SOKOLOW CARRERAS LLP

ATTORNE:YS AT LAW

770 LEXINGTON AVENCE, SrXTH FLOOR

NlcW YORK, NEW YORK 10021-8165

TEL: 212-935-6000 FAX: 212-935-4865

June 28, 2007

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS

Hon. Sheldon J. Fine, ChairHon. Richard Asche, Co-Chair, Land Use CommitteeHon. Page Cowley, Co-Chair, Land Use CommitteeManhattan Conununity Board 7250 West 87th StreetNew York, New York 10024

Re: 6-10 West 70th Street, Congregation Shearitb Israel (BSA 74-07-BZ)

Dear Mr. Chairman and Co-Chairs of the Land Use Committee:

We are the attorneys for the coalition of buildings and residents of West 70th

Street, including 91 Central Park West, 101 Central Park West and 18 West 70th Street.

Community Board 7's Land Use Committee postponed its June 20, 2007 reviewof the above-referenced project because Congregation Shearith Israel's application wassubstantially incomplete. We received a copy of the 48 objections issiliedby the Board ofStandards and Appeals (BSA) on June 15,2007 (copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit A)and agree with the Committee's decision to postpone. Commtmity Board 7-togetherwith Borough President Scott Stringer, City Council member Gale Brewer, theDepartment of Buildings and the Department of City Planning-plays a critical role inthe public review process triggered by this application. In its June 15 letter, BSAidentified discrepancies, misrepresentations and failures on the part Iof the applicant todisclose information that will be crucial to the Land Use Committee's ability to evaluatethis project on the merits. Additional concerns have been raised by our clients'

architectural consultant Sim01~~ertrang (whose e~c1osed memoran~um dated !une 28,2007 IS annexed hereto as ExhIbIt B) and Alan D. Sugannan, Esq., wnose objectIons youhave received under separate cover.

Community Board 7's website indicates that the Land Use Committee has

resched~led t~is item f?r its July 18 ~:eting. We respectf~lly request Ith~tthe Committeedefer dIscussIOn of thlS matter untll Its September meetmg to allow tIme for BSA to

Nt'.w YOR.K P.\RIS fJ!~USSELS ;\TI .. r\NTA

verify that the application is complete and for the Committee, members of theconununity, and professionals working with the community to ~eview any revisedapplication thoroughly.

The Committee should not entertain an application trom Congregation ShearithIsrael that does not respond to BSA's extensive list of concerns in a comprehensivemanner. In the unlikely event that Congregation Shearith Israel submits an application

deemed complete by BSA prior to July 18, the Committee would bf in the unfortunateposition of having little time to review the materials, which due to the complex zoning,architectural, legal and financial issues at stake, will likely be voluminous.

We know that the Committee is sensitive to the fact that July is a difficult time tocoordinate schedules and ensure an inclusive public process. As you are aware, thisapplication has generated extensive public discussion due to its clearly precedent-settingnature. Congregation Shemith Israel's proposed new building would also have a directimpact on residents of adjacent properties, whose interests are specifically protected byfinding (c) of §72-21 of the New York City Zoning Resolution.

For these reasons, our clients respectfully request that Community Board 7schedule its discussion and review of Congregation Shearith Israel's application to takeplace after BSA determines that the application is complete, but in no event earlier thanthe Committee's September 2007 meeting.

Thank you in advance.

Respectfully yours,I

cc. 18 West 70th Street91 Central Park West101 Central Park WestLandmark West!Alan Sugarman, Esq.David Rosenberg, Esq.Norman Marcus, Esq.Hon. Scott R. StringerHon. Gale A. BrewerHon. Thomas K. DuaneHon. Richard N. GottfriedHon. Meenakshi SrinivasanHon. Am~mdaBurdenHon. Patricia Lancaster

2

BARNAClE

PLANNING 224 centre street, 5th floornew york, new york 10013

STU D I 0 teI.917.548.3682fax.801.217.6505bertrang@barnaclestudio.com

JUNE 28, 2007

TO:

FROM:

RE:

KATE WOOD

SIMON BERTRANG

CONGREGATION SHEARITH ISRAEL BSA APPLICATION

I have reviewed the April 2, 2007 BSA application, with supporting drawings, from CongregationShearith Israel (CSI) as well as the BSA's response: their June 15, 2007 Nbtice of Objections.

