225-09-BZ
APPLICANT – Antonio S. Valenziano, AIA, for Beacon Luigi, LLC, owner.
SUBJECT – Application July 14, 2009 – Variance (§72-21) for the construction of a single family residence on a vacant undersized lot, contrary to front yard (§23-45) regulations. R2 (LDGM) zoning district.
PREMISES AFFECTED – 45 Beacon Avenue, Beacon Avenue c/o Luigi Place, Block 948, Lot 27, Borough of Staten Island.
COMMUNITY BOARD #3SI
APPEARANCES –
For Applicant: Todd Dale.
ACTION OF THE BOARD – Application granted on condition.
THE VOTE TO GRANT –
Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice Chair Collins, Commissioner Ottley-Brown, Commissioner Hinkson and Commissioner Montanez ...... 5
Negative:...... 0
THE RESOLUTION –
WHEREAS, the decision of the Staten Island Borough Commissioner, dated July 8, 2009, acting on Department of Buildings Application No. 520005887, reads in pertinent part:
“ZR 23-45. Proposed front yard is contrary to the section of the zoning resolution and required BSA approval;” and
WHEREAS, this is an application under ZR § 72-21, to permit, in an R2 zoning district within a Lower Density Growth Management Area, the proposed construction of a two-story single-family home that does not provide the required front yard, contrary to ZR § 23-45; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this application on October 6, 2009 after due notice by publication in The City Record, with a continued hearing on November 10, 2009, and then to decision on December 8, 2009; and
WHEREAS¸ the premises and surrounding area had site and neighborhood examinations by Chair Srinivasan, Commissioner Montanez, and Commissioner Ottley-Brown; and
WHEREAS, Community Board 2, Staten Island, recommends disapproval of this application; and
WHEREAS, City Councilmember James S. Oddo provided testimony in opposition to this application; and
WHEREAS, a member of the community testified in opposition to this application, citing the following primary concerns: (1) the proposed home is not compatible with neighborhood character; (2) development of the site would cause a flooding problem; and (3) the claimed hardship was self-created based on the purchase of the lot; and
WHEREAS, collectively, the parties who provided testimony in opposition to the proposal are the “Opposition;” and
WHEREAS, the site is located on the northeast corner of Beacon Avenue and Luigi Place, in an R2 zoning district within a Lower Density Growth Management Area; and
WHEREAS, the site has a width of 25 feet, a depth of 108 feet, and a total lot area of approximately 2,700 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS, the site is currently vacant; and
WHEREAS, the applicant proposes to construct a two-story with attic single-family home; and
WHEREAS, the proposed home will have the following complying parameters: 1,290 sq. ft. of floor area (0.48 FAR); an open space ratio of 150.5 percent; a side yard with a width of 30’-0” along the eastern lot line; a side yard with a width of 5’-0” along the northern lot line; a front yard with a depth of approximately 28’-0” along the western lot line; a wall height of 24’-6”; and a total height of approximately 28’-0”; and
WHEREAS, however, the applicant proposes to provide a front yard with a depth of 5’-0” along the northern lot line (two front yards with minimum depths of 15’-0” each are required); and
WHEREAS, the applicant has provided documentation establishing that the subject lot is an undersized lot pursuant to ZR § 23-32; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that ZR § 23-33 eliminates lot area and width requirements for single-family homes in a Lower Density Growth Management Area where the zoning lot was owned separately and individually from all adjoining tracts of land both on December 8, 2005 and on the date of the application for a building permit; and
WHEREAS, a title report submitted by the applicant reflects that the site has existed in its current configuration since before December 8, 2005 and its ownership has been independent of the ownership of the two adjoining lots; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that ZR § 23-33 would eliminate a lot area and width requirement for a single-family dwelling, but not the front yard objection; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that front yard relief is necessary, for reasons stated below; thus, the instant application was filed; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that the following is a unique physical condition, which creates practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship in developing the subject site in compliance with underlying district regulations: the narrowness of the subject site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that the requested front yard waiver is necessary to develop the site with a habitable home; and
WHEREAS, specifically, the applicant represents that the pre-existing lot width of 25’-0” cannot feasibly accommodate a complying development; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that the subject site is a corner lot, which requires two front yards of 15 feet each; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that the building would have an exterior width of only 5’-0” if front yard regulations were complied with fully; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the applicant represents that the front yard waiver is necessary to create a home of a reasonable width; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a radius diagram indicating that the majority of lots within a 400-ft. radius are at least 40 feet in width, and only one other lot is as narrow as the subject lot; and
