The new building on the block: Plans for 9 Old Fulton Street to be presented at CB2 Feb 16th

Way back in April, 2009  we alerted you that an application had been submitted to the Landmarks Preservation Commission for constructing a new building at 9 Old Fulton Street.  After a change of architects and design, the LPC  approved the plan, subject to submission of drawings to the Department of Buildings and the approval of an application under the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA).  This application sought a single variance, namely to allow conversion to residential use. (A reminder: we are still zoned as manufacturing.  More on that at a later date.)

FFLA supports that variance, and we support the new, highly contextual design for the building.  We think the renderings (linked below) speak for themselves, but you can see a full presentation on Wed, Feb 16th at the Dibner Building, 5 Metro Tech, 4th floor room LC400, when the owners and their architect will review the plans at Community Board 2.  If you are interested, or  want to comment,  attend the meeting, and make your views known, as the BSA requires the owner to gather public testimony from and through CB2.  The meeting begins at 6 p.m. Alternatively, you can email: Cb2K@nyc.rr.com    Attention: Rob Perris  Re:  9 Old Fulton Street

Here’s what we think: the building’s architectural elements, design and scale are highly contextual and appropriate with the rest of the row.  A new building–rather than the gap that has been there–recreates a continuous street facade on the north side of Old Fulton Street, which is as it was in the past. Moreover, the land use action allows residential use consistent with the neighboring buildings and our neighborhood at large.  Finally, while we testified against the rooftop addition at the LPC, it was nonetheless approved;  we believe the current design is sufficiently set back to alleviate obtrusive views from the street. Consequently, our testimony at CB2 will be in support of the building.

Once the community grants approval, which includes local City Council support, the BSA issues a permit for the DOB which allows the DOB examiner to review the site as residential, rather than commercial. Thereafter, the excavation and building can begin, which could happen as soon as summer of this year, or as late as the following year.  It should be noted that the owner/developer will be required by the LPC to ensure that vibration monitors be placed in the older and vulnerable structures surrounding the site before any work can commence.

LPC 04 – Elevation Existing

LPC 05 – Elevation Proposed

UPDATE: CB 2 passed the variance unanimously on Feb 16th.

5 Comments

Filed under Local Real Estate, Quality of Life

FFLA, BHA, and the New York Landmarks Conservancy File Suit to Halt Secret Removal of Public Parkland in Brooklyn Bridge Park

This morning, FFLA, Brooklyn Heights Association and the NY Landmarks Conservancy filed suit to stop a secret expropriation of  the Tobacco Warehouse, a national historic landmark in the Fulton Ferry Historic District. We are seeking a preliminary injunction to stop the transfer of the Tobacco Warehouse, designated as part of parkland since 2000, to private hands. This primary action is in Federal Court, against the Natonal Park Service (NPS).  We also filed a secondary action in NY State Supreme Court against the New York State Office of Parks (NYSOP) and the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation (BBPC) requesting a court order to prevent  officials from providing false and misleading information to the National Park Service.

You probably all know and have visited the  Tobacco Warehouse, an open air Civil War era structure with soaring views of the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges.  But you may not know that it  has been saved twice from demolition through community action, once in the late 1960s, when the City planned to move the meat market here, and again in the late 1990s, when the City determined that the structure might be a hazard and had a bulldozer ready.  The first time, the BHA worked with Con Ed and NYSP to acquire the land between the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges for a state park. The last time, the same three groups which today filed suit were able to prove the Warehouse was a sound structure, the cost of stabilization equal to or less than the cost of complete demolition, and the State Parks Commissioner agreed that the venerable building was well worth saving.  This also provided the impetus for state and local officials to work with FFLA and BHA,  to make the Warehouse a signature part of that park.  By 2000, in the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) creating Brooklyn Bridge Park, the Tobacco Warehouse officially was incorporated into the new park, and became a place where we locals and tourists alike gathered, for ad-hoc and scheduled performances, picnics, photography, etc.

However, documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that in 2008, without informing the public or elected officials, the  NYSOP requested and received permission from the NPS to literally remove the Tobacco Warehouse from the park map- or “de-map” it–  by falsely asserting that it was not, nor had it ever been, a place suitable for outdoor public recreation. (This in spite of more than 5 years of regular and well documented public and private programs).  In short, without regard for the required process, the Tobacco Warehouse was stripped from the public and delivered directly into the hands of private interests for their exclusive benefit.  We cannot allow that, especially since FFLA has worked for more than 20 years to protect the Tobacco Warehouse, plan the new park, and continue to engage in its development.

Entering into this suit was not an easy decision for us, and we feel we exhausted all possible recourses prior to finally filing with the other two parties.  We have always advocated for a public and transparent process regarding the Brooklyn Bridge Park, and are deeply disappointed that parties acted  in the dark and behind closed doors to remove the Tobacco Warehouse from the public domain. The Park and the Warehouse are part of our neighborhood, and we want to ensure that designated parkland here remains free, accessible, and open to all of us.

UPDATE: Federal Judge Eric Vitaliano has ordered an expedited hearing for next Thursday, January 27th.

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

The Latest On 11-15 Old Fulton-demolition on hold until 10/6/

As you may have noticed, there has been some positive action on 11, 13, and 15 Old Fulton Street, thanks to continuing pressure from concerned residents, preservationists, and our elected officials. Contractors have been cleaning out the buildings so as to reduce the load on the structures, under the supervision of the DOB’s forensic engineering division. This will likely continue for the next week or so.

Additionally, we have been informed by Landmarks  that the owner has retained a new engineer to revise the shoring and bracing plans. (Some of you may have seen him taking measurements at the buildings in the last week.) According to the LPC,  it should take one to two weeks before the revised plans are submitted to the DOB and the LPC.  Since progress on the stabilization plan continues, the DOB has approved extending the hold on demolition until September 8th.

Unfortunately, however, this does not mean that these historic structures are out of danger.  The owner submitted structural plans  some 18 months ago, without acting, and was to have revised plans only this spring, to no avail.  While the LPC and DOB assure us they are in contact with the owner, they assured us of the same,  even as the demolition order was issued.  So we continue to suggest  that if you care about this historic district and these buildings, please send an email to the Commissioner of Buildings, Robert LiMandri, the Borough Commissioner, Thomas Fariello, and cc our electeds (see sample email, earlier post here).

UPDATE as of 9/20 :  The latest information from the LPC is that the clean-up of all three buildings is complete, and the owners have indeed filed the amended stabilization  plans with the DOB. The LPC is still awaiting additional reconstruction plans and details, such as the specifications and dimensions on the windows and various other specifics regarding the rear facade of the buildings.  Some of the rear walls will need partial rebuilding and repointing, others will require being completely reconstructed.  Since permits for changes to the rear walls had already been issued by the LPC to the prior owner, this should not cause any added delays or require new permits with the LPC.

The owners will, however, need to complete the rest of the process with the DOB as well, such as filing fees, hiring approved contractors, acquiring liability insurance, and so forth. As a result, the FFLA and our local electeds will continue to monitor the situation over the coming weeks in the hopes we will finally see the stabilization work actually begun and the buildings rehabilitated.

1 Comment

Filed under local history, Local Real Estate

11-15 Old Fulton Update

The saga of 11-15 Old Fulton Street continues, as seen recently in some local blogs. If you care about saving historic buildings from the wrecking ball, read on.

Shrouded under scaffolding at present, 11, 13 and 15 Old Fulton Street are part of the last remaining vestiges of Brooklyn’s early commercial waterfront.  Built between 1836-39, well before the Brooklyn Bridge, 11-15 Old Fulton Street is a row of Greek Revival style brick and stone commercial buildings whose style, scale, materials and details have been described by the Landmarks

Fulton Street circa 1885

Preservation Commission (LPC) as reminders of 19th century commercial life and development in Brooklyn, and as contributing to the special architectural and historic character of the Ferry Fulton Historic District. According to the LPC, these buildings have special significance as “one of the few surviving examples of Greek Revival commercial architecture in the city.”

