Thank you so much. I have 2 quick questions, and we have Councilmember Marano on the line with us as well who has questions. I, I understand that the text amendment mainly seeks to correct outdated or incorrect information regarding designated open spaces. What would happen if these corrections were not made? Um, if the corrections were not made, Site 1 would not be able to build, um, a compliant home and most likely would need to go to the BSA for relief, which would be even more onerous and against the goals of the intended 2023 plan for homeowner relief to build housing.
Site 2 would be able to build, but not in the same footprint as the home that was destroyed. So since that home was destroyed in a fire, and it did not come up in our database, since the database said there was no home, we talked with our council and they said, we can introduce this at this time to allow it to be vested Um, so the home can be replaced in kind.
Mm-hmm. And the third site is a smaller, um, consequence, I guess, to say, lack of a better word. Um, it would prevent them from doing minor home enlargements. Um, but it is not our intent to increase a restriction 5 feet into somebody's home. That was not the intent. So that is a minor cleanup. Um, they might still be able to do some work on the front of the house.
Um, but still, we, we want to correct, um, the incorrect error we made in the 2023 proposal. Okay. And can you speak further as to how these correct— corrective actions are consistent with the recently enacted South Richmond Zoning Relief Tax Amendment? Yes. So the tax amendment from 2023 focused on homes that were built before 1975, because in 1975, any home that existed had this DOS rule mapped upon it.
And for the past 50 years, I've only been there 10 years, but 40 before me and 10 while I've been there, our office has been asked, why do I have this map on my site? And we said, well, you know, now we have GIS, now we have softwares to accurately map this, so we will clean this up.
And we got very close, and there's 3 sites that we missed. We— Kari sent a flyer with a QR code to the community board. We sent an interactive map. We said, this is the last time. We're going to do this one more time to clean it up. And we found 3 sites out of, I think, 700. So I think it's pretty good, but, you know, not perfect.
And that's why we're fixing these last 3. And the connection to 1975, again, is to help all the vested homes that were already existing that said, why is this happening to me? And to provide homeowner relief for modest home improvement and home construction. Thank you for that. Councilmember Marano. Sorry, can you hear me? Yes. Hello, Councilmember. Thank you, everybody.
Thank you for the presentation. Thank you, Chair, for your leadership of this committee. Councilmember, do you have questions for this panel? I do. I do. Okay. So, you know, for people that don't know, I'm Councilmember Frank Marano, and this application involves properties within my district in the special South Richmond Development District. And as I understand it, the purpose of this amendment, as the folks mentioned, is largely corrective.
It seeks to address mapping and recordkeeping discrepancies involving designated open space. And I'm generally supportive of correcting errors that have created unnecessary complications for homeowners. But I also want to make sure that a technical correction doesn't unintentionally create new development rights or other consequences that were never intended. So, um, the Community Board raised concerns that some properties could potentially be treated as qualifying sites under this proposal.
Can you explain whether this amendment would cause any property to obtain qualifying site status that it doesn't have today, and if so, what additional development rights would come with that designation? That's a great question, and to your point, we did discuss this with the community. We do have to admit that during referral there was some confusion, and we did clean that up after the community board referral was submitted.
So you might see a little discrepancy in the community board's referral based on incorrect information we had provided, but after confirming with our zoning division And also with our other internal divisions. None of these sites are qualifying residential sites. They cannot obtain any zoning bonuses or zoning relief from the qualifying residential site text. This would simply allow for the DOS area to be carved out.
The 60-foot dimension for Site 1 that Kari noted, the 50 by 90-foot volume that Kari noted for Site 2, and the 5-foot, the small 5-foot dimension for Site 3. And that would just allow the reorientation of the building, no additional FAR, no additional typologies or height. So these sites are not QRS. To be QRS, they would need to be on a wide street.
You can ask DOT whether or not they're going to widen the street, but that is something outside of this private application, this, this application. Thank you for that. And, you know, a lot of my constituents are concerned about some of the new zoning rules. And we don't have to get into the merits of City of Yes or the fast track or anything like that.