WHEREAS, the radius diagram further reflects that the subject site is one of only three vacant lots located wholly within a 400-ft. radius of the site; and
WHEREAS, based upon the above, the Board finds that the cited unique physical condition creates practical difficulties in developing the site in strict compliance with the applicable front yard regulations; and
WHEREAS, the Board has determined that because of the subject site’s unique physical condition, there is no reasonable possibility that compliance with applicable zoning regulations will result in a habitable home; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that the proposed variance will not negatively affect the character of the neighborhood, or impact adjacent uses; and
WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a radius diagram reflecting that the surrounding neighborhood is characterized by single-family detached homes; and
WHEREAS, the applicant notes that the proposed bulk is compatible with nearby residential development and that that it complies with all relevant bulk regulations; and
WHEREAS, specifically, the applicant notes that the proposed home complies with the R2 zoning district regulations for use, FAR, side yards, open space ratio, height, and parking; and
WHEREAS, the applicant represents that the proposed front yard waiver will not impair the light and air of the adjacent home across Luigi Place, as the distance between the proposed home and the home across Luigi Place will be approximately 68 feet; and
WHEREAS, therefore, the Board finds that this action will neither alter the essential character of the surrounding neighborhood nor impair the use or development of adjacent properties, nor will it be detrimental to the public welfare; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that the unnecessary hardship encountered by compliance with the zoning regulations is inherent to the site’s narrow width; and
WHEREAS, the Opposition contended that the applicant’s hardship was instead created by its purchase of the subject lot, which requires the requested variance to build a habitable home; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that the (d) finding under ZR § 72-21 specifies that the purchase of a zoning lot subject to the cited hardship shall not constitute a self-created hardship; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that the hardship herein was not created by the owner or a predecessor in title, but is a result of the historic lot dimensions; and
WHEREAS, the Board finds that this proposal is the minimum necessary to afford the owner relief; and
WHEREAS, thus, the Board has determined that the evidence in the record supports the findings required to be made under ZR § 72-21.
Therefore it is Resolved that the Board of Standards and Appeals issues a Type II Declaration under 6 NYCRR Part 617.5 and 617.13, §§ 5-02(a), 5-02(b)(2), and 6-15 of the Rules of Procedure for City Environmental Quality Review, and makes the required findings under ZR § 72-21 to permit, in an R2 zoning district within a Lower Density Growth Management Area, a two-story single-family home that does not provide the required front yards, contrary to ZR § 23-45; on condition that any and all work shall substantially conform to drawings as they apply to the objections above noted, filed with this application marked “Received September 21, 2009”– (1) sheet, “November 10, 2009”-(5) sheets and “December 4, 2009”-(1) sheet; and on further condition:
THAT the parameters of the proposed building shall be as follows: a maximum of 1,290 sq. ft. of floor area (0.48 FAR), an open space ratio of 150.5 percent, a side yard with a width of 30’-0” along the eastern lot line; a side yard with a width of 5’-0” along the northern lot line; a front yard with a depth of approximately 28’-0” along the western lot line; a front yard with a depth of 5’-0” along the southern lot line; a wall height of 24’-6”; a total height of approximately 28’-0”; and parking for a minimum of two cars, as per the BSA-approved plans;
THAT the internal floor layouts on each floor of the proposed building shall be as reviewed and approved by DOB;
THAT there shall be no habitable room in the cellar;
THAT if required, a Builder’s Pavement Plan shall be filed and approved by DOT prior to the issuance of a building permit;
THAT this approval is limited to the relief granted by the Board, in response to specifically cited and filed DOB/other jurisdiction objection(s) only;
THAT the approved plans shall be considered approved only for the portions related to the specific relief granted;
THAT significant construction shall proceed in accordance with ZR § 72-23;
THAT the Department of Buildings must ensure compliance with all other applicable provisions of the Zoning Resolution, the Administrative Code, and any other relevant laws under its jurisdiction irrespective of plan(s)/configuration(s) not related to the relief granted.
Adopted by the Board of Standards and Appeals, December 8, 2009.