Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Rezoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community board supports Fresh Pond Road rezoning but urges limits on mapping expansion
Summary
Applicant proposed rezoning 6302 Fresh Pond Road to R6A/C24 with MIH to permit a seven‑story mixed‑use building (~54 units, ~19 parking spaces); Community Board 5 supported the developer’s portion but urged limiting the R6A mapping north of Bleecker Street and recommended MIH option one (deeper affordability).
Adam Rothkrug, land use counsel for the applicant 6302 Fresh Pond Road LLC, presented a rezoning and zoning text amendment to permit a roughly seven‑story, 53,000‑square‑foot mixed‑use building on Fresh Pond Road, including about 54 dwelling units and a commercial ground floor. The applicant said the development would be in the transit zone; no parking is required by zoning but the proposal includes 19 parking spaces and a unit mix with larger apartments (no studios).
Community Board 5 provided a generally favorable recommendation for the applicant’s parcel while urging a narrower mapping: the board asked that R6A be limited to the blockfront the applicant controls and that the area north of Bleecker Street remain at a lower R6B designation where the applicant does not own the properties. "Our community board is in favor of a portion of this proposal, but wants to limit the R6A to Bleecker Street," Gary Jordano, district manager of Community Board 5, told the hearing.
Architects described design and sustainability measures: the project team said the building is being designed to exceed local energy code requirements by roughly 15 percent using an "ultra low energy" approach for mechanical systems, high‑performance building envelope elements, and roof elements that are solar‑ready (pergolas) with green‑roof considerations. The design includes bike storage (architects said there is space for about 15 bicycles in the cellar and unit storage strategies) and a five‑foot street setback to encourage active ground‑floor uses. The applicant said they were open to community suggestions on landscaping and commercial occupancy.
Community board and applicant representatives noted there are contextual differences nearby — a school and church building plus some taller storage uses — but the board emphasized that much of the immediate residential area is two‑ and three‑story housing and asked the applicant to honor the requested limits on the rezoning footprint. No final land‑use decision was made at the hearing; the item was closed for the record and will continue through the borough and ULURP review process.
