The developer of 360 Smith Street took his case to build his building tall than allowed by new zoning language to the Land Use Committee of Community Board 6 last night and lost. The vote against the developer’s appeal (which will got the Board of Standards and appeals in any case) was unanimous with three abstentions. Only 20 percent of the building’s foundation was complete when the “Narrow Streets” zoning text amendment was approved by the City Council and the Department of Buildings issued a Stop Work Order on the project. A contingent of residents went to the meeting, according to special GL Correspondent, and spoke against the allowing the building to go to 70 feet rather than the currently allowed 55 feet. Community representatives also apparently pointed out errors in the BSA application. The local group CORD turned in 500 letters opposing the application to be allowed to continue to the 70-foot height. Developer Billy Stein’s lawyers are reported to have left the meeting expressing frustration with the outcome and vowing to continue their appeal to the BSA.
4 responses so far ↓
1 Batman // Aug 29, 2008 at 11:47 am
The inaccuracy of the blogs on this case is amazing, and the slant against this man is outrageous. Some facts that were stated last night that have not been included in any of the reports:
1) Whether or not 20% of the foundation work has been completed is in dispute. Standard valuation methods include everything from mobilization right up to inspections, not just the foundation structure.
2) The Community Board had no direction and no standards that they were voting on, and frankly, seemed confused as to why they were even hearing this case.
3) The attorney representing Stein was not frustrated and had in fact expected this very outcome (She would have had to have been an idiot not to).
4) There is no “appeal” – this is a legal procedure to protect property owners’ investments. The application is not being fought to the BSA, but it instead rather an application to the BSA, with a CB’s recommendation attached.
With this type of misinformation going around, it is no wonder the community is in an uproar and this guy is frustrated with us.
2 ff // Aug 29, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Batman, correct. The Community Boards are in desperate need of “direction” from developers to instruct them regarding how to vote on matters such as this.
3 Brown // Aug 31, 2008 at 10:58 am
No, I think what the commenter meant was that the community board needed some factors and criteria to judge the application on. I attended the meeting, and the Community Board basically said “Well, if the community doesn’t like it, we don’t like it”, which completely defeated the purpose of having the meeting, and made it a big waste of time.
Decisions which are not based on facts are not sound ones.
4 d. // Sep 3, 2008 at 9:54 am
I was also at the meeting, and as far as I could tell the purpose of this – the community board’s vote – is quite simply to represent to the BSA the wishes of the community, which it seems to have done correctly as the overwhelming majority of attendees spoke in opposition to Oliver House as an out of context development. Mr. Stein has the right, and shall, continue in his application to the BSA which will revue the progress on the foundation; completing technical review of the developer’s investment to date is simply not the task of the CB and wasn’t on the agenda for the meeting.
It is important, I think, to keep in mind that many of the speakers at the meeting were not opposed to development, but rather were opposed to the kind of development that sets a precedent for an overhaul of the character of our neighborhood, which Oliver House most certainly does with its out of context design and prominent location in the neighborhood. Whether or not the BSA takes this into account this month is another matter, but for now it is important to recognize that Carroll Gardens residents have the right to accurate representation by the community board. If a future generation of residents sees fit to say they want something else, so be it, but in August of 2008 this community is saying that we’d like to see some simple changes – specifically in regard to height and, in my opinion, the eye-catching glass curtain wall on the corner of the building – made. Mr. Stein in fact has the right, if he is forced to redesign, to build a 14 story building on the site (which I hope that he does not do) even with the text amendment in place. Whatever he chooses to do, I think that the character of Carroll Gardens is the real issue for residents here, and we’d all like to see an effort on the part of his design to fit in. In that light, perhaps Mr. Stein might make a compromise by incorporating an expanded Transit Garden for residents new and old to share the kind of space that all of us in Carroll Gardens seem to appreciate most.