369-05-BZ
CEQR #06-BSA-044R
APPLICANT – Eric Palatnik, P.C., for 908 Clove Road, LLC, owner.
SUBJECT – Application December 22, 2005 – Variance ZR §72-21 to allow a proposed four (4) story multiple dwelling containing thirty (30) dwelling units in an R3-2 (HS) Zoning District; contrary to Z.R. §§23-141, 23-22, 23-631, 25-622, 25-632.
PREMISES AFFECTED – 908 Clove Road (formerly 904-908 Clove Road) between Bard and Tyler Avenue, Block 323, Lots 42-44, Borough of Staten Island.
COMMUNITY BOARD #1SI
APPEARANCES –
For Applicant: Eric Palatnik.
ACTION OF THE BOARD – Application granted.
THE VOTE TO GRANT –
Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar and Commissioner Collins...... 3
Abstain: Commissioner Ottley-Brown...... 1
Negative:...... 0
THE RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, the decision of the Staten Island Borough Commissioner, dated August 29, 2006, acting on Department of Buildings Application No. 500740665, reads in pertinent part:
“Proposed floor area is contrary ZR 23-141
Proposed building height is contrary to ZR 23-631
Proposed width of driveway is contrary to ZR 25-622
Proposed width of curb cut is contrary to ZR 25-632”; and
WHEREAS, this is an application under ZR § 72-21, to permit within an R3-2 zoning district within the Special Hillside Preservation District (HS), the construction of a three-story, 40 ft. high 25-unit Use Group 2 multiple dwelling for adults age 55 and over, with a floor area of 34,542 sq. ft., a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 0.95 and 38 accessory parking spaces, which does not comply with zoning requirements for total and residential floor area, street wall height, total height, and curb cut and driveway width, contrary to ZR §§ 23-141, 23-631, 25-622 and 25-632; and
WHEREAS, initially, the applicant proposed a four-story, 55 ft. high, 30-unit multiple dwelling with an FAR of 1.15 and 45 parking spaces, which would have required FAR, height, and dwelling unit waivers; and
WHEREAS, after the Board expressed concern about this proposal not reflecting the minimum variance, the applicant submitted an intermediate proposal; and
WHEREAS, the intermediate proposal was for a three-story, 43-ft. high, 30-unit multiple dwelling, with an FAR of 0.95 and 45 parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, however, this proposal, in addition to requiring FAR, height and dwelling unit waivers, also required waivers for open space, rear yard, distance between windows and rear lot line, and proposed balconies; and
WHEREAS, the Board expressed the same concern about the proposal not reflecting the minimum variance, and suggested that the newly proposed waivers be eliminated; and
WHEREAS, subsequently, the applicant revised the proposal to the current version; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that the site was the subject of a prior BSA application, brought under Cal. No. 387-04-BZ; and
WHEREAS, this application proposed a new UG 6 retail development, and was ultimately withdrawn; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this application on April 25, 2006, after due notice by publication in the City Record, with continued hearings on June 13, 2006, August 8, 2006, September 12, 2006 and then to decision on October 17, 2006; 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, and Commissioner Collins; and
WHEREAS, initially, on February 14, 2006, Community Board 1, Staten Island, recommended disapproval of this application, alleging that the site did not suffer any hardship; and
WHEREAS, however, on April 11, 2006, the Community Board recommended approval of the application, based on its conclusion that as of right development would not be feasible, and with the condition that the site be deed restricted to occupancy by adults age 55 and over; and
WHEREAS, the Borough President and certain housing advocates also supported this application; and
WHEREAS, the Clove Lake Civic Association (“CLCA”) opposes this application; the reasons are discussed below; and
WHEREAS, the subject premises is a 25,260 sq. ft. trapezoidal shaped lot with 149.25 ft. of frontage along Clove Road and an average depth of approximately 246 ft.; and
WHEREAS, the site is bordered by Clove Road to the east, Clove Lakes Park to the west, dwellings and the Clove Way residential development to the south, and a part of a cemetery and a monument shop to the north; and
WHEREAS, Clove Road is a heavily traveled four-land arterial, and is designated by the City as a local truck route; and
WHEREAS, the site is currently developed with a vacant single-family residence, a vacant two-family residence (formerly occupied by a UG 6 florist), and several accessory structures, all of which are proposed to be demolished; and
WHEREAS, as noted above, the applicant proposes the construction of a three-story with cellar multiple dwelling for adults age 55 and over, with 38 accessory parking spaces and roof top recreation space; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that the owner of the premises intends to limit the occupancy of the building through a deed restriction to adults age 55 and over in accordance with the Housing for Older Persons Act (“HOPA”), a federal program that allows for such older adult housing projects; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that the applicant has voluntarily agreed that full HOPA compliance will be a condition of this grant; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the Board notes that an authorization pursuant to ZR § 119-312 from City Planning Commission is required prior to the issuance of any permit (due to the site location within the HS); and
