CITY LANDarchive.citylaw.org/.../2009/April/evFNus9j.pdf · April 15, 2009 Volume 6 CITY LAND 37...

April 15, 2009 Volume 6 CITYLAND 37

APRIL 15, 2009 center for new york city law VOLUME 6, NUMBER 3

CITYLAND

ing room on the second floor, and athree-story glass addition and one-story penthouse that will house a 138-room hotel and an indoor/out-door roof-top bar and restaurant.

At Council’s March 4th publichearing before its Subcommittee onZoning & Franchises, Dermot attor-ney Melanie Meyers called the proj-ect “a public/private partnership,”and stated that the public spacewould serve as a “living room” forlower Manhattan and restore water-front access at the site. Meyers addedthat the proposal had received support from the Municipal Art Society, the New York LandmarksConservancy, and the AmericanInstitute of Architects.

Subcommittee Chair Tony Avella stated that his first reaction tothe proposal was that the additionwas a “monstrosity.” Avella found itdifficult to believe that the applicantscould not build an addition thatmore closely matched the “uniquearchitecture” of the existing struc-ture. Avella further stated that developers had assured him that no preservationist

Highlights

CITY COUNCILBattery Maritime addition . . . . . .37North Corona rezoning . . . . . . . . .39Special Forest Hills District . . . . . .40Gowanus Canal project OK’d . . . .40

CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONNew garage in Hell’s Kitchen . . . .41Hudson Yards text amended . . . . .42Two Trees in DUMBO . . . . . . . . . . .43Bicycle Parking modified . . . . . . . .43

BOARD OF STANDARDS & APPEALSVariance in Charleston . . . . . . . . .43

LANDMARKSSt.Vincent’s design app’d . . . . . . . .44EDC breathes life into Pier15 . . . .46Wash. Sq. Park renovation . . . . . . .47

COURT DECISIONSAtlantic Yards moves ahead . . . . .49BSA loses appeal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .49

GUEST COMMENTARYHoward Goldman . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45

CITYLAND PROFILELeonard Wasserman . . . . . . . . . . . .48

CHARTSDCP Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .39ULURP Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .42BSA Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44Landmarks Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . .46Landmarks Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . .47Citylaw.org New Decisions . . .50-51

CITY COUNCIL

Rezoning/Disposition

Lower Manhattan, Manhattan

Council approves BatteryMaritime addition

Restoration of Battery MaritimeBuilding along with addition of boutique hotel wins approval.On March 11, 2009, the City Councilvoted to approve the EconomicDevelopment Corporation and Der-mot Company’s redevelopment planfor the Battery Maritime Building,located on the southern tip of Man-hattan just east of Battery Park.

The 1909 building, once part ofthe original Whitehall Ferry Termi-nal, was designated as an individualCity landmark in 1967. EDC recentlyrenovated the City-owned buildingat a cost of about $60 million, andsought proposals for redevelopmentand reuse of the site. In July 2007,EDC awarded the interior redevelop-ment contract to Dermot. Plans for thebuilding include a multi-use venueand public space for the former wait-

Two Trees’ proposed development near Brooklyn Bridge. See story on page 43. Image: Beyer Blinder Belle Architects & Planners LLP.

(cont’d on page 39)

CITYLAND

38 Volume 6 CITYLAND April 15, 2009

CENTER FOR NEW YORK CITY LAW ADVISORY COUNCIL

COM M E NTARY

Stanley S. Shuman,ChairArthur N. Abbey ’59Sheila Aresty ’94Harold Baer, Jr.David R. BakerMichael A. CardozoAnthony ColesEdward N. CostikyanPaul A. CrottyRichard J. DavisMichael B. GerrardJudah GribetzKathleen Grimm ’80

Eric Hatzimemos ’92Michael D. HessLawrence S. Huntington ’64William F. Kuntz IIEric LaneRandy M. Mastro Richard MatasarRobert J. McGuireFrancis McArdleJohn D. McMahon ’76Thomas L. McMahon ’83Gary P. Naftalis

Steven M. PolanNorman RedlichJoseph B. RoseErnst H. Rosenberger ’58Rose Luttan RubinFrederick P. SchafferFrederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr.O. Peter SherwoodEdward WallaceRichard M. WeinbergPeter L. ZimrothJames D. Zirin

Round One on outdoor commercial signage goes to the CityOn March 31, 2009 Manhattan federal judge Paul Crotty rejected a vigorous constitutional challenge to

the City’s new outdoor advertising sign restrictions. [Clear Channel Outdoor v. City of New York] If the rulingholds up on appeal, the City will finally be in a position to reduce driver distractions, improve highway aes-thetics and preserve neighborhood character.

At stake are the very large, often free-standing illuminated signs located within 200 feet of arterial high-ways. There are between 634 and 692 such signs in New York City. Examples are visible along the Long IslandExpressway. City regulations would ban these large signs, except on proof that the signs were installedbefore November 1, 1979 and thereafter continuously operated. The new City regulations would also elim-inate most of the smaller illuminated advertising signs located in parking lots and garages where they arevisible to the street. One company alone operates 440 such signs.

The unsuccessful efforts by the City to ban or control outdoor advertising signs dates from 1940. Lack ofenforcement coupled with risk taking and evasion by sign owners have resulted in the current efflorescenceof illegal signs. During the same period, the City ambivalently created its own advertising sign exceptions.These signs appear on bus shelters and public telephones, which are approved franchises from which theCity derives substantial fees. The City has also tolerated signs on MTA, Port Authority and Amtrak property.

Judge Crotty’s 62-page opinion navigated through the complex constitutional principles that govern amunicipality when it regulates the modes by which speech is presented to the public. In doing so he distin-guished as immaterial the City’s permitting of some outdoor advertising while prohibiting other forms. Theconstitutional arguments will no doubt be carried to a higher court. What is most clear in this 70-year his-tory is the failure of the City to effectively police its rules on commercial signage. With Judge Crotty’s deci-sion, the City has won the first constitutional round, but it remains to be seen if the City can actually sustaina successful enforcement effort. We will know how successful the City is when the LIE signs actually go darkand come down.

Ross Sandler

Ross SandlerExecutive Editor and Director,Center for New York City Law

Melanie Cash ’02Associate DirectorManaging Editor

Frank Berlen ’07Editor, CityLand

Lebasi LashleyArt DirectorPetting Zoo Design

Natalie Amar ’08Peter Schikler ’08Melissa Wagner ’08Fellows

Kristin DagganSubscription Coordinator

Jesse DennoStaff WriterPublication Prod. Assistant

Lacy J. Redwine ’10Brent Reitter ’10Research Assistants

The Center expresses appreciation to the

individuals and foundations supporting the

Center and its work: The Steven and Sheila Aresty

Foundation, Fund for the City of New York,

The Durst Foundation, The Charina Endowment

Fund, The Murray Goodgold Foundation,

Jerry Gottesman, The Marc Haas Foundation and

The Prospect Hill Foundation.

CITYLAND (ISSN 1551-711X) is published 11 timesa year by the Center for New York City Law at NewYork Law School, 57 Worth St., New York City, NewYork 10013, tel. (212) 431-2115, fax (212) 941-4735,e-mail: [email protected], website: www.city-law.org © Center for New York City Law, 2009. Allrights reserved. Printed on recycled paper. Mapspresented in CITYLAND are from Map-PLUTOcopyrighted by the New York City Department ofCity Planning. City Landmarks and Historic Dis-tricts printed with permission of New York CityLandmarks Preservation Commission.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to CITYLAND, 57 Worth Street, New York, New York10013-2960. Periodicals postage paid at New York,New York.

CITYLAND ADVISORY BOARD

Kent Barwick Andrew BermanMolly BrennanAlbert K. Butzel

Howard GoldmanDavid KarnovskyRoss Moskowitz ’84Frank Munger

Carol E. RosenthalMichael T. SillermanPaul D. Selver

39

groups opposed the project, but helater learned that the Historic Dis-tricts Council staunchly advocatedfor the project’s denial. Avella calledthe misrepresentation a “disgrace.”

Simeon Bankoff, ExecutiveDirector of the Historic DistrictsCouncil, called the proposal “unac-ceptable,” and argued that a reuse of the structure should not includean addition. He believed thatapproval would set an unfortunateprecedent for the adaptation of landmarked buildings.

Council Member Alan J. Ger-son, in whose district the buildinglies, testified that he knew the principals behind the development to be people of integrity, and that the project was an integral part of the City’s reclamation of the water-front. Gerson believed the additionwould not detract from the struc-ture’s aesthetic qualities, and argued that it would not set a precedent, as it was “a unique structure in a unique location.”

Avella disagreed, and, when theSubcommittee reconvened on March9th, was the sole dissenting vote. Avel-la remained the lone vote in opposi-tion at the Council’s stated meeting.

Council: Battery Maritime Building(March 11, 2009).

CITY COUNCIL

Rezoning

North Corona, Queens

Council approves NorthCorona downzoning

Developer’s appeal to maintain zon-ing fails to sway Council. On March24, 2009, the City Council approvedthe Department of City Planning’srezoning proposal for 100 blocks inNorth Corona, Queens. Althoughmost of the affected blocks wereincluded in a 2003 rezoning, local res-idents called on City Planning to pro-pose another rezoning given recentout-of-character development.

