Important Issues Discussed And Voted On At Last Night's Gowanus Superfund CAG Meeting

EPA's Christos Tsiamis, seated, and Gowanus CAG facilitator Jeff Edelstein, standing

Christos Tsiamis, EPA Region 2 project manager for the Gowanus Canal 

Brian Carr, EPA Region 2 lawyer

Still from " Perfume vs. Miasma" on the Gowanus Canal by Rebecca Volinsky

Still from 'Gouwane' by Susannah Sayler and Edward Morris

The EPA Community Advisory Committee (CAG) for the Gowanus Canal Superfund gathered at the Brooklyn Historical Society for its monthly meeting last night.  Christos Tsiamis, EPA Region Two project manager and Brian Carr, a lawyer for Region 2, were both in attendance for a question and answer session.

Tsiamis  had brought along two short movies about the canal,  which had been screened at the "Canary Project"* art exhibit at Parsons School of Design, to which he had been invited. The movies offered visions for the Gowanus Canal post clean-up by various artists.  "It was a case of art informing science" Christos told the CAG.
Indeed, both 'Perfume vs. Miasma" by Rebecca Volinsky and 'Gouwani' by Suzanne Sailors and Ed Morris were well worth watching.
-Tsiamis also informed the CAG that the Feasibility Study (FS), which outlines the different options for a clean-up, will be released at the end of the year.  There will be a public meeting to discuss the FS in January 2012.
The discussion between members of the CAG and Tsiamis was broad and included such topics as bulkheads,  additional grants for technical assistance and plans for the First Street and Fourth Street canal basins, which were filled in decades ago.
-The CAG also voted on a resolution first discussed at a Water Quality/Technical Committees meeting on November 29th. It reads:
The Community Advisory Group requests that NYC DEP install real-time flow meters as soon as possible, but no later than February 15, 2012 on the Combined Sewer Overflows Identified as RH35, OH37, RH34 and OH05.
The goal is to collect data ahead of the re-activation of the Flushing Tunnel in the fall of 2012 and to determine whether the flow figures cited by the DEP are reasonable.  Local officials will be cc'd  on the request.  The resolution passed easily.
-Another important topic of the night was the Whole Foods site, located at the corner of Third Avenue and Third Street in Gowanus.  Whole Foods is scheduled to appear in front of  the Board Of Standards And Appeals (BSA) on December 13th, concerning their request for a variance to permit a food store contrary to use regulations in an M2-1 zoning district. Since the proposed 56,000 s.f. store will be built on a site that has the largest frontage of any property along the Gowanus Canal, some members of the CAG felt that the scale of the project, the proposed 12 foot grade change and bulkhead plan for the site could adversely affect the Superfund clean-up.
The following resolution was put forth buy the CAG:
1) The Gowanus CAG Requests that the NYC BSA postpone its decision on Whole Food's Variance Application until the EPA releases its Record of Decision for the clean-up plan. 2)The CAG requests that Whole Foods Market present to the CAG their general site work and bulkhead plan.
The resolution passed easily.
*The Canary Project at Parsons will run until December 15th.

Read More

Gowanus Whole Foods Calendared For Board Of Standards And Appeals Hearing

Here is the latest  news on the long-delayed Gowanus Whole Foods.

Whole Foods has been calendared for a hearing at the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals on TUESDAY, DECEMBER 13, concerning their request for a use variance  (§72-21) to permit a food store (UG6), contrary to use regulations in an M2-1 zoning district, at the corner of Third Avenue and Third Street on the Gowanus Canal. 

Currently, New York City's Zoning Resolution only allows Whole Foods to build a 10,000s.f. store on the site, which is located in an  M2-1 zoning district.  The proposed Gowanus store would be 56,000 s.f.