The Fulton Ferry Landing Association has been fighting for the preservation of these structures (and opposing their destruction or inappropriate expansion) for a number of years. In late 2007, the previous owner, Michael Mazza, sold the properties to a partnership. Since then, the development has stalled as a result of the real estate crisis. The new owners have permitted the structures to deteriorate, leaving windows open to the elements, in an apparent effort to achieve what is known as “demolition by neglect”; that is, allowing Mother Nature to bring down the buildings, since — as we all assumed — the city would not issue a demolition permit for what its own Landmarks Commission labeled such significant structures. For a developer it is almost always easier and cheaper to simply knock down an old building and build new construction, whatever the cost to our historic heritage.

To prevent this, we have been in regular contact with the LPC about the conditions at the buildings. On more than one occasion we were promised that work to reinforce and support the structures would commence, only to be disappointed. We were even promised by Landmarks that if there was insufficient progress with the necessary structural repairs, they would initiate a lawsuit against the developer and its lenders to compel them to perform the work.

In late spring of this year a meeting took place between Landmarks, the Department of Buildings and the owner’s representatives to assess the state of the structures.  By DOB’s own evaluation, the front façade, party walls and roof of the structures were in good shape; the rear walls required substantial shoring and bracing. All parties appeared to be cooperating towards developing a scope of work to be performed by the owner to preserve the buildings.

Fast forward to August 12th, when to our surprise we discovered that the Department of Buildings had issued a demolition order on these structures, apparently ignoring the analysis of its own engineers that the buildings could be successfully supported, and tossing aside all of the previous efforts of LPC and Fulton Ferry Landing Association to compel the owners to fulfill their obligations to these historic structures.

Much alarmed, we called upon our local elected officials and the LPC to halt the demolition of these buildings. The DOB order was inexplicable given the fact that  their own engineers had determined that the buildings could indeed be shored up and successfully rehabilitated. We still do not know what influence was exerted at DOB to achieve this unannounced reversal of the rehabilitation program that had been put in place to save the buildings.  After a great deal of effort and pressure from our elected officials, the demolition order has been put on hold for a week by the DOB, but the future of these historic buildings is now extremely tenuous.

If you care about the historic character of our neighborhood and wish to preserve these remarkable Greek revival buildings, please send an email expressing your opposition to their demolition with the subject line: Stop the Wrecking Ball! Save 11-15 Old Fulton to:

Rtierney@lpc.nyc.gov

rlimandri@buildings.nyc.gov

tfariello@buildings.nyc.gov

and CC: slevin@council.nyc.gov; millmanj@assembly.state.ny.us; squadron@senate.state.ny.us

A sample email follows. Of course, you may add your own thoughts as well.

Built between 1836-1839, 11-15 Old Fulton Street is a row of rare Greek Revival style brick and stone commercial buildings.  Their style, scale, materials and details have been described  by the Landmarks Preservation Commission as reminders of 19th century commercial life and development in Brooklyn, and as significant structures in the Fulton Ferry Historic District.
These buildings are one of the few surviving examples of Greek Revival architecture in the City, according to the LPC. They deserve to be shored up and saved, not demolished.

The current owners of 11-15 Old Fulton have left windows open to the elements, left a broken pipe to flow unstopped in the basement, and allowed the structures to deteriorate. In spite of their neglect, when the DOB’s Forensic Engineering Division conducted a site visit with the LPC in late spring, 2010, the DOB determined that the front facade, party walls and roofs were in good shape, though the rear walls required additional support and substantial shoring.

The agencies were awaiting modified plans from the owner’s  engineers when the DOB issued a demolition order, despite its own evaluation that these buildings could be successfully supported.

The DOB has full discretion to “demolish, repair, or take whatever action is necessary” to make a building safe.  Within a historic District, with frail structures worthy of protection, this can have the unintended result of rewarding owners who are seeking to demolish by neglect.

