After the downzoning: 1638 8th Avenue's Progress

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.
-----------------------

Armory Plaza Engineer Dies

Sanchez, Louis

October 12, 2009

Orangeburg, NY

Louis Sanchez, PE, of Orangeburg, NY passed away peacefully at home on October 12, 2009, with his family by his side. He was born in New York City on October 31, 1939. He is pre-deceased by his parents and two sisters, Norma and Dora. He is survived by his loving wife of 46 years, Barbara, and children and grandchildren, who he loved dearly: son Louis and wife Julie of Wallkill, NY, son Lance and wife Jackie of Hoboken, NJ, daughter Lisa and husband John of Yonkers, NY, five grandchildren - Jaime, L.J., Isabella, Ewan, and Lucas, as well as many nieces, nephews, and cousins.

He graduated from Manhattan College in 1964 with a Bachelor of Civil Engineering Degree, majoring in Structure and Mechanics. He completed graduate studies at City University of NY 1964-1966, majoring in Structures. He got his Professional Engineering License in 1970 and had his own firm, Sanchez Associates PC in Great Neck, NY, for over 25 years. He was a member of the American Society of Civil Engineering for Practical Seismic Design of Structure, a member of the American Concrete Institute, and a member of the Rockland County Chapter of the New York State Society of Professional Engineers. He received an Engineer of the Year Award '94-95'. He was licensed as a Professional Engineer in the states of New York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Colorado. He was a devoted husband, loving father, grandfather, and uncle, who will be deeply missed.

A Memorial Funeral Mass was held Friday, 11am, at St. Catharine's Church, 523 Western Highway, Blauvelt, NY. Visiting hours were on Thursday at the Moritz Funeral Home in Tappan. In lieu of flowers, donations can be made to United Hospice of Rockland (845-634-4974) or the Alzheimer's Association (800-272-3900).

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

"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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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"