When Planning presented itsproposal at the City Planning Com-

April 15, 2009 Volume 6 CITYLAND

CITY PLANNING PIPELINE

New Applications Filed with DCP — March 1 - March 31, 2009APPLICANT PROJECT/ADDRESS DESCRIPTION ULURP NO. REPRESENTATIVE

ZONING TEXT AND MAP AMENDMENTS

DCP River Ave., MN Rezone parts of 9 blocks w/in 161st St. 090365ZMX;corridor; txt. amend. (high-density uses) 090364ZRY

Russo’s on the Bay 165th Ave., BK Disc. & close ave. for use as parking 090350MMQ Sheldon Lobel PC

HPD 907 E. 175th St., BX Rezone to R7-1/C1-4 & R7-1; UDAAP 090342ZMX;& disp. to legalize parking area for SSA 090343HAX

Sri Chimmoy Church Glenn Ave./ Discont. & close street for garden 090363MMQ Sheldon Lobel PC162nd St. Demap., QN

J&H Mgmt. Group 69-15 164th St., QN Rez. to R2/C1-3 to const. 2-story bldg. 090347ZMQ

SPECIAL PERMITS/OTHER ACTIONS

Banana Republic 550-556 Broadway, MN Spec. perm. (ret. space >10,000 sf.) 090362ZSM Fried Frank

SBS 1 Bryant Park, MN Amend Times Square BID 090346BDM

Central Parking Sys. 159 W. 48th St., MN Spec. perm. (access. to public garage) 090367ZSM Akerman Senterfitt

C.A.P. Rest. Corp. 303 W. 48th St., MN Enclosed sidewalk cafe w/20 seats 090345ECM

CAS 4650 Broadway, MN Acq. 40,000 sf. for HPD off. sp.; Acq. 090327PXM;65,000 sf. for NYPD 090328PXM

CAS/BOE 4312 2nd Ave., BK Site sel. & acq. prop. (voting machines) 090349PCK

Sabrosura Rest. 1220 Castle Hill Ave., BX New-enclsd. sidewalk cafe w/36 seats 090359ECX

Woodhaven Realty 72-75 Woodhaven Blvd., QN Spec. perm. to allow a retail store 090356ZSQ Slater & Beckerman

CAS/DOT 130-31 Northern Blvd., QN Site sel. & acq. to oper. asphalt plant 090366PCQ

Edward Lauria 160 Edinboro Rd., SI 3-yr. renewal of auth. const. 4 homes 090344CMR

Children’s Aid Scty. 314, 304 Lafayette Ave., SI Cert. to subdiv. 1 lot into 2 for fut. dev. 090360ZCR Sanna & Loccisano

ing the R6 district. He explained thatthe Planning Commission, in ap-proving the 2003 rezoning, statedthat the rezoning along NorthernBoulevard from R5 to R6 was devisedto create new opportunities for resi-dential, mixed-use, and communityfacility development. Rothkrug fur-ther explained that his client had pur-chased the property based on thisinformation, and was later “shocked”when he discovered a second rezon-ing of the area was planned, especial-ly since the area had not beenrezoned since 1961 and was nowbeing rezoned twice within a fewyears. Given the “unfair proceduralhistory” and “dramatic impact” onowners who purchased propertiesafter the 2003 rezoning, Rothkrugadvocated keeping the south side ofNorthern Boulevard between 104thand 112th Streets as an R6 district.

The Subcommittee decided notto change the boundaries of the pro-posed R6A district, found all aspectsof the modified plan to be appropri-ate, and unanimously voted toapprove the application. The Land

mission’s January 21st public hear-ing, several affected property ownersand their representatives spoke inopposition, including the owner ofMcGrath Funeral Home on 37thAvenue, and Adam Rothkrug, whorepresented the owner of 104-02Northern Boulevard, a propertylocated near the intersection ofNorthern Boulevard and 104thStreet. 6 CityLand 24 (March 15,2009). The Commission, in its report,modified Planning’s proposal bycarving out a portion of 37th Avenuebetween 90th and 92nd Streets.McGrath Funeral Home would keepits R6B designation, allowing it toexpand. The Commission, however,declined to modify the proposal as itrelated to the south side of NorthernBoulevard between 104th and 112thStreets. As such, 104-02 NorthernBoulevard’s zoning district wouldchange from R6 to R6A, reducing themaximum FAR from 4.8 to 3.0.

At Council’s March 18th publichearing before its Zoning & Franchis-es Subcommittee, Rothkrug askedthe Subcommittee to consider keep-

40

ed 200 ft. The Commission alsoacknowledged the community’sdesire to retain a supermarket at thecorner of Yellowstone and QueensBoulevards, but found the request tobe beyond the scope of the proposal.The Commission did, however,modify the zoning text amendmentto allow a special permit granted byBSA for 68-60 Austin Street to remainin effect if the plan were approved.

At City Council’s March 4thpublic hearing before its Zoning &Franchises Subcommittee, Katz stat-ed that she supported the rezoningand text amendment, but asked thatthe vote be laid over so that she couldascertain a “more appropriate heightlimit” for the C4-5X district andsecure a guarantee from Don RickAssociates that it would not elimi-nate the Key Food supermarket cur-rently in operation at the corner ofYellowstone and Queens Boulevards.

When the Subcommittee recon-vened on March 9th, Katz stated thatthe maximum building height in theC4-5X district would be 120 ft., exceptfor those areas limited by the 80-ft.height restriction. She also noted thatRichard Grobman of Don Rick Asso-ciates promised to include a 15,000sq.ft. food store as part of any newdevelopment at the site. Though KeyFood would be shut down duringconstruction, Katz explained that anorder-by-phone/home-delivery pro-gram would be implemented to servelocal residents.

Council: Special Forest Hills District(March 24, 2009).

CITY COUNCIL

Rezoning/Text Amendments

Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn

Council OKs housing projectalong Gowanus Canal

Council approves waterfront projectdespite community’s concerns aboutaffordable housing component. OnMarch 11, 2009, the City Councilapproved Toll Brothers’ proposeddevelopment at 363-365 Bond Street

Volume 6 CITYLAND April 15, 2009

Use Committee and the full Councildid so as well.

Council: North Corona 2 Rezoning(March 24, 2009).

CITY COUNCIL

Rezoning/Text Amendment

Forest Hills, Queens

Council modifies SpecialForest Hills District

Maximum height limit reduced from150 to 120 ft. in portions of proposedC4-5X district. On March 24, 2009,the City Council approved, with onemodification, the Department ofCity Planning’s proposal to rezoneand create the Special Forest HillsDistrict within a 10-block area in Forest Hills, Queens. The rezoningarea, roughly bounded by QueensBoulevard to the north, the LongIsland Rail Road to the south, AscanAvenue to the east, and YellowstoneBoulevard to the west, had originallybeen zoned C8-2, C4-2, and R7-1 in1961. The C8-2 and C4-2 districtsallowed for further development ofthe predominant uses in the area,which were automotive, commer-cial, and mixed-use. Over time, theauto repair shops and gas stationsgave way to retail businesses andrestaurants, and the area trans-formed into the commercial core ofForest Hills. Despite the change inneighborhood character, the outdat-

ed zoning remained, and developersincreasingly sought variances fromBSA to construct large, residentialand commercial buildings.

Local residents and elected offi-cials became increasingly concernedwith the possibility of haphazard,out-of-character development. Theyfeared developers applying for vari-ances would endeavor to constructbuildings that did not reflect the current neighborhood context.Council Member Melinda R. Katzand Queens Community Board 6requested that Planning devise arezoning for the commercial corethat better reflected current uses anddevelopment patterns in the area.Two years later, Planning proposedto rezone the area to R5D/C2-3, C4-4A, and C4-5X, and to establish theSpecial Forest Hills District withinthe entire 10-block area.

The maximum building heightin the C4-5X district would be 150 ft.except for buildings within 60 ft. ofthe northerly side of Austin Streetbetween Yellowstone Boulevard and70th Avenue; those buildings wouldnot be permitted to exceed a heightof 80 ft.

Although the City PlanningCommission, in its January 21, 2009report, acknowledged concernsfrom the community regarding the150-ft. height limit in the C4-5X dis-trict, it found the height to be appro-priate, noting that it was significant-ly less than the height of the talleststructure in the area, which exceed-

R5DR5DR5D

C4-4AC4-4AC4-4A

C4-5XC4-5XC4-5X

71 R

D71

RD

71 R

D

70 A

V70

AV

72 A

V72

AV

72 A

V

70 A

V69 R

D69

RD

69 R

D

72 R

D72

RD

72 R

D

70 R

D70

RD

70 R

D

71 A

V71

AV

71 A

V

Westside Tennis Club

Gerald MacDonald

Memorial Park

QUEENS BLVD

QUEENS BLVD

QUEENS BLVD

AUSTIN ST

AUSTIN ST

AUSTIN ST

AS

CA

N A

V

AS

CA

N A

V

AS

CA

N A

V

YELLOWSTONE BLVVDYELLOWSTONE BLVD

R7-1R7-1

R4BR4B

R4R4

R6R6R3-1R3-1

R1-2R1-2R4BR4B

R6R6

R7-1

R4B

R4

R6R3-1

R1-2R4B

R6

Legend

Existing Zoning Boundary (R4)

Special Forest Hills District Boundary

Proposed Zoning

R5D

C4-4A

C4-5X

C2-3 Overlay

Special Forest Hills District, Proposed Zoning used with permission of the New York City Department ofCity Planning. All rights reserved.

