PREMISES AFFECTED - 63 Rapeleye Street, north side, 116' east of Hamilton Avenue, Block 363, Lot 48, Borough of Brooklyn.
154-04-BZ
CEQR#03-BSA-191Q
APPLICANT - Rothkrug Rothkrug Weinberg & Spector, for Wavebrook Associates, owner.
SUBJECT - Application April 9, 2004 under Z.R.§72-21 to permit the proposed construction of a four family dwelling, Use Group 2, located in M1-1 zoning district, is contrary to Z.R.§42-10.
PREMISES AFFECTED - 63 Rapeleye Street, north side, 116' east of Hamilton Avenue, Block 363, Lot 48, Borough of Brooklyn.
COMMUNITY BOARD #6BK
APPEARANCES – None.
ACTION OF THE BOARD - Application granted on condition.
THE VOTE TO REOPEN HEARING -
Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar and Commissioner Chin...... 3
Negative:...... 0
THE VOTE TO CLOSE HEARING -
Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar and Commissioner Chin...... 3
Negative:...... 0
THE VOTE TO GRANT -
Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar and Commissioner Chin...... 3
Negative:...... 0
THE RESOLUTION -
WHEREAS, the decision of the Brooklyn Borough Commissioner, dated April 20, 2005, acting on Department of Buildings Application No. 301645245, reads:
“1. Proposed multiple dwelling (UG 2) in an M1 1 zoning district is contrary to section 42-10 ZR and is referred to the Board of Standards and Appeals.”; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this application on June 7, 2005, after due notice by publication in the City Record, with continued hearings on July 19, 2005, August 23, 2005, October 18, 2005 and then to decision on December 13, 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 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 unit, three-story plus cellar residential building (Use Group 2) on a vacant lot, contrary to Z.R. § 42-00; and
WHEREAS, Community Board 6, Brooklyn, recommended disapproval of the initial application; and
WHEREAS, the current version of this application contemplates a three unit, three-story residential building, with a floor area of 3,375 sq. ft., a floor area ratio (“F.A.R.”) of 1.8, and a total building height of 40’-0”; and
WHEREAS, the original version of this application contemplated a four unit, four-story residential building, with a floor area of 4,125 sq. ft., an F.A.R. of 2.2 and a total building height of 50’-0”; and
WHEREAS, the subject premises is an approximately 19’-0” by 100’-0” vacant lot, with 1,875 sq. ft. of lot area, located on the north side of Rapeleye Street, east of Hamilton Avenue; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that the property was formerly developed with a residential building in the 19th century, along with other three- to four-story buildings on the block; and
WHEREAS, the applicant further represents that the building fell into a state of disrepair in the 1980’s and title reverted back to the City; in 1996, the Department of Housing Preservation and Development authorized the filing of a demolition, and the building was demolished in 2001; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that the following are unique physical conditions, which create practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship in developing the subject lot in conformity with underlying district regulations: (1) the lot is 19’-0” in width, has a lot area of only 1,875 sq. ft., and is not conducive for a manufacturing floor plate; and (2) the history of the development of the site as a residential building; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that due to the small size of the lot, a conforming development would have an extremely narrow width such that the resulting floor plate would not be feasible for conforming uses; and
WHEREAS, moreover, the small size of the lot would not allow for loading berths or other commercial amenities which would be required for a conforming development; and
WHEREAS, the Board asked for further documentation about the history of the site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a deed indicating that the property was sold at a public auction as a result of a foreclosure action for unpaid taxes; and
WHEREAS, the applicant further submitted a memorandum of sale dated November 13, 2002, indicating that the owner purchased the property at that time; and
WHEREAS, the Board asked the applicant to differentiate the subject site from other vacant sites in the neighborhood; the applicant provided a land use map that shows that there are many similar-sized vacant lots located near the subject site west of Columbia Street/Hamilton Avenue;
WHEREAS, however, the applicant notes that the neighborhood west of Columbia Street/Hamilton Avenue is characterized by manufacturing uses, whereas the neighborhood east of Columbia Street/Hamilton Avenue, where the subject site is located, has fewer vacant similarly-sized sites and is predominantly characterized by mixed residential and manufacturing uses; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Board finds that the narrow width and small size of this pre-existing and vacant lot, 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 submitted marketing attempts documenting that the owner unsuccessfully tried to market the property to conforming users; and
WHEREAS, the applicant initially submitted a feasibility analysis that showed that a one-story conforming manufacturing/commercial building would not result in a reasonable return, but that the initial four-story proposal would; and
WHEREAS, the Board questioned the applicant about the estimated construction costs incorporated into this analysis; and
WHEREAS, the applicant responded that it used construction costs from a widely acceptable industry standards construction cost estimate manual, and increased them slightly due to the practical difficulties that arise from constructing on a narrow lot; and
