Tuesday, November 25, 2008

BSA Madness for Carroll Gardens

We are sorry to report that the BSA granted Mr. Stein the variance today to build Oliver House seven stories high as opposed to the mandates of the new text amendment which would have allowed only 5 stories.


The vote was unanimous on both applications: On the BZY application: the completion of the foundation which was only 20 per cent complete according to the DOB

and the A application which claimed the developer would suffer substantial economic financial loss.

Below we have copied an article from www.gowanuslounge.com about learning more about the BSA.

From GL: WTF is the BSA? Here’s a Chance to Find Out


"Do you know what the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) is and what it does? Well, here’s a chance to learn, via a session called “Navigating the BSA that will take place on Monday, December 1. Per an email":

"In New York City, one body has the power to grant exceptions to certain local building laws and regulations on a case-by-case basis: the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA). Once granted, such special permissions, known as variances, provide building owners and developers with legal, alternative approaches to the city’s Zoning Resolution, Building and Fire Codes, and Multiple Dwelling and LaborLaws. The BSA also hears appeals made by property owners, community groups, elected officials and the like who believe that a given commissioner or agency head has issued a ruling that is illegal.

"Comprised of five mayoral-appointed commissioners, the BSA is considered to be one of the most obscure but powerful bodies in city government. Yet many neighborhood advocates who have opposed or closely monitored construction projects in their neighborhoods have had to appeal to the BSA at one time or another. BSA Vice-Chair Christopher Collins will explain the basic steps of presenting to the Board, from how to navigate their procedures and requirements to how the most effective approach to formulating arguments.

"The Coffee Talk begins at 8:30am and is held at the Neighborhood Preservation Center, 232 East 11th Street, between Second & Third Avenues in Manhattan. All Coffee Talk events are free of charge.
Reservations required. To RSVP, email hdc@hdc.org or call (212) 614-9107.

"Go forth and learn a lot." GL


We could not agree more. CORD


Also from GL a reminder of our Councilman's implicit support for the BSA:


Councilman’s Letter Avoids Pro or Con Stand on 360 Smith

September 16th, 2008 · www.gowanuslounge.blogspot.com

"City Council Member Bill de Blasio has been involved in the debate over 360 Smith Street since it became a community issue in Carroll Gardens. He has been involved in most public forums over the issue and his office has practically become the official go-between with the community and the developer. Recently, the neigbhborhood group CORD has been challenging him to take a stand against the developer’s effort to build the condo to its full 70 feet rather than 55 feet allowed under altered zoning. A letter from one of CORD’s founders said":

Where are you Councilman DeBlasio?”, we ask, as residents of Carroll Gardens who fought long and hard along with you to pass the zoning text amendment . This amendment which limits building height to 55 ft. will have no value, non, nada, if we allow even one new development to be absolved from its mandate. The claims of loss at the 360 site which is barely started, are incidental, and we need our Councilman to stand by our side at the BSA hearing to show his support. Our efforts through the past year will be futile if we let this go. You have been a strong force in our arduous endeavor to save our neighborhood and we appreciate all that you have done. It is vital that all our Politicians who were proponents of the amendment show their courage and determination by supporting their constituents at the BSA hearing. Where are you Councilman DeBlasio? Can we count on you to be there?

"The Councilman wrote a letter to the powerful board a week ago. In it, he does not recommend either approval or disapproval of the developers applications. He simply asks that the board “take the facts of each individual case and neighborhood preservation” into account in making a decision. " GL


HERE AGAIN IN FULL, WE PRESENT THE ARTICLE WRITTEN BY CITY

COUNCILMAN TONY AVELLA WHO IS ALSO HEAD OF THE LAND USE COMMITTEE:


Dateline : Thursday, August 07, 2008
Abolish the Board of Standards and Appeals!
By City Council Member Tony Avella

If the framers of the Constitution/Declaration of
Independence were still alive today, I am confident
they would cite the operation and existence of the
City’s Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) as a
perfect example of unrepresentative government.

It is time for this unresponsive, undemocratic bureaucratic
body to go!

For many New Yorkers, BSA is a totally unknown entity,
yet its impact is being felt in every neighborhood in this City.
A quasi-judicial agency, BSA is comprised of five
commissioners appointed by the mayor for six-year terms
to, in large part, issue variances to the zoning code.

