DOB revokes Breezy Point resident’s building permit, thereby eliminating BSA appeal. On May 15, 2007, BSA dismissed a contentious case involving the construction of a new year-round home in Breezy Point, Queens, following the Department of Buildings’ revocation of the original permit.
In 2006, Thomas Carroll, a Breezy Point resident for over 50 years, received a permit to construct a new year-round home to replace his deteriorated bungalow. Carroll’s neighbor, Supreme Court Judge James Golia, succeeded in delaying construction several times by complaining to Buildings, obtaining a restraining order and finally filing an appeal to BSA alleging, among other things, that the size of the house violated zoning restrictions for rear and front yards, distance between buildings and parking requirements. Golia’s appeal centered on a claim that Carroll’s plot could not qualify as a separate zoning lot since Carroll did not own it “separately and individually” as required by the zoning resolution. Since the Breezy Point Cooperative owns all the plots in Breezy, BSA’s final decision could have impacted all plots and future building permit applications in the Far Rockaway community.
Following a hearing, but before BSA ruled, Buildings revoked Carroll’s permit, finding that it did not comply with front yard requirements and asking Carroll to submit new building plans.
As a consequence, BSA informed Golia that it planned to dismiss his appeal. Golia opposed, arguing that the revocation only dealt with the front yard issue, that other issues remained and dismissal by BSA would deny him his property rights.
BSA denied Golia’s request, dismissing the case. BSA noted that Golia obtained his remedy with the full revocation of the permit and any further review by it would be speculative since Carroll needed to file new building plans.
BSA: 607 Bayside Drive (229-06-A) May 15, 2007. CITYADMIN
CITYLAND Comment: With the dismissal, BSA avoided a final decision on whether DOB should treat each Breezy plot as a separate zoning lot. Construction of Carroll’s home is complete, but he remains unable to occupy the building. Compliance with the front yard requirements would require Carroll to reduce and reconstruct a portion of his home.
On May 25th, Carroll filed an appeal with BSA of Buildings’ revocation of his original permit.