WHEREAS, the Board asked the applicant if it would be feasible to reduce the number of units from four to three, as a three-story building would be more in keeping with the character of the area and would represent a more reasonable minimum variance, given the degree of hardship on the site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant revised its feasibility analysis to three units with a partial fourth floor set back from Rapeleye Street; the applicant represents that it would still make a reasonable return, although less than the initial proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Board asked the applicant to revise its proposal to a three-story building, as originally requested; and
WHEREAS, the applicant then modified the proposal accordingly, concluding that it was feasible as it still maintained three units; 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, applicant represents that the site is in a neighborhood with many lawful non-conforming residential uses; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted photographs documenting other residential uses surrounding 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, certain members of the community expressed concern over the loss of a potential manufacturing site in the neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the applicant responded that the property had never been used for actual manufacturing purposes, and that there are a number of vacant sites in the surrounding neighborhood that would be more suited to commercial/manufacturing uses; and
WHEREAS, specifically, the applicant submitted photographs of 15 nearby vacant lots that are larger or are in more desirable locations for manufacturing; and
WHEREAS, the Board observes that while there are conforming manufacturing and automotive uses next to or near 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 adjacent three-story residential structures; and
WHEREAS, at the Board’s request, the applicant has revised its proposal and reduced the streetwall height by 10’-0” to make the building more compatible with the surrounding neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, certain neighbors voiced concerns at the hearing about traffic in the area, stating that the area was overwhelmingly commercial and would be unsafe for residential tenants; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted an initial traffic study analyzing existing truck traffic on a weekday between 6AM to 9AM and 5PM to 8PM; the study concluded that there is a maximum of one truck per every 4 minutes during the peak hour of 7PM to 8PM, and that the trucks were “light-duty” trucks with no heavy-duty diesel trucks; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that upon its first visit it did witness several trucks passing, but on its second site visit, the area was much more quiet; and
WHEREAS, certain area residents also noted the presence of an automotive service station on the corner of Hicks Street and Rapeleye Street; and
WHEREAS, the Board asked for additional material relating to truck traffic on Rapeleye Street in light of the proximity of this service station; and
WHEREAS, the applicant conducted a second truck and bus survey on a weekday from 6AM to 9AM and 3PM to 6PM, and determined that during the morning peak hour there is one truck/bus trip every three minutes, and during the afternoon peak hour there is one truck/bus trip every two minutes; and
WHEREAS, the applicant compared its findings to another Brooklyn mixed-use neighborhood, and determined that the traffic on Rapeleye Street is less than in that other neighborhood; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also notes that the manufacturing building adjacent to the premises did not generate any truck trips during the time period evaluated in the traffic study; and
WHEREAS, in addition, neighbors expressed concern about the lack of available parking in the area; and
WHEREAS, in response, the applicant conducted a parking study, which concluded that between 7AM and 9AM, there were between 75 and 98 available on-street parking spaces; the proposal only requires three spaces; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also proposes to include a common roof-top recreation area for the occupants of the three units; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that the reduction in floor area, stories and height from the applicant’s initial proposal to the applicant’s current proposal results in a building that 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 given the degree of hardship present at the site and the character of the community, 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. 04BSA162K dated April 7, 2004; 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, a one day Parking Survey and a Truck Count Survey were conducted by the applicant’s consultant, EPDSCO, on July 6, 2005; the Parking Survey determined that there would not be any parking demand impacts due to the proposal; the Truck Count Survey determined that there would not be any impacts on the proposed project due to the truck traffic in front of the site; no heavy-duty diesel trucks were observed passing by the site at any time during the survey period; 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 Resolved that 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 an M1-1 zoning district, the proposed construction of a new three unit, three-story plus cellar 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 December 9, 2005” – 6 sheets and “December 12, 2005”-1 sheet; and on further condition:
THAT the bulk parameters of the proposed buildings shall be as follows: total maximum F.A.R. of 1.8; maximum floor area of 3,375 sq. ft.; rear yard of 40 ft.; and maximum total height of 40’-0”;
THAT there shall be a maximum of three residential units;
THAT there shall be no habitable space in the cellar;
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, December 13, 2005.