It is the implementation of this responsibility that has
irked, frustrated and outright angered elected officials,
community boards and residents.

The original mission of BSA was to provide a relief valve
for property owners in those rare circumstances where
existing zoning regulations would prohibit them from
reasonably developing their property. I stress the
word “rare.”

Unfortunately, BSA has been allowed to mushroom into a
huge loophole for developers who want to circumvent
the law. For far too long developers have used BSA as
“an old boys network” where a handful of law firms
represent hundreds of clients/developers trying to
build in excess of existing building and zoning code
requirements.

While the borough presidents and community boards
routinely submit comments on variance applications,
their opinions are only advisory and often dismissed by BSA.

Despite BSA’s assertions to the contrary, borough
president and community board recommendations
are generally only successful in achieving very minor
changes to original plans. It is fascinating to note that
City Council members have no official role in the
process other than to receive a copy of the application.

When reviewing applications, BSA must evaluate the
request in terms of the following five criteria:

* Does the unique condition of the property prevent
reasonable development?
* Would unique property conditions prevent an owner
from obtaining a reasonable financial return?
* Does the variance, if granted, alter the essential
character of the neighborhood?
* Is the situation the result of a self-imposed hardship?
(In other words – you cannot buy a property knowing
the restrictions and then claim hardship.)
* Is the variance requested the minimum necessary
to afford relief?

Unfortunately, BSA routinely disregards these guidelines.
The self-imposed hardship restriction is rarely enforced.
The BSA requirement that the variance will not alter the
character of the neighborhood is a joke! It is never really
considered.

And why does the city, through BSA, reward developers
for making a bad financial decision. If you own any other
type of business in this city and make a bad investment
or your business fails, the city does not bail you out. But,
BSA will grant a financial hardship variance for developers
who make poor judgments or risky investments.

This practice clearly demonstrates the huge political
influence that the real estate industry enjoys in this city.
It is a foolproof system that rescues developers from
their own incompetence and investment mistakes.

To justify their favorable actions towards developers,
BSA will frequently rely on their “quasi-judicial” status
as a defense. This convenient excuse provides political
cover for their lack of common sense and failure to
adhere to the five variance criteria. Yet, the
qualifications for appointment to the board say
nothing about being an attorney.

The only qualifications mentioned in the City Charter
are that one commissioner shall be a registered
architect with at least 10 years’ experience as an
engineer and one shall be a planner with professional
qualifications and with at least 10 years’ experience
as a planner.

Why is there no requirement that the Commissioners
have legal experience? Because it was never meant to
be the final legal arbiter of these land use issues.

Ever since the old Board of Estimate was eliminated, the
only recourse for New Yorkers to appeal BSA decisions is
to file an Article 78 lawsuit against the city – a time consuming
and expensive proposition. Good luck in trying to get
satisfaction by that route!

When the Board of Estimate was in existence, BSA decisions
could be appealed to that legislative body. Under that
system, at least New Yorkers had the opportunity to
press their case for justice before officials elected by the
people as opposed to the appointed bureaucrats on BSA.

Since taking office in January of 2002, I have authored
several pieces of legislation in an attempt to reform this
agency. Unfortunately, all of them are languishing in
the City Council as a direct result of the pressure
exerted by the real estate industry and the opposition
from the Mayor’s Administration.

In order to address the lack of oversight and an
appeal process, I introduced Intro. 261/2006. This
legislation would re-establish the review process over
variance and special permits decisions, previously
held by the former Board of Estimate, under the
auspices of the City Council.

The City Council already has jurisdiction in land use
matters under the Uniform Land Use Review
Procedure (ULURP). Adding this review process
would strengthen the ULURP procedure and add
balance to this area of land use decision-making.

I authored two other bills in a further attempt to
address the total control of the mayor in appointing
members to the board.

Intro. 263/2006, if enacted, would expand the
number of BSA commissioners from five to thirteen,
with the eight additional members to be appointed,
one each, by the borough presidents, public advocate,
comptroller and City Council.

The five mayoral appointees would remain; but their
voices would be tempered by those of the eight additional
members. Obviously, this would enable elected officials to
better serve their constituents by having direct
representation on the board.

As a companion bill to Intro. 263, I introduced Intro.
262/2006, which would require that all variance and
special permit decisions by BSA be made by a
two-thirds majority of the quorum present and voting.
Once the membership of BSA is expanded to 13 members,
requiring a two-thirds majority vote would ensure that
decisions of such magnitude are addressed by a
substantial majority of the board.

