Board of Standards and Appeals Reform Legislation Passes New York City Council

City Hall – Yesterday, the New York City Council passed a package of legislation aimed at reforming the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA). In the past developers have been able to circumvent city zoning laws restricting building forms, use, height, density, through the BSA even though local Community Boards and elected officials objected to their decisions. This legislation aims to reform applications, decisions, notifications, staffing and transparency around the BSA to be more accountable to the public. The BSA is a five-member body tasked with reviewing requests for variances and special permits related to affordable housing and city planning in the zoning law. The package includes nine bills and featured bipartisan support from sponsors including Governmental Operations Chair Ben Kallos, Majority Leader Jimmy Van Bramer, Minority Leader Steven Matteo and Council Members Karen Koslowitz (D-29) and Donovan Richards (D-31).

Application Reform:

Introduction 1392-A, by Kallos – Sets minimum application requirements for developers to show why zoning laws should not apply to them including key financial disclosures with analysis by real estate professionals, neighborhood studies showing unique conditions, and affirmations under penalties of perjury with fines for knowing violations of up to $15,000.

Decision Reforms:

Introduction 418-A, by Koslowitz – The BSA will be required to write decisions with responses to recommendations from Community Boards and Borough Boards.
Introduction 282-A, by Van Bramer - The BSA will be required to write decisions that respond to any relevant evidence and arguments submitted by the City Planning Commission, Community Boards, Borough Boards, lessees and tenants as well as owners.

Notification Reforms:

Introduction 1200-A, by Richards –Proof of service will be required for applications and materials mailed to Council Members, Borough Presidents, Community Boards and other city agencies, with verification of receipt to be posted online.
Introduction 514-A, by Matteo - Notifies property owners when variances are expiring and penalties will be incurred in the coming six months.

City Staffing Reforms:

Introduction 1390-A, by Kallos -The Department of City Planning will appoint a BSA coordinator to appear before the BSA to submit testimony in defense of the zoning resolution, and such testimony would be available online.
Introduction 1391-A, by Kallos - A state certified real estate appraiser with no less than 5 years’ experience will be available to work for or consult with the BSA to review and analyze real estate financials provided by developers.

Transparency Reforms:

Introduction 1393-A, by Kallos - The number of pre-application meeting requests, number of applications, number approved or denied, and an average length of time until a decision would be reported biannually.
Introduction 1394-A, by Kallos – The location of all variances and special permit applications acted upon by the Board since 1998 would be available as a list and a layer on an interactive map of the city.

“We are taking away the rubber stamp from a government agency that used it far too often over the objections of residents. Developers will have, to be honest in applications that include the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The Board of Standards and Appeals will have to consider community objections and write decisions outlining why they disagree. The City Planning Commission will have to watch over our zoning laws,” said Council Member Ben Kallos, Chair of the Committee on Governmental Operations, which has oversight of the Board of Standards and Appeals. “Thank you to the Municipal Art Society and Citizens Union for their reports and guidance, Borough President Brewer, as well as Council Members Koslowitz, Matteo, Richards, and Majority Leader Van Bramer for their long-standing leadership on this issue, and our Community Boards who fight the Board of Standards and Appeals on behalf of all New Yorkers every day.”

RKO Keith's will be encased in glass and not all that accessible

From Curbed:

Now developer Xinyuan Real Estate will join the ranks of planning sorcery with its proposal for the former RKO Keith’s Theater in Flushing, a long-shuttered building by Thomas Lamb with partial interior landmark status. Xinyuan came in front of the Landmarks Preservation Commission on Tuesday morning to present its proposal to rehabilitate and preserve the 1928-built theater’s landmarked grand foyer and ticket lobby within a new glassy 16-floor building with 269 apartments. To the surprise of some, the proposal was approved on the first go-around.

Pei Cobb Freed & Partners, the firm founded by Pritzker Prize winner I.M. Pei, is the project architect while Ayon Studios have been tapped as the preservation architect.

Architectural drawings on file with Landmarks indicate that Xinyuan plans to use the existing ticket lobby and grand foyer as the entry for the residential building. An additional residential lobby, mail room, and elevator bank will be accessed past the landmarked interiors.

Floorplans included in the presentation also show that the building will have a sophisticated robot parking system, as condo developments these days do. Under the plan, the original theater that could once seat up to 3,000 and was not granted landmark status will be razed.