In applying for a variance, Whole Foods is claiming that full compliance with zoning regulations is not possible in order to realize a reasonable economic return on their property. The Board Of Standards And Appeals "must determine, in granting a variance, that each and every one of five findings identified in Section 72-21 are met.  The five findings are excerpted from the Zoning Resolution below:

(a) that there are unique physical conditions …. inherent in the particular zoning lot; and that, as a result of such unique physical conditions, practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship arise;

(b) that because of such physical conditions there is no reasonable possibility that the development of the zoning lot will bring a reasonable return … this finding shall not be required for the granting of a variance to a non-profit organization;

(c) that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood;

(d) that the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship claimed as a ground for a variance have not been created by the owner;

(e)  …the variance, if granted, is the minimum variance necessary to afford relief.

It will be fascinating to see how the BSA will rule on this matter. The validity of Whole Foods' claims of hardship seven years after assembling a building site by purchase and lease of several properties in a zoning district unsuitable for their purposes, are tenuous at best. Whole Foods also:

* willingly purchased the polluted site in a dense industrial area

*next to a polluted canal into which human waste is discharged every time it rains heavily

*which lies in the 100 year flood plain and is therefore prone to flooding

*has a high water table

*has substantial grade changes across the lot

and most importantly...

*does not, by law, allow for Whole Foods' intended use.

Written testimony by members of the community on this matter can be submitted to the BSA until December 9.

Please address to: Chair of the BSA, Meenakshi Srinivasan. 

The letters may be submitted via regular mail to: 

BSA 

40 Rector Street, 9th Floor, New York, NY 10006

or emailed you letter to the executive director at  jmulligan@bsa.nyc.gov

Read More

Some Work Resumes At Clarett Site On Court Street, Despite Recent Stop Work Order

The Clarett Site at 340 Court Street


Proposed 340 Union Street development

proposed town houses on Sackett Street

At Monday night's Community Board 6 Land Use Committee meeting, the Clarett Group's 340 Court Street project cleared a hurdle in the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals process when the committee voted to approve the BSA application.

Although the project has been stalled due to our injured economy, it was issued a stop work order due to the recent rezoning of the Carroll Gardens neighborhood. The NYC Department of Buildings automatically stops work at development projects when there is a zoning change and requires that developers re-submit their plans to confirm that they meet the revised zoning.

As it turns out, there were a few small differences between what was permitted under the old R6 zoning with quality housing guidelines and the new contextual R6A and R6B zoning. The F.A.R. (Floor Area Ratio - which is a number which determines the allowable size of a building) did not change along the Court Street corridor but was reduced slightly (about 10%) along Union and Sackett Streets but did not significantly change the project. There was a change to the height limits along the side streets which were subject to the R6B zoning and therefore limited to a 50 foot height after a setback at 40 feet. The existing plans included townhouses along the side streets rising to a height of 42 feet without setbacks. This, it is believed, is better than requiring setbacks which would make the new townhouses look out of place compared to the existing streetscape.

As a result of this analysis and in light of the comments of a few people with knowledge of the project and with neighborhood zoning, the Landmarks/Land Use committee of Community Board Six voted to approve the application submitted by Clarett to the NYC Board of Standards and Appeals to allow their project to proceed as vested under the old zoning requirements.

The representative, Clarett Managing Director Eric Deutsch, said that they consider the 340 Court Street project one of their high priorities and that they intend to proceed as soon as financing allows. He denied that there are any plans to sell the site to another developer.

It was suggested at Monday night's meeting that Clarett should strive to work on improving communications with the community and to reach out to residents to resolve problems.

The hearing in front of the NYC Board Of Standards and Appeals regarding 340 Court Street is scheduled for January 26th.

Related Reading:

Some Work Resumes At Clarett Site On Court Street, Despite Recent Stop Work Order

Clarett Came, Dug...And Blighted?

Clarett To Pause Construction At 340 Court For Next Few Months?

Clarett Keeping Mum About Revised Plans For 'The Collection At Court Street"

Carroll Gardens Not Exactly Loving Clarett's 340 Court Street Design




For Home Page, click Pardon Me For Asking

Read More