« Parlor Kitchen #5: Where the Party's At Development Watch: Urban Green Still Stalled »
August 2, 2007
FG/CH Vesting: The Winners and Losers
When the City Council signed off on the rezoning of Clinton Hill and Fort Greene last week, the most high-profile project that was halted for not having its foundation complete was 163 Washington Avenue. At the time, two other sites of greatest concern were 122 Adelphi Street (top) and 97 Grand Avenue (bottom), both of which had received approval for 11-story towers. We went by this week to check them out there were certainly not any Stop Work Orders posted—nor are there any listed on line. The Greenpoint Star, which actually called up DOB and got a list of which projects in the area vested and which are going to have to play by the new rules, confirmed that both towers are able to proceed. By far the most worrisome of the two is 122 Adelphi, which will tower over the low-rise block and dwarf the beautiful mid-19th-century woodframe house next door. Particularly frustrating was the fact that DOB gave the developer a special permit to work over the weekend right before the rezoning vote, allowing him to slip under the wire. "It's offensive that an agency could be so insensitive to the sentiments of the community," said Enid Braun, a resident who's been trying to fight the project since it was first announced back in 2004. Offensive indeed.
120 Adelphi Street: GMAP P*Shark DOB
97 Grand Avenue: GMAP P*Shark DOB
163 Washington Misses Zoning Cut-Off [Brownstoner]
Council OKs Three Rezonings and One Landmarking [Brownstoner]
The Very Vest of Ft. Greene/Clinton HIll [Ledger Star]
The Very Vest of Ft. Greene/Clinton HIll [Greenpoint Star]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/1737
Comments
I think you need to work with the DOB on a daily basis to understand it and its processes. I have little to no idea how the blog business works and caouldnt comment on what is or isnt worrisome. One of the unvested projects is mine and this is such a massive pain in the ass for something that still conforms to the new zoning, that I hope another project is truely getting away with something, because I am not.
Posted by: jay at August 2, 2007 11:34 AM
Well, in all fairness, a rule ain't a rule until it's passed.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 11:36 AM
what we were saying was worrisome was an 11-story building on this block of Adelphi, nothing about the process. it doesn't take a developer to know how out-of-scale that is.
Posted by: Brownstoner at August 2, 2007 11:43 AM
The entire process was disingenuous. There was no clarity of process or time frame. I am an architect with a client who purchased an undersized lot upon which they intended to construct a single family residence. We proceeded with documents based on the assumption of R6, and that the change of the district, according to city planning officials, would occur in September or October. It was probably planned from day one to have the change occur 2 months earlier. I am appalled by the clear dishonesty of city officials in this instance. Just tell us the truth. Give a clear time frame upon which the private sector can make informed economic decisions. I work primarily for individuals and small developers who are working on very tight margins for error. In the rush to stall "non-contextual" projects, the overall economic health of the city is injured. Yet Atlantic Yards with its flagrant misuse of eminent domain goes forward. Follow the money y'all.
Posted by: anon at August 2, 2007 11:53 AM
what about the horrible tower on Greene bet. Classon & Franklin - too far East to be covered?
Posted by: clinton hillbilly at August 2, 2007 12:04 PM
11:53, it isn't often that I find myself defending DCP, but the September/October estimate was sincere. Community Board 2 got the Borough President and City Planning Commission to expedite their public hearings and Councilwoman James did the same for the three meetings at the City Council. If that fast-tracking hadn't taken place, the rezoning wouldn't have occurred until the fall, as DCP predicted. And before you re-direct your anger at the councilwoman and the community board, bear in mind that they worked on the rezoning for over three years. What some people consider two months early, others think of as at least a year late.
Posted by: g-man at August 2, 2007 12:04 PM
Should have planned on conforming to R6B from the beginning rather than pushing the limits of contextual conformity in the hopes of getting in a couple of months before the changes...
What about the development on Washington between Fulton and Atlantic?
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 12:11 PM
Should have planned on conforming to R6B from the beginning rather than pushing the limits of contextual conformity in the hopes of getting in a couple of months before the changes...
What about the development on Washington between Fulton and Atlantic?
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 12:15 PM
Anybody know what the permit was for at 290 Carlton Ave? This is a fully built landmark block. Can't imagine what they were going to try to build/what they are going to build? Thanks.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 12:33 PM
Don't count the chickens about the "unvested" properties just yet. If they've done any work, they can go to BSA and claim they are vested enough and get a permit to build under the old zoning. This happenned all over the South Slope.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 12:39 PM
12:39pm ..give us examples in s-slope, just curious
Posted by: south sloper at August 2, 2007 1:38 PM
1638 Eighth Avenue for one. There were others as well. It's called a BZY application.
Posted by: 12:39 at August 2, 2007 2:00 PM
clinton hillbilly, the tower on Greene between Classon and Franklin is being built as of right, totally legit to the zoning at the time it was filed for. no, I'm not the developer, just your friendly neighborhood public planning geek.
Posted by: glarph at August 2, 2007 2:03 PM
Money talks. Bullshit blogs walk.
Always has, always will, especially in money hungry NYC.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 2:05 PM
gabba, gabba hey, 2:05
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 2:15 PM
Well I guess the vestment status has changed on 478 Grand avenue yesterday they prepped to pour the foundation, and it looks like new building permits are up on the property. Given that the original building spent a year covered in plywood only to be demolished illegally this spring no wonder it would still manage to go forward.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 4:19 PM
Let us residents have our moment please.
Perhaps I would feel sorry for developers that were inconvenienced by this, but I don't. All of these projects are the same. Lets squeeze in the biggest building we can into the smallest space possible (I mean who wouldn't just die to live in a 10 story building that is 20ft wide). We can then sell mini condos for ridiculous prices with no regard for the impact on the neighborhood or its infrastructure. So let us residents have our moment, for however brief it may be. I'm sure there will be some sort of waiver program. Figure around the 3rd week of November.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 4:49 PM
4:19, vio 3233071
478 grand- looks like it missed.
Posted by: Anonymous at August 2, 2007 10:19 PM
BSA, BSA, BSA, BSA, BSA, It's not over until it's over!
Posted by: Anonymous at August 3, 2007 8:19 AM
478 Grand is a bit of a sad story. It was highlighted on Brownstoner a few years ago. It was one of the oldest buildings in the area - a wood frame two story circa 1851 with a front porch, iron railings etc. It was listed by Corcoran in the upper 500K range a few years ago (small place and needed work). The new owners gutted the place, ripped off the front porch and iron railings, pulled off the siding, added a third floor then covered it all in plywood (no windows - odd). The work permit said renovations to existing property, no change of occupancy or egress. Clearly, a complete gut and addition of an additional floor was not permitted. Several stop work orders were issues, beginning in 2005, for work without a permit and other violations. Then one day this Spring, they tore it down (though at that point the original structure was pretty much gone).
Now they pouring a new foundation...lordy! They just were issued a violation on July 10 for work without a permit. They just keep on doing whatever they please in spite of the lack of permits, the issuance of stop work orders or violations from the DOB and ECB. WTF?!
Posted by: lp at August 3, 2007 12:52 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.