Note. —This resolution in the Bulletin. Please formal errors so that BOARD MEETING OF: CALENDAR NO.: PREMISES: ACTION OF BOARD THE VOTE — Affirmative: Chair Commissioner Commissioner Negative: This is an application to Building Code permit dry floodproofing building, in response Buildings (“DOB”), 2022, which stated, Dry floodproofing not allowed (2014 Building Code BSA approval The Board scheduled due notice by publication February 24, 2025, hearing due to the finally held on August City Record, and then After the applicant 1 of the Building Code vary Appendix G was part of the 2022 revisions resolution cites the amendments, at the the Board). The Premises between Avenue Manhattan. With Street, 95 feet of depth, are occupied by residential building The Premises BSA Cal. Nos. 107-13-A (denied in part and those appeals (both interpretive appeal subject Building Code 6, 2024). After the Cal. No. 2022-44-A, portions of the Building’s design flood elevation seeks a variance, of these spaces at A. Appendix G construction within new construction pre-FIRM buildings noncompliance with space below the DFE B.C. § G102.1(10.3). rooms and space rooms, studies, recreation similar spaces,” such and cellar of the mandates that “the design flood elevation.” To determine part, that a building residential buildings, G, § 1.4.3, Table The Building Code 2 at Title 28 of the N.Y.C. 2008. The Construction Code, which governed Construction Code, 2022 (in addition to the substantial Construction proofing relative BFE + 2 feet.” See (c) provides that residential portions Here, because Preliminary Flood Premises have a BFE Furthermore, as per to a level of 13 feet. Regarding the the Board’s grant state, in relevant G107.2.3 General Except for historic the Boar of variance only 1. A determination improvement, tax lot that, (0.2 hectare) determined justification the lot size; 2. Showing of 3. Determination in exceptional 4. Determination in: a. b. c. d. e. f. After the 2022 Construction 3 App’x G, § 6.2, Table shall extend to the same be permitted (i) in Because the subject purposes” according would also prohibit subsection (c), would would the 2014 (pre-2022) 5. Determination considering G107.3 Standards In reviewing and Appeals factors, all other 1. The danger lands resulting 2. The danger damage; 3. The susceptibility contents, current and 4. The importance development 5. The availability development 6. The compatibility and anticipated 7. The relationship comprehensive that area; 8. The safety ordinary and 9. The expected and sediment wave action, 10. The costs flood conditions utilities and systems, streets B. The Board’s Section 666(6)(a) Board shall have The 2022 B.C. amendments 4 G105; the revision compatibility of the development,” and revised the “cause” that the characteristics renders the standards [t]o hear and otherwise provided determination commissioner buildings acting commissioner of section six of this charter. C. New York courts consider applications See, e.g., Toys ‘R’ However, the Board’s had a “rational basis” evidence.” Id.; see 925 N.Y.S.2d 494, exercise its fact-finding substantial evidence, reasonably responded not, after a reasonable would be sufficient exercise its power Board’s Rules of Practice In practice, Board, pays requisite parties, the Board’s project manager (or then reviews the application a Notice of Comments necessary for the the project manager “substantially complete,” application for public described in the Board’s At hearing, communicate with the record. Specifically, this subject application Statement of Facts contentions and representations under BSA Cal. No. from past proceedings appeals under BSA preceding the separate documentation depicting and existing iterations showing this site documents; and an and feasibility of compliance On November Board staff sent the other information Cal. No. 2022-44-A, applicant’s application Comments, included, 2022-43-A (Appendix 6. Provide proof 1-06.4(a)(1). 7. Provide a

… (truncated, full text in PDF)