163 Washington Misses Zoning Cut-Off, Must Shrink

With the City Council's approval of new zoning for Clinton Hill and Fort Greene yesterday, any project underway that had yet to complete its foundation as of 12:01 am yesterday morning must conform to the new set of building laws. The highest profile development that failed to meet the deadline was 163 Washington Avenue, the 18-story tower planned for the through-lot just north of Myrtle Avenue in Clinton Hill. (The top photo shows the worksite at 4 pm on Tuesday as the deadline loomed.) By the end of the day yesterday, the Department of Buildings had already issued a Stop Work Order for the site. Area residents had joined forces with Councilmember Letitia James to try persuade the developer to put up a lower building with an affordable housing component; the overtures were rejected and now (presumably) the developer, GLC Group, will try to convince the Board of Standards and Appeals that its principals will have to sell their houses in the Hamptons if they're prevented from building their tower as proposed. Does anyone else know of other projects in the area that are impacted by this? Is there one on Grand near the BQE perhaps?
Race Against Clock at 163 Washington [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark
163 Washington: The Digging Has Begun [Brownstoner] DOB
Rally at 163 Washington for Shorter Building [Brownstoner]
Tower Plans for Washington Ave Ruffling Feathers [Brownstoner]

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1694

Comments

According to the president of my co-op's board that's the only building that was out of compliance with the new zoning. He was one of the "community leaders" who banded together to get the zoning to happen.

Posted by: Kizz at July 26, 2007 9:20 AM

Everyone was one of the "community leaders" who banded together to get it to happen. There are actually a lot of buildings that are not in compliance, most of which are small projects being done by small developers.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 9:47 AM

This is great news-- that thing was too tall. Anybody want to handicap the developer's chances of pleading hardship and being allowed to build what he originally wanted? Or is this certain to force him to make it smaller?

Posted by: anon at July 26, 2007 10:25 AM

a letter and petition asking the borough president to be especially vigilant about 163 washington avenue also cited 120 adelphi street and 97-101 grand avenue

Posted by: another community leader at July 26, 2007 10:35 AM

thanks, 10:35

Posted by: Brownstoner at July 26, 2007 11:00 AM

I think rezoning that area is dumb. the area is way too desolate.

Posted by: armchair_warrior at July 26, 2007 11:12 AM

rezoned.blogspot.com

we've started a blog to keep everyone updated!

Posted by: g at July 26, 2007 11:36 AM

What's going to happen to the development that is going on next to the Cathedral condos on 555 Washington ave? How is that going to be effected by the new Zoning?

Posted by: Denny Henriquez at July 26, 2007 11:37 AM

Only problem with the area is that Myrtle Ave is way underbuilt, but the new zoning should encourage development there.
But so far all people are doing is renovating the one story buildings- someone needs to buy them out an put in the density a main street needs.

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 11:41 AM

Um, Armchair, sorry, which blocks exactly are desolate? The rezoning in FG/CH is for Park Avenue and southward. The only desolate parts near there are along Park Ave or north of Park Avenue. In otherwords, an area almost completely untouched by this rezoning.

There is nothing desolate whatsoever in the area shown in this map:

http://brownstoner.com/brownstoner/archives/fgchrezoning4.jpg

Unless you consider block after block of townhouse, or Myrtle Avenue itself, desolate. In which case I'm not sure that word means what you think it means.

Posted by: Boygabe of Hall Street at July 26, 2007 11:46 AM

Dear 11:41, I believe the new zoning does allow for bigger development along Myrtle Avenue, just not on the side streets.

Posted by: Boygabe of Hall Street at July 26, 2007 11:49 AM

but there are height limits so you can't just buy a bunch of air rights from the neighbors and go up as high as you want now

Posted by: Brownstoner at July 26, 2007 12:40 PM

Seems like a good compromise to me.

Posted by: Boygabe of Hall Street at July 26, 2007 12:45 PM

Rumor has it that the reason this project didn't make the deadline is that it a certain Council woman was encouraging DOB to shut the job down periodically...

Posted by: Nemo at July 26, 2007 1:13 PM

Per Denny's comment above, what about 555 Washington Avenue, next to the Cathedral condos. I'm pretty sure the foundation has been done for a little while now. Does that mean it is proceeding? I hope it does if it is done well.

Posted by: lp at July 26, 2007 1:34 PM

what is the cathedral condo lp?

Posted by: Anonymous at July 26, 2007 4:34 PM

not sure if that is their proper name, but it is the condo building in the old catholic rectory/school on the corner of atlantic and washington. an old parkin lot adjacent to the cathedral condos is being developed into a new condo building.

Posted by: lp at July 27, 2007 11:16 AM

« Council OKs Three Rezonings and One Landmarking Ratner Compromise Still Special Treatment »

July 26, 2007

163 Washington Misses Zoning Cut-Off, Must Shrink

Trackback Pings

Comments

Post a comment

Latest Restaurant Additions