|
Certificate of Appropriateness Testimony
LPC-22-09135
165-167 West 86th Street, aka 541 Amsterdam Avenue – West Park Presbyterian Church – Individual Landmark
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A Romanesque Revival style church complex designed by Henry Franklin Kilburn and built in 1889-1890, which incorporated an existing chapel designed by Leopold Eidlitz and built in 1883-1885. Application is to demolish the building, pursuant to Section 25-309(b)(2), on the grounds of hardship.
Architect: Alchemy
As with HDC’s previous testimony regarding the West Park Presbyterian Church hardship in 2022, we remain opposed to this application. One of the two arguments the applicant makes continues to be focused on the ability to make a reasonable return on investment. Both the hardship provision and the case law support the fact that the reasonable return test does not apply to charities, but rather to the ability of the charity to carry out its mission.
The updated materials provided by the applicant do not provide any additional justification for using the reasonable return argument and in fact, seem to mostly consist of additional studies on neighborhood context and condition assessments. The applicant’s proposal to demolish a non-profit-owned landmark to build luxury condos continues not to meet the “charitable purpose” test. And as we stated previously, nothing in the materials references established case law, including the state’s highest court, the New York State Court of Appeals, which has opined that a request to demolish a landmark will be denied when the applicant is trying to claim “best use” of its property, and the applicant does not, instead, meet the “charitable purpose” test. This is settled law in the State of New York.
HDC also continues to have serious concerns about the applicant’s premise that the building cannot serve the current charitable purpose of the congregation. We know that the building is in active use by multiple parties, from the tenant the Center at West Park and Lighthouse, a separate congregation. If all of these parties are using it and others have expressed interest in using the space and indeed possibly purchasing the building, then how can it not be serving its purpose?
The applicant has not fulfilled its claim that it needs to replace the church immediately to fulfill its charitable mission. While it is clear that this building needs work, the applicant has not demonstrated that analysis of the condition of the building has been fully explored, nor that the entire structure needs to be rehabilitated all at once to become a more useful site. The applicant’s concern that any change in “dominant use or occupancy” of the Building would require the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, is not valid and would be borne by a new owner if the use changed and would not be necessary if it remained a religious site.
If a hardship is granted, the precedent here could be truly destructive regarding religious institutions across the city, some of whom would use this precedent to seek a reasonable return for their landmarked properties and demolish irreplaceable buildings for the highest and best use. HDC strongly supports the need for more incentives and technical assistance for congregations as some of them continue to dwindle in size and resources. Some possibilities include increasing the receiving area for air rights for religious sites and incentives to help adaptively reuse these spaces. But that is not the issue before us today. The only issue is if the applicant has met the charitable purpose hardship provision and the answer remains no.
Action: No action
LPC-23-03194
162 Hancock Street – Bedford Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
A parking area. Application is to construct a new building
Architect: Ana Maria Torres
HDC believes that this proposal needs further refinement and study. In particular, we believe that the building’s rear yard bulk is excessive and that its top two floors should be brought into alignment with the neighboring row. On the front facade, we feel that the parlor floor door enframement’s use of brick is awkward and needs further study. We also find the building’s street-facing parapet and cornice to be unresolved and in need of further refinement.
Action: No Action
 |
LPC-23-09371
169 Congress Street – Cobble Hill Historic District
CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS
An Italianate style rowhouse built c. 1850. Application is to modify the sloped roof to create a terrace, install a trellis, and alter windows at the rear façade.
Architect: Sachs Lindores Architecture
HDC finds the proposed window alterations on the top floor of the rear facade to be inappropriate. The rear wall should retain its upper floor fenestration so that it remains consistent with the rest of the row.
Action: Held Over