The interiors, largely neglected for the past 30 years, are worse for wear. Images from inside the building taken at different times after its 1984 landmarking show just how much the structure has fallen towards disrepair, with a partial collapse of the grand foyer’s ceiling and graffiti littered throughout.

As part of the site’s redevelopment, some of the existing plasterwork that depicts an asymmetrical Churrigueresque Spanish townscape will be removed and replaced, with other portions being salvaged and restored off site. Just about everything will require work, be it reconstruction or new paint.

The Municipal Arts Society has weighed in on the restoration, saying it believes “the new construction could be more sympathetic to the historic theater,” but endorsing the rehab nonetheless.

The Historic Districts Council in its written statement expresses concerns about the accessibility of the interior landmark, noting that “public accessibility to an interior landmark is a key characteristic of its designation” and that “people are not permitted into the lobby of a residential building except at the invitation of a resident.”

This proved to be the main point of contention among the LPC’s commissioners as well, at Tuesday’s meeting. While the ticket lobby will be accessible to the public as part of the retail space in the new development, the fate of the grand foyer beyond that has yet to be decided.

Municipal Art Society bestows preservation award on Bruce Ratner

From Capital New York:

A venerable preservationist group will on June 11 honor a developer deplored by preservationists, and the resulting intra-preservationist controversy has boiled over into a proper, public scrum.

On Monday afternoon, the Historic Districts Council sent out an email to the press declaring itself “appalled” by the actions of its colleagues over at the Municipal Art Society for their decision to bestow the coveted Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis Medal on Bruce Ratner and Maryanne Gilmartin, the executive chairman and president and C.E.O, respectively, of Forest City Ratner Companies, the real estate concern that gave us MetroTech, Atlantic Yards, Atlantic Center Mall and New York by Gehry at 8 Spruce Street.

“Conflating the company’s record of bulldozing neighborhoods with Mrs. Onassis’s pivotal role in preserving New York City’s Landmarks Law is something H.D.C. feels should not go unnoticed,” reads the email.

“It’s not like they’re building great spaces,” said Simeon Bankoff, the group’s executive director, in a follow-up interview.

To register its displeasure this time around, the Historic Districts Council will host a screening of a film chronicling Ratner’s Atlantic Yards exploits, Battle for Brooklyn, the same night as the gala. Afterward, the group will host a panel discussion featuring Atlantic Yards critics.

One critic that will not be participating? The Municipal Art Society.

During the height of the Atlantic Yards controversy, the society's leadership criticized Ratner for project delays it said could blight the neighborhood.

Ron Shiffman, a Pratt Institute professor, Atlantic Yards critic and a recipient of the Jane Jacobs Medal, which is administered by M.A.S., argued that the nonprofit's pursuit of money was clouding its judgment.

“It says that they needed money,” said Shiffman. “But there’s a point at which principle has to trump need when it comes to these kinds of things.”

Have landmarking advocates gone too far?

From the NY Post:

In their frenzy to derail the decades-overdue rezoning of the Grand Central district, three esteemed preservationist groups are making utter fools of themselves.

Altogether, The Municipal Art Society, the New York Landmarks Conservancy and the Historic District Council are asking the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission to prohibit four dozen East Midtown buildings from ever being demolished or altered.

Worse, the groups can’t agree on which properties are worth immortalizing. In fact, their most recent wish-lists are laughably at odds.

“Save the masterpieces from the bulldozers!” is the rallying cry. We’re told that allowing larger new office buildings in the 78-block area will mean wholesale demolition of supposedly architecturally distinguished structures — or even, God forbid, cast shadows over them.

But the incoherence of the wish-lists exposes the truth: This campaign is really about thwarting zoning changes needed to reverse the Grand Central district’s slide into obsolescence. (Buildings there average 60-plus years old and are increasingly unsuited to modern office use).

The preservationist hysteria is a just handy tool to spook the City Council into voting down the rezoning later this year. That’s clear when you examine the three groups’ recommendations.

Together, they call for 48 total buildings to be landmarked. But of the “inviolable” 48, the organizations agree on just six — that’s how many show up on all three lists.

Sure, we all have our favorites, but wouldn’t you expect somewhat more of a consensus? Landmarking even a single site has profound, permanent consequences and shouldn’t be taken lightly — which is why the Landmarks Commission sometimes takes years to act.

In fact, the all-over-the-map choices illustrate how treacherously subjective landmark-worthiness can be.