Do not reward the owners for their neglect.  Force them to restore these historic buildings, or allow the DOB to do so.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

4 Comments

Filed under local history, Local politics

Brooklyn Bridge Car Fire

A car fire broke out on the Manhattan-bound lanes of the Brooklyn Bridge shortly before 4PM on Sunday afternoon. It was brought under control quickly, and traffic resumed flowing within a half hour. See photos below.

Smoke pours from a car fire on the Manhattan-bound Brooklyn Bridge

Smoke from a car fire on the Brooklyn Bridge on Sunday afternoon

1 Comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Out your window and front door–Brooklyn Bridge Park at Pier 1

Most of us have watched as the once-ugly Port Authority sheds have been replaced by new trees, grass (sod, actually), landscaping and paths both large and small.  You may have also noticed the tall light poles (described in this article in the Daily News), which have raised some concern in our neighborhood both in terms of  illumination  and in their impact to park views.  Perhaps you  have even seen some of these lit on occasion. Those occasions are part of a process of energizing the lights; they have to be put on at full intensity before burning into lower illumination. In addition,  dimmers have not yet been installed.  The BBPDC has assured us, however,  that they will do a demo for the neighborhood once the dimmers are in place, and before the Park officially opens. This may take place the first week of January.  You may also have most recently noticed a large white tent on the waterfront; this is to protect the playground surface, but should be down within a week.

And speaking of that, Pier 1 will be the first part of the Park to open; a “soft opening” is planned for the early part of next year.  Somewhere in late January or February, the pathways and benches of  part of Pier 1 will open. The lawns will remain closed to allow them to grow.  At the same time, Empire Fulton-Ferry State Park will close  for a one-year renovation. This renovation was funded by David and Jane Walentas (known most recently for the Dock Street project) as a means to install their carousel in a building designed by Jean Nouvel, a building that was not in the original plans for the Park.  For those of you with long memories, in 1999 the community fought a riverside development by Walentas which included the carousel, a 250 room hotel designed by Jean Nouvel, a film multiplex and more.  Indeed, that community opposition provided the impetus to finally build a park for the waterfront instead.  (http://www.nytimes.com/1999/05/08/nyregion/developer-pursues-plans-for-complex-along-brooklyn-s-waterfront.html)

The future management of the Park is currently in discussion, as New York City has proposed to assume control of its administration.  It will also fund the rest of the Park’s construction, with an up-front additional capital contribution of $55 million; it expects thereupon to take more control over the management of the park.  New York State needs to agree to such an arrangement, however, which according to this article is far from a sure thing. Should the city take responsibility for the park,  all the park areas will at last  officially  become permanent parkland or become the subject of a conservation easement, something we have urged since the General Project Plan was approved.  A new governance structure would also be enacted.

Much of this was announced on December 7th at a public meeting with State Senator Daniel Squadron and Parks Commissioner Adrian Benepe, as well as other city officials.   News reports from that meeting stated that the housing developments that are to fund the rest of the park will likely be put on hold. It is unclear whether this refers until such time that the real estate market recovers or is a response to Senator Squadron’s continued opposition to housing in the Park.  It should be noted, however, that although Senator Squadron opposes housing, he does not oppose the large hotel/condo which is to be built on Pier 1.  We have asked him to push for a reduction in the size of the complex by at least eliminating the condo portion, but he has stated that it could be used as a conference center instead so as to finance the Park. We believe that if housing is to be reduced or eliminated, the reduction should be equitably distributed across the Park gateways.  If you agree, please send a letter to:

Senator Squadron squadron@senate.state.ny.us;

Mayor Bloomberg www.nyc.gov/html/mail/html/mayor.html;  and

Adrian Benepe www.nycgovparks.org/sub_ask…/ask_the_commissioner.html

RELATED ARTICLES:

http://www.nydailynews.com/real_estate/2009/12/18/2009-12-18_brooklyn_bridge_park_is_it_the_new_central_park.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/attempted_brooklyn_bridge_park_leadership_mMb0GoPgWkQOu7yO29qATJ

http://www.brooklynpaper.com/stories/32/51/32_51_ac_janes_carousel_in_bridge_park.html

Leave a Comment

Filed under Brooklyn Bridge Park, Dock Street Project, Quality of Life

Cabaret License on Hold — For Now

Update: We noticed this invitation today for a NYE party that goes until 5AM. If things get rowdy in the wee hours, call 311.