41

Review ProcessLead Agency: CPC, FEISComm. Bd.: BK 6, App’d, 23-10-5Boro. Pres.: App’dCPC: App’d, 12-0-0Council: App’d, 45-1-3

Council: 363-365 Bond Street (C 090047ZMK – rezoning); (C 090048 ZSK – spec.perm.); (N 090049 ZRK – text amend.)(March 11, 2009).

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Special Permit

Clinton/Hell’s Kitchen, Manhattan

CPC reduces parking spacesfor W. 53rd St. development

Commission declined to use quarter-mile radius test to determine the suffi-ciency of available parking nearby.On March 4, 2009, the City PlanningCommission approved, with modifi-cation, 405 West 53rd DevelopmentGroup LLC’s special permit applica-tion for a 37-space accessory parkinggarage. The garage would be locatedon portions of the cellar and groundfloor of an 84-unit, as-of-right resi-dential building located at 405-427West 53rd Street in Clinton/Hell’sKitchen, Manhattan.

At the Commission’s January21st public hearing, Anthony Borelli,Director of Land Use for ManhattanBorough President Scott Stringer,spoke in opposition, stating that thegarage was unnecessary given theample amount of available parkingwithin a quarter-mile radius of theproject site. 6 CityLand 5 (Feb. 15,2009). Anna Levin, of CommunityBoard 4, stated that sufficient parkingexisted even if the radius was reducedto three blocks, especially since an81-space parking garage located onthe same block would soon bereopened. CB4 was willing to accept17 spaces (parking for about 20 per-cent of the total units), but Stringerrecommended that the applicationbe completely denied because theapplicant failed to prove that therewas insufficient parking within thevicinity of the site. Stringer, in his rec-ommendation report, noted that

in Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn. The525,309-sq.ft. development will pro-vide 447 residential units, including130 affordable units. The project,located on two blocks along theGowanus Canal, bounded by Carroll,Second, and Bond Streets, includestwo five-story buildings, a series offour-story townhouses, and two 12-story buildings fronting the canal. 6 CityLand 4 (Feb. 15, 2009).

At Council’s March 4th Zoning& Franchises Subcommittee hear-ing, Brooklyn Borough PresidentMarty Markowitz called on TollBrothers to reduce the 12-storybuildings to eight stories, so thatviews from the Carroll Gardens Historic District would remainunobstructed. Markowitz alsorequested that Toll enter into a legally enforceable commitment toprovide the project’s affordablehousing component. A representa-tive from Brooklyn CommunityBoard 6 testified that although CB6conditionally voted to approve theproject, it was concerned that thedeveloper had not guaranteed thataffordable housing would be built. If the developer could not guaranteeaffordable housing, CB6 believed the project should be denied.

Council Member Bill de Blasio,whose district includes Carroll Gardens, supported the project, stat-ing that the project’s height and density was an appropriate way toincrease the availability of affordablehousing in the neighborhood. Hebelieved that Toll’s commitment to

and prevent the construction of thetownhouses. Avella also asked whatassurances Toll could give that theaffordable housing would be built.The representative stated that Tollremained committed to obtainingthe subsidies needed to provide theaffordable housing because the FARbonus necessary to build the projectas proposed was contingent on providing affordable units. Avellarecessed the hearing so that Tollcould come back and provide moreinformation on several items,including the community’s concernsover affordable housing.

When the Subcommitteereconvened on March 9th, Toll’s rep-resentatives provided additionaldetails of the affordable housingcomponent. Avella said that heappreciated the testimony, butremarked that it did not “get to theheart of the matter,” which waswhether Toll was willing to use a deedrestriction, or some other writtenagreement, establishing a firm com-mitment to provide the affordablehousing. Toll’s representatives reiter-ated Toll’s commitment to obtainingthe subsidies necessary to providethe affordable housing so that theproject, as proposed, could be built.

The hearing was closed, andCouncil Member Melinda R. Katzrecommended the project’s ap-proval. The project was approved,with only Avella voting no. The LandUse Committee approved the proj-ect, and the full Council followed suit.


Aerial view of Toll Brothers’ proposed development. Image: GreenbergFarrow.

building the affordablehousing was “real” andthat the number of unitswas substantial.

S u b c o m m i t t e eChair Tony Avella ques-tioned the developer asto why the project’sheight could not bereduced, to which a Tollrepresentative respond-ed that reducing theheight to eight storieswould lead to an unat-tractive monolithic form

42

allows, but does not require, acces-sory parking, and mandates thatparking spaces within Subarea A1 beaccessory to uses within Subarea A1and not be used for public parking.

At the Commission’s February4th public hearing, Joshua David, co-founder of Friends of the High Line,asked the Commission not toapprove any applications for Sub-area A1 until a solution was in placefor the entire High Line. David notedthat areas of the High Line north ofWest 30th Street remained unpro-tected, and that a comprehensiveplan, including City-acquisition ofHigh Line sites north of West 30thStreet, was needed to preserve theHigh Line in its entirety.

The Commission found allaspects of the plan to be appropriate,noting that the residential buildingat Eleventh Avenue and West 30thStreet would vitalize the intersection.Though the Commission recognizedconcerns over the future of the HighLine, it determined that the pro-posed text amendment would notharm the High Line or prevent itsintegration into RG’s development.

Review ProcessLead Agency: CPC, Neg. Dec.Comm. Bd.: MN 4, App’d, vote not availableBoro. Pres.: App’dCPC: App’d, 12-0-0Council: App’d, 48-0-3

CPC: Eastern Rail Yards Text Amend-ment (N 090211 ZRM – text amend.)(March 4, 2009). CITYADMIN

CITYLAND Comment: On April 2,2009, the City Council approved theapplication without modification.

over a thousand parking spaces wereusually vacant within a quarter-mileradius of the site.

The Commission granted thespecial permit, but reduced the max-imum amount of permitted accesso-ry spaces to 30. According to the 2006American Community Survey, the84-unit residential building wouldgenerate a demand for approximate-ly 39 parking spaces. Although 39spaces may have been available with-in a quarter-mile radius of the site,the Commission found that the ap-propriate radius for assessing avail-able parking was “smaller” than thequarter-mile radius normally used toassess potential significant impactsunder the City’s environmental re-view process. Employing this smallerradius, the Commission determinedthat only 30 parking spaces wereneeded. Although the imminentreopening of the 81-space garagecould partially satisfy the demand forparking, the Commission found itinappropriate to assume that all ofthe building’s residents would beaccommodated there.

ULURP ReviewLead Agency: CPC, Neg. Dec.Comm. Bd.: MN 4, Den’d, 38-0-0Boro. Pres.: Den’dCPC: App’d, 12-0-0Council: App’d, 48-0-3

CPC: 405-427 West 53rd Street Garage(C 070305 ZSM – spec. perm.) (March 4,2009). CITYADMIN

CITYLAND Comment: On April 2,2009, the City Council approved theapplication, as modified by thePlanning Commission.


Text Amendment

Hudson Yards, Manhattan

Developer wins Eastern RailYard text amendment

Modification allows residentialbuilding to be sited at the corner ofWest 30th Street and EleventhAvenue. On March 4, 2009, the CityPlanning Commission approved RG


ERY LLC’s proposal to amend the siteplanning and parking regulationswithin Hudson Yards’ Eastern RailYard, also known as Subarea A1. Theaffected area, located within the Spe-cial Hudson Yards District, is bound-ed by West 33rd Street to the north,West 30th Street to the south, TenthAvenue to the east, and EleventhAvenue to the west.

RG, a joint venture of RelatedCompanies and Goldman Sachs,was selected by the MTA in May 2008to develop Subarea A1. RG submit-ted the application in order to facili-tate construction of its proposeddesign, which includes hotel, resi-dential, and ground-floor retail useat the corner of Eleventh Avenue andWest 33rd Street; commercial office,residential, and retail space alongTenth Avenue; a community facilitybuilding along West 30th Street; anda residential building with ground-floor retail near the corner ofEleventh Avenue and West 30thStreet. The design also allows for amaximum of 1,000 on-site accessoryparking spaces, with a maximum of350 spaces for commercial and com-munity facility use.

Under the current zoning text,the only permitted uses on thesouthwest corner of Subarea A1 arecommunity facility. The amendmentwould allow RG to construct its pro-posed residential building near thecorner of Eleventh Avenue and West30th Street. Also, the current zoningtext requires new development inSubarea A1 to provide on- or off-siteaccessory parking. RG’s proposal

ULURP PIPELINE

New Applications Certified into ULURPPROJECT DESCRIPTION COMM. BD. ULURP NO. CERTIFIED

150 Charles St. Garage Special permit MN 2 090036ZSM 3/2/2009

NYPD Mounted Unit Site selection, prop. acquisition MN 4 080012PCM 3/2/2009

Greenpoint-W’burg Rezoning; zoning text BK 1 090334ZMK; 3/2/2009Rezoning amendment N090333ZRK

Flatbush Rezoning Rezoning; zoning text BK 14 090336ZMK; 3/2/2009amendment 090335ZRK

Cord Meyer Rezoning Rezoning QN 6 090283ZMQ 3/2/2009

70th Ave./Glendale Yd. City map amendment QN 6 070429MMQ 3/2/2009

4 E. 94th Street Special permit MN 8 090003ZSM 3/16/2009

43

the Department of Housing Preser-vation and Development would berequired to make these three find-ings before Buildings could grant thewaiver or reduction.