This past February, I introduced Intro. 695/2008,
which would require one of the members of BSA to
be a financial analyst with professional qualifications.
Since one of the five variance criteria involves the
review of an alleged financial hardship, it only makes
sense to have a member of the Board who has the
financial background to determine the legitimacy of
any such claim by a developer.

I am also in the process of writing legislation that
would change the statute of limitations for filing
an Article 78 proceeding challenging BSA decisions,
from thirty days to four months.

The current 30-day time frame presents an unnecessarily
harsh procedural hurdle. The very short time frame within
which an Article 78 petition must be filed makes such challenges extremely difficult to execute due to the cost and extensive preparation that is required in bringing these actions before the Supreme Court.

The majority of Article 78 BSA cases are brought by
aggrieved citizens who need a significant amount of
time to come up with funds to retain counsel, and for
counsel to properly prepare the necessary petitions and
accompanying documents that must be filed. Making this
change in the law would provide residents and community
groups the necessary time to properly develop and file an
Article 78.

The passage of any of these bills would make a
significant impact on how BSA operates and allow for
additional community input and a more balanced
decision making process.
Having said that, I have come to believe that BSA
decisions are so skewed in favor of developers that
the entire system must be scrapped.

After personally testifying before the board on
numerous variance applications on behalf of the community,
not only those within my City Council district, but other neighborhoods/boroughs as well, I have come to realize
that the entire process is a charade.

It is extremely disheartening to watch neighborhood
residents travel to the BSA office in lower Manhattan
for hearing after hearing to contest a variance application,
only to see the commissioners vote in unison to approve the application.

It has become a BSA routine; whereby multiple hearings are
held on an item until; it would appear, the community is
simply worn down. It is almost impossible for the average
person to continuously take time off from work or other
duties to fight the developers.

In the final analysis, while most people do not know
this
agency even exists, it has had and continues to have
a
dramatic and damaging effect on the residential
character of neighborhoods throughout our city by
allowing developers to circumvent the zoning – in many
cases ruining the quality of
life for millions of New Yorkers. It is time to end
this sham and close what is the biggest loophole for
developers.


Abolish the Board of Standards and Appeals!

“Abolish the Board of Standards and Appeals!”
pub. in the Queens
Ledger by Tony Avella 8/7/2008.




Thursday, November 20, 2008

Clinton Street Residents ask Marty to JUST SAY NO! to Toll Bros.

CORD has just received this wonderful letter in opposition to the
Toll Brothers project.
It has already been sent to our
Boro President, Marty Markowitz. As we posted earlier this week
the email address to the Borough President is:
askmarty@Brooklynbp.nyc.gov
and he reads his mail! Please let him knows your views on the Toll
Brothers project and other "overdevelopment" projects here in our
beloved Carroll Gardens. You can also write to us at cgcord@gmail.com!

Sent to:
Borough President Markowitz
Brooklyn Borough Hall
Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:56 AM

Dear Marty:

As 15-year residents and property owners in Carroll Gardens,
we are strongly opposed to any kind of development
that alters the historic and cultural character of this great
Brooklyn neighborhood.

This includes the Toll Brothers project that is the current
subject of discussion by your office and the city.
Already, there is deep concern, which we share,
over high-rise and other residential and commercial projects
that
adversely impact the character of Brownstone Brooklyn,
which as I am sure you know, is an area of distinctive urban
architecture quite unlike any other in the world.

The idea that absentee developers with no
stake in a neighborhood other than financial would be allowed
to
erect inappropriate structures that do damage to its
quality
and architectural integrity is an affront - indeed, an
insult - both to the citizens who have lived here for decades
and those who came more recently because of what
it promises as a place to live and raise families.

One need only visit 2nd Place between Clinton and Henry to
see how a single, jarringly out-of-place building
destroys the asethetic nature of an otherwise beautiful block. How
this monstrosity snuck past the gate of common sense is a mystery
to everyone in the area. No argument for increased tax base, or
any other politicians' rationale, is valid against the damage
that would be inflicted by the building of structures that exceed
traditional heightlimits or otherwise violate the intrinsic quality
of Carroll Gardens' graceful streets, yards and houses.

