• The current structure, with an overlay of the proposed designs. Scale is approximate.

    Community Board 15 voted overwhelmingly to approve a planned Manhattan Beach McMansion on the site of the rectory of St. Margaret Mary Catholic Church, despite objections from a local community group.

    The request for a special permit to enlarge the current building by more than three times its current size and nearly double the size allowed by law came before the board during their Tuesday night meeting. The board voted 26 in favor and five against (with one abstention) to approve major modifications to the 92-year-old structure.

    That approval came despite opposition from the Manhattan Beach Community Group, who said the lawyer’s claims about the building were based on faulty data.

    “The measurements that they’re using for this house is flawed. The whole procedure is flawed. He shouldn’t be allowed to build that house,” said MBCG President Ira Zalcman.

    Currently a 2,599 square foot home with 2.5 stories, the home at 215 Exeter Street was built in 1920 and served as the rectory to St. Margaret Mary Catholic Church. With a declining number of congregants, the parish merged with St. Mark Catholic Church on Ocean Avenue and Avenue Z several years ago. They decided to sell off the rectory portion at the end of 2010.

    The land was purchased for $1.85 million by Mill Basin businessman Aleksandr Falikman, who began plotting a major overhaul of the property.

    The new plans include more than tripling the square footage of the house to 7,848 square feet, nearly double the 4,000 square feet allowed by zoning law. It will also be nine feet higher at its highest point, but the perimeter walls will be reduced by one foot and four inches.

    Though the new structure will come six feet closer to the sidewalk, most of the expansion will be done on the south side of the building, towards the water, and will reduce the space to the next house by nearly 40 feet.

    “In order to make his point, the homeowner must show that other homes in his immediate area are larger than zoning allows,” Zalcman wrote in a letter to the board. “The homeowner before you this evening fails to make his point.”

    As part of the approval process, homeowners seeking a special permit must show that the alterations would not violate the character of the neighborhood. To do that, they often show other houses in the area of similar size and character that were previously approved by the board.

    Eric Palatnik, the attorney for the homeowner, offered as evidence another Exeter Street house on the other side of Oriental Boulevard, at 175 Exeter Street. The building was approved last year, and the homeowner was also represented by Palatnik.

    According to the MBCG, though, the permit for 175 Exeter Street never should have been issued, as the evidence of similar sized structures (based on a Floor-Area-Ratio – or FAR – calculation) was based on faulty city data. The group cited an email a Department of City Planning official confirming that the data was inaccurate.

    Zalcman blasted the idea of basing a current project on another project that itself was based on erroneous data from the Department of City Planning.

    “City Planning has acknowledged errors in that data base known as PLUTO or Oasis. This evening’s application is, therefore, based on a home that was made larger where incorrect data was used,” Zalcman wrote. “We respectfully request that the Community Board inform the BSA that until the Department of City Planning corrects its data base(s), an informed decision cannot be rendered by Community Board 15.”

    Zalcman and the MBCG are not alone in their opposition.

    Of the five votes against approving the expansion, one came from Manhattan Beach Neighborhood Association President Alan Ditchek, who agreed that the building is out of line with the rest of the area.

    “Knowing the house as it is now, a former rectory, knowing the other houses on the block, if it was enlarged it wouldn’t conform with the other houses as they appear,” Ditchek said. “I appreciate the landscape and the way things are right now and I think building that house bigger or expanding it would be out of character. ”

    Zalcman said these kinds of approvals illustrate a systemic problem with zoning procedures that is destroying neighborhoods across this city.

    “The zoning is being changed, without it being changed,” Zalcman said. “People are building bigger houses than are permitted without our zoning being changed. I’m sure it’s happening in other communities as well.”

    Related posts

    • Anonymous

      Cool.  God is getting evicted and Boris and his family will be moving in lock stock and two slutty mistresses. 

      • levp

        Next: “Real Housewives of Manhattan Beach”

        • Anonymous

          Bright Beach Show.  Been there done that.

    • http://twitter.com/Lostinservice Lostinservice

      The permit request should have been tabled until accurate data was provided by the Dept of City planning especially after they themselves verified the current data was inaccurate. Calling a vote was completely irresponsible.

    • BrooklynBus

      Enlarged? Who are they kidding? This is a new home. What are they going to leave from the Rectory? One wall?

      • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

        St Margaret Mary is a part of St Mark parish these days, and it was decided that the parish house wasn’t necessary.                                                              

        • TheUrbanographer

          Not by St. Margaret Mary parishioners!

          • http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisanne001 Lisanne!

            I know. I apologize for stating it too simply.

      • vintagejames

        “Enlarge” is a term used to avoid higher real estate taxes by building on the base of a current structure after demolishing it. Cute. A scam.

        • Anonymous

          LOVE your answer! what a fucking fraud !!! 65% of all the houses there are “enlarged” 

          I wonder if they are compensating for something else.

          • http://www.brucebrodinsky.com Bruce B

            A small car???

            • Anonymous

              yea lol

    • nolastname

      I had to privilege to be in that house before St Marks got involved. It is beautiful with hard wood, there was a tapestry that was magnificent. The word back then was that St Marks would sell it and they did. Booooo.
      About the expansion can they not expand north or is that still church property? Is the house across the street from it in code?
      And yes Zalcman you can be sure it is happening in other communities. Maybe you should get to other community meetings and join forces. 

    • http://twitter.com/DanielGershburg Daniel Gershburg Esq

      I played hockey across the street as a kid and grew up in that community.  Still maintain an office in Sheepshead Bay.  Manhattan Beach was always well kept without ever really being ostentatious. It’s changed so dramatically.

      This isn’t really an issue of being unable to move forward (when people protest new buildings coming in), but more of a “how much is too much” question.  You seriously need over 7k square feet of living space?  So now the next house can be 8k because it’ll conform to the zoning?  At a certain point, conspiracy theories aside, you have to wonder why in the world the group would approve this.   The whole point of a community group is the ability to merge common interests to stop things like this from happening, not to provide a rubber stamp.  I’m a lawyer, so take this with whatever grain of salt you like, but in situations like this, I hope they sue to stop this.  Slippery slope with the construction in this area and it’s really gone beyond anything reasonable.

    • FormerMBresident

      I have no evidence but it really makes you wonder if money is being exchanged in order to ram these types of houses on the neighborhood.

    • Pingback: Controversial Manhattan Beach McMansion Approved - The Broker Buddy

    • Ortms1981

      It was around 6 years ago, back when there still was only one Manhattan Beach Civic, they had the chance to re-zone the neighborhood & protect all the church property along with several other key spots. In exchange all you had to do was give a little bit higher height to allow for more floor area ratio. That would of went with the new zoning designation and no special permits for Manhattan Beach. 

      This was summarily rejected by the then &bcurrent power of the MBCG, hence the forming of MBNA. The Community group was pious and said zoning was fine the way it was. For some reason they never minded their special permits though. Thus slowly the whole thing slowly began to change before their eyes. So part of the Churches property is gone now, whats next?
      While you could never roll back time and get to a point when the area did not have some of these real out of whack McMansions. You can certainly say that very key and important people from the Presidents of both groups, many of their executive committees and key “players” on the Community board all ended up as losers. 

    • 3abxo3

      Law is not about fairness or what is right, its about technicalities. All this stink is simply because of jealousy and prejudice. All Boris did, he followed all these nonsense rules and regulations created with help of people who complaint the most.

      Bravo Boris Good Job