Aaron Short just pointed out this RealDeal post to me – Rector Hylan, the owner of the former Kedem Winery site (south of Giando, north of Schaefer) has filed for an extension on the special permits it was awarded in 2006. The Kedem site was approved for a rezoning in 2006, and as part of that rezoning, the owner received special permits to reallocate height and density within the site (similar to the special permits that went along with the Domino and Rose Plaza rezonings). The zoning (when it is enacted) is forever, but special permits expire – in Kedem’s case, in about two weeks. The extension would run for three years.

The real story here is the work that has been going on at the site over the past six months. According to DOB, the recent work at 420 Kent Avenue involves “interior renovation of storage garage” with no change of use. The work is somewhat more substantial than that – involving the refacing of the building, the paving of the adjacent parking lot and a ton of interior work. From what I have heard, the building is being rehabbed as some sort of soundstage. Up the block, the blocked up windows of 420 Kent Avenue have been opened up and new aluminum windows installed. None of this is the kind of work that one does to prep buildings for demolition, so I’m going long and betting that this site will be looking for another special permit extension in three years.

In the meantime, a site that was to be rezoned for residential use (with 20% affordable housing and publicly-accessible open space) remains anything but.

Previously:
Kedem: Spring Cleaning
Kedem – Spring Cleaning or Signs of Life?

Two Council committees (Zoning and Land Use) approved the compromise Domino plan yesterday. Because of the modifications, the plan now goes back to the City Planning for a re-review to make sure the changes are in scope with the EIS. After that, it returns to the full Council sometime in July for a final vote. Here is a selection of reporting on the City Council’s approval of the Domino rezoning:

City Council Passes the Sugar [Chaban in A|N – best summary of the nitty gritty]

$1.4 Billion Development at Sugar Refinery in Brooklyn Wins Key Council Support [Bagli in the Times – some of the details here are incorrect]

Council, Mayor Cut Deal to Salvage $1.5 B ‘New Domino’ Project for Willliamsburg [Calder in the Post]

Embattled “New Domino” Project Scores Big City Council Win [Gothamist]

A Big Domi-YES from the Council [Short in BP]

Another “Domino” Falls for Landmark Development Deal [NBC]

Council Committees Approve Domino Redevelopment Project [NY1]

No link, so I’ll post in its entirety:

June 30, 2010

BP MARKOWITZ APPLAUDS DOMINO DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL, ADVOCATES FOR MORE AFFORDABLE AND ELDERLY HOUSING, SUPERMARKET AND ARTISAN SPACE

“I commend Speaker Christine Quinn for leading the Council on this issue, Council Member Steve Levin, the community for its input and Refinery LLC for its ambitious plan to transform Brooklyn’s gorgeous yet under-utilized waterfront into a vibrant mix of contemporary uses—including recreational, commercial and residential.

In my land use role, I always seek significant community benefits from developers asking permission to begin lucrative projects—such as more affordable housing, access to public space, the inclusion of amenities like supermarkets, the creation of jobs, use of local labor and construction supply companies and the improvement of residents’ quality of life—and this project was no different.

In keeping with my recommendations, I am pleased that a request for additional parking has been removed, the ‘shadowing’ impact on Grand Ferry Park has been reduced, there were efforts made to locate a school at the site and affordable housing has been included as part of the final plan. However, it is disappointing that not all of the affordable housing is guaranteed to be permanent, and there is no legally binding commitment to build elderly housing or a supermarket.

Additionally, my recommendation for possible artisan and creative economy spaces was not included, and rather than cutting towers as was done by City Council, I had requested cuts on the upland block which were not adopted, including height reductions and more rear yard open space to provide better quality of living for what would likely be affordable apartments.

Because there is no legal obligation to create a supermarket, elderly housing and artisan spaces, nor any guarantees that all of the affordable housing will be ‘affordable forever,’ it is my hope that the developer will act in good faith—per a letter dated April 8, 2010, provided to me—to make every possible effort to make these a reality. I will seriously consider directing my housing development funds to the project if that can help make these community benefits a part of the New Domino.”

In yesterdays papers there were a host of good articles out on the Domino rezoning, the City Council hearing and the politics at play. In no particular order, here are the must-reads.

In the Observer, Eliot Brown’s Domino Theory: Brooklyn Dems Face Off Over Mammoth Williamsburg Project:

The New Domino development was destined for a fight the minute CPC bought the 11-acre refinery in 2004 for $55 million. Shortly thereafter, the city rezoned much of the rest of the Williamsburg/Greenpoint waterfront, the refinery excluded, to install residential towers in the place of the industrial shoreline-the rezoning itself a battle with critics who decried the influx of luxury condos.

Actually, if the developers had stuck to the density levels of the 2005 zoning, they might well have had the support of the community board and might not be having this fight now. The community openly voiced its concern over density and equity with the 2005 zoning from day one. When Domino says that they listened to the community, what they mean is that they listened to the people in the community they wanted to hear.

However the negotiations go between Mr. Levin and CPC, the firm has clearly played the political game well up until this point.

CPC executives … won over numerous religious and nonprofit groups, which lauded the affordability levels. CPC has hired at least four consultants to handle relations with the city, politicians and the neighborhood… All told, the developer has paid at least $1 million in lobbying expenses since 2006, according to filings.

That’s more than they have set aside for their local job training programs.

In the Times, Charles Bagli has a lengthy piece entitled 2 Sides Clash at City Hall Over Domino Housing Plan:

[As] the $1.4 billion project nears the end of the city’s often unpredictable approval process, its fate is subject to Brooklyn’s fractious politics, a weak economy and a once working-class community exhausted by the pace of luxury development during the real estate boom. Critics say the benefit of moderate-income housing would be outweighed by the project’s tall buildings, densely packed on 11 acres, and its impact on a crowded subway station nearby.

Although the City Planning Commission has approved the project, known as New Domino, it is unclear how much political muscle the Bloomberg administration is exerting on its behalf as the City Council debates the merits of developing the site. The Council and the mayor have the final say on the plan.

And

“We are here today to support the Domino project because we need affordable housing,” said Yolanda Coco, a tenant advocate for the group East Brooklyn Churches…

Christopher H. Olechowski, chairman of Community Board 1, which includes the site, disagrees. “People are pretty much fed up,” he said. “Our neighborhood is inundated.”

Interesting that none of the supporters Bagli quotes are actually from Williamsburg or Greenpoint.

And Bloomberg’s (the news, not the Mayor) architecture critic James Russell weighs in with his thoughts on the architectural merits of the project in Domino’s $1.3 Billion Makeover Hits Trouble:

The New Domino tries to do right by the community, yet it comes at some compromise to the design. Taking away all the pipes, chutes and tanks that now envelope the refinery building will leave a prettified oversized lump, depriving it of the raw power of brute utility. The park, designed by landscape architect Quennell Rothschild & Partners LLP, has been painstakingly negotiated into blandness. The setting deserves better.

It’d be great if the Vinoly towers didn’t get dumbed down and the factory and park designs were refined, but I don’t hold out much hope. New Yorkers — and most Americans — haven’t chosen a more reliable way to pay for parks and low-income housing, so these high-risk yet compromised Faustian real-estate bargains get made.

[Updated with quotes from Bagli article.]