PREMISES AFFECTED – 82 Union Street, south side, 266'0" west of Columbia Street, east of Van Brunt Street, Block 341, Lot 18, Borough of Brooklyn.
327-02-BZ
CEQR #03-BSA-074K
APPLICANT – Harold Weinberg, P.E., for Frank Galeano, owner.
SUBJECT – Application November 4, 2002 – under Z.R. §72-21 to permit the proposed erection of a four story, four family residence, Use Group 2, located in an M11 zoning district, is contrary to Z.R. §4200.
PREMISES AFFECTED – 82 Union Street, south side, 266'0" west of Columbia Street, east of Van Brunt Street, Block 341, Lot 18, Borough of Brooklyn.
COMMUNITY BOARD #6BK
APPEARANCES -
For Applicant: Harold Weinberg.
ACTION OF THE BOARD - Application granted on condition.
THE VOTE TO GRANT -
Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan Vice-Chair Babbar, Commissioner Miele and Commissioner Chin……………4
Negative:...... 0
THE RESOLUTION -
WHEREAS, the decision of the Borough Commissioner, dated October 17, 2002, acting on Department of Buildings Application No. 301320657, reads:
“1.The proposed construction of a residential building located with an M1-1 zoning district is contrary to Section 42-00 of the Zoning Resolution.”; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this application on August 17, 2004, after due notice by publication in the City Record, with continued hearings on September 28, 2004, November 23, 2004, January 11, 2005, February 15, 2005, April 19, 2005, May 24, 2005, and then to decision on July 12, 2005; and
WHEREAS, the premises and surrounding area had a site and neighborhood examination by a committee of the Board, consisting of Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar, Commissioner Miele and Commissioner Chin; and
WHEREAS, this is an application under Z.R. § 72-21, to permit, within an M1-1 zoning district, the proposed construction of a new three-story, three-family residential building (Use Group 2) on a vacant lot, contrary to Z.R. § 42-00; and
WHEREAS, Community Board 6, Brooklyn, recommends approval of this application with conditions; and
WHEREAS, the current version of this application contemplates a three-story residential building, with floor area of 3,339 sq. ft., a floor area ratio (“F.A.R.”) of 1.59, and a total building height of 33 ft.; and
WHEREAS, the original version of this application contemplated a four-story residential building, with floor area of 5,460 sq. ft., and a total building height of 40 ft.; and
WHEREAS, the Board expressed reservations about this proposal, given the amount of actual hardship on the site, and the character of the community; and
WHEREAS, the subject premises is a 21 ft. by 100 ft. vacant lot, with 2,100 sq. ft. of lot area, located on the south side of Union Street, approximately 266 ft. west of Columbia Street, and east of Van Brunt Street; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that the lot is a pre-existing lot, and was formerly developed with a residential building in the early part of the century that was later razed; and
WHEREAS, most recently, the site has been occupied as a used car lot; and
WHEREAS, the applicant initially represented that existing foundation remains from the building previously on the lot as well as the small lot size and its vacant status were unique physical conditions, which create practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship in developing the subject lot in conformance with underlying district regulations; and
WHEREAS, however, the Board disagreed that the existing foundations were a unique condition, given that many vacant lots have old foundation rubble on them, and the applicant failed to substantiate that the foundation rubble was in fact a unique condition on the subject lot; and
WHEREAS, consequently, the applicant constructed the variance application based upon the small size of the lot, and the fact that the lot abuts a residential district, thus triggering a requirement of a rear yard, all of which compromise the creation of a conforming floor plate; and
WHEREAS, consequently, the applicant now represents that due to the small size of the lot, a conforming development would only be 70 ft. in depth, and of narrow width, such that the resulting floor plate would not be feasible for a conforming user; and
WHEREAS, moreover, the small size of the lot would not allow for loading berths or off-site parking, which would be required for a conforming development; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Board finds that the narrow width and small size of this pre-existing and vacant lot, which abuts a residential district, as well as its prior history of residential development, create practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship in developing the site in strict conformity with current applicable zoning regulations; and
WHEREAS, the applicant initially submitted a feasibility analysis that showed that a 2,000 sq. ft. manufacturing building would not result in a reasonable return, but that the initial four-story proposal would; and
WHEREAS, the Board found this feasibility study insufficient, and suggested to the applicant that a reduced-bulk scenario might be feasible; and
WHEREAS, the applicant subsequently conducted three other scenarios: a three-story, three-family scenario; a three-story, four-family scenario; and a scenario with a building with a 5 ft. side yard; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that a building with a 5 ft. side yard would result in a building width of 16 ft.; such width would result in an inefficient floor plate and an uninhabitable multiple dwelling unit; and
WHEREAS, though the applicant claims that a three-story, three-family scenario will not realize a reasonable return, the Board disagrees, on the basis that if the feasibility study is amended to reflect recent favorable area comparables, then a reasonable return in terms of rental revenue could be realized; and
WHEREAS, consequently, the applicant has assented to a grant on this scenario; and
WHEREAS, based upon the above, the Board has determined that because of the subject lot’s unique physical condition, there is no reasonable possibility that development in strict conformance with the provisions applicable in the subject zoning district will provide a reasonable return; and
