Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Senior Housing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board declines to recommend denial of height variance for proposed Fifth Avenue senior housing; SEQR review put on hold pending agency notices
Summary
The planning board voted against recommending denial of a two‑story height variance for a proposed five‑story senior-affordable housing project on Fifth Avenue and postponed SEQR lead‑agency action pending proper agency notification and additional studies.
The planning board considered a proposal to redevelop the former First American Towing and Recovery site on Fifth Avenue into a five-story senior affordable housing building and reviewed requested area variances. The project team, represented by Kelsey Carr of LaBella Associates and others, said site constraints — a 25-foot grade change from east to west, shallow bedrock and contaminated soils — limited buildable area and influenced the design.
Board members reviewed five variances requested by the applicant, including front-door orientation, roof form, a reduced parking setback (3 feet instead of 25 feet) to allow ADA spaces and electric-vehicle chargers, and a two-story height variance. One board member moved that the board recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the two-story variance. The motion received a second and was put to roll-call vote: Member Scully voted Nay; Member Kinsell voted Yes; Member Schuvel voted Nay; Member York voted Nay; Member Keogh voted Yes. The motion failed 3–2, so the planning board did not recommend denial of the height variance.
The board also considered whether it could issue a SEQR (State Environmental Quality Review) negative declaration that evening. City legal staff advised the board it had previously declared itself lead agency for coordination but that other involved agencies (notably the Department of Environmental Conservation) had not been properly noticed; therefore the board could not finalize a SEQR determination without sending the required notices and allowing the 30‑day response period. Engineering and environmental questions remain, including slope stability, brownfield cleanup eligibility and the timing of a potential DEC brownfield application. Board members recommended additional studies and more information be submitted; the matter will return to the board after the required agency notifications and any additional technical work are submitted.
