CITYLANDarchive.citylaw.org/cityland/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/cityland/...December 2011 Volume 8 CITYLAND 167 negatively impact future develop-ment and be too burdensome on businesses

December 2011 Volume 8 CITYLAND 165

DECEMBER 2011 center for new york city law VOLUME 8, NUMBER 11

CITYLAND

FPO

Highlights

CITY COUNCILAmended wage law debated . . . .165BK special district approved . . . .167Admirals Row project Ok’d . . . . .168New laws for DOT projects . . . . .168

CITY PLANNING COMMISSIONBorough Hall HD approved . . . .169St . Vincent’s plan considered . . .170

BOARD OF STANDARDS & APPEALSMosque permit challenge . . . . . .171

LANDMARKSNew NoHo building Ok’d . . . . . .172UES addition rejected . . . . . . . . . .172NoHo additions approved . . . . . .173New building in Tribeca . . . . . . .174

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP.Rossville waterfront RFEI . . . . . .175

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONSFine for former BX Boro . Pres . . .175Building code NOV upheld . . . . .175

COURT DECISIONSLPC illegal sign case . . . . . . . . . . .176

CITYLAND PROFILESusan M . Hinkson . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

CHARTSDCP Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .169ULURP Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .170BSA Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .172Landmarks Actions . . . . . . . . . . . .173Landmarks Pipeline . . . . . . . . . . .173Citylaw .org New Decisions . .178–79

(cont’d on page 167)

The City Planning Commission held a public hearing on Rudin Management Company Inc.’s devel-opment proposal for the former St. Vincent’s Hospital complex in the West Village. See story on page 170. Image: Courtesy of FXFowle Architects .

would apply to developers of sub-sidized development projects and tenants, subtenants, and certain contractors. Council Members G. Oliver Koppel and Annabel Palma introduced the legislation, which is currently co-sponsored by 27 other council members.

The Council in May 2011 con-sidered an earlier version of the leg-islation. The proposal would have required employers connected to development projects receiving at least $100,000 in incentives to pay a living wage for the longer of 30 years or the duration of the incentives. The proposal exempted from the wage mandate businesses with rev-enues less than one million dollars, not-for-profit organizations, and non-retail businesses operating in affordable housing developments. 8 CityLand 69 (June 15, 2011).

At the May hearing, critics of the proposal claimed that the wage mandate would

CITY COUNCIL

Legislation

Citywide

Amended version of living wage law debated at Council

New proposal would limit applica-bility and duration of living wage mandate associated with develop-ment projects receiving City econom-ic incentives . On November 22, 2011, the City Council’s Contracts Com-mittee held a hearing on Intro 251-A, an amended version of the Fair Wages for New Yorkers Act. The leg-islation would require certain em-ployers connected to development projects receiving City financial as-sistance to pay employees a “living wage” linked to the consumer price index. The living wage would start at $10.00 an hour with supplemental health benefits and $11.50 an hour without benefits. The legislation

166 Volume 8 CITYLAND December 2011

CITYLAND

CENTER FOR NEW YORK CITY LAW ADVISORY COUNCIL

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 times a year by the Center for New York City Law at New York Law School, 185 West Broadway, New York City, New York 10013, tel. (212) 431-2115, fax (212) 941-4735, e-mail: [email protected], website: www.citylaw.org © Center for New York City Law, 2011. All rights reserved. Printed on recycled paper. Maps presented in CITYLAND are from Map-PLUTO copyrighted by the New York City Depart-ment of City Planning. City Landmarks and Hist- oric Districts printed with permission of New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission.

POSTMASTER: Send address changes to CITYLAND, 185 West Broadway, New York, New York 10013-2921. Periodicals postage paid at New York, New York.

CITYLAND ADVISORY BOARD

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. NaftalisSteven M. Polan

Gail S. Port ’76Norman RedlichJoseph B. RoseErnst H. Rosenberger ’58Rose Luttan RubinFrederick P. SchafferFrederick A.O. Schwarz, Jr.O. Peter SherwoodEdward WallaceRichard M. WeinbergPeter L. ZimrothJames D. Zirin

Kent Barwick Andrew Berman Molly Brennan Albert K. Butzel

Howard Goldman Jerry Gottesman David Karnovsky Ross Moskowitz ’84

Frank Munger Carol E. Rosenthal Michael T. Sillerman Paul D. Selver

Ross Sandler Professor of Law and Director, Center for New York City Law

Frank Berlen ’07 Associate Director Managing Editor

Peter Schikler ’08 CityLand Editor

Frank St. Jacques ’11 Luna Droubi ’11 Fellows

Lebasi Lashley Art DirectorPetting Zoo Design

Jesse Denno Staff Writer, Production Asst .

Sarah Knowles Administrative Coordinator

COMMENTARY

Judge Baer defends the independence of judges My friend, federal Judge Harold Baer Jr., in a new book recounts seven vignettes illustrating what happens to the rule of law when political forces undermine the independence of the judiciary; Judges Under Fire: Human Rights, Independent Judges, and the Rule of Law (ABA Publishing 2011). His point is that without independent judg-es citizens lack protection from arbitrary governmental decisions. Independent judges alone can counter the forces of official arrogance and tyranny. Judge Baer need not belabor his point; he has lived it: ten years as a State Supreme Court Justice and eighteen as a federal district court judge in the Southern District of New York. Literally thousands of litigants and lawyers have appeared before Judge Baer, and can attest to his independence of mind, a formidable judicial presence, and hard work. No judge currently sitting on the state or federal trial bench publishes more written opinions than does Judge Baer. Not everyone agrees with Judge Baer all the time of course, but that is his point. Of Judge Baer’s seven vignettes, the one with the most impact is Judge Baer’s own experience when, in 1995, he suppressed 34 kilos of cocaine, 2 ki-los of heroin, and the videotaped confession of a woman delivering the drugs. This was not a popular opinion, and, to avoid losing the case, the police had to produce substantially more evidence on rehearing than it had produced during the original hearing. Judge Baer, for more than sixteen years, has supervised the Benjamin decree overseeing prisoner rights at Rik-ers Island. In this capacity Judge Baer has compelled the City to focus on such matters as fire safety, cleanliness and access to lawyers and law books. I have written elsewhere that some judges handling similar prison cases have been too independent and crossed the line to become partisans, but that too is Judge Baer’s point. Judges are supposed to be an independent force protecting prisoners and others under state control, an argument which he made di-rectly in a law review article criticizing my position. See 52 n.y.l. sch. l. rev. 3 (2007-8). Judge Baer is now a senior judge, but continues to act with independence. In 2010 Judge Baer helped start a re-entry program to help ex-offenders get started and avoid being rearrested after their release from custody.

Ross Sandler

167December 2011 Volume 8 CITYLAND

negatively impact future develop-ment and be too burdensome on businesses. Tokumbo Shobowale, chief of staff to the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development, expressed concerns about the proposal’s im-pact on jobs. Shobowale argued that the broad range of employers affected by the proposal, including owners of manufacturing business-es and grocers participating in the City’s FRESH food program, would be unable to absorb increases in labor costs.

After the hearing, the Coun-cil proposed several changes that would limit the applicability and du-ration of the wage mandate. Among the changes, the wage requirements would only apply to projects receiv-ing at least $1 million in discretion-ary City assistance. The proposal would now define exempted small businesses as those with revenues of less than $5 million. Retail stores in affordable housing developments and manufacturing businesses were added to the list of exempted enti-ties. The living wage requirement would now apply for the longer of ten years or the duration of the financial assistance.

Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn, who has not taken a public position on the proposal, opened the November public hearing by saying that the Council was fo-cused on strengthening the City’s economy and generating jobs. Quinn hoped that this goal could be reached without hurting businesses or job creation efforts.

Representatives from local chambers of commerce, building as-sociations, and food-related groups testifying at the hearing remained concerned about the proposal’s im-pact on businesses and job growth. Robert Bookman, counsel to the New York Nightlife Association, opposed the amended proposal because it would still apply to com-mercial tenants of City-subsidized developments. Bookman testified that tenants who had received no tax breaks or incentives should not bear

the burden of the wage requirement. Tokumbo Shobowale testified

that the Bloomberg Administration still believed the proposal would make the City’s economic situation worse by stifling private investment in development projects and killing jobs in low-income communities.

Proponents of the proposal included Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz Jr., who testified that the coalition in favor of the legisla-tion had made a good faith effort to address the concerns raised by op-ponents at the May hearing. By be-ing more targeted and specific, Diaz claimed the proposal would not hurt the profitability of major proj-ects, but would “dramatically alter the lives of their employees.”

It is unclear whether Speaker Quinn will allow the legislation to be brought to the floor for a vote.

Council: Hearing – Intro 251-2010, Version: A (Nov. 22, 2011).

