« DUB Pies Hits Australia Day Cricket Tournament Capt. Nick Stevenson Speaks for Sheep Station »

January 26, 2007

326 State Street: When Too Much FAR Is a Bad Thing

326 State
326 StateMon Dieu! This 7-unit, 8,800-square-foot hulk is a far cry from its charming brick neighbor (and quite a bit bulkier than the one-story garage that it replaced). We're trying to figure out how the developer, Tona Development, was able to build something this size when as-of-right he was only allowed to build 5,000 square feet. Perhaps he purchased some air rights from the one-story property to the left. How was this developer been in his interaction with the community?
GMAP P*Shark DOB

We're not going to be around this weekend so we'd be eternally grateful for any development-related reader submissions for next week...so make sure those camera batteries are charged!




Posted by Brownstoner at 10:59 AM | Comments (17)
Categories: Boerum Hill, Brooklyn, Development, Real Estate

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.brownstoner.com/mte/mt-tb.cgi/365

Comments

DOB asleep (as usual) at the wheel?

Posted by: John Ife at January 26, 2007 11:34 AM

John Ife do you have a ton of experience with the DOB approval process? NYC Zoning codes? Please enlighten all of use rubes.

Posted by: nit at January 26, 2007 11:49 AM

Maybe he said it was student or faculty housing and thereby got around zoning?

Posted by: babs at January 26, 2007 12:14 PM

Even if the DOB was asleep at the approval process, they can still withhold C/O at the end. So don't think that you can just fib and get by.

Posted by: djr at January 26, 2007 12:24 PM

No student/faculty housing. City Council threw that out last year. Community Facility FAR bump up, may be. Have to look on BIS...

drj, DOB corrects FAR issues by withholding the CofO until the developer buys air rights from adjacent properties...INSTEAD OF HAVING FLOORS TORN DOWN. Great system. Over build, tisk-tisk, pay up...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at January 26, 2007 12:53 PM

Re nit, 11:49 - All I'm sayin' is that regular readers of Brownstoner will have seen multiple examples of DOB's ineffectual enforcement (whether caused by staffing levels, inefficiency, or whatever) of construction safety, code violations, and zoning requirements.

From the DOB page for this property, it looks like the Architect, the notorious Scarano, may have obtained zoning approval 9/23/2005, prior to him having his self-certification priviliges withdrawn for flaunting FAR requirements. Not that this should make him immune from corrective measures if this particular building exceeds the allowable square footage. The zoning map clearly shows this site as R6B with an FAR of 2 which, with a lot size of 25 x 100 would allow, as Brownstoner says, just 5,000 SF buildable.

Of course, I would be totally talking out of my ass if the developer did, in fact, buy air rights from the adjacent site.

Posted by: John Ife at January 26, 2007 12:54 PM

It's a Scarano, say no more...

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at January 26, 2007 12:55 PM

John Ife,

We have a similar building on 20th St. Double lot, way overbuilt. Developer is buying up air rights and the building's on 75% complete...repeat pattern about to happen?

Already has.

Posted by: lostinbrooklyn at January 26, 2007 12:58 PM

not only is it over-built in floor area, but its over built structurally........bearing walls, and steel frame??

Posted by: ANON at January 26, 2007 1:29 PM

not to defend Scarano, i have not seen the plans for this project, but the 8833 SF is a GROSS #, which also includes square footage that is not considered FAR (Cellar Floor Area, Mechanical Deductions, Zoning Bonuses, etc) it might still be overbuilt (???) but not by as much as every one thinks. as far as the structure, i dont believe its overbuilt, they are not allowed to make this building out of combustible materials (wood), ans the steel frame has to sit somewhere - bearing walls seem like a good place.

Posted by: Rising Crane at January 26, 2007 1:39 PM

1:39 There is no way there is almost 4000 sf of deductible floor area. Im not saying its impossible, just not likely. Secondly light gauge framing is non combustible, stick in some steel columns, and you have more perimeter floor area, and a lighter structure.

Posted by: ANON at January 26, 2007 3:21 PM

John Ife, Thank you for answering the question, you demonstrated the point I was trying to make. You are not an expert. Don’t make naked absolute assertions, some of the readers will take it as gospel.

“Rising Crane” makes a great point.

Posted by: nit at January 26, 2007 3:22 PM

"'Rising Crane' makes a great point" - but so does ANON at 3:21. With an allowable lot coverage of 60%, the difference between 8,800 SF and 5,000 SF is the equivalent of well in excess of two full floors worth of space. The permit describes the building as 4 floors. It's evident from the photo (note the extra mezzanine-accomodating height of floors "two" and "three") and from my daily walk past the project that, including the two mezzanine levels, there are actually 6 floors. Given this fact, the gross versus allowable, and Scarano's history, I think suspecting another case of "mezzanine-gate" (claiming that mezzanine floors should not be counted toward FAR) is not unreasonable.

What is your background, nit (mine is 35+ years in the construction industry)? Seems like you might have a personal interest in minimizing the perceived excess.

Posted by: John Ife at January 26, 2007 3:59 PM

Why don't all of you who do not want change go to your local elected officials and demand that the zoning be rolled back from R-6B to R-1 so these lots will be unbuildable and you will be happy. Until them enjoy the boom Brooklyn is going through to accomodate some normal population growth to balance out the rest of the ass---es that seem to reside here today.

Lostinbrooklyn, please try to get a life and become a productive citizen of the community instead of the wannabe hack that everyone knows you are.

Have a great weekend one and all, especially John the true puppet of the sick in our world

Posted by: The Shadow at January 27, 2007 11:04 AM

You just don't get the point, do you Shadow. I don't have a problem with the zoning; we have elected officials who set it at 6B and that's fine with me. All I ask is that developers and architects of this ilk follow the rules that have been set or face the consequences. I suppose when you get hit by a drunk driver you'll just say, "Oh, that's okay, he was just having fun, he was only 50% over the limit and, after all, we've all got to travel".

John Ife

Posted by: John Ife at January 27, 2007 4:44 PM

Shadow,
Please don't say that monstrosity is 'normal development'. Look in the NYTimes, the Post, any real estate publication. Nothing that ugly is ever advertised. Somehow things are OK because its just Brooklyn. AY is OK because it just Brooklyn, not Manhattan where the mayor and Ratner lives. The West Side Stadium wasn't because it was Manhattan after all.
We get all the garbage buildings and I think people who care about our neighborhoods should stand up and oppose our being the dumping grounds because "the population is growing" Please, the growing population can live in well designed buildings not this garbage.

Posted by: Anonymous at January 28, 2007 7:10 PM

Anon, 1/28, Please let me know the addresses of all the "Well Designed" buildings you have obviously designed or run accross so we can all benefit from you wisdom on this matter.

Anon,1/27, Would you have even the slightest clue what an R-6B building would look like if it was not properly designed? The issue on this street is that you are not happy that the existing context is R-5B but the future will be R-6b. This job as shown on the DOB website was approved by an Examiner at the DOB not "Professionally Certified" so now what.

Ah, Jon people with no facts and big mouths rule your domain.

Posted by: The Shadow at January 29, 2007 10:53 AM

Post a comment

Please be patient while your comment is published. It may take a moment.

Latest Restaurant Additions