IMBY: A Rear Window View of Brooklyn's South Slope

Merry Christmas

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:59:00 +0000

And Angels Sing...

One bold 84th Street resident of this famous Dyker Heights neighborhood has decided this season to submerge all his holiday decorations in a massive outdoor aquarium full of urine.

The un-named homeowner said he commissioned "Piss Christmas" from the Brooklyn born artist Andres Serrano to show how the true meaning of Christmas has been watered down.

A Port O Potty is in place to accept donations from the public to help cover the soaring costs of maintaining such an extravagant holiday display.

Organic Hookah Lounge Opens in South Park Slope

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Fri, 25 Dec 2009 04:53:00 +0000

Stop, Shop 'n Toke.

435 Seventh Ave and 15th Street

According to the day-glow colored hand writing on the storefront window, Ajami Organic Hooka [sic] Lounge has opened shop in the storefront space recently vacated by the up-scale women's/children's clothing boutique that was lily.

Extra Soft Opening

Judging by their lack of interior design & spartan decor this place seems to be catering to the hardcore Shisha addict who enjoys puffing their hubbly-bubbly sans belly dancers and comfy throw pillows. It's a bare bones casual, wooden tables and chairs kind of place. Welcome to Difficult Smoking Hour... But there will be tea.

Regardless of your views as to the recreational value of smoking bubble gum flavored organic ~~tobacco~~ herbs, their poor penmanship is certainly going to have an adverse influence on the local school children.

Whiling away the hours.

Seems like a bold business model to prohibit children under 18 from entering... Everyone knows that most Park Slope nannies enjoy socializing around the pipe. I must know at least a baker's dozen worth of three year olds who could surely benefit from this hookah lounge's detox products, don't you?

South Slope Towering Ironclad Rooftop Fortress.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Mon, 21 Dec 2009 19:04:00 +0000

ARMOR-PLATED LAIR

The owner of this existing 11th Street parking garage is taking advantage of the 7th Avenue R6A commercial super villain zoning overlay to add on another two stories, topping off the building at 50 feet. This unusual rooftop altercation has an exterior facade completely fortified with an outer skin composed of oxidized raw steel panels welded together at the seams.

The 3rd and 4th floor additions are set back from the street wall and barely visible from the opposing side walk, (see sky exposure plane) but the remaining floor(s), are most likely permitted obstructions (stairwell/elevator bulkheads), and are very much in plain sight.
This 8 car public garage occupies a rare double deep 200 foot lot and actually has an entrance on 12th Street as well as the 11th Street one pictured above. This new addition happens somewhere in a hidden location between 11th and 12th Street.

From this 12th Street side view you can see that they are using the open roof of the single story garage as a large backyard terrace. Wonder if the interior space is designed as equally brutal as the exterior...

Single family fortress
I noticed today they had a crane off-loading this gigantic crate of over-sized magnetic movable type. The same kind you stick on the front of your fridge only much bigger. Looks like another guerrilla marketing type campaign is in the works. Brokers can spend endless hours composing witty marketing messages that can be stuck to the building's outside iron siding, alerting potential buyers to this End Times enclave's amenities.

Mrs. Claus on Ice.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Sun, 20 Dec 2009 18:59:00 +0000

All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.
All work and no play makes Mrs. Santa a dull girl.

17th Street Nativity Scene

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:02:00 +0000

Heavenly ESCO: GLORIA

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this [shall be] a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

Excuse me Mame, if I could just see your utility bill... I know we can save you a heap of money...

Ker-falafel: The Olive has Fallen From the Vine.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:53:00 +0000

Looks like the Olive Vine Cafe's 15th Street location has closed amongst allegations their employees were not being paid the minimum wage of $7.25 a hour. However, before you swear off the Zaater Bread, you should know the owner of the OV Cafe is currently "negotiating a resolution" in order to pay back those lost wages.
According to this sign on the door, they are still planning on making deliveries to this end of the Slope. Just make sure you tip those delivery men well, preferably in cash.

NY 1 is reporting The State Labor Department released a report that says 25 Brooklyn restaurants and cafes owe at least $910,000 in unpaid wages to more than 200 workers.

State inspections of Park Slope restaurants during the spring found that some workers made as little as $2.75 an hour, which is far below the state minimum wage of $7.25.

Of the 25 cases involving 207 workers, 12 restaurants paid back the wages while 13 other restaurants are still in negotiations to pay back the wages.

Some of the worst violations involved delivery workers, who earned $210 to $275 a week for 60 to 70 hours of work.

Most of the involved workers were immigrants.

Park Slope Restaurants With Violations

The following restaurants are negotiating a resolution for payment:
Aunt Suzie's Restaurant
Bagel World
Bogota Latin Bistro
Coco Roco
Joe's Pizza
Marcho Corp's Cholita
Olive Vine Cafe (two locations)
Rachel's Taqueria
Sette
Song
Taqueria
Uncle Moe's

The following restaurants have made full or partial payments:
Baluchi's
Mezcali's Mexican (three locations)
Miriam Restaurant
Mr. Wonton
Nana Restaurant
Red Hot Szechuan
Slim Lamb "Miracle Grill"
Sotto Voce
Sweet Melissa Park Slope

On an upbeat note... South Slopers may only have to wait till this January for the opening of David Massoni and partners' newest creation,
Thistle Hill Tavern.

The new owners are already busy gutting the old Olive Vine space, removing most of that unappetizing, overly polyurethaned wood paneling that seemed to cover every square inch.

For those Olive Vine regulars...

New Demolition Notification Requirements to Start December 2nd.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 02:37:00 +0000

New Demolition Notification Requirements

On December 2, 2009, contractors must follow new requirements for notifying the Buildings Department before starting full and partial demolition work. These requirements are outlined in Chapter 33 section BC 3306.3 of the 2008 Construction Code. (Click here for PDF)

Full Demolition

The Department has changed the notification requirements for full demolition work. To notify, contractors must call (212) 227-4416 within 24 to 48 hours prior to starting work. The BEST Squad will no longer accept notifications. Callers will be given a confirmation number upon notification.

Partial Demolition

Contractors must notify the Department before starting partial demolition work. In certain cases, adjoining property owners must also be notified before starting work.

• Notification to the Department: To notify, contractors must call (212) 227-4416 within 24 to 48 hours before starting work. Callers will be given a confirmation number upon notification.

• Notification to adjoining owners: If partial demolition work will involve non hand-held mechanical demolition equipment, contractors must notify adjoining property owners. Contractors must also provide proof of notification to the Department by submitting a copy of the notification letter sent to the adjoining property owner along with a certified mail receipt from the mail carrier. The letter and receipt must be submitted when requesting a construction permit.

If full or partial demolition work will not begin as scheduled, contractors must notify the Department by calling (212) 227-4416 and providing the confirmation number that was originally created for the initial notification. Notification of cancellation must be made no later than the day work was scheduled to begin.

Questions?
Email OperationsRedesign@buildings.nyc.gov

Demolition Notification Number: 212-227-4416

"The Man Who Loved Flowers" 16th Street location

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 23:38:00 +0000

South Park Slope: 16th Street's Retro Movie Magic

That's actor Tony Plana sitting out on the front stoop filming a scene for a movie based on Stephen King's short story The Man Who Loved Flowers.

*Click on pictures to enlarge.

"The man who loved flowers" filming on 16th Street circa 1963

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Tue, 10 Nov 2009 19:07:00 +0000

Still photos from today's afternoon shoot in front of Sud's Laundromat on Eighth Avenue and 16th Street.

It's an adaptation of the 1977 Stephen King short story "The man who loved flowers" being directed by Juan Pablo Reinoso and producer Wayfinder Films.

Capturing Brooklyn in the sixties... Two nice 'n pregnant ladies chatting out front of the neighborhood laundromat, smoking cigarettes.

Immaculate 1957 Chevrolet Bel Air and 1958(?) Ford Edsel brought in for authentic 60's street cred.

Shooting continues Wednesday on and around Bartel- Pritchard Circle and Prospect Park.

What's 21123?

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:20:00 +0000

Mad men? Where to send the cleaning bill.
http://www.21123condo.com/email.asp?propertyid=1

South Slope: My Sugar Stoop

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:03:00 +0000

My sugar stoop

my sugar stoop.
Where I come from there's a place called heaven

That's the place where all the good children go.
The houses are of silver
the streets of gold.
But there's more where you come from - my sugar stoop.
My sugar stoop
my sugar stoop.
Blood races to your private spots

let's me know there's a fire.
You can't fight passion when passion is hot

Temperatures rise inside my sugar stoop.

Let me take you somewhere you've never been

I could show you things you've never seen.
I could make you never wanna fall in love again

Come spend the night inside my sugar stoop.

Take advantage
it's alright

I feel so alive when I'm with you!
Come and feel my presence
it's reigning tonight.
Heaven on earth inside my sugar stoop.
Let me take you somewhere you've never been
. . .

