Extension would bring roughly 582 buildings under Landmarks’ jurisdiction. On August 10, 2010, Landmarks moved to calendar the proposed Park Slope Historic District Extension, the first step toward landmarking. The extension would include approximately 582 buildings located to the southwest of the original 1973-designated Park Slope Historic District, which encompasses 1,975 structures.

The proposed district is bounded by 7th Street to the north, 15th Street to the south, Eighth Avenue to the east, and Seventh Avenue to the west. The district would include the properties along the northwestern curve of the traffic circle at Bartel-Pritchard Square, across from Prospect Park’s south- west entrance. A small pocket of properties along Prospect Park West between 9th and 10th Streets would also be included within the district. The proposed extension features a mix of rowhouses and apartment buildings, with many dating to the 1880s and incorporating Italianate and Queen Anne-style architectural design. The properties closest to Prospect Park include early 20th century neo-Classical style architecture. The extension’s notable structures include two 19th century firehouses, the former Ansonia Clock Factory built in 1879, and the Renaissance Revival-style Acme Hall built by Charles Nickenig and featuring a ballroom, bowling alley, and meeting rooms.

Before calendaring, Chair Robert B. Tierney thanked Landmarks staff and the neighborhood advocates who were instrumental in proposing the district. Landmarks did not set a date for a public hearing.

LPC: Park Slope Historic District Extension, Brooklyn (LP-2443) (Aug.10, 2010).

Developer wanted to build three additional townhouses after discovering concrete bunkers during construction of as-of-right development. 25 Garfield Sparta LLC applied to BSA for a variance to build three townhouses on a through-block lot at 580 Carroll Street in Park Slope, Brooklyn. In 2007, the developer obtained permits to build an Enrique Norten-designed five-story condominium at the site that would front Garfield Place, provide open space along Carroll Street, and include nine underground parking spaces.

During construction, Garfield Sparta discovered below-grade concrete bunkers on the Carroll Street-side of the lot that were related to the site’s former use as a Brooklyn Edison substation. In order to compensate for the costs associated with removing the bunkers, the developer proposed building three four-story townhouses on the portion of the lot set aside for open space. Garfield Sparta needed a variance because the proposal exceeded the maximum floor area, maximum lot coverage, and violated minimum rear-yard depth. (more…)

Comm. Board’s transportation committee opposes initial plan. The Department of Transportation proposed a plan to Brooklyn Community Board 6 to change 6th and 7th Avenues in Park Slope to one-way traffic and reduce the number of lanes on 4th Avenue.

On March 15, 2007, DOT presented the proposals to Board 6’s Transportation Committee. DOT proposed to turn 6th Avenue between 23rd Street and Atlantic Avenue into a northbound one-way avenue, and 7th Avenue between Flatbush and Prospect Avenues into a southbound one-way avenue. DOT said the changes would reduce traffic conflicts, create predictable traffic patterns, remove left-turning conflicts and potentially reduce head-on collisions. Overall, the plan would improve automobile and pedestrian safety. The changes to 4th Avenue would affect the stretch between Dean and 17th Streets, reducing the number of moving lanes from three to two, and adding left-turn lanes. DOT explained that it would follow the full board’s final recommendation. (more…)

Developer relied on self-certified permit later found invalid. Based on a professionally certified application, Buildings issued Chaim Nussenzweig, of HMS Associates, a building permit on August 21, 2005 for a 38-unit, five-story building at 614 7th Avenue at 23rd Street in South Park Slope, Brooklyn. The next day, City Planning certified its plan to down-zone portions of South Park Slope, including Nussenzweig’s lot, thereby starting the land use review process and providing Nussenzweig about 200 days to grandfather the project.

Soon after excavation and foundation work began, Buildings initiated a special audit of the project that revealed potential violations of floor area, lot coverage, height limits, and several building code provisions, including sprinklers. Buildings issued a stop-work order, sent Nussenzweig a notice listing its objections, and outlined its intention to revoke the permit unless Nussenzweig responded. All work ceased on October 11th and Buildings revoked the permit after receiving no response.

Nussenzweig later filed a second new building permit application, which Buildings approved on November 15th. The next day, the City Council approved the rezoning of South Park Slope, down-zoning the project site. 2 CityLand 161 (Dec. 2005). The project exceeded the new zoning’s height limit by 18 feet and the floor area limit by over 10,000 sq.ft. (more…)

BSA extends time to complete construction based on common law, not the zoning code. Brooklyn’s South Park Slope neighborhood was rezoned in November 2005 to prevent out-of-scale development, forcing some developers to stop work on projects that no longer conformed to the new zoning. 2 CityLand 161 (Dec. 2005). Two developers in South Park Slope, with projects at 639 Sixth Avenue and 400 15th Street, requested permission to extend their construction time, filing two applications each: one based on the zoning resolution’s provision for extending construction time and a second on common law vested rights.

The owners of 400 15th Street argued that construction of a proposed five-story, 7,035-square-foot residential building was delayed due to poor soil conditions and unstable foundations in adjacent buildings, which resulted in a redesign as well as a lawsuit with a neighbor. The owners also argued that compliance with the new zoning would result in serious economic loss due to reduced floor space, less marketable units, and wasted construction costs. Finally, the owners argued that they had completed substantial work, including demolition, land clearing and excavation, and would lose $577,492 in costs. (more…)