The above is presentation given by Architects John Hatheway and Chris McVoy at Borough President Markowitz's office in November recommending a height limit of 80 feet along the canal.
***Newsflash***Borough President Marty Markowitz weighs in on Toll Brothers' Gowanus Development. He approves with conditions. As soon as I confirm and clarify those conditions, I will report back.
Answer me something, dear reader! Why do our public officials, as well as our city agencies, hold public hearings and then not 'hear' the community who comes to testify? In the case of the Toll Brothers' Gowanus Development, a majority of neighborhood residents have time and again testified that they believe that the project should not be allowed to proceed ahead of the planned city-wide re-zoning for the area. They have expressed their serious concerns about the toxic nature of the canal and have questioned the logic of building housing along its shore. There have also been calls to reduce the height of the Toll project from 12 stories to 8, citing that the lower height would have less impact on the adjacent 2-4 story brownstone Carroll Gardens neighborhood.
I will be attending today's meeting. So will other community residents who have taken time out of their incredibly busy schedules to make their voices heard.
Lets hope that City Planning will actually LISTEN.
NOTICE From City Planning:
363-365 BOND STREET
On Wednesday, January 7, 2009, at 10:00 a.m., in Spector Hall, at the Department Planning, 22 Reade Street, in Lower Manhattan, a public hearing is being heldby the City Planning Commission in conjunction with the above ULURP hearing to receive comments related to a Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS)concerning a zoning text amendment and a related zoning map amendment tochange an existing M2-1 zoning district to a Special Mixed Use District (M1-4/R7-2)for two blocks (Blocks 452 and 458) located along the west waterfront of the Gowanus Canal in the Gowanus neighborhood of Brooklyn Community District 6.The proposed actions would facilitate a proposal by the applicant, Toll Brothers,Inc., to redevelop their project site (Block 452, Lots 1 and 15 and Block 458, Lot 1)with a mix of residential (market rate and affordable), commercial, community facility, and open space uses. The applicant is also seeking a special permit to modify height and setback, inner courtyard recess, and rear yards requirements within a General Large-Scale Development.
For Home Page, click Pardon Me For Asking
.JPG)
6 comments:
Well, the answer is a bit complicated. The main point to make is this: Citizens don't know what they're talking about, usually. Sure, there are a few who are well informed, some who even claim to know codes and laws. But by and large, when community members testify at meetings they talk about sunshine and moonbeams and nonexistent issues that their elected officials CAN NOT LEGALLY DEFEND. For the elected officials to respond to those concerns, only to face a lawsuit they are sure to lose, would be borderline criminally negligent.
I once worked as a Planner in a small town where someone bought a property with the intention of using it as a liquor store. He came into the government offices, filled out all of the paperwork, made all of the changes to the property he was required to make. We, as the gov't, reviewed it, and found that it complied with EVERY SINGLE letter of the law. However, at the public hearing, there was a large turnout of residents immediately adjacent to the property, who were worried about the liquor store's effect on the quality of life, trash, etc..., none of which were in the laws on the books. In order to appease the residents, the elected officials voted against the liquor store.
Over a million dollars in legal bills and three years later, the owner of course was granted his liquor store, and the good people of the Village were out over a million dollars...
True story.
Of course they don't want to hear what the community has to say. We could probably change it by making hefty campaign contributions and arranging for opportune and positive photo ops for our pols.
To Batman, I can't wait for the lawsuits to start flying. The concerns the community has are not fairy tales and are well documented and are part of the record especially when it comes to the public's health. There is a difference between your small town liquor store which was done as of right and this project which requires a zoning change on a parcel that isn't fit for residential use due to contamination and other issues.
Not Catwoman
I'm a little ignorant, but why would the city rezone a property for a use that couldn't go on there? Putting aside the issue of corruption, which is almost impossible to prove, shouldn't the professionals be the ones to make the decisions, rather than us, who are emotional invested? That's why the concept of arbitration exists.
8:18 I wouldn't call the local electeds "professionals" when it comes to land use. Isn't this the same bunch that supported Whole Foods? How is that working out?
Not Batman
How can the community be heard above all the racket Toll has made with the $365,000+ in lobby money spent to secure this zoning change?
There are now many deft ears out there amoung our city officials.
deft?
Post a Comment