[{"_1":2,"_111":-5,"_112":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6606650,"mediaKeyId","2964252-1c9d65900dc334ec57cf91d978d72600","parentId",2964252,"title","Developer to pay $6.16 million into HPD fund for 43 Bleecker; community questions IMD, square footage and where money will be used","audioSeconds",2745,"startMs",78000,"endMs",2823000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2964252-1c9d65900dc334ec57cf91d978d72600&start=78&end=2823","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2964252-1c9d65900dc334ec57cf91d978d72600/thumbnail_78000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6606650/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/Developer-to-pay-616-million-into-HPD-fund-for-43-Bleecker-community-questions-IMD-square-footage-and-where-money-will-be-used","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6606650-5a04dbd12c7f6b19c20dd36adf9c86a4/orig.mp4?Expires=1771055979&Signature=k4IWHtWzo9PM3h5TSxCOdb5V1hhulypYvRVat4v-11vcK8cXmcci8xbrFafKpcFF4822QhQL0N8M-xflaunKcr66CV3B12cXO~WcdqKrVJwVIs8Ga9-G4QnaU0k5VPlFhWqdmzfQHGvdjCrz8GHQQ1GmCFwHrGXf3LE1NM5C7fNyrHOBHMhvYyzBUYeSY7G9d5gCQ4kQ-BUrmKWgMwMw9IN0EfwWClW~LcFRzDQDc9wPqdsWovPzID08umqhMQXUpXddP4O3Ul5NTKn4DwRVgmy2bNqS-oyFOf3XFGCIq9NmXEdUtUj1~FeHIrg2TR4ILp1rve3ydU6arCuQsR0GcQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Manhattan, NY","date","2025-04-11T15:30:29.457Z","article","Developers planning a conversion at 43 Bleecker told Community Board 2’s Transits and Housing Committee that they will pay $6,158,722.31 into the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) MIH in‑lieu fund rather than provide on‑site mandatory inclusionary units.

The amount, the applicant said, reflects the required calculation under the MIH code for the project’s increase in residential floor area: the new residential increase is 18,432.39 square feet and the payment was described as “27.5% of that multiplied by $1,215,” according to the applicant’s presentation to the committee.

The payment will be made to HPD. “We have full DOB approval, and we’re ready to go. We just need to pay into the fund,” Tom Slaughter, who identified himself as representing the project, said during the April informational presentation.

Why the board matters

The presentation was informational: committee members and residents repeatedly noted that the community board has only advisory power under the city’s land‑use rules and cannot approve or deny an MIH in‑lieu application. Committee members nevertheless pressed the applicant on two topics they said affect whether the in‑lieu offer is appropriate for the neighborhood: (1) whether existing interim multiple dwelling (IMD) units on the site were properly counted as existing residential floor area, and (2) how and where HPD will use the in‑lieu funds.

Key details and disputes

- Applicant’s calculation: The developer said the project would increase residential floor area by 18,432.39 square feet and that the in‑lieu payment was $6,158,722.31. The applicant described the MIH calculation as 27.5% of the increase multiplied by $1,215 per square foot. That formula and dollar amount were stated by the project representatives and appear in the materials they submitted to the committee.

- Units: The applicant said the net residential increase equates to 11 units.

- Existing IMD footprint: Several committee members and public commenters questioned the project team’s characterization of existing IMD (interim multiple dwelling) footprint and the square footage the applicant counted as existing residential. Tom Slaughter and applicant representatives said they have Loft Board registration documents and other paperwork that confirm past IMD filings and indicated they would share those documents with the board. Committee members said public records the board reviewed showed a Loft Board case was withdrawn at one point and that the building was vacant when the current owner bought it in late 2023; they asked for a clear timeline showing when units were occupied, when IMD entries were filed, and when any Loft Board approvals were completed.

- Legal status and conversion timing: The applicant explained that legal residential status requires completion of work and issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy (C of O). Project representatives said they have Department of Buildings (DOB) approvals for plans and expected to pull construction permits within four weeks of payment into the fund; they estimated an 18‑month window for complete façade and interior refurbishment. The project team said HPD would instruct when the fund payment should be made; they were told by HPD advisers that payment typically occurs within about four weeks of the contract signing.

- Use of in‑lieu funds: Public commenters asked where the money would be spent and whether it would benefit Soho/NoHo specifically. One resident, Pete Davies of the Broadway Residents Coalition, told the committee: “This is a scheme to avoid providing affordable housing in our neighborhood,” and urged clarity on whether monies placed in the fund are later used locally. Committee members pointed to rules that place time limits on in‑lieu money: the applicant said funds placed in the HPD in‑lieu fund are subject to HPD rules and must be committed in the neighborhood within a specified period (the applicant and committee members discussed a 10‑year local priority window, after which unused funds can be allocated elsewhere in the borough, per HPD practice described in the meeting).