The Commission also amendedthe plan as it related to dormitories.The amendment had originallycalled for one parking space for every five dormitory beds, but theCommission changed the require-ment to one parking space per 2,000sq.ft. after Buildings expressed con-cern that enforcement of the pro-posed per-bed requirement wouldbe challenging.

The Council has until April 27,2009 to vote on the application.

Review ProcessLead Agency: CPC, Neg. Dec.Comm. Bd.: Citywide, 19 App’d, 4 Den’d Boro. Pres.: Citywide, 1 App’d BK Boro. Bd.: App’d, 16-3-5SI Boro. Bd.: Den’d, 3-2CPC: App’d, 12-0-0Council: Pending

CPC: Bicycle Parking (N 090191 ZRY –text amend.) (March 4, 2009). CITYADMIN

BOARD OF STANDARDS & APPEALS

Variance

Charleston, Staten Island

Commercial buildingallowed in SI special district

Applicant claimed that a conformingresidential development would notyield a reasonable return given thelot’s irregular shape, location, andsloping grade. Joseph Maza appliedto BSA for a variance to build a one-story commercial building with 21accessory parking spaces at 4553Arthur Kill Road in Charleston, aStaten Island neighborhood locatedjust north of the Outerbridge Cross-ing. The site was located within theSpecial South Richmond Develop-ment District, a district establishedin 1975 to guide the development ofthe southern portion of StatenIsland. The proposal required a vari-ance since Maza intended the build-ing to be occupied by retail stores,

project’s location and height wouldobstruct views of the iconic bridge.Although Yassky thought the areacould use a public school, he believedit was possible to secure one even ifthe current project was denied.

The Commission has until April27, 2009 to vote on the proposal.

CPC: Hearing on Dock Street-DUMBO Development (C 090181 ZMK– rezoning); (C 090183 ZSK – spec.perm.); (C 090184 ZSK – spec. perm.)(March 4, 2009).


Text Amendment

Citywide

Commission adopts modi-fied bicycle parking text

Amount of bicycle parking spacesrequired for affordable housingdevelopments could be waived orreduced. On March 4, 2009, the CityPlanning Commission approved,with several modifications, theDepartment of City Planning’s pro-posed bicycle parking text amend-ment. The amendment wouldrequire developers to provide secure,enclosed bicycle parking facilities innew buildings, enlargements ofbuildings of 50 percent or more, andconversions to residential use.

Although the Commissionexpressed support for the proposal,it believed revisions were necessaryto address concerns raised during itsFebruary 4th public hearing. 6 City-Land 25 (March 15, 2009). The Com-mission modified the text to allowaffordable housing developers toallocate less space, or no space at all,for bicycle parking that would other-wise be required. The reduction orwaiver would apply to cases wherethe development lacked space forthe required number of parkingspaces, the additional space couldnot reasonably be constructed basedon the amount of financing avail-able, and the reduction was the min-imum necessary to address financiallimitations. The Commissioner of


Rezoning/Special Permits

DUMBO, Brooklyn

CPC hears debate on projectnear Brooklyn Bridge

Opponents concerned that develop-ment would alter views of the bridge.On March 4, 2009, the City PlanningCommission heard testimony onTwo Trees Management Company’splan to build a mixed-use develop-ment at 10 Dock Street in DUMBO,Brooklyn. Two Trees had previouslysubmitted a proposal in 2004 todevelop a portion of the site with a16-story apartment building, butwithdrew the plan prior to the finalvote in the City Council. Many attrib-uted the withdrawal to mountingopposition from the community andelected officials. Two Trees later pur-chased additional land and submit-ted the current proposal, known asDock Street DUMBO, which shiftssome of the original proposal’sheight away from Water Street.

Bounded by Dock, Water, andFront Streets, the building would belocated on a 45,000 sq.ft. site adja-cent to the Brooklyn Bridge. Theproject would include approximate-ly 323 residential units, a 300-seatpublic middle school, a 465-spaceparking garage, and a 12,733-sq.ft.retail space. The building’s tallestsection would be approximately 183ft. in height, and the section closestto the bridge would be nine stories.To facilitate the proposed develop-ment, Two Trees submitted applica-tions for a map amendment thatwould create an MX-2 special mixed-use district and rezone about a half-block from M1-2 to M1-2/R8, and forspecial permits waiving height, set-back, and rear yard requirements.

At the Planning Commission’shearing, Council Members DavidYassky and Tony Avella opposed theproposal. Yassky, whose districtincludes DUMBO, stated that theneighborhood needed more hous-ing, but expressed concerns that the


44

Landmarks voted to grant approvalfor a new hospital on SeventhAvenue between 12th and 13thStreets in the Greenwich Village His-toric District. The site is currentlyoccupied by the 1963 O’Toole Build-ing, for which Landmarks approveddemolition in October of 2008. 5 CityLand 158 (Nov. 15, 2008).

Representatives of St. Vincent’spresented an amended design thatconsidered the criticisms the previ-ous design had provoked at the lasthearing. 6 CityLand 10 (Feb. 15,2009). Architect Ian Bader, of PeiCobb Freed & Partners Architects,explained that the proposed hospi-tal’s height was further reduced to286 ft., down from 299 ft. at the lastproposal and less than the 329 ft. atthe original proposal. Bader alsostated that the hospital’s “perceivedheight” would be 278 ft., sincemechanical equipment on the roofwould not be visible from the street.

Several other alterations werenoted aside from the height. Theground floor was modified with larg-er windows and extended canopiesto “deinstitutionalize” the entranceand improve the building’s interac-tion with the street. The hospital’spodium was brought level with theadjacent building’s street wall height.Projecting sunshades were removedfrom patients’ windows on the towerand replaced with louvers. Baderalso mentioned that an addition,including a public art installationand external staircase, would be con-structed on the building that partlyoccupies the triangle-shaped lot atthe corner of Seventh Avenue and12th Street.

In response to Commissioners’questions, attorney Shelly Friedmantestified that, were Landmarks toapprove the project, St. Vincent’swould still require approvals for azoning map amendment, zoningtext amendments, and special per-mits. Rudin Management would alsoneed approval for a planned residen-tial development across SeventhAvenue, currently occupied by St.Vincent’s hospital complex, before

which are prohibited within the R3-2residential zoning district.

Maza claimed that the lot’s irreg-ular triangle shape made it difficult toconstruct a conforming residentialdevelopment, and that the lot’s 15-ft.upward slope, beginning at its ArthurKill Road frontage, would increasesewer line installation costs. The pro-posed commercial developmentavoided these added costs since anon-site septic system would be uti-lized, eliminating the need for a new700-ft. sewer line. Maza also claimedthat a nearby 87,000 sq.ft. bus depotwould render the site unmarketablefor residential use given the depot’stask of servicing several hundredbuses daily, seven days a week. Thedepot, Maza added, would increasetraffic around Arthur Kill Road, a 60-ft. wide arterial road that providedaccess to New Jersey by way of theOuterbridge Crossing. The traffic-choked road, which touched the site,would further lessen the prospect ofsuccessfully marketing a conform-ing residential development.

BSA granted the variance, find-

ing that Maza could not develop aconforming residential develop-ment without suffering unnecessaryhardship because of sewer installa-tion costs, the lot’s irregular shape,and its undesirable location. BSAalso determined that the commer-cial building would not alter theneighborhood’s fundamental char-acter since the site was locatedimmediately west of an M1-1 districtwhere commercial developmentwas permitted as-of-right.

BSA: 4553 Arthur Kill Road (223-08-BZ)(March 3, 2009). CITYADMIN

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

Certificate of Appropriateness

Greenwich Village, Manhattan

Revised hospital planapproved for St.Vincent’s

St.Vincent’s still faces fight over asso-ciated residential development. In aMarch 10, 2009 public meeting,


BSA PIPELINE

New Applications Filed with BSA — Feb. 28 - Mar. 31, 2009

APPLICANT PROJECT/ADDRESS DESCRIPTION APP. NO. REPRESENTATIVE

VARIANCES

Beth Israel 1323 E. 32nd St., BK Enlarge synagogue 49-09-BZ Fredrick A. Becker

Tony Chrampanis 2175 Richmond Ave., SI Const. retail/office, parking 44-09-BZ Philip L. Rampulla

SPECIAL PERMITS/OTHER ACTIONS

E. 103rd Realty 345 E. 103rd St., MN N/A 35-09-BZ Kramer Levin

Igor Orak 122 Oxford St., BK Enlg. dwelling (yards, fl. area) 46-09-BZ Eric Palatnik PC

Arrow Linen 441 Prospect Ave., BK Ext. variance, amend app’d plans 42-08-BZ Francis R. Angelino

Paul Grosman 198 Varet St., BK N/A 43-09-BZ Harold Weinberg

Shirley Ades 3950 Bedford Ave., BK Legalize, enlg., dwelling 37-09-BZ Fredrick A. Becker

Milford House 53-01 32nd Ave., QN Install radio tower 36-09-BZ MetroPCS NY

R&R Auto Repair 117-04 Sutphin Blvd., QN Ext. term, enlg. bldg. 31-09-BZ Eric Palatnik PC

APPEALS

CAMBA Housing 97 Crooke Ave., BK Const. bldg. w/out turnaround 48-09-A Richard Lobel

Breezy Pt. Co-op 114 Beach 215th St., QN Reconstruct, enlg. dwelling 47-09-A Gary D. Lenhart

Kevin Yang 142-19 Cherry Ave., QN Vested right to continue const. 45-08-A Eric Palatnik PC

F&Z Properties 101-24 39th Ave., QN Permit const. in mapped st. bed 39-09-A Eric Palatnik PC

Lee Zhen Xiang 72-45 43rd Ave., QN Build in mapped st. bed 38-09-A Benjamin Lam

EXTEND CONSTRUCTION PERIOD

Treadwell Ave. LLC 124 Treadwell Ave., SI Ext. time for major development 32-09-BZY; William Alicea33-09-BZY;34-09-BZY

45

the hospital could be built.Landmarks Chair Robert B.

