 |
|---|
|
ROLL CALL Chairman Christopher Olechowski requested District Manager Mr. Gerald A. Esposito to call the roll. He informed the Chairman that there were 29 members present, a sufficient number to call the hearing to order. AGENDA Chairman Olechowski read the agenda into the record. Note to all speakers: All those who wish to speak must sign and submit their speaker’s form on or before 6:15 PM.
Chairman Olechowski began the agenda and noted item #1, which was a presentation by HPD.
New York City Department of Housing Preservation & Development – requested update on RFP for the former Greenpoint Hospital Site, and a short presentation/report on the Neighborhood Services Office at 27 Hooper Street – by Deputy Commissioner Holly Leicht, NYC HPD. Chairman Olechowski thanked Deputy Commissioner Leicht for coming down to do the report. He said it was appreciated very much. Deputy Commissioner Leicht noted that she was asked to come to provide an update. They last time that they were here and had a meeting, they were on the verge of designating Greenpoint Hospital, but were not quite ready. They have now designated the site to TNS Development, & Lumly & Wolf, and the senior component to the Neighborhood House Services. They have proposed to do about 240 units of affordable housing (in the bands that were in the Points of Agreement and in the RFP). It will have a senior component as well that is low income. There is also mixed income on the rest of it. She said that she knows that they have heard some concerns about the fact that Lumly and Wolf is a for-profit Citywide developer. They are actually located in NYC (not upstate). They have done a fair amount of multi-family work with them (in Manhattan and the Bronx mostly). They have done some work in Brooklyn (not in Greenpoint/Williamsburg). She said that they understand the concern about the fact they are not a community group. She said that one of the major reasons why they did select TNS is because it was extraordinarily difficult right now to get financing and the project start; and almost all of the projects that they are able to successfully to do right now are being done with developers who have put in a lot of equity and have the ability to put in a lot of equity, and to guarantee terms to the bank. This is not an ideal situation and it isn’t one that they are happy about, but this is how projects are getting done right now. As a result of this, HPD is not issuing very many RFP’s at all right now. In fact, this one was slowed down considerably as well as another RFP that they had up in the Bronx. They slowed them down and all of them ended up being selected, in the Bronx as well. She spoke about concerns that in other parts of the City there were community groups. She said that all three in the Bronx were Citywide groups, too. They had three sites in the Bronx. Right now in this moment in time, it is about that situation that it is very difficult to get financing and so that is the primary reason why they went with the group that had the most equity, the ability to guarantee/provide the terms that the banks are looking for right now to get the project financed. She said that they are hoping that this will help get this done. Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that they know that everyone was anxious about getting the designation and moving forward. So, given the circumstances, they went with the team that they thought had the best chance of being able to get it financed and get it moving as quickly as possible. Chairman Olechowski asked for questions. Mr. Dennis asked for a comparison of numbers on the projects? How many units were proposed on each project and how these break down. Deputy Commissioner said that the selected group is proposing about 240 units. The other groups ranged between 215 and almost 300 units. Mr. Dennis asked how many responded to the RFP? It was noted that there were four responses. Mr. Dennis asked how much was the St. Nick’s number? In was noted that it was 260. Ms. Roslund asked for clarification and to recap the phasing of the RFP. Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that they required a mix of AMI bands (i.e. 40%, 60%, 80% and up to 130% AMI). Ms. Roslund asked about the building (were they additions, etc.)? Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that there was a preference for preservation of the existing building for a senior citizen component. And there was a large multi-family building that would be new construction. All of the respondents came in with a preference. There was one that actually proposed to demolish with new construction and an alternate with preference. Finally, the most competitive called for preservation of the existing building for seniors and then have a multi-family construction on the big end part of the site. Ms. Leader asked why did this site have to go through an RFP where as other sites like the Broadway Triangle did not? Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that typically they do RFP. She related that as part of the Points of Agreement, they have agreed to RFP this site. The only time that they do not assign sites through an RFP, because a developer has asked for a contingent site, authorization to try for another competitive source of funds. In the case of public sites like Broadway Triangle, the development team had asked for contingent site authorization in order to apply for State funds. If they had not gotten those competitive State funds, then their set authorization would expire. They have done this Citywide in order to tap into the federal & state sources of money. This project would be big. She expects that the senior component would end up going for federal competitive funds or state funds. The multi-family portion would be large for that and they may go for component of that. One of the things that the TNS team did was not ask for a lot of competitive [funding]. Why they RFP, they prefer not to have a lot of competitive sources, since they do not know if the group could get it and finance it. She said that the other groups had a lot more competitive funding in their responses. Ms. Leader asked why did HPD allow community involvement -- community planning, but allowed this in other communities? She said there was a lot of letters from the community and local organizations in support of GREC’s plan? Those that submitted plans, now appears, that they are mirroring GREC’s plan. She spoke about the changing of plans. She said that it was like a slap in the face of the community. They disregarded what the community asked for. They disregarded the letters received, like the CB #1 letter in support of the GREC plan. She doesn’t understand how HPD can to that decision. She heard what they said but to disregard a community that wanted something and something that TNS is offering. If St. Nick’s was offering 260 units and TNS 240 units – it doesn’t seem fair. Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that in terms of community involvement – the community was involved. All of the elements in the RFP were worked out as part of the part of the Points of Agreement for the Greenpoint-Williamsburg Rezoning. While the community was not part of the selection process, and never has been in any of their RFP. All of the elements of the RFP came straight out of the Points of Agreement, which had been negotiated with the community at the time. That RFP was derived from the Points of Agreement that the community had signed onto at the time. Chairman Olechowski spoke about the RFP process, did it take into consideration of community groups that had longstanding track records of having accomplished previous projects throughout the community. He said that these community groups have outstanding projects that are centerpieces for other communities to see. How did this weigh in the process of selection? Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that there wasn’t anything in the RFP about a preference for local groups. There typically is not. She said that she could think of only one that was co-issued with other agencies. They had a local preference for a retailer. This is something they could discuss for the future. Chairman Olechowski spoke about groups that have shown that they could do great projects in the community --does this play in the decision process. Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that it was definitely important and this is not to take away anything from St. Nick’s – this project is very different than the work done with St. Nick’s in recent years. They haven’t done any construction with the group since 2000. These are small preservation projects. It doesn’t mean that they couldn’t do it, and she was not saying that – but the track record that they have in recent years is very different than what this is. She spoke about a lot of projects falling and sitting because there is not the financial capacity behind the group to be able to get a bank to finance them. Again this is not a good situation, it is not one that they are happy about or endorse, but it is a reality right now. Mr. Duran spoke about the support for the local planning. He spoke about the GREC plan that was supported for many years. He said people were bewildered at why the RFP took more than three years to award. But, besides the fact that it was a long wait for it to be announced. He said there was a preference for local groups. He said that it was right that the announcement of the award came on a Friday, after 3Pm, where there was no way to have input. Board members did not know about it until Monday. He raised a question – why is it that HPD is not looking into the financing that the GREC plan has? Why are local groups not being preferred. This Community Board wrote a letter. He spoke about other sites being awarded to private developers…why is it being given to them? It has to be more than financing? The GREC plan had financing? Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that they [GREC] had $500,000 but the winning team had considerably more equity. Mr. Duran spoke about other rezoning that were more controversial but moved quickly. He wondered why not here at the Greenpoint Hospital site? Ms. Cianciotta spoke about her being glad to see her at the meeting. She noted that there has not been communication. She spoke about being a member for years of GREC and fought diligently for (28 years) a positive reuse of the Facility at Greenpoint Hospital. Nobody was here when they had an issue with homelessness way back. Actually right now, she wants to have the RFP award reversed. To see HPD finally arrive after the decision was made was kind of insulting. They needed their input early on. Their input was needed earlier on. She complained about an outside developer coming in and being designated for that site -- it is an insult to the community, her, her husband and all the people present tonight – the community in general. They had fought for that site. They should have gotten it. The chosen group had mimicked their plan. She asked for the decision to be turned over, changed. It has to be reversed. What has happened was not good. Mr. Solano said that he could understand the financial needs. He asked about the denial for the RFP…was it because they could not get the funding? Has there been a problem where a project failed because they could not get funding? Deputy Commissioner said no, she was there to say anything bad about St. Nick’s. It is simply a difference in what kind of balance sheet that they are looking for right now to finance. That is what it is. She spoke about YUKO. She said that they would have better communication. She will check into it. Ms. Lawrence spoke about the need that the community has for affordable housing. She spoke about how the community was shorted with the rezoning. She wanted some briefing on the Points of Agreement. Deputy Commissioner Leicht noted that the document lays out all of the commitments that the City has made to pass the rezoning. The RFP is the competitive process that they put out for the Greenpoint Hospital development. Four responses came back. Mr. Lawrence complained about it being disingenuous. She did not know what was in the points. What has the City complied. Chairman Olechowski said that the document was circulated a while back. Copies were at the Board’s Office. Ms. Naplatarski asked if the RFP could be reversed? Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that technically speaking, they could de-designate developers. Ms. Teague questioned the affordability. She said that the City had come up with plans for permanent affordability. She was really concerned about whether this plan would have permanent affordable housing? She said that she was distressed that the award did not go to a local group. She wanted to know, how this could be changed? She said that it was important, and of worth to the community to have permanent affordability. Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that she would get back with this information. She said that the City was looking into long term affordability in all of their projects. This is a goal that they are trying to figure out. They are looking into the mechanism for this. Ms. Nieves wanted to know, what in the future, would ensure local preference? It should have gone to this group. How can this question be answered? Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that they could put a preference in their RFP for it, but they think that the City also has to be concerned to make sure that if they award something that it would get done. This is something that they could talk about in future RFPs. Chairman Olechowski said that members of the CAB could get together with the Mayor’s Office to focus on this. Ms. Roslund said that there are many RFPs coming up and the Board has spoken out being involved in the process. The community felt that they were being left out. Two years ago they demanded to be involved in the process, and should be jumping up and down now on this. Chairman Olechowski related that Mr. Antonio Reynoso, Chief of Staff for Council Member Reyna’s Office, was present and wanted to speak. He said that they two were appalled at the decision that HPD made and they are going to fight along with the community to make sure that the decision that was made is the right one. Council Member Reyna has been preaching for a while now that “community first”. It seems that the plans that HPD received were identical from both St. Nicholas and the other group. This organization (St. Nicholas) has a great history and to choose another organization just completely turns its back on the community. They are not going to accept that. Also, to clarify, the Points of Agreement do not ask for it to be permanent affordability. St. Nicholas put it in their RFP but it was not in the agreement. There is a constant neglect by HPD and the City of NY. They are talking about support from the Community Board, support from the Council Member, local organization with a proven track record --- none of this seems to matter. It seems that it is all politics and they should not stand for that. On a positive note, he introduced the new Williamsburg representative, Ms. Maria Bautista. He said of course, HPR shows up after the fact. He asked for continued support for GREC, the local organizations, and the Community Board’s decisions. Mr. Abate said that he was shocked about what HPD did on this wonderful plan that St. Nicholas has. HPD threw it out to complete strangers…people who never knew this neighborhood. He said he has been here for practically 92 years and lived in the shadows of Greenpoint Hospital. He was chairman of the Advisory Board of the hospital. He played ball next to the lots. Whenever they got hurt, they went to the hospital, got fixed up and went back to play. He said that the work he did there was for the community. When the time came to move the hospital to a much more larger place. He was asked what should they do? He said that the community was lacking a number of things. He just wanted some community group to come up with a plan for the people in the neighborhood. It would be for “our neighborhood” so that people would not have to travel to go see their friends. He said that he went back with GREC and meeting with the various leaders from the community. Now complete strangers are taking over the project…what did happen? He resents the fact that complete strangers are coming in and pre-empted one of the best organizations in our community, St. Nicholas. He said he was amazed with their work. HPD’s action is a slap in the face to the community. He said that they will take over the building. It will be in GREC’s hands. Chairman Olechowski noted that time on the item was almost up. He asked to move on and have the last questions raised now. Perhaps the Commissioner can speak with persons later on in the hall. Ms. Jan Peterson said that she believes that what Mr. Abate spoke about captured the heart of what they are trying to talk about. If they are at a place where they are talking about money, all these things add up to money. Thousands of hours of community people working on the redevelopment of this building for free as volunteers for 28 years…when Ms. Cianciotta spoke about all of the marching that is absolutely worth something. Going to institutions when you know