Special rules seek to protect residential neighborhoods and encourage development of day care and medical facilities in commercial districts. On January 18, 2011, the City Council approved the Department of City Planning’s amendment to the Lower Density Growth Management Area (LDGMA) regulations that apply to Staten Island and Bronx Community District 10. The amendment limits the development of out-of-context medical facilities and day care centers in low-density residential areas and encourages their construction in commercial districts. It also eases commercial regulations that restricted residential expansion and development in appropriate areas of Staten Island.

The amendment is the latest modification to the City’s LDGMA zoning regulations applicable to areas within Staten Island and Bronx CD 10 which are characterized by rapid growth, high vehicle ownership, and limited access to mass transit. 1 CityLand 4 (Oct. 15, 2004), 2 CityLand 164 (Dec. 2005). The City last revised the LDGMA regulations to close a parking requirement loophole in the Throgs Neck section of the Bronx. 7 CityLand 37 (April 15, 2010). (more…)

HPD claimed that abandoned railway complicated the development of two lots. The Department of Housing Preservation and Development applied for use variances in order to construct a three-building affordable housing development on two vacant through-block lots zoned for manufacturing in the East Tremont section of the Bronx.

The Phipps Houses Group’s 141-unit project will include an eight-story residential building and a ten-story mixed-use building at 1155 East Tremont Avenue, and a ten-story mixed-use building located directly across the street at 1176 East Tremont Avenue. Both lots were previously occupied by the elevated New York, Westchester, and Boston Interurban Railway. Remnants of the abandoned train trestle, including several in-ground concrete supports, remain on both lots.

HPD claimed that the trestle remnants, subsurface contamination, and the area’s high water table would constrain a viable manufacturing use for the site. HPD estimated that it would cost a combined $6.1 million to clean up the sites and remove the railway remnants. HPD also claimed that the requested variances were necessary in order to provide the minimum number of apartments needed to maintain the project’s financial viability and fulfill the agency’s programmatic goals. (more…)

Jessica Lappin

Council Member Jessica Lappin represents Community District 5 in Manhattan, which includes parts of Midtown and the Upper East Side. She also chairs the Council’s Subcommittee on Landmarks, Public Siting & Maritime Uses. A New York native and graduate of Stuyvesant High School and Georgetown University, Lappin was raised in a landmarked house in Gramercy Park. Well-regarded by preservation advocates, she has garnered accolades from the Friends of the Upper East Side and the Historic Districts Council for her proactive stance towards the protection of historic neighborhoods and buildings. During her tenure as Chair, the City has designated 67 individual landmarks and 11 historic districts. She has also crafted legislation in response to recent crane collapses, mandating additional safety measures at construction sites and training for crane operators.

On the landmarking process. When fellow council members elected her to Chair, Lappin was more than happy to accept since “the budget and land use are the two big, meaty issues that the City Council deals with,” and because it provided her with an opportunity to “have a real role in terms of shaping our landscape in New York City.” While she states that not all of her predecessors at the helm of the Subcommittee could be considered landmarks advocates, Lappin believes she comes from a position of real appreciation for preservation, looking at every item before the Subcommittee fairly and objectively. Lappin states the importance of continuing to evolve and grow as a City, but she is quick to add that we must always keep our character and history, and be mindful of our architectural jewels. When asked about whether an end to the construction boom will have an effect on the prioritization of landmark designations or protection in the City, Lappin responded that historic preservation, ideally, lies outside such considerations, and that “landmarking should not be used as an anti-development tool or as an alternative to zoning.” (more…)

Landmarks found extensive alterations rendered the building noncontributing to district. On September 16, 2008, Landmarks voted to approve the demolition of a two-story building at 501-501A Hudson Street in the Greenwich Village Historic District, along with the proposed replacement, a six-story commercial and residential building designed by Morris Adjmi. At the July 15 public hearing, residents, preservationists, and elected officials expressed opposition to both the demolition of the existing building and the scale and design of the proposed building. 5 CityLand 108 (Aug. 15, 2008).

In response to input from the Commission and community, the applicant reduced the size of the penthouse and changed much of the glass facade to brick. Also, the penthouse was set back further from the street, and the space between the terra-cotta baguettes that pattern the facade was tightened. Adjmi presented examples of similar-sized buildings on corner lots in the area, while architectural historian Bill Higgins of Higgins and Quasebarth testified to the existing building’s extensive alterations and resulting lack of original fabric from the initial 1854 structure. (more…)

Applicant claimed that slope, location, and soil contamination necessitated variance. Northern LLC applied to BSA for a variance to build a five-story 40-unit residential building with 63 parking spaces at 241-15 Northern Boulevard, an irregularly-shaped vacant gasoline station in Douglaston, Queens. During the hearing process, Northern modified and reduced its proposal. Northern’s fourth version called for a three-story 24-unit residential building and partial subsurface parking lot with 34 accessory parking spaces and three reservoir spaces. The proposal still required a variance from BSA because the proposed development would exceed dwelling unit number, floor area, use, open space, front/rear yard, and sky exposure plane limitations.

The applicant claimed that because of the lot’s sloping condition, the front windows of a complying single-family residence would be nearly flush with the street level. The applicant further claimed that the expense of environmental monitoring and remediation due to the site’s soil contamination would increase construction costs and make as-of-right development that much more infeasible. The owner also argued that the site’s location, at the busy intersection of Douglaston Parkway and Northern Boulevard, was not a marketable location for a one-family as-of-right development. (more…)