Committee and public requests

Committee members asked the applicant to provide the Loft Board and DOB documentation showing IMD registration, the Loft Board history for the property, and a floor‑by‑floor breakdown of square footage used in the MIH calculation. The applicant said it would send the Loft Board confirmation paperwork and the architectural affidavit cited in the application materials.

Committee members also asked HPD how it would allocate and track the in‑lieu payment and whether HPD maintains a searchable record of funds and project uses. Several members and public commenters requested that HPD detail whether the $6.16 million would be available to projects in Soho/NoHo, and if so, how soon.

What the board can do

The committee emphasized it has advisory authority only: it cannot approve or veto an MIH in‑lieu payment. Nevertheless members said they will record their questions and requested documentation in the committee record; they also asked the applicant to circulate the Loft Board and DOB paperwork to the board offices and to notify HPD of the questions raised.

Outlook

The applicant indicated it is ready to begin construction once the in‑lieu payment process is complete. Committee members and public commenters said they will follow up on the paperwork the developer committed to provide and seek clarification from HPD on how the fund is managed and how quickly committed funds are put to use locally.

Ending

The item was presented as an informational notice; no formal committee action or vote was taken on the MIH in‑lieu payment itself during the meeting. Committee members asked for the applicant’s Loft Board and DOB documentation and for HPD to clarify fund allocation and timing.

","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Manhattan CB2 April 9, 2025- Land Use & Housing Committee Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","Developers planning a conversion at 43 Bleecker told Community Board 2’s Transits and Housing Committee they will pay $6,158,722.31 into HPD’s Mandatory Inclusionary Housing fund rather than provide on‑site affordable units.","taxTitle","Manhattan City, New York County, New York","taxId",3586,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6606637,"CB2 presses for broader plan as EDC, Whitney and state‑owned land discussions accelerate for proposed Gansevoort/Pier area housing",2560,6132000,8692000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2964252-1c9d65900dc334ec57cf91d978d72600&start=6132&end=8692","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2964252-1c9d65900dc334ec57cf91d978d72600/thumbnail_6132000.jpg","/articles/6606637/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/CB2-presses-for-broader-plan-as-EDC-Whitney-and-stateowned-land-discussions-accelerate-for-proposed-GansevoortPier-area-housing","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6606637-28e03a29279a0582748e93c1784e2d37/orig.mp4?Expires=1771055979&Signature=DA1okAV4tssQjb5DJKW5UeVrA0UnalNvyeY8MV03qnL5gxvFSXXhN8PNcRT~m7ZV-Z7pc-0sNzbnrN1Yc8khGie7Xyce~9yvWKeRB31FJ7sJWjaCeUNuno7DdTbyTo-Tp4JKgG~qGpG6M9rDw8Xjd7NbfzazeYqkeVrXlOO~o~LiEqoQxJloGulSTlg0Czgn9~6Ml9X2w0FnVq4T2dC9rrwwPjpkc8bDoHGpLAjOEBiSj5iIcMSaw4FU4he5eZlRqoSKt94HkueIN9j5DYa5n6zPsjj39T6--ygYSSeRi3DuG09sBlfz0BOCcNH0ODv307dvTGOZ76ddQhtRn-HfZg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Community Board 2 members spent a long portion of the meeting discussing the proposed housing plans for the Gansevoort/Pier area (presented in the meeting materials as “Antibort Square Proposed Housing”). Members questioned a rapid RFP timeline, asked for greater state‑level coordination and urged more transparent documentation from the Economic Development Corporation (EDC) and the Whitney Museum about rights and valuation.

Key concerns raised

- Scale and opportunity cost: Multiple members said the site — which includes a mix of city‑ and state‑owned parcels and an adjacent right‑of‑way — is an opportunity for a larger, coordinated plan that could deliver more affordable housing, better public open space and improved infrastructure. They warned that the current approach could yield a relatively small “postage‑stamp” project that misses the chance to integrate nearby state‑owned parcels for a more comprehensive outcome.

- Process transparency: Committee members said they had not been shown core documents, for example materials related to any right‑of‑first‑offer (ROFO) or disposition steps, the valuation used to justify the RFP approach, or the terms under which the meatpacking tenants agreed to vacate. Members asked for EDC to provide the disposition paperwork and for the offices of the local state and city elected officials to engage.

- Interagency coordination and state role: Because some adjacent parcels and a demapped street are state‑owned, members urged elevation of the process to include New York State leadership to facilitate a coordinated plan. Several members argued the governor’s office could unlock a larger, more integrated plan that would better meet affordable‑housing goals and the Whitney’s stated needs for larger contiguous floor plates.