Tierney expressed support for theamended design, and commentedon the inherent complications ofreconciling the “preservation point

contemporary buildings in the area.Commissioner Christopher

Moore reiterated his stance that thepreservation of the hospital’s historicmission was the most compellingissue at stake, and that the design

of view” with the “societal impact.”Tierney stated that he believed theproposal before the Commissionhad found the appropriate balance,with “careful, thoughtful architec-ture,” that added to the collection of


GUEST COMMENTARY

Buildings Proposes Zoning Development Challenge Process The New York City Department of Buildings (“Buildings”) is considering the adoption of a “development

challenge process” in connection with the issuance of new building and alteration permits. In its current form, asdiscussed on Buildings’ website, the proposal is likely to have significant impacts on as-of-right development inthe City. As of the date of this article, the proposal is being reviewed internally by Buildings.

To increase public awareness of new development projects, the proposal requires that a “zoning diagram” befiled and posted online as part of a permit application. The diagram must include a site plan and axonometric draw-ings “so the public can view the size and scale of any development online before the first shovel hits the ground.”

In addition, a formal process would be established for zoning challenges by the public. Currently, there is no process governing the filing and resolution of zoning challenges, which may arise prior to, during, or after construction.

Under the proposal, zoning challenges must be filed within 30 days after an approval is issued by Buildings.Although the term “approval” is not yet defined, Buildings’ intention is to resolve zoning issues prior to issuanceof a full building permit.

Each challenge filed within the 30-day period must be reviewed by the Borough Commissioner and a deter-mination posted online. If the challenge is upheld, appropriate enforcement action may be taken. If the challengeis denied, the denial may be appealed to the First Deputy Commissioner within 15 days.

As stated in a Mayoral/Buildings press release, “the 30-day public-challenge process establishes a definedand organized means for the public to challenge zoning decisions by Buildings that they believe are incorrect, andwill provide clarity and certainty for developers about when a project can move forward, and when changes to aproposed development need to be made. The current process, which has no formal timeframe, produces confu-sion and unnecessary and unintended costs for development in New York City.”

Aspects of the new process, such as the requirement for posting a zoning diagram, time limits on the filingof zoning objections, and a requirement that Buildings respond to objections online, are consistent with Build-ings’ stated intent.

The most important question is how the proposal will affect the time (and certainty) in connection withobtaining a building permit. While referred to by Buildings as a 30-day process, the proposal merely establishesfixed periods of 30 and 15 days, respectively, for the filing of zoning challenges and appeals. No time periods havebeen proposed for issuance of determinations by Buildings, leaving the process open-ended.

Based on the City’s experience with the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (“ULURP”), the risk of addi-tional delay is significant. When adopted in the mid-1970s, ULURP was heralded as a six-month process. Howev-er, no time period was established for the period preceding the formal ULURP process. Over the years, the require-ments for “pre-certification,” including environmental review, have become increasingly complex and time con-suming, to the point that the full ULURP process typically takes two or three years to complete.

The potential to build on an as-of-right basis, in compliance with code and without formal public review, isone of the most important inducements for development in the City. The vast majority of development projectsare constructed as-of-right. In contrast, most local governments throughout the nation, including the City’s eco-nomic competitors, require discretionary approvals for every project. The injection of public review into the as-of-right permitting process runs the risk of reducing the City’s advantage and deterring developers, lenders, andtenants from doing business in New York.

There is currently no time frame for implementation of the new process, which is under review by Buildingsfollowing a public hearing held on March 6, 2009. Additional changes appear likely. Comments can be sent to theDepartment of Buildings c/o Deborah Glikin, Assistant General Counsel, General Counsel’s Office, 280 Broadway,New York, NY 10007.

— Howard GoldmanHoward Goldman, a member of CityLand’s Advisory Board, is a land use attorney and the principal of the Law Offices of Howard Goldman LLC.

46

that they had filed an article 78 peti-tion seeking to block demolition ofthe O’Toole Building.

LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONCOMMISSION

Advisory Opinion

South Street Seaport, Manhattan

South Street pier approved

Part of EDC’s East River waterfrontplan fell within historic district.The NYC Economic DevelopmentCorp. and SHoP Architects PC pre-sented a plan before Landmarks onMarch 17, 2009, to reconstruct Pier15 in the South Street Seaport His-toric District. The reconstruction ispart of the City’s East River Water-front Esplanade and Piers project,which is planned to stretch for twomiles from the Battery MaritimeBuilding to East River Park. The planintends to make lower Manhattan’seastern waterfront accessible andappealing to pedestrians. Since Pier15 fell within the South Street Sea-port Historic District, the designrequired Landmarks’ approval.

Architect Gregg Pasquarelli pre-sented the plan, explaining that thepier would consist of two levels, witha maritime education center andcafe on the lower level, and the upperlevel devoted solely to recreationalspace. The upper level floor would beconstructed of wooden slats withhalf-inch spacing, allowing lightbelow. Three lawns would be plantedon the upper level, and amphithe-atre-type seating would be installedfor viewing the river. Pasquarelliclaimed that the City had a history oftwo-level recreational piers, and thetwo levels allowed for maritime andrecreational uses.

A representative of the New YorkLandmarks Conservancy voicedsupport for the proposal, stating thatthe Conservancy recognized theneed for redevelopment of the area,and that the proposed design relatedwell to its surroundings. The Munic-ipal Art Society’s Melissa Baldock


was improved and “as appropriate ascould be.” Commissioner DianaChapin stated that she was glad theCommission was able to protect theoldest buildings on the hospital site,including the 1924 Nurses Residenceand the 1941 Spellman Building.

Commissioners Margery Perl-mutter and Roberta Brandes Gratzstrongly opposed the proposal, argu-ing that St. Vincent’s did not ade-quately explore the possibility of sit-ing the hospital elsewhere. Gratzclaimed that, given the economicdownturn, sites were undoubtedlyavailable, and suggested HudsonYards as a potential location. Sheadded that the loss of O’Toole was

both “unnecessary and tragic.” Com-missioner Stephen Byrns alsoopposed, finding the building exces-sively tall for the district and arguingthat the hospital’s chapel, cafeteria,and auditorium could be located inanother building or underground.

Landmarks voted to grant St.Vincent’s application by a vote ofeight to three. A date has not been set for Commission review of thecommercial component.

LPC: 20 Seventh Ave., Manhattan (COFA#08-8617); 76 Greenwich Ave., Manhattan(COFA# 08-4935) (March 10, 2009).

CITYLAND Comment: On March9th, preservationists announced

Landmarks Actions Taken in March 2009FINAL PERMITS TO BE ISSUED AFTER LANDMARKS RECEIVES CONFORMING PLANS

ADDRESS LANDMARK/HISTORIC DISTRICT DESCRIPTION CASE NO. APP’D

March 3, 2009

Wall St. & Broad St., MN New Amsterdam St. Plan Amend master plan reports 09-6824 Yes

