Calls for Reining in Development at Carroll Gardens Meeting

Which growth corridors would the Carroll Gardens residents accept to channel development into under-utilized areas? There has to be some give-back. A R6B capping height a 50ft would be acceptable in the interior of the neighborhood but shouldn't be entertained for the Columbia Street waterfront (aka Carroll Gardens West).

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 10:39 AM

The owner/builder of the Eckerd drug store site on the corner of Smith & President also had "as of right" privileges, but under intense pressure from the community, he eventually acquiesced and built a low-rise building -- the store and one floor of rental apartments above it -- which works with the scale of the neighborhood. Also under pressure, he agreed to relocate the loading dock to the Smith St side rather than the President St side directly across from the children's playground in Carroll Park. CG has been an activist community for many years and knows how to work within the system to get things done for the benefit of the community.

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 10:45 AM

One key difference between a commercial (e.g.: the aforementioned chain pharmacy or the "Arena" bagel shop) and a residential building: the neighborhood cannot boycott a residential building.

btw, love the photo--is the councilman delivering a eulogy?

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 10:56 AM

Note to self:

Write explicit instructions to next of kin to not have funeral at Scotto's. If I have to lie in wake in that room, I will come back and haunt them till the end of time.

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 11:13 AM

why 50ft limit? Isn't it more important to limit what is seen from the street. I have a landmark brownstone & any extension i do can't be visible from the st anyway. That said, if i were to put a room on my roof, set back sufficiently/done in a way to satisfy landmarks, it would probably still somewhat exceed 50ft in height. Who am i hurting by doing this? What is wrong with my adding space/value to my home in this way?

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 11:32 AM

Don't even think about dumping your 10 story problems on Carrol Gardens West, Columbia Street Waterfront district. Everytime Cobble Hill/Carrol Gardens doesn't want something they try to dump it on the other side of the BQE. Well those days are over.

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 12:16 PM

Strange that deBlasio would consider extension of the LH1 District currently covering much of Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill while simultaneously supporting Two Trees' Atlantic/Court application to undermine the very same. Can't imagine he's much of a champion for contextual zoning OR landmark districts based on his blindness at that particular corner of Brooklyn.

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 1:00 PM

We almost went to the meeting last night -- but figured that no one needed a screaming toddler voicing his concerns. We did sign various petitions though and feel that huge buildings will have repercussions for Carroll Gardens.

1) Tall buildings will block views and change the look/feel of the area.
2) An influx of new people will increase the class sizes at PS 29 and PS 58 (because presumably they'll be more kids)
3) Huge construction is a pain to deal with - dust, trucks, debris, etc.

I wrote about Columbia Street Waterfront and development in July -- and I agree with one of the other responders that additional development there is also not appreciated. (Check out: http://andamom.com/?p=120)

- Andamom

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 1:03 PM

The area around Atlantic Ave and Court is a dump. It's not like that strip has any character or historical quality. I personally wouldnt have a problem with a slightly taller buildings just on Atlantic if it'd prompt developers to rip down some of the crap that's there now (I nominate Keyfood for teardown).

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 1:43 PM

yea- and that ekerd drug looks so great! i think CG missed their chance. building some nice tall buildings would fit right in.

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 5:42 PM

Building/Alterations moratoriums in NYC do have a historical precedent and an interim moratorium makes complete sense in CG simultaneous with a downzoning study by City Planning for Carroll Gardens(which they have agreed to do)

in the meeting last night everyone heard how understaffed the offices downtown are (city planning AND landmarking)...the waiting lines for downzowning and landmarking are too long as a result

it is not the community's fault if the city of NY understaffs these critical offices and meanwhile zoning regulations and therefore community protections continue to lag behind
while savvy developers quickly cash in

sure an owner may be as of right, but a community has also rights and these include rights to infrastructure which supports new, well planned, reasonable-sized development

that is not what has been happening in the current climate of neighborhoods all across Brooklyn thanks to the current political climate

once you tip the balance and give the "as of right" developers carte blance in a neighborhood setting with no simultaneous plan for infrastructure study and development for the already existing community, then you have gone too far, and taken rights away from the existing constituents and tax base

then the vital balance between exisitng community and new growth is lost!

and then any community has every right to demand city and thus public oversight and review of impending large scale projects which threaten the community's own quality of life

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 8:16 PM

"Strange that deBlasio would consider extension of the LH1 District currently covering much of Brooklyn Heights and Cobble Hill while simultaneously supporting Two Trees' Atlantic/Court application to undermine the very same. Can't imagine he's much of a champion for contextual zoning OR landmark districts based on his blindness at that particular corner of Brooklyn."

Strange indeed. The downzoning and even the landmarking will not stop the powerful developers though it will push some development to other places. Those places are full of politically well connected people who may or may not be involved in the organized community opposition to "out of scale development". Landmarks routinely gets rolled by the developers who are after all their friends at the many cocktail parties they are invited to in the course of the heavy lifting at Landmarks Preservation Commission.

Also, even though six floors seems huge to the suburbanites moving into this neighborhood it is not. This is appropriate density that creates efficiencies for other infrastructure developments in transportation , education, power and water. Density in fact makes all the other infrastructure possible. Thats why we have sewers and the suburbs have septic tanks.

It is really a political machine in action here. Politicians push downzoning. Coincidentally it has to take two years (when is the next round of elections?). The candidates can ride to the rescue from evil things like new buildings just in time for the voting. Then after the downzoning takes place and the citizens realize the substantial property rights they have given away and they want to improve their properties just as they have for the last one hundred years then they will need variances. The citizens will have to go back to the same politicians for help with the variances then. The Swiss never made watches that functioned this well.

DeBlasio wants to be Borough President and took a real beating from the anti-AY folks. All politicians prefer to be all things to all people when given the opportunity.

The people in the small frame houses in the South Slope are beginning to wake up to the enormous property values they lost in the down-zoning there. Carrol Gardens has a much more typically brownstone character and the neighbors are well educated white people. Apparently well educated people with so much money they can let a million or so in property rights slip away from them without noticing.

Posted by: guest at August 24, 2007 11:18 PM

Lack of infrastructure in the event of future development?

How about addressing the present dearth of community facilities that necessitates a neighborhood meeting taking place in a funeral home.

What a joke.

Posted by: guest at August 25, 2007 1:51 AM

Good point 11:18

Let's not forget that it is the big developers also who favor restrictive zoning. Keeping the supply of development sites low keeps land values high and reduces the potential pool of buyers. This ensures that the investments they already have continue to generate substantial returns.

If zoning laws were eliminated tomorrow, the price of land would drop precipitously and the housing shortage would be over in just a few years. More people would make money from real estate and more people would happily be in larger homes, but the rich developers wouldn't get anywhere NEAR the return on their equity they get today.

Zoning laws hurt homeowners and hurt citizens. No one benefits but the rich developers.

Posted by: guest at August 25, 2007 2:34 PM

g man,
You can use google to learn about the use of the moratorium. Municipalities do it all the time. Or you can purchase the zoning regulations handbook downtown.

Posted by: guest at August 26, 2007 1:01 AM

While a developer can build "as-of-right" the people, through their government law inforcement, can withold access to sewage hookups if the system is determined to be lacking in necessary capacity.

A resedential development without sewer hookups wouldn't be of much value to the property owner and developer.

We are all in this together when private property rights expect to make use of communal services. The lines are not so clearly drawn and the community does indeed have a say in what should and can be build.

NY State Law and Federal Clean Water Act

Posted by: guest at August 27, 2007 6:47 PM