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.