CITY COUNCIL

Rezoning/Text Amendment

Park Slope, Brooklyn

Brooklyn’s Special 4th Avenue District approved

Special district created to eliminate blank walls and curb cuts and pro-mote pedestrian uses . On November 29, 2011, the City Council approved the Department of City Planning’s proposal to establish the Special 4th Avenue Enhanced Commercial Dis-trict in Brooklyn. The special district encompasses portions of 56 blocks along 4th Avenue between Atlantic Avenue and 24th Street in Brook-lyn’s Park Slope and South Park Slope neighborhoods.

The 4th Avenue commercial corridor was historically character-ized by auto-oriented businesses and low-rise rowhouses with ground floor retail. Recent rezonings in the area included portions of 4th Av-enue and led to the development of higher density residential build-ings along the corridor. Many of the

buildings include parking garage entrances or blank walls on their ground floors, creating an uninviting streetscape. Planning proposed the special district to establish regula-tions designed to create a more ap-pealing streetscape for pedestrians.

For new developments and enlargements within the special dis-trict, commercial uses must occupy at least 50 percent of a building’s ground floor frontage. The special district regulations prohibit from the required commercial space certain uses otherwise permitted by the un-derlying zoning, such as banks and loan offices. Glass or other trans-parent materials must be used for at least 50 percent of the building’s frontage between a height of two and twelve feet. Curb cuts will only be permitted for interior zoning lots with widths of at least 60 feet that are not accessible by a side street.

At the City Planning Com-mission’s hearing in September 2011, Richard Bearak, representing Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, asked the Commission to expand the types of prohibited ground floor businesses and to low-er the minimum height for ground floor windows. Bearak also asked the Commission to apply the City’s inclusionary housing program to the special district. Local Council Member Brad Lander reiterated Markowitz’s requests. The Com-mission modified the proposal to lower the window height, but found the other recommendations to be outside the scope of the proposal. 8 CityLand 153 (Nov. 15, 2011).

At the Council’s Zoning & Fran-chises Subcommittee hearing, Bor-ough President Markowitz testified in support of the proposal, but reit-erated his recommendations. Mar-kowitz noted that his office had con-vened a task force on 4th Avenue’s transformation and had allocated $2 million toward the restoration of the 4th Ave/9th Street subway sta-tion. Council Member Lander urged his colleagues to approve the special district, but was concerned that the


potential remained for a conglom-eration of medical offices along the corridor, which he believed would hinder future retail development. Acknowledging that applying the in-clusionary housing program to the district was outside the scope of the proposal, Lander said that he hoped Planning would revisit the issue.

The Subcommittee voted unanimously to approve the special district, as did the Land Use Com-mittee and full Council.

Council: Special 4th Avenue Enhanced Commercial District (Nov. 29, 2011).

CITY COUNCIL

Rezoning/Special Permits

Brooklyn Navy Yard, Brooklyn

Admirals Row Plaza project approved by Council

Community and labor groups sup-ported project, but sought assurances that Brooklyn Navy Yard would not lease space to Wal-Mart . On Novem-ber 29, 2011, the City Council ap-proved the Brooklyn Navy Yard De-velopment Corporation’s Admirals Row Plaza project at the corner of Nassau and Navy Streets in Brook-lyn. The six-acre site is located at the southeast edge of the Brooklyn Navy Yard, near the New York City Hous-ing Authority’s Farragut, Ingersoll, and Whitman Houses.

The mixed-use project includes the construction of three new build-ings and the rehabilitation of two of

that the Navy Yard and the City had struggled for 25 years to gain control over the rapidly deteriorating Admi-rals Row site. Kimball testified that if Council approved the project, he hoped to close on the property with-in two weeks and immediately be-gin stabilizing the Timber Shed and Officers’ Quarters to prevent further deterioration over the winter. In re-sponse to City Council Member Le-titia James, whose district abuts the Navy Yard and includes the NYCHA properties, Kimball stated that the Navy Yard was committed to hiring local residents.

Council Member James, along with community and labor groups, also sought assurances from Kim-ball that the Navy Yard would not consider Wal-Mart as a potential tenant for the supermarket space. Kimball explained that the project’s site plan would not be suitable for a Wal-Mart, and noted that compa-nies such as ShopRite and Stop & Shop had expressed interest in the site. Maritza Silva-Farrell, of the Al-liance for a Greater New York, noted the importance of siting a fresh food supermarket in the neighborhood, and urged the Navy Yard to iden-tify a supermarket operator with a track record of providing quality food and jobs. A representative from the United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 1500 echoed the concerns about Wal-Mart.

The Subcommittee voted unanimously to approve the proj-ect, as did the Land Use Committee and full Council.

Council: Admirals Row Plaza (Nov. 29, 2011) (Architect: GreenbergFarrow).

CITY COUNCIL

Legislation

Citywide

New local laws will govern DOT street projects

Laws will formalize hearing require-ments for changes to bike lanes and consultation and reporting require-

the site’s existing, but severely de-teriorated, historic structures. The Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation will convert an 1830s Timber Shed and a Civil War-era Naval Officers’ Quarters into retail and community facility use, respec-tively. A new five-story building will provide space for a supermarket and light manufacturing uses. Two other two-story buildings will provide re-tail space, and a 266-space parking lot will occupy the site’s interior.

The project required approvals to allow the City to acquire the fed-erally owned property, and to then lease it to the Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation. The Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation applied to rezone the property from M1-2 to M1-4 and re-quested special permits for signage and parking.

At the City Planning Commis-sion’s public hearing, Brooklyn Bor-ough President Marty Markowitz supported the project, but suggested that weekend bus service on the B69 bus line and new bus shelters near the site would benefit the project. The curator of Brooklyn’s Other Mu-seum of Brooklyn, called for preserv-ing all of the site’s historic structures. The Commission unanimously ap-proved the project in October. 8 CityLand 152 (Nov. 15, 2011).

At the Council’s Zoning & Franchises Subcommittee hear-ing in November, Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation President Andrew Kimball stated

The Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation’s proposed Admirals Row Plaza project (view from the corner of Navy and Nassau Streets). Image: Courtesy of GreenbergFarrow.


CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Landmark Designation

Downtown, Brooklyn

Commission approves Brooklyn skyscraper district

Questions raised about Planning Commission’s authority when re-viewing landmark designations . On November 16, 2011, the City Planning Commission approved Landmarks’ designation of the Borough Hall Skyscraper Historic District in downtown Brooklyn. The district comprises 21 buildings along Court, Montague, Remsen, Joralemon, and Livingston Streets, and is within the boundaries of the Special Downtown Brooklyn Dis-trict established by the City in 2001.

At Landmarks’ public hearing on the proposed district in February 2011, residents of a co-op building at 75 Livingston Street and representa-tives from the Real Estate Board of

DOT report the average number of crashes that occurred three years before the project and one year after the project’s completion. The Coun-cil amended the proposal to permit DOT to report on a broader range of “relevant” traffic-related data, and to require DOT to consult with the Fire and Police Departments about how the project impacted emergen-cy vehicles. DOT must post the data on its website and submit a report to affected council members and community boards.

On November, 29, 2011, the Council approved Intros 626-A and 671-A. Intro 626-A will take effect 60 days after enactment. Intro 671-A will take effect immediately upon enactment, but will only apply to projects completed at least 90 days after the enactment date.

Council: Intro 0412-2010 Version: A (Nov. 3, 2011); Intro 0626-2011 Ver-sion: A; Intro 0671-2011 Version: A (Nov. 29, 2011).

ments for major transportation projects . The City Council approved three local laws concerning bike lanes and other major projects pro-posed by the Department of Trans-portation. Intro 412-A formalizes DOT outreach efforts to communi-ties affected by proposed bike lanes. Intro 626-A and 671-A create formal consultation and reporting require-ments for major transportation projects. Council amended the pro-posals after the Council’s Transpor-tation Committee held a hearing on the legislation in September 2011. At the hearing, DOT representatives generally supported Intros 412 and 626, stating that the laws would es-sentially codify the agency’s cur-rent practices. DOT, however, asked the Committee to amend Intro 671’s data collection requirements. 8 CityLand 140 (Oct. 15, 2011).

Intro 412-A requires DOT to notify by email each affected coun-cil member and community board at least 90 days before construct-ing or removing a bike lane. DOT must offer to make a presentation about the bike lane at a public hear-ing held by the community board. On November 3, 2011, the Council unanimously approved Intro 412-A. The law will take effect 90 days after enactment.

Intro 626-A requires DOT to certify that it had consulted with the Police and Fire Departments, the Department of Small Business Services, and the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities prior to implementing any major trans-portation project, defined as an al-teration of four or more consecutive blocks or 1,000 feet of street, and involving the removal of a vehicle or parking lanes or the addition of vehicle lanes. Prior to implement-ing the project, Intro 626-A also re-quires DOT to email notice of the project, along with a description, to affected council members and community boards.