I can tell you want me - my sugar stoop -
it's impossible to hide.
Your body's on fire
admit it! Come inside.
My sugar stoop
my sugar stoop.
Come inside my sugar stoop
my sugar stoop
my sugar stoop.
Come spend the night inside my sugar stoop

My sugar stoop
my sugar stoop.

572 Fifth Avenue plods along after worker's 4 story fall. Hot Karl out, King David in.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 04:47:00 +0000

572 Fifth Avenue at 16th Street.
Developer HMY PROJECT LLC
7 Story, 18 Dwelling Units, 18,900SF Total Floor Area

POST APPROVAL AMENDMENT FOR NEW BUILDING DOC 01
APPLICATION PROCESSED - ENTIRE 09/21/2009 (D)
Application approved on: 10/05/2006

Comments for PAA Document 03 Modifying Document 01
Description of Amendment:

PAA FILED RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING TO CHANGE OWNER AND APPLICANT INFORMATION OLD - KARL FISHER, LIC.#021282
NEW - DAVID NAGAN, LIC.#205411

DAVID NAGAN
Business Name: KING DAVID ARCHITECTURE PC

ACCORDING TO MONTHLY DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS ACCIDENT REPORTS:
ON JUNE 6TH, 2009 the B.E.S.T. Squad reported

"A WORKER SUPPORTED BY A GUARDRAIL FELL APPROXIMATELY 4 STORIES INTO A SHAFT WHEN THE GUARDRAIL GAVE WAY, 8 ECB VIOLATIONS AND A STOP WORK ORDER WERE ISSUED"

NYC Department of Buildings
ECB Query By Location:
Premises: 572 5 AVENUE
BIN: 3024132 Block: 1052 Lot: 44 CB: 307

ECB VIOL# RESPONDENT NAME DATE FINE

34783374J S & P PIPING & CONST 060909 $8,000
34790525N S & P PIPING & CONST 060909 $5,000
34790526P S & P PIPING & CONST 060909 $12,000
34790527R S & P PIPING & CONST 060909 $8,000
34790528Z S & P PIPING & CONST 060909 $12,000
34790529K S & P PIPING & CONST 060909 $5,000
34790530H S & P PIPING & CONST 060909 $12,000
34790531J S & P PIPING & CONST 060909 $0

ECB Violation Number: 34790528Z
Specific Violation Condition(s) and Remedy:
"FAILURE TO SAFEGUARD ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY AFFECTED BY CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, RESPONDED TO 1 ACCIDENT AT ABOVE ACTIVE SITE AS REPORTED BY FOREMAN, IRON WORKER WAS LEANING OR POSSIBLY SITTING ON THE..."

In a related story...

October 28, 2009
Construction Deaths Spike in City
By Patrick McGeehan

More than 30 construction workers died in falls and other events on job sites in New York City last year, the federal Department of Labor reported Wednesday. Chiefly because of that spike, the overall number of workers who died on the job in New York in 2008 was 90.

The toll of on-the-job fatalities, which had been on a downward trend for the past decade, was up 11 percent from 81 in 2007, according to the report, from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Among the various ways New Yorkers were killed at work, the biggest increase was in falls, which claimed 29 people, up from 23 in 2007. All told, there were 31 fatalities related to construction, up from 24 in 2007.

Murders in the workplace also rose, to 18 from 15 in 2007, the report showed. But the killers used guns less often: the number of workers shot to death declined to 10 from 12.

“Construction clearly remains a dangerous activity,” said Martin Kohli, an economist for the bureau. “It clearly remains the area in the city where we continue to have the most fatalities.”

The national trend was quite different. On-the-job fatalities dropped by more than 10 percent, and the number of fatal falls was down by more than 20 percent, according to the report.

Mr. Kohli said he would not conclude from the figures that construction was less safe in New York than in the rest of the country. Instead, he attributed the divergence to the timing of the slump in building.

“New York City was still having a construction boom in 2008, and you started to see a bust nationally earlier than that,” he said.

Of the 90 people killed at work in the city, all but nine were men and more than half — 47 — were white.

Daniel O'Connor Architects: South Slope Mei Menachem Mikvah. The Latest Renderings.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:29:00 +0000

Construction Update: 292 15th Street between 6th and 7th Avenues.
MEI MENACHEM MIKVAH & SYNAGOGUE PARK SLOPE

New drawings from the Daniel O'Connor Architects web site:
"New construction of a three-story community facility for the Lubavitch community of Park Slope, Brooklyn. The building consists of three floors above ground and a full cellar space dedicated to ritual bathing for men and women."

"The second level is dedicated to religious activities. The third level includes a caretaker’s apartment and a large Sukah terrace for outdoor rituals."

From the IMBY archives:

Sunday, August 24, 2008
"292 15th Street Mikvah"

Sunday, December 28, 2008
"292 15th Street: Beds, Ritual Baths, and Beyond."

Monday, March 16, 2009
"South Slopers one step closer to spiritual purification."

515 Fifth Avenue Shrouded.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:14:00 +0000

EIFS, (Exterior Insulation and Finish Systems), aka Synthetic Stucco, in the process of being reapplied to the 13th Street side of 515 Fifth Avenue.
Water intrusion problems? I understand the builder, and not the condo owners, is picking up the tab for this costly repair.

"INSTALLATION OF PIPE SCAFFOLD FOR REMEDIAL REPAIRS AS PER PLANS. NO CHANGE IN USE OCCUPANCY OR EGRESS UNDER THIS APPLICATION. SIDEWALK SHED."

"REPAIR EXTERIOR FACADE"

Architectural Voyeurism #23

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:10:00 +0000

You have been served.

Vivian S. Toy: Prosperous Times Ahead for Lawyers and Engineers.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 03:11:00 +0000

162 16th Street

October 25, 2009
Your New Condo Leaks? Join the Club

By VIVIAN S. TOY
ROOFS and windows that leak whenever it rains.

Heating and air-conditioning units that can’t quite heat or cool the entire building.

Balconies with flaking concrete and wobbly railings.

These kinds of complaints have become more and more common in recent months, according to lawyers and engineers who represent owners of sleek new condominium units across the city.

They say the wave of development in New York City that started in 2004 and crested in mid-2007 has resulted in a wave of accusations about defective construction and building design.

“There’s always an underlying number of lawsuits about defects,” said Stuart M. Saft, a real estate lawyer and the chairman of the Council of New York Cooperatives and Condominiums, “but about a year ago the number started to increase. And over the next two years there’s going to be an explosion, because of all the buildings that were built at about the same time.”

He noted that buildingwide problems often don’t become apparent until people have lived in a building for a while. Legal action is often delayed because sponsors typically control a condo board for a year or more after a building opens and can block attempts by residents to file complaints.

But since condo owners have a three-year statute of limitations for suing a developer or construction contractors for negligence, many people who moved into new buildings in 2007 — when about 7,000 condos came on the market — are realizing that they will soon run out of time.

A negligence lawsuit charges a sponsor or contractor with causing harm or damage to condo owners. If the owners believe a written agreement has been violated, another legal strategy is to sue a sponsor for breach of contract. The statute of limitations for breach of contract is six years.

Lawyers at several firms said that the volume of condo defect work had doubled in the last year, adding up to dozens of buildings with construction problems. In most cases, the condo owners hire lawyers to add muscle to their complaints, in the hope of getting the necessary work done. In a few instances they have filed suits. Lawyers say that condo owners are reluctant to talk about the defects in their buildings, fearful that publicity will decrease the value of their properties.

Water leaks and climate control problems top the list of complaints. Many of the recently built glass towers are especially prone to temperature issues, because air-conditioning units are too small to combat the punishing summer sun, and heating systems can’t make up for a lack of insulation during the cold months.

But lawyers and engineers said that they had also come across buildings with more serious defects that violate the city’s building code. The most common code violation involves inadequate fire-stopping components — building materials that are used to fill empty spaces where fire or smoke can spread between floors and apartments.

Howard L. Zimmerman, an architect whose firm is checking about 35 new condo buildings for construction problems, said that his workers had found fire-stopping violations in about a third. He said his firm has clients in buildings of five to 300 units, throughout Manhattan and in Brooklyn and Queens.

According to Mr. Zimmerman, the most common problem is found behind the walls of apartments, where, say, no caulking material has been used to seal a two-inch space between a pipe and a concrete wall. That unsealed space, he said, “is where smoke and fire can travel quickly,” and it could also allow smells to float through a building. “Odor migration has been a tremendous problem, and if you buy a $3 million apartment, you probably don’t want to smell your neighbor’s smoking or the restaurant downstairs.”

Mr. Zimmerman says that the Department of Buildings can miss these kinds of lapses because architects or engineers hired by the sponsor are allowed to vouch for certain aspects of construction. “There was supposed to be somebody on the job who signed off that this was all installed before the walls got covered up,” he said. “As nutty as it sounds, just because you have a certificate of occupancy doesn’t mean you have a building that’s code compliant.”

He and real estate lawyers said that even when a condo board discovers building code violations, it is often reluctant to alert city officials because the board then becomes responsible for correcting the problem as well as for paying any fines.