someone there is worth something. She said that when they come down to it --- it is all about the money. They couldn’t even prove that St. Nicholas could not get the money. She said that they are down to governance and if the Community Board cannot be heard. She spoke about the democratic process, the community, and making things work. The community actually means a lot. How do you give public land to a private developer? What does this mean? She spoke about breaking up a complex that already has St. Nicholas and other groups working there on that complex for the last 20 years. To bring in somebody else to care, care for seniors. Swinging 60’s has been doing this in the community for years. They may be able to build the building but they can’t operate without the community involvement. They cannot do it. She asked about sitting down and have a thoughtful conversation on this. Or will HPD just listen tonight and relate concerns and not do anything based upon what is being said? She said that they want to dialogue now. HPD is our public agency. They need to set up a process. Deputy Commissioner Leicht said that she was willing to continue the conversation well before ULURP. Chairman Olechowski thanked the Commissioner for coming. He said that the community would seriously like HPD to reconsider the proposal and its decision. He asked that this be taken back and to begin the dialogue sooner than later. Chairman Olechowski said that Mr. Bill Carbine, Assistant Commissioner from HPD (Neighborhood Preservation) was to speak about the 27 Hooper Street office relocating. Assistant Commissioner Carbine related that his division operates the field office at Hooper Street. The office was assigned to work with residents of CB #1 with housing issues and displacement. At this time they have to find a new home. They are in the process of selling the building that they are in. They have only had a few staff there and it costs about $100,000 for them to operate. In the budget environment it was a good place to save some money. He said that 27 Hooper Street was a difficult place for most people to get to. He said that they would be moving to 210 Joralemon Street. This is downtown Brooklyn on the 13th floor. This should happen by the end of the month. Although the location is within CB #2, it should be more convenient for most people to get to. It is near Borough Hall and near public transportation. They will not have to pay any extra money for it. It is co-located with other services that they use (HPD, DOB and some other City services). Although not in CB #1, they are looking to go around places in CB #1 so that they could be available to people in the neighborhood. They have been doing it mostly in libraries because they are more accommodating and have been working with community groups. They are willing to expand that. He said that he spoke with District Manager Mr. Esposito about some spaces in CB #1 that are free. They will be in these spaces on a regular basis and will get the word out. This way, they will be close to people as much as possible. Chairman Olechowski said that there are some spaces on Graham Avenue that are under NYCHA, why can’t these be used? Assistant Commissioner Carbine said that they are looking into to this and also keeping the main services at 210 Joralemon Street. If they can work this out with NYCHA, they could be in both locations. Mr. Dennis said that last month the Board passed a resolution in support of the Housing Collaborative, which is a group of nonprofits in the neighborhood that have been providing anti-harassment & anti-displacement tenant services since 2005, with funding that came out of the 2005 rezoning. What the Board specifically endorsed was using funds from the sale of 27 Hooper Street in support of continuing those anti-displacement activities. The group has been very successful in helping people directly without having to go downtown Brooklyn. Commissioner Carbine said that HPD would not have complete control over the money from the sale. HPD funded the collaborative because the money that would come from the rezoning (sale of air rights) never materialized so HPD self-funded it. He said that the budget is a very vague and complex process. Mr. Dennis asked how can the community and the collaborative work with HPD to continue this funding because it is an important project that helps the community? Assistant Commissioner Carbine said that they will bring it up at the budget consultations. They obviously do not have the money right now. Ms. Naplatarski asked about the office, was it part of the agreement? Assistant Commissioner Carbine said that it was not part of the Points of the Agreement. They had established the office to try and get the service in the community immediately because the funds (from the air rights) were slow. There was never any agreement or statement that it would be in CB #1. He noted what he said about the office at 210 Joralemon Street was more centrally located. Mr. Solano asked about the location, would it be a separate space at Joralemon Street. The Assistant Commissioner related that it would be a separate space, a separate room at the location with people there. Mr. Montelbano would continue as the director. Chairman Olechowski thanked him and then moved onto the next item. Department of Consumer Affairs – application for unenclosed sidewalk cafe: Poy Laung Thai Restaurant Inc., 206 Bedford Avenue (License # 1349191) – new application for an unenclosed sidewalk café with 4 tables and 8 seats. Presentation - NYC Department of City Planning: – Citywide text amendment: Car-Sharing Vehicles – by Mr. Steven Lenard, City Planning, Brooklyn Office, NYC DCP. Mr. Lenard provided a briefing on this zoning text amendment. He wanted to first relate that they are still working on updating their comprehensive waterfront plan. They had a really successful meeting with about 200 people from all over the City on April 8. Testimony was received. They are moving on with workshops in each borough. The next one for Brooklyn is Monday, May 17th, at Brooklyn Tech HS. He urged all to attend. Additional information is on the website (NYC.gov/waterfront). Mr. Lenard spoke about the Citywide text amendment. He said that it would allow car sharing vehicles to park in off street parking lots and public parking garages. This would apply Citywide to both new and existing buildings. Car sharing is a new concept. It was not anticipated in the zoning in 1961 when the resolution was writing. This proposal would eliminate any ambiguity and incorporate car sharing into the zoning. He spoke about what car sharing was:
Mr. Lenard said that the car sharing company takes care of insurance and all of the aspects of owning a car. You pay for the amount that is used. He showed a slide presentation to display the graphic details on how this works. He discussed the points in the overview: first you sign up as a member of the sharing organization and you get a key card. This allows you to access the cars throughout the neighborhood. You would reserve a car on line. You would then pick out a car in the designated parking place. When you are done, you bring it back to the same location. This is a private service. The city will not be doing this. There are three main operators in the city now (i.e. Zip Car; Mint, etc). Nationally there are about 300,000 members as of 2008. There may be more now. In NYC there 100,000. One third of the national membership is in NYC. It has been pretty established and around 15 years. It is something that the zoning needs to be taking notice of. It is an affordable alternative to having a car. It would cost less over the year than paying for the maintenance, insurance, car payments, etc., the city is interested because it tends to reduce parking demands. When you are paying by the hour, you tend to be more efficient as to where you drive and how you get there. He continued with the slide presentation. He noted that you could have up to 40 persons for one car. He noted that overall the number of cars in a neighborhood go down because of the sharing. He spoke about the costs of an owned vehicle and the shared one. The shared one would be less because you would spend less time. He said that right now the vehicles are in medium to high areas in Manhattan and Brooklyn. If you do not use the vehicle, it doesn’t cost anything. Right now this is about $10-$15 an hour. It seems like a lot, but if you add in the car payments and insurance, etc. --- it actually ends up saving you money, depending on how much you drive. This proposal will set limits on where these cars can be stored. There will be language on the location. Mr. Lenard noted that in the more dense neighborhoods, this is where the car sharing works better. In a lower density area it doesn’t work as well so they are making it less flexible with restrictions. For CB #1, car sharing would be permitted in garage parking areas. Typically, a couple of spots may be set aside for car sharing vehicles. There will be a cap -- mostly 1-5 cars. In a public parking garage, they are looking at up to 40%. You don’t have to. This is something the owner would look at. There will be limitations. Mr. Lenard recapped his points on the item. Ms. Roslund said that she thought that they would be promoting car sharing and not limiting it and that there would be requirements. She expected to see more on the requirements. Mr. Lenard said that the distribution of the vehicles will be driven by the market. The limit, in terms of how many vehicles are in a particular parking lot, would be to ensure that people who want to continue to own their cars would have parking. The limits are consistent with how they see these operators work. Ms. Roslund asked about an incentive for developers to have this in their buildings? Mr. Lenard said that it could be viewed as an amenity. The number of cars in a facility could change seasonally. The operators know where their membership members are. NOMINATIONS Chairman Olechowski noted that it was 8PM and according to the By Laws of Community Board No. 1 nominations would take place at this time for the Executive Committee and the Attendance Committee for the following year. Nominations do not need to be seconded. He opened nominations: EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE Chair – Mr. Turner nominated Mr. Olechowski, who accepted. Rabbi Weber motioned to close the nominations. First Vice Chair – Mr. Weiser nominated Rabbi Weber, who accepted. Mr. Dennis motioned to close the nominations. Second Vice Chair – Mr. Dennis nominated Ms. Roslund, who accepted. Mr. Rosario nominated Mr. Dennis, who declined. Mr. Chirichella nominated Mr. Gangone, who accepted. Rabbi Weber motioned to close the nominations. Third Vice Chair – Mr. Rosario nominated Ms. Teague, who accepted. Mr. Gangone made a motion to close nominations. Financial Secretary – Mr. Caponegro nominated Ms. Leader, who accepted. Mr. Rosario made a motion to close nominations. Recording Secretary – Ms. Teague nominated Mr. Rosario, who accepted. Rabbi Weber made a motion to close nominations. Member at Large – Ms. Cianciotta nominated Mr. Caponegro, who accepted. Rabbi Weber made a motion to close nominations. ATTENDANCE COMMITTEE Mr. Turner nominated Rabbi Niederman, who accepted. District Manager Mr. Esposito read the nominations that were made. Chairman Olechowski thanked the members for their support of the Executive Committee. Elections will take place at the June meeting of the Board. Descriptions of the titles for the positions are noted in the By-Laws. District