Intro 671-A requires that within eighteen months of the completion of a major transportation project,

CITY PLANNING PIPELINE

New Applications Filed with DCP — November 1 - 30, 2011 APPLICANT PROJECT/ADDRESS DESCRIPTION ULURPNO. REPRESENTATIVE

ZONINGTEXTANDMAPAMENDMENTS

SBS Mill Basin Project: Rezone C3 to C8-1 for auto sales & 120108ZMK; Auto Mall/Toys “R” Us, BK service business; direct fee dispo.; 120111PPK; mod. pub. walkway req.; cert. for 120109ZAK; subdiv. waterfront zoning lot 120110ZCK

SPECIALPERMITS/OTHERACTIONS

NY Presb. Hospital 5141 Broadway, MN Cert. no waterfront pub. access req’d. 120115ZCM Bryan Cave LLP

Starbucks Corp. 1559 Second Avenue, MN Re-apply for encl. cafe with 23 seats 120117ECM

CS Ritz Residence 235 West 48th Street, MN Cert. to renew Ritz Plaza open air cafe 120114ZCM Slater & Beckerman

LPC 38 East 37th Street, MN Landmark (Union League Club) 120101HKM

Sherwood 20 Assoc. 508 West 20th Street, MN Cert. no access easement req’d. 120102ZCM Herrick Feinstein

120 U Rest. LLC 94 University Place, MN New enclosed cafe with 24 seats 120103ECM

LPC 445 West Street, MN Landmark (Westbeth Complex) 120098HKM

HPD/Promesa 92 West Tremont Avenue, BX UDAAP, dispo. for 61-unit res. bldg. 120107HAX Ted Weinstein

LPC Grand Concourse, BX Landmark (Grand Concourse HD) 120100HKX

LPC 40 Greene Avenue, BK Landmark (St. Casimir’s Church) 120099HKK

Anda Properties 6660 Avenue U, BK Cert. no waterfront pub. access req’d. 120116ZCK Corp. Design of Am.

Santorini Food Inc. 108-40 Corona Avenue, QN New enclosed cafe with 40 seats 120104ECQ

King Solomon NY 69-26 Main Street, QN New enclosed cafe with 48 seats 120112ECQ

FD/DCAS 34-02 Queens Blvd., QN Site sel. & acq. of 56k sq.ft. of bldg. 120113PCQ

Silvercrest Center 144-45 87th Avenue, QN Mod. spec. perm. for treatment fac. 970792AZSQ Akerman Senterfitt

LPC 29 Cottage Place, SI Landmark (29 Cottage Place House) 120097HKR

Bennett Building 72 & 76 Margaret Street, SI Cert. to subdivide one lot into two 120105RCR Lobue Valenziano

Monello Enterpr. 22 & 24 Pitney Avenue, SI Cert. to build two 1-fam. homes 120106RCR L. Mandarino


New York and the Court-Livingston-Schermerhorn Business Improve-ment District testified in opposition. They argued that the historic dis-trict would have a negative finan-cial impact on the neighborhood and included buildings unworthy of Landmarks’ protection. Elected of-ficials including Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and lo-cal Council Member Stephen Levin supported the historic district’s es-tablishment, but asked Landmarks to remove 75 Livingston Street. In September 2011, Landmarks unani-mously approved the historic dis-trict with its original boundaries. 8 CityLand 142 (Oct. 15, 2011).

At the City Planning Com-mission’s October 19 hearing, rep-resentatives from the Court-Liv-ingston-Schermerhorn BID and 75 Livingston Street reiterated their opposition, arguing that the build-ings had limited architectural sig-nificance and landmarking would impose an economic hardship on property owners. Commissioner Anna Levin pointed out that the Commission was limited to issuing a report on the district’s relation-ship to zoning and whether it would interfere with any public improve-ments, and that it was not permitted to second-guess Landmarks’ sub-stantive decision behind the district designation. The City Council has broader purview when reviewing landmark designations, and Levin suggested that the opponents con-sider their testimony as rehearsal for the City Council hearing.

REBNY’s Carol Van Guilder argued that the district would con-flict with the purposes of the Spe-cial Downtown Brooklyn District, which she said included strength-ening the business core, fostering development, and offering incen-tives to growth. Van Guilder said the current designation process was flawed and recommended that the Commission and the City Council take a broader role in decision mak-ing. However, she believed that the Commission had the authority to

reject the district under its current scope of review.

During a post-hearing follow-up discussion at the Commission’s October 31 review session, Com-missioner Nathan Leventhal asked Planning’s staff whether the City Charter could be read to give the Commission the authority to con-sider whether the district would conflict with both public and private development plans. Julie Lubin, deputy general counsel at Planning, responded that it was the agency’s opinion that the City Charter limited the Commission to reviewing only potential conflicts with public plans. Lubin noted that this was also the position of the head of legal counsel at the City’s Law Department.

The Commission approved the designation by an 11-1-0 vote, find-ing that the historic district would complement the goals of the Spe-cial Downtown Brooklyn District. Several Commissioners, including Angela Battaglia, Alfred C. Cerullo III, Irwin Cantor, Nathan Leventhal, Anna Levin, and Shirley McRae, ex-pressed concerns about the Com-mission’s role in the landmarking process. Commissioner Cerullo not-ed that the district designation was the most questionable landmark ap-plication he had reviewed, and, be-cause of the importance of the Com-mission’s decision, he said either the Commission should be given more say in the designation process, or be removed from the process entirely. Commissioner Leventhal agreed with Cerullo’s comments and encouraged Planning’s staff to review the City Charter’s legislative history regarding the Commission’s scope of review of Landmarks’ des-ignations. Leventhal, who served as

a member on the Charter Revision Commission of 1989, stated that he believed that the Commission had a broader purview, “one which is not limited to conflicts with plans for public improvements.”

Commissioner Karen Phil-lips opposed the designation. Not-ing that the Commission “should not give its power away,” Phillips said the historic district would con-flict with the Special Downtown Brooklyn District’s goal of fostering new development.

After receiving the Commis-sion’s report, the City Council has the authority to modify or disap-prove Landmarks’ designation.

CPC: Borough Hall Skyscraper District (N 120069 HKK – landmark designa-tion) (Nov. 16, 2011).

CITY PLANNING COMMISSION

Rezoning/Special Permits

Greenwich Village, Manhattan

Redevelopment of St. Vin-cent’s Hospital site debated

Opponents concerned about project’s impact, lack of new full-service hos-pital, and use of park space . On No-vember 30, 2011, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on Rudin Management Company Inc.’s proposal to redevelop the for-mer St. Vincent’s Hospital complex into a 450-unit mixed-used project. The project site includes two par-cels in the West Village. The East Site parcel comprises the western half of the block bounded Sixth and Seventh Avenues and West 11th and 12th Streets and is occupied by St. Vincent’s eight-building campus.

ULURP PIPELINE

New Applications Certified into ULURP

PROJECT DESCRIPTION COMM.BD. ULURPNO. CERTIFIED

50 United Nations Plaza Special permit MN 6 120017ZSM 11/28/2011

Mill Basin Project: Authorization; rezoning; BK 18 120108ZMK; 11/28/2011 Auto Mall/Toys “R” Us City map change; 070512MMK; dispose of City property 120111PPK; 120109ZAK


The Triangle Site, a triangle-shaped parcel across Seventh Avenue to the west of the complex is occupied by materials handling and gas storage facilities, and a raised landscaped area. The O’Toole Building to the north of the site was once part of Rudin’s development plans, but will now be used as a comprehensive health care center.

The existing buildings on the East Site consist of approximately 763,114 sq.ft. of floor area, and Ru-din’s proposal would consist of ap-proximately 635,290 sq.ft. of floor area. The project would include con-verting to residential use the Nurses’ Residence and the Smith and Ras-kob Buildings on West 12th Street and the Spellman Pavilion on West 11th Street. Rudin would construct a new sixteen-story building on the site of the Link and Coleman Pavil-ions facing Seventh Avenue, and a ten-story building would replace the Reiss Pavilion on West 12th Street at the East Site’s northeastern edge. Five four- and five-story townhous-es would replace the Cronin Build-ing at the southeastern edge of the site on West 11th Street. The proj-ect would provide 11,200 sq.ft. of ground floor retail space, and 25,094 sq.ft. of space for medical offices. A 152-space underground parking garage would be accessible from West 12th Street.

In its initial proposal, Rudin planned to demolish the Triangle Site’s materials handling to build a 16,000 sq.ft. public park with a me-morial relating to the history of St. Vincent’s. However, based on com-munity input, Rudin revised the park design and agreed to demolish the gas storage facility as well.

Rudin submitted multiple ap-plications, including a request to rezone the East Site’s Seventh Av-enue frontage from C2-6 to a C6-2 district and the midblock portion from R6 and C1-6 to an R8 district. The project would also require spe-cial permits to allow the parking ga-rage and to modify use, height, set-back, and open space regulations.

Rudin obtained approvals for the East Site proposal from the Land-marks Preservation Commission in 2009. 6 Cityland 110 (Aug. 15, 2009). On December 6, 2011, Landmarks approved Rudin’s Triangle Site proposal by a 7-3 vote. Landmarks Commissioners Pablo Vengoechea, Margery Perlmutter, and Michael Goldblum opposed the plan.