WHEREAS, the non-complying bulk parameters of the proposed building are as follows: the residential floor area is 34,542 sq. ft. (the maximum permitted for a residential building is 21,816 sq. ft.); the residential FAR is 0.95 (0.50 is the maximum permitted, though this may be increased to 0.6 through the attic bonus); the wall height is 40 ft. (the maximum permitted in 21 ft.); the total building height is 40 ft. (the maximum permitted is 35 ft.); and the curb cut and driveway width is 24 ft. (the maximum permitted is 18 ft.); and
WHEREAS, the complying parameters are as follows: 25 dwelling units; a front yard of 15 ft.; side yards of 15 ft. and 76 ft.; a rear yard of 30 ft.; lot coverage of 31.67%; and 38 accessory parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the applicant notes that total height calculation is based upon the adjusted base plane; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also notes that the proposed cellar is more than one half below grade, and is thus exempt from calculation as zoning floor area; and
WHEREAS, however, the Board will defer to DOB as to the status of the cellar; and
WHEREAS, while the proposed residential use is as of right, the above-mentioned bulk non-compliances necessitate the instant variance application; and WHEREAS, the applicant states that the following are unique physical conditions which create an unnecessary hardship in developing the site in compliance with applicable regulations: (1) the site is approximately 603 feet away from the nearest sanitary and storm sewer line in Clove Road; and (2) the site is located adjacent to a cemetery and monument shop, and fronts on Clove Road, a heavily trafficked arterial roadway; and
WHEREAS, as to the first argument, the applicant claims that multiple engineering investigations establish that a sewer connection spanning a 603 ft. distance will be unusually expensive to construct, particularly when costs associated with addressing the existing utilities in the bed of Clove Road are calculated and included in the cost estimate; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that additional FAR (and, consequently, a modest height waiver) is needed to overcome such premium costs; and
WHEREAS, the applicant further contends the subject site is the only large undeveloped parcel of land within one quarter of a mile that suffers from this hardship, and cites to a radius diagram in support of this contention; and
WHEREAS, however, the Board asked the applicant to provide more detailed testimony about this condition, and specifically asked that an explanation be provided of the increment in sewer-related costs between a typical large site on a private street that would need to connect to a sewer line versus the costs for this site; and
WHEREAS, in response, during the course of the hearing process, the applicant provided more detailed expert testimony in support of the argument that the sewer connection costs were both unusual and extraordinary; and
WHEREAS, specifically, at the August 8, 2006 hearing, three different sewer experts with experience in Staten Island development provided testimony, which, in sum and substance, established the following: (1) that generally developers seek to avoid sewer construction whenever possible due to the increased construction costs and the length of time such construction takes; (2) that such sewer construction occurs relatively infrequently (in about ten percent of all major developments), but is most common on Staten Island; (3) that 603 ft. of sewer installation is roughly double the normal length typically seen in a development project of this size where a sewer connection is necessary; (4) that unusual time delays will result due to both Department of Transportation (DOT) restrictions regulating how long Clove Road can be partially closed during the sewer construction and the amount of sub-surface wiring and piping already in place in Clove Road that will have to be monitored and navigated while sewer line is installed; and (5) that unlike other projects involving sewer construction, no opportunity exists with the subject development to recoup construction costs by selling the right for other
developments to tie into the newly constructed sewer line; and
WHEREAS, the applicant supported this testimony with further submissions; and WHEREAS, first, as to the unusual distance between the site and the nearest available sewer connection point, the applicant noted that only five of the recent 151 Staten Island development projects that involved sewer connections required sewer placement in a public street, as proposed here; and
WHEREAS, the applicant then cited to a report documenting a per unit sewer cost comparison between other sewer connection projects and that proposed for the subject site, for an as of right project as the site; and
WHEREAS, this report establishes that the sewer costs attributable to each dwelling unit in the as of right development scheme result in a cost which is nearly three times larger than any other cited location; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also provided a table comparing the per dwelling unit of the proposed building to per dwelling unit sewer costs of other developments; and
WHEREAS, this table likewise establishes that the actual sewer-related costs associated with the proposed development (approximately $526,000) are higher than every other cited location, aside from one development within an area that is more marketable for multi-million dollar dwellings (which can overcome sewer connection costs because of the high sell-out value); and
WHEREAS, second, as to the DOT restrictions, the applicant provided additional letters from the sewer experts, which further explicated the DOT stipulations as to construction within Clove Road; and
WHEREAS, one of the experts provided a letter listing the actual DOT stipulations, which generally address where and when work can be performed, and certain safety measures that much be undertaken; and