Since our last post, the Executive Committee of Community Board 2 voted unanimously to oppose the cabaret license application  of One Front, fully supporting the recommendations of the Health, Environment and Social Services committee. This information was submitted to the Department of Consumer Affairs.  Since then, we have learned to our disappointment and surprise that the DCA has no public hearing process. Decisions by the Commissioner are made based on City Code.  For those interested, the portion of the code that we have been told is relevant can be seen at the bottom of this post.

Thus, we believe that DCA may be obligated to grant a license based on the Administrative Code as it relates to zoning. This is where is becomes difficult for neighborhoods such as ours, as we are designated commercial/residential. In spite of the fact that this designation harkens back to 1960, and despite the fact that we are heavily residential at this stage,  the official zoning remains the same.

Recognizing this, and responding to our community’s objections to the cabaret, our local politicians have written to the Commissioner of the DCA,  Jonathan Mintz.  We thank Assemblywoman Joan Millman, outgoing City Councilman David Yassky, and State Senator Daniel Squadron for their support, as well as the District Manager of CB2, Rob Perris, who has been most helpful through this process.  In addition, with help from Borough President Marty Markowitz’s office, we are investigating how other commercial/residential neighborhoods, such as Tribeca and Soho, have kept cabarets from their neighborhoods. We believe that those neighborhoods have changed some of the wording within their zoning designation (a process which takes considerable time),  but we will continue to research this.  We may have to consider a zoning modification here as well.

In the interim, the Chairperson of Community Board 2 has written a second letter to Commissioner Mintz to emphasize that Fulton Ferry  is substantially residential despite the zoning and that the DCA consider this.  We have also recently learned that One Front St restaurant failed one of the standards listed in the code, so we have a temporary reprieve.  You might consider writing directly to Commissioner Jonathan Mintz,                                                         http://www.nyc.gov/html/dca/html/contact/contact.shtml and cc Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

The relevant Administrative Code:

The Administrative Code under which DCA must issue a license except for the reasons set forth in Administrative Code of the City of New York follows.  The following (highlights and underlines added) is from Title 20, Chapter 2, Subchapter 20, Section 20-361:

  20-361  Issuance  and  renewal  of license. a. The commissioner may
  refuse to issue or renew  a  license  to  an  applicant  only  upon  the
  occurrence of any one or more of the following conditions:
    1.  the  applicant,  licensee, its officers, principals, directors and
  stockholders owning more than ten percent of the  outstanding  stock  of
  the  corporation  have  not  submitted complete and accurate information
  required by the department in connection with:
    (a) an application for a license or renewal thereof;
    (b) an application for the approval of a change of ownership;
    (c) the furnishing of a record of convictions for offenses as provided
  in paragraph five of this subdivision;
    (d) the  furnishing  of  financial  information  and  records  by  the
  applicant,   licensee,   its   officers,   principals,   directors   and
  stockholders owning more than ten percent of the  outstanding  stock  of
  the  corporation  concerning  the source of funds used or intended to be
  used in the operation of the licensed business and the amount  of  total
  funds each such individual has invested in the business;
    2.  the  premises  on  or  in  which  the  licensed  business is to be
  conducted have not been certified as  in  compliance  with  the  health,
  fire,   buildings,   zoning   and  water,  gas  and  electricity  safety
  requirements and standards established by the laws of the city and state
  of New York or any  other  governmental  authority  having  jurisdiction
  thereof;
    3. with respect to a new license application for the premises on or in
  which  the  licensed  business  is  to be conducted, there is no current
  certificate of occupancy to operate a  public  dance  hall,  cabaret  or
  catering establishment;
    4.  the  applicant,  licensee, its officers, principals, directors and
  stockholders have not complied with the regulations  of  the  department
  applicable thereto;
    5.  the  applicant,  licensee, its officers, principals, directors and
  stockholders owning more than ten percent of the  outstanding  stock  of
  the corporation have been convicted of:
    (a)  any of the following offenses and there is a relationship between
  the offense and the conduct of a public dance hall, cabaret or  catering
  establishment:
    (i) an offense within article two hundred of the penal law relating to
  bribery involving public servants;
    (ii) a felony within article two hundred ten of the penal law relating
  to perjury;
    (iii)  an  offense  within article two hundred thirty of the penal law
  relating to prostitution offenses;
    (iv) an offense within article two hundred forty-five of the penal law
  relating to offenses against public sensibilities;
    (v) an offense within section 260.20 of  the  penal  law  relating  to
  unlawfully dealing with a child;
    (b)  any  other offense which is a felony under the laws of this state
  or a crime committed in violation of the laws of any other  jurisdiction
  which if committed in this state would be a felony;
    (c) any offense which is a misdemeanor involving the premises on or in
  which the licensed business is to be conducted.
    6.  the  applicant,  licensee, its officers, principals, directors and
  stockholders owning more than ten percent of the  outstanding  stock  of
  the  corporation  have suffered or permitted the premises on or in which
  the licensed business is to be conducted, through improper or inadequate
  maintenance and supervision, to be used for the commission of any of the
  offenses set forth in paragraph five of this subdivision;
    7. the applicant, its officers,  principals,  directors,  stockholders
  owning more than ten percent of the outstanding stock of the corporation
  and  employees thereof at the premises on which the licensed business is
  to be conducted have at least three times been proven to be in violation
  of  the  provisions  of  subchapter one of chapter five of this title
[The Consumer Protection Law]
of
  this code or of any regulations promulgated thereunder.
    (b) The commissioner shall  not  issue  or  renew  a  license  if  the
  applicant,   licensee,   its   officers,   principals,   directors   and
  stockholders owning more than ten percent of the  outstanding  stock  of
  the  corporation  have  not  paid, within the time permitted by law, any
  fine, penalty or judgment duly imposed in  connection  with  or  arising
  from  the  use,  occupation  or  operation  of the premises on which the
  licensed business is to be conducted.
    (e) Each applicant and licensee shall notify the department in writing
  by registered mail, return receipt requested, within three business days
  of receipt of notice of service of a summons for a violation relating to
  the operation of the business licensed or  to  be  licensed  or  to  the
  premises on or in which the business licensed or to be licensed is to be
  conducted  and  of  a  conviction for any offense set forth in paragraph
  five of subdivision a of this section occurring after the filing date of
  the application for a license or a renewal thereof or  occurring  during
  the term of the license.
    (f)  In  the  manner  prescribed in rule three hundred eighteen of the
  civil practice law and rules, each applicant or licensee shall designate
  an agent, a substitute agent and a successor agent for receiving service
  of process and communications from this department  located  within  the
  city  of  New  York.  Proof  of such designation shall be filed with the
  license application at the department.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Local Businesses, Local politics, Quality of Life, Uncategorized

CB2 Committee Votes No to Cabaret

Following a meeting of the Health, Environment and Social Services committee of Community Board 2 last Wednesday night, members voted 5-2, with 2 abstentions, against recommending a cabaret license be issued for the top floor of the One Front Street restaurant. Four residents of the community, including two current and one former member of the Board of the Fulton Ferry Landing Association, testified for denial of the license, while the President of the Fulton Ferry Business Association supported the applicant. The FFBA has members from  all of the food establishments in the small Fulton Ferry neighborhood, plus the auto related businesses.

Along with the testimony given in person, the Committee reviewed emails received from other Fulton Ferry residents, plus a letter from the DUMBO Neighborhood Alliance, all of whom rejected the idea of a dance club operating until 4AM. As noted in our previous post, two events held last weekend at this location each resulted in loud guests milling about the streets in the wee hours of the morning, One resident claimed that “there has been a persistent noise problem generated by this establishment related to “dance parties”, both under the current management as well as with others over the years.” Another added that with a cabaret license, “patrons would arrive late at night, gather outside the club, make noise and deprive the local residents of the quiet enjoyment of their homes.” Several residents wrote or spoke at the hearing about how we support and patronize our local businesses, but in return we expect the proprietors to appreciate and respect the quality of life which the neighborhood values.