At the Commission’s well-at-tended public hearing, Rudin Man-agement’s CEO, William Rudin, testified that the project would reac-tivate the site, generate property tax income for the City, and create over 1,200 construction jobs and 500 per-manent jobs. Rudin also testified that it was not economically feasible to help finance the health care cen-ter and include an affordable hous-ing component. A representative of Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringer, who conditionally ap-proved the proposal, testified that project would help local businesses, which had suffered since the closing of St. Vincent’s.

Community groups, preser-vationists, and elected officials op-posed to the project expressed an array of concerns. David Reck, rep-resenting Manhattan Community Board 2, called for the inclusion of affordable housing. Local residents cited concerns about the project’s impact on traffic and neighbor-hood character and the lack of a full- service hospital to replace St. Vin-cent’s. Representatives of Assembly Member Deborah J. Glick and State Senator Thomas K. Duane echoed the community’s concerns. At-torney Albert Butzel, representing Protect the Village Historic District, argued that Rudin was unfairly tak-ing advantage of the zoning bonuses originally granted by the City to per-mit the development of a full-ser-vice community hospital.

A group including the co-founders of Queer History Alliance argued that the Triangle Site should be developed into an AIDS memo-rial park. Advocates of the memorial called for a below-ground learning

center in a space set aside for tree plantings. Chair Amanda Burden explained that any changes to the park design would need to be in-cluded as part of the project’s full site plan prior to the Commission’s vote on the proposal.

The Commission has until Jan-uary 24, 2012 to vote on the plan.

CPC: Hearing on Rudin West Village Project (Nov. 30, 2011).

BOARD OF STANDARDS & APPEALS

Appeal

Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn

BSA denies challenge to mosque’s building permit

Community group argued that Buildings should require mosque to provide off-street parking . In November 2010, Buildings issued a permit to Allowey Ahmed to de-velop a three-story mosque at 2812 Voorhies Avenue in Sheepshead Bay, Brooklyn. The mosque would include a 138-person prayer room on the first floor and a 61-person secondary prayer room on the sec-ond floor with interior windows overlooking the main prayer room. The plans did not include off-street parking spaces because the mosque qualified for a parking waiver. Only a house of worship’s largest room of assembly is considered when deter-mining required off-street parking, and because the required parking for a 138-person room in an R4 zon-ing district was below ten spaces, the mosque was allowed to waive all parking.

Bay People Inc., a neighbor-hood group opposed to the mosque, challenged the building permit. Bay People claimed that because the sec-ondary prayer room could view the main prayer room during services, the rooms should be considered as a single prayer room when calculating parking requirements. Therefore, Buildings should have required the mosque to provide thirteen park-ing spaces. Bay People argued that


separating the main and second-ary prayer rooms was a subterfuge to avoid parking requirements, and that the mosque could remove the secondary room’s non-load bear-ing wall at a later date without pub-lic review. According to Bay People, this would set a precedent for other houses of worship to follow to avoid providing off-street parking.

BSA denied Bay People’s chal-lenge, ruling that Buildings correctly considered the two prayer rooms separately when determining the amount of required parking. The zoning resolution states that two rooms separated by movable par-titions should be considered as a single room, but here the two rooms would be separated by a floor and solid wall. BSA pointed out that Bay People had not argued that the rooms would be separated by a mov-able partition, and noted that Build-ings cannot deny a permit based on speculation that the mosque would combine the rooms in the future.

BSA: 2812-2814 Voorhies Avenue, Brookln (98-11-A) (Nov. 22, 2011) (Howard Goldman, for Bay People). CITYADMIN

LANDMARKS PRESERVATIONCOMMISSION

Certificate of Appropriateness

NoHo, Manhattan

Six-story building on Lafayette Street approved

Landmarks approved revised pro-posal to replace garage with residen-tial building . On November 15, 2011, Landmarks approved a revised pro-posal to replace a one-story garage with a six-story apartment building at the corner of Lafayette and Great Jones Streets in the NoHo Historic District. The original Morris Adjmi-designed proposal, presented in Au-gust 2011, called for an aluminum-clad building with fourteen window bays along the Lafayette Street fa-cade and three bays along Great Jones Street. Landmarks found the

massing appropriate, but asked Ad-jmi to enliven the facades and em-phasize the cornice, which framed the set back sixth-floor penthouse. 8 CityLand 125 (Sept. 15, 2011).

In November, Adjmi said that he had reviewed the surrounding architecture and found that the store-and-loft buildings featured stone, brick, and cast iron. With that in mind, Adjmi revised the de-sign to incorporate brick elements. The building’s second through fifth floors would feature concave col-umns of recycled brick that would be inlaid with vertical metal strips. The metal inlays would increase in width as the building reached the sixth floor. Articulated hori-zontal beams would now separate the floors. Adjmi increased the number of window bays along the Lafayette Street facade, and re-cessed the windows further from the facade to increase the shadow line. He also strengthened the cor-nice, which would still frame the penthouse terrace.

Landmarks unanimously ap-proved the proposal. Commis-sioner Margery Perlmutter found the revised design more interesting than the first proposal, saying that it had dialogue with the surrounding architecture. Commissioner Fred Bland referred to the proposal as a wonderful adaptation of cast-iron

architecture, and Commissioner Michael Goldblum noted that in-creasing the horizontal emphasis had improved the design.

LPC: 372 Lafayette Street, Manhattan (11-1698) (Nov. 15, 2011) (Architect: Morris Adjmi Architects).

LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION


Upper East Side, Manhattan

Commission rejects 10-story Upper East Side addition

Landmarks had approved three-story addition for existing five-story building in 2002 . On November 22, 2011, Landmarks rejected Axia Re-alty’s proposal to build a ten-story addition on a five-story building at 40 East 72nd Street in the Upper East Side Historic District. The mid-block site originally consisted of two 1881 rowhouses, which in 1928 were converted to a single, neo-classical apartment building. The building is adjacent to fifteen- and fourteen- story buildings. Landmarks in 2002 approved plans for a three-story ad-dition, but it was never built.

Axia’s architect, Barry Rice, claimed that the ten-story addition would bring the building in line with

BSA PIPELINE

New Applications File d with BSA — November 1 - 30, 2011

APPLICANT PROJECT/ADDRESS DESCRIPTION APP.NO. REPRESENTATIVE

VARIANCES

Church of LDS Corp. 145-15 33rd Ave., QN Vary FAR, yards reqs. 174-11-BZ Church of LDS Corp.

SPECIALPERMITS/OTHERACTIONS

Clinton Pk. Holdings 550 W. 54th St., MN Permit phys. cult. est. 175-11-BZ Raymond H. Levin

St. Anns ABH 601 E. 156th St., BX Permit phys. cult. est. 177-11-BZ Rothkrug Rothkrug

Alla Lubimor 150 Norfolk St., BK Enlg. 1-fam. dwelling 176-11-BZ Eric Palatnik PC

Elie Zeitoune 1944 E. 12th St., BK Enlarge dwelling 178-11-BZ Eric Palatnik PC

Ridgedale Realty 65-45 Otto Rd., QN Permit phys. cult. est. 179-11-BZ Herrick Feinstein

APPEALS

Folarunso Oyalabu 119-43 197th St., QN Vested rt. to compl. const. 172-11-A Rothkrug Rothkrug

Southside Mn. View 68-10 58th Ave., QN Vested rt. to compl. const. 173-11-A Rothkrug Rothkrug

Eran Yousfan 34-57 107th St., QN Vested rt. to compl. const. 180-11-A Eric Palatnik PC

Eran Yousfan 34-59 107th St., QN Vested rt. to compl. const. 181-11-A Eric Palatnik PC


In response to questions from the Commissioners, Rice explained that the previously approved ad-dition would not be visible from the street. According to Rice, Axia planned to proceed with the three-story addition if it did not receive approval for the current proposal.

Residents of surrounding buildings opposed the proposal. Attorney Christopher Rizzo, repre-senting the co-op board of 36 East 72nd Street, expressed concern about the precedent that would be set if such a large addition were ap-proved in the district. A member of 45 East 72nd Street’s co-op board claimed to have 30 signatures from residents opposed to the plan. Rep-resentatives from Friends of the Upper East Side Historic Districts and the Historic Districts Council also spoke in opposition. Accord-ing to Vice Chair Pablo Vengoechea, Manhattan Community Board 8 op-posed the proposal.

Landmarks voted unanimously to deny the proposal. Commission-er Michael Goldblum stated that the proposed setbacks were not con-sistent with the area’s architecture. Commissioner Margery Perlmutter found it impossible to justify “such a huge structure on a historic prop-erty.” Vice Chair Vengoechea said that Landmarks had been generous in approving the three-story addi-tion, and that the ten-story proposal would overwhelm the building and the streetscape.

LPC: 40 East 72nd Street, Manhattan (12-2690) (Nov. 22, 2011) (Architect: Barry Rice Architects).