James P. Colgate, an assistant commissioner at the Department of Buildings, says that condo boards are not under any obligation to report code violations. But when they do, the department may decide to investigate whether an engineer or architect improperly certified work at the building.

As for problems like water leaks, Mr. Colgate said that a certificate of occupancy was not the same thing as a guarantee. Such a document “certifies that the building is substantially in compliance with rules governing its construction,” he said, “and even if workmanship in a building may not be superb and you get those kinds of issues, the building might still be in compliance.”

When a building is clearly out of compliance, talk quickly turns to lawsuits.

Steven D. Sladkus, a real estate lawyer at Wolf Haldenstein Adler Freeman & Herz, said that he represents an Upper East Side building where the developer put only one layer of wallboard between the floors, instead of the two layers required by city code to create a fire-resistant barrier. “The board knows that’s a serious code violation, and it’s prepared to do the work and sue the developer and hope for reimbursement,” he said.

Mr. Sladkus said that the board hoped that the New York State attorney general’s office, which oversees condominium offering plans, would press the sponsor to do the work.

It will be expensive and disruptive, he added, since contractors will have to remove ceilings and recessed lighting to install the fire-stopping materials.

At the Slate Condominium, a 12-story glass-walled tower in Chelsea where in 2007 one-bedroom apartments sold for as much as $1.4 million and two-bedrooms for as much as $1.9 million, the condo board filed a lawsuit in March accusing the sponsor, Chelsea Luxury Condos, of using defective materials and of not living up to promises made in the offering plan.

“The unit owners have not only personally observed a number of defective and unsafe conditions in the building, but they have suffered a plethora of dangerous conditions,” the suit states. The complaint lists incomplete fire-stopping in hallways, and uneven floors and water damage in various places. Problems common to individual units include warped floors and balcony doors, nonworking electrical outlets, rusted kitchen faucets and water leaks.

Most people moved into the 26-unit building in 2007, and the apartment owners took control of the condo board in April 2008. Debra Guzov, the lawyer representing the condo board, would not comment on the case.

Anna A. Higgins, the lawyer representing the sponsor, said the sponsor had hired its own engineer to inspect the building, and “our position is that the problems listed are mostly punch-list items and are not considered defects, but things that are under warranty and therefore the responsibility of the subcontractors.”

The sponsor has, in turn, brought several of its building and electrical contractors into the suit as third-party defendants, charging they were negligent. “This is a reputable building and company,” Ms. Higgins added. “And they take these matters very seriously.”

The sheer volume of new buildings that went up during the condo construction boom is the main reason for the increase in defective buildings, lawyers and engineers said.

“It happens in every cycle,” Mr. Saft said. “At the beginning of the cycle, workers are underemployed, then suddenly they’re busy, and at the height, there are too many projects and not enough workers. Then what happens is shoddy workmanship, and when you have sponsors running out of money, they start to cut corners.”

Andrew P. Brucker, a real estate lawyer with the New York law firm of Schechter & Brucker, said that the boom had prompted people with no experience in real estate to start building condos. “When the market was hot,” he said, “anybody who had a couple bucks suddenly became a developer, thinking they’d get rich. When the market was strong, if you complained about something, sponsors would fix it, but then the market started to tank and brand-new buildings aren’t selling out, so there’s no money to do that anymore.”

The more unusual problems that Mr. Brucker has encountered include a building whose developer built an illegal pool and another whose developer put the building’s electrical system in a closet inside an apartment. The pool, he said, was never approved by the Buildings Department and may have to be removed. The electrical closet may also be illegal, because it may not be easily accessible in an emergency. In both cases, the solutions will entail costly projects.

When it becomes clear that a building has problems that go beyond punch-list items — a kitchen drawer, say, that won’t stay shut or a closet door that sticks — the first thing owners should do is hire an engineer.

“You have to get a top-to-bottom assessment of the building — the interior, the exterior, all the systems,” Mr. Sladkus said. “That creates a record and tells the board where things stand.”

The sooner this is done, the better, he added, because it takes away a sponsor’s potential claim that problems were caused by the apartment owners. Depending on the size of the building, an engineering report could cost $10,000 to $50,000.

Filing a lawsuit is usually a last resort because it can be costly and take years to resolve. Lawyers say the condo board’s first course of action should be to try to negotiate with the sponsor, with a goal of having the sponsor make the repairs or pay a settlement to get the work done.

If that fails, lawyers said, a condo board can file a complaint with the attorney general’s office, which can help to mediate a dispute and press developers to make repairs. The office can, but rarely does, file its own lawsuit against a developer. But lawyers say that the attorney general has been inundated with complaints; it can take months just to find out if the office will take on a building’s case.

“The attorney general will look at life, health and safety issues and things like whether a temporary certificate of occupancy is current,” said Jeffrey S. Reich, another real estate lawyer at Wolf Haldenstein. “But it’s hard to get them motivated to roll up their sleeves on minor issues.”

Lawyers believe that the attorney general’s office is more likely to act on behalf of smaller buildings, because it recognizes that litigation could be prohibitively costly for buildings with relatively few unit owners.

That presumption is well illustrated by one case in which Mr. Reich represents the owners in a large luxury building that he had hoped the attorney general would see to. But, he said, “the sponsor’s attorney went to the attorney general and said they should not take the case because the apartments are larger than regulation basketball courts and the owners are titans of finance who are fully capable of pursuing it in court.”

Mr. Reich said he was able to persuade the office to keep pursuing the complaint only because an aspect of law was involved that could not be addressed in court because it fell under the attorney general’s jurisdiction.

A spokeswoman for the attorney general encouraged condo owners facing building problems to contact the office’s real estate finance bureau.

The attorney general’s Web site states that when the office receives a written complaint about a building, “we usually demand that the sponsor provide a written response to the allegations. Sometimes, this alone causes the sponsor to repair the defects.”

If that fails, the site states, the office may send its own engineers to inspect the property or have the two sides jointly hire an engineer or architect to evaluate the building and suggest solutions.

Sometimes, even when an early settlement offers the promise of resolution, unit owners still end up in court.

At the Broadway Arms, a 12-unit building that opened in Williamsburg, Brooklyn, in late 2004, the owners took control of the condo board fairly quickly. When they noticed the leaking roofs, shoddy balcony railings and a faulty ventilation system in 2005, they hired an engineer to review the building.

By July 2006, the condo board had reached an agreement with the sponsor, Broadway Driggs Associates, to fix many of the problems the engineer had found. But Alan Winkler, the condo board’s lawyer, said that the work was never completed and that the board decided to sue the sponsor in late 2008 for failing to live up to the offering plan and the settlement agreement.

Mr. Winkler said that the sponsor had repaired the balconies and done some work on the building’s upper roof, but that a lower roof still had leaks, and various problems persisted in the common areas. “At this point,” he said, “there shouldn’t be any contention as to whether this work needs to be done.”

The sponsor denied the charges in court filings and has accused its building contractor of walking off the job. The contractor in turn has denied that in court papers and has claimed that the sponsor owes him $200,000.

Charles L. Mester, the sponsor’s lawyer, said, “A lot of the problems were fixed and it’s just an opinion of some other experts that what was done should have been done another way.” He added that the $200,000 figure “has no basis in anything.”

Five years after they moved into the building, the owners “would like to resolve this quickly,” Mr. Winkler said. “But they want to make sure they get the value they were promised for their units when they bought it.”

After the downzoning: 1638 8th Avenue's Progress

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:27:00 +0000

The finished iron work delineates the 8th Avenue front facing facade revealing a significant set back from the curb. A ramp running directly along the right side of the property accesses the underground parking lot.

The view from Prospect Avenue.

What does a Floor Area Ratio of 1.65 look like?
Karl Fisher's R5 vested 1638 8th Avenue rapidly pushes forward after years of slow going excavation/foundation work. Recent photos show the building's current state as it moves in stages towards its future 8th Avenue street address. Believe it or not, this is a 30,986 square foot, 30 unit, two story building. As the lot slopes downwards towards 7th Avenue, the cellar and basement are exposed.
Twenty off street parking spaces will be accessible from a curb cut and driveway ramp that will run along the Windsor Place side of the lot. Expect 27 roof decks of some sort or another.

Metes and Bounds Full Coverage
Beginning at a point on the N side of 8TH AVENUE
Distant 100 ft. SOUTHWEST of the corner formed by the intersection of 8TH AVENUE and PROSPECT AVE
Running Thence: NE 62 . 77 ft. Thence: NW 347 . 17 ft.
Running Thence: SW 36 ft. Thence: SE 255 . 30 ft.
Running Thence: SE 94 . 10 ft. Thence: 0 ft.
Running Thence: 0 ft. Thence: 0 ft.

A R5 girl living in a R5B World.
The Board of Standards and Appeals Decision from August 2006.