SUMMARY I

1. CSI submitted a stamped DOB objection sheet that clearly refers tol a different set of draw­ings than the ones submitted to BSA - they will need to resubmit tre new set of drawings toDaB, obtain a new objection sheet and then resubmit the drawing set with a corrected P-lto BSA.

2. The fact that the CSI application calls the 9th floor of its Proposed IScheme a "penthouse"

has no material effect on the application - it is a 9-story building, n10tan 8-story buildingwith penthouse, and should be referred to as such.

3. CSI's claim that Lots 36 and 37 constitute a single zoning lot is central to its argument forboth "unique physical conditions" on its property - a prerequisite of any BSA variance - and

its use of ZR#77-20 to allow for a greater FAR (8.36 instead of 5.~9) on Lot 37. BSA hasasked for proof of common ownership before the contextual rezoning in 1984 in order to

verify that the two lots can be treated as a single zoning lot. I

4. CSI confused the required Rear Yard with the required Rear SetbackI above the MaximumBase Height - BSA has asked them to correct their error.

5. CSI has exaggerated the non-compliance of the synagogue building 1- only 7.4% of Lot 36has a non-compliant Rear Yard and Lot Coverage (25' and 75% reslPectively) - in order to

bolster its "unique physical conditions" argument and to imply thatjthe existing lot coverageand rear yard non-compliance requires an extension of these non-compliances to Lot 37.

6. CSI's As-of-Right Drawings should have shown either the 40' minimum distance between thenew residential building and the existing synagogue or shown a new building that did notinclude the condominium - they have instead shown a Lesser Variance option. Since As-of­Right Drawings are a required part ot their application for a BSA va~iance, CSI will need tosubmit an actual As-ot-Right scenario.

7. The third finding required for a BSA variance deals with the effectsjon neighboring proper­ties and CSI needs to show more clearly the lot-line windows that will be blocked by the

Proposed Building and areas and buildings on West 70th Street that will be cast in shadow.8. BSA has asked CSI to explore several lesser variance alternatives - a version that does not

I

include the tenant school and that follows the envelope controls of R8B and a version thatonly allows FAR 4.0 development on the R8B portion of the lot. The fifth finding requiredby BSA is that the variance sought is the minimum necessary - BSAI is asking CSI to provethe Proposed Drawings reflect such a minimum variance.

Detailed comments follow:

DOB OBJECTIONS: The drawings submitted by CSI in support of their varianfe application are a dif­ferent set than the ones referred to in the DOB Objections sheet. Althoughl the Manhattan BoroughCommissioner stamped the drawings on March 27, 2007 as "Denied for Awpeal to Board ofStandards and Appeals" - thereby fulfilling the BSA requirement that a rec~nt DOB objection sheetbe submitted, CSI's attorneys have made an administrative error. BSA requires any application fora variance include the DOB Objections that refer to the same set of drawings as the ones submittedto BSA. DOB Objection 6 (Proposed Maximum Building Height in R8B do~s not comply. 113.70'provided instead of 75.00' contrary to Section 23-633) refers to the incorrect height. The height ofthe buildings in the Proposed Scheme submitted to BSA is 105.80' not 1 ]3.70'. CSI must resub­

mit the current drawings to DOB for a new up-to-date objection sheet. Th~ DOB objections are all

the same except for the maximum building height (and the variance is still required) so CSI's attor­neys probably hoped they could slip this past BSA - Objection 34 on BSA's June 15, 2007 Noticeof Objections makes clear BSA has noticed the discrepancy as well.