Even if a new building does not directly abut
or impinge on historic or otherwise exceptional structures, it can
set a dangerous precedent that opens the door to future unwanted
development. That of course is a strategy used by developers
and is
the greatest concern expressed by people
in Carroll Gardens.


If you care about Brooklyn, and we are
certain of that, you should do whatever is necessary to
put a stop to this project and any others that would
also undermine or overwhelm this neighborhood. This applies
to any scheme that would crassly violate
the nature of Carroll Gardens and its historical ties to early
Brooklyn and to New York Harbor.

Thank you for your consideration.

Clinton Street Residents
(Names Withheld by Request)
Carroll Gardens

Folks, we could not have said this better ourselves! CORD

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Ask Marty to Help Scale Back Gowanus Development

CORD received the following letter re: the proposed Toll Brothers Development in Carroll Gardens today. Please read!

Dear Friends and Neighbors,

Many of us in the neighborhood have been working to establish appropriately scaled development on the Gowanus Canal. This rare channel of water in our urban fabric, gradually being cleaned up, has incredible potential for a publicly-accessible urban respite park (last month I met a fisherman who regularly catches striped bass form Carroll bridge!)

City Planning proposes 12 story residential development along the canal south of Carroll Street bridge. Though this re- zoning is not approved, Toll Brothers is moving ahead with plans to build a large development on the canal between 2nd and Carroll Streets at the 12 story height.

While many of us support re-zoning to allow residential development along the canal, most of us in the neighborhood believe the development should be limited in height so that:

- It has less impact on the adjacent historic 2-4 story brownstone fabric of Carroll Gardens

- It provides necessary sunlight and open sky required for the relatively narrow publicly accessible canal-front park.

To build their project, Toll Bros needs special approval through ULURP (Uniform Land Use Review Process), which includes approval by Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. Last week, John Hatheway (architect, member of the Carroll Gardens Neighborhood Association and advocate for responsible development for those who don't know him) and I gave the attached presentation to Marty, advocating an 8 story height limit, which allows the same built area and affordable housing as Toll Bros. but at an appropriate height for Carroll gardens and the Gowanus park.

He and his staff were receptive. But for Marty to advocate for our proposal, he needs to know that we have support of many in Brooklyn.

If you agree with us PLEASE SEND MARTY AN EMAIL at the below address saying you are “a resident of Carroll Gardens and support John Hatheway and Chris McVoy’s proposal for limiting development on the Gowanus to 8 stories” for reasons above and any others you wish to mention.

askmarty@Brooklynbp.nyc.gov

This is likely our last chance to scale back the development! - and Marty actually reads his emails!

On Wednesday we will give the same presentation at the Borough Pres’ public hearing. It would also be very helpful if any of you could come and voice your support for our proposal at the hearing:

DATE: Wednesday, November 19, 2008

TIME: 5:30 pm

PLACE: Brooklyn Borough Hall
First Floor, 209 Joralemon Street Brooklyn, NY 11201

Thank you!

Chris McVoy,
Carroll Street
Carroll Gardens

Sunday, November 16, 2008

TWO IMPORTANT CG MEETINGS THIS WEEK!

There are two very important meetings this week!

FIRST MEETING, MONDAY:

The Executive and Landmarks/Land Use Committees of Brooklyn Community
Board 6 are pleased to host A Forum with Amanda Burden, Chairperson of
the City Planning Commission

An update by Commissioner Burden on the department's land use
activities related to the Gowanus Canal corridor. Developed from
January through July 2007, the Department of City Planning created a
land use framework for the Gowanus Canal corridor. The framework is a
set of guiding principles relating to issues including use, density,
bulk, and waterfront access, intended to provide standards for
formulating and evaluating proposals for future land use changes. in
May 2008 the Department of City Planning shared its draft rezoning
proposal for 25 blocks along the Gowanus Canal with Brooklyn Community
Board 6 and the community-at-
large. Commissioner Amanda Burden will
meet with the community to give an informational update on the status
of the department's land use activities and address any concerns. THE
TOLL BROS PROJECT IS BASED ON THIS REZONING PROPOSAL AND WILL SET A
PRECEDENT FOR IT – ANY CONCERNS YOU MAY HAVE REGARDING TOLL BROTHERS
PROPOSAL CAN BE ADDRESSED TO THE WHOLE FRAMEWORK.
DATE: Monday, November 17, 2008
TIME: 6:30 pm
PLACE: P.S. 32 Auditorium
317 Hoyt Street, (between Union/President Streets) Brooklyn, NY 11231

