Lightstone Group's Plans And Drawings For Gowanus Project Approved By City Planning, But Developer Still Needs Waterfront Certificate

NYC Department Of City Planning Hearing for Lightstone Group's Gowanus development  

Commissioner Betty Chen, Commissioner Michelle De La Uz, and Amanda Burden,  Chair of the NYC Department Of City Planning

Commissioner Michelle De La Uz and City Planning Chair Amanda Burden

(De La Uz is the executive director of the 5th Ave. Committee. During the Lightstone discussion, she recused herself, since the developer has contracted with the 5th Avenue Committee to manage the affordable units included in the project.)

 Amanda Burden,  Chair of the City Planning Commission

Purnima Kapur, City Planning Brooklyn Director

Aline Fader, representing NYC DCP Brooklyn Office, presents Lightstone's newest plan

Aline Fader and colleague present Lightstone Groups's as-of-right project

Just a few days ago, it was announced that Lightstone Group is proceeding with its 500,000 square feet mixed-use housing development on the shores of the Gowanus Canal at 363-365 Bond Street as an as-of-right development and has abandoned the minor modification which it had previously requested of NYC's Department of City Planning (DCP).

During DCP's review session on Monday afternoon, representatives of the Brooklyn DCP office explained that Lightstone, apparently wanting to avoid the risk of legal action,  has withdrawn its minor modification application and has decided to pursue the as-of-right development under zoning granted in 2009.
This project had come in front of the commission once before in September 2012 as a 'minor modification' of the original 2009 special permit project previously granted to Toll Brothers.

This as-of-right development is nevertheless subject to City Planning Commission approval because the 2009 special permit project was made subject to a restrictive declaration that was attached to the plans and drawings.

One of the purposes of the restrictive process was to help insure that the key urban design principals of the special permit project, which ensures that the taller portions of the development should be on the canal side and the lower portions should be along Bond Street, would be respected.

The second restriction has to do with Waterfront Zoning Regulations, which did not apply to the Gowanus Canal at the time of the original approval in early 2009.  However, later the same year, the City Council made the canal subject to the zoning regulations and water front open space will now be required in connection with the as-of-right project under those provisions.

The original 2009 project provide public open space along the canal that was designed "in the spirit of" the Waterfront Regulations. It did not strictly adhere to them.  Lightstone has modified the drawings to allow the requited waterfront public access area to be included, resulting "in a net increase of open space on the Southern block, where the building is being pushed back by approximately 20 feet."

To address FEMA's recently released Advisory Base Flood Elevations and  changes to the Building Code,  the site will be raised by 2 feet at First Street. Lightstone will elevate the ground floor of the building approximately 1.1 foot and make the street level parking garage a "bath tub structure".

At yesterday's DCP session, Lightstone sought approval for the plans and drawings for the as-of right project.
The Planning Commission votes unanimously to grant the approval.

However, at a later date, the applicant will need to seek a Waterfront Certificate from Chair Amanda Burden in regards to the design of the waterfront open space. The certificate will specify the design of the open space and certify that it meets the zoning requirements. The applicant is expected to file the application later this year.

"And at that point, and only at that point, will the developer be able to begin construction. So it's really a two-step process" a representative of the Brooklyn DCP office was quick to point out during the presentation.

Important Update And Meeting Regarding Lightstone's Proposed Gowanus Project

Old rendering of Lightstone Development next to the Gowanus Canal (credit: Lightstone Group)

New Rendering Of Lightstone Development
(Via Councilman Lander's office)

New elevation drawings for Lightstone Project. Click here for enlarged view

(Via Councilman Lander's office)

New FEMA Advisory Base Flood Elevations for Gowanus

Lightstone Development site, Canal at Carroll Street during Sandy (photo credit: Margaret Maugenest)

Second Street at canal during storm (photo credit: Triada Samaras)

Sandy flooding at First Street near Canal (photo credit: Carl Teitelbaum)

***Important Information For All Carroll Gardens/Gowanus Residents***

NYC Department Of City Planning Hearing On Lightstone Project 

363-365 Bond Street; Restrictive declaration approval to existing plan

Tomorrow, Monday March 18

at 1 pm

Spector Hall, 22 Reade Street, New York, New York

There is some very important information that was circulated late last week on Lightstone Group's proposed large-scale Gowanus development at 363-365 Bond Street, between Carroll Street and 2nd Street.
According to Councilman Brad Lander's office, which informed several Gowanus residents on Thursday evening, Lightstone is proceeding with the project "as of right" and has abandoned the minor modification which they had previously requested of NYC's Department of City Planning (DCP).

In 2012, hoping to piggy-back on the former Toll Brothers project at the same site, Lightstone had sought DCP's approval for variations in the base height of the project, building heights and footprints of portions of the buildings, relocation of parking entrances, changes to the location and design of the open space, and changes to the number of residential units from 447 to 700.  DCP considered these changes "minor" modification's, which are subject to review and approval only by the Commission, rather than 'major' modifications that require the initiation of a new ULURP.