77 Chambers St., MN Tribeca South HD Replace storefront infill 09-5617 Yes

833 Washington St., MN Gansevoort Mkt. HD Install signs 09-5771 Yes

233 Fifth Ave., MN Madison Sq. North HD Inst. infill, signs, fire escape 09-5852 Yes

72 Hudson Ave., MN Vinegar Hill HD Const. rooftop bulkhead 09-6165 W/Mod

315 Vanderbilt Ave., MN Clinton Hill HD Inst. windows, fence 09-5337 W/Mod

451 E. 16th St., BK Ditmas Park HD Alter windows, porch 09-6023 Yes

March 10, 2009

Grand Army Plaza, BK Prospect Park Install pay toilet 09-6498 Yes

57 Great Jones St., MN NoHo HD Ext. Inst. infill, access ramp 09-4535 Yes

576 Hudson St., MN Greenwich Village HD Alt. storefront, inst. sign 09-6385 W/Mod

76 Greenwich Ave., MN Greenwich Village HD Alter bldg., landscape 08-4935 Yes

20 Seventh Ave., MN Greenwich Village HD Demo. bldg., const. hospital 08-8617 Yes

690 Madison Ave., MN Upper East Side HD Const. roof add., alt. facade 09-6388 W/Mod

161 W. 78th St., MN Upper West Side/CPW HD Report to CPC (mod. bulk) 09-5184 Yes

49 W. 94th St., MN Upper West Side/CPW HD Legalize areaway, facade 09-5976 Yes

March 17, 2009

1 E. 29th St., MN Church of the Transfiguration Alter garden landscape 09-6827 Yes

776 Lorimer St., BK McCarren Play Center Reconstruct facades, walls 09-7066 Yes

Eastern Pkwy., BK Eastern Parkway Alter parkway 09-7019 Yes

South St., MN South Street Seaport HD Const. pier, landscape espl. 09-6967 Yes

451 W. Broadway, MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Legalize flagpole 09-5978 No

61 W. 8th St., MN Greenwich Village HD Install storefront infill 09-6737 Yes

881 Broadway, MN Ladies’ Mile HD Est. master plan (storefronts) 09-6456 Yes

109 Fifth Ave., MN Ladies’ Mile HD Inst. flagpole, alt. entrance 09-6451 Yes

41 E. 20th St., MN Ladies’ Mile HD Install storefront infill 09-6236 Yes

88 Remsen St., BK Brooklyn Heights HD Mod. window, const. bulkhead 09-7055 W/Mod

254 Hicks St., BK Brooklyn Heights HD Construct addition 09-6912 Yes

Bldg. 431, QN Fort Totten HD Inst. access ramp, generator 09-5830 Yes

240-35 43rd Ave., QN Douglaston Hill HD Legalize posts, walls 08-5737 W/Mod

March 24, 2009

1201 Lafayette Ave., BX American Bank Note Co. Alter wall, inst. ramp 09-7691 Yes

295 St. Ann’s Ave., BX St. Ann’s Church & Graveyard Construct shed 09-5934 Yes

600 Broadway, MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Paint bldg., reclad elev. shaft 09-6614 Yes

16 E. 95th St., MN Carnegie Hill HD Const. rear yard addition 09-5050 Yes

and alteration of two seating alcoves.The performance stage would bebuilt next to the park’s GaribaldiPlaza, and would have a 20-ft. radiusand a 700-sq.ft. performance area.The park currently has seven alcoves, which were built as part ofthe park’s last renovation in 1970, but all were slated for elimination inthe 2005 master plan. One of thealcoves, near the park’s playground,would be essentially retained, andthe other would be modified andreduced in size.

District 1 Council Member AlanJ. Gerson urged Landmarks to eitherabstain from taking action or disap-prove the modifications. Gersonstated that the community wanted

47

praised the design for creating boatdocking and open space. ManhattanCommunity Board 1 also submitteda letter recommending approval.

The Historic District Council’sNadezhda Williams spoke in oppo-sition, objecting to both the “piece-meal” consideration of the area’sredevelopment and the design andcharacter of the proposed pier.Williams called the project “over-designed,” and stated that “greenerydoes not belong on a pier in a historic district.”

Commissioners respondedpositively to the proposal. Commis-sioner Diana Chapin called the pro-posal “a very sensitive way to enliventhe waterfront,” and a “modern rein-terpretation of a recreational pier.”Commissioner Margery Perlmutterfound the most important preserva-tion aspect to be drawing peopletoward interaction with the water-front once more. CommissionerLibby Ryan disliked the lawns on thesecond story, and CommissionerRoberta Washington found the proj-ect lacked any significant connec-tion to the past. Nevertheless, themeasure passed seven to one, withonly Washington voting no.

LPC: South Street, Manhattan (Adviso-ry Report# 09-6967) (March 17, 2009).

LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONCOMMISSION

Binding Report

Greenwich Village, Manhattan

More controversy over Washington Sq. Park

Parks Department proposes perform-ance stage and seating areas in Wash-ington Square Park. On March 17,2009, Landmarks heard testimonyon the Parks Department’s proposedmodifications to the master plangoverning the renovation of Wash-ington Square Park.

The modifications, both on theeastern side of the park, allow for the construction of a permanentperformance stage and the retention

all seven alcoves to remain becausethey were an integral part of theWashington Square Park experience.Gerson also argued that the stageshould be expanded. He believedthat, given more time, his officecould formulate a plan with Parksthat would better please the com-munity. A representative of theWashington Place Block Associationtestified that the alcoves were asimportant to the park as its chesstables. Representatives of the Wash-ington Square Music Festival arguedthat the stage was inadequate, bothtoo low for audience viewing and toosmall for performers.

Following public testimony, inresponse to Commissioners’ ques-


Pier 15, as envisioned by EDC. Image: SHoP Architects PC.

LANDMARKS PIPELINE

Proposed Designations – March 2009NAME ADDRESS ACTION DATE

Aschenbroedel Verein 74 E. 4th St., MN Heard 3/24/2009

Neilson Burrill House 36 E. 38th St., MN Heard 3/24/2009

Paramount Hotel 235 W. 46th St., MN Calendared 3/24/2009

46 West 55th Street 46 W. 55th St., MN Calendared 3/24/2009

Logan Residence 17 W. 56th St., MN Heard 3/24/2009

Ferry Residence 26 W. 56th St., MN Heard 3/24/2009

Mt. Olive Church 308 W. 122nd St., MN Heard 3/24/2009

Audubon Park HD Washington Heights, MN Heard 3/24/2009

Ft. Washington Presbyterian 21 Wadsworth Ave., MN Heard 3/24/2009

Library Bldg., Tulip Allee NY Botanical Gdn., BX Designated 3/24/2009

Perry Avenue HD Bedford Park, BX Calendared 3/24/2009

William Ulmer Brewery 31 Belvedere St., BK Heard 3/24/2009

Fillmore Place HD Williamsburg, BK Heard 3/24/2009

Ocean On The Park HD Flatbush, BK Heard 3/24/2009

Ridgewood Theater 55-27 Myrtle Ave., QN Heard 3/24/2009

Jamaica High School 167-01 Gothic Dr., QN Designated 3/24/2009

Rutan Journeay House 7467 Amboy Rd., SI Designated 3/24/2009

Dissosway Cole House 4927 Arthur Kill Rd., SI Denied 3/24/2009


CITYLAND PROFILES

Leonard Wasserman discusses economic development

E arly in adultlife, Leonard

W a s s e r m a nthought he wouldpursue a career inurban planning.His perspectivechanged, howev-er, when he real-

nisms the City uses to create jobs arepublic/private partnerships, which usuallyinvolve the re-imagining and reshaping ofthe urban landscape. Through these part-nerships, the City alters the urban land-scape to improve the community andattract jobs. As an example, Wassermanpointed to the revitalization of 42nd Street.By the early 1980s, Times Square hadbecome what Wasserman described as “a wasteland.” People avoided TimesSquare for fear of getting their pocketspicked – something Wasserman experi-enced firsthand – or worse. The area wasnot providing quality jobs, and, by reasonof its intimidating character, not a populartourist destination. The City, through itsEconomic Development Corporation andwith the state’s Urban Development Corporation, engaged in a concentratedeffort to physically reshape the neighbor-hood. This effort led to the creation of asubsidiary corporation of the UDC taskedwith reshaping the 42nd Street communi-ty by inducing private investment, and the creation of a not-for-profit corporationtasked with overseeing the restorationand preservation of the area’s theaters by partnering with private developers.Times Square’s revitalization is well docu-mented, and according to Wasserman, ameasure of the project’s success is thefact that one can hardly avoid gettingknocked off the sidewalk because of thearea’s pedestrian traffic.

When asked to talk about theBloomberg administration’s developmentgoals in comparison to previous adminis-trations, Wasserman stated that there hasbeen a definite increase in initiatives. Hecredits this to the vision of City Hall, par-ticularly former Deputy Mayor for Eco-nomic Development Daniel L. Doctoroff.Wasserman believes Doctoroff and othermembers of the administration recognizedand embraced the government’s role inreshaping languished portions of the land-scape to dramatically enhance the City’seconomic fabric. Examples of this visionhave emerged across the City, includingthe planned Hunter’s Point South Project,the proposed East River Waterfront

Esplanade and Piers Project, and the Wil-lets Point Project.

Building relationships. Once the Cityidentifies a development project, Wasser-man and his attorneys begin the job ofcrafting a deal acceptable to both the Cityand the private party(s). While these proj-ects usually involve City-owned property,Wasserman stressed economic develop-ment agreements are more than just ordi-nary real estate transactions. These dealsoften include financial incentives, such astax-exempt bonds and payments in lieu oftaxes (PILOTs), to entice private develop-ers to partner with the City.

Wasserman emphasized that the roleof the Economic Development Divisionattorney goes beyond having an expertgrasp on land use practices, real estatetransactions, and complex financialinstruments. The attorney must also focuson what Wasserman described as rela-tionship building through harmonizing theinherently competing interests of the Cityand the private party(s).

Wasserman explained one curioussubspecies of his Division’s work. When aproject involves the granting of capitalbudget funds, it is imperative that the private party understand that capital funds are “sacred tax dollars” and thatthey come with strict responsibilities.Wasserman stressed that the funds arenot loans; the City does not expect nordoes it want to be repaid with interest.The City grants these funds with theexpectation that the private entity willachieve the defined public purpose. It isWasserman’s job to make sure that therestraints and responsibilities are madeclear, while at the same time effectivelysteering the private entity and the Citytoward a harmonious agreement.

Wasserman noted that under the current economic forecast the incentivesused to make these public/private partnerships work are likely to becomemore sophisticated. With a successfultrack record behind them, it is clear thatWasserman and his colleagues are up tothe challenge.