SECOND MEETING, WEDNESDAY:

Brooklyn Borough President’s Hearing on Toll Brothers Project



The Toll Brothers ULURP application to change Zoning to allow their
Gowanus Canal project is now at the Borough President’s Office for
review (after passing CB6’s review). This is our chance for the
community to be heard again. John Hatheway and I will be making an
updated presentation making the case for an 8 story height limit. This
will bring the building height below the horizon from most Carroll
Gardens vantage points, and equally important allows enough sunlight
into the Canal Esplanade to make it a viable park. Our proposal has the
same floor area as Toll’s, same affordable housing amount, same
possibility for high end units, same economics for union labor. It
differs from Toll Bros in that it has very little impact to Carroll
Garden’s skyline AND it provides much better sun to the canal park.
PLEASE COME AND SUPPORT OUR PROPOSAL OR VOICE YOUR OWN CONCERNS.

DATE: Wednesday, November 19, 2008
TIME: 5:30 pm
PLACE: Brooklyn Borough Hall
209 Joralemon Street Brooklyn, NY 11201

Thanks to Craig Hammerman, Richard Bearak and Chris McVoy for
forwarding these alerts!

CORD

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Toll Brothers Board Voting

We at CORD wholeheartedly endorse and support this letter:

CB6 Board Member

RE: Toll Brothers Board Voting

Tonight you will be asked to vote on a spot rezoning along the Gowanus Canal for a high-density residential project proposed by Toll Brothers. We in the community ask that you take the time to consider the environmental concerns surrounding this change in use and ask that you vote to oppose this zoning change at this time.

Among the many environmental concerns one very worrisome issue is that, the proposed residential development would be built within the FEMA Floodway, along a waterway with an industrial water quality classification.

Even after the extensive rehabilitation work planned by the DEP for the Gowanus Flushing Tunnel, the Gowanus Canal will remain classified as an industrial water with a Class SD ranking. This is significant because this standard has no institutional controls on the levels of pathogens in the water.

It is the persistent elevated levels of pathogens that the Toll DEIS sites as the cause of the “un-mitigatable smells” in this area. There are concerns that these levels could rise due to the increases in human residential density along the water. There are concerns that these levels of pathogens are presently effecting and will continue to effect human health in the area--especially during storm events and potential sea surges that bring this water into the land and buildings.

It is imperative that the waters of the Gowanus be held up to a standard that requires limits on the levels of pathogens before this area is considered for additional residential density so close to the waters edge. Yet this is not the plan we have before us from the DEP; there is a hope that a higher water quality might be achieved through the rehabilitation project, but this is a big unknown at this time— the HydroQual computer models are not sufficient to gauge the long term issue of pathogens and the resulting poor air quality problems.

While there are many other concerns about making this zoning change, especially given the current economic conditions that are specifically effecting the housing developments currently underway along 4th Avenue; we believe that the environmental concerns are in themselves sufficient reason to predicate any change of use, involving a dense residential development along the FEMA flood way, upon a known and verifiable cleanup of the canal waters that include limits on the pathogens levels. By doing so, we will forge a united front of the community and those who wish to develop residential complexes within the FEMA flood way to finally find a process through our government that will lead to a water way that is appropriate for all the new uses we envision for the Gowanus waterway. To build housing along the Gowanus Canal, prior to achieving a water quality appropriate for residential use, has ethical and moral implications.

Please vote NO on the Toll Brothers Gowanus Rezoning.

Sincerely,

FROGG

Friends & Residents of Greater Gowanus


CORD HISTORY:

With the "Protect Our Homes" petition, CORD was formed in May, 2007. This petition arose as an overwhelmingly negative response to the coming of the over-sized 360 Smith Street Development at the corner of Smith Street and Second Place (Aka Oliver House; aka 131 Second Place). This petition, which had well over three thousand signatures, led to a new zoning text amendment in summer of 2008.

To: Our Elected Officials, Community Leaders, The MTA:
(MAY, 2007)

We the undersigned Carroll Gardens homeowners and residents, are appalled by the "as of right" ruling which allows owners and developers to erect buildings in our neighborhood with no regard to the impact they will present to our quality of life and the value of our homes........

http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?crlgrdns