CUP Presents Zoning 101 Workshop

Join the CHA and the Center for Urban Pedagogy for the Zoning 101 Workshop. The city's convoluted land use and zoning laws can be a challenge to wrap your head around. Which zones are residential or commercial? Why are there height limits in certain areas but not others? These questions are especially important given Fortis' recent proposals for LICH. Attend the workshop to learn the difference between what's allowed as of right, and what's involved in the city's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The discussion is designed to leave participants with a basic understanding of land use regulations in New York and will not specifically be about LICH or the Fortis proposals.

The workshop will be held at 7:30 PM on Thursday, June 25th at the Cobble Hill Health Center, 380 Henry Street (between Congress and Warren Streets).

Gowanus Toy Drive

Word just came in that our neighbors at the Gowanus Neighborhood Association, in partnership with Councilmember Stephen Levin, are launching their 1ST ANNUAL TOY DRIVE.

Gowanus is an economically strained community and most of the children in the development are from low income/ at-risk households and unfortunately may not get any presents this year. In today's economy everyone's finances are limited, but we're asking all who can, donate or contribute at least one gift to an underprivileged child, boys & girls aged 1-12 years old. All gifts should be safe, unopened, & dropped at the councilman's district office at 410 Atlantic Ave at Bond St, M-F, 10a-5p. For more info contact Betty Lester at bejay919@yahoo.com or 718-243-1252.

- - - And while we're sharing news from Cobble Hill's neighboring communities, check out the Brooklyn Eagle's update on our friends in Boerum Hill in their pursuit for landmark status to their district. The CHA fully supports their efforts to preserve a historic feel and keep development limited to the appropriate pedestrian scaled 50 foot limit we all enjoy.
http://www.brooklyneagle.com/categories/category.php?category_id=31&id=39767

rezoning coming soon to a neighborhood near us

The Land Use Committee of Community Board 6 held a meeting last night to hear a presentation by the Department of City Planning (DCP) on their proposal 'to contextually rezone the residential zoning district which covers the Carroll Gardens and Columbia Street Waterfront neighborhoods'. The study area wraps around the Cobble Hill Historic District to the west, south, and east. This is a very big deal with long-term implications for our part of Brooklyn. Fortunately, the implications are nearly all positive.

Overall, the proposal is a very good piece of work by DCP's Brooklyn office. They deserve credit for listening to the community and producing work that corresponds to what people have asked for. The proposal limits the height of buildings on Columbia Street, down to Hamilton Avenue, and over to Bond Street. We will post a link to the proposal at DCP's website when they make it available online.

I had only two criticisms to make of the plan. One is that Henry and Clinton Streets south of Degraw would be zoned R6A. That zoning permits building heights of 70 feet. Jerry Armer, our zoning guru, raised this point, too. Naturally, we think the zoning should stay lower.

My other criticism is that the new zoning would only run up the east side of Court Street as far north as Warren Street. North of Warren, i.e. directly across the street from the edge of the Cobble Hill Historic District, Court Street would remain unprotected. We will keep trying to get DCP to reconsider these two aspects of their proposal. Other than that, it's a very good plan that will insure that the neighborhoods near us will remain small in scale.

stop the presses: new stop work order at Atlantic & Court

It looks like our meeting with the Department of Buildings on Tuesday has had some effect. DOB and City Planning have put their heads together, and a stop work order has been issued for the illegal duplexes at Atlantic and Court.

As I understand it, the subject of the order is whether the obviously habitable structures on the roof, as shown on the drawings, satisfy the defintion and the square footage requirements for 'bulkheads'. The only possible answer in a society governed by law is, Aw hell no!

But don't take my word for it. Below are the definitions of 'bulkhead' and 'habitable room' from the Building Code (i.e. the code currently in effect, as opposed to the new code which will go into effect later this year).

The Building Code says:

§[C26-201.0] 27-232 Definitions.-Words that are capitalized are defined in this section.