SUBJECT – Application December 19, 2005 – An appeal
seeking a determination that the owner of said premises has
acquired a common law vested rights to continue
development commenced under the prior R5 zoning district.
Current R5B zoning district.
PREMISES AFFECTED – 1638 8th Avenue, lot fronting on
8th Avenue between Prospect Avenue and Windsor Place,
Block 1112, Lots 52, 54, Borough of Brooklyn.
COMMUNITY BOARD #7BK
APPEARANCES –
For Applicant: Deirdre Carson.
ACTION OF THE BOARD – Application granted.
THE VOTE TO GRANT –
Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar, and
Commissioner Collins...........................................................3
Negative:.................................................................................
0
THE RESOLUTION:
WHEREAS, this is an appeal requesting a Board
determination that the owner of the premises has obtained a
vested right under the common law to complete a proposed
development at the referenced premises; and
WHEREAS, this application was brought concurrently
with a companion application brought under BSA Cal. No. 361-
05-BZY (the “BZY Application”), decided the date hereof,
which is a request to the Board for a finding that the owner of
the premises has obtained a right to continue construction
pursuant to ZR § 11-331; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that while separate
applications were filed according to Board procedure, in the
interest of convenience, it heard the cases together and the
record is the same for both; and
WHEREAS, the Board also notes that the premises was
the subject of an appeal filed on August 20, 2003 under BSA
Cal. No. 263-03-A (the “Appeal”), brought by certain neighbors,
represented by counsel (hereinafter, the “Neighbors”); and
WHEREAS, the substance of the Appeal was a challenge
to a Department of Buildings determination refusing to revoke a
building permit issued under DOB Application No. 301172184
on June 11, 2002 (the “Permit”); and
WHEREAS, the Appeal was dismissed as moot on July
18, 2006, since the applicant worked with DOB to modify its
plans to conform to the relevant issues raised by the appeal; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on this application
on April 25, 2006 after due notice by publication in The City
Record, with continued hearings on June 20, 2006, July 18,
2006, and then to decision on August 22, 2006; and
WHEREAS, the site was inspected by a committee of the
Board, consisting of Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar, and
Commissioner Collins; and
WHEREAS, Community Board 7, Concerned Citizens of
Greenwood Heights, and the South Slope Community Group,
and various elected officials appeared in opposition to the
application; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the Neighbors appeared in
opposition; the arguments made by the Neighbors are discussed
below; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that the subject premises
fronts on 8th Avenue between Prospect Avenue and Windsor
Place, on a lot having 18,422 sq. ft. of lot area, with frontage of
approximately 63 ft. and a depth of 348 ft.; and
WHEREAS, the subject premises is currently located
within an R5B zoning district, but was formerly located within
an R5 zoning district; and
WHEREAS, under the Permit, the developer of the site
seeks to construct a new two and three-story residential building
with a cellar and basement (the “Building”); and
WHEREAS, the Building complies with the former R5
zoning bulk parameters; specifically, the proposed Floor Area
Ratio was 1.65, which was permitted; and
WHEREAS, however, on November 16, 2005
(hereinafter, the “Enactment Date”), the City Council voted to
adopt the Park Slope South rezoning, which rezoned the site to
R5B, as noted above; and
WHEREAS, because the site is now within an R5B
district, the Building would not comply with the maximum FAR
of 1.35; and
WHEREAS, since the Building violated this provision of
the new R5B zoning district and the foundation was not
completed as of the Enactment Date, the Permit lapsed by
operation of law; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the Department of Buildings
issued a stop work order on November 17, 2005 as to the
Permit; and
WHEREAS, as to the history of work at the site,
demolition activities were authorized under Demolition
Permit No. 301321399 on April 17, 2002 through February
11, 2003; and
WHEREAS, the Permit, which authorized excavation
and construction, was in effect during an initial term of June
11, 2002 through August 13, 2002, and was renewed by DOB
for eight other discrete terms; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that that construction
proceeded as follows: (1) excavation, dewatering, shoring,
and sheeting began in mid-2003; (2) stop work orders were
issued by DOB, and the owner endeavored to resolve the
underlying issues; (3) the Neighbors filed the Appeal in
August of 2003; (4) during the course of the hearing process
on the Appeal, the owner continued to work with DOB in
order to come up with an acceptable plan revision; (5) in
December of 2004, DOB approved revised plans, and in
February of 2005, DOB renewed the Permit under these
revised plans; (6) revised structural plans were approved on
August 11, 2005; (7) excavation, sheeting, shoring, and
dewatering resumed in September 2005, and pile installation
commenced; and (8) 164 of the 200 required piles were
installed as of the Enactment Date; and
WHEREAS, DOB confirmed the issuance of the stop
work orders, and submitted into the record a detailed
description of when the Permit was in effect, and when work
under it was subject to stop-work orders; and
WHEREAS, the applicant claims that much of the
difficulties experienced during construction were caused by
political intervention and overzealous community members;
and
WHEREAS, however, the Board notes that there is no
evidence of malfeasance on the part of any of the opposition,
and that neighbors to a construction site are entitled to ask
DOB to investigate construction and plan- related concerns;
and
WHEREAS, further, the applicant conceded that many
of the problems experienced during development related to a
contractor that the owner ultimately dismissed from the
project; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also conceded that the plans
under which the Permit was initially obtained reflected
zoning non-compliances and were subsequently revised; and
WHEREAS, that being said, the Board agrees with the
applicant that neither the initial contractor-related problems
nor the plan-related problems that arose during this
development project are fundamental impediments to a
finding of vested rights under the common law; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that development
difficulties that require construction and plan modifications
are not rare occurrences in projects of this size within the
City, and that DOB enforcement action occurs fairly
frequently because of them; and
WHEREAS, in sum, no development project proceeds
perfectly, given the human element involved, and a common
law vesting determination is not foreclosed simply because
problems arise; and
WHEREAS, the Board also agrees with the applicant
that the owner here endeavored to resolve the plan issues with
DOB while the Appeal was pending, and also obtained a new
contractor; and
WHEREAS, the Board further observes that
construction on this site was contemplated and initiated more
than four years prior to the rezoning; this is not the case of a
developer initiating development days prior to a zoning
change in an effort to beat the clock (even though it is
apparent that work proceeded up to the date of the rezoning
after the plan revisions were accepted by DOB); and
WHEREAS, however, while an application for a
common law vesting determination may still be made under
these circumstances, the Board finds that some
acknowledgement of the problems with the initial
construction and with the initial plans must be reflected in its
analysis; and
WHEREAS, this is particularly true since the applicant
concedes that some construction work had to be redone, that
some was remedial work performed to address violations, and
that many of the soft costs relate to the plan revisions; and
WHEREAS, thus, as discussed in more detail below,
the applicant has separated the relevant work performed and
expenditure incurred prior to the acceptance of the plan
revision by DOB in December of 2004 versus thereafter, and
made other appropriate deductions; and
WHEREAS, this ensures that the Board is not
according any special exceptions in its analysis because the
owner experienced construction difficulties; and
WHEREAS, additionally, the Board has made further
refinements above and beyond those made by the applicant;
and
WHEREAS, the Board also notes that in its evaluation
of this application, no work or expenditure relating to
construction performed contrary to stop-work orders, or that
was otherwise unauthorized, has been credited; and
WHEREAS, in any event, the Board notes that no
violations for after-hours or weekend work were issued by
DOB after December of 2004; and
WHEREAS, in fact, by carving out consideration of
relevant work and expenditure prior to the approval of the
plan revisions in December of 2004, the applicant has carved
out any illegal work and expenditures; and
WHEREAS, notwithstanding the separation of work and
expenditures, the applicant requests that the Board find that
based upon the amount of work performed, and the amount of
financial expenditures, including irrevocable commitments, as
well as the serious economic loss the owner would face if
compelled to comply with the new zoning, the owner has a
vested right to continue construction and finish construction of
the Building; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that established precedent
exists for the proposition that seeking relief pursuant to ZR § 11-
30 et seq. does not prevent a property owner from also seeking
relief under the common law; and
WHEREAS, as a threshold matter in determining this
appeal, the Board must find that the completed work was
conducted pursuant to a valid permit; and
WHEREAS, as discussed above, DOB and the owner
resolved all outstanding issues related to the Permit as of
December 2004; the resolution of these issues led to the
dismissal of the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, while on two occasions DOB issued a notice
of intent to revoke the Permit, at no point was the Permit
actually revoked and then reinstated; and
WHEREAS, further, on both occasions, the owner
successfully engaged DOB to resolve the underlying problems;
and
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Board confirms DOB’s
acceptance of the validity of the Permit for purposes of vesting;
and
WHEREAS, assuming that a valid permit has been issued
and that work proceeded under it, the Board notes that a
common law vested right to continue construction generally
exists where the owner has undertaken substantial construction
and made substantial expenditures prior to the effective date of a
zoning change, and where serious loss will result if the owner is
denied the right to proceed under the prior zoning, and; and
WHEREAS, specifically, as held in Putnam Armonk,
Inc. v. Town of Southeast, 52 A.D.2d 10 (2d Dept. 1976),
where a restrictive amendment to a zoning ordinance is
enacted, the owner’s rights under the prior ordinance are
deemed vested “and will not be disturbed where enforcement
[of new zoning requirements] would cause ‘serious loss’ to
the owner,” and “where substantial construction had been
undertaken and substantial expenditures made prior to the
effective date of the ordinance.”; and
WHEREAS, however, as discussed by the court in Kadin
v. Bennett, 163 A.D.2d 308 (2d Dept. 1990) “there is no fixed
formula which measures the content of all the circumstances
whereby a party is said to possess 'a vested right’. Rather, it is
a term which sums up a determination that the facts of the
case render it inequitable that the State impede the individual
from taking certain action”; and
WHEREAS, as to substantial construction, the applicant
states that after the issuance of the revised permit in
December of 2004 and the re-commencement of work on the
site in August of 2005, the applicant completed the
installation of 164 out of 200 required piles; and
WHEREAS, the applicant also states that significant
dewatering, sheeting, and shoring efforts were undertaken;
and
WHEREAS, in support of this statement, the applicant
has submitted pictures, invoices for labor and material, and
affidavits from construction personnel; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that dewatering, shoring, and
sheeting activities were excluded from its assessment of the
“substantial progress made on foundations” standard as set forth
in ZR § 11-331, since they may not be reflected in the actual
permanent foundation construction (with the exception of water
retention tanks, which in any case have not been installed on the
site yet); and
WHEREAS, however, such activities do fall under the
rubric of “construction”, and thus may be properly analyzed by
the Board in the context of the instant application; and
WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed the representations
as to the amount and type of work completed and the
documentation submitted in support of the representations, and
agrees that it establishes that substantial work was performed,
said work consisting of piles installation, dewatering, shoring
and sheeting; and
WHEREAS, the Board’s conclusion is based upon a
comparison of the type and amount of work completed in the
instant case with the type and amount of work discussed by New
York State courts; and
WHEREAS, specifically, the Board has reviewed the
cases cited in the applicant’s December 19, 2005 submission, as
well as other cases of which it is aware through its review of
numerous vested rights applications, and agrees that the degree
of work completed by the owner in the instant case is
