CB6 Tables Developer’s Planned 9-Foot-High Wall At LICH Condo Site

COBBLE HILL – At last Thursday’s Brooklyn Community Board 6 Landmarks & Land Use Committee meeting, representatives from Fortis Property Group presented plans to build a nine-foot-tall brick wall on the Amity Street side of the developer’s 5 River Park condo project rising at 347 Henry Street (between Amity and Pacific). The Committee voted against the plans with conditions.

The developer is seeking a Certificate of Appropriateness application from the NYC Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC) which would allow for the installation of a 49-foot-long, approximately nine-foot-high brick wall in place of a former wrought iron fence which once gated off a garden area at the former Long Island College Hospital (LICH) site. An LPC Certificate of Appropriateness would allow for the “construction of a wall adjacent to 5 River Park. This is a sliver of property that’s along Amity Street that’s included in the [Cobble Hill] Historic District but is also a part of the property, 347 Henry Street,” a Fortis representative explained.

Part of Fortis’ seven building redevelopment project to convert several former LICH sites into luxury residences, 347 Henry Street—or 5 River Park as the property is named—will consist of 14 stories housing 25 high-end condo units. The proposed brick wall would conceal a newly created private garden and an “outdoor resort pool” to be used exclusively by residents of the building. While Fortis revealed plans for the project earlier this year, the “massive” wall, as many meeting attendees described it, was a surprise to the community, including to Council Member Brad Lander.

Lander showed up to last week’s meeting to urge the CB6 Landmarks & Land Use Committee to reject Fortis’ proposed plan. “I don’t generally speak at the Community Board hearings on land use and landmarks items because they usually come to the [City] Council…but this, because it’s a Certificate of Appropriateness request, unlike land use or landmarking action, won’t come to the Council. It goes here [Community Board], and it goes to the LPC,” the Council Member explained. “I am urging the Committee to reject this application in the hopes that the applicant will try and work with the community on some more contextual and appropriate use for the site.”

Lander continued noting that despite meeting regularly with the developer regarding the LICH project, the proposed wall was an unexpected addition to the project. “We have a working group that Community Board 6, my office, the Cobble Hill Association, and the other electeds, have brought together to work on the Fortis development,” he said. “We’re trying to have a good, smooth process. We never heard of this [wall], despite the fact that at every monthly meeting we go site by site asking what’s coming next. [We] never heard about this application. My guess as to why [we didn’t] is that their intention was to get a [LPC] staff level approval for this application and hope that it never needed public review, that we wouldn’t become aware of it in the working group…. That’s my sense of what happened here.”

The LICH project has been a point of contention for Cobble Hill residents over the years. Locals and politicians protested the closure of a community hospital for luxury developments that do not include affordable housing. There were also problems with construction crews.

“This site is a piece of a lot where they are building wildly out of context, [a] 14-story building immediately adjacent to the Cobble Hill Historic District,” Lander added. They have the legal right to do it, it’s not in the Cobble Hill Historic District, but they know it’s out of context.”

“This is a nine-foot-tall wall. There’s nothing historic or contextual about it. There are other walls in Cobble Hill…this is taller than the other walls,” the Council Member argued. “If something is going to be added to the community in context here, I think something that shows the garden might be great. There’s a wrought iron fence there now, there could be a wrought iron fence [and] behind it could be a garden…[to] at least provide visual enhancement to the neighborhood. I think that would be a lot better way of enhancing the sidewalk experience. I encourage the Committee to vote to reject this application,” Lander concluded.

A representative read a statement from Assembly Member Jo Anne Simon expressing her “unequivocal rejection” for the proposed wall, echoing Lander’s objections.

Neighbors also agreed with Lander’s argument that the proposed wall’s height is out of context with the neighborhood. Other walls in the area are no more than six feet tall, several noted, adding that the planned wall is uninviting, would feel like a barricade, and just plain “sucks,” insisting that installing another wrought iron fence that provides views of the garden would be preferable.

Neighbors also voiced concerns about the proposed swimming pool and whether current zoning would permit its installation as well as the future possibility of noise caused from late-night pool parties. The development team insisted that the building will have designated pool hours from 9am to 6pm.

A representative of the development team insisted that the “contextual” wall reflects the character of the neighborhood as well as other nearby properties and would “add to the sidewalk experience,” but added that the team was there to listen and work with the community and to make any necessary “tweaks, adjustments and improvements.”

The CB6 Landmarks & Land Use Committee passed a motion to disapprove the application with the condition that Fortis submit a letter indicating its withdrawal from the LPC calendar (the application is currently calendared for November 4) prior to the next Community Board 6 General Meeting scheduled for November 14.

If the letter is submitted to LPC (copying CB6, Lander, Simon, and all the other associated parties) the project will not go to a full community board vote on November 14 and Fortis would return at a later date to present a revised proposal to CB6 and the community. Fourteen committee members voted in favor of the motion, one voted no, and one abstained.

Reminder: the next Community Board 6 General Meeting is Wednesday, November 14 at 6:30pm at the NYPD 78th Precinct, 65 6th Avenue. All CB6 meetings are open to the public and District Manager Mike Racioppo encourages all interested community members to attend.