Board rules that excavation and foundation work completed prior to permit revocation is still considered in vested rights analysis if revocation is later rescinded. On January 11, 2006, the Department of Buildings issued a permit to the owner of 1610 Avenue S to construct a six-story 25-unit residential building with community facility use on the first floor. After a special audit review, Buildings notified the owner of its intent to revoke the permit unless certain zoning and Building Code objections were resolved. Though the owner completed excavation and began work on the foundation, it failed to resolve the objections, and Buildings revoked the permit on February 14, 2006. The next day, the City Council approved a rezoning in Homecrest which changed the zoning on the owner’s lot from R6 to R4-1. The owner eventually resolved all the objections, and Buildings rescinded all outstanding letters of intent to revoke; however, the zoning change caused the proposed development to be out-of-compliance, and the owner filed an appeal with BSA to complete construction. (more…)

Neighbors claimed that two Manhattan developments violated the height limit. On July 17, 2007, BSA held public hearings on the Department of Buildings’ issuance of permits for two projects: a one-story penthouse addition to 515 East Fifth Street and a one-story mechanical room addition to 441 East 57th Street. Local residents claimed that the penthouse and the mechanical room violated Section 23-692 of the zoning resolution, also known as the Sliver Law.

The City enacted the Sliver Law in 1983 to limit the height of buildings in certain zoning districts to either the width of the street, or to the height of an abutting structure if the abutting structure was taller than the street’s width. In 2005, the owner of 515 East Fifth Street added a sixth story and an additional penthouse set back from the street. While the sixth story did not exceed 60 feet, the width of East Fifth Street, local residents claimed that the nine-foot high penthouse did. Similarly, residents argued that the mechanical penthouse at 441 East 57th Street clearly violated the limit. (more…)

Catering hall operated independently of synagogue use. In the 18,000- square-foot basement of its synagogue and school building, Yeshiva Imrei Chaim Viznitz operated a public catering hall. The catering hall had two lobbies, two kitchens and separate entrances to the street, and operated events seven days a week. In 2004 and 2005, the hall held over 320 events including weddings with over 500 guests.

The Department of Buildings issued an order to close down the catering hall, citing the fact that the site’s residential zoning prohibited commercial uses, and Buildings could not categorize the large catering use, which advertised in the yellow pages, as an accessory use to a school and synagogue. Buildings applied to BSA to revoke the Yeshiva’s certificate of occupancy, arguing that Yeshiva Imrei received it by fraudulent means.

Yeshiva Imrei sued, obtaining a court order to enjoin BSA from issuing any decision and requiring BSA to accept its variance application. It then argued that BSA should deny Building’s argument or, alternatively, grant a variance for the catering hall since the school and synagogue needed the income to stay afloat. It added that it spent millions on the basement space in reliance on the C of O, and case law and federal law required BSA’s approval.

When questioned by BSA as to whether all the events held in the hall related to the school’s students or the synagogue’s members, Yeshiva Imrei said that 50 percent of the events did, but it offered no proof to support that claim. It added that Brooklyn’s Boro Park community needed a low-cost alternative for weddings. As a final justification, Yeshiva Imrei mentioned several other religious groups and cultural institutions, like the 92nd Street Y, Saint Bartholomew’s Church, Riverside Church and the Museum of the City of New York, which it claimed operated similar events.

To be an accessory use, Buildings pointed out that the catering hall must be incidental, generally found on the same site, and secondary to the permitted uses of the school and synagogue.

BSA ruled that the use was not accessory and denied the variance. BSA noted that the income stream could be used to support the synagogue, but this alone would not justify the catering hall’s location in a residential district. No evidence submitted by Yeshiva Imrei showed that the catering hall supported the school or synagogue in its day-today functions, and the Yeshiva failed to prove that the site, building, or lot created a hardship. BSA emphasized that Yeshiva Imrei never offered any evidence that the mentioned institutions operated to the same frequency and, after BSA’s independent review, it discovered that several sat in commercial zones. Finally, there was nothing in the federal law that prohibited BSA’s denial since the decision would not impact the Yeshiva’s religious expression. The Yeshiva was free to use the catering hall for a permitted accessory use, like a student lunchroom or synagogue events.

BSA: 1824 53rd Street (60-06-A), (290- 05-BZ) (Jan. 9, 2007) (Stuart A. Klien, for Yeshiva Imrei Chaim Viznitz; Angelina Martinez-Rubio, for DOB). CITYADMIN

CITYLANDComment: The revocation of the Yeshiva’s C of O is pending before BSA. A special hearing on the issue is tentatively scheduled for March 2007.

Tribeca building’s 65 fuel tanks store more than 100,000 gallons. In 2002, the Department of Buildings issued violations to Hudson Telegraph Associates after inspectors found fifteen 275-gallon fuel storage tanks on six floors of the Western Union Building, an individual and interior City landmark located at 60 Hudson Street in Tribeca, Manhattan. The code only permits one 275-gallon tank on each story above the first floor. The 24-story, 1.2 million-square-foot Art Deco building houses telecommunications switchboards that serve a large portion of the northeast and require fuel reserves in case of power outages. Overall, the building contained 65 tanks with a 101,521- gallon capacity, less than permitted as-of-right. About 6,875 gallons of diesel fuel were maintained above the first floor.

legalize the tanks’ location, explaining that the floors required multiple tanks since several different telecommunication tenants needed storage tanks, and lease limitations provided no alternative locations. After a two-year review, Buildings issued a variance legalizing the tanks based on the practical difficulties of complying with the code. The variance, granted after consultation with the FDNY, fire safety consultants, and elected officials, stipulated that Hudson employ 25 specific safety measures crafted to address the need to manually refill and transport the fuel and to also deal with storage, delivery and potential spills. (more…)

Developer relied on self-certified permit later found invalid. Based on a professionally certified application, Buildings issued Chaim Nussenzweig, of HMS Associates, a building permit on August 21, 2005 for a 38-unit, five-story building at 614 7th Avenue at 23rd Street in South Park Slope, Brooklyn. The next day, City Planning certified its plan to down-zone portions of South Park Slope, including Nussenzweig’s lot, thereby starting the land use review process and providing Nussenzweig about 200 days to grandfather the project.

Soon after excavation and foundation work began, Buildings initiated a special audit of the project that revealed potential violations of floor area, lot coverage, height limits, and several building code provisions, including sprinklers. Buildings issued a stop-work order, sent Nussenzweig a notice listing its objections, and outlined its intention to revoke the permit unless Nussenzweig responded. All work ceased on October 11th and Buildings revoked the permit after receiving no response.

Nussenzweig later filed a second new building permit application, which Buildings approved on November 15th. The next day, the City Council approved the rezoning of South Park Slope, down-zoning the project site. 2 CityLand 161 (Dec. 2005). The project exceeded the new zoning’s height limit by 18 feet and the floor area limit by over 10,000 sq.ft. (more…)