[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",5984894,"mediaKeyId","5771075-c6b471bd0e76e40106e43175da2608b3","parentId",5771075,"title","Committee recommends denial of variance for 51 Little West 12th Street after design, foundation and neighborhood concerns","audioSeconds",753,"startMs",6728000,"endMs",7481000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5771075-c6b471bd0e76e40106e43175da2608b3&start=6728&end=7481","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5771075-c6b471bd0e76e40106e43175da2608b3/thumbnail_6728000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/5984894/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Committee-recommends-denial-of-variance-for-51-Little-West-12th-Street-after-design-foundation-and-neighborhood-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5984894-4d295ce471f1076b8d43a258145803e5/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202612&Signature=MyCbI4UrWLPeiNZhdII8OfhLrRFrt~aOM~AsZkSlJvae9nrsdO~SsNiJeuFkSya6Kb50Qa2QgTo-lp-eT-HohPMaUGRs8DVDJRImJ5U~gzGgVonGwI3CZ8Pd6bEoLGufCqdzR9RZepojVC4p3vwOnhPN0Fu-d3aKOGRa2gu1lFVPCfD1cyGtH-fnXDUGM4on8xze3fIxWcTx3u-D~bbBHeXQcWLevNbZfA8g1Qpqks1ybDXP-axOSpGDm1Qzo4I6QA4aB3HzDIIuYZ1qwrZkfdk0VJRCt~6gYtwS8oSGmNZbLZTs~2YhjbJh8vYIMIFj8gQfZ~dgQrJeMJ16gaFtWQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Community Board 2, Manhattan","date","2025-09-15T15:14:24Z","article","Community Board 2’s Land Use & Housing Committee conducted a continuation of the 51 Little West 12th Street variance discussion on Sept. 10 and, following presentation and public comment, voted in a committee straw poll to recommend denial of the variance application.

Applicant representatives presented revised renderings, a design narrative invoking a maritime/commemorative motif and a technical explanation from their engineering and financial team. The architect described a prow‑like façade and a ground‑floor setback intended as a public‑facing space, and the project team referenced engineering work by DeSimone indicating pile foundations are needed because of challenging subsurface conditions and a high water table. Financial consultant Barbara Cohen said the existing site conditions and engineering costs materially affect feasibility.

Public commenters and committee members raised several substantive concerns. Members questioned whether the site’s physical conditions are sufficiently unique to justify a floor‑area variance, whether the hardship is owner‑created (the property has been vacant and the prior structure was demolished years ago), and whether alternate as‑of‑right uses (boutique hotel, office, townhouse) had been fully analyzed as commercially viable alternatives. Committee members also expressed objections to elements of the design: multiple protruding “bars” on the facade, a large new blank wall visible from public spaces, and the potential for projected imagery or lighting on the building’s large south façade to conflict with adjacent hotel windows and neighborhood character.

On engineering, the team and their consultant emphasized that adjacent shallow foundations and poor soil require pile foundations and that avoiding pile foundations would risk harm to neighboring buildings; DeSimone’s cover letter and structural analysis were cited as part of the submission package. The applicant said the proposed additional FAR requested in the variance is modest in square feet but necessary to realize the condominium program described in the financial analysis.

