Sign Painting Shop in East Williamsburg, Brooklyn was granted an appeal to include a caretaker’s apartment within the property. The owners of 1109 Metropolitan Avenue in East Williamsburg, Brooklyn are planning to convert the property into the Sign Painting Shop, which will include a proposed caretaker apartment as an accessory use. On May 4, 2015, Department of Buildings (“Buildings”) determined that the proposed caretaker apartment was not permitted in the manufacturing zoning district. On December 5, 2017, the Board of Standards (“Board”) and Appeals disagreed with Buildings. (more…)

Stuart Beckerman testifies before the Board of Standards and Appeals. Image credit: BSA

Board found the tunnel approach qualified as an “arterial highway” under the Zoning Resolution.  On July 21, 2015 the Board of Standards and Appeals voted to deny an appeal by 121 Varick St. Corp. of a previous Department of Buildings determination that their advertising sign was not established as a lawful non-conforming use.  The sign is a 75′ by 75′ illuminated advertising sign placed fifty feet above curb level on 121 Varick Street, Manhattan, facing onto the intersection of Varick and Dominick Streets.

On August 28, 2013 the Department of Buildings revoked a previously-granted permit for the sign.  In its final determination, Buildings stated the sign was within two hundred feet of multiple approaches to the Holland Tunnel, an arterial highway, and such placement was prohibited by Zoning Resolution §42-55.  On September 27, 2013 the applicant appealed the decision.

The Board held a public hearing on September 9, 2014 with continued hearings on January 27, 2015, April 14, 2015, and May 19, 2015.  In the hearing, counsel for the applicant Stuart Beckerman argued the Buildings revocation was made in error because there are no approaches to the Holland Tunnel.  Mr. Beckerman further argued that even if there were approaches to the Tunnel, the approaches do not qualify as a “designated arterial highway” under the Zoning Resolution, and even if the approaches do so qualify, the applicant’s sign is not within two hundred feet of the approaches.

Buildings argued the Holland Tunnel is explicitly named by the Zoning Resolution as an arterial highway subject to ZR §42-55 and under the City Planning Commission’s Master Plan, the location of the Tunnel approaches was left to Buildings’ determination.  Buildings had designated one approach as beginning at the intersections of Varick and Broome Streets, and the sign is within two hundred feet of that approach.

On July 21, 2015 the Board voted 4-0 to deny the appeal.  In its final decision, the Board agreed with Buildings that the sign was within two hundred feet of the Holland Tunnel, citing a letter dated April 23, 2013 where the applicant conceded the fact.  The Board agreed with Buildings’ long-standing interpretations as to what were the approaches to the Holland Tunnel, noting the applicant failed to refute those interpretations.  The Board applied a 360 degrees standard under which a sign is within view if it can be viewed from a specific point on an arterial highway in any direction and found the sign was within view of the tunnel approach.

BSA: 121 Varick Street (278-13-A) (Jul. 21, 2015) ( Isaac Szpilzinger, Esq., for 121 Varick St. Corp., owner).

By:  Michael Twomey (Michael is the CityLaw Fellow and a New York Law School graduate, Class of 2014).

BSA last amended its rules in 1995. On July 13, 2012, BSA adopted a final rule updating its practices and procedures. The final rule revises and clarifies the requirements governing filing procedures, public review, and the decision-making process for all applications filed at BSA. The final rule adds instructions on the filing, referral, and hearing notice requirements for vested rights applications; clarifies the types of applications filed on the Appeals (A) Calendar; revises the existing rules to allow BSA discretion to review applications to amend previous grants on the Special Order (SOC) calendar; and provides more specific guidance on the eligibility criteria for filing certain types of applications on the SOC calendar if the term has expired for more than two years but less than ten years. In an effort to streamline the dismissal process when it is clear that applications are not being prosecuted, the new rule provides that staff may dismiss an application, by letter, if the application has not been completed within one year from the issuance of BSA’s notice of comments.

City Record, July 13, 2012, at 1804.

*For comprehensive and timely notification of the New York City Agency rules, subscribe to CityRegs, a bi-weekly electronic newsletter. More information is available at: www.CityLaw.org.

BSA allows construction of the controversial hotel to go forward. In September 2007, the New York City Department of Buildings approved plans for the 42-story Trump SoHo condominium hotel, to be located at 246 Spring Street between Varick Street and Sixth Avenue. Because there is a general prohibition against residential developments in the area with the exception of transient hotels, Buildings’ approval required the developers to file a restriction against the property that would prohibit anyone from living in any of the Trump SoHo’s 413 units for more than 29 consecutive days in any 36-day period, or a total of about 120 days per calendar year.

The SoHo Alliance Community Group filed an appeal with BSA, arguing that Buildings’ approval should be revoked because people can still live in the Trump SoHo’s residential units for protracted periods of time for a significant portion of the year. Moreover, the Alliance argued that the restriction is unenforceable and prone to abuse. 4 CityLand 156 (Nov. 15, 2007). (more…)

Community group’s appeal seeks to halt construction of the 42story condo-hotel. On February 27, 2008, BSA heard testimony regarding the Department of Buildings’ approval for the Trump SoHo condominium hotel under construction at 246 Spring Street. The SoHo Alliance Community Group appealed, arguing that the condominium hotel contravenes the manufacturing zoning district’s prohibition against residential development.

Buildings approved the plans for the Trump Soho on September 28, 2007 with the condition that the developers file a restriction against the property that prohibits owners of any one of the condominium hotel’s 413 residential units from living there for more than 29 consecutive days in any 36-day period, or a total of about 120 days per calendar year. The rest of the time, owners would put their Trump SoHo units on the market for transient use on a daily or weekly basis. The restriction, according to Buildings, puts the Trump SoHo under the transient hotel exception to the general prohibition against residential developments in the area. Under the restriction, Buildings would conduct audits and/or issue financial penalties to enforce the transient use requirements. (more…)