Building owner failed to establish that advertising signs were a legal, non-conforming use. After Buildings inspectors observed non-illuminated advertising signs larger than 200 sq.ft. on a building at 838 Sixth Avenue in Midtown South, near 29th Street, Buildings charged the owner, Yung Brothers Real Estate Co., with creating a public nuisance by displaying advertising signs greater than 200 sq.ft. without a permit in violation of the construction code and the zoning resolution. The owner admitted that the signs were displayed on the building facade, but argued that the signs were lawful because it had obtained a permit in August 2007. The owner further argued that even if any of the alleged violations occurred before the permit was issued or after its revocation, affixing signs was a legal, non-conforming use because signs had been maintained at the location before a 1995 rezoning prohibited advertising signs on the property.

OATH ALJ Faye Lewis recommended that the signs be removed, concluding that the owner lacked a permit and proof that the signs were a legal, non-conforming use. The owner failed to show that there was an advertising sign on the building prior to the 1995 zoning change. Although the owner submitted a 1940 photograph showing a sign painted on the building’s wall for “Bratman Brothers,” there was insufficient evidence to determine whether it was an advertising sign or whether Bratman Brothers had occupied the building and put up an accessory sign. (read more…)

Franchise holder advertised on public pay phones located in a residential zoning district. The Department of Information Technology and Telecommunications charged Coastal Communication Service, Inc., a public pay phone franchise holder, with displaying advertisements on public pay phones within a residential zoning district. Coastal’s franchise agreement limited the display of advertisements on public pay phones to residential districts where commercial or manufacturing uses were permitted as-of-right.

Coastal argued that DoITT had exceeded its authority by adding the as-of-right limitation in its franchise agreement. It argued that the City Council, in authorizing DoITT to enter into franchise agreements, stated that public pay phone advertising was allowed in zoning districts where commercial or manufacturing uses were permitted and had not limited the area to as-of-right districts. The ALJ upheld the violations and noted that it was not allowed to determine whether DoITT exceeded its authority. Coastal appealed to the Environmental Control Board. (read more…)

Buildings cited 1974 building plan but could not produce it. Buildings issued a notice of violation to the owner of a building for engaging in work that did not conform to an approved building plan. Buildings stated that the owner extended the building beyond the size specified in a 1974 plan. At a hearing, Buildings stated that it could not locate the 1974 plan and relied instead on a copy of a 1959 plan and photographs that showed an extension to the building. The owner submitted a copy of a 1977 Certificate of Occupancy referencing the 1974 plan that certified the building substantially conformed to the plan. He also submitted a copy of a Buildings inspector’s approval of an architect’s 1974 certification attesting to the accuracy of a plot diagram and other work related to the building’s extension. The ALJ upheld the violation, ruling that the owner’s documents did not permit the extension.

The owner appealed, claiming that he could not be in violation of the Administrative Code for failing to conform to the 1974 plan if Buildings could not produce that plan and that the 1977 C of O proved that the building did conform to the 1974 plan. (read more…)

Owner argued that party wall defects resulted from the neighbor’s demolition. A Department of Buildings inspector observed loose stucco along a parapet and stress cracks along the exterior wall of a brownstone, located at 130 East 35th Street. Buildings issued a notice of violation to the brownstone’s owner Joseph Lipton.

At the hearing, Lipton argued that the adjacent property owner was responsible for repairing the defects, not him, because the wall was a shared party wall and all the defects lay on the neighbor’s side. Lipton also claimed that the neighbor’s actions caused the defects since the neighbor exposed the party wall when, 20 years earlier, the neighbor demolished the original brownstone to make way for a large 18-story apartment building. At that time, according to Lipton, the neighbor failed to permanently protect the newly exposed portion of the wall in violation of an Administrative Code requirement. (read more…)

ALJ declined to alter agreement that prevented Buildings from enforcing certain Zoning Resolution provisions relating to advertising signs. Buildings inspectors observed an advertising sign exceeding 200 sq.ft. on a building’s facade at 67 Greenwich Street in lower Manhattan. The building’s C5-5 zoning prohibited advertising signs and restricted non-illuminated signs to 200 sq.ft. Buildings charged the facade occupant OTR Media Group Inc. and building owner Syms Corp. with violating the Zoning Resolution and the construction code, and sought an order of removal.

OTR and Syms sought to dismiss the charge, arguing that the sign was located within 200 ft. of an arterial highway, and as such, fell within the scope of a prior agreement between Buildings and OTR that enjoined Buildings from enforcing certain advertising sign regulations. Under the agreement, Buildings could not seek to remove OTR advertising signs located within manufacturing districts or C6-5, C6- 7, C7, and C8 commercial districts until the courts decided an OTR constitutional challenge to certain sections of the Zoning Resolution. Although the building was located in a C5-5 district, OTR and Syms believed the agreement applied in this instance since the sign, like those protected under the agreement, was in a commercial district near a major highway. (read more…)