One of the co-founders of CORD, the Carroll Gardens Group that was born around the controversy surrounding the 360 Smith Street Building, has penned a scathing letter about the powerful board to which zoning, DOB and other decisions can be appealed. Among other things, she accused the board of making a recent zoning decision look like “a sham.” Many community activists, who believed it is unashamedly pro-developer, believe it should be abolished. Here’s the letter from Lucy DeCarlo:

Where is the “fairness” and the “equity” or even the common sense at the BSA?
The Board of Standards and Appeals- The BSA was established to promote equity and fairness to developers in NYC. Its history has shown that the higher percentage of decisions favor developers, many who have commenced building and are suddenly presented with a zoning change.

The case of 131 Second Place [360 Smith Street] is unusual in that instead of a zoning change, a text amendment was passed to lift an erroneously labeled designation on 15 blocks in Carroll Gardens. These blocks were designated “wide streets” in 1976 simply because they have long front gardens. At that time it was done without the procedures required presently, which the community had to undergo in order to remove that label and return to the true designation of “narrow streets”, as all other streets in CG.

The Boro President, City Planning and City Council voted unanimously to quickly correct the misnomer. Our leaders saw the urgent need to regulate overdevelopment in our small, low rise, historic community. This support was evident in Amanda Burden’s statement that “the DNA of a neighborhood should not be destroyed.”

Yet, the BSA feels that developers have “the right of way “in our neighborhood. The developer of 131 Second Place, does not have to abide by the new amendment. But every home owner will have to do so. The developer has a small percentage of foundation, yet it is a serious consideration taken by the BSA, even though that very same foundation is needed no matter what is built . The BSA has judged that the developer will have considerable loss if he complies with the new ruling. His loss is really less profit which may not be true if he built something like the more desirable and highly demanded town houses.

We have an amendment to control building height, but this developer can ignore it,on the grounds that he started his foundation, thanks to the BSA.

This developer is allowed to build higher than any home or apt. house in our neighborhood, thanks to the BSA.

This developer, along with the BSA, make the legal amendment to restrict height , and the leaders who promoted and passed it, look like a sham, a trick, a deception.

Where is the fairness and equity to the community and the city leaders who have fought so long and hard to save CG? Where is the “common sense” upon which all laws are based?

Lucy DeCarlo

CORD Co-Founder
Carroll Gardens, Brooklyn