WHEREAS, the site is in a neighborhood with many lawful non-conforming residential uses, including two on either side of the site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has submitted a land use map showing these numerous residential uses; the conditions reflected on this map were confirmed by the Board on its site visit; and
WHEREAS, the Board observes that while there are conforming manufacturing and automotive uses across the street from the site, the modest increase in residential presence due to the proposed development (a total of three units) should not negatively impact these uses; and
WHEREAS, therefore, the Board finds that the use change proposed by the applicant is appropriate; and
WHEREAS, the Board found the applicant’s initial proposal of a four-story building to be out of character with the neighborhood, including the two adjacent residential structures; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that the height currently proposed for the building is consistent with the height of residential buildings in the neighborhood and the buildings on either side; and
WHEREAS, the Board also notes that the current proposal contemplates an increased rear yard, which mitigates the lack of side yards and creates a more compatible development; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that the significant reduction in floor area, stories and height from the applicant’s initial proposal to the applicant’s current proposal is more compatible with the built conditions surrounding the site; and
WHEREAS, based upon the above, the Board finds that this action will not alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood nor impair the use or development of adjacent properties, nor will it be detrimental to the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the hardship herein was not created by the owner or a predecessor in title; and
WHEREAS, after taking direction from the Board as to the proper amount of relief, the applicant modified the development proposal to the current version; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Board finds that this proposal is the minimum necessary to afford the owner relief; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the evidence in the record supports the findings required to be made under Z.R. § 72-21; and
WHEREAS, the project is classified as an Unlisted Action pursuant to 6 NYCRR, Part 617; and
WHEREAS, the Board has conducted an environmental review of the proposed action and has documented relevant information about the project in the Final Environmental Assessment Statement (EAS) CEQR No. 03BSA074K dated October 28, 2002; and
WHEREAS, the EAS documents that the project as proposed would not have significant adverse impacts on Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy; Socioeconomic Conditions; Community Facilities and Services; Open Space; Shadows; Historic Resources; Urban Design and Visual Resources; Neighborhood Character; Natural Resources; Waterfront Revitalization Program; Infrastructure; Hazardous Materials; Solid Waste and Sanitation Services; Energy; Traffic and Parking; Transit and Pedestrians; Air Quality; Noise; and Public Health; and
WHEREAS, the Office of Environmental Planning and Assessment of the New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has reviewed the following submissions from the Applicant: (1) an Environmental Assessment Statement Form dated October 28, 2002; and (2) a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Report, dated April 2005; and
WHEREAS, these submissions specifically examined the proposed action for potential hazardous materials impacts; and
WHEREAS, a Restrictive Declaration was executed on May 23, 2005 and submitted for recording on July 8, 2005 for the subject property to address hazardous materials concerns; and
WHEREAS, DEP has determined that there would not be any impacts from the subject proposal, based on the implementation of the measures cited in the Restrictive Declaration and the applicant’s agreement to the conditions noted below; and
WHEREAS, no other significant effects upon the environment that would require an Environmental Impact Statement are foreseeable; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the proposed action will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment.
Therefore it is Resolvedthat the Board of Standards and Appeals issues a Negative Declaration, with conditions as stipulated below, prepared in accordance with Article 8 of the New York State Environmental Conservation Law and 6 NYCRR Part 617, the Rules of Procedure for City Environmental Quality Review and Executive Order No. 91 of 1977, as amended, and makes the required findings under Z.R. § 72-21, to permit, within a M1-1 zoning district, the proposed construction of a new three-story, three-family residential building (Use Group 2) on a vacant lot, contrary to Z.R. § 42-00; on condition that all work shall substantially conform to drawings as they apply to the objections above noted, filed with this application marked “Received February 1, 2005”-(9) sheets and “Received July 7, 2005”-(2) sheets; and on further condition:
THAT the bulk parameters of the proposed buildings shall be as follows: total maximum F.A.R. of 1.59; maximum floor area of 3339 sq. ft.; rear yard of 47 ft.; and maximum total height of 33 ft.;
THAT the street wall of the building shall be aligned with both of the adjacent streetwalls on Union Street;
THAT this approval is limited to the relief granted by the Board in response to specifically cited and filed DOB/other jurisdiction objection(s) only;
THAT the approved plans shall be considered approved only for the portions related to the specific relief granted; and
THAT the Department of Buildings must ensure compliance with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Resolution, the Administrative Code and any other relevant laws under its jurisdiction irrespective of plan(s)/configuration(s) not related to the relief granted.
Adopted by the Board of Standards and Appeals, July 12, 2005.