Architect’s self-certified plans omitted mapped street and did not disclose need for BSA approvals. Between September 2008 and April 2009 architect Jose A. Velasquez self-certified applications to convert two buildings into three-family homes and to build two new three-family homes on a zoning lot at the corner of 103rd Street and Alstyne Avenue in Corona, Queens. The lot was occupied by four unfinished buildings partially within the bed of an unused mapped street.

Buildings audited the plans and determined that they violated zoning regulations. Among the objections, Buildings claimed that the plans did not satisfy rear-yard requirements and increased existing non-compliance. The plans did not indicate that a mapped street went through the lot. Buildings also claimed that the plans violated the multiple dwelling law by including a water closet in the cellar of three buildings and contained error regarding fire-safety requirements. Buildings petitioned to have Velasquez barred from the self-certification program for submitting multiple incorrect self-certified applications within a year. (read more…)

Board found that prior corrected violations justified increased penalty for glass panel broken by snapped cable. On December 10, 2008 a glass panel fell from the 50th floor of One Bryant Park in Midtown, Manhattan after being struck by a steel safety netting cable. Buildings issued a notice of violation to the contractor, Tishman Construction Corporation, for failing to safeguard persons and property while working on the building. The issuing officer noted that similar incidents involving falling glass occurred at the site in May and September of 2008 and charged Tishman with an aggravated violation and increased fine.

At a hearing before an ALJ, Tishman argued that it took all necessary safety precautions and that a mechanical defect caused the cable to snap. Tishman further argued that it should not be charged with an aggravated offense because it stipulated to or corrected the prior violations. Buildings countered that the fact the cable snapped and broke the glass indicated that Tishman failed to maintain safety measures. To support the increased fine, Buildings submitted a computer record showing 39 NOVs against Tishman, nineteen of which were upheld or settled. The ALJ upheld the NOV and found that the evidence established a history of non-compliance warranting an increased penalty. (read more…)

Board found that Buildings retroactively applied building code provision after architect allegedly self-certified non-conforming plans. In 2006, architect David Millner submitted to Buildings self-certified alteration plans depicting the replacement of a 69 sq.ft. rear deck and the enlargement of a basement bathroom in a three-story home built in the 1930s at 1-69 Beach 91st Street in Rockaway Beach, Queens. Buildings audited the plans and in February 2010 issued Millner a notice of violation for submitting certified plans that did not conform to applicable laws pursuant to a section of the building code enacted in July 2008. According to the NOV, Millner’s plans depicted a rear yard of less than two feet, rather than the 30- foot rear yard required by the zoning resolution, and a rear deck made of combustible materials built within three feet of the property line. Buildings also claimed that the bathroom enlargement increased the building’s non-compliance with permitted floor area regulations. (read more…)

Building’s facade buckled two-and one- half-years after engineer’s report. Richard Lefever, a licensed engineer, examined the facade of a building and filed a report with Buildings in February 2007. In the report, Lefever had the option of designating the facade as safe, unsafe, or safe with a repair and maintenance program (SWARMP). Lefever chose the third option, because he identified facade conditions that required repairs within two years to avoid deteriorating into unsafe conditions. The owner failed to make repairs within the two-year time frame, and in August 2009 a portion of the exterior masonry of the wall buckled. The condition exposed the public to the threat of falling debris.

Buildings issued a notice of violation to Lefever for filing a false statement. According to Buildings, Levefer’s designation of the facade as SWARMP amounted to a false statement given the history of numerous repairs to the building’s facade and Levefer’s knowledge of such repairs. Lefever defended that his SWARMP designation was warranted since the building facade needed only repair and not immediate corrective action. (read more…)

Building owner allowed artist studios on floor designated for factory use. The owner of 56 Bogart Street in Brooklyn rented several fourth-floor units to artists. The artists produced items such as canvas, paper and wood objects, jewelry, lighting, and skateboards. A Buildings officer issued the owner a notice of violation for allowing occupancies contrary to what was permitted by the certificate of occupancy. At a hearing, Buildings submitted a 1931 and a 1973 C of O that stated that the first through fourth floors could only be used as a “factory.” The officer testified that he observed art and sculpture studios on the fourth floor, which according to the NOV, did not qualify as factory uses. The owner countered that the tenants were producing goods for sale or viewing elsewhere, and thus their activities were not inconsistent with a factory use or occupancy. An ALJ sustained the NOV, and the owner appealed to the Environmental Control Board.

The Board reversed the ALJ’s decision, ruling that Buildings had failed to show the artists’ activities were inconsistent with the C of O. As the building code and the zoning resolution lacked a definition of “factory,” the Board looked to the word’s common meaning – “a building or buildings with facilities for manufacturing.” The Board found that artist studios, like the ones described in the NOV, could fit within the common meaning of factory, and further found that Buildings did not prove the artists’ use of the space differed from factory use.

NYC v. 56 Bogart Street LLC, ECB Appeal No. 1000384 (July 22, 2010).