Applicant claimed that a conforming commercial office building would not yield a reasonable return. DJL Family Limited Partnership applied to BSA for a variance to construct a new seven-story building with 12 apartments and ground floor retail on Spring Street between Crosby Street and Lafayette Street in SoHo, Manhattan. DJL sought a variance because the proposed residential and retail uses were not permitted within the M1-5B district. If granted the variance, DJL planned to demolish the existing one-story commercial building on its 4,766 sq.ft. lot in order to facilitate construction.

DJL claimed that the lot size was too small to construct a conforming commercial office building that would generate a reasonable return. DJL could construct 3,625 sq.ft. floor plates, but would be compelled to devote an average of 630 sq.ft. per floor to stairways, elevators, and bathrooms, resulting in a 17 percent loss of the rentable area per floor. DJL added that a 7,250 sq.ft. commercial building would also need 630 sq.ft. per floor for its building core, but would only lose nine percent of rentable area per floor. (more…)

Cornell’s need to expand supported granting of variance. Cornell University applied to BSA on behalf of Weill Cornell Medical College, a non-profit educational institution, for a variance to construct an 18-story biomedical research facility at 411-431 East 69th Street in Manhattan. The development site includes portions of five tax lots comprising a single zoning lot. Cornell intends to demolish three buildings within the zoning lot to construct the new facility. The proposed building would be constructed at nearly double the permitted FAR and triple the permitted street wall height.

Cornell claimed that its current research facilities were outdated, and that the proposed building was necessary to efficiently increase its medical research capabilities. Cornell presented proof that institutions with similar missions required laboratory floor plates between 20,000 – 35,000 sq.ft. Not including mechanical space, Cornell’s facility would have 21,752 sq.ft. floor plates. Cornell also claimed that the proposed location for the research facility was ideal because nearby patient care facilities would help facilitate clinical research. (more…)

In eminent domain case court ruled that appraisal could be based on assumption that variance would be granted. The City acquired title to a vacant M1-2 property, owned by Congregation Adas Yereim, through eminent domain. The property’s zoning allowed light manufacturing uses as-of-right, but prohibited residential uses. Prior to condemnation, Congregation had already begun the process of applying for a special permit and variance that would have allowed it to build a five-story school and four residential buildings with 90 units. A formal application had been submitted for the special permit and hearings had been held on the matter; a variance application for the residential buildings would follow once the special permit was obtained. Though the City took title to the property before the special permit was obtained, Congregation submitted an appraisal report that valued the property as if it would be developed with the residential buildings and school.

The City attempted to preclude the appraisal report from evidence, arguing that it erroneously assumed that a variance would have been granted. The City further argued that, even if the property would have received a variance, the appraisal report should be inadmissible at trial since the method of valuation was inappropriate. The appraiser, according to the City, should have valued the property as it was zoned and then added an increment for the probability of obtaining a variance instead of valuing the property as if it received the variance. (more…)

Court found zoning lot merger to be a technical amendment to prior BSA resolution granting variance; new variance not required, nor is environmental impact statement. BSA granted the College of St. Francis Xavier a variance in 1963 on the condition that Xavier’s proposed development conform to the site plan submitted with the original application. In 2008, Xavier agreed to merge its zoning lot with an adjacent lot owned by Clothing Workers Center Incorporated. Clothing Workers would then purchase the unused development rights on Xavier’s tax lot and sell its tax lot along with the development rights to a developer who intended to construct a 20-story hotel within the merged zoning lot. Xavier and Clothing Workers applied to BSA for an amendment to the 1963 resolution so that the approved site plan would be updated to reflect the zoning lot merger. BSA approved the application, finding that the new site plan did not affect the findings made in the 1963 resolution. BSA concluded that the amendment was technical and findings for a new variance were not required.

Neighbors and a community organization filed an article 78 petition, claiming that BSA should have made findings necessary for a new variance and directed the applicants to produce an environmental impact statement. Justice Walter B. Tolub denied the petition, finding that BSA’s determination that the application did not disturb any of the findings made in 1963 was rational. Tolub reasoned that since the amendment was merely technical, a new variance was not necessary. (more…)

Hospital’s programmatic needs supported granting of variance. Mount Sinai Hospital and Mount Sinai School of Medicine of New York University, a non-profit organization, applied to BSA for a variance to construct an 11-story research facility in Manhattan. The development site included three tax lots comprising a single zoning lot. Mt. Sinai’s Nurses’ Residence occupied one tax lot while the other two tax lots housed three hospital buildings that Mt. Sinai intended to demolish in order to construct the research building and adjacent residential building. As proposed, the research building would not comply with zoning regulations for community facility lot coverage, height and setback, sky exposure plane, and tower coverage.

Mt. Sinai claimed that it required a new research facility in order to remain competitive among similar institutions, and that floor plates of 28,000sq.ft., not including mechanical space, were required in order to construct an efficient research facility. It further claimed that the retention of the Nurses’ Residence was also necessary to meet its programmatic needs, and, as such, the Residence qualified as a unique physical condition inherent to the zoning lot which created a practical difficulty in complying with zoning requirements. Mt. Sinai provided four alternative, as-of-right site plans, but argued that none allowed for the retention of the Residence and large enough floor plates. (more…)