comparable to, or in excess of, the degree of work cited by the
courts in favor of a positive vesting determination; and
WHEREAS, the Neighbors contend that substantial
construction has not been performed, and offer two primary
arguments in support of this contention: (1) that the amount of
work completed is not substantial; and (2) that the Board must
apply the statutory standard of “substantial progress on
foundations” notwithstanding its distinction from the common
law standard of “substantial construction”; and
WHEREAS, as to the first argument, as noted above, the
Board has compared the degree of construction work completed
here to that discussed in relevant cases; and
WHEREAS, the Board observes that the courts of New
York have found vesting in instances where only minimal work
has been completed, as long as such work was permitted and
expenditures had been made; and
WHEREAS, in particular, the Board cites to Ortenberg v.
Bales, 229 N.Y.S. 550 (1928), where the developer had
performed substantial excavation and entered into contracts,
but had not performed any foundation work; Pelham View v.
Switzer, 224 N.Y.S. 56 (1927), where only excavation was
completed, and Hasco Electric Corp. v. Dassler, 144 N.Y.S.
857 (1955) where site clearance and excavation was
complete, but no foundation construction had been
commenced; and
WHEREAS, in all of these cases, the court found that
the owner’s rights had vested; and
WHEREAS, while there are other cases where much
more work was performed, none of them establish a bright
line rule as to how much construction must be completed
before a finding of “substantial construction” may be made;
and
WHEREAS, further, the Board notes that the other
components of the doctrine – a valid permit, economic loss
and substantial expenditure – must be taken into
consideration: it is not appropriate for the Board to ignore
these factors and focus only on a comparison of completed
construction work versus what remains, as would be the case
under a statutory application; and
WHEREAS, instead, the appropriate comparison is
between the amount of construction work here and that cited
by other courts; and
WHEREAS, in light of such comparison, the Board can
only conclude that installation of piles, dewatering, sheeting,
and shoring is substantial; and
WHEREAS, in support of the second argument - that
the Board must apply the statutory “substantial progress on
foundations” standard in a common law vesting application -
the Neighbors cite to Ellington Construction Corp. v. Zoning
Board of Appeals, 27 NY 2d 114 (1990); and
WHEREAS, the Neighbors read Ellington to stand for
the proposition that where the legislature has enacted a
statutory vesting scheme, a zoning board must pay heed to
the legislative intent as the “controlling principal”; and
WHEREAS, the Neighbors conclude that the Board
must apply the “substantial progress on foundations” standard
set forth in ZR § 11-331; and
WHEREAS, however, as explained by the applicant,
Ellington does not stand for this proposition at all; and
WHEREAS, in fact, the Ellington court explained that
the common law vesting rules should inform the application
of the subject exemption period statute; this is the opposite of
what the Neighbors argue; and
WHEREAS, the Board agrees that Ellington does not
require the Board to apply the statutory standard in its review
of this case; and
WHEREAS, this conclusion is borne out by the Board’s
review of the Kadin opinion, cited above; and
WHEREAS, the Kadin court deals specifically with ZR
§ 11-30 et seq., and explicitly held that a common law
remedy exists separate and apart from the statute; and
WHEREAS, the court stated: “New York City Zoning
Resolution § 11-331 does not codify or abolish the common-
law doctrine of vested rights. The common-law doctrine is a
broader consideration than that posited in that section of the
resolution, which confines itself to whether or not certain
physical stages of construction relating to excavation and the
foundation have been completed. While the general standard
in determining vested rights is substantial construction and
substantial expenditure made prior to the effective date of the
zoning amendment . . . unlike New York City Zoning
Resolution § 11-331, ‘[t]here is no fixed formula which
measures the content of all the circumstances whereby a party
is said to possess 'a vested right’”; and
WHEREAS, the Board has neither the desire nor the
authority to ignore such clear precedent; and
WHEREAS, the Board observes that if Ellington were
applied as suggested by the Neighbors, the precedent of
Kadin would be eviscerated, and a common law application
would be a pointless and purposeless administrative exercise
when, as occurred here, a statutory application had been
made as well; and
WHEREAS, in sum, the Board rejects both of the
Neighbor’s arguments as to the substantial construction
finding; and
WHEREAS, as to expenditure, the Board notes that unlike
an application for relief under ZR § 11-30 et seq., soft costs and
irrevocable financial commitments can be considered in an
application under the common law; accordingly, these costs are
appropriately included in the applicant’s analysis; and
WHEREAS, in its July 25, 2006 submission, the applicant
states that the total expenditure was $4.77 million out of a
budgeted $13.5 million; and
WHEREAS, the applicant notes that this calculation does
not include duplicative costs, but includes costs related to
demolition, site preparation, as well as costs related to
construction performed after DOB approved the plan revisions
in December 2004; and
WHEREAS, this submission also provides a detailed
explanation of various other soft cost deductions made to avoid
counting duplicative costs and costs related to the Appeal; and
WHEREAS, the Board generally finds that the deductions
made by the applicant are appropriate and satisfy the concerns of
the Board that no credit be given to the expenditures made to
rectify the prior construction or plans; and
WHEREAS, however, the Board notes that the $4.77
million total includes the purchase price of the site; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that the purchase price
may properly be included in an analysis of expenditure, since it
was purchased long before the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, the Board agrees that there is no impediment
to consideration of purchase price, but also notes that it is not
required; and
WHEREAS, the Board has not analyzed purchase price in
its past consideration of vested rights cases, and declines to do
so here; and
WHEREAS, while it is reasonable to conclude that a
purchase price is based upon the zoning in effect at the time of
the purchase, the Board notes that this is not always the case,
and further observes that not all transactions are recent or arm’s-
length; and
WHEREAS, thus, the Board finds that the relevance of
purchase price may be difficult to ascertain in many
circumstances; and
WHEREAS, the Board concludes that it better to assess
expenditure in light of total development costs absent purchase
price; and
WHEREAS, here, the stated acquisition price is $1.69
million; subtracting this amount from both the expenditure total
and the development costs means that the owner expended
approximately $3.08 million out of $11.81 million; and
WHEREAS, the Board also notes that the amount of
expenditure claimed includes costs related to obtaining the
various mortgages on the property and the interest payments on
them, which totals $2.09 million; and
WHEREAS, the Neighbors argue that such costs should
not be included, and cite to McBride v. Town of Forestburgh, 54
Ad 2d 346 (1976) for the proposition that expenses incurred
prior to the commencement of the actual construction do not
create a vested right; and
WHEREAS, the applicant responds that this an improper
reading of McBride, and argues instead that this case only stands
for the proposition that such costs alone cannot sustain a vested
rights determination; and
WHEREAS, the Board agrees with the applicant, since it
has previously considered pre-construction soft costs in its
deliberation, the basis being the numerous court opinions
holding that such soft costs can be folded into the analysis (see
e.g. Wheatland v. Esso Standard Oil Co., 150 N.Y.S.2d 130
(1956) and Reichenbach v. Windward at Southhampton, 364
N.Y.S.2d 283 (1975)); and
WHEREAS, nonetheless, the Board is troubled by the
inclusion of the full amount of these mortgage costs in the
calculation, particularly the interest payment, since the
cumulative amount of said payments has increased due to the
lengthy construction process, which the applicant concedes is
due in part to construction and plan-related problems; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, like acquisition cost, the Board
finds it prudent to deduct these costs from both the stated
expenditures and the overall development budget; and
WHEREAS, after making the relevant subtractions of this
$2.09 million cost, the Board concludes that the applicant
expended approximately $990,000 out of a total cost (minus
acquisition and mortgage costs) of $9.72 million (or
approximately 10 percent); and
WHEREAS, the Board considers a million dollar
expenditure substantial in and of itself, and not minimal when
compared to the total development costs; and
WHEREAS, the Board’s consideration is again guided by
cases considering how much expenditure is needed to vest rights
under the prior zoning, as well as the expenditure percentages;
and
WHEREAS, as to the serious loss that the owner would
incur if required to construct the building under the current
zoning, the applicant states that the loss of floor area that
would result if vesting was not permitted (from an FAR of
1.65 to 1.35) would lead to the elimination of approximately 5,527 sq. ft. of floor area; and
WHEREAS, the applicant states that this would lead to
financial loss because: (1) further architectural and
engineering costs would be required to reconfigure and
redesign the building to account for this loss; and (2)
approximately 18 percent of sellable floor area would be lost;
and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that a serious loss
determination may be based in part upon a showing that certain
of the expenditures could not be recouped if the development
proceeded under the new zoning; and
WHEREAS, here, the Board agrees that the building
would have to be redesigned at significant cost, and that the
prior architectural and engineering costs related to the plans
accepted by DOB in December of 2004 could not be recouped;
and
WHEREAS, additionally, serious loss can be substantiated
by a determination that there would be diminution in income if
the FAR requirement of the new zoning were imposed; and
WHEREAS, here, the Board agrees that a significant
reduction in sellable floor area in a development of this size
will result in a serious loss; and
WHEREAS, the Board notes that its conclusion that
serious loss would occur is in consideration of the carve-out
of costs related to the need to revise the plans and redo some
of the construction work; and
WHEREAS, in sum, the Board has reviewed the
representations as to the work performed, the expenditures
made, and serious loss, and the supporting documentation for
such representations, and agrees that that the applicant has
satisfactorily established that a vested right to complete
construction of the Building had accrued to the owner of the
premises as of the Enactment Date; and
WHEREAS, the Neighbors and other opposition
expressed additional concerns about various aspects of this
application; and
WHEREAS, specifically, specific neighbors of the site
allege that the construction on the site has caused damage to
their properties, and that contrary to the assertions of the
applicant, the owner has not resolved this dispute or
otherwise worked towards such resolution; and
WHEREAS, while the applicant disputes these claims,
the Board finds that this particular dispute is best resolved in
another forum; and
WHEREAS, further, the Board again notes that given
the built conditions within the City, it is not uncommon for
allegations of damage to adjacent property to be made, and
that such allegations, even if substantiated, would not prevent
a finding of common law vested rights; and
WHEREAS, while the Board was not swayed by many
of the opposition arguments, it nevertheless understands that
the community and the elected officials worked diligently on
the Park Slope South rezoning and that the Building does not
comply with the new R5B zoning parameters; and
WHEREAS, the Board further understands that
neighbors of the site are unhappy with the developer; and
WHEREAS, however, the applicant has met the test for
a common law vested rights determination, and the Board has
determined that the equities in this case, given the established
serious loss, and the degree of work performed and
expenditures made, weigh in the favor of the owner,
particularly since all visible bulk parameters of the proposed
building (i.e. height, yards, and setbacks) would be identical
under either the R5 or the R5B zoning requirements; and
WHEREAS, accordingly, based upon its consideration
of the arguments made by the applicant and the Neighbors
and other opposition, as outlined above, as well as its
consideration of the entire record, the Board finds that the
owner has met the standard for vested rights under the
common law and is entitled to the requested reinstatement of
the Permit, and all other related permits necessary to
complete construction.
Therefore it is Resolved that this appeal made pursuant to
the common law of vested rights requesting a reinstatement of
DOB Permit No. 301172184, as well as all related permits for
various work types, either already issued or necessary to
complete construction and obtain a certificate of occupancy, is
granted for four years from the date of this grant.
Adopted by the Board of Standards and Appeals,
August 22, 2006.
-----------------------