EDC interim activation and next steps

EDC told the board it expects to activate the site in the near term — ideas discussed included limited outdoor uses such as art activations, managed vendor/activity programming, or other short‑term uses — and described the activation as a way to make interim use while disposition and development progress. Committee members said they would want clear management and accountability for any interim activation and revenue generation plans.

The committee agreed to continue seeking documents and legal clarity and asked staff to prepare a resolution demanding greater transparency and encouraging an expanded interagency planning process that includes the state, city, HPD and the Whitney Museum. The committee asked CB2 leadership to circulate a draft for comment and to notify local elected officials of the requested documentation and the board’s concerns.

Ending

Committee members voted to draft a resolution pressing for additional documentation, a pause to allow coordinated planning with state landowners, and an explicit request that EDC and the Whitney provide the legal and valuation materials the board requested.","Committee members urged a broader, interagency plan for state‑ and city‑owned parcels near the Whitney and the Gansevoort/Pier corridor, saying the current RFP‑driven approach risks producing a small, high‑rise “postage‑stamp” project and called for state leadership and documentation from EDC and the Whitney.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6606641,"CB2 committee reviews draft EIS scope for DCP last‑mile facility text amendment; raises bike‑lane, charging and flooding concerns",3079,4909000,7988000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2964252-1c9d65900dc334ec57cf91d978d72600&start=4909&end=7988","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2964252-1c9d65900dc334ec57cf91d978d72600/thumbnail_4909000.jpg","/articles/6606641/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/CB2-committee-reviews-draft-EIS-scope-for-DCP-lastmile-facility-text-amendment-raises-bikelane-charging-and-flooding-concerns","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6606641-94718459a19f822e3d3195dcb860de17/orig.mp4?Expires=1771055979&Signature=Ze3hyqnN0tWnovd7porD25i5WPzXdC-AXN00W9BIcp2~Wyvk-ir~0kAYoWOyhT53ivYbHOFonlr4XdnR2MFme~~OWanazmhC8kPN22fXIwdUzYMX37~ptOV8A2cbtJVUhUhzfAB3b3Z4oP2qUJBopYQedsg6q-Ddv0Pk~VvtUaCIRVqWnSdrerNiQ78cmen~5V83MpsNWpNX7xlycg6JOaJNicT-D-QgUrTYO3me4QZSOxnDqsW1iYrrc6IMi4ZrTlnCKvNOkXbpkWWS8pk3QHZI2ZqcBFWZm0wNzeV7k-x-4L9w-PO-RVlxASvSYFXqpt4R08g9L5J6GgQQ8A4S-Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City planners asked Community Board 2 to comment on the draft scope for an environmental impact statement (EIS) tied to a Department of City Planning text amendment that would create a special permit for last‑mile distribution facilities in manufacturing and commercial districts.

The draft EIS scope covers many standard CEQR chapters; DCP staff have proposed studying land use and zoning, transportation, energy, hazardous materials, and neighborhood character, among others. The committee’s discussion focused on three areas members said merit stronger attention in the DEIS: multimodal traffic and pedestrian safety, charging and energy infrastructure for electric micromobility and cargo‑bikes, and flood/stormwater resilience in waterfront and low‑lying zones.

Bicycle and pedestrian impacts

Committee members noted that the last‑mile concept embraces a range of delivery modes beyond conventional trucks — cargo bikes, e‑bikes and small electric trucks — and asked the draft scope to address how those vehicles would operate in bike lanes and sidewalks, and how repeated commercial activity would affect pedestrian flow and safety.

One committee member said the DEIS should explicitly assess commercial delivery activity in bicycle lanes and the potential need for separate commercial cycling infrastructure. Members also asked for a pedestrian‑conflict analysis that goes beyond counts, because repeated loading/unloading and frequent short deliveries can disrupt pedestrian circulation in high‑foot‑traffic shopping streets.

Charging infrastructure, hazardous materials and energy demand

Members asked the DEIS to study charging infrastructure for e‑bikes and small electric vehicles (tasking hazardous materials and energy chapters where relevant). Committee members flagged safety risks associated with large numbers of battery charging stations and battery storage — including fire risk — and called for the EIS to consider safe charging locations and building‑level safety systems.

Flooding and infrastructure resilience

Because many mapped areas are in low‑lying floodplains and waterfront precincts, the committee also asked that the DEIS examine stormwater and wastewater system capacity and how flooding risk would affect facilities and their electrical systems. The board suggested linking the energy, water/sewer and hazardous‑materials analyses to evaluate resilience under more frequent coastal storm scenarios.

Other comments and next steps

Committee members recommended that the DEIS explicitly consider noncompliant or nonconforming land uses and the frequent occurrence of residential uses by variance in manufacturing districts when evaluating “buffers” from residences. Members also requested a clearer map and higher‑resolution exhibits showing the special‑permit mapping over CB2’s zoning mix.

