City Planning Commission Greenlights Rose Plaza
Despite the protestations of neighborhood activists upset over the amount of affordable housing, a large residential development project slated for the South Williamsburg waterfront gained a key rezoning approval from the City Planning Commission yesterday. Known as Rose Plaza, the 801-unit project is located on a 3.7-acre site between Division Avenue and another newish development…
Despite the protestations of neighborhood activists upset over the amount of affordable housing, a large residential development project slated for the South Williamsburg waterfront gained a key rezoning approval from the City Planning Commission yesterday. Known as Rose Plaza, the 801-unit project is located on a 3.7-acre site between Division Avenue and another newish development called Schaefer Landing; because the property, currently used by a lumber company, is zoned for manufacturing the developer had to go through the city’s land Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP) to obtain a rezoning to residential; the last step of that process is the vote by the City Council, expected some time in early May. The City Planning approval, unusually narrow at 7-5, came despite opposition from both Community Board 1 and Council Member Steve Levin who felt that the 160 units of affordable housing was not enough. Also of note: The developer of Rose Plaza is the same one who recently defaulted on a $50 million loan in connection with Warehouse 11, another condo project further to the north in Williamsburg.
Williamsburg Project Clears Hurdle [Crain’s]
CB1 Committee Not Digging Plans for Huge Burg Project [Brownstoner]
Big in the Burg: Rose Plaza on the River [Brownstoner]
Ps finance is definitely not a consideration for these proposals, assuming they can get through all the requirements of the land use certification process. bureaucrats not-so-secretly loathe these projects however, since they waste scarce labor intensive resources.
also for those not entirely in the know, to avoid doing a full environmental impact statement (don’t believe this got the full treatment), the land use lawyers often propose restrictive declarations governing many aspects of the project that are tied to various parts of the land use proposal, in order to achieve the huge “bonus” obtained through the land use request and not induce a significant environmental impact. they have to follow through with many cost intensive activities, like providing X amount of affordable housing, X acres of public open space, traffic improvements etc. these agreements can be obtained through the freedom of information act, they are supposed to be transparent.
i’m not developer but i find it hard to imagine any real money being made on developments like this, after paying all the consultants, dealing with ULURP/environmental review and paying attorney fees.
GMan’s got it right, the owner’s financial woes don’t matter. Zoning runs with the land – it has no expiration. So once the zoning is approved, the value of the land increases and the owner can sell at a higher price. Someday, someone will build what is approved on the property. All this owner has to do is have enough money to pay for the lawyers, planners and architects to get the zoning mods.
Follow up actions do happen, but they are usually tweaks, particularly on properties that are part of a larger one-size-fits-all zoning. In this case, the zoning is tailored to this site, so its hard to see how that would fly here. (FUCAs are usually done by DCP to correct problems with their larger rezonings, also not applicable here.)
dittoburg – that was really funny
DCP generally doesn’t take a second bite of the same apple. The exception is on larger rezonings that need to be tweaked. Those are some times listed as F-U, which is short for “follow-up,” but I always read as, ‘we effed up.’
I understand. I have to say I agree that ownership seems irrelevant, but considering the economy and all, I would have thought the track record of a developer would have some bearing on whether or not the project can even be built.
Another question- once approval is given for density, usage and design, are they still potentially subject to change, say if another developer takes over?
bxgrl, that depends how you look at it. From a legal standpoint, ULURP applications seek approval for use, density and to a certain extent design. Those characteristics are either appropriate to the site, or they are not. Since any approval is transferable with the property, ownership is always potentially irrelevant.
Putting all of that together and expressing it another way, is the requested use, density and design more or less appropriate because of the ownership? (Abominations like Atlantic Yard excepted, of course.)
Good catch, g man. Amateur mistake on our part!
g man- Shouldn’t they be, though?