The vote now moves to the Executive Committee of CB2, which must make a decision by November 30th. It is also possible that instead, this will be put on the agenda for the monthly full Board meeting taking place this week. After that, the application — with recommendations from the Community Board — is sent to the Department of Consumer Affairs for a final decision.   An update will be posted here after the end of November.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Local Businesses, Local politics, Quality of Life

Application for a Cabaret License by One Front–CB2 on 11/4

According to a small sign posted on the window of One Front Restaurant (previously Toro), the owners are seeking a cabaret license for their 314 person capacity establishment.  A cabaret license is issued by the Department of Consumer Affairs, and is distinct from an on-premises liquor license in that it allows for patron dancing in connection with the selling of food and drink.  Most such licenses are used for nightclubs; a catering establishment license (identical except with less restrictive rules and lower fees) is usually applied for by a space which is used for functions or events to which the public is not invited or admitted, such as weddings  and the like.

With regard to such licenses, in 1989, the City tightened zoning restrictions as commercial zones became more gentrified. Except for grandfathered spaces, areas that were previously as of right, such as Tribeca, Soho and the Flatiron district, were thereupon judged to be off-limits to cabarets, as reported in a Village Voice article.  So in the same vein  Fulton Ferry, which along with DUMBO has become increasingly residential, should not be the place for a cabaret either.

In addition, over this last weekend, local Fulton Ferry residents complained about booming vibrations and shouting in the street from what appeared to be two all-night events at One Front.  This continued  until 4:30 in the morning.

The establishment of a cabaret (dance club) and the noise it will bring through the night is out of character for our small neighborhood. We work with and patronize our local restaurants, but we do expect them to be good neighbors.

If this concerns you, please make your opinions known on Wed, Nov 4th at the public presentation at Community Board 2:  Numbers count, so please come.

WHEN:            WED, NOV 4th, 6:30pm

WHERE:          BROOKLYN HOSPITAL, NORTH PAVILION CONFERENCE ROOM

121 DEKALB AVE.

(this is close to a subway stop)

email: cb2k@nyc.rr.com  ATTENTION: Mr John Dew, Chairman,  Mr. Robert Perris, District Manager


1 Comment

Filed under Local Businesses, Local politics

Construction Update–Phase I continues (obviously)

Just when you thought Old Fulton was back to normal,  the digging began again. Here’s the scoop on what’s going on. The City is in the process of installing  new water mains, valves and hydrants. These  will run on Water from Old Fulton to Main St.  In addition, five new catch basins to prevent street flooding are being installed on various parts of Old Fulton (for those of you who wondered about those large concrete blocks sitting on various parts of the street, those are the basins).

FFLA and our residents have been interacting frequently with DDC representatives, and have had to fight to ensure that the City install vibration monitors in  our oldest and most fragile buildings. We want to acknowledge the assistance of Councilman Yassky’s office in this endeavor.

Yet to come in our neighborhood is the installation of a 36″trunk water main, and a 18″ sanitary sewer. Translation: more digging, road repair, dust and noise. Following that work,in the spring, the Department of Design and Construction will install a new, pigmented sidewalk, granite pavement crosswalks, and curbs on behalf of Brooklyn Bridge Park.   That’s when further construction on the Park, conducted by Skanska on behalf of the Brooklyn Bridge Park Development Corp, takes over. And we haven’t touched on the third phase, the work on the Brooklyn Bridge.  More to follow.

NOTE:  If you have comments, concerns, questions, are upset about the new fire hydrant blocking the limited residential parking in our neighborhood, or want to know more about the next phase, please come to the public meeting.  Details below.

WHAT:    PUBLIC MEETING,  TRI-CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

WHEN:    TUESDAY, SEPT 22ND.  630 PM

WHERE:   BOROUGH HALL,  COURTROOM                                                                                                            209  JORALEMON STREET

2 Comments

Filed under Brooklyn Bridge Park, Traffic and Parking