After the demo, 391 14th Street looks for a partner.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 20:54:00 +0000

"Itzhaki Properties has been retained on an exclusive basis to market the development site at 391 14th Street in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn. This site contains 5,500 s/f of buildable square footage and has a 25x100 footprint. It is located on a prime block right off of 7th Avenue. Ownership is looking for a joint venture or to sell as is. Shay Zach and Albert Beyda are handling the transaction." -Real Estate Weekly

R6B Zoned across from the New Park Slope Armory Sports Facility.
So the owner is looking for a partnership or to sell as is for $1,200,000 cash. The buildable square footage is due to a zoning lot merger with the building next door.

Comes with a DOB approved set of plans for a 5 story, 5 unit, 50' tall building with curb cut, off street parking, and a 421-Tax Abatement. Itzhaki is advertising the now vacant lot as having a completed foundation.

Plans

391 14th Street prior to demolition. Notice the existing driveway pass through. Demo signed off on 6/6/2008. These old semi-attached homes on 25' wide lots have been a favorite target of speculators in the SSlope and Green Wood Heights hoods.

South Slope Empurpled.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 03:20:00 +0000

IMBY's South Slope Masonry Forecast: Spring Legacy 2010
Merlot now more than ever.

What can we anticipate from our local clay masons for Spring? Think majestic non-standard kingsizes and heritage textures. Expect a suburban residential range of juxtaposed color- Everything from an angry full bodied plum, through the spectrum of bittersweet burgundies, and up into the lofty charcoals. Backed by matching notes of dusty rose mortar, next years brick faces are being paired with simple yet classic precast concrete lintels and cornices.

Two From The House of Karl Fisher
226 15th Street

169 16th Street

Endicott Clay Products Medium Iron Spot #46 Heritage Texture

182 15th Street

The Leonard Colchamiro Collection
BK Developers
Mark Zeldin

18-20 Jackson Place

390 14th Street

272 19th Street

Tyrophilitic Architecture: Gouda, or no Gouda?

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:35:00 +0000

290 13th Street

Architect Robert Palermo of the firm Corporate Design of America, P.C. (Processed Cheese) unwraps his new building in the South Slope. Lactose intolerant neighbors say the design grates on their aesthetic sensibilities. Two complaints to the Buildings Department have lead nowhere as DOB inspectors declared stinky condo plans safe for human consumption.

Encroaching cheesy slabs at "The Cheddar Building".

Tasting Plate
Omni-build is currently working on two other sister developments on this end of the Slope. Besides 290 13th Street, there is 561 11th Street and 257 8th Street to make your selection from.

IMBY'S "A sudden loss of lift that results in a downward plunge" Report.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 01:56:00 +0000

Stalled Site 187 20th St.

Arrested Developments
NOTE: Rabid IMBY readers might have noticed a sudden drop in the number of daily posts over the past summer. It seems reoccurring parole violations have kept most of our top notch IMBY interns from getting out and about to fulfill their 50 words-per-week duties.
I, GPS ankle bracelet aside, was finally able to personally check up on some of our more troubled development sites and see how they were progressing.

Financial Impotency and the Slumping Housing Market
It's kind of our "Who's having erection problems in the South Slope/Green Wood Heights/Sunset Park neighborhoods?" update. Would like to comment up front that these development sites have suffered for the most part from poor execution rather than our sudden economic bubble bursting downturn. These guys literally dug their own graves.
So should we start by checking the Buildings Department Stalled Construction Sites web page in order to get our bearings? This new feature started tracking some 398 stalled and abandoned building sites back in July of this year. The most recent list dated September 20, 2009 now shows 441 stalled sites in the five boroughs. That's in no way a complete listing of all of the sites out there.
400 15th Street in the SSlope, for example, did not make the DOB's hit list. That suspended site has not seen any construction work at all in many months. We understand it is currently seeking a buyer.
We wonder, do buildings automatically make the list after their permits expire and are not renewed, or is it in response to the public's 311 complaints concerning health and safety?

Let's look at three sites that did make the list...187 20th Street, 325 20th Street, and closer to home, 308 14th Street.

This New York Times photo below, of 187 20th Street's foundation was taken back in late August 2005 shortly after a construction worker, Arturo Gonzales, 27, was tragically crushed to death by a falling steel girder. The developer, 187 20th Street Realty, was fined $400 at the time by the DOB.

Seth Wenig

This recent IMBY photo of the site's foundation shows that almost nothing has changed in the last four years. The steel I-beams appear to have been left in place exactly as they fell on the day of the accident. Robert M. Scarano, jr., is the architect of record for this job.

