Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bronx rezoning would create 100% affordable, 226‑unit building at 5602–5604 Broadway; public hearing laid over
Summary
The New York City Council subcommittee heard a proposal to rezone an M1‑1 site in Kingsbridge to R7‑3 with an MIH area to permit a 13‑story, 100% affordable building of about 226 units, with 188 parking spaces and 113 bicycle spaces. The public hearing was held and the item was laid over for future consideration.
Get email alerts on the Affordable Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
The New York City Council subcommittee on Zoning and Franchises on Oct. 26 heard a proposal to rezone 5602–5604 Broadway in the Kingsbridge neighborhood of the Bronx to allow construction of a 13‑story, 100% affordable residential building with 226 apartments. The applicant said the proposal would include a 188‑space parking garage and 113 bicycle spaces, and would establish a mandatory inclusionary housing (MIH) area and a zoning map change from M1‑1 to R7‑3 with a C2‑3 commercial overlay.
The rezoning applicant, Frank St. Jacques of Ackerman LLP, and Ron Shulman of Best Development Group presented the plan and answered questions from Council Member David G. Dinowitz and others. St. Jacques described the site as “located on the East Side of Broadway just north of West 230th Street and Kingsbridge within Community District 8 in the Bronx,” and said the project aims to bring residential uses into conformance with surrounding blocks. Shulman said HPD had the project’s numbers and that the team had “numerous conversations with HPD.”
Why it matters: The proposal would add a significant supply of permanently affordable housing in a transit‑served corridor adjacent to the 231st Street (1) station and aims to preserve neighborhood parking by providing an on‑site garage. The applicant said the MIH framework would set aside 25% of residential floor area as permanently affordable, and that HPD‑subsidized projects typically require an additional 15% set‑aside.
Key details provided to the subcommittee - Size and program: 13 stories, approximately 226 units, split roughly 50/50 by unit type (the applicant described a 50% share of 2‑ and 3‑bedroom units and a 50% share of studios and one‑bedrooms). The team said the mix includes a 15% set‑aside for formerly homeless households under HPD term sheets. - Parking and access: A 188‑space parking garage was proposed; the applicant said residents would be offered parking first and any remaining spaces could be offered to the public. The design team said the commercial overlay would allow zoning flexibility to classify accessory parking as public parking if needed. - Zoning actions and environmental safeguards: The rezoning request includes a zoning map amendment and a zoning text amendment to establish MIH for the area. The applicant said E‑designations related to hazardous materials, air quality and noise would be recorded against the site; St. Jacques explained that E‑designations “would require that certain environmental diligence occur before development” and cited typical mitigation such as remediation for hazardous materials, building emissions controls for air quality, and double or triple‑pane glazing for noise mitigation. - Resiliency and site constraints: The applicant described the site as flag‑shaped with constrained frontage, saying the R7‑3 bulk envelope allows both adequate unit yield and parking without disrupting neighborhood parking resources. They also said rooftop green roofs and a redesigned parking ramp with barriers and trench drains had been included to address stormwater and localized flooding concerns near the Major Deegan Expressway.
Discussion and next steps: Council Member Dinowitz pressed the applicants on their ability to secure HPD and financing commitments for the 50% family‑sized unit mix and asked whether the applicant would “commit in writing” to the 100% affordability and the unit mix. The applicant said HPD had reviewed the project numbers and that “that's the goal” for 100% affordability; he offered that the team had been “updating them throughout the three‑year rezoning process.” The committee closed public testimony for the item and laid LU‑349/350 over for further consideration; no vote or formal approval occurred at the hearing.
Ending note: The applicant and council members indicated follow‑up work would focus on written affordability commitments, environmental review tied to E‑designations, and continued coordination with HPD as the financing and term sheets are finalized.