PENTHOUSE: The fact that the CSI application calls the 9th floor of its Proposed Scheme a "pent-I

house" has no material effect on the application. For the purposes of the loning Resolution andthe Building Code it is a real 9th floor and it is counted in the total building height. New York CityBuilding Code clearly states in 27-306 that appurtenant structures like roof tanks, bulkheads, fourfoot parapet walls and penthouses do not count towards height limits "unle~s the aggregate area ofsuch structures exceeds thirty-three and one-third percent of the area of th~ roof." The proposed9th floor is well above 1/3 of the total roof area and therefore counts towar~s the maximum buildingheight. Commissioner Gratz of the Landmarks Preservation Commission pointed out this same mis­statement of the number of stories in her March 14, 2006 statement in opposition to the proposed

building. Since there is no actual benefit to incorrectly identifying the top ftory as a penthouse, Ithink the only advantage is in perception: CSI can refer to an 8-story building instead of a 9-storybuilding in its Landmarks and BSA applications and at the Community Board.

SINGLE ZONING LOT: The definition of a zoning lot in ZR#12-00 allows "a t)act of land consisting of

two or more contiguous lots of record, located within a single block, Which'lon December 15,1961or any applicable subsequent amendment thereto, was in single ownership" to be treated as a singlezoning lot. If both these lots were owned by CSI in 1961 or at the time of any subsequent rezon­ing - for example the 1984 contextual rezoning of this area of the Upper West Side - they appear to

I

have the right to treat the two lots (#36 and 37) as one. The purpose of C$I treating it as one zon-ing lot is twofold. First and foremost it allows the transfer of floor area acrdss the entire expandedzoning lot - allowing an FAR of 8.36 on Lot 37 instead of an FAR of 5.59 t1hatwould be allowed

if both lots were treated separately. Second, it is CSI's attempt to satisfy B~A required Finding A(unique physical condition creating a hardship) as otherwise there is nothing unique about Lot 37that would merit a variance. CSI can point to "the presence of a unique, non-complying, special­

ized building of significant cultural and religious importance occupying twoithirds of the footprintof the zoning lot" which sounds much better than saying that they intend to develop a "64' wideby 100.5' deep interior lot" adjacent to their existing synagogue. Treated i~dividually, Lot 37 is anexcellent development site. BSA has asked for evidence of common fee ow~ership prior to the lastrezoning in Objection 15.

REAR YARD: Any Residential district requires a 30' Rear Yard (except withinll00' of a corner andwith some exceptions for through lots). DOB Objections 2 and 3 note that the proposed building

has a 20' Rear Yard instead of the required 30'. Please note that a Comm~nity Facility Use likethe ones proposed for the first floor on the rear of CSI's lot 37 are a Permitred Obstruction to aRequired Rear Yard as long as they are only I-story and a maximum of 23' tall (see ZR#24-33(b)).

The CSI Proposed building includes such a permitted obstruction (i.e. at grJund level the buildingfills the entire lot because the I-story, 23' tall synagogue use in the back isla permitted obstruction

to the Rear Yard). However, they violate the required Rear Yard by expandi1ng Floors 2, 3 and 4 towithin 20' of the Rear Lot Line - hence DaB Objections 2 and 3 and their need for a BSA Variancefor their proposed scheme.

REAR SETBACK: CSI has confused the required Rear Yard with the requiredl Rear Setback abovethe Maximum Base Height. They need a BSA variance to address DaB Objection 7 which statesthat "Proposed rear setback in R8B does not comply. 6.67' provided instead of 10.00' contrary to

Section 23-663." In their response to this objection in their BSA applicatijon (page 23), CSI statesthat "because the ground floor of the New Building is built fill to the rear property line, an objectionwas issued." This is absolutely wrong. An objection was issued because ZR#23-663 states that

above the maximum base height, a building must provide a rear setback of 10' from the rear yard

line (which is itself 30' from the rear lot line). Therefore the CSI building ~hould have provided a10' setback above 60' - instead they provide a 6.67' setback at 94.8' (Sec~ion 1 on Drawing P-3clearly shows the non-complying setback above base in the rear of the buildling). The architects

understood the objection, but for whatever reason, the attorneys did not. ~SA identified this errorin their Notice of Objections (#16-19) and has asked CSI to correct their submission.

