Lindsay Hooper, attorney for 18–19 Fifth Avenue Associates LLC, told the Planning Board the applicant seeks to subdivide a lot that presently holds two structures so that the residential carriage house and the commercial office would sit on separate parcels. Hooper said the subdivision is intended solely to separate ownership and that “there's no other plans other than that at this time.”
Board members raised a series of title and access questions. City staff asked that any board action be subject to corporation‑counsel review of a permanent easement the applicant said it had provided but had not yet been reviewed by staff. Members also probed whether an interior corridor and the stair that provides access to a third‑floor rooftop deck cross the proposed division line, and whether a fire‑rated partition or other fire separation would be required if the parcels become independent.
The board classified the application as an unlisted SEQR action, voted a negative declaration, declared the application complete and scheduled an August public hearing. After a fourth board member arrived during the item, the board reopened votes and recorded the negative declaration and application‑complete votes as 4–0.
Why it matters: The subdivision affects legal access and egress between the converted residential carriage house and an adjacent commercial property; easements and any required fire separations will affect both property owners’ rights and future use.
Next steps: staff requested a copy of deed language that may contain access or clearance restrictions and asked that the applicant provide the easement document and documentation from the water or building departments if any operational restrictions were imposed. The board said staff should verify whether a fire‑rated division wall will be required and asked the applicant to supply photos or a floor plan showing the inner corridor.
Formal actions: motion to classify the project as an unlisted action (passed), motion issuing a negative SEQR declaration (passed), motion to declare application complete (passed), and motion to schedule an August hearing (passed). All procedural votes were unanimous after the fourth member was present.
The board did not grant final subdivision approval at this meeting; it advanced environmental and completeness determinations and requested documentary evidence on easements and fire separations.