Owner had built non-conforming roofed terrace in one side yard and a roofed side-entrance porch in the other. Buildings approved plans for the construction of a residential building at 74 Amherst Street in Brooklyn. The approved plans showed a roofed terrace on the south side yard of the home and a roofed side-entrance porch on the north side. The home was built in 2004, Buildings inspectors signed off on the final construction, and the owner was issued a certificate of occupancy in 2005 which stated that the new building substantially conformed to the approved plans.

In 2009, an officer from Buildings saw the two side yard structures and issued the owner a notice of violation for having side yards not in conformity with the zoning resolution. An ALJ sustained the NOV after a hearing, finding that the porches were not in conformity with the zoning resolution and that Buildings’ approval of the work could not supersede the zoning resolution. The owner appealed to the Environmental Control Board, arguing that Buildings would not have issued the C of O if the final inspection had revealed zoning resolution violations.

The Board reversed the ALJ’s decision, ruling that the owner could rely on the C of O as proof that the building complied with all applicable laws. The Board explained that the C of O was binding on all agencies until set aside by the Board of Standards and Appeals or a court of competent jurisdiction.

NYC v. Marina Margulis, ECB Appeal No. 1000136 (June 24, 2010).

Location of air conditioning units was legal because units were located outside the required rear yard. Buildings issued a notice of violation to the owner of 1027 East 2nd Street in Brooklyn for maintaining an obstruction in a required rear yard. An officer issued the NOV after observing four air conditioning units in the rear yard within four inches of the side-lot line. Properties in residential districts are only permitted to install AC units in a required backyard if they are located at least eight feet from any lot line.

At a hearing, the owner stated that the property was located in the Ocean Parkway Special District, which requires a minimum backyard depth of twenty feet from the rear-lot line instead of the thirty-foot backyard required by the area’s underlying R3-1 zoning regulations. The owner argued that while his property had a thirty-foot rear yard, the AC units were located in a ten-foot portion of the yard closest to his home and not in the twenty-foot portion of the required yard under the special district’s regulations. An ALJ upheld the NOV, finding the special district’s rules did not redefine the requirements of other zoning regulations and were not meant to affect the rear yard regulations. (read more…)

Fine reduced because owner removed illegal sign prior to first scheduled hearing. Buildings issued Term-Fulton Realty Corp. four notices of violation in connection with an outdoor advertising sign covering more than six levels of its seven-story garage at 54 Fulton Street in Manhattan. The sign remained in place for another ten months, and Buildings issued the owner seven additional NOVs, all noted as second-offense violations.

At a hearing, the owner claimed it had not authorized anyone to install signs on its building. The owner also claimed it had not been aware of the sign’s presence. An ALJ sustained the NOVs, finding the owner had acted as an outdoor advertising company. The ALJ further found that the owner’s defense was not credible. The ALJ imposed a $140,000 penalty because the NOVs were second offenses. The owner appealed to the Environmental Control Board, arguing that increased penalties were not warranted because the owner was not an outdoor advertising company. (read more…)

Property owner without a permit allowed outdoor advertising. One Maiden Lane Realty LLC leased outdoor space to a registered outdoor advertising company. Under the lease agreement, the property owner could not collect revenue from advertising signs or control advertising sign content. An officer from Buildings issued several notices of violation to the owner in June 2007 for erecting two advertising signs without a permit and for numerous zoning law violations. About a year later, Buildings issued another eight NOVs for the same offenses and charged the owner as an outdoor advertising company, seeking increased penalties.

At a hearing, Buildings argued that the owner qualified as an outdoor advertising company because it had, directly or indirectly, made space available to another for advertising purposes. An ALJ found the owner liable for each NOV, but ruled that the owner could not be considered an outdoor advertising company because it did not collect revenue from the signs and had no control over advertising sign content. Therefore, the ALJ concluded, increased penalties were not appropriate. Buildings appealed to the Environmental Control Board, arguing that indirectly or directly making advertising space available to a registered outdoor advertising company was sufficient to qualify as an outdoor advertising company even when the lessee contracted with advertisers and controlled the signage. (read more…)

Contractor left job but work continued under its expired permit. An officer from Buildings issued B & A Demolition & Removal notices of violation for engaging in demolition work with an expired permit, failing to safeguard the public and property affected by demolition operations, failing to post a required Department of Transportation permit, and failing to provide adequate housekeeping during demolition operations. At a hearing, B & A claimed that it had been fired from the job prior to the inspection date, and speculated that the workers observed by the officer were new contractors. Buildings countered that it was undisputed that demolition work occurred after B & A’s permit had expired, and that B & A allowed the permit to expire without telling Buildings that it was withdrawing from the job.

An ALJ dismissed the violations, ruling that B & A was not on the job on the inspection date. Although the ALJ found that B & A had failed to adhere to Buildings’ policy requiring written notification of withdrawal from a job, the ALJ ruled that such failure did not cause a violation. Buildings appealed, claiming that B & A failed to prove it was not in charge of demolition work on the date of inspection, and that B & A was required to submit a notice of withdrawal. (read more…)