Manager Mr. Esposito asked all to stand and join him in a moment of silence in memoriam to Joseph Leanza, beloved husband of board member Marie Leanza and a good friend of our Greenpoint-Williamsburg community. Presentation – Study to examine the feasibility of decking over the below grade portion of BQE between Broadway and Grand Street to create additional park space – by Mr. Michael Rochford, Executive Director, St. Nicks Alliance. Mr. Frank Lang, director of Housing at St. Nicks Alliance, spoke on behalf of the project. He related that Mr. Rochford would speak later on at the Public Session. He related that there was a great opportunity and a public meeting coming up. St. Nicks Alliance is working with El Puente who has a initiative on the Southside of Williamsburg called the Green Light District. They will be having a larger public unveiling of that in the Fall. But one of the purposes is to look at the health of the community and the green, access to the green space. Council Member Reyna has provided some funds to look at a study. Different parts have been done in the past and in other communities to look at the section of the BQE, from Broadway north to South 3rd Street/Borinquen Plaza. This will be a preliminary look at it. There is a community meeting on May 20th and on May 26th, in the evening to get additional input. The purpose is to look at transportation issues, how can the parks on either side be improved or expanded, what kind of uses could be done there that would benefit the community in a different way. They are also going to look at a pilot, looking at the section from South 3rd Street to South 4th Street. This section of the BQE is a lot easier than the southern part of the section in Williamsburg which has two rows on either side. He had a handout to explain what was going on (Attached). He said that they would be looking at input on it. He urged that the Transportation Committee and Parks Committee look at it. Mr. Solano thanked him for coming early with this project. He asked about plans for the location? Mr. Lang said they would be speculating and taking some studies so that there are a few alternatives. In Park Slope they have been doing a massive study. He said that they do not want to wait 15 years. They want to look at something now and possibly present it at the September session. Mr. Weiser asked about the study and costs? Mr. Lang said it was a preliminary study (about $100,000). It will look at feasibility. The purpose is to listen at what people see there. They want to build something to benefit the community. There are health issues to explore as well (better air quality, etc.). Chairman Olechowski noted the list of new, alterations and renewal license applications. These would be referred to the Public Safety Committee for review. The Committee will provide a report, ADJOURNMENT Mr. Dennis made a motion to adjourn the Public Hearing. The motion was seconded by Ms. Teague and unanimously carried. The Public Hearing was adjourned. BOARD MEETING
ROLL CALL Chairman Olechowski requested District Manager Mr. Esposito to call the roll. He informed the Chairman that there were 30 members present, a sufficient number to call the Board Meeting to order. Chairman Olechowski recognized Council Member Stephen Levin. He briefly spoke to the members and related a few points to all. He said that last month was a busy one. He thanked all for coming out to testify at the Domino hearing at City Planning. There was a wide array of viewpoints on the item. The City Planning Commission will be issuing their recommendation in a few weeks. It will then go to the City Council. He will advise about the meeting and encourages all to come out. He also noted that he would be having a few meetings: McGuinness Blvd. and safety issues; The Arts Community in North Brooklyn (in the middle of summer). He did not have a date for this meeting yet. He related that there was tragic news where a construction worker was killed on Meserole Avenue. They will be looking into it with the Department of Buildings. Tomorrow at City Hall, 3:30Pm, a rally about priority 7 vouchers (ACS) that many people in the community use. They are due to be cut entirely from the budget (2200 vouchers, $16 million). This would hurt families, they are mobilizing on this at City hall because this is a lifeline for the community. He said that there would be budget hearings coming up in the City. They are facing a lot of cuts throughout the City in various departments. He urged all to come out. Mr. Dennis made a motion to approve the agenda as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caponegro and carried. Mr. Turner made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 13, 2010 Combined Public Hearing and Board Meeting. The motion was seconded by Ms. Nieves and carried. Chairman Olechowski provided a brief report. He said that restoration of the Community Board’s budget is pending. There is movement in the area. He said that the Board has to be vigilant in regards to the patterns being developed in regards to the community from the Administration. He spoke about situations over the last couple of months that have been worrisome. He said that there is a lot more talk and debate about Charter Revision. Two major issues are term limits and land use. How will these be restructured in the future? He said that there is a shift to centralization. He spoke about the importance of the community board and the process. He also noted that he is seeking a volunteer to chair the Environmental Committee. LANDMARKS SUB COMMITTEE Ms. Sophie Chabrowski presented a written report regarding an item that was reviewed by the committee on May 6th at the Board’s Office. She discussed the report which was an application for proposed work at 108 Noble Street.