DCP was going to rule on this matter in November 2012, but the hearing never took place because of Hurricane Sandy. The community was told that DCP and its Brooklyn office were first waiting for the release of Federal Emergency Management Agency's new post-Sandy "Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFE)", which indicate significant expansion of the flood plains.
The ABFEs for the Gowanus area were published very recently.

Perhaps concerned about new flood regulations in Zone A and of legal challenges, Lightstone has re-configured the proposed 700-unit development so that it can move forward according to the site's existing zoning. To address the fact that the land sits squarely in FEMA's flood zone A and to comply with new waterfront development rules, Lightstone has pulled away slightly from the water and increased the grade at First Street.

City Planning has placed the Lightstone item back on its calendar for tomorrow, Monday March 18, at 1 pm, Spector Hall, 22 Reade Street, New York, New York. (It's the 9th agenda item).  The meeting is open, but no comments will be accepted from the public.
All important information can be found here: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/pdf/luproc/reviewsession.pdf?r=031813

I urge everyone to attend. This project will most likely serve as the blueprint for the over-all rezoning for the Gowanus Canal and will create repercussions for neighboring residents.  The plan to raise the entire site will most likely increase flooding in nearby properties.  

Councilman Brad Lander, who has previously asked Lightstone to withdraw its application, issued the following comment on Friday:  “In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, I continue to believe it is a mistake to move forward with dense, high-rise, residential development without a comprehensive plan for infrastructure and land use regulations that Gowanus needs.” 

Dear Amanda Burden: Community Board 6 Sends Letter To City Planning Chairperson Regarding Lightstone Project In Gowanus, Expressing Discomfort With "Minor Modification" Process

 CB6 Chairperson Daniel Kumer

Many members of the Gowanus/ Carroll Gardens residents are still trying to understand what happened at Community Board 6's general meeting on Thursday evening in regards to Lightstone Group's 700 rental unit development at 363-365 Bond Street.

At the meeting, the full board had rejected the recommendations of its own Landmark/Land Use Committee, which had passed a motion requesting that New York City Planning Commission table the Lightstone project until a supplemental Environmental Impact Study (EIS) is performed.

Instead, the Board put forth its own motion and voted to conditionally approving Lightstone's application for "minor modifications" to a previously passed land use actions at 363-365 Bond Street.

Below is the letter sent today by CB6 Chairperson Daniel Kumer to Amanda Burden, Chairsperson of NYC's Planning Commission. What is interesting is that Kumer speaks of the discomfort felt by the board with the 'minor modification' process, which did not allow for a traditional land use review and did not give the public, the board nor local electeds a real voice.

He also acknowledges that the community had expressed deep concern and that the Board would have preferred to look at the project within a broader Gowanus area framework.

It's an interesting read. Let me know what you think in the comment section.

Dear Chairperson Burden,

I am writing to advise you that at its October 10, 2012 general meeting Brooklyn Community Board 6 resolved by a vote of 27 in favor, 4 against, with 6 abstentions, to conditionally recommend approval of the proposed minor modifications contained in the applications cited above submitted by The Lightstone Group (TLG) for properties at 363-365 Bond Street in our district. 

These applications will respectively seek (1) a 3-year renewal of the previously approved special permit for this property, and (2) approval of (a) some minor variations in building heights without permitting anything taller than what was previously approved, (b) elimination of two previously granted waivers that had been approved for height, setback and inner court recesses, (c) an increase in dwelling units from 447 to 700, (d) relocation of curb-cuts and entrances to accessory parking garages and permit an increase in off-street accessory parking spaces from 268 to 316, (e) expansion of the publicly accessible open space along the Gowanus Canal frontage by 10 to 12 feet with minor revisions to the design, (f) increasing the commercial floor area to 2,600 sf, community facility floor area to 2,250 sf and the total project floor area from 523,309 sf to 526,143 sf, and (g) adjustment of the lot area to conform to an updated survey. 

Before commenting on the substance of these applications, we believe it is necessary to register our discomfort with the process under which these applications have come before the Community Board. The Department of City Planning has determined that this set of modifications proposed by TLG should be deemed “minor” and therefore not subject to the traditional uniform land use review procedures to which we are accustomed for development projects of this nature, which require a public review process that would include the Borough President and the City Council. As a result of that determination, it is our understanding that the referral of these applications is at best a courtesy extended by the department to the Community Board. Having never participated in a “minor modification” review before, we have from the outset been concerned about the potentially arbitrary procedure to which this application has been subjected, in which the role of the Community Board is entirely undefined by law, statute or regulation. In essence, the department’s referral placed our Community Board in a position of making up our own process as we went along – or even, at our election, possibly undertaking no process at all. 