NoHo, Manhattan

Reduced NoHo addition OK’d

Architect/owner reduced height and bulk of proposed rooftop and rear yard additions . On November 15, 2011, Landmarks approved Jeffrey

the other buildings on the southern side of East 72nd Street. Rice stated that the addition would be set back further than the previously ap-proved addition, and would not im-pact the majority of the lot-line win-dows on the neighboring building at 36 East 72nd Street. The brick-clad addition would feature a tripartite

design, with two window bays on each side of a large indented central bay. The addition would be visible along East 72nd Street and East 71st Street. Rice noted that the property was located within the Special Park Improvement District, which he claimed was created to promote the most desirable use of land.

Landmarks Actions Taken in November 2011

FINALPERMITSTOBEISSUEDAFTERLANDMARKSRECEIVESCONFORMINGPLANS

ADDRESS LANDMARK/HISTORICDISTRICT DESCRIPTION CASENO. APP’D

November 1, 2011

761 E. 160th St., BX NYPL, Woodstock Branch Install mech. equipment 12-3493 Yes

78 Richmond Terr., SI 120th Precinct House Replace windows 12-0350 Yes

403 Greenwich St., MN Tribeca West HD Demo., construct bldg. 12-3741 W/Mod

148 Mercer St., MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Inst. canopy, signs, lights 12-3832 W/D

622 Broadway, MN NoHo HD Repl. doors, inst. marquee 12-3855 W/Mod

720 Greenwich St., MN Greenwich Village HD Ext. Replace windows 12-2398 W/Mod

106 Brooklyn Ave., BK Crown Heights North HD Legalize siding 12-1939 Yes

374 Pacific St., BK Boerum Hill HD Reconstruct rear add. 12-1866 W/Mod

146 Hicks St., BK Brooklyn Heights HD Replace siding 12-4782 W/Mod

November 15, 2011

295 Lafayette St., MN Puck Building Alt. retail-related storefront 12-3229 In Part

Central Park, MN Central Park Alter pathways 12-5945 Yes

Central Park, MN Central Park Alter playground, paths 12-5946 Yes

1818 Amsterdam Ave., MN Loth & Co. Silk Ribbon Mill Install storefront infill 11-6140 W/Mod

600 Broadway, MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Amend C of A (wall sign) 12-4958 Yes

33 Bond St., MN NoHo HD Ext. Construct roof, rear adds. 10-5277 Yes

23 Downing St., MN Greenwich Village HD Ext. II Construct roof, rear adds. 12-3607 Yes

372 Lafayette St., MN NoHo HD Const. 6-story bldg. 11-1698 Yes

12 Cornelia St., MN Greenwich Village HD Ext. II Install storefront infill 11-3874 Yes

5251 Independence Ave., BX Riverdale HD Alter rear windows 12-4043 Yes

121 Fort Greene Pl., BK BK Academy of Music HD Const. stoops, roof adds. 12-0238 Yes

November 22, 2011

200 Park Ave. S., MN The Everett Building Replace storefront infill 12-2385 Yes

1 White St., MN Tribeca East HD Construct rooftop add. 11-3474 No

448 Broome St., MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Replace vault lights 12-1307 W/Mod

111 Mercer St., MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Construct rooftop add.; 12-5687; Yes; report to CPC (use & bulk) 12-4728 Yes

427 W. Broadway, MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Install bracket signs 12-3390 W/D

17 W. 17th St., MN Ladies’ Mile HD Enlarge bulkhead 12-2639 Yes

1 W. 67th St., MN Upper West Side/CPW HD Alter rear parapet 11-7548 W/Mod

40 E. 72nd St., MN Upper East Side HD Construct 10-story add. 12-2690 No

89 Joralemon St., BK Brooklyn Heights HD Alter posts, areaway walls 12-3794 Yes

159 Sixth Ave., BK Park Slope HD Create window opening 11-6669 Yes

60 Montgomery Pl., BK Park Slope HD Install lot line windows 12-3038 Yes

522 3rd St., BK Park Slope HD Construct rear yard add. 12-0970 W/Mod

597 Vanderbilt Ave., BK Prospect Heights HD Install storefront, signs 12-4755 W/Mod

580 Carlton Ave., BK Prospect Heights HD Const. rear add., alt. facades 12-3896 W/Mod

LANDMARKS PIPELINE

Proposed Designations – November 2011

NAME ADDRESS ACTION DATE

Coignet Stone Co. Bldg. site mod. 360 Third Ave., BK Calendared 11/22/2011


Kamen’s revised proposal to build rooftop and rear additions to his four-story building at 33 Bond Street in the NoHo Historic District Exten-sion. Kamen’s original proposal fea-tured a sloping, three-story rooftop addition that cantilevered over the rear of the building and was mod-eled after artists’ garrets common in the area, as well as a three-story rear-yard addition. A large, glass “skylight” spanning the two addi-tions would have created an atrium for tenants. Neighbors and preser-vationists opposed to the proposal claimed it was too bulky and visible. Landmarks agreed and asked Ka-men to reduce the design. 8 City-Land 157 (Nov. 15, 2011).

In November, Kamen returned with a revised proposal calling for a sloping, two-story rooftop addition that would be slightly visible from the street and no longer cantilever over the rear of the building. The ad-dition would be faced with ironspot brick and feature copper panels and mullions matching the building’s ex-isting storefront. Kamen eliminated the atrium and would instead add a green roof deck on the rear yard ad-dition. Skylights built into the deck would provide natural light to office space below. Recycled brick would be used on the rear addition, and ex-terior egress stairs would be built on the main building’s rear facade.

Vice Chair Pablo Vengoechea said Kamen had significantly im-proved the design, but asked that the height of the rooftop addition be reduced further. Commissioner Michael Goldblum approved of the height, noting that the building was adjoined on each side by taller buildings. Commissioner Margery Perlmutter suggested that Kamen tilt back the rooftop addition slight-ly to reduce its visibility entirely. Commissioner Michael Devonshire agreed with Perlmutter, noting that tilting back the addition would also gain more glass area.

Landmarks approved the re-vised design with the recommenda-tion that Kamen alter the angle of

the rooftop addition so that it would not be visible from the street.

LPC: 33 Bond Street, Manhattan (10-5277) (Nov. 15, 2011) (Architect: Jeffrey Kamen Architect).



Tribeca, Manhattan

Nine-story building on Greenwich Street approved

Landmarks twice approved designs for new building on Tribeca site, but development stalled . On Novem-ber 1, 2011, Landmarks approved a proposal to replace a two-story 1947 brick building with a nine-story resi-dential building at 403 Greenwich Street in the Tribeca West Historic District. Landmarks in 2002, and again in 2009, approved buildings for the site, but neither proposal went forward. The 2009-approved proposal called for a six-story build-ing designed by Joseph Pell Lombar-di featuring glass-brick facades.

Architect Morris Adjmi pre-sented the current proposal, which would rise seven stories at the street wall with two setback floors that would not be visible from the street. The front facade would be composed of blackened steel fram-ing with three-over-three windows and a large metal cornice on top of the seventh story. The building’s base would feature a glass lobby with a steel canopy. Decorative flanges on the window surrounds would project from the front facade. Staggered balconies proposed for the building’s rear brick facade were intended to be reminiscent of his-toric fire escapes.

Chair Robert B. Tierney noted that Manhattan Community Board 1 supported the proposal after Ad-jmi strengthened the building’s cor-nice. The Historic Districts Council’s Nadezhda Williams opposed the proposal. Williams acknowledged that Landmarks had previously ap-

proved the existing building’s de-molition, but she testified that the removal of these types of buildings had changed the district’s scale and removed a layer of its history. She also testified that if a new building was to be built, it should have an even deeper cornice, thicker span-drels, and a stronger finish.

Commissioner Michael Gold-blum called the design beautiful, but said that it might be more appropri-ate in a different location, noting it looked like a building in SoHo. Commissioner Fred Bland dis-agreed, finding it to be an appropri-ate building that took its cues from the cast-iron architecture found throughout lower Manhattan. Com-missioners Diana Chapin and Libby Ryan said the proposal worked in the district, although Ryan recom-mended increasing the height of the lobby. Commissioner Michael Dev-onshire found the design appropri-ate, but wondered if the base could be strengthened. Commissioner Joan Gerner suggested putting a bulkhead at the bottom to give the building a more solid base.

Landmarks unanimously ap-proved the proposal, but asked the owner to work with staff to refine design elements.

LPC: 403 Greenwich Street, Manhat-

Proposed nine-story building at 403 Green-wich Street. Image: Courtesy of ma .com .


Department of Buildings issued the corresponding work permits on Jan-uary 21, 2007. On or about January 22, 2007, the Boricua Village project was sent to Carrión’s office for re-view, and Carrión recommended its conditional approval. Carrión paid the builders after the initial work was completed, but Subotovsky did not issue a bill at this time. Suboto-vsky sent Carrión a bill about two years later, after the Daily News in-vestigated the matter and after Car-rión obtained a final survey.

