BSA approved rooftop additions for 329 to 335 East 9th Street in the East Village. Credit: CityLand.

Department of Buildings denied developer permits because plans did not comply with Multiple Dwelling law and community opposed out-of-character building enlargements. In March 2011, Terrence Lowenberg applied for alteration permits to build one-story additions on four pre-1929 apartment buildings at 329 to 335 East 9th Street in the East Village of Manhattan. Lowenberg planned to enlarge 331, 333, and 335 East 9th Street from five stories to six stories, reaching a height of 67 feet, three inches. 329 East 9th Street is planned to go from four stories to five stories and reach a height of 61 feet. The Department of Buildings denied the permits because while the plans complied with the area’s R8B zoning district regulations, they did not comply with certain aspects of the Multiple Dwelling law. The Multiple Dwelling law requires buildings exceeding 60 feet or six stories to provide an elevator and satisfy certain fire safety measures, such as fireproofing hallways and doors. Lowenberg appealed Buildings’ denial to the Board of Standards & Appeals seeking to vary the Multiple Dwelling law’s requirements.

(read more…)

Addition OK’d for 4-story townhouse

Owners’ plan to enlarge fourth-floor co-op violated multiple dwelling law. In December 2010, Felix and Lisa Oberholzer-Gee sought a building permit to enlarge their 1,000-square-foot, fourth-floor co-op in a five-unit townhouse at 159 West 78th Street in Manhattan’s Upper West Side. The Oberholzer-Gees proposed building a set-back, 646-square-foot rooftop addition. Buildings denied the permit because the plans violated the multiple dwelling law’s restrictions on enlargements of converted dwellings. The Oberholzer-Gees applied to the Board of Standards & Appeals seeking to vary the multiple dwelling law’s height and bulk regulations.

At BSA, the Oberholzer-Gees claimed that a complying proposal would cause practical difficulties because the multiple dwelling law prohibited a vertical enlargement, and a complying 234-square-foot horizontal enlargement would require a cantilevered extension blocking the light and air to the apartment below. The Oberholzer-Gees also noted that their proposal included a variety of fire safety measures, such as installing a new sprinkler system, using non-combustible materials throughout the building, and adding fireproof doors to all apartments.

(read more…)

Future site of Western Beef in West Harlem

BSA’s waiver of rear yard regulations needed to allow development of 79,498 square-foot supermarket on West 155th Street. Cactus of Harlem LLC applied to the Board of Standards & Appeals for a special permit to develop a 79,428-square-foot Western Beef supermarket at 280 West 155th Street in Harlem. The  project site is at the corner of West 155th Street and Frederick Douglas Boulevard, and comprises three lots currently used for parking. Cactus of Harlem’s proposal called for a three-story building with supermarket uses on the ground and second floors, and commercial uses on the third floor. The project would include 79 underground parking spaces.

The lot is zoned C8-3, and an R7-2 district abuts the site’s southern lot line. Cactus of Harlem needed BSA’s approval to waive the zoning resolution’s rear-yard requirements because the building’s ground floor would extend to the rear lot line and encroach within the 30-foot open area required in commercially zoned lots abutting residentially zoned districts. BSA in 2000 had granted Cactus of Harlem a special permit to develop a smaller supermarket on the site, but the special permit lapsed and Cactus of Harlem acquired two neighboring lots in which to develop the project.

(read more…)

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.

160 Imlay Street, Brooklyn (circa 2006)

BSA, which had granted variance to developer in 2003, grants time extension due to five-year court battle. In 2003, the Board of Standards & Appeals granted a use variance to 160 Imlay Street Real Estate LLC to allow for the residential conversion of a six-story warehouse at 160 Imlay Street in Red Hook, Brooklyn. 160 Imlay Street LLC had claimed that it could not earn a reasonable rate of return with a complying use under the site’s M2-1 manufacturing zoning designation. The Red Hook-Gowanus Chamber of Commerce filed an article 78 petition challenging the variance. The Chamber, however, failed to name 160 Imlay Street LLC in the petition, and the City asked the State Supreme Court to dismiss the proceeding. The issue was appealed up to the Court of Appeals, which sent the case back to the Supreme Court. (read CityLand’s coverage here).

Supreme Court Justice Yvonne Lewis ruled that the lawsuit could continue without 160 Imlay Street LLC as a named party, and then vacated the variance. Justice Lewis returned the matter to BSA to determine whether 160 Imlay Street (read more…)