Save The View Now Claims New Evidence Sufficient to Re-Open Litigation

The Brooklyn Eagle’s Mary Frost reports that Save The View Now, whose lawsuit to halt and scale back construction of the Pierhouse structure adjacent to Pier 1 in Brooklyn Bridge Park was dismissed in June on the grounds that it was barred by the statute of limitations and that the agreements seeking to limit the height of any structure on that site in order to preserve and improve views of the Brooklyn Bridge were not enforceable, has filed to re-open the litigation. A hearing was scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday, July 30,; however, the defendants asked for more time to examine STVN’s papers, so it has been postponed tentatively to next Thursday, August 6, at 10:30 a.m. We’ll keep you posted as to the time and location.

The new evidence STVN has presented consists in part of building plans that were received, in the words of STVN’s press release, “after lengthy delays caused by city agencies.” According to STVN, these plans:

reveal that the bulkheads [atop the taller of the two Pierhouse structures] are designed to contain an enclosed kitchen, food service and preparation areas, an “outdoor” shower, six (6) separate elevators and several vestibules (which exceed the permitted square footage for vestibules), and a separate room for “pool equipment.” The Defendants also plan to construct additional “food and bar” areas, raised decks, awnings and a structural steel canopy for wedding/event space on the roof between the bulkheads. These structures do not qualify as “mechanical equipment,” nor are they “permitted obstructions” and, therefore, are illegal structures and must be taken down.

In addition, STVN has acquired copies of the property leases between the Brooklyn Bridge Park Corporation and Toll Brothers, the principal developers of the Pierhouse, which it says clearly limit the height of the taller of the two structures to 100 feet, and the lower, and closer to the Promenade, structure to 55 feet, with no exceptions for “permitted obstructions” STVN argues that the building plans and leases “reveal that the BBPC has colluded with the developer to deceive and misinform the Public and the Court and allow them to exceed the plainly worded maximum height limits.”

Share this Story:

, , , , , , ,

  • Brixtony

    Veeery interesting. Here’s hoping.

  • R.O.Shipman

    That’s not going to help their Statute of Limitations problem. Just pissing away money at this point.

    Even without the SoL problem, at best all they would accomplish is forcing the Hotel to lose some of that stuff on the roof. The bulk of the mechanicals and bulkheads would remain.

  • BrooklynBeBop

    The Defendants and the Judge have been calling the action an Article 78 action and under Article 78, there would need to be a government action. (And this would mean a shorter SOL.) However, there has been no government action – only government inaction (for instance, no government entity has every approved the plans – non-approval means the developer can move forward).

    Also, as stated in the article, the lease between BBPC and Toll Brothers says that the buildings should be a maximum of 100ft and 55ft. Both buildings are now taller. (And Parcel B has not put up a wall for the penthouse that is higher than it’s supposed to be and which blocks the view of the water from the Promenade.)

  • Arch Stanton