EXISTING NON-COMPLIANCE: CSI's reference to the non-complying nature ofl the existi ng synagogueis an exaggeration. It is true that the rear yard requirement and lot coverage of the interior lot por­tion of Lot 36 is not met, but what this means is that 8' out of the 108' lot depth has a 25' rearyard instead of a 30' rear yard and 75% lot coverage instead of 70% lot coverage ... or to put itanother way, 7.4% of the lot has a non-compliant rear yard and lot coverage, hardly a major non­compliance. CSI uses this non-compliance to bolster its "unique physical tonditions" argument andto imply that the existing lot coverage and rear yard non-compliance requirds an extension of thesenoncompliances to Lot 37. In fact CSI is proposing to increase the existing non-compliance found

on the western sliver of Lot 36 - creating a 20' rear yard and 80% lot cove1age (instead of the 30'and 70% required by the Zoning Resolution) on all of Lot 37 ... or to put it another way, 41.9% of

the combined zoning lot would have a non-compliant rear yard and lot COVerageunder the ProposedBuilding scenario.

BUILDING SEPARATION AND AS-OF-RIGHT DRAWINGS: ZR#23-711 requires a ~inimum distancebetween a residential building and any other building on the same zoning lot - in this case, withboth buildings over 50' tall and with blank wall facing blank wall, the minimum distance is 40'.

The As-of-Right drawings submitted by CSI in support of their BSA apPlicatjion are not as-of-rightsince the new building shown there would need a variance. Since As-of-Right drawings are arequired part of any BSA submission, CSI's application is currently incompl~te. A truly as-of-rightbuilding would either show the separation (40' minimum distance) or not irlclude residential so that

such a minimum distance was no longer required (a new community facilit~ building would not trig­ger the requirement). Another way of avoiding the need for a 40' separation between the residential

building on Lot 37 and the synagogue on Lot 36 would be to continue to treat them as separatezoning lots (i.e. not combine them in the way that CSI is proposing). Of co~rse, as stated above,this would mean that their as-of-right FAR would be much lower: 5.59 instJad of 8.36.

lOT-LINE WINDOWS AND SHADOW STUDIES: The third required BSA finding (il.e. Finding C) statesthat any granted variance cannot "alter the essential character of the neighborhood or district in

which the zoning lot is located," "substantially impair the appropriate use or development of adja­cent property" or "be detrimental to public welfare." The Proposed Building will block several

lot-line windows in 18 West 70th and will cast additional shadows on West fOth Street and nearbybuildings. It is entirely within BSA's discretion whether blocking the lot-line windows of an adjacent

property and casting shadows on adjacent buildings would prevent the findi~g, but the CSI applica­tion needs to show the effects on both lot-line windows and shadows. Objeq;tions 22 and 23 seem

to indicate that BSA is willing to require that they accurately show the imp~ct - ideally in everydevelopment scenario CSI would show (1) the affected windows on a separate drawing, (2) shadow

studies that illustrate the effects on nearby buildings and on West 70th Strlleet (not just CentralPark) and (3) any proposed building in the context of the entire block (so als to avoid reference toonly the few tall buildings along Central Park West - the R8B Zoning Distrifj;t is clearly about main­

taining the mid-block character, not matching the density and bulk of cpwl and its RIOA zoning).LESSER VARIANCE· REAR YARD AND LOT COVERAGE: One of the arguments ~ade is that the Rear Yardvariance is needed to line up with the synagogue - this is accomplished in an as-of-right manneron the ground floor, but on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th floors the Proposed BUilding is extended approxi­

mately 5' beyond the existing Synagogue building to its west. There is no ~Ieasoninherent in thedesign of the synagogue or the new building that requires a violation of the rear yard and lot cover­age regulations. Access to the synagogue and its upper levels can be provi ed from a new buildingthat is only 70.5' deep (i.e. that provides the required 30' rear yard at alllkveis and therefore the

required 70% lot coverage). In the name of "matching" the synagogue, thel CSI proposal provides agreater degree of non-compliance than is provided by the existing synagogu1ebuilding. If a "match"

were desired the new building would be approximately 75' deep instead of ~O' - thereby only requir­ing a variance for a 25' rear yard and 75% lot coverage. But again, there if. no design reason thatCSI cannot meet the existing regulations. It may be more difficult to provi~e adequate classroomsfor the tenant school, but the CSI application seems to include more classrpoms than are necessaryif the tenant school is to remain the same size - and given that the tenant school, like the new con­

dominiums, is a revenue generating component of the plan and not a criticfl piece of CSI program,its place in the proposed building and the economic feasibility of the proje~t needs to be clarified.