In a settlement with the Con-flicts of Interest Board, Carrión admitted to violating the City’s conflicts of interest law by asking Subotovsky to provide him with ar-chitectural services and by failing to do all that was necessary to re-ceive a bill from Subotovsky, such as obtaining a final survey. Carrión also admitted that he should have disclosed to the Board his private transaction with the Boricua Village project architect prior to taking of-ficial action on the project. Carrión agreed to pay a $10,000 fine to settle the matter.

Carrión, Jr ., COIB Case No. 2009-159 (Nov. 30, 2011). CITYADMIN

CITYLAND Comment: The Con-flicts of Interest Board has authority pursuant to the City Charter to bring cases against current and former City employees for violations of the City’s conflicts of interest law.

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Environmental Control Board

Upper West Side, Manhattan

NOV for low parapet upheld

Repairs to building subject to 1938 Building Code triggered new mini-mum height requirements . In Feb-ruary, June, and October of 2010, Buildings issued notices of violation to the owner of 331 Columbus Ave-nue, Manhattan. The issuing officer in each instance observed the same violation of the 2008 Construction

tan (12-3741) (Nov. 1, 2011) (Architect: Morris Adjmi Architects).

ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

Request for Expressions of Interest

Rossville, Staten Island

EDC issues RFEI for Staten Island waterfront site

City seeks industrial maritime use for 33-acre site along Arthur Kill Chan-nel . The City’s Economic Develop-ment Corporation issued a request for expressions of interest for the re-activation of an industrial maritime use on a waterfront site in Rossville, Staten Island. The 33-acre parcel along Arthur Kill Channel is north of the West Shore Expressway and abuts the Bloomfield Liquefied Nat-ural Gas Tank property on Chemical Lane. Arthur Kill Channel supports deep-draft vessels used in domes-tic and international shipping. The mostly vacant site is zoned M3-1 for heavy manufacturing uses. The site is the largest City-owned property available for maritime development and would be available for purchase or long-term lease.

The City in its Working West Shore 2030 report published in 2011 identified Rossville’s waterfront as a future employment center due to its access to the channel and the West Shore Expressway. The RFEI is one of 39 short-term initiatives seeking to stimulate job growth and the devel-opment of maritime infrastructure. The site is within an area being con-sidered for designation as a Signifi-cant Maritime and Industrial Area and for what may become Staten Is-land’s first Industrial Business Zone.

Developers must include within their proposals a plan to use a portion of the site for maritime industrial uses. These uses could include, but are not limited to, a barge dock or a break bulk dock. An existing pier on the site is unusable and would need to be replaced. The site may accommodate additional

berthing space for auxiliary vessels and developers may propose com-plementary and supportive uses for maritime development. According to EDC, developers are “strongly” encouraged to set aside eight acres for a Department of Sanitation ga-rage for Staten Island Community District 3. Developers proposing a maritime use that would inhibit an on-site garage must identify a viable alternate off-site location within the boundaries of CD 3.

Proposals must be submitted by January 18, 2012.

EDC: Request for Expressions of Interest – Rossville Municipal Site. (Nov. 4, 2011).

ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS

Conflicts of Interest Board

Citywide

Former Bronx Borough President fined $10,000

Adolfo Carrión, Jr . hired architect for private job at same time architect worked on project that Carrión later recommended for approval . Hugo Subotovsky worked as an architect on a Bronx development project known as Boricua Village. Atlan-tic Development Group LLC was the developer, and Peter Fine, one of Atlantic’s principals, was part of the team seeking City approval for the project through the City’s land use review process. Subotovsky was also part of this team. During the approval process, then-Bronx Bor-ough President Adolfo Carrión, Jr. asked Fine, his friend, about hiring an architect for renovation work on his home. Fine suggested Carrión speak to Subotovsky, and Carrión later hired him to do the work. Car-rión did not know of Subotovsky’s involvement in Boricua Village, but knew him as an architect that had worked on other projects that were submitted to the Bronx Borough President’s office for review.

Subotovsky performed the ar-chitectural work for Carrión, and the


Codes: brick parapet walls on the roof were not 42 inches in height.

At a hearing, the owner con-ceded that the walls in question were less than 42 inches in height, but argued that the 1938 Building Code, and not the 2008 Building Code, applied to the building. The owner submitted a 1988 certificate of occupancy in support of this con-tention, and also submitted a Build-ings-approved application from 2007 which requested review under the 1938 Building Code. The appli-cation sought to replace and repair the parapet walls.

Buildings countered that the parapet walls would have remained “grandfathered” under the 1938 Building Code had the 2007 work not been performed. But, Build-ings continued, performing the ap-proved work in 2007 subjected the work to a 1960 amendment to the 1938 Building Code. The amend-ment required that parapet walls have a height of 42 inches. An ALJ ruled against the owner, and the owner appealed to the Environmen-tal Control Board.

The Board denied the appeal, ruling that the owner had violated the cited section of the 2008 Con-struction Codes by failing to com-ply with the 1938 Building Code, as amended in 1960. Once the owner elected to alter the building in 2007 under the 1938 Building Code, com-pliance with the 1960 amendment became necessary.

NYC v . 60 West 76th Street, ECB Appeal No. 1100643 (Sept. 22, 2011). CITYADMIN

COURT DECISIONS

Landmarks Preservation Commission

SoHo, Manhattan

Landmarks wins court order to remove illegal signs

Landmarks alleged that building owner and sign company repeatedly installed advertising signs without approvals . In April 1999, 598 Broad-

way Realty Associates Inc. obtained a permit from Landmarks to install a single advertising sign on the Hous-ton Street-facing facade of a twelve-story building at 598 Broadway in the SoHo-Cast Iron Historic District in Manhattan. The permit was valid until April 2005. In August 1999, 598 Broadway applied to Landmarks to install a different sign, but Land-marks withdrew the application af-ter 598 Broadway failed to provide additional information. A year later 598 Broadway submitted another application that Landmarks with-drew for the same reason.

In September 2005, a Land-marks enforcement officer observed that the 1999-approved sign had been removed and replaced with two signs bearing the logo of Colos-sal Inc., a company specializing in “painted wallscapes.” Landmarks issued warning letters to 598 Broad-way for installing signs without per-mits and advised it to apply for per-mits within twenty days. Landmarks issued notices of violations after 598 Broadway failed to apply for per-mits. The signs were painted over, and Landmarks revoked the NOVs.

In late 2007 and early 2008 a member of Landmarks’ staff and a Landmarks enforcement officer observed two different signs on the building’s Houston Street facade. In February 2008, Landmarks is-sued Colossal Inc., which had iden-tified itself as a tenant/lessee of 598 Broadway, a permit to remove the signs. Three days later, however, Landmarks’ staff observed a differ-ent sign on the building, and Land-marks issued another warning letter to 598 Broadway. The sign, however, was removed and Landmarks issued a notice of completion.

After observing two new signs on the building, Landmarks in July 2009 issued NOVs for failing to ap-ply for a sign permit. 598 Broadway did not appear at a hearing on the NOVs and was issued default penal-ties. On at least ten more occasions between September 2009 and May 2011, Landmarks’ staff observed

different signs on the building, of which none had been approved by Landmarks.

Citing the repeated violations of the landmarks law, Landmarks in June 2011 sought a preliminary injunction ordering 598 Broadway and Colossal to submit a complete application to remove all wall signs installed without proper permits, and to refrain from installing any new signs without first obtaining Landmarks’ approval.

In response, 598 Broadway and Colossal argued that Landmarks had not been harmed by the unap-proved signs because the building was located in an area with many other wall signs. Citing the July 2009 NOV, the companies argued that Landmarks was precluded from seeking the injunction because the companies had already been found in violation of the landmarks law.

Justice Barbara Jaffe granted the preliminary injunction, finding that Landmarks was not precluded from seeking the injunction because the illegal signs leading to the 2009 NOV default judgment had been removed, and that Landmarks now sought to remove the current signs and to prevent the future installa-tion of unpermitted signs. Justice Jaffe ruled that Landmarks demon-strated that 598 Broadway and Co-

Twelve-story building at 598 Broadway in SoHo. Image: CityLand .


Landmarks v . 598 Broadway Real-ty Associates Inc ., 2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 33018U (N.Y. Cty. Sup. Ct. Nov. 14, 2011) (Jaffe, J.).

lossal were aware of the landmarks law and that they failed to obtain the necessary permits. Further, Justice Jaffe found that Landmarks did not

need to demonstrate it would suffer irreparable harm because the viola-tion Landmarks sought to enjoin re-sembled a zoning violation.

CITYLAND PROFILES BSA Commissioner Susan M. Hinkson discusses her varied career

S usan M. Hink-son serves as

one of the five Com-missioners on the Mayor-appointed Board of Standards and Appeals. Hink-son, who is trained as

for City-owned cultural institutions, such as the Public Theater, Museo del Barrio, and the Queens Theatre.

