"This past December, an audit of permits at the "St. Saviour's site" located at 57-40 57th Road and 57-40 58th Street in Maspeth (this is an entire block of land with multiple addresses) took place. The owners had applied to construct 4 warehouses, and the permits were approved despite the fact that there were glaring errors on the applications.
The audit caught the mistakes, the permits were revoked, and the owners were forced to resubmit the applications with corrections. However, there are still some glaring errors and I can't believe that despite this, the project passed plan exam review a second time.
To be specific, the ZD-1 diagrams for 2 of the addresses are identical. Now the buildings may be identical in structure, but they cannot both be built 47' from the corner. According to the diagrams submitted and approved, the corner lot would be vacant. However excavation and foundation work are being done there.
Also, I have been told by a professional zoning consultant that the dimensions listed on the ZD-1 for the building at address 57-40 58th Street violate the rules for M1-1D zoning.
There has been a partial stop work order on this property since 2009, which according to DOB records has not yet been resolved. So why were permits approved in spite of that? It has to do with the stability of a retaining wall. Safety measures, listed on the stop work order, were mandated to prevent collapse of the wall during construction, but they are being ignored. Vibrations from construction may cause the wall to finally collapse.
The property owners were also cited last month for having a chain link fence instead of a construction fence. This is a public safety hazard, yet they are proceeding with building without installing the required fence.
And to top it all off, DSNY was notified about the illegal dumping on the property, visited the site and said they saw nothing. Meanwhile, dumpsters full of debris from other sources are on the property and five 7-foot high mounds of garbage have been on the property since last September. You have to wonder what's really going on when agencies turn a blind eye to blatant violations and guaranteed revenue for the city.
The elected officials have known about this since April, and were reminded about it on May 17th, yet they have done nothing up until this point to resolve these issues. In the meantime, construction continues. Have they given up on getting a park here? It sure seems like it." - Christina Wilkinson
16 comments:
The second photo looks like a footing for a permanent cinder block or brick wall.
That's the end of the park, shame how Maspeth a town of people that have been here for generations always get screwed & lied to.
My condolences.
Bloomberg likely had his people rush the paperwork through.
He especially hates the Maspeth middle class Americans for not "moving away" as much its many small pre-war 1 family houses.
Elizabeth Crowley is a complete failure.
Why don't they just take the damn property by eminent domain?
This never would have happened if this were in Manhattan. You'd have the church still standing, the trees, etc.
Such a sad scene. Watch the loser politicians act like they are still fighting for a park. Watch them try come up with some lame compromise.
what is the D.O.B. code for the height of a brick wall in the front of a R2A property on a residential street?
my c .p.b says 4' in front & 5 'on side & rear yard.
Elizabeth Crowley is a complete failure.
Wow, thanks for letting us know that, we always thought she was actually a total failure.
I noticed that all of the usual suspects (various government officials) eagerly showed up for their photo ops at the last rally I attended.
But what are they doing to halt the illegal construction work that's still going on?
Not much it seems,
after the show is over.
Crowley, Hevesi, Koslowitz---
have you even bothered to call and pressure the DOB about it?
It certainly doesn't appear so.
Maspeth still seems to be getting the shaft instead of their badly needed park on this site.
Has the Bloomberg administration red lined the area?
Invoke eminent domain and stop giving political lip service!
Enough talk.
Now walk the walk!
This never would have happened if this were in Manhattan. You'd have the church still standing, the trees, etc.
----------
True enough, but there we have real press, real community boards, real pols and people that eat red meet and spit out tacks.
Queens?
So much for the civic life of Queens - QCC will go back to their manic focus on flowerbeds, the preservation group that meets at boro hall will go back to their intelligence gathering for Teri Osbone and thats that!
And this is what we get in "mixed use" areas: lackadaisical enforcement of rules and regulations (unless the area has lots of precious, artsy trust fund bunnies - think Williamsburg). I'll bet the audit was conducted by the same plan examiner who originally approved the plans - that's what we found. No problems (a 500% increase in building area is an "Alteration", a warehouse abutting an R2 without required setbacks - oh, and this is the building with lack of safety harnesses for the workers deemed "an OSHA" problem by DoB.
Elizabeth Crowley said this a few days ago: "I'm more optimistic than ever about a park at the St. Savior's site in Maspeth."
This woman is too dumb for words.
No, she is playing you like a violin because you can be sure the press reported it and the ol Clair Shulman types in all those senior programs she funds thinks she is a 'nice girl.'
The only morons are those who reelect her year in and year out.
Looking at the last application Filing.
Name: HEC, HEN, LUl, LYN, YEP, ZAP, BROW
What the hell kind of application is this with 7 names ?
Are these people even legal citizens and what kind of whorahouse is going up ?
No windows I bet !
Why don't they just take the damn property by eminent domain?
--------------
But its for a park. Thats NOT what Eminent Domain is for. Its for developers, silly, not public works!
When is the church going to be reconstructed at the All Faiths Cemetery? This was a promise made years ago, yet still unfullfilled.
according to the D.O.B. 311, the legal height of a fence/wall in the front yard of a R2A property is 4'.
prior to 2008 it was 6' .
Post a Comment