From the July issue:

Click here for more

Compiled by Russell Steinberg [more]

The redevelopment of the Domino Sugar factory on the Williamsburg waterfront cleared its last major hurdle yesterday when a New York State Supreme Court judge dismissed a lawsuit that had challenged the 11-acre site’s rezoning. According to Crain’s, the lawsuit, filed by the Williamsburg Community Preservation Coalition against the city and the developer of the project, Community Preservation Resources Corp., had charged that environmental reviews had been unsatisfactory prior to the City Council’s approval of the $2 billion plan last July. Comments

Jeffrey Baker, Susan Pollock and a rendering of the Domino Sugar site

Opponents of the $1.5 billion mixed-use redevelopment of the crumbling Domino Sugar site in Williamsburg sued last week to overturn the waterfront plan that won approval over the summer from the City Council. A group calling itself Williamsburg Community Preservation Coalition, which includes a handful of long-time critics of the project, claims several entities including the City Council, the Department of City Planning and the developer CPC Resources, violated a state law governing environmental review of such projects. The suit was filed in New York State Supreme Court last Wednesday. “The community thinks it is oversized and inappropriate for the area,” the organization’s attorney Jeffrey Baker, a partner at Young, Sommer, Ward, Ritzenberg, Baker & Moore, told The Real Deal. [more]

The Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank and Christine Quinn

The homeless New York City Council, forced out of its chambers at City Hall while the building undergoes a much-needed $106 million renovation, will meet instead at the historic Emigrant Industrial Savings Bank building, a Beaux-Arts property with a limestone façade, marble walls and stained-glass skylights at nearby 51 Chambers Street. The New York Times checked in with City Council members about their feelings on the new digs during their votes to approve two major development projects yesterday: Flushing Commons in Queens and the Domino Sugar Factory in Williamsburg. “It’s a little loud,” noted speaker Christine Quinn. “I’m going back and putting a folding chair next to [Mayor] Mike Bloomberg,” she said, “whether it’s done or not in 12 months.” Meanwhile, the Times noted with a hint of jealousy, the City Hall press corps has been relocated to a trailer. [NYT]

[more]

The City Council today approved the much-debated
$1.5 billion plan to turn the crumbling Domino Sugar refinery into a
residential development on the Williamsburg waterfront, the New York
Times reported. The towers are substantially smaller than originally
proposed, but the developer of the New Domino — CPC Resources, a
for-profit subsidiary of the nonprofit Community Preservation
Corporation –  will still set aside 660 apartments out of 2,200
for low- and moderate-income tenants and retain the historic 40-foot
tall Domino sugar sign atop the central refinery building. The council
voted unanimously to approve changes in the local zoning law that would
allow the project to move forward after nearly six years of planning,
hearings and delays. Designed by architect Rafael Viñoly, the two
tallest towers on the 11-acre site — bound by Kent Avenue and the East
River, and South 3rd Street and South 4th Street — will be 34 stories,
down from 40. The other two towers at New Domino will be 30 stories
tall. The project also includes community space, office space and a
small park. Plans for the defunct refinery had drawn criticism from local politicians because of the proposed height of the towers, and concern over the amount of affordable housing units, but those issues were resolved in the current plan. [NYT]

[more]

From left: City Council member Steve Levin and the Domino Sugar factory site

As expected, City Council member Steve Levin came out swinging at last night’s City Planning Commission hearing on the proposed $1.2 billion redevelopment of the Domino Sugar factory on the Williamsburg waterfront. Levin called for 40 percent of the project’s housing units to be slated for below-market-rate tenants and for the entire complex to be scaled down to 1,600 units from 2,200. [more]

The Department of Transportation’s 700-foot-long parking lot and storage facility in South Williamsburg has some of the best Manhattan skyline views around, and much to Community Board 1’s dismay, the city doesn’t want to give up that valuable waterfront real estate. Last week, Community Board 1 voted to ask the city to turn over the land on — Kent Avenue between South Sixth Street and Broadway — to the parks department. The site actually used to be a park many years ago, and the community wants it back, thanks in part to the proposed 2,200-unit Domino Sugar factory development nearby that would reduce the per capital open space in the neighborhood. “The Department of Transportation has a carpentry shop there. There’s no reason why it has to be on such pristine land,” said Community Board 1 Parks Committee member Dewey Thompson. [Brooklyn Paper]

Down the road from the fledgling Domino Sugar factory development site on the Williamsburg waterfront, another large-scale residential complex is having better luck in getting off the ground. The Department of City Planning has approved a rezoning proposal for the three-building, 801-unit complex that developers Abraham and Isack Rosenberg dubbed Rose Plaza on the River, in a 7-5 vote that allows the plan to proceed. It will now move on to the City Council for final approval, as part of the city’s public review process. A vote from the council is expected by early May. But the success of Rose Plaza could be a good sign for the developers of Domino Sugar, who were dealt an overwhelming rejection from Community Board 1 last night. Rose Plaza, which offers relatively little affordable housing — just 160 units — has been largely unpopular with the community throughout its public review process as well and was vetoed by Community Board 1 in December.

The Community Preservation Corporation’s $1.2 billion Domino Sugar factory redevelopment project got a resounding “no” last night from Community Board 1, because of doubts about whether the group’s planned skyscrapers would benefit the neighborhood. The 23-12 vote backs another “no” vote last week by the board’s land use committee, though neither decision is more than advisory. Borough President Marty Markowitz will hold a public hearing on tomorrow before he makes a decision, which will also act as a suggestion to the City Planning Commission and ultimately, the City Council. Plans call for a 2,200-unit waterfront apartment complex, which would require the Kent Avenue site, just north of the Williamsburg Bridge, to be rezoned from manufacturing to residential. The developers have promised to create an open, public space on the waterfront and to designate 30 percent, or 660, of its units for below market-rate housing, far more than what is required by current zoning. The land-use committee last week had objected that the affordable housing in the complex would not necessarily be permanent, but the developers have since insisted that it would be. [Brooklyn Paper]

From left: Michael Lappin, CPC Resources Senior Vice President Susan Pollock and the Domino sign

The developers of the Domino Sugar Refinery site on the Williamsburg waterfront responded to one of the project’s main criticisms — that its 660 affordable apartments would become market-rate after 15 years — by saying today that housing would permanently stay affordable. Susan Pollock, senior vice president of project developer CPC Resources, said the about-face came after realizing the rezoning for Williamsburg and Greenpoint passed in 2005 required waterfront developers to include permanent, not temporary, affordable housing in their projects in order to receive a density bonus. Although the five-block Domino site, once the world’s largest sugar refinery, was not included in that rezoning, Pollock said they promised to follow those rules for the project’s 660 affordable apartments, out of 2,200 condos and rental units spread throughout six buildings that would be constructed over a 10-year period. [more]