By Gary Buiso
An appeal by a developer to allow the construction of a controversial Homecrest condominium project fell on deaf ears last week, when a committee of Community Board 15 soundly rejected the petition. The fate of 1610 Avenue S will next go before the full board at its Jan. 29 meeting, which was held as this paper went to press. The board’s Zoning Committee met Jan. 22, voting 12-0 with an abstention to disapprove the appeal. The community board’s vote is advisory in nature. The city’s Board of Standards and Appeals has official say on the matter. It has yet to schedule a hearing date. The project calls for the construction of a 66-foot tall building with 25 condominium units and 15 parking spaces. The proposal has rankled neighbors who say that it is wildly out of character with the smaller scale of the block. In October, the city’s Department of Buildings (DOB) slapped a stop work order on the project, grinding it to a halt. The agency had initially insisted that work was proceeding there legally, but suddenly declared that the foundation was not complete at the time the neighborhood’s zoning was changed in 2006, making any further work illegal. The developer is seeking to appeal that determination. The reversal of opinion came about after The New York Times picked up the story and had an independent “building professional” examine the plans. Stuart Klein, the attorney representing the developer, 1610 Ave. S LLC, said the committee confused the issue. “They voted on whether or not they like the building—not whether or not we were vested. The vote reflects an emotional response and not a logical response to the project.” “When we say we are vested, they are saying ‘it should have never been built.’ It’s a non sequitur,” he added. Klein said that he suspected “constant pressure from the community,” resulted in the DOB’s stunning reversal of opinion on whether the project was vested. “Downzonings have been a hot topic for a lot of neighborhoods,” he said. The case sparked an internal probe at the DOB. Agency spokesperson Kate Lindquist said the investigation is ongoing. Opponents have insisted that the developer never completed the foundation work before the zoning change, making construction illegal without a variance granted by the city’s Board of Standards and Appeals. But Klein said his client had a right to continue working because there had already been substantial expenditure and work completed, and because adhering to the old zoning would be cost prohibitive. The new zoning would limit the size of the building to about 10,000 square feet, while the older zoning permits 27,000 square feet, Klein noted. Dr. Budd Heyman, a resident of East 16th Street and a staunch critic of the project, isn’t shedding any tears. “We don’t believe the developers acted in good faith during the period they were working on the site. We also do not believe the development is in the best interest of the public’s health and safety, and the welfare of this neighborhood,” he said. “We obviously don’t agree with most of what Mr. Klein is saying—and neither did the zoning committee of Community Board 15,” Heyman continued. Board 15 Chair Theresa Scavo commended project opponents. “[They are] working very hard to try to do what they can to stop this before it proceeds,” she said. Because the developer is seeking an appeal on a DOB decision, a hearing at the committee level was not mandated, but Scavo said she insisted on it being held. Last year, this paper quoted Klein for a story in Cobble Hill, where, as a local resident, he was vehemently opposed to the construction of a building at 130 Court Street that would breach the height limitation of that neighborhood’s historic district by 10 feet. In June, he called the project—which was ultimately rejected by the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission—a “monstrosity.” Asked if he therefore understood Homecrest residents’ plight, he had this to say: “They believe that this building in their neighborhood is not aesthetically right—that it doesn’t conform with the architectural aesthetic of the neighborhood.” “There is no violation of law involved. You may not like it, but no law is being broken,” he said. “My role here is to marshal the facts. If my facts show we are vested, then we should be allowed to proceed,” the attorney said. “The Zoning Resolution ultimately leads to a lot of inequities.”
