Note. —This resolution in the Bulletin. Please notify formal errors so that corrections BOARD MEETING OF: CALENDAR NO.: PREMISES: ACTION OF BOARD THE VOTE — Affirmative: Chair Commissioner Commissioner Negative: THE RESOLUTION — The decision of November 9, 2023, 440652401, reads, in Objection #1: Per lot line of 30 feet Objection #2: Per lot line of 30 feet This is an application legalize the enlargement residence, which resulted contrary to Z.R. §§ 23-47 A public hearing after due notice by publication on March 25, Queens, recommends received one form letter The Premises are 24th Avenue, between an R1-2 zoning district, frontage along 24th Avenue, lot parallel to 215th Street, parallel to Little Neck the Premises are currently story residence. The applicant describes 3,914.01 square feet height has 27.50 feet; of 301% of residence’s spaces. The applicant horizontal and one-story, the north rear yard, first floor and above first floor and above. necessary to improve all applicable use and yards at issue in this In the subject R1-2 yard measuring a minimum to extend along every rear yard must have multiple rear lot lines line along a rear lot adjoining zoning lot. which require a rear 23-543. Accordingly, The Zoning Resolution “vary or modify [its] observed, public safety § 72-21. First, the applicant conditions inherent in size – that create practical complying strictly with created by general circumstances the applicant contends configuration, almost required rear yard. To floor area under the below the maximum (“OSR”) (301%) is well Next, the applicant which examined zoning the following characteristics a residence situated at area to street frontage 3) among lots with less rear lot lines, the subject lot lines preclude development. under the proposed continue to be underbuilt not permitted to enlarge irregular lot configuration the Study illustrated comprises 2% of its perimeter subject site borders rear Additionally, the subject Premises which are parallel and separated 61 to 71 feet, the applicable require almost all of the to satisfy rear yard requirements, new building or enlarge required open areas Board finds that the difficulties or unnecessary applicable zoning regulations circumstances in the Next, the applicant the applicant is a single-family with respect to realizing The applicant further would not alter the essential appropriate use or detrimental to the public the area surrounding density, residential development south; larger retail development west; and 6- to 16-story detached, residences support, the applicant “Study”), which compares with the size and scale and demonstrates that compatible with neighborhood out that the configuration turned 90 degrees to even referring to the site’s interior as “rear definitions of the Zoning as the sides of the residence. coverage and OSR in districts, each residential 150%, and there are currently covers 14% Study found of the 34 buildings, 24 (71%) have that of the 20 developed (not including the subject an additional 6 (30%) In addition, the Study ratio (“FAR”) (0.27 FAR) in the Study Area. Furthermore, adjacent lots 83 and Lot 88 provides an residence’s 4-foot encroachment would be imperceivable. the enlargement, the than most of the lots around the existing built Accordingly, the Board the essential character Premises are located; or development of adjacent public welfare. The applicant represents unnecessary hardship predecessor in title. The tax lot and zoning lot of the text amendment lawfully, non-complying required rear yard in longer be enlarged, as-of-right, portion of the zoning rear yard. The applicant development could not without obstructing submitted a summary and adjacent lots as been held in separate amendment. Therefore, hardship arose as amendment that requires multiple rear lot lines, subject site were not been used together to the applicable amendment, title created the hardship Accordingly, the or unnecessary hardship a predecessor in title. The ap

… (truncated, full text in PDF)