No one really cares about 475 Kent anymore, but I just wanted to sign off:
The residences are all still completely illegal. That means that pretty much everything I've ever written about this subject is spot on. It's never been proven that they layouts comply code; no Alt 1 filing, no temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO). I think the DOB has just thrown in the towel. The FD could care less if the building is occupied so long as the sprinklers are working, there's no place of assembly in the building so there's nothing for them to enforce, occupancy-wise. They want to make sure the structure's protected, but unless you're an assembly space, you're off their radar. If you don't agree with that, I'm offering a $500 reward (seriously) to any person that can deliver a document from either the DOB or FD stating the residential occupants are there legally; please note that legal occupancy, per code, would require either a TCO or a Letter of No Objection from the DOB.
I think there's a bit of irony in the fact that all the tenant's that went above and beyond to get the FD to lift the vacate are now having to negotiate new leases; word on the street is that the proposed rents are quite as favorable as they were before he had to pay for some minor upgrades to his warehouse's life-safety systems.
I'm a little upset that the slum lord owner has been paying a lower tax rate for many years as the building, as you can see from this DOB property profile, the Department of Finance Building Classification is still that of a warehouse. I want that tax revenue for improvements to my children's playground. Booooooo.
That's it. Let us never speak of 475 Kent ever again.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
So, it seems that some of the evictees of 475 Kent are still harboring hope they will be returning to the building. This blog was created for the sole purpose of explaining why residential tenants are not moving back into 475 Kent Avenue any time soon. I am not doing this to be a jerk; I actually have a friend who lived there. This is my attempt to clarify why they are not getting back in quickly, why it's not the residential tenants' fault, and I'll do a little finger-pointing at the city government and the owner of the building; shame on both of them. I would like to point out that at least on the city side of things, there is no one person responsible for the debacle. I work closely with DOB and FD employees day in and day out and they're mostly good people trying to do the right thing. They inherited a broken system and are not directly responsible for missed opportunities, poor enforcement, excruciatingly slow filing/permitted processes. It is the essential nature of these beasts we call the FD and DOB. With that said, this is a train wreck and the DOB shares a good deal of the responsibility, but the owner takes the cake--by far.
When I first discovered this, it was a bit shocking. There are violations, written by DOB inspectors dating back to 2005. The violations were written for occupancy contrary to the certificate of occupancy (CO)/illegal conversion. These are high hazard violations. Why? In a nutshell when converting they would have had to meet new code residential standards. The building is old code manufacturing, per it's last final CO. People inhabiting a manufacturing building without ever having demonstrated compliance with code or conformance with zoning constitutes a high hazard situation. The DOB didn't even issue the vacate order last month; it was the FD. Did they just forget they had issued these violations? No follow up? Wouldn't have had to do much, they keep great records on the intertubes.
These hearings were attended, the owner was found in violation in one case and paid a paltry $800 fine. The other one is still pending and there is no penalty. Both vioaltions are still active, see below. In addition to those two, there are 95--let me repeat that--95 other violations. I work in huge (1 million s.f. + properties) and I've never seen that many violations on one building--ever. They're not minor infractions either. Local Law 11/98 (facade maintenance), Local Law 62/91 (boiler inspections), work without a permit (a dozen times over). And that's not counting any of the active FD violations which, I'm betting, will be of about the same magnitude.
That's definitely a "shame on the city." How did these high hazard violations lay dormant for years and years? I know how, that was a rhetorical device. That's how the game is played. That's how you end up with illegal signage all over scaffolding. The revenue created from the ads (or illegal apts in this case) dwarf the civil penalties. Everyone's getting paid and everyone's happy. Except in this case 200 unwitting tenants were displaced overnight. Ooops.
Proving compliance with zoning is time consuming and arduous. Funny thing is, in the beginning, all the tenants were screaming "it's zoned residential." That's true, it's in an R6 district. That means commercial occupancies (I know that about half of the bldg is small business--not home occupations--we're talking printing presses, etc...) are not allowed in the district. Even if it were allowed, square this circle for me:
Zoning Resolution Section 32-42 states that "no non residential occupancy ...may be located below the lowest story occupied in whole or in part by such residential uses." It's a moot point as commercial uses are not allowed in the building's zoning district, but I can guarantee you there are more issues that must be addressed prior to convincing the DOB the conversion will conform with zoning.
Code I won't even touch cause I've not seen drawings. I can say that manufacturing buildings were not built with residential conversions in mind. Additionally, I'm sure the owner's build-outs, do not meet the required fire ratings for corridors, ceilings, etc... When I was helping my buddy move, without even looking I saw tons of firestopping that needs to be performed, and that's the easy part. Could it be made to meet code? Yes. Does it now? I doubt it but the onus of proving it is squarely on the owner who, to this day, has not filed the required application with the DOB to amend the CO. That's where code compliance will be on full display. Nobody--not Bloomberg, not Spitzer, not David Yassky, not Patricia Lancaster--is going to waive these minimum requirements.
Speaking of minimum requirments, how about a fire alarm system. Residential buildings of this size require them. I know they are doing the sprinkler/standpipe work (which is essentially a new sytem), but there's been no filing for a FA system; no talk of it either. That's big money and a long lead time. It's also a requirement for converting to residential.
It should be noted that literally a day after the vacate order was issued, the owner DID file an application to legalize a 4-story structure on the same zoning lot for a girls school or something he runs out of there. As of today, it's still disapproved. So after a month their architect still can't even get the plans approved for a little four story school; I'm sure he'll be much faster get the approval of a residential conversion of an old code manufacturing, 12-story building! His priority is the school right now; he's thinking about the children. Here's the application:
I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm saying by the time it is done several years are going to have passed and millions of dollars spent. My buddy doesn't have that much time. I'm taking him in for a for 1 week; then he's a refugee again probably living in a van down by the river in front of 475. It's going to be the 3rd place he's stayed since being evicted and I hate seeing him keep thinking he's moving back quickly. I keep saying "get on the Craigslist," but he does not hear me because a bunch of well intending people are perpetuating false hope that any day now he's moving back in. Stop it, please.
I am not litigious, but I keep urging him to seek counsel. Beyond any financial compensation, in my professional opinion, I believe there may be merit to pressing criminal charges. I'll leave that for the courts to decide though.
Yesterday I saw a post on The Gowanus Lounge about the petition that has collected 3 thousand plus signatures.
It inspired me to write this. There is no magic bullet. Bloomberg is not going to step in and move anyone back until the FD and DOB recommend that to him. The owner is so far from being able to demonstrate the most basic life safety requirements, he's years away.
That leads me to my last comments. The owners, Morris Hartman and one Mr. Nachman, have really dug a deep hole. They've known, for at least 3 years--I'm certain longer because people have lived there for 10 years--that the building was illegal. They made no attempt, no filing, no drawings (the tenants produced as-builts), no maintenance to the facade, boilers, no nothing. That truly makes me angry. The city should have enforced the high hazard violations too, but the owners should have made the effort to legally convert and ensure the safety of 200 people living in that run down shell of a building. They were operating in an hermetic environment where they felt they were above the law; thumbing their nose, as it were, for about a decade.
If anyone in a position to do so steps in and waives all of the aforementioned requirements for an ownership that has so brazenly broken the law, I'm going to be a very sad panda. This type of work is all I do and I know how much time, effort and money are going to be spent. If the city bends over backwards to help these deadbeats--after the DOB identified the problem 3 years ago[!]--I will quit my job and move to North Korea.