Could a lesser variance be required for the CSI project if the tenant school WI ere not included andif all additional FAR beyond the amount needed to meet the CSI's program needs were used forcondominiums? BSA seems to be interested in this question in its Objection 30 - where they have

asked for a Lesser Variance version that fills the maximum allowable bUildi~lg envelope (i.e. does notrequire Variances for DOB Objections 1-7) with CSI program use below and residential use above.Such a version would still allow more than FAR 4 development on the R8B portion of Lot 36.

LESSER VARIANCE· ONLY BUILDING SEPARATION: In Objection 31, BSA asks for the even morerestricted version of a Lesser Variance: a building which only uses FAR 4.0 pn the R8B portionof Lot 37 (it would still require one variance - the minimum distance requi~ement between theresidential building and the existing community facility building would be waived). This LesserVariance option assumes that the bulk cannot be moved across the zoning ~istrict boundary - andthat CSI must use FAR 4.0 as the maximum on that portion of Lot 37.

Board of Standards and Appeals40 Rector Street, 9th Floor. New York, NY 10006-1705 • Tel. (212) 788-8500. Fax (212) 788-8769

Website @ www.nyc.govlbsiZ

MEENAKSHI SRINIVASAN

Chair/Commissioner

June 15,2007

Shelly S. Friedman, Esq.Friedman & Gotbaum, LLP568 Broadway, Suite 505New York, NY 10012

BSA Cal No:

CEQRNo:Premises:

Dear Mr. Friedman:

74-07-BZ07BSA071M6-10 'Vest 70th Street, Manhattan

Attached is a Notice of Objection:] for the above referenced BZ application which raises issuesthat need to be addressed bdore these applications may be calendared by the Board for a hearing.The Board desires to process applications on a timely basis and requests that applicants notifY theBoard if they are unable to make a complete submission within sixty (60) days. Failure to

respond in a timely manner could lead to the dismissal of the application ftr lack of prosecution.

Each ofthe following objections should be addressed point-by-point. A copy of all materialssent in response to these objections must also be submitted to the applicable Community

Board(s), Borough President, City Council member, Borough Commissiofler of the Departmentof Buildings, Borough Director of the Department of City Planning (DCP) land to the BSALiaison at the DCP, Mr. Alan Geiger. Applicants are required to notify each of these entitieseach and every time a submission is made to the Board of Standards and Appeals. Proof ofproper notification may be provided by return receipts, copies of transmittal letters, carbon copy(ee's) lists or other comparable proofs.

For further information regarding these requirements, or for information relating to the followingobjections, please call led Weiss, Senior Examiner at (212) 788-8781 or email him atiweiss@dcas.nyc.gov. For detailed instructions for completing BSA applications, please visitwww,nvc.govlbsa

New York City Board of Standards and Appeals

Notice of Objections

74-07-BZ / 07BSA071M

Premises: 6-1 0 West 70th Street, ManhattanApplicant: Shelly S. Friedman, Esq., Friedman & Gotbamm, LLP

Date: June 15,2007

STATEMENT OF FACTS AND FINDJNGS

1. Page 1: Following the first paragraph, please provide a section summ~riZing salient aspectsof the proposed development for Congregation Shearith Israel (CSI) (~AR, square footage,height, number of stories, uses proposed). Follow this information with a summation ofunderlying zoning and the waivers requested.

2. Page 1: The second paragraph is more appropriate in the "Background of CST and the ~.,ite"

section beginning on Page 4. I

3. Page 7: Within the first sentence of the section entitled "Current Uses land Conditions," it isstated that" ... the Synagogue contains small meeting rooms and a mult!ifunction room in its

basement." According to the existing and proposed plan sets, only the Iproposed scenarioappears to contain a "multifunction" room. Please clarify this discrepancy.

