Most projects go forward, despite community boards.

Community Boards are finding that while they can shape projects and sometimes stop them, because of good planning or the good of the city, most projects go forward.

Under the City Charter that has been in force for a year, the streamlined nine-month Uniform Land Use Review Process -- known as ULURP -- gives local community boards a turn at reviewing development. While the CB can vote "no" and make comments, the project continues through further public reviews by the Borough President, the City Planning Commission and in some cases, the City Council and Mayor.

But how much of an impact does the Community Board (CB) actually have on the other decision makers when it comes time to approve a development?

If the community board votes "no" and the Borough President votes "no," but the City Planning Board makes changes and approves the project, the Borough President may cast a "triple no" vote to ensure City Council review.

Manhattan Borough President Ruth Messinger said on a particular project a community board has significant power if they exercise it thoughtfully but its position is not an enforceable position.

"It helps to frame the issues in an intelligent way and this is taken quite seriously by the Borough President, City Planning and the Council members," she said. Because the subsequent people have their own connections to the community, Messinger explained, they pay attention to the Community Board especially if it conducts in depth studies with thorough technical analysis.

She said the community board's true power will come from Charter provision 197a that permits the community board to rezone itself and when backed by the Borough President, ensures the City Planning Department will pay for environmental reviews that previously were stumbling blocks. Messinger sees this provision coming into play for the waterfront redevelopment proposals.

According to the City Planning Department, of approximately 1,200 projects that came into ULURP under the new Charter, only about two dozen received an out and out denial by the community board. More than half of those are still in the review process and have not yet come before the City Planning Commission.

The few projects which receive "no" votes are usually vehemently opposed by community members and the community boards. In most other cases, developers have worked with the community to address the problems, or nothing has been changed and either the project has gone forward or the developer has backed off.

The City Council's Land Use Committee, chaired by Councilmember June Eisland, is a large committee that has taken over the powers of the Board of Estimate for the review process.

Spokesperson Anne Marie Ninivaggi said there have been instances when community boards have disapproved of a project while the Council has approved. If the community board is against a proposal and the local Council member is on the Land Use Committee, that member is usually against it, she added, but it also does not ensure the full Council's position.

During the approval process, City Planning Dept. spokesperson Jackie Esquerole said, most applications that are not good from a planning perspective tend to be withdrawn before a vote. So there are not the many projects where there is a |no' by the Community Board and a |no' by Planning. "We don't ignore them but they usually fall by the wayside," she added.

Where the Community Board votes |no' or votes |yes' and has concerns, she said, "we always address them. Sometimes it's within our authority and we do, and sometimes it's not and we let them know. We try to let them know what can be done."

"The vote of the Community Board always has an impact on us," said City Planning Commission Board member Brenda Levin. "However, we can't always do what they want us to do. The Community Board looks at it from a community wide perspective, while we look at it from a citywide basis. That is our mandate."

Levin, who spent eight years with Community Board 6 in Manhattan, said prior to the new City Charter, a development's chances depended on the administration. Now, she said, the Community Board is mandated a role and "it is no longer up to the generosity of City Hall."

"This mayor is committed to community involvement," Levin explained, adding that this City Planning Commission is also committed to the community board and its involvement. "We never decide an issue without understanding the community board's position," she said.

Under the new Charter, Levin said, if the City wants to do something and the community board says no, then the Planning Commission tries to get the City to make modifications to respond to the community board's concerns.

She used as an example the city's initial plan to use Piers 35 and 36 near the Williamsburg Bridge to become a garage for Sanitation trucks and a refueling station. That has now been limited while an esplanade and park are under review. "The community's outrage was a starting point for us to say to the administration, |this is unacceptable,' Levin explained. "If they hadn't watched us and articulated this, the changes would not have been made."

Borough President Messinger cited the Pier project as an example of where the Borough President can invoke the "triple no" and have a local project come under review by the City Council. "Otherwise," she said, "that project would stop at the City Planning Commission. She said even though the Planning Commission made substantial changes, she would like to see more made which the City Council can do.

Esquerole said the Brighton By The Sea project was unusual in that the Community Board was in favor of it while the community was opposed. "The developer worked it out in the last hour and we were able to address a lot of concerns," she said.