— Peter Schikler

ized he was “better with words than col-ored pencils.” After college, Wassermanspent a little over a year at the Housingand Development Administration (theagency that later split into Buildings andHPD), but decided to take a leave from theranks of the employed to attend BrooklynLaw School to focus on the legal aspectsof urban planning and development. Upongraduation, he served as a law clerk in theSouthern District and spent time in privatepractice. Wasserman then moved on tothe Law Department, and becameschooled in the art of public/private realestate transactions. In 1985 he wasnamed Chief of the Economic Develop-ment Division. Since then, Wasserman hascontinued to support City Hall in its pursuitof its economic development goals.

It’s about jobs. When asked todescribe the role of his Division, Wasser-man first discussed economic develop-ment in general. He pulled out a copy ofthe state’s Not-for-Profit Corporation Lawcovering local development corporations,and explained that these corporations,principally the New York City EconomicDevelopment Corporation, are the armsthrough which the City often carries out itseconomic revitalization plans. Wassermansummed up the lengthy statutory sectionby simply stating “it’s about jobs.” Specif-ically, it’s about how to retain, attract, andgrow jobs. In his view the importance ofhaving a job cannot be overstated.Wasserman links jobs to the overall stabil-ity of a person and their community; with-out a job a person’s world “disintegrates,”and this can weaken the overall fabric ofthe community.

And it’s about the urban landscape.Wasserman explained that the mecha-

49April 15, 2009 Volume 6 CITYLAND

tions, Parks Design Chief CharlesMcKinney stated that the majority ofthe alcoves should be removedbecause they attracted “undesirableactivities” like drinking and drug use.Although Parks desired swiftapproval of the project, LandmarksChair Robert B. Tierney asked thatthe Commission lay over the vote forfurther deliberation. Promising thatthe Commission would take actionsoon, Tierney closed the hearingwithout a vote.

LPC: Washington Square Park, Manhat-tan (Binding Report #09-5939) (March17, 2009).

COURT DECISIONS

Article 78/Declaratory Judgment

Prospect Heights, Brooklyn

Court affirms dismissal ofAtlantic Yards challenge

ESDC’s determination upheld thatthree blocks outside urban renewalarea were blighted. In 2003, ForestCity Ratner proposed to redevelop a22-acre site in Prospect Heights,Brooklyn. The site included portionsof the Atlantic Terminal UrbanRenewal Area and portions of threeprivately-owned blocks outside therenewal area. After Ratner’s proposalwas accepted, the Empire StateDevelopment Corporation designat-ed itself as lead agency for the pro-ject under state environmental law.ESDC prepared an environmentalimpact statement and a blight study,and later approved the findings in both documents, including thefinding that portions of the three privately-owned blocks were blight-ed. A coalition of local business own-ers and residents challenged ESDC’sblight finding in the non-renewalarea and the sufficiency of the environmental impact statement.Supreme Court Judge Joan A. Mad-den rejected the challenge, and thedecision was appealed. 5 CityLand16 (Feb. 15, 2008).

On appeal, the coalition argued,among other things, that ESDC arbi-

request to complete construction wasirrational since it had previouslygranted similar requests. MenachemRealty Inc. submitted professionallycertified plans to Buildings for a six-story residential condominium at1623 Avenue P in Midwood, Brook-lyn. Buildings issued a building per-mit based on the plans, and Men-achem began excavation and foun-dation work. Before the foundationwas completed, Buildings per-formed an audit of the plans, raisedeight objections, and issued a letterstating that the permit would berevoked unless Menachem cured alleight objections. Menachem curedsix of Buildings’ objections beforethe City Council approved a rezoningthat changed the property’s zoningdistrict from R6 to R4-1, but failed toresolve two objections. Under thenew zoning regulation, Menachemcould no longer build the condo-minium as-of-right. And since Men-achem failed to complete the foun-dation work before the rezoning, thepermit lapsed and Buildings issued astop work order. Shortly thereafter,Buildings revoked the permitbecause Menachem failed to curethe remaining two objections.

Menachem filed an applicationwith BSA, claiming that it hadacquired a right to complete con-struction given that excavation hadbeen completed and substantialprogress had been made on thefoundation prior to the zoningchange. Before BSA heard the matter, Buildings reinstated the permit since Menachem had curedthe two outstanding objections, but later claimed it did so in error.BSA denied the application, rulingthat Menachem could not completeconstruction because the excava-tion and foundation work had notbeen performed under a valid per-mit. BSA determined that the permit was invalid since Menachemfailed to cure all outstanding objec-tions prior to Council’s approval of the rezoning. Menachem filed an article 78 petition challengingBSA’s determination.

trarily selected build years that dis-torted the project’s potential envi-ronmental impacts. The coalitionalso argued that ESDC’s failure toconsider the positive real estatetrends in the non-renewal area led itto unreasonably conclude that theproposed project was uniquelycapable of alleviating blight in thenon-renewal area. The coalition further claimed that ESDC’s findingof blight for the non-renewal areawas unsubstantiated.

The First Department rejectedthese arguments, ruling that ESDCrationally relied upon the generalcontractor’s construction schedulesand on an independent contractorwhen selecting the build years. Thecourt also ruled that ESDC ade-quately considered alternative sce-narios and acted rationally in prefer-ring Ratner’s proposal, noting thatthe project would provide signifi-cantly more affordable housing thanunder the alternate scenarios.

The court also rejected theclaim that ESDC’s finding of blight inthe non-renewal area was unsub-stantiated. It held that ESDC, actingas a governmental agency of thestate, was entitled to deference, andthat agency findings of blight havebeen found deficient only when“utterly unsupported.” The courtfound that the agency’s lot-by-lotblight study in both the renewal andnon-renewal area was extensivelydocumented, and that it was clearthat ESDC’s finding of blight, basedon the study, was rational.

Develop Don’t Destroy Brooklyn, Inc. v.Urban Development Corporation d/b/aEmpire State Development Corp.,2009 N.Y. Slip Op. 01395 (1st Dept. Feb. 26, 2009).

COURT DECISIONS

Article 78

Midwood, Brooklyn

Six-story condo allowed inrezoned area of Brooklyn

BSA’s decision to deny developer’s


New Decisions Added to CITYADMINwww.citylaw.org – March 2009*

CITY COUNCIL

RES. NOS. PROJECT DESCRIPTION DATE

1833 295 Jefferson St., BK Partial tax ememption for UDAAP 2/26/2009

† 1834 Shops at Gateway, BK Spec. permit (large retail establishments) 2/26/2009

1835 668 Sycamore St., SI UDAAP by HPD (1 lot) 2/26/2009

1836 1073 Utica Ave., BK UDAAP by HPD (1 lot) 2/26/2009

1837 101 S. Eighth St., BK App. exemption from real prop. taxes 2/26/2009

1838 176 S. Eighth St., BK App. exemption from real prop. taxes 2/26/2009

1839 586A Morgan St., BK App. exemption from real prop. taxes 2/26/2009

1840 93 Avenue B, MN Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 2/26/2009

1841 73-35 57th Ave., QN Withdrawal of site plan (school) 2/26/2009

1842 153-33 88th Ave., QN Approve site plan (665-seat school) 2/26/2009

1843 Union Court, BK App. exemption from real prop. taxes 2/26/2009

1857 1157 Fulton Ave., BX UDAAP by HPD (1 lot) 3/11/2009

1858 Puerto Rican Theater Co., MN Dispose of negative easement 3/11/2009

1859 463 E. 159th St., BX UDAAP by HPD (1 lot) 3/11/2009

1860 185 Bleecker St., MN Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 3/11/2009

1861 523 Ninth Ave., MN Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 3/11/2009

1862 Battery Maritime Bldg., MN Rezoning 3/11/2009

† 1863 E. Windsor Terrace Rezoning, BK Rezoning 3/11/2009

1864 Battery Maritime Bldg., MN Dispose of City property 3/11/2009

1865–66 363-365 Bond St., BK Rezoning; zoning text amendment 3/11/2009

1867 Battery Maritime Bldg., MN Zoning text amendment 3/11/2009

1868 St. Nicholas of Myra, MN Landmark designation 3/11/2009

1869 Society House of ASCE, MN Landmark designation 3/11/2009

1870 Queens Hosp. Ctr., QN Surrender parcel of land 3/11/2009

1871 363-365 Bond St., BK Spec. perm. (height, setback, yards, courts) 3/11/2009

1876 567 W. 183rd St., MN UDAAP by HPD (1 lot) 3/24/2009

1877 117 MacDougal St., MN Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 3/24/2009

1878 Grace Asphalt, QN Withdrawal of property acquisition 3/24/2009

1879 Yankee Stadium Parking, BX Dispose of City property 3/24/2009

1880–82 Broadway Plaza, BX City map amendment; rezoning; 3/24/2009dispose of City property

1883 North Corona II, QN Rezoning 3/24/2009

1884 1200-seat school, BK Site plan (intermediate/high school) 3/24/2009

1885 P.S. 264, BK Site plan (475-seat primary school) 3/24/2009

1887 Special Forest Hills, QN Zoning text amendment; rezoning 3/24/2009


PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION LOCATION ULURP NO. DATE

155 West Street Special perm. (ht. & setback for 39-story dev.) BK 1 C090053ZSK 3/2/2009

Bicycle Parking Zoning text amend. (bicycle parking regs) CW N090191ZRY 3/4/2009

Lower East Side Girls’ Club UDAAP by HPD (78 res. units) MN 3 N090252HAM 3/4/2009

Eastern Rail Yards Zoning text amendment MN 4 N090211ZRM 3/4/2009

405 W. 53rd St. Garage Special permit (37-space garage) MN 4 C070305ZSM 3/4/2009

† 275 Madison Ave. Bldg. Landmark designation MN 6 N090290HKM 3/4/2009

NYPL, George Bruce Branch Landmark designation MN 9 N090288HKM 3/4/2009

*Bold indicates the decision is covered in this issue. The symbol † indicates that the decision was covered in a previous issue. City Council decisions available in hard-copy format at the Center for New York City Law.