After extended discussion the committee held a straw poll and the majority recommended denial. Committee members noted the five BSA findings the applicant must demonstrate — unusual site conditions, inability to realize reasonable return without variance, no adverse effect on neighborhood character, hardship not self‑created, and minimum variance necessary — and said the application as presented did not meet those standards in the committee’s view. The committee invited the applicant to return with revisions or additional evidence addressing the findings if they choose to continue the application to the Board of Standards and Appeals.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Manhattan CB2 September 10, 2025 - Land Use & Housing Committee Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Land Use & Housing Committee voted by straw poll to recommend denial of a variance for 51 Little West 12th Street, citing concerns about self‑created hardship, lack of demonstrated reasonable return absent alternate uses, and the proposed building’s massing and visible blank walls.","taxTitle","Manhattan City, New York County, New York","taxId",3586,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5984898,"Two privately financed 100% affordable buildings proposed for CB2; developers seek committee support for HDFC ownership plan",676,3197000,3873000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5771075-c6b471bd0e76e40106e43175da2608b3&start=3197&end=3873","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5771075-c6b471bd0e76e40106e43175da2608b3/thumbnail_3197000.jpg","/articles/5984898/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Two-privately-financed-100-affordable-buildings-proposed-for-CB2-developers-seek-committee-support-for-HDFC-ownership-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5984898-a0b4a1419031ee0707f9e415130ad770/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202612&Signature=Fo59HtV-rGlCGZybhEvmutz~iZOZWt5OzzS5TT8ZXggee6fDeboTIDyeroXAwMeSzmrEPFTL0sdCTGue5WcmcdxaOyyUyldqMjxjEYkgZXanpWvXNwKb31YOJjODU5IIKzAMB~4MuiNTeDeJZfRNylt9ciJHRv0A6WCrMgAY2OCM-Yivj7ylBFBJopvrWf7U7p8F3Bhh0V6yIRNFeJnKO02u0Dp9vaQu1ltps6N9HITLfFQ-2op2txUINmjWW-zCuwWYQO3t4aO7Vk1I7hKkjyZOgyfS6M6ntJI~PVSyfu5yoo3QeHbU~BrBhbYldEj5wlr4lULziBECuNU4bqAUGg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Two privately financed, 100% affordable residential projects — one at 30 Thompson Street (44 units) and one at 285 Hudson Street (24 units) — were presented to the Community Board 2 Land Use & Housing Committee on Sept. 10. Attorney Alvin Schein, representing the applicant, said both projects are being developed without operating subsidies from the city or state and that the developer’s plan — subject to HPD and City Council approval — is to offer the units for affordable ownership as HDFC (Housing Development Fund Corporation) co‑ops rather than as rentals.

“Yes. It is affordable in perpetuity,” Alvin Schein said when the committee asked whether MIH affordability would last as long as the buildings stand. Presenters said the projects would be governed by MIH rules but that, unlike typical rentals, the team intends to pursue HPD approval for an ownership model and to secure an Article 11 tax exemption; the team acknowledged the tax exemption and any Article 11 approval require subsequent city review and City Council action.

Project architects walked the committee through unit mixes and building design. The Thompson Street building was described as roughly 50,000 square feet with 18 stories and large ground‑floor glazing, a second‑floor recreation space, bike storage, laundry and tenant amenities; typical floors were pushed toward larger 2‑bedroom units. The Hudson Street project was described as a smaller, 10‑story building of roughly 16,000 square feet with no setbacks and common laundry, bike storage and a small rear yard.

On affordability and operations, the team said AMI bands would include 40%, 60% and (in one project) 80% units in order to reach a weighted average of 60% AMI. Presenters emphasized that the co‑op ownership model is intended to make homeownership affordable to low‑ and moderate‑income households, that units would remain affordable as long as the buildings stand under MIH, and that the developer expects to market the units via a lottery similar to HPD lotteries for rentals.

Committee members pressed for details on permanence, tax exemption mechanics and financing. Alvin Schein said the MIH regulatory agreement requires affordability “as long as the building stands,” and that Article 11 tax exemptions that support HDFC ownership typically run for 40 years and are commonly renewed; the team said the City Council must approve any Article 11 tax exemption. Presenters said small subsidies might be sought to support buyers to cover closing costs, but that the projects rely primarily on private financing and tax‑exempt status to make ownership affordable.

Members of the public and committee praised the proposal as a rare example of 100% affordable, privately financed housing and asked about resale restrictions, household eligibility, and whether amenities or charges would differ by income band. Presenters said resale will be subject to affordability restrictions tied to the MIH regulatory framework and that eligibility will follow HPD rules; they also said affordable households would have the same access to building amenities and that the projects will be all‑electric.