Five Members in DOB's Stalled-Site Unit
Below you can see the Buildings Department's BIS report card for 187 20th St. showing what the new "stalled site" inspection records will look like. You can see there are numerous complaints and violations on record indicating that the property owners have had difficulties maintaining a safe and secure 8' tall construction fence protecting the public from falling into their abandoned foundation hole. Seems that keeping tabs on this building site has required inspectors to make monthly visits.

*click report to enlarge*

A new chain link fence has appeared. Sudden epiphany or maybe they are hoping to take advantage of Mayor Bloomberg's proposed stalled site monitoring program where down on their luck builders get a break on renewing their building permits for up to four years. Normally permits are good for one year, but developers are being offered an extension in exchange for voluntarily registering/notifying the DOB that their work on the building has ceased and that they agree to maintain a safe and sound site until the work restarts.

325 20th Street.

A STOP WORK ORDER(s) exists on this property for inadequate sheeting/shoring...failure to protect adjacent buildings... various other hazardous conditions resulting from improper excavation work related to the foundation. Currently both adjacent properties have been damaged and the prior excavation back filled. A sidewalk shed is in place to protect against the possibility that parts of the neighboring building might wreck havoc upon unsuspecting pedestrian's scalps. Henry Radusky of Bricolage Design is the original architect of record.

ABOVE: The shit hits the fan multiple times as a neighbor watches her undermined garden being swallowed up after inadequate shoring fails.

Want to know the back story? Five Legged Goat Roping Clown Show.

308 14th Street

Only one STOP WORK ORDER exists on this property. The very common unsafe/illegal/mechanical demolition hazardous condition violation. Looks like they never finished the job.
Stalled Site inspection report below...but only if you share my fetish.

Back Story:
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
And the winner is... 308 14th Street.

Here are some properties that are not on the DOB's list... yet.

320 19th Street

Looks like a $12,000 fine for naughty demo work is awaiting a final judgement day.
This unguarded site is directly across the street from PS 295, an elementary school.
OK kids what lessons can we learn from this?

289 13th Street

A PARTIAL STOP WORK ORDER exists on this property.
This is how the excavation looked back in November 2007 at the time the SWO violation was issued. The home on the right began to shift and crack and rakers had to be installed. The excavation was then back filled. The wood construction fence was removed recently and this chain link one put up in its place. Bucolic to say the least.

Hope you enjoyed the tour. We at IMBY welcome your input. Please send photos of any stalled sites I may have missed... due to.. well... you know... XXX 000

IMBY@nyc.rr.com

New York State Weeks End.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 17:52:00 +0000

Spent weekends in Middleton, NY

Out and about... Biking the Harlem Valley Rail Trail... The view from Bash Bish Falls State Park.

2009 Dutchess County Fair Sow and Piglets

Manhattan District Attorney announces the indictment of a concrete lab director and a building materials testing laboratory

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 13:34:00 +0000

Manhattan District Attorney Robert M. Morgenthau announced today the indictment of a concrete lab director and a building materials testing laboratory for defrauding numerous state agencies and scores of private clients in connection with construction material testing.

The defendants, WILLIAM BAYER, 69, and STALLONE TESTING LABS INC., which employs BAYER as Lab Director, were indicted on charges of scheme to defraud and offering a false instrument for filing. The crimes charged in the indictment occurred from January 1, 1998 through November 18, 2008 and January 30, 2009, respectively.

The investigation into STALLONE began as result of the District Attorney’s investigation and October 2008 indictment of Testwell Laboratories, another independent testing laboratory that performed concrete tests for The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Metropolitan Transportation Authority, School Construction Authority, and numerous private projects filed with the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB). Testwell and its executives, who were charged under New York State’s Organized Crime Control Act, are scheduled to be tried in November 2009.

As a result of the investigation into Testwell Laboratories, the DOB began spot checking concrete labs and concrete pours to determine whether or not the falsifications at Testwell were industry-wide. The DOB focused on STALLONE after Port Authority engineers made a referral based on questions about the veracity of certain concrete mix designs test reports relating to projects at LaGuardia Airport, the World Trade Center PATH station restoration, and Lincoln Tunnel projects.

On November 18, 2008, a court-authorized search warrant was executed at STALLONE’s office in Port Chester, New York. An analysis of concrete mix design test reports seized during the search revealed that STALLONE was falsely representing that they were performing mix design tests pursuant to the New York City Building Code when in fact they were not.

Under the New York City Building Code, before any project can start pouring concrete, the structural engineer on the project must specify the strength of concrete needed. The independent testing lab must prepare a mix design report based upon which particular concrete supplier is involved. The reason behind these mix design test reports is that the strength results for concrete can vary vastly depending on the type of sand or cement that different suppliers use. Proper preparation of mix design test reports involve the lab obtaining the materials from the concrete suppliers to create four mix design proportions, or recipes for a given strength of concrete. The lab then mixes each batch and pours the batches into cylinders. At 7, 14, 28, and 56 days, the cylinders are removed from storage and placed into a compressive strength machine which applies immense pressure (or a load) to the cylinder until it cracks. The load at which it cracks is then divided by the dimensions of the cylinder to come up with the pounds per square inch or PSI which is the indicator of concrete strength. The lab must compress the various cylinders for each of the four mixes, and indicate the ratios of water, cement and sand for each mix and then make a recommendation. The recommendation as to which mix to select is based on both reliability of results and the least amount of cement and chemicals used in the mix (the most costly ingredients in concrete). The report is then signed and stamped by a licensed professional engineer (PE) at the lab and sent to the structural engineer of record.

The analysis of documents seized from STALLONE revealed that many of the mix design tests were never performed. Moreover, STALLONE’s reports of these tests were false because the results were scientifically impossible. For example, a STALLONE concrete mix design report for 7 World Trade Center dated December 31, 2002 contained compressive strength results that are identical to the test results contained in another STALLONE mix design test report dated August 10, 2004 for the same project. In this instance the proportions and ingredients for the two mixes were different, making identical test results impossible. Significantly, evidence that contractors were buying false test results comes from documents recovered at STALLONE’s offices. These faxes and emails showed concrete contractors ordering and receiving overnight mix design test reports with test results that purportedly took 28 days.

The investigation also revealed however that from January 1, 1998 through November 18, 2008, STALLONE prepared mix design test reports which purported to show that the tests had been performed pursuant to the Building Code when they had not and used two different PE’s stamps to falsely certify that the tests were completed. From January 1, 1998 to December 31, 2007, STALLONE used the previous lab director Jay Adam’s PE stamp to falsely certify reports. Jay Adam died of a heart attack on January 24, 2009. BAYER, who is listed as STALLONE’s lab director from January 1, 2008 through the present, is charged in connection with allowing STALLONE’s then vice president (and husband to the owner Adrianna Rostek), Miles Rostek, to affix BAYER’s PE stamp to hundreds of mix design test reports which falsely certified that BAYER had supervised these tests when he had in fact not. Evidence revealed that BAYER worked only two days per week and was paid $600 per week. Rostek used Bayer’s and Adam’s PE stamp to certify tests had been performed when in fact no tests had been performed. On January 31, 2009, Miles Rostek also died of a heart attack.

BAYER and STALLONE are each charged with one count of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, and Offering a False Instrument for Filing in the First Degree, class E felonies, which are punishable by up to 1 1/3 to 4 years in prison. The defendants will be arraigned today in State Supreme Court, Part 1.

This indictment is the result of continuing investigations by the District Attorney’s Labor Racketeering Unit-Construction Industry Strike Force into criminal activities in the New York City Construction Industry and is the second phase of the District Attorney’s current efforts to combat corrupt practices in the construction material testing industry. Those previously charged in connection with this ongoing investigation include: Reddy Kancharla, Vincent Barone, Alfredo Caruso, Edward Porter Michael Sterlacci, Wilfred Sanchez, Testwell Laboratories, Inc., Nancy Philips, Peter Promushkin, Priti Shah, Clyde Finklea, and L. Tommy Dowd. Testwell and its executives are scheduled to go to trial on November 16, 2009.

