Note.—This resolution is in the Bulletin. Please notify formal errors so that corrections BOARD MEETING OF: CALENDAR NO.: PREMISES: ACTION OF BOARD THE VOTE — Affirmative: Negative: Chair Perlmutter, Commissioner Commissioner THE RESOLUTION — The decision of 2019, acting on New pertinent part: #1 Z.R. 23-154(b) Residential F.A.R. #3 Z.R. 23-662(c)(1) comply with required 662(c)(1) #4 Z.R. 25-23 - OBJ: the required parking This is an application in an M1-2/R6 zoning (Greenpoint–Williamsburg)—the building that would not residential floor area (Z.R. § 23-662(c)(1)), (Z.R. § 25-23). A public hearing after due notice by hearings on August decision on April 26, Vice-Chair Chanda, Sheta, and Commissioner Premises and surrounding Community Board application, citing concerns addition of market-rate site maintenance. As discussed herein, in the record and testimony application does not applicant has not demonstrated discretion. The Premises are Street and Clay Street, Special Mixed Use District With approximately 144 feet of frontage along Premises are used for vehicles. Originally, the applicant cellar, mixed-use building dwelling units with three Original Building would FAR)—2,809 square 20,165 square feet of have a base height of rising to a total height The Original Building at the Premises, residential (2.20 FAR), see Z.R. § than 19 dwelling units, 15’-0” above a height of 14 parking spaces In response to hearings about the applicant’s the applicant reduced Now, the applicant 16,479 square feet of a 10’-6” setback, and Accordingly, the The Zoning Resolution “vary or modify [its] observed, public safety § 72-21. Consistent with unique physical conditions presence of underground contamination, proximity configuration as an irregularly practical difficulties with applicable zoning circumstances in the The applicant asserts subsurface contamination, concluding that on-site volatile organic compound, metal contamination. underground storage contamination has resulted gasoline station. The adjacent to a superfund To support these causes unnecessary cost estimate for the remediation of on-site purports to conclude developing the Premises However, the applicant’s Premises as a basis for the Board questions whether site contamination from environmental litigation claimed hardship associated superfund site. Rather case, the applicant furnished whether the Board would the potential for environmental discretion—and duty—to would not result in a has not adequately addressed. More significantly, demonstrate that contamination unnecessary hardship. the proposed remediation not include any costs because of the Premises’ proximity, there would cellar as proposed (with applicant’s assertion physical condition. Additionally, the were not credible, considering dewatering would be conceded that, at the achieved in 3 days by sump pumps. Furthermore, the purported costs associated excavation for construction require disposal of the the applicant should calculated the percentage whole, and then calculated a percentage of the uncontaminated soil construction costs—not Turning to overall without these purported reflect realistic construction square foot for an as-of-right foot for the Proposed these types of buildings, per square foot. With application materials suffer any hardship. Lastly, as to the Premises itself poses be unique but that condition poses any allowable floor area the Premises before shape of the Premises the as-of-right apartment traditional and attractive is no indication that associated with the configuration Accordingly, the not create practical difficulties strictly with applicable general circumstances The applicant asserts developing the Premises Resolution would result However, because purported base construction capitalization rate discussed finds that the applicant’s credibly demonstrate Based on the foregoing, findings required to finds that the evidence one of the findings, applicant has not discretion in this instance. Therefor

… (truncated, full text in PDF)