Posted Jul 25, 2019, 3:57 AM
|
|
New Yorker for life
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Borough of Jersey
Posts: 52,787
|
|
https://citylimits.org/2019/07/24/tw...suit-rezoning/
LES Groups Try to Revive Rezoning that De Blasio Admin. Rejected
By Sadef Ali Kully
July 24, 2019
Quote:
As Two Bridges community groups and the City Council prepare to reconvene in Manhattan Supreme Court next week to face the city and developers over the contentious proposal for four waterfront towers, some community organizations have filed a rezoning application with the Department of City Planning.
This month, community groups Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side (TUFF-LES), CAAAV: Organizing Asian Communities and Good Old Lower East Side (GOLES) filed a rezoning application with DCP reviving a portion of an older community rezoning plan for Chinatown and Lower East Side.
“It was a strategy we developed two and a half years ago. It’s based on the Chinatown Working Group. So it’s kind of exciting to plan and see it come to fruition this way. It has all been very deliberate. This is not by luck,” said Melanie Wang, Chinatown Tenant Union Lead Organizer for CAAAV.
|
Quote:
The rezoning proposal for Two Bridges takes a portion of the CWG rezoning plan applying to the Lower East Side Waterfront, called subdistrict D. The proposed rezoning would limit heights to 350 feet for new development and it would require up to 55 percent guaranteed on-site permanently affordable housing. Hotels, big box stores, and clubs would require a special permit with the requirement for public review. And it would also require community facilities such as schools, supermarkets or nonprofit recreation centers.
The land use application must be submitted and then certified by the Department of City Planning. The City Planning Commission must approve the application and then the application goes to the City Council for a final vote. According to DCP, there is no difference between public and private rezoning applications: Both must complete a land use application, undertake the appropriate environmental review, and follow the ULURP process.
“[City Planning staff] have accepted our pre-application statement. They declared it complete. Now they have assigned staff from their environmental unit to work with us on the environmental review component. But we were the ones drafting it and their job is to give us feedback,” says Paula Segal, attorney with the Equitable Neighborhoods Practice at the Community Development Project, who is working with the community groups on the rezoning application and also represents the TUFF-LES group lawsuit against the proposed Two Bridges development.
|
Quote:
CAAAV, TUFF-LES and GOLES are now looking to engage the community further and update residents about the community plan while they pursue lawsuits against the proposed Two Bridges development.
On August 2nd the parties will meet again in Manhattan Supreme Court to either hear the judge’s decision or have the case adjourned.
Their lawsuit concerns a joint application for a minor modification filed by four developers would allow three new mixed-use high-rise buildings, a 1,008-foot rental tower at 247 Cherry Street by JDS Development Group; a 798-foot dual-tower project at 260 South Street by L+M Development Partners and CIM Group; and a 730-foot building at 259 Clinton Street by Starrett Corporation.
According to environmental review documents, the four towers would bring in 11,000 square feet for retail and over 2,700 new residential units to the area; 25 percent of those units will be affordable. Two hundred of those 690 affordable units would be set aside for seniors (although the details of how affordability will be measured has not been shared).
|
Quote:
Earlier this month, a state appellate court panel of judges ruled that developers of the proposed 1,008-foot tower at 235-247 Cherry Street must obtain tenant Little Cherry LLC’s consent in order to proceed with their development project. It was another win for opponents.
“Defendants failed to establish, as a matter of law, that plaintiff is not a party in interest whose consent is required for the zoning lot merger. A ground lease tenant has an interest in a tract of land akin to the fee owner. Plaintiff in this case identified multiple adverse effects of the zoning lot merger that plaintiff be adversely affected,” the judges ruled, according to court records.
In an emailed statement, Ray Hannigan, attorney at Herrick’s Litigation Department, who represents Little Cherry, said the ruling means the developers “must obtain consent from Little Cherry of the developer’s plans, which Little Cherry does not intend to give.”
|
__________________
NEW YORK is Back!
“Office buildings are our factories – whether for tech, creative or traditional industries we must continue to grow our modern factories to create new jobs,” said United States Senator Chuck Schumer.
|