The list of projects found to have false mix design test reports include:

Port Authority Bus Terminal
WTC Memorial
WTC Transit Hub
FAA Control Tower, LaGuardia Airport
LaGuardia Airport Rehabilitation of the Alleyway gates
JFK Jet Blue Support Operations Center
Lincoln Tunnel NY River Ventilation Building
Eleven Times Square
Goldman Sachs Building
Second Avenue Subway
Grand Avenue Bus Terminal
1 World Trade Center
1 World Trade Center Substation - SS-108A Upgrade
240 - 244 West Broadway
2575, 2579, 2583 West 16th Street
7 World Trade Center
88th Police Precinct
Augustana Lutheran Home for the Aged Nursing Home Addition & Open Air Parking Structure
Augustana Lutheran Home - Parking Garage Structure
Brooklyn Battery Tunnel Rehabilitation of Roadway - Contract BB-24
Brooklyn Water Front; Brooklyn, NY
Bureau of Supplies Building
Canton Place & East 8th Street
Caton On The Park
Con Edison Academy Street Sub-Station
Contract # HWMWTCA1C 160 3rd Street
Contract # TB-64B Deck Replacement on the Randall's & Ward's Island Viaducts at the Triborough Bridge
Contract HWMWTC16C - Liberty St.
Contract No. 30672 Metro North Hudson Line, Hastings & Irvington
Contract No. 31857 MNRR Hudson Line; Ossining, Scarborough & Phillipse Manor
Contract No. AW28/82 Alternative Fuel E-85 Dispensing Stations
Corona Maintenance & Car Washer NYCTA C-34714
Corona Transit Authority Yard
Downtown P.A.T.H. Station Restoration
East Side Access CQ 026
East Side Access Northern Boulevard
FH HS; 8301 Shore Road
Freedom Tower Utility Relocation Contract #WTC-1001.001
Holocaust Resource Center Queensboro College
I. S. 84
JHS 216Q
John Dewey High School
LIRR MOW Facility
Long Island Rail Road Intermodal Center
Metro North - Hellgate
Metro North & Grand Central Station GCT Upper Loop
Metro North 200 Park Avenue
Metro North Contract # 9551
Metropolitan Avenue Bridge - Guard House Contract # BKBR309
MTA - BBT AW 28/82 - Brooklyn Battery Tunnel
MTA - LIRR - Atlantic Ave Terminal Track # 1
MTA - Utica Avenue
MTA Contract # NYCT E-40803
MTA Contract A-36033 / A-36051 Structural Repairs At the Chambers Street Station, Nassau Loop (BMT)
MTA Contract C-52064 Fenders & Bollards North 7th St. & Whitehall St Ventilation Plants
MTA Contract P-36248 Rehabilitation of Dyckman Substation - IND 8th Ave Line
MTA Project Coney Island
MTA Shea Stadium Station
NYC - Various DDC Projects
NYC Transit Authority Contract # AA35920
NYCT C-34742 Construction of 38th Street Yard - Heavy Equipment Shop
NYCTA - Contract No: A-33497
NYCTA #C-34573 Stillwell Avenue
NYCTA Coney Island Yard
NYCTA Contract A-35779-1 ADA Access - Utica Avenue Station
NYCTA Contract A-35853/54/57/58/75
NYCTA Contract A-36015 Expansion & Rehabilitation of Control House Building
Ocean Parkway Viaduct
P. S. 237 B
P.S. 379
Route 9A; NYC
School for Career Development
TBTA Salt Domes Project Contract No. GFM-435
The City of New York Department of Design and Construction Bay 52nd & Bay 53rd St.; between Cropsey Ave. & 22nd St.; Brooklyn, N.Y.
The Trump World Tower
Tilden High School
Times Square Site # 1
Triborough Bridge Repairs
Ulmer Park Bus Depot NYCTA Contract # G-33057B
Vesey Street Walkway Improvements PA-NY/NJ Contract # WTC-404.161
World Trade Center
World Trade Center Restoration Electrical Duct Banks
WTC - Path Restoration
WTC-724.077
549 West 23rd Street
211 East 121st Street
326 West 40th Street
330 West 40th Street
705-717 East 6th Street
517 West 46th Street

Mr. Morgenthau thanked the following individuals and agencies for their assistance in the continuing investigation:

Barry L. Kluger, the Inspector General for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority of the State of New York, Frank Lanzo, an Investigative Attorney, and Administrative Assistant Meryl Hughes with that office. Robert E. Van Etten, Inspector General for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and members of his staff, including Deputy Inspectors General Michael Nestor and Steven Pasichow and Investigators Mark Gaw, Karen Connelly, and Tomas Santos.

Commissioner Rose Gill Hearn of the New York City Department of Investigation and members of her staff, including Associate Commissioner John Kantor, the Inspector General for the Department of Buildings, Michael Carroll, Chief Investigator James McElligott and Investigators Nick Novellino, Tiffany Dumas, and Christine Abbenda, Investigative Attorney.

Barbara DiTata, Vice President and Inspector General for the New York City School Construction Authority, and Gerard McEnroe and Chris Baldassari.

Dennis Saville, Director, Internal Affairs, Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, Dennis Monahan, Security Manager, Richard Caccece, Senior Investigative Auditor; and Robert Leask and Richard Visconti of the DASNY Authority’s Construction Division.

Senior Investigative Counsel Diana Florence, of the District Attorney's Labor Racketeering Unit-Construction Industry Strike Force, conducted the investigation leading to today's actions, under the supervision of Unit Chief Michael Scotto. The District Attorney’s Investigation Bureau also assisted, including Chief Investigator Joseph Pennisi, Deputy Chief Terry Mulderrig and Senior Investigators Terry Quinn, Angel Garcia, and Robert Tarwacki. Computer Forensic Analysts John Forames Jr. and Selena Ley of the District Attorney’s Computer Forensics Unit also assisted under the supervision of Steven Moran, Director of the IT Forensics Department.

Defendants’ Information:

WILLIAM BAYER, 7/25/1940
75 Georgia Avenue
Bronxville, New York

STALLONE TESTING LABORATORIES INC.
440 North Main Street
Port Chester, New York

Nasty Rash of 311 Building Complaints.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 20:27:00 +0000

Shared party walls.
Highly contagious rash of 311 complaints strikes contiguous South Slope properties. Armory Heights Plaza seems to be immune from this particular infection. Home owners are left scratching their heads as to where it originated.

It appears as if every building adjacent to 406-408 15th Street contracted this very same complaint, starting with 389 16th Street on June 17th and 387 16th St. later that day, and then the other properties the next day, June 18th, starting with the Memorial Baptist Church:

Address DoB Complaint, Number, Date, Time and Description:

387-16th St #3308849 (6/17/09 -15:01) ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY AND CONVERSION OF BSMT PERSON RESIDING IN BASEMENT

389-16th St #3308837 (6/17/09 -14:30) THE CALLER STATES THAT THERE IS ILLEGAL CONVERSION IN THE BASEMENT

391-16th St #3309019 (6/18/09 -16:14) .ILLEGAL CONVERSION IN THE BASEMENT

393-16th St #3309018 (6/18/09 -16:12) .THERE IS ILLEGAL CONVERSIONS TAKING PLACE IN THE BASEMENT

395-16th St #3309017 (6/18/09 -16:10) ILLEGAL CONVERSION TAKING PLACE IN THE BASEMENT.

397-16th St #3309016 (6/18/09 -16:08) ILLEGAL CONVERSIONS TAKING PALCE IN THE BASEMENT OF ADDRESS

399-16th St #3309015 (6/18/09 -16:04) THERE IS AN ILLEGAL CONVERSION OF THE BASEMENT AT THIS ADDRESS

The Memorial Baptist Church
1506-8th Ave #3309001 (6/18/09 -14:48) ILLEGAL BASEMENT CONVERTED INTO A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING

The Vacated 4 - story multiple dwelling
1504-8th Ave #3309000 (6/18/09 -14:46) BASEMENT CONVERTED INTO RESIDENTIAL DWELLING

The Corner 3 Story Apartment building with a Steel Structure supporting the entire west wall.
1502-8th Ave #3308999 (6/18/09 -14:44) ILLEGAL CONVERSION OF BASEMENT INTO A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING

Rojas Bakery
404-15th St #3308994 (6/18/09 -14:31) ILLEGAL CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL BASEMENT TO LIVING SPACE WITH TENANTS AND BATHROOM. OCCUPANCY OF 4-5 TENANTS. ILLEGAL ALTERATIONS TO THE RESIDENCE; ILLEGAL OCCUPANCY

Demo permits for Windsor Terrace Anomaly.

noreply@blogger.com (IMBY) — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 12:23:00 +0000

Last Remaining 17th Street Sleeper Shell to be Put Down.
Demolition permits for decades vacant 534 17th Street have been approved. Just about the only thing worth saving from this architectural gem is the cast iron gate out front. IMBY readers will remember that the other vacant shell on 17th St. sold for $2.372 million earlier this year? FYI folks, it's almost completely renovated.

An application for the construction of a new two family building is currently working its way through the DOB plan examiner's office waiting for approval. The owner of record is Ellen Baxt. The filing architect is Benjamin Baxt of the firm Baxt/ Ingui Architects, P.C.

Contemporary townhouses seem to be the firms speciality with examples o' plenty in Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill, Carrol Gardens, and Park Slope. The firm, however, may be best known for their ongoing conversion of the Strong Place Church into 24 residential condominium units. Brownstoner has the poop here.

Should be interesting to see what Ben creates for Ellen.

So far info gleaned from the building's application form fills in some of the blanks.

R5B zoned lot... 1.33 FAR... 3,643 buildable SQ FT... 30' height... 20' wide lot... two family... NO CURB CUTS.

Past Posts:
17th Street
Friday, September 19, 2008
"Adele Manor"