The committee agreed to send supportive advisory language and discussed drafting a resolution endorsing the team’s plan to pursue HPD approval for homeownership and the Article 11 tax exemption that would enable it. Presenters were asked to keep the board informed as they proceed to HPD and the City Council.","Developers presented two 100% affordable projects at 30 Thompson (44 units) and 285 Hudson (24 units). The team said both buildings are being developed without operating city subsidy, would be affordable \"in perpetuity\" under MIH, and the developer proposes sale as HDFC co‑ops if HPD and the city council approve tax exemptions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},5984904,"Developer presents 99‑unit mixed‑use building at 126 Lafayette, promises 25 MIH units",488,137000,625000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5771075-c6b471bd0e76e40106e43175da2608b3&start=137&end=625","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5771075-c6b471bd0e76e40106e43175da2608b3/thumbnail_137000.jpg","/articles/5984904/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Developer-presents-99unit-mixeduse-building-at-126-Lafayette-promises-25-MIH-units","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/5984904-0deffc5e4026913d901df91bfc04f888/orig.mp4?Expires=1771202612&Signature=VyUoSqZ7zSpdHhgyjJiGQwip1Rda3CzPFjoJnI5NtbR5wcWNoygk98nEvOvGqZ5dVnr2EBpiEU7S6EGkIe4aejD9jbQV2YW05O4r2wCOIV4rOWmLB7HPMnArL3ttB4rnMKuUKWoiU6HTnVJBPdkPK3VFNWhcd2AhYxwEMevdok0I6ivzFiYIDfgxrH8hYF-nHhrWQ1c-JpcFuf7AY6yyGxXOyAjV0uv2DXYp4-VNhKoc7o6UQz8CDiKWgdGOmYXDdldszJH2xBOGcTbSUA3ADd5v3iB3RqPFp02iWtY1YxOqUPDzJxtDydXlVIhWmRIR7lBtIGYxxTZKZcqoVhE5OA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Community Board 2’s Land Use & Housing Committee heard a presentation Sept. 10 from High Street Residential and its design and legal team on a proposed mixed‑use building at 126 Lafayette Street that would contain 99 residential units, including 25 mandatory inclusionary housing (MIH) units. The presenters described the project as a 25‑story building that rises to 275 feet, with retail at street level and a mix of market‑rate and affordable units distributed through the tower.

The developer and design team framed the MIH portion as MIH Option 1, saying the affordable set would include 40%, 60% and 100% AMI bands and a weighted average of 60% AMI. Architect Paul Healy said, “The development will be MIH option 1,” and walked the committee through floorplans that show 25 affordable units distributed across 18 of the 23 residential floors. Presenters said the affordable units are a mix of studios, one‑bedrooms and two‑bedrooms, and that the two‑bedroom requirement is being used to meet MIH distribution rules.

Committee members pressed the team for details the presentation had shown too quickly: specific floor‑by‑floor AMI placements, where terraces are located and who may use amenity spaces. The project team said there are three private terraces (one reserved for an MIH unit) plus two tenant‑accessible terraces tied to building amenities: a ground‑floor terrace adjacent to a coworking lounge and a top‑floor terrace for residents. The team said finishes in affordable units are “comparable” to market units and that affordable tenants will not be charged an amenity fee; presenters said ownership may charge some market tenants for amenity use but affordable households would have the same access without a fee. A member asked for a guarantee that finishes are “identical”; the team responded that appliance brands and core finishes would match and that unit sizes and layouts vary by floor and unit type.

On subsidy and construction questions, the team said the project is not receiving direct public subsidies but plans to apply for a 485x tax abatement program; presenters described 485x as a separate incentive distinct from MIH that the project will pursue. The development team said they have solicited bids from both union and non‑union general contractors and have not finalized contracts, and that some trades may be paid prevailing wages while others may not. The presenters also said the building will be all‑electric and submetered, and that tenants will pay apartment electricity (heat, hot water, cooking). On unit count and massing, the architect said the 99‑unit total reflects a fit for the building footprint, setbacks and desired unit sizes rather than an arbitrary cap.

Several members of the public who live nearby asked about the north (lot‑line) façade, terraces, roof use and whether any commercial or liquor licenses are expected; the team said the north façade is largely a lot‑line condition with limited openings, that the roof high‑roof areas are mechanical and the top terrace is resident use only, and that there is no plan for a liquor license connected to the resident dining room and demo kitchen. The committee asked the team to circulate clearer, larger plans and MIH tables after the meeting.

The committee did not take a final advisory vote on the project during the Sept. 10 session. Presenters were asked to provide clearer, zoomed floor plans, the MIH unit‑by‑floor table, and document thumbnails for distribution to committee members.","High Street Residential and design team presented a 99‑unit, 25‑unit MIH Option 1 building for 126 Lafayette; committee asked detailed questions about unit distribution, amenities, AMI bands, utilities and construction labor.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee recommends denial of variance for 51 Little West 12th Street after design, foundation and neighborhood concerns

Two privately financed 100% affordable buildings proposed for CB2; developers seek committee support for HDFC ownership plan

Developer presents 99‑unit mixed‑use building at 126 Lafayette, promises 25 MIH units