Justice David Schmidt grantedthe petition, annulled BSA’s decision,and ordered BSA to renew the permitand award Menachem a six-monthextension to complete construction.Schmidt ruled that BSA’s determina-tion was arbitrary and capricious

since BSA had treated similarly-situated parties in a nonuniformmanner. BSA appealed Schmidt’sdecision, but the Second Depart-ment upheld it, finding that BSAacted irrationally because it failed to distinguish its decision from

prior determinations where permits

were held to be valid on essentially

the same facts.

Menachem Realty Inc. v. Meenakshi

Srinivasan, Index No. 9054/07 (2nd

Dept. March 17, 2009).

51April 15, 2009 Volume 6 CITYLAND

New Decisions Added to CITYADMINwww.citylaw.org – March 2009*

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION (CONT.)

PROJECT NAME DESCRIPTION LOCATION ULURP NO. DATE

125th St. Library Landmark designation MN 11 N090289HKM 3/4/2009

Hubbard House Landmark designation BK 1 N090292HKK 3/4/2009

The Garvey UDAAP by HPD (78 res. units) BK 3 C090141HAK 3/4/2009

The Bradford UDAAP by HPD (96 res. units) BK 3 C090142HAK 3/4/2009

90 Bayview Avenue Landmark designation SI 3 N090291HKR 3/4/2009

† Clinton Park Rezoning (M1-5 to C6-3X); zoning text MN 4 C080008ZMM; 3/18/2009amendment (facilitate 900-unit bldg); spec. N080009ZRM;permit (height & setback); special C080010ZSM;permit (use, signs) C080011ZSM

150 Amsterdam Ave. Rezoning (est. C2-5 in R8) MN 7 C090132ZMM 3/18/2009

354 Clarkson Ave. Rezoning (M1-1 to R7A w/C2-4 overlay) BK 17 C070396ZMK 3/18/2009

Flatlands Industrial Site I Dispose of City property BK 18 C090164PPK 3/18/2009

BOARD OF STANDARDS & APPEALS

ADDRESS DESCRIPTION ACTION CASE NO. REPRESENTATIVE

South St., MN Variance for flood plain regs. App’d 305-08-A EDC

52 E. 13th St., MN Special permit (Crunch Fitness) W/D 284-07-BZ Ellen Hay

1372 Broadway, MN Ext. of term (phys. cult. est.) App’d 124-99-BZ Fredrick A. Becker

138 E. 39th St., MN Ext. time to compl. construction App’d 218-96-BZ Mitchell S. Ross

343 W. 42nd St., MN Special permit (phys. cult. est) App’d 258-08-BZ Rizzo Group

221A Betts Ave., BX Appeal (revoke C of O) App’d 271-08-A DOB

3120 Albany Crescent, BX Ext. of term (parking lot) App’d 617-56-BZ Kenneth H. Koons

3141 Bedford Ave., BK Enlg. 1-fam. dwelling (yards, open space) App’d 291-08-BZ Moshe M. Friedman

3871 Amboy Rd., SI Ext. time to compl. construction App’d 19-08-BZY Edward Lauria

4553 Arthur Kill Rd., SI Permit commercial dev. in R3-2 App’d 223-08-BZ Rothkrug Rothkrug

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION

ADDRESS LANDMARK/HISTORIC DISTRICT DESCRIPTION CASE NO. APP’D ISSUED

CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS

Wall St., MN Colonial NY Street Plan Inst. signage, plaque, marker 09-7856 Yes 3/4/2009

476 Fifth Ave., MN N.Y. Public Library Engrave stone lettering 09-8032 Yes 3/12/2009

109 E. 50th St., MN St. Bartholomew’s Church Install terrace stair cover 09-7687 Yes 2/25/2009

Eastern Parkway, BK Eastern Parkway Inst. pavers, curbing, alter median 09-8146 Yes 3/17/2009

431 Sixth Ave., BK Public Library, Park Slope Remove fence, inst. gate, ramp 09-7744 Yes 2/27/2009

77 Chambers St., MN Tribeca South HD Replace infill 09-8153 Yes 3/18/2009

443 Greenwich St., MN Tribeca North HD Replace paving, tree pits, curbing 09-7943 Yes 3/9/2009

89 Greene St., MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Inst. infill, reconst. facade 09-8119 Yes 3/17/2009

96 Greene St., MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Const. rooftop add., inst. infill 09-2425 Yes 3/6/2009

98 Greene St., MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Const. rooftop add., storefront 09-2433 Yes 3/6/2009

451 W. Broadway, MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Legalize flagpole 09-8220 No 3/20/2009

550 Broadway, MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Install canopy, lights 09-7833 Yes 3/17/2009

296 Elizabeth St., MN NoHo East HD Remove shed, const. bulkhead 09-7839 Yes 3/3/2009

80 Washington Pl., MN Greenwich Village HD Const. rear addition, alter facade 09-7384 Yes 2/12/2009

5 W. 20th St., MN Ladies’ Mile HD Replace windows 09-7536 Yes 2/23/2009

14 E. 60th St., MN Upper East Side HD Inst. display boxes, signage 09-8067 Yes 3/13/2009

9 E. 84th St., MN Metropolitan Museum HD Replace rear add., const. gdn. wall 09-7490 Yes 3/5/2009

303 W. 90th St., MN Riverside-West End HD Const. rear addition, gdn. wall 09-7826 Yes 3/23/2009

241 Lenox Ave., MN Mt. Morris Park HD Const. rooftop add., staircase 09-6295 Yes 3/2/2009

65 Jumel Terrace, MN Jumel Terrace HD Rebuild wall, install ramp 09-8140 Yes 3/17/2009

244 Hall St., BK Clinton Hill HD Install door, mod. windows 09-7822 Yes 3/4/2009

315 Vanderbilt Ave., BK Clinton Hill HD Replace doors, fence, gate 09-7848 Yes 3/20/2009

15 Tompkins Pl., BK Cobble Hill HD Remove fire escape, repl. rear add. 09-7447 Yes 2/20/2009

240-35 43rd Ave., QN Douglaston Hill HD Legalize posts, driveway paving 09-8127 Yes 3/17/2009

25-04 West Dr., QN Douglaston HD Install A/C units 09-8129 Yes 3/23/2009

*Bold indicates the decision is covered in this issue. The symbol † indicates that the decision was covered in a previous issue. City Council decisions available in hard-copy format at the Center for New York City Law.

Th

e Cen

ter for New

York City La

wN

ew York La

w Sch

ool47 W

orth Street

New

York NY

10013-2960

CE

NT

ER

FO

R N

EW

YO

RK

CIT

Y L

AW

UP

CO

MIN

G E

VE

NT

S

Information on

CITYADMIN

is provided free with support from:

Manatt,Phelps &

Phillips LLP

Speaker Christine Quinn,New York City Council

Weil,Gotshal &

Manges LLP

Gibson,Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Kramer,Levin,Naftalis &

Frankel LLP

CITYADMIN

Decisio

ns o

n w

ww

.citylaw.o

rgAGENCY

NUMBER OF

YEARSNAM

EDECISIONS

AVAILABLE

BSA3,093

2002-Present

Council1,084

2003-2005

CPC961

2003-Present

DOB68

1999-Present

Landmarks

2,1242002-Present

Loft Board1,518

1996-Present

CL

E SE

RIE

S

Mo

nd

ay,May 4,2009

Th

e Ro

le of E

min

ent D

om

ain in

Resh

apin

g the C

ity

Speakers:

Lisa Bova-H

iatt, Dep

uty C

hief, Tax &

Ban

krup

tcy Litigatio

n D

ivision

, NY

C Law

Dep

artmen

t

Ro

bin

Stou

t, Presid

ent, M

oynih

an Statio

n

Develo

pm

ent C

orp

oratio

n

6:00 p.m

.– 8:00 p.m

.atW

ellingto

n C

on

ference C

enter

New

York L

aw Sch

oo

l,47 Wo

rth St.,N

.Y.,N.Y.

$200 for 2.0 P

rofessio

nal P

ractice Cred

its, Transitio

nal o

r No

ntran

sition

al.D

iscou

nt availab

le for C

ityLand

sub

scribers. P

lease reserve in ad

vance:

T 212.431.2115 | F

212.941.4735 | ww

w.citylaw

.org | n

ycitylaw@

nyls.ed

u

Land

marks ap

proves recon

struction

of Pier 15. See story on

page 46.

Image:SH

oP A

rchitects P

C.

CITY LANDarchive.citylaw.org/.../2009/April/evFNus9j.pdf · April 15, 2009 Volume 6 CITY LAND 37...

Documents

Transcript of CITY LANDarchive.citylaw.org/.../2009/April/evFNus9j.pdf · April 15, 2009 Volume 6 CITY LAND 37...