Note.—This resolution is in the Bulletin. Please notify formal errors so that corrections BOARD MEETING OF: CALENDAR NOS: PREMISES: ACTION OF BOARD THE VOTE — Affirmative: Vice-Chair Brown Negative: Chair Perlmutter, Commissioner THE RESOLUTION — The decisions of 2019, acting on Alteration 421543039, 421543011, 421542959, 421542931, part: “Proposed development fronting a proposed This is an application an R5 zoning district, detached residences that A public hearing after due notice by publication hearing on October 2020. Vice-Chair Chanda inspections of the Community Board application, with the happen during school association provide a occupancy; limiting of hours; possibly contributing working to move the The Board received member, and four letters traffic, congestion, and the proposed work site. The Premises are 18th Avenue and 23rd The Premises have Street, 22,492 square General City Law having a population occupancy shall be issued or highway giving access official map or plan, street or highway abutting suitably improved transportation of the specifications approved the public health, circumstances of the unless the owner has such city a performance such department, to the such department, or such improvement will department. . . . Where would entail practical the circumstances of to existing or proposed certificate of occupancy administrative officer occupancy to the board of such city having power regulations, and the same and to such board regulations. The Board had taken exceptions for developments on them to be accessed safeguards as conditions safeguards were imposed, developers that a Homeowners oblige homeowners to parking regulations emergency vehicle access. In recent years, developments constructed § 36(2) and heard considerable proven inadequate. Consequently, the applicants to affirmatively set forth in General City street access requirement unnecessary hardship” require the structure highways.” The applicant proposes residential buildings residences, which would as Bay Lane. The applicant and consist of a loop mapped street. The Premises would tax lot would be apportioned new tax lots. Each proposed basement, with 4,000 applicant represents applicable zoning regulations. access to a mapped street, The applicant submits would result in practical the Premises have limited perimeter in relation access to the interior In support of this right plan alleging that residential buildings applicant submits that would be the only way achieve the required Additionally, the association, which only not permit another type development, thereby illustrate on its as-of-right The applicant’s planned to appear applicant states that avenues were exhausted could have a high rate and standards. In describing Bay proposed private road 84 accessory parking the HOA enforce any In describing how neighborhood character, homes gives the appearance disrupt the neighborhood The Board has considered majority of the Board Law § 36 would not be First, the Board not demonstrate the full on 212th Street and, by design, could not front In response to the that the applicant’s General’s denial of the of frontage. The Board decision, thereby constituting Next, the Board be inadequate to allow proposed plan, that the does not seem feasible. Moreover, the Board homes would negatively would be the only dwellings Under General marketability of one whether the requirement would entail practical does not agree that potential, through a practical difficulty or Additionally, the circumstances of the existing or proposed General City Law § 36. planning board with subdivisions, or plats, and 32. Notwithstanding commissioners would City Law § 36. One application was filed, to warrant a grant of layout on Bay Lane exceeds Resolution, this commissioner acceptable. Meanwhile, presentation of a historical required frontage at illustrated in its as-of-right hardship argument. application. By letter dated July Bureau of Operations 2017, and the variance water m

… (truncated, full text in PDF)