Note.—This resolution publication in the typographical or other before the Bulletin CORRECTION: under Calendar BOARD MEETING OF: CALENDAR NO.: PREMISES: ACTION OF BOARD THE VOTE — Affirmative: Negative: Chair Commissioner Commissioner THE RESOLUTION The decision February 28, 2020, 402275006, reads 1. Proposed required 2. Proposed required This is an application legalize, within an story with cellar, zoning requirements § 23-48). A public hearing after due notice by hearing on September Vice-Chair Chanda inspections of Community Board application. The Board letter of support from The Premises between 142nd Street in Queens. The Premises 39 feet of frontage square feet of lot two-story with cellar, The existing detached building feet (1,114.15 square the second floor); an of 1'-10'' and one yard measuring 18'-4''; the first floor and depth of 20 feet is totaling 12'-11'', with pursuant to Z.R. § The applicant Premises and represents the retaining wall during excavation rebuilt. The applicant wall, the residence with the DOB-approved shifting and rotation be located closer required side yard this lot classifies as 2 zoning district and Z.R. § 23-32. The applicant to the narrow lot in the total side yard than the minimum 5'-0''. The applicant encroaches into both required front yard. most affected by the currently has the the applicant proposes would acknowledge thereby alerting conditions. The Zoning Resolution “vary or modify [its] observed, public § 72-21. First, as per unique physical practical difficulties with applicable zoning circumstances in applicant claims that created the practical the only odd-shaped lot, approximately The grade changes side, as well as the extended along three re-built during excavation construction of the width of the Premises 39.0' to +48.0', a slope, which cause and earth retainage that the Premises than the surrounding wall in order to be from 1963 and 2006 only lot on the subject 1960s. The applicant these assertions. The applicant 21 for area or bulk stringently than use language of the Zoning a practical difficulties The applicant submitted Pantelidis v. New N.Y.S.2d 41 (2007), capstone in a line establishing criteria declares that “[c]ourts a showing that the also create the uniqueness claims that the Court’s area/bulk variances use variances do, standard. Additionally, N.Y.3d 846, 889 N.E.2d Pantelidis established hardship based family's appropriate construction, constructed extension. readily distinguishable. facts, but here housing a necessary rooms to simply under subdivision In response, memorandum in recalls Vill. of Bronxville 906, aff'd, 1 N.Y.2d applicant’s line of difficulty” standard statutory provision 384, 657 N.E.2d 254, Resolution as such distinction between been blurred and § 72-21, so the Board Next, the Board The Board clarifies detrimental, good of its application, greenhouse with presented any evidence not found reliance that it has had applications neighborhood character and concludes that basis about neighborhood Next, as per the applicant is a with respect to applicant argues that the yards compliant because it is cost-prohibitive, further non-compliance internal existing required work would hardship to the owner. submitted a bid from In response, the is not based on a costs to remove plumbing with the subject case. plans and its site possible to correct. physically move the offending walls and amount, which would smaller. As per Z.R. § variance would not impair the appropriate detrimental to the the single-family residence proposed waivers Z.R. § 72-21(d) the practical ground for a predecessor in made, the purchase sought to be hardship. (Emphasis original.) The applicant acknowledges which it is requesting finding of a self-created bar the granting of to the applicant welfare of the neighborhood As per Z.R. § request is the minimum Premises. Specifically, would enable the demolition and underlying zoning intrusion into the on the neighborhood unsubstantial. At hearing

… (truncated, full text in PDF)