Melding careers. Her father’s judicial career inspired Hinkson to pursue a long-time interest in the law. She enrolled at New York Law School as a night student and continued to work at the Department of Cultural Affairs. Hinkson earned her law degree in 1998, and then sought out ways to combine her architectural and legal experi-ences. Her interest in land use issues grew while serving as Sullivan County’s Deputy Commissioner for Planning and Commu-nity Development. Hinkson’s primary job was overseeing “Main Street” initiatives to rehabilitate and maintain storefronts along the retail corridors in the economically-depressed Catskills region.

Hinkson returned to the City in 2000 and joined Hill International Inc., a construc-tion consultation and project management firm that contracted with the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. As a senior project manager, Hinkson designed termi-nals and runways for Newark Liberty Inter-national and Teterboro airports. Her office was on the 72nd floor of the World Trade Center’s North Tower, and on 9/11 Hinkson escaped just eight minutes before the tower fell. Post-9/11, Hill International relocated to a temporary office that offered little comfort for the shaken staff. They were located in a trailer at the end of an active runway at Newark Liberty Airport.

Buildings Department. Hinkson wanted to spend less time commuting, so she applied for the Brooklyn Deputy Commis-sioner position at the Department of Build-ings. She landed the job in 2002, and was promoted to Borough Commissioner only a few months later. At the time, Buildings was undergoing many staff changes, and Hinkson and her staff often had to function without the benefit of institutional memory. New York City was in the midst of a building boom and the Brooklyn borough office was

both an architect and an attorney, was born and raised in the Bronx. Her father served as a justice in the Bronx County Supreme Court and her mother was a musician in the theater. Hinkson said her mother probably thought she would also go into theater, but around age fourteen Hinkson declared that she wanted to pursue a career in architec-ture instead. Hinkson did some acting, how-ever, and, drawn to the technical aspects of the theater, also worked on set and lighting design. While studying architecture at Pratt Institute in Brooklyn, Hinkson worked nights as a stage manager, and she is still a mem-ber of Actors’ Equity.

Architectural roots. Hinkson fondly recalls having crammed in an attic studio space at Pratt with three other students. Studying architecture before the shift had occurred to computer-assisted design, Hink-son learned to do everything by hand. She appreciates the human element of drafting, where the “brain is thinking with the fin-gers,” which she feels can be lacking from entirely computer-designed buildings. She said working by hand forced her to contem-plate each line placement.

After graduating from Pratt in 1981, Hinkson accepted a position with Artec Consultants, a theater design firm that spe-cialized in the acoustics of performing arts facilities. With Artec, Hinkson found she was able to satisfy her interests in theater and architecture by working on music halls and opera houses all over the world.

In her next job at the City’s Department of Cultural Affairs, Hinkson also combined these interests. As Capital Program Man-ager, she managed design and construction

processing thousands of permits monthly. According to Hinkson, the job was a balanc-ing act between allowing appropriate devel-opment and monitoring construction safety. Safety issues were a constant concern for Buildings. In fact, minutes after pulling into a parking garage on her first day on the job, Hinkson heard the rumbling as a building collapsed across the street. As Borough Commissioner, Hinkson always had to be prepared to rush to the site of a building col-lapse, many of which occurred in the middle of the night.

Moving to BSA. In 2006, Hinkson was appointed as a Commissioner to the Board of Standards and Appeals. Each of the Commissioners brings their own perspec-tive to the Board. As an architect and an attorney, Hinkson finds that her role on the Board is a true melding of both disciplines. She employs her architecture training when examining how an applicant’s special per-mit or variance request is reflected in their building plans. She draws on her legal background when reviewing the arguments presented in support of or in opposition to an application. Hinkson loves to untangle the intricate matters that are presented to the Board. Although at Buildings she was constantly reviewing zoning resolution and building code issues, Hinkson notes that the Board often needs to perform an even deeper analysis informed by case law and its own decisions. She also notes that despite ongoing economic uncertainty, the Board continues to review applications for both large-scale developments and small homeowner projects.

Future plans. Hinkson’s term expires in 2013. While she has no set plans, Hinkson continues to expand her academic creden-tials and is currently enrolled in New York Law School’s Real Estate LL.M. program, which she will complete in the spring.

— Frank St. Jacques


New Decisions Added to CITYADMIN www .citylaw .org – November 2011*

CITYCOUNCIL

RES.NOS. PROJECT DESCRIPTION DATE

1108 Weir Greenhouse, Green Wood Cemetery, BK Acquisition of property 11/3/2011

1109 Citizens Savings Bank, MN Landmark designation 11/3/2011

1110 82 South 4th St., MN Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 11/3/2011

1111 442 Graham Ave., BK Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 11/3/2011

1112 166 Mulberry St., MN UDAAP by HPD (2 lots) 11/3/2011

1113 591 Ft. Washington Ave., MN Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 11/3/2011

1114 600 Metropolitan Ave., BK Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 11/3/2011

1115 409 W. 13th St., MN Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 11/3/2011

1116 210 Prospect Park West, BK Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 11/3/2011

1117 5009 Broadway, MN Revocable consent (sidewalk cafe) 11/3/2011

† 1118 Coney Island Grade Change, BK Modify street grades 11/3/2011

CITYPLANNINGCOMMISSION

PROJECTNAME DESCRIPTION LOCATION ULURPNO. DATE

Madison Belmont Bldg. Landmark designation MN 5 N120080HKM 11/16/2011

Madison Belmont Bldg. Int. Landmark designation (1st fl. int.) MN 5 N120081HKM 11/16/2011

HRA Bank Note Bldg. Acquisition of office space BX 2 N120084PXX 11/16/2011

BoroughHallSkyscraperHD Landmarkdistrictdesignation BK2 N120069HKK 11/16/2011

Broad Channel Firehouse Special permit (fire station) QN 14 C120052ZSQ 11/16/2011

Broadway Malls City map amend. (est. parks); zoning txt. amend. (definition) MN 7 C100122MMM; N120037ZRM 11/30/2011

Hunts Pt. Alt. Fueling Station Dispose of City property BX 2 C120044PPX 11/30/2011

BOARDOFSTANDARDS&APPEALS

ADDRESS DESCRIPTION ACTION CASENO. REPRESENTATIVE

87 Chambers St., MN Construct mixed-use bldg. App’d 126-11-BZ Greenberg Traurig

521 LaGuardia Pl., MN Extend variance (parking) App’d 250-00-BZ Bryan Cave

2 Fifth Ave., MN Ext. of term (variance) App’d 727-59-BZ Sheldon Lobel PC

117 Seventh Ave. S., MN Enlarge commercial bldg. App’d 2-11-BZ Cozen O’Connor

60 Madison Ave., MN Permit phys. cult. est. (Mendez Boxing) App’d 48-11-BZ Richard Bonsignore

122 E. 38th St., MN Ext. of term (office use) App’d 672-65-BZ Joseph Lombardi

325 E. 49th St., MN Ext. of term (parking) App’d 224-66-BZ Peter Hirshman

136 E. 55th St., MN Ext. of term (parking garage) App’d 742-59-BZ Harold Robertson

20 E. 91st St., MN Expand comm. fac. (The Spence School) App’d 58-11-BZ Friedman & Gotbaum

1605 Lexington Ave., MN Ext. variance (service station) App’d 281-39-BZ Eric Palatnik PC

4452 Broadway, MN Ext. of term (parking, storage) W/D 502-60-BZ Patrick O’Connell

655 W. 254th St., BX Const. wall, pier, curbs App’d 114-11-A Greenberg Traurig

70 E. 184th St., BX Ext. time to obtain C of O App’d 269-98-BZ Mothiur Rohman

1380 Metropolitan Ave., BX Permit phys. cult. est. (Blink Fitness) App’d 81-11-BZ Rothkrug Rothkrug

1025 E. 22nd St., BK Enlarge 1-family dwelling App’d 18-11-BZ Fredrick A. Becker

177 Kensington St., BK Enlarge 1-family dwelling App’d 230-10-BZ Eric Palatnik PC

2255 E. 2nd St., BK Convert 2-fam. dwelling to 1-fam. App’d 17-11-BZ Sheldon Lobel PC

2063 Ralph Ave., BK Allow commercial use in R3-2 App’d 235-10-BZ Cozen O’Connor

5611 21st St., BK Amend variance for synagogue App’d 13-09-BZ Moshe Friedman

597 Marcy Ave., BK Ext. time to obtain C of O (welder) App’d 172-96-BZ Mitchell Ross

1401 Sheepshead Bay Rd., BK Special permit (reduce parking) App’d 46-10-BZ Eric Palatnik PC

74 Adelphi St., BK Vested rt. to cont. development W/D 219-10-A Sheldon Lobel PC

1736 Leif Ericson Dr., BK Ext. of term (N.Y. Sports Club) App’d 17-99-BZ Fredrick A. Becker

2812VoorhiesAve.,BK AppealDOBdet.(parking) Denied 98-11-A GoldmanHarris

915 Dean St., BK Amend special perm. (parking) App’d 112-10-BZ Sheldon Lobel PC

101-06 Astoria Blvd., QN Reinstate variance (service station) App’d 72-11-BZ Walter T. Gorman

107-24 37th Ave., QN Ext. time to obtain C of O (Squash Fitness) App’d 200-00-BZ Eric Palatnik PC

98-09 64th Ave., QN Ext. of term (transient parking); App’d 92-99-BZ; 94-99-BZ; Sheldon Lobel PC ext. time to obtain C of O 96-99-BZ; 98-99-BZ; 100-99-BZ; 102-99-BZ

149-56 Cross Island Pkwy., QN Ext of term (eating & drinking est.) App’d 93-95-BZ Akerman Senterfitt

*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.