4. Page 9: Provided that the proposed scenario calls for an approximate t'! crease of classrooms

from 5 to 12, please precisely explain the nature of the "tenant school" and its relationship toCSI and its programmatic needs (please note that the EAS states that t e overall number of

students will remain the same under the proposed scenario). Specifically state where the

tenant school is located today and where it will be located in the propord new building.5. Pages 10 & 11: These pages contain information describing the proposed building. For

clarity, this section should be combined with the "New Building Devel?pment Program" on

Pages 17 and 18. This combined section should provide more detail o~the alleged nexus ofCSI's programmatic needs and the proposed waivers requested. The fqIlowing fourobjections (#6 - #9) should be addressed within this combined section.

6. Page 10: The first sentence of the first full paragraph references the need for "seminalhistorical archives" space within the proposed building. Please precise]y explain the volume

and current location of CSI's archival material. Please explain how mlbh square footage is

needed to accommodate such material.

7. Page 10: Please describe the caretaker's apartment in the proposed cOIfmunity facilityportion of the building and discuss its alleged importance to CSI's programmatic needs .

. I

74-07-82 Notice of Objections June 15,2007

8. Page 10: Within the second full paragraph, it is stated that " ... the derolition and

replacement of the Community House will permit excavation to proviClIe two cellar levels forprogramming where none exist today." Please clarify that no sub-cellar exists today; the

existing plans indicate an existing cellar level. I

9. Page 10: Within the second full paragraph, please precisely explain t.he nature and purpose

of the proposed "6,432 sf multi-function room at the subcellar leveL" I Please state whether itis the applicant's intent to lease this space to other entities or for other purposes such as acatering hall.

10. Page 17: Please compare the existing CSI program with the proposed! scenario by providing

a floor-by-floor square footage table for each element nfthe program.11. Page 18: Within the second full paragraph, it is stated that CSI is compromised of" ... 550

families, which is an increase of 30 percent in the number of families ~hat were congregants

in 1954." Please state the number of families and number of indiVidU]1 worshippers in 1954

and the present.

12. Page 18: Within the second full paragraph, new "administrative spacel" is described. Pleaseprecisely describe the programmatic need for an approximate increase in the number ofoffices from 4 to 13. To this end, please state the number and type of full-time on-site

employees and whether CSI anticipates employee growth. I

13. Page 18: The final sentence of the second paragraph states that" ... res~dential floor area usesonly 16 percent of the zoning lot's available zoning floor area." Please follow this sentenceby stating the percentage of the proposed zoning floor area (based on the entire zoning lot)

that is residential. I14. Page 20: Within the first paragraph, one of the elements of the sugges ed "(a) finding," is" ... the dimensions of the zoning lot that preclude the development of floor plans forcommunity facility space required to meet CSI's, .. programmatic needJ." Please specifically

explain in what way the site's "dimensions" hamper CSI's programmajic needs.

15, Page 21: The first two full sentences on this page state that" ... the ZR~NY recognizes that

the zoning lot is entitled to average the FAR of the two zoning districtslr ,,,.Please provideevidence that ZR § 77-20 is applicable to this zoning lot ..

16. Page 23: Please correct the title of the second paragraph by replacing ,fRear Yard Setback"with "Rear Setback."

17. Page 23: Within the second paragraph, wherever found, please changel"Sec.663(b)" to "Sec.23-663(b)'''

18. Page 23: Within the second paragraph, please clarify the following sta~ement: "[b ]ecause theground floor of the New Building is built full to the rear property line, an objection was

issued," Rather, please clarify that the portion of the building above si~ty (60) feet in heightviolates this section (ZR § 23-663(b)).

