’d they subdivide it? I’m not saying that there was anything underhanded in this, but I’d like to know the legal stratagem employed. I’m curious.

  4. Anonymous

    If you look at the timeline, the lot split occurred at a time where this was “in right” ….chris please help me out with the legal term, but my understanding is that if you were in a non-conforming lot neighborhood you were entitled to an automatic split by state law before Greenwich added in the 10 percent open space requirement afterwards to prevent this. Another example of this are the twin houses on Loughlin ave which are also about the same size – although r7.

    This house would have been one lot with the original structure at about 2,400sf, plus the shed…putting it about 3k for the full lot. They do a lot split, then proceed to “renovate” the existing structure by then adding a mansard roof at less than 7 feet height…replacing gable roof. I think this was a very clever move to work within the regulations…good deal for owners.

  5. FAR
    Fools
    Are
    Real
    Chris, you read & write a lot (pun)?
    Town Halliisticas Mazza Bible is a must read for you!

  6. Anonymous

    Surprised there’s no widow walk on top. this looks like a house from an whaling town. not in most people’s space.