DCP will hold a public informational session and a public hearing on the text amendment; written comments on the DEIS scope are due in mid‑May. The committee asked staff to circulate a draft comment letter; members flagged task areas 2 (land use), 8 (urban design), 10 (hazardous materials), 11 (water/wastewater/stormwater), 13 (energy) and 14 (transportation) as priorities to strengthen in the DEIS scope.

Ending

The committee agreed to prepare a draft comment letter emphasizing pedestrian safety, bike‑lane impacts, charging and flood resilience and requested clearer mapping of where the DCP’s special‑permit areas would overlay CB2 zoning.","Community Board 2 discussed the Department of City Planning’s draft scope for the environmental impact statement (DEIS) of a proposed last‑mile distribution facility text amendment. Committee members asked the city to study non‑car delivery modes, impacts on bike lanes and pedestrian safety, charging infrastructure and flood resilience.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6606646,"CB2 fellowship analysis finds net loss of rent‑stabilized units over 2007–2020; researcher highlights data limits",1597,2891000,4488000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2964252-1c9d65900dc334ec57cf91d978d72600&start=2891&end=4488","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2964252-1c9d65900dc334ec57cf91d978d72600/thumbnail_2891000.jpg","/articles/6606646/Manhattan-City/New-York-County/New-York/CB2-fellowship-analysis-finds-net-loss-of-rentstabilized-units-over-20072020-researcher-highlights-data-limits","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6606646-eb308d74b9eedf48f6dfc7938718c525/orig.mp4?Expires=1771055979&Signature=fkRVw8HF3lO579jeSX2IKhzJcgJDFibJjrdWMrsDP7w0Dy7eF-ZQcJxrK8hPhPLiKm9cZ73Lqp98wCOiR7r~Y3mbA0kqmbnmF5FP11C~u~370foefG077NGswONFzw843r1kl2Qnm-r3yuz2k4AS--P8imFa2Urost5lUVzPmlqFLPIgcA8wwqbbRowcBiA1I1~fo5FlWUJxwJ79pzC1KVX0pP2RD4EAeY0dygykujbEadZSA~tYyqc6YjI~X4645QH~kkD-jYaEQfip8pOZLM23~ZrcmC8gAOYBcJS5JW0kgHKZdWi0EGLHX4xCdXHmyiIDfhSv1XwVdrhZVoizsw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Lauren Leiker, a City fellowship researcher hosted by Community Board 2, presented a temporal study of affordable housing in CB2 that focused on rent‑stabilized units and mapped changes from 2007 through 2020.

Leiker said available datasets show a net loss of rent‑stabilized units in the district — approximately 6,400 units lost in the period analyzed — and that losses have been spread across the district rather than concentrated in a single area. The presentation used Rent Guidelines Board analyses for citywide context and Open Data NYC for building‑level mapping.

“While this isn’t specific to the community board and just looks at the city as a whole, I think it gave important context,” Leiker said in her presentation, adding that the project narrowed to rent‑stabilized units because those data were tractable and central to affordability discussions.

Data limits and next steps

Leiker told the committee that additions recorded in public data were inconsistent and that some apparent gains are likely artifacts of reporting — for example, buildings not consistently claiming tax exemptions or coding changes. She recommended a follow‑up that combines multiple administrative datasets (DHCR rent rolls, tax filings, DOB records) to measure post‑2020 trends and to build a repeatable public method for other community boards.

Committee members raised questions about scale and confidence in the figures; Leiker acknowledged the limits and said her final fellowship report, to be delivered to CB2, will include methodology and caveats. She also suggested further study of underused FAR (floor‑area ratio) capacity and city‑owned parcels as avenues to identify potential sites for new affordable housing.

Ending

Leiker said she will produce a written deliverable for CB2 summarizing methods, raw datasets used and recommendations for future research; committee members requested a timetable for that report and asked to receive the draft before the board’s May meeting.","A city fellowship presented research showing a net loss of rent‑stabilized units in Manhattan Community Board 2 between 2007 and 2020 and mapped where those units were concentrated. The researcher said open‑data limitations make tracking additions difficult and recommended further study and improved data sharing.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Developer to pay $6.16 million into HPD fund for 43 Bleecker; community questions IMD, square footage and where money will be used

CB2 presses for broader plan as EDC, Whitney and state‑owned land discussions accelerate for proposed Gansevoort/Pier area housing

CB2 committee reviews draft EIS scope for DCP last‑mile facility text amendment; raises bike‑lane, charging and flooding concerns

CB2 fellowship analysis finds net loss of rent‑stabilized units over 2007–2020; researcher highlights data limits