Rendering of 1 Wall Street proposal. Image credit: Macklowe Properties/Robert A.M. Stern Architects/SLCE Architects

Robert A. M. Sterne-designed project would see the addition of several stories to an un-designated annex, and the creation of two additional window bays on south facade, among other work. On January 19, 2016, the Landmarks Preservation Commission considered a proposal for alterations to the individually landmarked 1 Wall Street Building. The 1931, 50-story, Art Deco skyscraper in Lower Manhattan was built as an office tower by the Irving Trust Company to designs by architect Ralph Walker. An annex to the building was constructed in the 1960s, and is not part of the landmarked site. The current owners, Macklowe Properties, intend to convert the building to residential use, with ground-floor retail. (more…)

Chelsea Market exterior at 75 Ninth Avenue, Manhattan. Credit: Chelsea Market.

See below for update.

Affordable housing contribution would be used by nearby Fulton Houses if floor area bonus utilized. On October 25, 2012, the City Council’s Land Use Committee approved Jamestown Properties’ modified expansion plan for Chelsea Market at 75 Ninth Avenue in Manhattan. The Market is a complex of 18 different buildings occupying the entire block bounded by West 14th and West 15th Streets and Ninth and Tenth Avenues. A section of the High Line Park cuts through the Market along Tenth Avenue. The expansion would facilitate the growth of Chelsea Market’s creative and media office use, as well as provide financial and practical benefits to the High Line.

The proposed expansion plan includes a 240,000-square-foot office space enlargement for 85 Tenth Avenue and a 90,000-square-foot enlargement at 75 Ninth Avenue for hotel use. The plan also extends the Special West Chelsea District to include the entire Chelsea Market block. The Special West Chelsea District was created in 2005. 2 CityLand 83 (July 15, 2005). The inclusion would facilitate the proposed expansion by retaining the block’s M1-5 zoning designation, and by allowing an increase in the maximum floor area ratio on the site from 5.0 to 7.5 FAR upon Jamestown making a financial contribution to the High Line Improvement Fund. Jamestown also promised to provide the High Line with amenities such as public restrooms and a freight elevator. (more…)

Property owners claimed they could not be fined for lessees’ illegal outdoor advertisements. Four separate property owners leased space on their premises to companies that procured, erected, and/or maintained advertisements in the space. The leases were all long-term. The Department of Buildings issued multiple notices of violation to the owners charging them for failing to register as an outdoor advertising company, failing to obtain a permit or a proper permit for outdoor advertising signs, and violating various zoning regulations. Each owner challenged the NOVs at a hearing before an ALJ, arguing that, as property owners, they were not outdoor advertising companies subject to the Code. In each case, the ALJ agreed with the owners and dismissed the charges. DOB appealed all four cases to the Environmental Control Board.

The Board reversed the ALJs’ orders as to the outdoor advertising company determination, imposing civil penalties ranging between $15,000 and $80,000. The Board determined that the owners qualified as outdoor advertising companies engaged in the outdoor advertising business, thus they were subject to the Code’s enhanced penalties for illegal signage. The Code provided that an outdoor advertising company was a person who, as part of his or her regular conduct of business, directly or indirectly made space on signs available to others for advertising. The Board found that by leasing space to advertising companies, the owners directly or indirectly made space on the signs available to others for advertising purposes. The owners failed to rebut this finding with contrary evidence, such as proof that leasing space on their buildings to advertising companies was outside their regular conduct of business. The owners filed article 78 petitions challenging the Board’s determinations, but the lower court denied them all.  (more…)

Building owner challenged ALJ’s recommendation to remove advertising sign. Yung Brothers Real Estate Co., the owner of 838 Sixth Avenue, installed at least one advertising sign over a “Bratman Brothers” sign that had existed on the building’s outer wall since at least 1940. In March 2007, the owner received Notices of Violations from Buildings for failing to obtain a sign permit and for violating a 1995 zoning restriction on advertising signs. Four months later, the owner notified Buildings that it had removed the sign and applied for a permit to install another advertising sign. Buildings issued the permit, noting that the sign complied with zoning regulations based on photographs of the building dated 1940. Three months later, Buildings reversed its decision, asserting that the permit had been issued in error. The owner did not remove the sign, and Buildings issued three additional NOVs and revoked the sign permit. Buildings charged the owner with creating a public nuisance and commenced an OATH proceeding to have the sign removed.

The owner argued that it was permitted to install the sign because of the 2007 permit and claimed the sign was a prior legal nonconforming use based on the pre-existing Bratman Brothers sign. An ALJ recommended the sign be removed, finding that the owner lacked a permit and failed to demonstrate that the Bratman Brothers sign was used for advertising and not as an accessory sign. 6 CityLand 128 (Sept. 15, 2009). The owner appealed and requested a stay to prevent Buildings from removing the sign. (more…)

Property owner without a permit allowed outdoor advertising. One Maiden Lane Realty LLC leased outdoor space to a registered outdoor advertising company. Under the lease agreement, the property owner could not collect revenue from advertising signs or control advertising sign content. An officer from Buildings issued several notices of violation to the owner in June 2007 for erecting two advertising signs without a permit and for numerous zoning law violations. About a year later, Buildings issued another eight NOVs for the same offenses and charged the owner as an outdoor advertising company, seeking increased penalties.

At a hearing, Buildings argued that the owner qualified as an outdoor advertising company because it had, directly or indirectly, made space available to another for advertising purposes. An ALJ found the owner liable for each NOV, but ruled that the owner could not be considered an outdoor advertising company because it did not collect revenue from the signs and had no control over advertising sign content. Therefore, the ALJ concluded, increased penalties were not appropriate. Buildings appealed to the Environmental Control Board, arguing that indirectly or directly making advertising space available to a registered outdoor advertising company was sufficient to qualify as an outdoor advertising company even when the lessee contracted with advertisers and controlled the signage. (more…)