Development Watch: 315 Greene Avenue/136 Clifton Place
When City Planning approved the downzoning of what it calls Bed-Stuy South on October 29th of this year, one of the projects that was caught with its pants down was 315 Greene Avenue aka 136 Clifton Place. The Department of Buildings was on the scene to inspect the three-plot worksite the next day and found…
When City Planning approved the downzoning of what it calls Bed-Stuy South on October 29th of this year, one of the projects that was caught with its pants down was 315 Greene Avenue aka 136 Clifton Place. The Department of Buildings was on the scene to inspect the three-plot worksite the next day and found that—despite a full-court press at the last minute—not enough of the foundation was complete to allow the project to vest under the old zoning. As a result, the project was hit with a Stop Work Order that’s still in effect. We assume that the developer, a group called Rainbow Capital, is going to try to plead hardship in front of the BSA, but we haven’t been able to confirm. Anyone know what’s going on? Interestingly, the money behind the project is coming from none other than the Community Preservation Corporation of Domino Sugar Factory fame. GMAP P*Shark DOB
to the person who suggested that the owner of the lot on the corner of greene and bedford sell and retire….thats a really bad idea you bougeois amateur speculating elitist. Ive been living on clifton place since 98….way before any of you were around…and its when speculators started buying up buildings, and people who worked around here for decades started closing up shop that the blocks became lawless again…there was an order before you arrived with your big pockets, and your demand for viking appliances, what are you gonna do when the crackheads and the chicken killing voodoo makers come back? shoosh them of your stoop with your broom?
I question the information provided by 1:57. The state’s second appellate division (A.D.2d) covers Staten Island, Brooklyn and Queens, as well as seven counties outside the city; Long Island, Westchester, Dutchess, Orange, Rockland, and Putnam. “Town of Southeast” isn’t New York City; who knows what jurisdiction Kadin v. Bennett is concerned with? The post by 1:57 reads like a smoke screen.
to anyone who wants to fight this building please do not let this interloping poster of 1:44 PM, 1:52 PM, and 1:57 PM convince you that your cause is lost. there is in fact a 30 day time-bar for both BZY and “A” applications. if you are looking for an opposition group on this matter and aren’t finding one then start your own. speak to your councilperson and any others who are involved in other fights, they will guide you. don’t let some random brownstoner poster detur you. who says they know what they’re talking about????
1:21
Re: Privately owned Scrap Metal Business on Bedford & Greene
Would it be possible for the owners to enclose their business? Is it legal to have an open air junk yard on a residential block, or is this considered Bedford? This business ruins the block and negatively affects property values. I’m wondering if the block association could suggest to the owners that they clean up their act–tactfully though. I no longer live on the block but it is the only thing that remains of the bad old days when I visit. A real shame.
well g man- here is some text from an ACTUAL common law decision citing precedent:
WHEREAS, assuming that valid permits had been issued and that work proceeded under it, the Board notes that a common law vested right to continue construction generally exists where: (1) the owner has undertaken substantial construction; (2) the owner has made substantial expenditures; and (3) serious loss will result if the owner is denied the right to proceed under the prior zoning; and
“WHEREAS, specifically, as held in Putnam Armonk, Inc. v. Town of Southeast, 52 A.D.2d 10 (2d Dept. 1976), where a restrictive amendment to a zoning ordinance is enacted, the owner’s rights under the prior ordinance are deemed vested “and will not be disturbed where enforcement [of new zoning requirements] would cause ‘serious loss’ to the owner,” and “where substantial construction had been undertaken and substantial expenditures made prior to the effective date of the ordinance.”; and
WHEREAS, however, notwithstanding this general framework, as discussed by the court in Kadin v. Bennett, 163 A.D.2d 308 (2d Dept. 1990) ” there is no fixed formula which measures the content of all the circumstances whereby a party is said to possess ‘a vested right’. Rather, it is a term which sums up a determination that the facts of the case render it inequitable that the State impede the individual from taking certain action”;”
I guess the land use attorneys don’t have to worry about you eating their lunch anymore.
#11 has a point. I spoke to a zoning lawyer who seemed to think that they only needed one of the foundations done to qualify for vesting and the site had to be excavated. they might qualify by that standard. Hope they don’t though. I would find it highly entertaining if they spent all this money for nothing. This somehow makes me feel better inside while im struggling to piece together a downpayment for one measly new condo.
“Common law vested rights case?” Please tell me more, like the statue that enables such an application. And not to eat any land use attorney’s lunch, I’d be interested to know what the cases are that the lawyers point to over and over again.
you are all wrong about the 30 day requirement for notification. The developer will most likely be filing a “common law” vested rights case which has no time limits. This type of application argues “substantial progress” and expense rather than try to claim a vested right under 11-331 of zoning. I work for a developer who has done quite a few of these. The community board will get notified and hold a hearing. This hearing is totally irrelevant. The community board recommends denial of EVERY application for vesting regardless of merit as this is an anti-development city. The BSA will vest them anyways as they invariably always do once they apply the court established standards for vesting. I have no soldier in this fight but anyone who thinks this won’t be vested is delusional. BSA could care less what obstructionist neighbors or opportunistic politicians think and tends to be a highly technical board.
12:53-agreed, and yes, it is privately owned and it’s a family “scrap metal” business. don’t even get me started…don’t they realize that they could sell the vacant lot and retire? sheesh.