WHEREAS, this expert also provided a second letter, which clarified the impact that the stipulations would have on the sewer construction: the reduction of the productive workday to 3.5 hours and a decrease in general productivity due to the existence of in-ground utility lines, overhead wires, poles and trees; and
WHEREAS, this second letter concludes that more typical sewer construction projects have less time constraints, less encumbrances and fewer utility crossings, and therefore can be constructed more quickly and at a lower cost; and
WHEREAS, a second sewer expert also provided a letter, confirming that the DOT stipulations are more restrictive than those imposed in a typical sewer project; and
WHEREAS, finally, a third sewer expert also provided a letter that further confirmed that the DOT stipulations would increase construction time and overall costs; and
WHEREAS, third, the applicant provided evidence that since there are no other large undeveloped sites in proximity to the subject site, there is no opportunity to sell the right to connect to the proposed sewer line; and
WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the voluminous expert testimony about the sewer connection and agrees that it establishes that: (1) sewer connection costs for development on the site are exacerbated by the long travel path between the site and the nearest access point to an existing sewer connection within Clove Road; (2) such costs also increase due to the restrictions placed on sewer construction by DOT, as well as the complications of the in-ground pipes and wires and above-ground poles and trees; and (3) unlike other sites, no opportunity exists here to recoup some of the sewer construction costs by selling the right to connect to the newly built sewer to other developments; and
WHEREAS, the Board also concurs that the site is unique in this regard, based upon a review of the submitted radius diagram, as well as the testimony of the three experts, which established that in their experience sewer construction of the type contemplated here is very rare; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Board finds that the increased sewer costs contribute to the need for an increase in floor area (and as a result, in the height of the building); and
WHEREAS, as to the second claimed basis of uniqueness (the locational difficulties), the applicant states that site fronts on Clove Road, and is adjacent to a cemetery’s waste storage area and a monument shop; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that the Environmental Assessment Statement submitted with the application establishes that traffic volumes on Clove Road include more than 1,000 vehicles passing the site during the morning and afternoon rush hour; and
WHEREAS, the EAS also indicates that residential development along such high intensity arterials typically consists of five to ten story apartment buildings; and
WHEREAS, the applicant concludes that the instant site, given its frontage on Clove Road, is not suitable for complying low density residential development; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also cites to a separate report from another consultant which establishes that the site is not conducive to residential development since Clove Road is a designated truck route; and
WHEREAS, as to the proximity to the cemetery’s waste storage area and the monument shop, the applicant states that these adjacent uses create noise, which would 369-05-BZ
CEQR #06-BSA-044R
compromise residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed this expert testimony, and agrees that the frontage on Clove Road, a busy arterial and truck route, and the adjacency of the cemetery’s waste storage area and a monument shop,
compromises residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes, however, that such difficulties contribute to need for FAR relief on a secondary basis; the primary hardship the site suffers is the premium costs related to sewer construction; and
WHEREAS, as to the curb cut and driveway waivers, the applicant states that since Clove Road is an arterial, the permitted maximum 18 ft. width is insufficient, and would compromise the maneuvering room for vehicles as they enter and exist the site; and
WHEREAS, the Board agrees that better ingress and egress is needed due to the number of proposed accessory spaces and notes that a wider curb cut and driveway will provide more efficient and safer vehicle access, given the heavy traffic on Clove Road; and
WHEREAS, based upon the above, the Board finds that the above-mentioned unique physical conditions inherent to the subject zoning lot, namely, the site’s distance from a sewer connection and its location along Clove Road, when considered in the aggregate, create unnecessary hardship and practical difficulty in developing the site in compliance with the applicable use regulation; and
WHEREAS, the applicant initially submitted a feasibility study analyzing the following as-of-right scenarios: (1) three two-family residences, utilizing a septic system (which would avoid infrastructure construction costs); (2) six single-family residences and four two-family residences (with a sewer and storm water connection); (3) a 22,400 sq. ft. medical facility; and (4) a not-for-profit senior housing development and
WHEREAS, this study concluded that none of these scenarios would result in a reasonable return; and
WHEREAS, however, the Board asked for clarification and amplification of this conclusion; and
WHEREAS, in response, the applicant submitted an additional study of the first two as-of-right proposals, prepared by a separate appraiser with experience in Staten Island; and
WHEREAS, this second study confirms the conclusions in the first study as to the residential development scenarios; and