But I can tell you, there's a lot of concern about what that might mean for development in our community. And so relatedly, I want to be very clear on development potential. Would this amendment increase what can be built on any affected property, whether through additional floor area, greater height, increased density, additional dwelling units, or any other zoning benefit?
Um, no, no increased density, no increased height. It would simply allow for the reorientation of buildings because now the property owner has more space to work with, but they're still limited to the same lot coverage, the same height restrictions, the same FAR. None of those change. It's, it's more of a lateral correction that we're doing to provide flexibility, not anything due to volume or intensity.
With respect to 181 Bayview Avenue, the materials indicate that the property owner is separately seeking a zoning certification to facilitate construction of a new single-family home. Is the proposed home otherwise consistent with the existing R-3X zoning, and is this amendment necessary to allow that home to be built? Yes, it is consistent, and it is necessary because if we did not pursue this text amendment, the property would be— correct me if I'm wrong— like 20 feet wide.
They wouldn't be able to comply with yards. It would be extremely narrow, funny-looking house, and they may need to go to the BSA for additional relief. So This was actually the site that first informed us of the change in the map, and we acknowledge that this is something that we did not intend in 2023, wholeheartedly did not intend.
This was not supposed to happen, so we are correcting it. Has the environmental review identified any potential impact on wetlands, trees, natural features, open space, drainage, or other environmentally sensitive resources? And if so, what protections or mitigation measures are being required? I don't know the specifics of the— I don't know any specific impacts that may have been identified.
There weren't any. I don't know any potential ones. But I will say that based on the methodology, at a comprehensive level, there weren't any specific impacts because most of the DOS changes were already on disturbed areas. such as overtop building footprints. Again, if a home was built in 1975 and DOS was on top of it, that doesn't really align, so we removed it.
Any DOS area that does remain does have sensitive natural features. So there may be some adjacencies or buffers, but we kept it in the places that do have wetlands, that do have trees. So again, we could look to the specifics of the actual document, But the DOS was moved where it was on top of existing structures or on top of other structures, such as we saw some basketball courts, gazebos, and swimming pools in people's backyards.
I also want to ask about the— sorry. Oh, yes. Katie, do you have a follow-up? Thank you. I just want to add a little further context to George's response. Katie Ferrara, Ayah Nido, Director of DCP Staten Island Office, would just note that DOS itself is a zoning regulation. I would not define it as an environmental regulation. So there are still layers of regulatory protection on any existing wetlands by Department of Environmental Conservation, other agencies.
Parkland that overlaps with DOS will continue to be parkland. So just to note that all of these protections very much still stay in place and are considered and analyzed if and when a home or any development is proposed adjacent to or kind of within that, that buffer area by multiple agencies. I also want to ask about the practical impact on homeowners.
Uh, for a property where the correction effectively adds usable backyard or lot area back to the property, could that change the property's assessed value or property tax bill? And if so, has anyone analyzed how significant that impact would be? I don't know that we independently can answer that at this time, but we're happy to consult our resources and get back to you if an answer to that is necessary.
Council, I'm just going to ask you to wrap up your question. Okay, finally, finally, if these mapping corrections were not made, what would the practical consequence be for the affected homeowners? Would they continue to face restrictions or approval requirements based on boundaries that everyone now agrees are inaccurate? And more broadly, How does this amendment advance the original goals of the South Richmond zoning relief without weakening environmental protections that were intended to remain in place?
If retained, the homes would not be able to be enlarged or built. Site number 1, not built at all. Site number 2, not built at all. Site number 3, enlarged. So they wouldn't be able to utilize their full property rights or development rights. Um, site number 1 might need to go to the BSA, site number 2 would need to do a complete orientation, and site number 3 again would be modest, but they wouldn't be allowed to do kitchen additions, enlargements in the rear yard, um, to that extent.
These sites, even if and when, or if this is approved, even if adopted, they still need City Planning Commission approval because there will still be DOS on the site just less of it. So they will have flexibility again laterally to reorient their site, design their site to a better extent for a more superior— sometimes we say, or a better site plan.
But they will still need additional review, and the community board will get that review if and when that reoriented building footprint is proposed and developed. Thank you for your work on this, Madam Chair. Thank you for your patience. Thank you, Councilmember.