« BSA Gives Williamsburg the Finger Not Too Late For AY to Go Through ULURP? »
December 12, 2007
BSA Postpones 163 Washington Decision Until January
On the same day that it voted in favor of the Finger Building, the board also showed its developer-friendly leanings in the case of 163 Washington Avenue. As you may recall, GLC, the developer, has been appealing to the board to let it proceed with construction under the old zoning rules that would have allowed for a 17-story building on the site. At the first BSA hearing in October, the developer tried to refute the DOB's analysis that the foundation was only 40% complete at the time the zoning changed, far short of what's required to vest. By the time the second meeting had rolled around yesterday, the BSA had apparently made up its mind at a preview the day before to green-light the project despite GLC's failure to make a convincing case about the foundation. It was only when the neighborhood opponents presented so much embarrassing evidence about inconsistencies in the developer's story and timeline that the BSA had to push the decision back to a third hearing, presumably in January.
A Day at the BSA: GLC vs. Building Too Tall [Brownstoner] GMAP P*Shark DOB
Day of Reckoning for 163 Washington Avenue? [Brownstoner]
CB2 Votes on Two BSA Recs [Brownstoner]
CB2: Thumbs Down on Washington, Thumbs Up on Grand [Brownstoner]
Clinton Hill Rezoning Rejects Pitch BSA Bail-Out To CB2 [Brownstoner]
Race Against Clock at 163 Washington [Brownstoner]
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/3189
Comments
The developer's cylindar sample test don't match the truck numbers and dates of the developer's own cement pour sheets. Basically, they have no documented cylindar tests that match any of their pours. Times are so far off that one could conclude that pour sheets were falsified to satisfy the BSA. This is serious stuff folks, it's ground for law suits. Not only is the developer not being honest here but without the proper cylindar tests the foundation cannot be proven safe.
The developer is also playing with definitions for their 2nd floor terrace which has not been excavated or poured. They are trying to say that this terrace is not part of the building. Without this terrace, which is connected to the building and is part of the structure, the developer does not meet the open space requirements and therefore the building does not meet even the old zoning.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 10:38 AM
let us have density, density is good for the environment. if you want low density go live in the burbs or la lol.
Posted by: armchairwarrior at December 12, 2007 11:00 AM
i agree with armchair. brooklyn needs housing not empty pits.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:08 AM
armchairwarrior,
Tell the developer that, they are the ones who tried to reduce the density when they altered their original plans. The plan they are trying to strong-arm through the boot-licking BSA has LESS DENSITY than the original plan that everyone in the community would have been fine with.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:13 AM
The issue here isn't density; it is the configuration of the density. The developer can build just as many apartments without constructing a building substantially taller than its neighbors. False argument, seated warrior.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 11:23 AM
Sounds like some other cases at the BSA 2 years ago in the South Slope and Greenwood Heights. Can someone say "legal precedent" here to the BSA against the vesting? No?
Mr. B ought to link to those posts on this thread to show how BSA may need a repeat performance.
Posted by: Action Jackson at December 12, 2007 1:47 PM
Here are a couple of my favorite quotes from the GLC Group's lawyers, Sheldon Lobel P.C., during the hearing:
"there were some bookkeeping problems"
and
"maybe the trucks have 2 numbers on them" ...
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 2:15 PM
here's a quote from Commissioner Srinivasan:
"Regarding the daily field reports -- the Logs -- that information would be helpful. We understand there may be some corrections -- as you've done already."
and here's a great exchange ...
Commissioner Susan M. Hinkson, R.A.:
"Is the Terrace the only way you make your [open space] zoning requirements?"
Sheldon Lobel lawyer representing GLC Group:
"I don't know."
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 3:59 PM
An additional comment, barley relevant, but...
Armchair, "if you want low density go live in the burbs or la lol."
Would one not equate urban sprawl the same as higher density, just stretched out over a larger area? When was the last time you visited LA? Brooklyn any day over La-La land or any great suburban wasteland.
Whether you stack your pancakes high on the plate or spread them across the entire breakfast table, it's still too many pancakes for this man to stomach.
Wow, that analogy was totally silly (pat myself on my back, albeit softly)
Posted by: Action Jackson at December 12, 2007 4:46 PM
Hi everyone,
Brooklyn 12 was there and has everything on tape so you can tune in to catch this hearing at the BSA.
Posted by: guest at December 12, 2007 4:48 PM
Post a comment
Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.