She noted that all proposed work would be based on approved methods and materials deemed appropriate by the Landmarks Preservation Commission. The building would remain in the congregation’s use with plans for development in the future (under the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s guidelines) as additional meeting space for the congregation as well as dwelling/living space for its Rabbi. The committee recommends approval of the application to the Landmarks Preservation Commission. Ms. Chabrowski made a motion to support the recommendation. Mr. Dennis noted that he knew the building well. It was from the 1860’s and is an important building. It is a pretty drastic proposal but it is in dire condition. He seconded the motion to support the recommendation. The members discussed the proposal further. The vote was called. The motion was carried. Chairman Olechowski noted that this was Ms. Chabrowski’s first report and she did very well. TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE Ms. Nieves submitted a written report that detailed the presentation and the discussions. She said that she would give a brief overview of the meeting that was held on April 15, 2010. There were only two items on the agenda for the meeting. A request was also received for a car service renewal:
Nieves discussed the next meeting of the Transportation Committee scheduled for May 13, 2010 at the CB #1’s office. On the agenda will be the Kosciuszko Bridge Reconstruction, also representation from OUTRAGE and they would be going over their truck survey. They will also discuss enforcement issues. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE Mr. Kalita submitted a written report on behalf of the Public Safety Committee. He read the report and the recommendations contained in it: Regarding the unenclosed sidewalk cafes:
The Committee recommends approval.
The Committee recommends approval with the condition that the fire escape’s drop down ladder is not blocked by the sidewalk café.
The Committee recommends approval. It has also advised the applicant’s representative that the sidewalk café should be set up for use when the permit is received (doing so before time would make the location subject to steep DCA violations). Mr. Kalita made a motion to support the recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Gangone and carried. New Licenses – Mr. Kalita read the recommendations in the report for approvals and discussed each establishment and location. Mr. Kalita made a motion to approve the committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Caponegro. The motion was carried. License Renewals- – Mr. Kalita read the recommendations in the report for renewals (with no action) and discussed the items. Mr. Kalita made a motion to approve the committee’s recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Chirichella. The motion was carried. Ms. Karen Nieves abstained. Mr. Kalita continued the report and related the applications that were postponed. He discussed a problem where there were two applications for the same space (213 North 8th Street). Mr. Joseph Garber – Resident, spoke about procedures for the public session and requested that the sessions be longer than two minutes. He complained about the attendance committee, the housing committee’s report and related various community new items. He related that there was a new Deputy Mayor and there were changes in the Police Department personnel. There were also changes in NYCHA. Mr. Guido Cianciotta- Concerned Citizens of Withers Street, spoke about GREC losing the RFP for the Greenpoint Hospital Site to an outside developer. GREC has been working for 28 years at the former hospital site for housing, health care and a nursing home. He said that HPD didn’t pay any attention (to the community). He said that they will wait and see. He said that the developer should not get the property. The property should go to GREC. Ms. Nicole Stanczyk, Ridgewood Bushwick SCC, announced their foreclose prevention program. They are offering free help to anyone facing foreclosure. Ms. Stephanie Thayer, Parks Department and OSA, spoke to relate updates on various parks in the district and programming over the summer for children. Mr. Felici, from Senator Squadron’s Office, spoke to provide an update on the budget negotiations. He related that they are still going on and the senator is in Albany; a budget still has not come to pass. He related that Senator Squadron is fighting for various funding, especially in social services. No old business was raised. No new business was raised. ADJOURNMENT Mr. Chirichella made a motion to adjourn the Board Meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rosario and unanimously carried. The Board Meeting was adjourned. Respectfully Submitted, Reviewed by:
Copyright © 2004, Community Board #1 |
