BSA Considers 163 Washington Plans For a 3rd Time
Today the Board of Standards and Appeals will once again consider GLC Developers’ plans to build a 16-story tower in Clinton Hill. The development has provoked a lot of ire from nearby residents who say GLC didn’t have enough of the building foundation complete before the area’s zoning changed in June; according to the project’s…
Today the Board of Standards and Appeals will once again consider GLC Developers’ plans to build a 16-story tower in Clinton Hill. The development has provoked a lot of ire from nearby residents who say GLC didn’t have enough of the building foundation complete before the area’s zoning changed in June; according to the project’s critics, the lack of sufficient foundation work means the plans can’t be vested under old zoning regulations and has to conform to the new zoning, which would limit the building’s height to seven stories. A neighborhood group called Building Too Tall has been leading the charge against the proposed tower, and they sent us a press release (see copy on jump) noting that It is unusual for the BSA to go 3 rounds with the same opponent, but the developer has repeatedly failed to make his case. Let’s see what happens this time ’round, this morning at 10 o’clock at 40 Rector Street in Manhattan.
Fight Over Tall Washington St. Building Enters Third Round [Gowanus Lounge]
BSA Postpones 163 Washington Decision Until January [Brownstoner] GMAP
A Day at the BSA: GLC vs. Building Too Tall [Brownstoner] P*Shark
Day of Reckoning for 163 Washington Avenue? [Brownstoner] DOB
CB2 Votes on Two BSA Recommendations [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]
Yeh, I read “Construction Worker Dies in 42-Story Fall in SoHo.” (I assume that is the article 7:18 is writing about, and not the articles on the sanitation department, highway tolls in New Jersey, and a recent building inspection in Westhampton.) In fact, I read it a second time and then did a word search on the digital version. The Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) is not mentioned once, let alone “implicated.”
7:18 is the one making implications. Susan Hinkson is a former borough commissioner for the Department of Buildings. She is absolutely qualified to sit on the BSA, whoever might have suggested her for the job. Might is the key word here; pursuant to Section 661 of the city charter, the mayor appoints the six members of the BSA. This is the kind of sloppy and paranoid thinking that makes community activists look bad. …and that’s from someone who has prepared testimony in opposition to the owner’s application to be “grandfathered,” so my comments are not some back-door endorsement of the project.
the BSA is so conflicted it’s sickening. it turns out that representative Susan M. Hinkson was recommended to the board by Sheldon Loebel, the law team that represents the developer in this case! so now i ask, how fair can this process be? i hope everyone read the New York TImes article today on the front page of the metro section where the BSA is implicated. the board of standards and appeals is part of the problem folks, if you ever find yourself standing in front of them you will know what i mean, it’s a rigged system. the whole process is Kafka-esque on purpose.
(and by the way, Building Too Tall group did great today. the file is still open and no decisions will be made until AT LEAST march). this developer is probably going to be hemoraging money by then if he isn’t already.
sooooooooooooo…………what happened?
this building site is not on a major street, it is located in small neighborhood streets with R6b and R5b zoning, that means 3 story maximum and 5 story maximum. the zoning in this location would never permit a 16 story tower.
one of the incredible things about this issue is that the GLC group first set forth plans for 7 stories and that plan gave them 5-8 more total units than their current, more controversial plan. if GLC had just not changed their own plans then the community would never have objected, in fact the building might even be built by now!
“Were it not for the little gritty BTT fighters….” Sheesh, if you’re going to be self-congratulatory, can you at least wait until you win?
Isn’t this right off a very commercial street? It doesn’t seem like such a big deal to have a tall building there. What;s the problem?