New Decisions Added to CITYADMIN www .citylaw .org – November 2011*

BOARDOFSTANDARDS&APPEALS(CONT.)

ADDRESS DESCRIPTION ACTION CASENO. REPRESENTATIVE

34-08 Collins Pl., QN Develop transient hotel W/D 221-08-BZ Sheldon Lobel PC

134-07 87th Ave., QN Vested rt. to cont. development Denied 50-11-A Steven Bennett

32 Kildare Walk, QN Reconst., enlg. 1-fam. dwelling App’d 148-11-A Gary Lenhart

63 Hillside Ave., QN Reconst., enlg. 1-fam. dwelling App’d 139-11-A Gary Lenhart

835 Liberty Ln., QN Reconst., enlg. 1-fam. dwelling App’d 116-11-A Deidre Duffy

Beach 5th & 6th Sts., QN Ext. time to obtain C of O App’d 182-06-A – 211-06-A Akerman Senterfitt

108-20 71st Ave., QN Ext. time to complete const. App’d 75-06-BZ Eric Palatnik PC

89-03 57th Ave., QN Ext. of term (White Castle) App’d 118-95-BZ Carl A. Sulfaro

3309 Richmond Ave., SI Ext. of term (convert dwelling) App’d 88-81-BZ Rothkrug Rothkrug

LANDMARKSPRESERVATIONCOMMISSION

ADDRESS LANDMARK/HISTORICDISTRICT DESCRIPTION CASENO. APP’D ISSUED

CERTIFICATEOFAPPROPRIATENESS

1619 Broadway, MN The Brill Building Install signage 12-6800 Yes 11/18/2011

390 West End Ave., MN Apthorp Apartments Rem. guardhouse slab, inst. door 12-6120 Yes 10/27/2011

Central Park, MN Central Park Regrade, repave, const. plant beds 12-6851 Yes 11/22/2011

Central Park, MN Central Park Alter playground, pathways 12-6858 Yes 11/22/2011

1220 Fifth Ave., MN Museum of the City of N.Y. Install signs, plaques 12-6029 Yes 10/25/2011

1 White St., MN Tribeca East HD Replace bulkhead 12-6935 No 11/28/2011

40 Lispenard St., MN Tribeca East HD Install storefront infill 12-6632 Yes 11/16/2011

60 Grand St., MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Replace infill 12-6596 Yes 11/15/2011

476 Broadway, MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Install infill, louver 12-6158 Yes 10/28/2011

558 Broadway, MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Install flagpole 12-6026 No 10/25/2011

600 Broadway, MN SoHo-Cast Iron HD Amend C of A (wall sign) 12-6755 Yes 11/18/2011

38 Cooper Sq., MN NoHo HD Alter facade, const. marquee 12-6675 Yes 11/16/2011

380 Bleecker St., MN Greenwich Village HD Construct rear yd. addition 12-6762 Yes 11/18/2011

61 W. 9th St., MN Greenwich Village HD Est. master plan (windows) 12-6566 Yes 11/14/2011

421 W. 13th St., MN Gansevoort Market HD Legalize signs, lights 12-6710 Yes 11/17/2011

17 W. 17th St., MN Ladies’ Mile HD Replace elevator bulkhead 12-6918 Yes 11/23/2011

11 W. 19th St., MN Ladies’ Mile HD Const. roof add., inst. mech. equip. 12-6937 Yes 11/28/2011

34 Gramercy Park E., MN Gramercy Park HD Install pigeon netting 12-6197 Yes 10/31/2011

14 W. 23rd St., MN Ladies’ Mile HD Install signage 12-5900 Yes 10/21/2011

21 E. 26th St., MN Madison Sq. North HD Const. rooftop add., alt. infill 12-6409 Yes 11/4/2011

680 Madison Ave., MN Upper East Side HD Const. roof, rear adds., new bldg. 12-5899 Yes 10/24/2011

630 Park Ave., MN Upper East Side HD Modify, enlarge penthouse 12-6248 Yes 11/1/2011

822 Madison Ave., MN Upper East Side HD Alter, install windows 12-6802 Yes 11/18/2011

2 E. 70th St., MN Upper East Side HD Inst. intercom pedestal, mod. doors 12-5798 Yes 10/24/2011

42 W. 71st St., MN Upper West Side/CPW HD Alter rear facade 12-6065 Yes 10/26/2011

40E.72ndSt.,MN UpperEastSideHD Const.10-storyrooftopadd. 12-6972 No 11/29/2011

† 110 E. 76th St., MN Upper East Side HD Alter, rehab. 6 rowhouses 12-6091 Yes 10/27/2011

220 W. 79th St., MN Upper West Side/CPW HD Const. rear yard addition 12-5982 Yes 10/24/2011

326 W. 80th St., MN Riverside/W. 80th-81st HD Modify rear facade 12-6025 Yes 10/28/2011

51 W. 83rd St., MN Upper West Side/CPW HD Const. rooftop add., excavate rear 12-5213 Yes 11/18/2011

20 E. 93rd St., MN Carnegie Hill HD Rem. rear facade, const. rear add. 12-6676 Yes 11/22/2011

71 St. James Pl., BK Clinton Hill HD Rem. window, inst. door 12-6609 Yes 11/15/2011

146 Hicks St., BK Brooklyn Heights HD Replace siding, repair trim 12-6619 Yes 11/15/2011

† 27 Cranberry St., BK Brooklyn Heights HD Construct 3 1/2-story building 12-6684 Yes 11/17/2011

89 Joralemon St., BK Brooklyn Heights HD Alter stoop, areaway walls 12-6836 Yes 11/22/2011

171 Baltic St., BK Cobble Hill HD Rem. window, inst. doors 12-6568 Yes 11/14/2011

52 Eighth Ave., BK Park Slope HD Rem. door, window, inst. doors 12-6561 Yes 11/14/2011

638 2nd St., BK Park Slope HD Repl., enlg. windows, inst. door 12-6106 Yes 10/27/2011

34-39 82nd St., QN Jackson Heights HD Install fence 12-6164 Yes 10/28/2011

125 Park Ln., QN Douglaston HD Legalize window sash 12-6010 Yes 10/25/2011

*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.

Land

marks ap

proved

a Morris A

djm

i-design

ed six-story b

uild

ing to rep

lace a on

e-story garage at the corn

er of Lafayette and

Great Jon

es Streets in N

oHo.

See story on p

age 172. Image: C

ourtesy of m

a .com .

CE

NT

ER

FO

R N

EW

YO

RK

CIT

Y L

AW

UP

CO

MIN

G E

VE

NT

S

CLE

SER

IES 2012

NE

W Y

OR

K C

ITY

PR

OP

ER

TY

TA

X: 2012 – 2013

Co-sp

onsored

by: C

enter for N

ew York C

ity Law,

New

York City T

ax Com

mission

, and

N

ew York C

ity Dep

artmen

t of Finan

ce

Th

ursd

ay, Janu

ary, 26, 2012, 2:00 to 5:00 p

.m.

New

Yo

rk Law

Scho

ol, A

ud

itoriu

m

185 West B

road

way (b

etween

Leo

nard

and

Wo

rth Streets), N

ew Y

ork, N

ew Y

ork

3 CL

E C

redits availab

le. $210 registration

fee/$100 special fee fo

r NY

C agen

cy atto

rneys. F

or m

ore in

form

ation

con

tact Sarah K

no

wles at 212-431-2383.

Th

e Cen

ter for New

York C

ity Law

New

York La

w Sch

ool185 W

est Broa

dw

ay

New

York N

Y 10013-2921

InformationonC

ITYADM

INisprovidedfreewithsupportfrom

:

Manatt, Phelps &

Phillips LLP

Speaker Christine Quinn, New York City Council

Weil, Gotshal &

Manges LLP

Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP

Kramer, Levin, Naftalis &

Frankel LLP

Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver &

Jacobson LLP

CITY

ADM

IND

ecision

s on

ww

w.citylaw

.org

AGENCY

NUMBEROF

YEARS

NAME

DECISIONSAVAILABLE

BSA 3,788

2002-Present

Council 1,084

2003-2005

CPC 1,898

2003-Present

DOB 68

1999-Present

Landmarks

2,764 2002-Present

Loft Board 2,852

1996-Present

Documents

CITYLANDarchive.citylaw.org/cityland/wp-content/uploads/sites/39/cityland/...December 2011 Volume 8 CITYLAND 167 negatively impact future develop-ment and be too burdensome on businesses