Page 2 of6

74-07-BZ Notice of Objections June 15,2007

19, Page 23: Within the second and third sentence of the second paragraph, please change

references to both "maximum height" and "maximum building heightll" to "maximum baseheight. "

20. Page 2~: Plea,se e.orreet the tit,le.ofthe fi.rst full paragraph b~ r~Plac!'1Ig"BuildingSeparatlOn" w1th "Standard MlIllmum D1stance Between BmldlIlQ:s..

21. Page 24: Please note that ZR § 23-71 I prescribes a required minimuT distance between aresidential building and any other building on the same zoning lot. Tmerefore, within the firstfull paragraph, please clarify that the DOB objection for ZR § 23-7111is due to the lack of

distance between the residential portion of the new building and the exI isting communityfacility building to remain.

22. Page 25: Within the suggested "(c) finding," please note the number lflot-line windows forI

adjacent residential buildings that would be blocked for both the as-Of1rright, lesser variance(see BSA Objections # 30-31) and proposed scenarios.

23. Page 25: Within the suggested "(c) finding," please discuss the built <context along the

subject blockfronts of West 70th Street and the alleged approPriatenes~. of the proposedbuilding in terms of neighborhood character. Please reference drawing P-17.

EXISTING CONDITIONS DRAWINGS

24. EX-3 & EX-4 (Section Drawings): Please substantially enlarge eachldrawing within the

11x 17 sheet and show floor-to-ceiling heights. Additionally, please relmove the illustrativeas-of-right envelope outline from these drawings.

AS-OF RIGHT CONDITIONS DRAWINGS l25. It appears that the "as-of-right" scenario would still require a BSA wail'er for ZR § 23-711(Standard Minimum Distance Between Buildings) given that it contains residential use (see

Objection # 21). Please clarify. I

26. AOR-3 & AOR-4 (Section Drawings): Please substantially enlarge Ejach drawing withinthe l1x17 sheet and show floor-to-ceiling heights.

27. Drawing AOR-14: Please label the proposed (as-of-right) building an:d existing, adjacentbuildings accordingly.

PROPOSED CONDITIONS DRA WINGS

28. P-3 & P4: Please correct the title of the drawings by replacing "streetJ~vall sections" with

"Areas of J\'on-Compliance."

29. Please provide new section drawings which show floor-ta-ceiling heilhts.Page 3 of6

74-07-BZ Notice of Objections

"LESSER- VARIANCE" DRAWINGS

June 15,2007

30. Please provide a full plan set oflesser-variance drawings that show compliant height andsetback (objections for ZR § 23-633 and ZR § 23-663 are removed) thkt seeks to

accommodate CSI's programmatic needs and excludes the proposed t~nant school space; theremaining floor area shall be used for residential use.

31. Please provide a full plan set for a complying, 4.0 FAR residential bUilding on Lot 36 Lhatincludes a BSA waiver for ZR § 23-711 (Standard Minimum Distance Between Buildings).

BSA ZONING ANALYSIS

32. Under "Maximum Permitted" column, please confirm the maximum a~lowable FAR as"8.38." Provided that the area within the RIOA district measures 125' Ix 100'6" = 12,562.5 sf

(72.7% x 10.0 FAR) and that area within the R8B district measures 471 x 100'6" = 4723.5(27.3% x 4.0 FAR), the maximum allowable FAR, as averaged pursuant to ZR § 77-22,

appears to be 8.36. Please verify this analysis and revise all relevant ZJI ning calculations

accordingly.

33. Under Applicable ZR Section for "No. Parking Spaces," please change ZR § 13-42 to § 13­12 (for UG 2) and § 13-133 (for TfG 4). Pursuant to these sections, residential parking spacescannot exceed 35% of dwelling units and community facility parking cknnat exceed one

space per 4000 sq. ft of floor area. Please verify this information and rrlvise the "MaximumPermitted" column accordingly.

DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS (DOB) OBJECTIONS

34. Please provide evidence that the DOB issued their current objections based on the currentproposal before the BSA.

FEASIBILITY STUDY I

35. Although it is recognized that Congregation Shearlth Israel has not-for-profiL status, for thepurpose of this study, please ascribe standard market-rate rents far comrtmnity facility spacebased on comparables rents in the vicinity afthe subject site for both th~ as-of-right andproposed scenarios.

