City Planning Commission had approved the permit to operate a Bronx homeless shelter.  Liska NY, Inc. had constructed an eight-story homeless shelter at 731 Southern Boulevard in the Longwood area of the Bronx.  The shelter exceeded the height, setback, and floor area ratio limits for the site and on August 21, 2013 the City Planning Commission approved Liska’s request for a special permit to legalize the building.  On October 9, 2013 the City Council voted to deny the permit.  In an earlier hearing, then-Council Member Maria del Carmen Arroyo requested a vote to deny the permit because the shelter was originally constructed as a thirty-two unit apartment building in 2003 and four years later converted to a homeless shelter in violation of applicable zoning.  Council Member Arroyo stated this after-the-fact shelter construction was a pattern of behavior by Liska and continued to oversaturate the local community board district with shelter providers.

(more…)

Mini-storage owners unsuccessfully challenged FEIS. Columbia University proposed an expansion plan that would allow it to construct a new 17- acre campus in the Manhattanville neighborhood of West Harlem. The plan would create academic building space, university housing, as well as a contiguous below-grade facility, or “bathtub,” to support campus functions. After the City Planning Commission determined that Columbia’s plan might have a significant impact on the environment, Columbia prepared a final environmental impact statement (FEIS) which concluded that Columbia’s plan, as modified during the review process, would not result in any adverse impacts not already identified in the FEIS. The City adopted the FEIS’s findings, and a modified version of Columbia’s plan was ultimately approved by the City Council, as was Manhattan Community Board 9’s alternative development plan for West Harlem. 5 CityLand 3 (Feb. 15, 2008).

Tuck-It-Away Associates, a business in the proposed development area, challenged the City’s adoption of the FEIS’s findings. Tuck- It-Away claimed that the City failed to take the required “hard look” at the potential environmental impacts of the bathtub, and failed to adequately consider CB9’s plan. Tuck-It-Away also asserted that the City unlawfully segmented the environmental review process by postponing the review of some outstanding issues relating to the maintenance and construction of the bathtub to an unspecified future date. (more…)

Council’s denial of permit based only on community opposition overturned. Jack Bistro, a restaurant at 80 University Place in Manhattan, applied for a sidewalk cafe permit to add outdoor seating. After a public hearing, DCA recommended approval. Community Board 2, which received the application from DCA for comment, recommended denial, citing the community’s “longstanding tradition” against outdoor seating along University Place.

When the application went to City Council, opponents reiterated that the community was against all sidewalk cafes due to the noise and crowds. They claimed that approval would create incentive for 20 other businesses along University Place to apply for sidewalk seating. At the close of testimony, Council Member Tony Avella, Chair of the Zoning & Franchises Subcommittee, pointed out that Jack Bistro had no record of complaints or violations, but added that the Council would give heavy weight to the community’s “de facto moratorium” on sidewalk cafes. The subcommittee denied the permit and the full Council followed its recommendation. (more…)

Brooklyn developer still cannot build housing. Middleland Inc. sought to rezone three lots on DeKalb Avenue and Spencer Street in Brooklyn and remove a 1975 restriction recorded on the site that limited its use to accessory parking for an adjacent IBM plant, closed since 1993 and now occupied by a Home Depot. Middleland planned to construct housing on its site.

Despite the Planning Commission’s approval, the City Council rejected both of Middleland’s requests, citing the need for jobs in central Brooklyn and Community Board 3’s unanimous disapproval. 2 CityLand 148 (Nov. 15, 2005). (more…)

Staten Island landowners claimed delay prejudiced their development application. The three Putter brothers owned a six-acre tract of land in the West Brighton/New Brighton section of Staten Island. Their property was located within the Special Hillsides Preservation District, which requires landowners to obtain Planning Department permission to develop their property. In 1999, the brothers submitted an application to the Planning Department to develop their site with 60 affordable townhouses.

Over the next several years the brothers prepared an environmental assessment and continued discussions with Planning over their proposed plan. In early 2004, the brothers learned that the Planning Department was preparing zoning text amendments to establish the Lower Density Growth Management Area for Staten Island, which would conflict with their development plan. In March 2004, the brothers filed a revised application, but the Planning Department would not certify it until specific impediments were removed. At that point the application, if approved, would have avoided compliance with the new proposed LDGMA.

In early July 2004, City Planning informed the brothers that the Planning Commission had scheduled a public hearing and vote on the LDGMA within the month, and that it was unlikely that their application would be completed prior to adoption. Planning suggested that the brothers appear at the public hearing to request an amendment to the proposed text allowing for the grandfathering of applications filed and referred to the Community Board, but not yet acted on.

The brothers did not appear at the hearing, but instead submitted a revised, non-compliant application to the Planning Department, insisting that they were entitled to grandfathering because of delays in the processing of their application. After Community Board 1 recommended disapproval of the application, the brothers requested that the Commission vote on the application before the City Council could approve the LDGMA. The Commission denied the request, informing the brothers that it would not waive its usual processes.

On August 5, 2004, the brothers sought a court order requiring the Commission to vote on their application at its August 9 public hearing. Justice Faviola Soto granted the brothers’ motion and ordered the Commission to vote on their application. The City immediately appealed and Justice Soto’s order was automatically stayed. On August 12, 2004, the City Council adopted the LDMGA text amendments.

The First Department ruled that the lower court erred when it ordered the Commission to consider and vote on the brothers’ application. The court should not have taken away the Commission’s review powers or its power to manage its own calendar. The court found no reason to justify a preliminary injunction since the brothers could not have been irreparably harmed. Any delay they suffered was compensable through money damages. Even if the Commission wrongfully refused to grant the application, the brothers could have sought court permission to build their development.

Putter v. City of New York, 2006 NY Slip Op 1704, March 9, 2006 (1st Dep’t) (Attorneys: Jeffrey E. Glen, for Putter; Michael A. Cardozo, Tahirih M. Sadrieh, for NYC).