Thursday, December 24, 2009

Merry Christmas

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

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?

Monday, December 21, 2009

South Slope Towering Ironclad Rooftop Fortress.

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 adamantium alloy steel panels fused 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.

Sunday, December 20, 2009

Mrs. Claus on Ice.

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.

Thursday, December 17, 2009

17th Street Nativity Scene


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...

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

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

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
Uncle Moe's

The following restaurants have made full or partial payments:
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...

Monday, November 23, 2009

New Demolition Notification Requirements to Start December 2nd.

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.


Demolition Notification Number: 212-227-4416

Thursday, November 12, 2009

"The Man Who Loved Flowers" 16th Street location

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.

Tuesday, November 10, 2009

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

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.

Monday, November 09, 2009

What's 21123?

Mad men? Where to send the cleaning bill.

South Slope: My Sugar Stoop

South Slope Stoop Series: 16th Street Gummy

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 upside 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 upside 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 upside my sugar stoop
my sugar stoop
my sugar stoop.
Come spend the night upside my sugar stoop

My sugar stoop
my sugar stoop.

Sunday, November 01, 2009

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

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

Application approved on: 10/05/2006

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



ON JUNE 6TH, 2009 the B.E.S.T. Squad reported

NYC Department of Buildings

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


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:

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.

Tuesday, October 27, 2009

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

Construction Update: 292 15th Street between 6th and 7th Avenues.


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.

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.



Architectural Voyeurism #23

You have been served.

Sunday, October 25, 2009

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

162 16th Street

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

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.”

Tuesday, October 13, 2009

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.
For Applicant: Deirdre Carson.
ACTION OF THE BOARD – Application granted.
Affirmative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice-Chair Babbar, and
Commissioner Collins...........................................................3
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
WHEREAS, accordingly, the Board confirms DOB’s
acceptance of the validity of the Permit for purposes of vesting;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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;
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.