Grounds for suspension of architects and engineers expanded. On January 10, 2007, the Department of Buildings adopted changes to its self-certification program, expanding grounds for exclusion and suspension of participating architects and engineers and authorizing the Commissioner of Buildings to immediately suspend participants to prevent a serious public safety threat. Included within the new grounds for suspension were cases of fraud, improper use of licenses or professional stamps, and negligence or incompetence in relation to Building’s rules and the zoning resolution.

Two speakers attended Buildings’ hearing on the proposed rules, both in opposition. Buildings also received six written comments, all opposed. After the comment period, Buildings made only one additional change, slightly altering the definition of engineers and architects. For a more comprehensive summary, see 3 CityLand 143 (Oct. 15, 2006). (more…)

Only two speakers opposed proposed rule changes. On October 6, 2006, Buildings held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the professional certification program rules that would expand the potential grounds for suspension and permanent exclusion of architects and engineers from the program. 3 CityLand 143 (Oct. 15, 2006).

Only two individuals appeared at the hearing, both speaking in opposition. Michael Zenreich, an architect and chair of the Architects’ Council of New York, called the new provisions “too broad,” arguing that the text could be misused and would create a dynamic where an architect is “guilty until proven innocent.” He suggested peer review as an alternative and commented that the proposal was a “heavy-handed reaction to abuse of a few practitioners.” Lester Lao testified that the current system worked fine and he did not see the shortcomings. (more…)

Proposal would add grounds to suspend architects and engineers from program. Buildings proposed a series of amendments to its rules that would expand the grounds for suspending and permanently excluding an architect or engineer from the professional certification program and increase scrutiny of applications and plans submitted by those architects and engineers.

New grounds for suspension and exclusion would include knowing and failing to report that a project on which they worked in any capacity had a fraudulent or dishonest application filed with Buildings. Other grounds include permitting improper use of license numbers or professional stamps, failing to cooperate with Buildings investigations, misusing DOB-issued photo identification cards, altering or removing Buildings property, or attempting to bribe a public employee. (more…)

Down-zoning proposed for 135- block area of northeast Queens. On July 10, 2006, the Planning Commission certified as complete City Planning’s proposal to rezone 135 blocks of the Douglaston and Little Neck neighborhoods in northeast Queens. The area is generally bounded by Grand Central Parkway to the south, Douglaston Parkway, Alley Pond Parkway and Alley Pond Park to the west, Long Island Sound to the north, and the Nassau County line to the east. Under the City’s land use review process, the proposal now goes to Queen’s Community Board 11 for review. The board tentatively scheduled a public hearing for September 5, 2006.

The proposal seeks to downzone lots currently zoned to allow development of all residential building types (R3-2) to a zoning limiting development to detached one- and two-family homes (R3-X). A large portion of blocks currently zoned for detached single-family homes (R2) would be further restricted as to height by an R2A zone, and the commercial zoning in the area would be reduced to prevent commercial uses from encroaching onto predominantly residential blocks. (more…)

Staten Island residential developer denied certification. Salvatore Culotta wanted to build 12 dwelling units in six detached residences on property he owned in the Special South Richmond Development District, a special zoning district created by the City in 1977. Before applying to Buildings for a permit, however, Culotta was required to apply to City Planning for a certification that there was sufficient school capacity to accommodate the expected increase in school children. When Culotta filed for certification in 2004, City Planning withheld it because the property had an outstanding Buildings violation for the alleged unauthorized removal of a tree.

Culotta filed an article 78 petition to compel City Planning to issue the certification. Justice Eric N. Vitaliano dismissed the petition, finding that, under the Zoning Resolution, City Planning could adopt reasonable guidelines for issuing certifications and that its policy of withholding certificates from a developer with outstanding violations was reasonable. The outstanding Buildings violation would prevent the project from proceeding and issuing a certificate would only serve to hold up school seats that may otherwise be used for other project developments. (more…)