Crapsters,Attached is a .pdf being distributed as a handbill In Bayside Hills Queens about a proposed project at 50-20 216th Street.
This variance is an extraordinarily audacious request. Our community will have to go through hell to fight it, even though it is without merit. I'm told that 85-95% of this stuff gets approved. A major factor seems to be who is hired to make the variance application. I've been told by a local politician, that if you try to hire a lawyer to represent the community, they are all afraid to do it.
I would appreciate your posting this to your blog.
Thanks,
D. Goldenbar
House in the Garden-V4
An urban planner familiar with the situation put it this way:
"The property is 500 square feet shy of a legal lot size (3,800 sf) and 700 square feet smaller than a typical 40' x 100' lot (4,000 sf). And yet, the owner is proposing a house with 2,320 square feet. The R2A zoning has a .5 FAR, and property owners are able to gain an additional 300 square feet from having a garage on the property. THERE IS NO GARAGE PROPOSED. So, to sum it up: the developer is not only asking for setback violations and additional square footage way above their undersized property would allow even if it were legal, but they are asking for a 300 square foot bonus for a garage that isn't being built!"
Oh and folks, here's what you have to look forward to when you're dealing with Rockchapel Realty (see this post from 2006 - the very beginnings of this blog): Developer Greed 101
9 comments:
The DOB needs to audit the subdivision document of 2009/2010 - In order to be subdivided each tax lot must meet the requirements for building -- in this case 3,800 square feet is the minimal square footage for a building lot in R2A.
On the single zoning lot, (not each tax lot) the FAR must be .5 and there must be no more than 30% lot coverage.
I'm totally sick of this crap. Enough is enough. These politicians who allow this in New York City are criminals. All of them.
These politicians who allow this in New York City are criminals. All of them.
Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh.........
Now now in all fairness to Halloran, and we all know I don't dish out the compliments to him often, he did come out against this one.
I think its too small a project for him to back.
I think its too small a project for him to back.
Correct! Not enough kickback. I'm outed!
Dan was against it?!?!?!?!?
You're right! But he was all for a catering hall & restaurant AND parking lot in the middle of 154th Street in Whitestone. A mostly quiet residential area with some light commercial. GET REAL people. What will impact the quality of life. A family living in a house or 300 guests that are tanked at 1AM coming out of a party?
Let's fight FOR what's WORTH FIghting FOR!!!! Not some BS single family home.
wait........didn't the neighbors of the White house actually LIKE the idea of the expansion? Why would Dan be against that? Or is it general NIMBYness?
I grew up in Auburndale and can remember working for a local contractor(20 years ago). Whenever we did work in Bayside Hills the busybodies would all come out. Nothing better to do than critisize whatever changes the person was making. The best part is most who did the complaining probably paid less for their whole house than the person was paying for renovations........
While i object to such a large house being built on the smallish property, I have a feeling that the complaints would still be here is the design was for a 1 BR bungalow. Probably complain about the color of the slate roof.........
"didn't the neighbors of the White house actually LIKE the idea of the expansion?"
Um, no.
Neighbors lose taste for eatery’s rezoning
"...a one bedroom bungalow" .. I don't think so ... the FAR shown on 50-24 216 Street is 2,320 square feet and the one at 50-20 is 2,167 square feet. The Zoning Lot (with two tax lots) is only 7244 square feet.
Post a Comment