36. It is noted that all comparable properties analyzed to determine the subject site's value

(Schedule C, Page 10-12) are all downward adjusted for "inferior zonink" (the subject site

has .split zon.ing. - R8B and RIOA - and the comparable~ are alllocate~1 in. R8 or R8 .eqUIvalent dIstncts). Please note that for developments III contextual dIstncts, each portIOn

of the zoning lot shall be regulated by the height and setback apPIicablejto the district inwhich such portion of the zoning lot is located. Further, it is noted that he subject site islocated within an historic district which applies further regulation on th , height of any

Page 4 of6

74-07-BZ Notice of Objections I June 15, 2007

development of this site. Given this information regarding height and Isetback controls, itdoes not appear that additional floor area above 4.0 FAR could be utilized on this site (pleasenote that the as-of-right plans show an FAR of3.23 or 5,513.60 sq. ft. on the RIGA zonedportion of Lot 36). Therefore, it does not appear that the subject site's partial location withina 10.0 FAR district (RI OA) should warrant any downward adjustment for comparableproperties zoned R8, R8B or C6-2A. Please revise this analysis.

37. Provided that the alleged hardship claim for the development site (Lot 136) is an inability toaccommodate CSI's programmatic needs on Lot 37, please analyze a complying, fully

residential development on Lot 36 as requested within Objection # 31.1 This analysis isrequested for the purposes of gauging what the economic potential of t~e development sitewould be without the alleged hardship.

38. Please analyze the "lesser variance scenarios" as described in BSA Objections # 30 and # 31.

I

CEQR REVIEW / EAS

39. Methodology for Project Site: it is inappropriate to analyze only the proposed new buildingon the subject zoning lot. Please revise the EAS to reflect the entire zaring lot (existingsynagogue and proposed new building).

40. Methodology for "No-Build" / "Build" Scenarios: Provided that thelfeasibility study,submitted as part of this application, asserts that an as-of-right developtnent is noteconomically feasible, it does not appear to be a reasonable assumptiorl to project new,

complying development on Lot 37 by the Build Year of2009. Please ~ither provide athorough and rational justification for this approach or revise this EAS'ls methodology byanalyzing existing conditions on the entire zoning lot for the "no-build'1 scenario.

EAS Form

41. Part I, No.8: Please update this section to reflect the Certificate of ARpropriateness grantedby the Landmarks Preservation Commission for tbe subject proposal.

42. Part I, No.13b: Please verify the gross square footage sums listed f01 "Project Square FeetTo Be Developed" (please be sure to include cellar space) and for "Gross Floor Area of

I

Project" (be sure to include the existing Synagogue building and all cellar space).

I

43. Part II, Ko.3: Please amend the site data for "Community Facility" by including bothexisting buildings on the subject zoning lot.

44. Part II, No.4: There does not appear to be any existing parking spaces Ion the subjectproperty. Please revise "Existing Parking" section accordingly.

45. Part II, No.lO: Under "Proposed Land Use," please verify the gross sqfare footage of eachbuilding. Be sure to include the existing Synagogue and all cellar spactj).

46. Part II, No.ll: No parking is proposed; please revise this section aCCOj'dinglY.

Pagt: 50[6

74-07-BZ Notice of Objections

Technical Analysis

June 15,2007

47. Land Use, Zoning & Public Policy:

I

a) Please provide a fuller narrative of the existing zoning district (RlOA & R8B) in terms ofuse, bulk, and parking regulations. Please discuss nearby zoning d~stricts also in terms oftheir use, bulk and parking regulations.

b) With regards to "public policy," please discuss whether the site is 1[' cated within New

York City's Coastal Zone Boundary, an Historic District, an Urban Renewal Area, a 197­a Community Development Plan or a proposed rezoning area.

48. Shadows: In accordance with CEQR Technical Manual sections 322 alnd 400 within Chapter

E "Shadows," please provide a fuller description of existing activitieslBrogramming andshade tolerance of existing vegetation in the portion of Central Park wHere new incrementalshadows are projected.

Page 6 of6