BULKHEAD.-An enclosed structure on or above the roof of any part of a building, enclosing a shaft, stairway, tank, or service equipment, or other space not designed or used for human occupancy. (See PENTHOUSE and ROOF STRUCTURE.)

**HABITABLE ROOM.-A residential room or space, having the minimum dimensions required by section 27-751 of article six of subchapter twelve of this chapter in which the ordinary functions of domestic life are carried on, and which includes bedrooms, living rooms, studies, recreation rooms, kitchens, dining rooms and other similar spaces, but does not include closets, halls, stairs, laundry rooms, or bathrooms.

PENTHOUSE.-An enclosed structure on or above the
roof of any part of a building, which is designed or used
for human occupancy. (See BULKHEAD and ROOF
STRUCTURE.)


§[C26-1205.2] 27-746 Habitable rooms.- All habitable
rooms shall be provided with natural ventilation
complying with the provisions of this subchapter except
as provided in section 27-750 of this article.

**§[C26-1205.7] 27-751 Minimum dimensions of
habitable rooms.- Habitable rooms shall have a minimum
clear width of eight feet in any part; a minimum clear
area of eighty square feet and a minimum clear ceiling
height of eight feet for the minimum area [...]

The six penthouses, which is what they are, measure approximately 245 square feet each, i.e. they are bigger than the living rooms immediately beneath them. Each one has several windows and a door opening out onto that duplex apartment's private rooftop terrace.

Those sure sound like habitable rooms to me. And if they are, then they will have to be demolished.

what about those illegal duplexes at Atlantic & Court?

Laurie Maurer of the CHA, Nadezhda Williams of the Historic Districts Council, and I had a meeting earlier this afternoon with Thomas Fariello, the Deputy Brooklyn Borough Commissioner for the Department of Buildings, regarding the six illegal duplexes currently being built at 182-194 Atlantic Avenue.

The six duplexes are illegal because they violate the fifty-foot height limit of the Cobble Hill Historic District's LH-1 zoning. Two Trees is calling the penthouse portions of the duplexes 'bulkheads', but these are no bulkheads. They are sixth-floor rooms of 245 square feet, and they are even bigger than the fifth-floor living rooms that they are connected to.

What's most galling about this case is that the City Council denied Two Trees' request for the height variance, yet City agencies have allowed the illegal duplexes anyway.

Here is the argument that we made to Deputy Commissioner Fariello:

Re: 182-194 Atlantic Avenue (Project 56114-A, Block 286, Lot 17)

Argument:

That the six enclosed spaces on the roof of 182-194 Atlantic Avenue, other than the one enclosed space legitimately devoted to the elevator shaft and mechanicals room, are not bulkheads and therefore not permitted obstructions under Zoning Resolution 23-62;

That the aforesaid six enclosed spaces are not exits of any sort;

That the aforesaid six enclosed spaces are habitable rooms, as defined by the Building Code, by virtue of their dimensions, their windows and doors, their connections to fifth-floor living rooms via staircases, and the exclusive use of them enjoyed by the owners of the fifth-floor apartments to which they are attached;

That, because of the preceding claims, the aforesaid six enclosed spaces violate the fifty-foot height limit of the site’s LH-1 zoning and Historic District designation;

That, because of the preceding claims, the aforesaid six enclosed spaces violate the City Council’s Resolution 1169, passed on November 15, 2007, which denied the developer’s request for a variance from the fifty-foot height limit of the site’s LH-1 zoning;

That, because of the preceding claims, the aforesaid six enclosed spaces must be demolished immediately.

We were pleased to find that Fariello disputed none of our claims. In fact, he was as reasonable as one could wish a City official to be. But he then said that we had to convince City Planning that the permit that they issued—before the City Council's November 15, 2007 vote—to build these large rooftop spaces violates the City Council's Resolution 1169, which denied the variance to build them. That seems to be a fairly elementary matter of fact. Even so, I have no doubt that the runaround is not over yet.

LPC had passed the ball to DOB. DOB has now passed the ball to City Planning. The City will run out of places to pass the ball before we run out of zeal in the defense of our neighbourhood. Next stop: City Planning.