900-Foot Residential Building Proposed at Independence Plaza
City Council member Christopher Marte led a town hall meeting in Tribeca yesterday afternoon (December 7) to discuss a new residential tower planned for a courtyard within the Independence Plaza complex, on Greenwich Street. The structure, as proposed by developers Stellar Management and Vornado Realty, would be taller than 900 feet.
“My office met with the development team several weeks ago,” Mr. Marte recounted. “They were extremely vague. They did not commit to anything. When we asked them about the building’s design, they gave us some minor sketches. When we asked whether there would be affordable units in this development, they said that they hope so, but they wouldn’t give us a number. They really wouldn’t tell us anything.”
He summarized the legal process for obtaining authorization to build such a structure. “A project like this is called a Large Scale Residential Development,” or LSRD, he explained. (This is a legal term that describes the consolidation of multiple, separate zoning lots into a single unit for the purpose of erecting a project that will span the borders several such plots.) “And the most important question is whether the LSRD is classified as a ‘minor modification’ or a ‘major modification’ to the existing neighborhood,” he said. “If the developers can make the case that the new building is a minor modification, then the City Planning Commission has the authority to approve the plan on its own. But if it falls into the category of major modification, then the City Council has the ultimate say.”
“For LSRDs that are a major modification,” Mr. Marte continued, “the City Council has what we call ‘member deference,’ which means if the local Council member supports or rejects a project, the whole Council votes that way.”
“We’ve seen that happen in Harlem recently, where the whole Council sided with Kristin Jordan against a development there,” he noted. (This was a reference to Ms. Jordan’s de facto veto of the One45 development planned for Lenox Avenue and 145th Street. That proposal contained 915 apartments, one half of which would have been market rate, while the other half would have contained varying degrees of affordability.) “So it’s been tried and tested this past term. And right now, I would reject this proposal as it is.”
But Mr. Marte acknowledged that the determination about whether an LSRD is classified as major or minor falls largely to the City Planning Commission, which is controlled by the Mayor. For an administration that wishes to reserve for itself the final say on big development plans, there is every incentive to use this power to categorize even the most gargantuan projects as “minor modifications.” In most cases, the only possible recourse to challenge such a move is in the courts.
This was the path followed by the Two Bridges LSRD, which aims to bring four massive new towers (reaching as high as 1,000 feet, and containing more than 2,700 apartments) to Lower Manhattan’s East River waterfront (between the Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges). The City Planning Commission deemed this a minor modification to the neighborhood’s existing zoning, notwithstanding that it would roughly triple the number of residences in the community. Opponents of the project (including the City Council and the Manhattan Borough President) brought suit, and were initially vindicated when a State Supreme Court judge ruled in February, 2020, that “the irreparable harm here is two-fold. First, a community will be drastically altered without having had its proper say. Second, and arguably more important, allowing this project to proceed without the City Council’s imprimatur would distort the City’s carefully crafted system of checks and balances.”
This victory was short-lived. A year later, the Appellate Division overruled the decision of the trial court. The following May, the State Court of Appeals refused to consider a motion to overturn the Appellate Division’s finding. This effectively ended any possibility of forcing the Two Bridges plan to be reclassified as major modification, and thus extinguished the prospect of the City Council stopping it.
At Thursday’s meeting, which drew more than 100 people (including Stuart Gold, left, who has lived at Independence Plaza since 1986), Mr. Marte raised a second possible approach to opposing the Independence Plaza proposal. “A few years ago, we voted on a new ‘green amendment’ to the State Constitution, which guarantees us access to light and fresh air,” he said. “We used that legal strategy to sue developers.” This was a reference to the 2021 “Environmental Rights” measure, approved overwhelmingly by New York voters, which says, “each person shall have a right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” This amendment was used as the basis for a separate lawsuit against the Two Bridges LSRD plan. In the first-ever legal action brought under the new provision, opponents argued that the development would negatively affect local air quality, the amount of nearby open space, and result in the loss of light. It was ultimately dismissed by the State Supreme Court, which ruled, “the Court hesitates to create a brand-new route to challenge developments on an environmental basis, which is exactly what plaintiffs’ action would entail…. The substantive rights conferred by the Green Amendment surely do not create a right to recast previously rejected efforts to stop a development.”
Mr. Marte closed Thursday’s meeting with a request that concerned Lower Manhattan residents attend a meeting this Monday (December 11) of the Land Use, Zoning & Economic Development Committee of Community Board 1, which will hear a “Pre-Application Statement” by the developers for the Independence Plaza proposal. The committee will discuss a possible resolution, supporting or opposing the plan. Members of the public may attend this meeting (which begins at 6pm) in person at 1 Centre Street, room 22021 North, or online at https://live.mcb1.nyc.