The lot sits in a Special Mixed Use District mapped M1-4/R7A that already contemplates residential over commercial. A 48-unit mixed-use concept is achievable as-of-right; the live schedule item is the (E) designation on the lot, which requires environmental clearance through the City before building permits issue. Start that workplan at contract, not at closing.
Because the program is as-of-right, the risk here is administrative, not political: the two live items are (1) the (E) designation workplan — testing results set the remediation scope and schedule — and (2) DOB objection cycles during plan exam. Neither involves a community board vote or public hearing. The schedule lever is sequencing: file the OER workplan during due diligence so clearance lands alongside the DOB approval, not after it.
Read this: This report is professional research and planning analysis, not legal, engineering, or survey advice, and not a guarantee of approval. Zoning and entitlement outcomes are determined solely by the applicable jurisdiction. Verify all findings with the jurisdiction and your counsel before transacting.
Utilities and access are in place, the path to permit is as-of-right, and the environmental flags are the known, budgetable kind. The deal pencils at the target rent; the carrying cost while OER and plan exam run is the main variable to control.
This package includes the full Zoning & Entitlement Readiness analysis (zoning, special conditions, path to permit, timeline risk, contacts). Summary verdict: B+ — as-of-right, no public hearing; budget the (E) designation clearance into the schedule.
| System | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Water | Available | DEP main in Willow Avenue; site connection permit at filing. |
| Sanitary sewer | Available | Combined sewer at frontage; house connection permit required. |
| Electric / gas | Lead time | Con Edison network at street; service requests run 4–6 months — order at design development, not permit. |
| Stormwater | Design item | On-site detention/retention under the Unified Stormwater Rule; SWPPP for construction. |
| Vehicular access | Design item | Loading berth per M1-4 rules; curb cut on the side street via DOT / Builders Pavement Plan. |
| Transit / walk | Strong | ~0.3 mi to the 6 train; multiple bus routes; supports the zero-parking program. |
| Item | Status | Notes |
|---|---|---|
| Floodplain | Outside | Lot outside the 1%-annual-chance floodplain on the preliminary FIRMs; waterfront blocks nearby are in. |
| (E) designation — hazmat | Diligence | Phase I/II testing scope set by OER; findings size the remediation contingency. |
| (E) designation — noise | Design item | Minimum window/wall attenuation ratings; price the assemblies into the envelope now. |
| Prior use | Diligence | Former light-industrial/auto use, consistent with the hazmat flag — a Phase I is mandatory here, not optional. |
At an assumed ~$5.8M land basis and 8% cost of capital plus taxes/insurance. A 3-month slip in OER or plan exam ≈ $123,000. The single most valuable timeline lever is filing the OER workplan at contract — during due diligence — so clearance lands alongside the DOB approval.
GO, contingent on: (1) Phase II results that fit inside a standard remediation contingency — the (E) hazmat flag is the one item that could change the math; and (2) an early Con Edison service confirmation, since utility lead time — not approvals — is the likeliest critical-path slip. Neither is a red flag today; both are standard diligence for this deal type. If both clear, the lot supports the proposed program at target rents with an as-of-right path to permit.
Read this: Feasibility figures are illustrative planning estimates, not an appraisal, engineering study, or environmental determination. Confirm utility capacity, environmental conditions, and market assumptions with qualified professionals and the jurisdiction before transacting.
Lot geometry, zoning, and ownership were cross-checked against the NYC Digital Tax Map, ZoLa/PLUTO zoning records, and ACRIS ownership filings. Two sites show a zoning mismatch and a lot-area discrepancy that would misstate the offering.
| Site | Zoning | Lot area | Ownership | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A — 812 E 135th St, Bronx | Matches | Matches | Matches | Clean |
| B — 38-11 Review Ave, Queens | Matches | Matches | Matches | Clean |
| C — 9 Truxton St, Bronx | Listed C8-3, actually M1-2 | Matches | Matches | Conflict |
| D — 1420 Bruckner Blvd, Bronx | Matches | Listed 27,500 SF, tax map 21,340 SF | Matches | Conflict |
| E — 22-15 44th Dr, Queens | Matches | Matches | Matches | Clean |
| F — 587 Southern Blvd, Bronx | Matches | Matches | LLC → verify signer | Note |
Corrected records delivered as a clean CSV/GeoJSON set: standardized BBLs, verified zoning districts, tax-map lot areas, ACRIS ownership, and a per-site flag column. Two sites carry a resolve-before-marketing flag. Portfolio pricing was quoted at the 6-site scope.
Read this: Data verification reflects sources available at the time of review and is not a boundary survey or title opinion. Confirm boundary, acreage, and ownership with a licensed surveyor and title work before transacting.