2019-1-A thru 2019-5-A APPLICANT – Joseph Loccisano of Sanna & Loccisano Architects, P.C., for Nello Development Corporation, owners. SUBJECT – Application January 4, 2019 – Proposed construction of five (5) two-family, two-story detached home not fronting on a mapped street contrary to General City Law §36. R3X Special South Richmond District. PREMISES AFFECTED – 7, 11, 15, 19, 23 Nello Court, Block 7826, Lot Tent. 215, 216, 217, 218, 220, Borough Staten Island. COMMUNITY BOARD #5SI Application denied. ACTION OF THE BOARD – THE VOTE TO GRANT – Affirmative: Vice-Chair Chanda and Commissioner Ottley-Brown………………………………………..2 Negative: Chair Perlmutter, Commissioner Sheta, and Commissioner Scibetta………………………………..3 THE RESOLUTION – WHEREAS, the decisions of the Department of Buildings (“DOB”), dated December 18, 2017, acting on New Building Application Nos. 520367264, 520367273, 520367237, 520367246, and 520367255 read in pertinent part: “GCL 36, BC 502.1: The street giving access to proposed building is not duly placed on the official map of the City of New York therefore: A) No Certificate of Occupancy can be issued pursuant to Article 3, Section 36 of General City Law; B) Proposed construction does not have at least 8% of the total perimeter of building(s) fronting directly upon a legally mapped street or frontage space contrary to section 502.1 of the 2014 NYC Building Code”; and WHEREAS, this is an application under General City Law (“GCL”) § 36 to permit construction of five two-family residences that do not front on a mapped street; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this application on July 16, 2019, after due notice by publication in The City Record, with a continued hearing on September 17, 2019, and then to decision on that same date; and WHEREAS, Commissioner Scibetta performed an inspection of the site and surrounding neighborhood; and WHEREAS, Community Board 3, Staten Island, recommends disapproval of this application and raised concerns that waivers of GCL 36 are opportunities to defy zoning protections that ensure lower density and set controls for development that do not burden services and infrastructure; stated that the deliberate creation of private roads to squeeze in additional homes for the sole reason of enlarging profit does not validate the GCLhardship finding; and argued that private roads are not required to meet New York City criteria for width 2019-1-A thru 2019-5-A of the provisions of this section would entail practical difficulty or unnecessary hardship, and where the circumstances of the case do not require the structure to be related to existing or proposed streets or highways, the applicant for such a certificate of occupancy may appeal from the decision of the administrative officer having charge of the issuance of certificates of occupancy to the board of standards and appeals or other similar board of such city having power to make variances or exceptions in zoning regulations, and the same provisions are hereby applied to such appeals and to such board as are provided in cases of appeals on zoning regulations; and1 WHEREAS, the site was previously occupied by existing residences fronting on Sprague Avenue, a mapped street; and WHEREAS, the subject may be developed with two or three residences fronting on Sprague Avenue; and WHEREAS, Sprague Avenue contains at least approximately 11 other lots that are of similar sizes to the two or three lots that may be developed on the subject site with residences fronting on Sprague Avenue, consistent with the typical lot frontage and depth found on Sprague Avenue; and WHEREAS, in response to questions from the Board at hearing, the applicant briefed the applicability of area-variance standards; and WHEREAS, for comparison, GCL § 81-b provides in pertinent part: “4. Area variances. . . . (b) In making its determination, the zoning board of appeals shall take into consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is granted, as weighed again

… (truncated, full text in PDF)