« Approaching The Summit | Main | The Hearing, The Verdict, The Decision »
April 20, 2007
The Fight Portion Of The Good Fight
In early February Arthur and I came to a verbal agreement with the attorney for the Department of Buildings and the presiding judge on our Supreme Court case on a timeline for the structural stabilization of the building and the removal of parts of the top. In keeping with this agreement, we filed architectural plans with the DOB that detailed a small part of what was necessary to bring the building up to code, with the focus on replacement of interior joists and subflooring and removal of the wooden portion. In March we filed a new set of plans with the DOB that detailed how we would replace the top structure with fireproof materials, install new building systems and bring the building into full compliance with the building code. While the DOB was more than happy to approve plans that detailed the removal of the top structure, they have been in far less of a hurry to approve plans that map out a course for the full legalization of the building. As such, we informed them that we could no longer continue on our part of the agreement if they would not proceed in good faith. We now face off against the DOB on Wednesday April 25th in Brooklyn Supreme Court over the issue of whether we have complied with the judges order and whether the building is still unsafe and a danger to the community.
We believe we have shown a great deal of good faith by structurally reinforcing the building, addressing egress issues, and removing the fire burnt section in the rear. The DOB doesn't get to have it both ways. If the top portion the building was a hazard to the community and had to be removed to bring the building up to code than the entire edifice can't be left empty without electricity, plumbing, or windows and be considered safe.
The crux of the problem is this: The Department of Buildings is an enforcement agency and can only approve what the Department of City Planning dictates can be built on a particular zoning lot. Broken Angel is located at the corner of Downing and Quincy streets on an "L" corner that there are relatively few of in the city. As a result of this, there are no zoning laws that make any consideration for buildings that are built on "L" corners, even though technically the intersection of the two streets creates a wide dead area in front of buildings that is wider than each street individually and wider than the necessary 75 foot street width that would allow Broken Angel to be built to its current height. More importantly, buildings that are inside of an "L" corner intersection end up having street frontage that faces the length of a street rather than the width. In the case of Broken Angel, 28 of its 40 feet of horizontal street frontage directly face Quincy Street, which is unobstructed by anything for 462 feet until it crosses Classon Avenue, and thirteen city blocks until it crosses Broadway in Bushwick and actually faces a building on the opposite side of the street. The way current zoning provisions are written for street width, this would mean that Broken Angel is essentially on a 13,000 feet wide street. This is important because most newer zoning laws provide for buildings to be built to a maximum height that is equal to the width of the street that the building faces. Buildings built along the 4th Avenue coridoor in Park Slope can be built to a maximum height of 120 feet because 4th Avenue is 120 feet wide.
Since the DOB has rejected our plans and we believe that the structure is no longer an imminent danger, we feel that we should have a chance to present our case to the Board of Standards and Appeals, the only city agency that can overturn a DOB decision. Our BSA case will be two-fold; Firstly, that the unique location of Broken Angel on an "L" corner has no precedent in existing zoning codes that do not take into account its vertical frontage on Quincy Street, and Secondly, that the building is essentially grandfathered at its current height because the Department of Buildings didn't bother to make Arthur take the top off at any point in the 20 plus years that it's been soaring above Brooklyn. Clearly, Arthur built the top of Broken Angel without permits, and didn't make considerations for the fire code. But the Department of Buildings erred by letting him run wild for years before overreacting and arresting him after the October 2006 fire while trying to save face. If their real concern is public safety, they will let us sprinkler the entire top structure while we have our day in court with the BSA.
Posted by broken angel at April 20, 2007 1:28 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1002
Comments
This reminds us of Norman Mailer's fight with the DOB for many years after they retroactively tried to make him take down a home-made rooftop addition. Not sure what happened with the case ultimately.
Posted by: brownstoner ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.brownstoner.com/anangelrises/nav-commenters.gif)
at April 24, 2007 8:24 AM
How much will that cost to go before the BSA?
Posted by: Anonymous at April 24, 2007 2:54 PM
Good luck in court tomorrow--I used to live in this neighborhood and had the pleasure of meeting Arthur and his wife Cindy. It was great to discover that the owners themselves lived up to the creativity and humour that my favorite NYC building evoked. Make them Eat Scum Arthur!
Posted by: marisa at April 24, 2007 6:21 PM
It will cost at least $10,000 in attorney fees before we get a ruling from the BSA. We planned for the possibility that this step would be required and budgeted for it.
Posted by: Shahn Andersen at April 25, 2007 11:29 AM
I agree with your point that the DOB is an enforcment agency. One of the codes it enforces is that a building must be legalized, (i.e.applications filed, inspections performed, CofO issued) before it is occupied.
Grandfathering only works when your property was legal and the code changes faster than the building. Any space touched by construction must be brought up to current code by the owner.
I say this only as a heads up for your hearing, because I expect it is what they will say. Stick to your street frontage arguement (the intent of the code is the weak point, not the letter of the law, BTW) and see if there's some architectural heritage BS you can start applying for.
Best,
Posted by: arche.tecton at May 2, 2007 6:10 PM
So what happened in court?????
Posted by: marisa at May 8, 2007 3:20 PM