NEWS: Eye wtiness Account of BSA Minerva Hearing
Board of Standards and Appeals Continued Hearing
August 15, 2006
614 7th Ave., Brooklyn, NY (353-05-BZY)
(hearings 3/29, 4/25, 6/6)
Applicant attorney: Peter Geis and Howard Hornstein of Cozen O’Connor
Owner/developer: Chaim Nussenscweig
Where We Left Off and Where We Commence
Once again, Tuesday’s hearing was supposed to be a Decision on this property. However, at its Executive Session on Monday, the Board voted to re-open the case because of new evidence submitted at the 11th hour last Friday (the 11th) by applicant attorney Mr. Peter Geis of Cozen O’Connor.
We last left Mr. Geis at the prior hearing on this property on D-Day, June 6, stunning both the Board and the Department of Buildings with the assertion that DOB had audited the “wrong” set of plans (those perforated and approved by the DOB Aug 30, 2005), which resulted in a wrongful revocation of the work permit. Had the “right” set of plans (those perforated Sept 1, 2005) been audited, the runaway train of reasoning went, objections would not have been found, the work permit would not have been revoked on November 3, 2005, a substantial foundation would have been laid and 614 7th Avenue would have vested R6 in a shiny and beautiful world.
This seemed quite a large rabbit to pull from such a small hat and no one in the room seemed to take this pronouncement in good faith.
However, the rabbit was made manifest last Friday by the producing of said “right” plans, perforated with the date September 1, 2005. Mr. Geis did apologize for a submission at such a late date (two business days before a decision), but the evidence had not been “readily available” until this time.
And now, we continue with Tuesday’s episode:
At this re-re-opened hearing, all parties save for Messrs. Geis and Hornstein, the dynamic duo that could not save 182 15th St. from burial in its own illegally poured concrete, were witnesses to another sensational testimony, this time of the legal counsel of the DOB, Ms. Angelina Martinez-Rubio.
The DOB, through Ms. Martinez-Rubio, firmly stated (and several times over the course of the hearing) that they do not have, nor did they ever have, record of Mr. Peter Geis’s “right” set of plans perforated with a date of Sept 1, 2005. The DOB stands by the fact that only ONE set of plans is on file and approved: those perforated with a date of Aug 30, 2005. Work permits were issued on Aug 31, 2005 based on these plans, highlighting the absurdity of plans “approved” on Sept. 1.
The Crust of the Case: Dueling Sets of Plans
The crux of this case, according to Chair Srinivasan, is “Did these [Sept. 1] drawings supersede the August 30 drawings?” The answer is, if a Post-Approval Amendment was filed at the DOB, then yes, they would have. However, there is no evidence of a PAA ever having been filed for these plans, stated Ms. Martinez-Rubio (several times over the course of the hearing*).
*Angelina Martinez-Rubio (Legal Counsel, DOB):
“The Department has no record of these plans.”
“The fact that they were perforated and stamped doesn’t mean there were approved.”
“We had two of our architects look at these plans and they said they would have required a PAA.”
“Stamps with date of amendment should have been on the plans and they should have been microfilmed.”
“Perforation is just a clerical step. The fact that it was perforated doesn’t mean they were approved. It doesn’t have the right stamp and there is no PAA filed.”
“We have no record of them in the file, no microfilm, no PAA.”
“It is about dueling sets of plans,” the Chair concluded.
Though more Brazil (the movie)-like in reality, in brief, the DOB approval process for plans to be considered valid by the DOB are: new drawings are brought to DOB, perforated with the date, stamped with the date and OPPN number, a Post-Approval Amendment is filed, the plans are microfilmed and entered into the computer (DOB’s BIS system). Once the plans are in the system, the applicant, in this case professionally certified architect Robert Scarano, self-certifies the PAA.
Commissioner Christopher Collins queried Ms. Martinez-Rubio, “Would the revocation [of the work permits] change if the Sept. 1 plans were audited? In other words, would the conclusion change had the Department reviewed the Sept 1 plans?”
We answered this question with our testimony based on a layman’s comparison of the two sets of plans (Aug 30 and Sept 1), concluding that the Sept 1 plans would have been found to be as defective as the Aug 30 plans and a work permit revocation would still have happened (e.g., three six-and-a-half to seven foot high “mezzanine” levels exist in both sets of plans, and both sets of plans illegally deduct the square footage of these “mezzanines” from total floor area. Only mezzanines with headroom of under five can be deducted from legal floor area.).
Barring any further rabbits from Cozen O’Connor’s hats, we expect the BSA to vote according to DOB’s statement and their request that no work on the foundation be considered except that done after the work permit was reinstated on Nov 15 at 2:41 pm based on new plans by Mr. Scarano that addressed and corrected the 15 objections found in the DOB October audit.
Dates:
Aug 22: DOB submission (Chair Srinivasan: DOB to “speak to the issue of practice and policy in the DOB, explains the process of a Post-Approval Amendment and explain why this set of papers [plans] did not go through the process”)
Sept 5: Cozen O’Connor rebuttal (to provide paperwork that shows a PAA was actually filed)(Commissioner Babbar: “Was there any fee paid for this PAA? That receipt could help you . . .”)
Sept 12: Decision (perhaps).
—
Mic Holwin–Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Hts. [email protected]