NEWS: Report from Greenwood Heights; Return to the BSA
from Mic Holwin–Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Hts. [[email protected]]
Hello all:Yesterday Aaron & I, along with some fellow citizens and electeds’ reps, spent an entertaining morning at the BSA listening to developers’ lawyers bungle, stumble, parse and otherwise fly by the seat of their pants to defend their cases. Below are my notes on “our” two appealing properties in South Slope/G-Wood Hts. (but the best was that Wendy’s in East Flatbush . . . ask me).Onward yet again,Mic* * * * *
Board of Standards and Appeals Continued Hearings June 6, 2006
614 7th Ave.
Applicant attorney: Peter Geis of Cozen O’ConnorOwner/developer: Chaim Nussenscweig
The gist of the hearing: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 so that the developer’s attorney could rebut a May 9, 2006 letter to the Board by the Dept. of Buildings. In that letter, the DOB stated that “due to the serious nature of the objections and the substantial defects in the plans submitted,” the permit issued on August 31, 2005 was not valid and was properly revoked on November 3, 2005. The letter also stated that the post-audit reinstated permit of November 15, 2005 could also be found improperly reinstated due to “serious zoning violations” in the revised plans submitted; this was currently being investigated at the time of the writing of the letter. DOB has since issued a 10-day notice of revocation on June 1, 2006 and will advise the Board on the November 15, 2005 permit next week.
Applicant attorney’s main argument (“The Wrong Set of Plans”):Peter Geis of Cozen O’Connor presented a confusing and convoluted argument whose main point, as far as we could ascertain, was that the professionally certified architectural plans by Robert Scarano audited by the DOB in October (resulting in permit revocation on November 3) were the wrong set of plans.This was news to both the Board and the DOB representative, neither of whom had ever heard mention of a “wrong set of plans.”So, went Mr. Geis’s argument, if the audit was conducted on an incorrect set of plans and the list of audit objections were not based on an approved set of plans, then the DOB committed a grievous error in revoking the original permit (never mind that the second reinstated permit was revoked when the revised plans were also found to have serious violations).There was no explanation given as to why the DOB did not have an approved set of plans.According to Mr. Geis, the architect had a November 4, 2005 date to meet with the DOB auditor to discuss remedies for the then-being-audited plans. On November 3, however, the DOB revoked the permit. Revoking the permit before the meeting was held could’ve been an error on DOB’s part, a goof-up that was “pretty sad,” said Mr. Geis.Mr. Geis accused the DOB of having “radically changed” their process of evaluation, as evidenced by their May 9 letter to the Board, which “threw two different monkey wrenches in the proceedings.”“We’re scratching our heads as to where this comes from,” he said of the DOB’s advisement to the Board of the invalid nature of the permit. He answered his own query a sentence or two later, when he said DOB’s letter “came to us out of the blue.”We were unable to understand Mr. Geis’s oratory on the jurisdictional aspects of the DOB monkey wrenches. We don’t think the Board did either, since the Chair’s response to this particular section of magnificent parsing was “The permits of August 31 were revoked on November 3 and invalid permits have no relevance to the issue you’re talking about.”We did, however, understand one part of Mr. Geis’s “presentation.” He alleged that the DOB, in their change of policy, was unfairly singling out his client as a result of “a New York Times article that came out three weeks ago.” Mr. Geis was referring to an April 16 front-page Sunday Times Real Estate article by William Neuman that discussed architect Robert Scarano’s upcoming Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) case filed by the DOB that charges Mr. Scarano with violating zoning or building codes on 26 projects in Brooklyn and Manhattan, including 614 7th Avenue. Since the DOB petition was filed in February after assumed months of investigative research, we think the DOB has been looking into Mr. Geis’s client long before the Times article was published.The DOB representative stated that the DOB is currently preparing paperwork “which should answer the issues raised.” This submission, to be turned in next Tuesday, June 13, will address DOB’s revocation of one or both permits as a result of the audit, the mysterious “wrong set of plans” that were audited and the attorney’s accusation of a “change or inconsistency of policy [at DOB].”According to the Chair, the DOB’s submission will provide the basis for decision on this property, which involve “basic threshold issues: they will go one way or the other way.”The first meeting regarding the June 1 10-day letter of intent, at which “nothing was resolved,” according to Mr. Geis, was held Monday, June 5. Testimony against the vesting of this property was given by Mike Schweinzberg (Councilmember Sara Gonzalez), John Keefe (Assemblymember Jim Brennan), Aaron Brashear (Concerned Citizens of Greenwood Hts.), Joe Ferris (ex-Assemblymember), Russ Wylie (Save The Vista), Bo Samajapolos (South Park Slope Community Group), Monica Stabin (CCGH). All stressed concurring with the DOB’s assessment of the validity of permits for this property and asked that the hearing be closed and a vote taken immediately.
Conclusion/outcome:1) Unanimous vote by BSA to close the case (again)2) June 13: DOB submission of final paperwork 3) June 27: Cozen O’Connor submission to rebut DOB submission4) July 3: DOB rebut to Cozen O’Connor rebut5) July 11: Cozen O’Connor rebut to DOB’s rebut to Cozen O’Connor’s rebut(#s 2 through 5 above are all paperwork filings)6) July 18: decision
422 Prospect Ave.
Applicant attorney: Rothkrug Rothkrug Weinberg & SpectorOwner/developer: Eric Nachimovsky
The attorney for this property has had since March 25, when the first hearing was held, to gather and present the proper documentation as requested by the Board on that date. Even after an adjournment of a May 2 continued hearing to June 6 and in spite of working with BSA Appeals Examiner Toni Matias, Mr. Rothkrug was still unable to produce the correct plans, photos or paperwork.The Chair held up a blurry Xerox and squinted at it. “I’m looking at these photographs and I see . . . it’s just not clear . . . is this the footing? . . . I see rebar sticking out . . . a foundation wall?”She explained once again (she was very clear the first time around in March) what the Board required. “Foundation walls and footings are on the same drawing. You must separate them out. It’s just not very clear. It’s very confusing. Submit evidence where it’s clear to us.”“We’ll do the best we can,” said Mr.Rothkrug.“Mr. Rothkrug,” sighed the Chair, “ it’s not that difficult.” First, she said, “you need a good camera. Don’t give us Xerox copies.” She listed the easy steps to follow to produce proper documentation: clear photographs, proper drawings, concrete pour tickets.“It’s not that easy,” stammered Mr. Rothkrug, “because the site has changed since November 16.”“Has work been done [on the site]?” asked a surprised Chair.“Yes,” replied the attorney. The Chair’s eyebrow shot up, Spock-like.How thoughtful of the attorney to remind the Board of a front foundation wall poured in January during the still-active Stop Work Order from November 16 so we didn’t have to.
Conclusion/outcome:June 20: Continued hearing (maybe Mr. Rothkrug will get it to
gether by then)