CB2 committee recommends denial of zoning variance for 51 Little West 12th Street, citing incomplete financial showing and neighborhood character concerns

Community Board 2’s Land Use and Housing Committee voted on Sept. 10 to recommend denial of a zoning variance application for 51 Little West Twelfth Street, saying the record did not meet the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) findings required for a variance.

The applicant presented updated architectural renderings, a design narrative referencing the nearby Pier 54 and an artist’s concept for the project. The team — including architect Fatih Ergun and financial analyst Barbara Cohen — described structural constraints at the site, said a pile foundation would be needed because of subsurface conditions and argued that the lot’s size and ground conditions limit economically viable as‑of‑right development. The applicant’s submission compared the proposed build (about 18,128 square feet) with an as‑of‑right alternative (approximately 16,250 square feet under a 6.5 FAR); the team argued the incremental floor area and a taller form were necessary to make a residential condominium scheme financially feasible.

Committee members raised multiple concerns, including: - Whether the claimed hardships were “self‑created.” Members pointed out the building had been vacant or in poor condition for a long period prior to the applicant’s recent acquisition and asked whether earlier decisions by the owner contributed to the problem. - Whether the financial submission adequately explored other as‑of‑right alternatives (for example, boutique hotel or office conversion) that could yield a reasonable return without an FAR variance. - The proposed visual impact and a largely blank side wall facing the adjacent Standard Hotel; several members questioned whether planned projections or lighting would be appropriate and asked for more information and commitments on signage/lighting.

After discussion the committee took a formal advisory vote and recommended denial of the variance application. The committee chair said the vote reflected concerns that the application did not clearly demonstrate the minimum variance necessary and that alternative as‑of‑right uses had not been sufficiently explored.

Why it matters An affirmative CB2 advisory recommendation to deny may be included in the materials sent to the BSA and to local elected officials. The BSA decision is independent, but the committee’s advisory vote and the reasons it cited will be part of the public record and may influence BSA and City Council (if involved) consideration.

Key evidence and applicant claims - The applicant’s financial analyst included a comparison of as‑of‑right and proposed scenarios, citing subsurface conditions and the need for pile foundations as major project costs. The analyst reported the as‑of‑right scenario would produce substantially less profitable residential square footage for the narrow lot. - Applicant representatives emphasized a design intent and artist collaboration that reference Pier 54 and maritime history; they said the Ground Floor would be set back to allow an open entrance area and accommodate flood‑resilience measures.

Next steps CB2 will transmit its advisory recommendation and the committee’s rationale (lack of minimum variance showing, insufficient financial alternatives and neighborhood character impacts) to the BSA as part of the public record. The applicant may choose to revise the application, provide additional financial analysis and return to the committee or proceed to the BSA with the current record.

Ending The committee’s recommendation was a unanimous advisory denial at the committee level; the BSA will make the final legal determination on the variance application.