Herbert Eisenberg, the District Manager of Community Board 13 in Brooklyn which voted "yes" for Muss Development's Brighton By The Sea, does not believe the Community Board's power has changed under ULURP "We're still in an advisory capacity," he said.

While only one organization was opposed to the Muss development, its vocal members were able to convince City Planning to scale back the density. "It's called NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard)," Eisenberg explained. But Muss was "dynamite," he noted. "He did everything they wanted and it passed."

Other times, a vocal minority can stop a project altogether. In Staten Island, one small strip mall was deep-sixed after a group of homeowners rallied the newspapers and local officials.

Zoning attorney, Steven D. Kowaloff, said clients purchased a non-conforming retail property to redevelop it as a local shopping strip but needed a zoning variance that was opposed by a group of homeowners across the street. "They stirred up opposition enough to convince the community board to vote against it," Kowaloff said. Eventually, the borough president came out against it, as well.

District Manager, Dorothy Fitzpatrick of Community Board 3 in Staten Island, said the community overwhelmingly opposed the variance request. "I don't have to tell you people don't want a strip mall next to their house," she added.

In most cases, Fitzpatrick believes, a borough president would go along with the community or community board. She said it was rare in Staten Island for the developer to be asking for something since most of the time she explained, the development is as-of-right.

Kowaloff believes the community opposition was amplified way out of bounds. "It was a tiny project," he complained. "Do you allow this thing to be approved knowing 1,600 new houses will need it or do you listen to the ten folks across the street who oppose it? The people who are favorable are fearful of retaliation," he added.

The Upper West Side has been the focus of most of Manhattan's planned development with projects such as Columbus Center, Riverside South, Manhattan West, a Capital Cities ABC project and Lincoln Square all on the drawing boards for the area between 59 Street and 79 Street.

Even the as-of-right Lincoln Square proposal, which does not have to go through ULURP, was debated at the Community Board level.

Hope L. Mason, chairman of Community Board 7, said there was enormous community pressure on the developers. When the Lincoln Square developer came to the Community Board meeting, Mason said, "people were outraged. They vented their anger for an hour and a half." Some of that anger was over the incorporation of loading docks for the local post office which were removed from the permits after that meeting.

"We're not unwilling to have a dialogue with the community about the issues that they have and how to deal with them," said Lincoln Square project partner Philip E. Aarons. "We're looking for that opportunity to say, |here's what we can do and here's what we can't do'."

Aarons said he understands peoples' frustrations. "It's not easy living next door or across the street and see change -- or to lose your view," he added. People have many different concerns, he noted, and while some are very legitimate, some are a little less so.

"The woman who was angriest with me," Aarons recalled, "was a woman who complained that I would make it more difficult for her to get restaurant reservations. But I don't know if I would have made her happy with a big restaurant."

Project spokesperson Lee Silberstein said people who usually turn out at these meetings are the ones with extreme opinions, an observation echoed by others.

Community opponents to Trump City became co-developers with Donald J. Trump in the Riverside South Planning Corp. and put forth a smaller proposal which for some very vocal neighbors is not yet small enough. Days of public hearings before Community board 7 brought our very adamant opposition which supporters said overwhelmed those who were in favor of the plan.

The community board voted |no' and cited many items which still need to be addressed. Trump said then, "You never get community board votes. If a 100-acre park was proposed it would not get the community board vote."

But if the community cannot stop the project by itself, it can always turn to the courts. Even if there is a big outcry, attorney John T. Van Der Tuin does not believe a community board vote carries weight very often, particularly when a project has city or developer momentum behind it. He believes a borough president's decision carries more weight.

Nevertheless, Van Der Tuin, who is currently involved in lawsuits challenging the Commodity Exchange project in Lower Manhattan and the Coliseum Center at 59 Street, said they can almost always find a good reason to mount a lawsuit and keep a project from going forward.

"It's a little like archaeology," he explained. "If you scrape away enough you most always find a skeleton. They [developers and the city] are almost always pushing out the envelope or cutting corners. There are always grey areas -- they call it one way and it isn't a great call."