67-07-A APPLICANT – Kevin Finnegan, Esq., for Shaul, Magnum Mgmt., owner. SUBJECT – Application July 17, 2007 – seeking to revoke permits and approvals that construction of a penthouse that exceeds the height limitations governed by ZR 23-692 (Sliver R7-2 Zoning District. 5th Street, PREMISES AFFECTED – 515 East Avenue A and Avenue B, Block 401, Lot 56, of Manhattan. COMMUNITY BOARD #3M APPEARANCES – For Applicant: Kevin Finnegan. For Opposition: Marivin Mitzner. ACTION OF THE BOARD – Appeal granted. THE VOTE TO GRANT – Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice Chair Commissioner Ottley-Brown and Commissioner Hinkson.......................................................................4 Negative:.......................................................................0 THE RESOLUTION: WHEREAS, the instant appeal comes Board in response to a Final Determination February 15, 2007 by the Manhattan Commissioner of the NYC Department of (“DOB”) (the “Final Determination”) addressed Manhattan Borough President Stringer, Councilmember Mendez, and District Manager of Community Stetzer, with respect to Alteration Application 104368845; and WHEREAS, the Final Determination pertinent part: “This letter is in reference to correspondence to me, dated September 2006, regarding the Department’s interpretation of NYC Zoning Resolution (ZR) § (Sliver Law) in relation to the above referenced alteration application. Specifically, requested that the Department reconsider, light of ZR § 11-22, its approval applicant’s exclusion of a penthouse calculation of building height under the Law. “Although your letter refers to ZR § 11-22 provision that provides guidance calculation of building height under the Law, this statutory section is not applicable. Section 11-22 addresses the application overlapping or contradictory regulations. there is neither overlap nor contradiction. “It has been the Department’s practice building height (which is not a defined the Zoning Resolution) of penthouses to the width of the street for buildings covered the Sliver Law in instances similar to the in question, particularly in cases such where the penthouse in not visible 67-07-A Intent to Revoke Approval(s) stated, in pertinent “ZR 23-692: Sliver Law: Height Regulation Narrow Building: a. Proposed vertical enlargement is higher 60’ which is width of narrow street, contrary to Resolution 23-692, hence permitted. Indicate compliance in height and diagram”; and WHEREAS, the plans were revised various violations and were approved on June and WHEREAS, the plans approved on June still showed a building exceeding the 60-foot height that Appellant argues is imposed by Z.R. (the “Sliver Law”); and WHEREAS, on July 26, 2006, Manhattan President Stringer, Council Member Mendez Community Board 3 District Manager Stetzer Manhattan Borough Commissioner reconsideration of its approval of the revised WHEREAS, although the Manhattan Commissioner responded on August 25, 2006 second Intent to Revoke Approval(s) and Permit(s) Partial Order to Stop Work Immediately, he that the amended plans did not violate the Sliver WHEREAS, on September 18, Manhattan President Stringer, Council Member Mendez Community Board 3 District Manager Stetzer that the Manhattan Borough Commissioner reconsider application of the Sliver Law in light of Z.R. which does not include penthouses among obstructions”; and WHEREAS, on February 15, 2007 the Borough Commissioner issued the Final Determination, cited above, that forms the basis of the instant PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING RESOLUTION BULDING CODE RELEVANT TO THIS APPEAL WHEREAS, the Sliver Law (comprised 23-691 and 692, enacted in 1983, established height districts and regulates the height of new and enlargements of existing buildings that walls of 45 feet or less in width), reads, in pertinent “Subject to applicable front height and regulations, or any height limitations underlying district, no such new or building shall exceed a height equal to the of the abutting stre

… (truncated, full text in PDF)