Site now used for b us parking lot. Enopac Holding LLC, which since 1995 operated a parking lot for 150- 180 school buses on its property located at 6055 -6065 Strickland Avenue in Brooklyn, sought a use variance from the BSA to allow the construction of six mini-storage buildings on the property. Although the site historically contained several heavy and light industrial uses, including a waste treatment facility, the City rezoned the area in 1996 to residential R3-1.

BSA denied the variance, finding that six large garage buildings would be extremely detrimental to a proposed adjacent development of 52 semi-detached homes, and would permanently change the character of the residentially- zoned neighborhood. BSA rejected consideration of Enopac’s claim that the 52-unit construction, due to high remediation costs, would be abandoned. BSA also found that, although the parking lot pre-existed the rezoning, it was less permanent than the six proposed structures.

Down-zoning in South Street Seaport upheld. Peck Slip Assoc. LLC, the owner of a surface parking lot at 250 Water Street, sued the City seeking to invalidate City Council’s down-zoning of the South Street Seaport area on a claim that the rezoning made 250 Water Street impossible to develop.

In April 2003, the City Council approved a South Street Seaport down-zoning, reducing the permitted height and mass of all future development in a l O-block area of Lower Manhattan bounded by Dover, Pearl, Fulton and South Streets. (See map on back.) The rezoned area corresponded to the boundaries of the 1 977 Landmarks designation of the South Street Seaport Historic District, and culminated almost 40 years of City, State and community land use decisions on South Street Seaport.

Staten Island residential developer denied certification. Salvatore Culotta wanted to build 12 dwelling units in six detached residences on property he owned in the Special South Richmond Development District, a special zoning district created by the City in 1977. Before applying to Buildings for a permit, however, Culotta was required to apply to City Planning for a certification that there was sufficient school capacity to accommodate the expected increase in school children. When Culotta filed for certification in 2004, City Planning withheld it because the property had an outstanding Buildings violation for the alleged unauthorized removal of a tree.

Culotta filed an article 78 petition to compel City Planning to issue the certification. Justice Eric N. Vitaliano dismissed the petition, finding that, under the Zoning Resolution, City Planning could adopt reasonable guidelines for issuing certifications and that its policy of withholding certificates from a developer with outstanding violations was reasonable. The outstanding Buildings violation would prevent the project from proceeding and issuing a certificate would only serve to hold up school seats that may otherwise be used for other project developments.

Water filtration plant survives two lawsuits. In a 1997 settlement agreement with the federal government, the Department of Environmental Protection agreed to build a filtration plant for the Croton Reservoir. DEP selected 23 acres in Van Cortlandt Park in the Bronx to build the plant. In 200 1 , the Court of Appeals ruled that extended construction on park land required State approval. 7 CityLaw 41 (200 1 ). I n 2003, the state legislature gave the required authorization to construct the plant in the park. In July 2004, DEP completed a supplemental environmental impact statement, and on September 28, 2004, the City Council approved the plant location and construction.

The Friends of Van Cortlandt Park claimed that the approval violated a zoning resolution requirement that no building permit be issued on former public park land without the Planning Commission’s creation of a new zoning district. The City argued that it had made a determination to override the zoning resolution requirements because the benefits of siting the plant at that location were important, the project was approved for water filtration use only and, designating a zoning district would serve no purpose.

Vacant illegal unit added by a previous owner. Buildings charged Jose Hernandez for maintaining an illegally converted third unit in a two-family dwelling. The cellar of Hernandez’s building was converted prior to his ownership into a separate living unit – including a bedroom, bathroom and kitchen area with a gas line – in violation of the Administrative Code. At the hearing, Hernandez acknowledged the existence of the third unit, but argued that the unit pre-existed his ownership and, since the unit was vacant and used only for storage, no use violation occurred. Rejecting both arguments, the ALJ fined Hernandez $800 for the illegal conversion and $50 per day for 45 days or until the condition was mitigated.

On appeal, the Environmental Control Board affirmed, ruling that a violation occurred whether or not anyone was living in the unit because the cellar was designed as a separate unit. The Board found that the Code made it a violation to not only add the illegal unit, but to keep it.

Owner denied access lift, sidewalk excavation and a new passageway. The owner of 313 315 West 91 st Street, two Renaissance- style rowhouses designed by Charles True and built in 1897, sought a permit to excavate the sidewalk along the western end of 315 West 91 st Street to create a passageway. The buildings, two of a series of seven historic mansions, are located within the Riverside Drive-West End Historic District designated by Landmarks in 1989. Within the passageway, the owner proposed to build a new stairway, an access lift and a glass and cement mortar stairway railing.

Landmarks denied the application, finding that a passageway was not a historic feature present in any of the mansions comprising the historic district and the proposed access-lift design would detract from the integrity and architectural character of 315 West 91 st’s b owed- frontage. In making the determination, Landmarks . stated that the West 91 st rowhouses were comprised of four distinct designs that varied in a unique pattern down the street. The subject buildings differed in design, with 315 West 91 st having a full bow-fronted facade, while 313 West 91 st has a projecting bay. The owner’s proposed changes to the full bow-fronted facade at 315 West 91 st were too significant to approve.