clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Gaseteria: No Crying Over Spilt Diesel

Readers weigh in on the closing of Gaseteria on Avenue B:

· I understand how people feel development is never ?done right? if it doesn?t include you, but seriously: who prefers a gas station (fumes, cars) in their neighborhood over a residential building, no matter how high (this is NYC)? Ridiculous.
· Gaseteria isn't that big a loss. But I was DEVASTATED when Carz-a-popping closed at Houston and Broadway! I recall the great neon sign...but can't recall the proper spelling!
Meanwhile, a Curbed source forwards the Board of Standards & Appeals Resolution regarding the property:
· WHEREAS, the premises is a triangular shaped zoning lot located at the southeast corner of East Houston Street and Avenue B, and has a total lot area of 7,860 sq. ft.;
The exciting conclusion after the jump. We promise, it's a gas!
· Gaseteria Gone on Lower Avenue B [Curbed]

WHEREAS, the lot is currently improved upon with an existing automotive service station (Use Group 16); and

WHEREAS, the proposal contemplates a six-story plus penthouse, mixed-use building containing storage at the cellar level, commercial use of 3,992 sq. ft on the ground floor, community facility space of 5,558 sq. ft. at the second floor, and residential space of 22,490 sq. ft. and 29 dwelling units on floors 3 thorough 6 and the penthouse; and

WHEREAS, the applicant states that the following are unique physical conditions, which create practical difficulties and unnecessary hardship in developing the subject lot in conformity with underlying district regulations: (1) the subject lot is oddly configured and contains an irregular triangular shape, which at various points is shallow and narrow in depth; (2) the site has a history of non-conforming development; and (3) there is underground environmental contamination at the site; and

WHEREAS, the Board finds that the aforementioned unique physical conditions, when considered in the aggregate, create unnecessary hardship and practical difficulties in developing the site in conformity with the current zoning; and

WHEREAS, the applicant submitted a feasibility study showing that an as-of-right residential scenario resulted in an unreasonable rate of return; and

WHEREAS, at the Board