Even though we had no defined reviewing role, we take our responsibility as a representative body very seriously and thought that it would have been a great disservice to our community not to provide a venue for the public to learn about, review and comment on the substance of these applications. To that end, our Landmarks/Land Use Committee hosted an Informational Meeting on TLG’s proposal at their August 23, 2012 meeting, followed by a Public Hearing and formal review and deliberation by our committee at their September 27, 2012 meeting. Both meetings were extremely well-attended by members of our community indicative of the enormous interest our community has in matters pertaining to the future of the Gowanus Canal and its surroundings. As you know, a great deal has changed in the Gowanus Canal area since the commission previously approved a special permit for this property on a prior application, most notably the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) inclusion of the Canal on their National Priorities List, or, more commonly, the Superfund designation. At both meetings, many community members expressed deep concern about allowing a project of this size – with a significantly increased number of dwelling units and residents – to go forward at this location during the pendency of the Superfund cleanup process, among other strong objections. Many other community members spoke equally strongly in favor of the project. 

We understood that TLG could have simply chosen to follow the path laid out by the approvals that were granted to the previous applicant. However, to TLG’s credit, it was noted by many of our committee and board members that a number of TLG’s proposed modifications constitute a material improvement over what was previously approved. Specifically, we saw a net increase in the number of affordable housing units from 130 to 140 units, which are guaranteed rather than contingent on receipt of public subsidies. Of equal if not greater importance, the individual affordable housing units would be indistinguishable from and integrated with the market rate units, in stark contrast to the project that was previously approved, which would have involved segregated and inferior affordable units. We also took note of the wider waterfront access space that will be created by increasing the setback of the building line from the canal. And we especially noted that while the EPA does not take positions on the appropriateness of any given redevelopment proposals, it issued written confirmation that in its view this proposal is not inconsistent with their goals for the Gowanus Canal under the Superfund program, and will not interfere with carrying out the Superfund cleanup process. 

Turning to the conditions of our approval, we were, by contrast, especially displeased at TLG’s failure to directly address the points we have conveniently outlined for large-scale developers who appear before us as codified in our Responsible Development Policy (copy enclosed). While we do not expect every applicant to adhere to every standard in our policy, we do expect that a good faith effort should be made to affirmatively respond and demonstrate that they have at least considered them. Our policy was developed, circulated and is publicly available on our website as a way of streamlining our review process since we found that most large-scale projects evoked common interest in subjects such as the experience and track record of the developer, good neighbor policies, hiring and training, wages and benefit standards, local business opportunities, affirmative action opportunities, affordable housing, contextual development, etc. We are still hopeful that TLG will see their way clear to comment on and, to the greatest extent possible, abide by the standards outlined in our policy and although we otherwise express our approval we ask that you take no action on their application unless and until they do so.

 The second condition of our approval relates to the fact that we currently lack a context for this application absent a comprehensive rezoning framework for the Gowanus Canal corridor, as was begun by your department years ago but then abruptly and indefinitely suspended shortly after the EPA’s Superfund designation for the area. The net result of the department’s action retroactively turns the previous approvals for this site – which we viewed as a leading land use action with an expectation of a larger, departmental action to follow – into a case of spot rezoning. Without a broader framework, and an area-wide Environmental Impact Statement, land use analysis, etc., we are at an extreme disadvantage in considering the context for this project and, most especially, any other projects that might come across our desks in the near future. Indeed, the valid frustration expressed by numerous board members in this regard produced a motion at our general meeting earlier this week – ultimately defeated by the rarest and narrowest of margins, namely, the tie-breaking vote of the undersigned – which called for returning this application to your department with no comment at all and a refusal to consider any further individual applications in the Gowanus area unless and until that area-wide rezoning is resumed and completed. 

In the end, the board voted to express approval of this application, but we have firmly conditioned our approval on the department’s commitment to reactivate the Gowanus rezoning effort. We are prepared, and eager, to work constructively with your department to that end.In closing, I hope you can appreciate that our Community Board has devoted an enormous amount of time and very careful consideration into this matter, notwithstanding our entirely undefined and essentially optional role, and that our board members as well as members of our wider community have extremely strong views on this matter and the larger context in which it arises. Since our Gowanus Canal corridor is in such a critical stage of development and planning, and commands the attention of every level of government and a wide spectrum of interested parties, it would be especially reassuring for us to hear your feedback directly about our concerns and conditions as part and parcel of our recommendation of approval of these applications.

I look forward to hearing from you and thank you for the opportunity to comment.

Sincerely,

Daniel M. Kummer Chairperson

 cc: Hon. Marty Markowitz  Hon. Brad Lander  Hon. Joan Millman  Hon. Daniel Squadron  Hon. Nydia Velázquez  Purnima Kapur, Director, DCP/Brooklyn  Jay A. Segal, Greenberg Traurig LLP (for the Applicant)

A copy of the resolution is available by clicking here