256-02-BZ CEQR #03-BSA-039K APPLICANT - Law Offices of Howard Goldman, PLLC, for 160 Imlay Street Real Estate LLC, owner. SUBJECT - Application September 18, 2002 - under Z.R. §72-01 to permit the proposed development of a vacant six story manufacturing building, and the addition of three floors, for residential use, Use Group 2, located in an M2-1 zoning district, which is contrary to Z.R. §42-00 and §43-00. PREMISES AFFECTED - 160 Imlay Street, bounded by Imlay, Verona and Commerce Streets, and Atlantic Basin, Block 515, Lot 75, Borough of Brooklyn. COMMUNITY BOARD #6BK APPEARANCES - None. ACTION OF THE BOARD - Application granted. THE VOTE TO GRANT - Affirmative: Vice-Chair Babbar, Commissioner Caliendo and Commissioner Miele.............................3 Negative: Chairman Chin.............................................1 THE RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the decision of the Borough Commissioner, dated September 9, 2002, acting on Application No. 301396790 reads, in part: “Proposed residential use . . . is not permitted in an M2-1 zoning district as per Sec. 42-00 . . . of the New York City Zoning Resolution.”; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this application on March 5, 2003 after due notice by publication in The City Record, and laid over to May 21, 2003, August 13, 2003, and November 18, 2003, and then to December 23, 2003 for decision; and WHEREAS, the site and surrounding area had a site and neighborhood examination by a committee of the Board consisting of Chairman James Chin, Vice Chairman Satish Babbar, Commissioner Peter Caliendo and Commissioner Joel Miele; and WHEREAS, this is an application under Z.R. §72- 21, to permit, in an M2-1 zoning district, the conversion of an existing six-story industrial building to residential use, contrary to Z.R. §42-00; and WHEREAS, the subject lot is 61,546 sq. ft., and is occupied by a six-story building formerly used as a warehouse for over ten years, but which has now been vacant for the last two years; and WHEREAS, the applicant originally proposed to add three stories to the building, but during the course of the hearing process amended the proposal to eliminate this aspect; and WHEREAS, the applicant states that the following are unique physical conditions related to the subject building: the majority of the building’s square footage is massed on the upper floors, rendering it less desirable to modern manufacturing concerns that require ground level space for immediate truck access; each floor is unimproved and broken up by numerous support columns, making the installation of modern manufacturing equipment or movement of bulk storage 256-02-BZ CEQR #03-BSA-039K conforming tenant has been sought and that, in spite of reasonable efforts on the part of the owner, one has not been found; and WHEREAS, the Board, based upon a review of the record and its site visit, finds that the applicant has submitted substantial evidence of unique physical conditions inherent to the building on the zoning lot, especially when such conditions are considered in the aggregate; that because of these unique physical conditions, practical difficulties and unique hardship arise in complying strictly with the applicable use provisions of the Zoning Resolution; and that, consequently, the applicant has satisfied the finding set forth at Z.R. §72-21(a); and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a feasibility study, purporting to show that because of the unique physical conditions of the building, a conforming use would not yield a reasonable return; and WHEREAS, the opposition challenged the applicant’s feasibility study as unsound in methodology, and commissioned its own report on the viability of the building for conforming use; and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a detailed response to the opposition’s challenge; and WHEREAS, the Board closely examined all of the above documents and finds that the applicant has submitted sufficient evidence demonstrating that developing the site with an as-of-right de

… (truncated, full text in PDF)