Last minute effort to delay vote until disclosure of community benefit package was defeated. On December 19, 2007, the City Council voted to approve Columbia University’s and Manhattan Community Board 9’s development plans for West Harlem after the Planning Commission modified both plans the month before. The approval clears the way for Columbia to move forward with its campus expansion into the traditionally industrial neighborhood of Manhattanville.

Columbia’s plan called for a Special Manhattanville Mixed-Use District, stretching from West 125th to West 135th Streets, between Broadway and the Hudson River. Within the district, Columbia proposed to construct a 17-acre campus with a contiguous below-grade facility, or “bathtub,” to house facility support functions. If Columbia is unable to purchase all necessary property for the bathtub, then the Empire State Development Corporation would acquire it by eminent domain on Columbia’s behalf. 4 CityLand 154 (Nov. 15, 2007). The Commission modified and approved Columbia’s plan, limiting the height of certain campus facilities, and requiring more university housing and certain open space specifications. 4 CityLand 171 (Dec. 2007). (read more…)

Commission signs off on Columbia’s eminent domain option despite vocal opposition. On November 26, 2007, the Planning Commission modified and approved both Columbia University’s campus expansion plan and Community Board 9’s 197-a plan. The two plans must now go before the City Council for their review.

Columbia’s plan called for rezoning 35 acres of Manhattanville, a section of West Harlem primarily zoned for manufacturing, to facilitate construction of a 17-acre academic mixed-use development roughly bounded by West 125th and West 135th Streets, from Broadway to 12th Avenue. The development would include research buildings, classrooms, university housing, as well as space for recreation facilities and ground-floor retail. A contiguous below-grade facility, or “bathtub,” would serve the new campus buildings with parking facilities, truck loading facilities, and two central energy plants. If Columbia is unable to purchase the property necessary for the bathtub, then, under the plan, the Empire State Development Corporation would acquire the property by eminent domain on Columbia’s behalf. 4 CityLand 89 (July 15, 2007). (read more…)

Columbia University proposes northward expansion; CB 9 seeks industrial jobs and affordable housing. On October 3, 2007, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on Columbia University’s and Manhattan Community Board 9’s competing plans for the future of West Harlem.

Under Columbia’s plan, the City would rezone 35 acres of Manhattanville, a section of West Harlem currently zoned primarily for manufacturing, and create a Special Manhattanville Mixed-Use District stretching from West 125th to West 135th Streets, between Broadway and the Hudson River. Within this new district, Columbia would construct a 17-acre academic mixed-use development that would include academic building space, university housing, recreation space, and retail space. 4 CityLand 89 (July 15, 2007). (read more…)

First appraisal allegedly based on flawed calculation under City’s Zoning Resolution. Malba Cove Properties, Inc. had owned a 655,188- square-foot undeveloped parcel in College Point, Queens that the City acquired by eminent domain in 1996 as part of the City’s plan to develop a waterfront park.

With the trial on the property value set to start in mid-July 2006, Malba asked the court in late May for permission to file a revised appraisal that would increase the value from $10 million to $11.9 based on a new calculation of how much floor space could be developed on the parcel. Malba claimed that its land use expert had incorrectly determined the size of homes that could be built on the site by measuring from the base flood plane rather than the curb level, which was three feet lower. Malba argued that the new calculation should be accepted, because it represented a mathematical correction rather than a new theory, which would be prohibited at the late stage of the case. Malba also raised constitutional issues, claiming that its right to just compensation required the court to accept the new numbers. (read more…)

Court considered local practice. To develop a 75-unit, low-income rental project, the City took title through eminent domain of property located at 1823 Madison Avenue, within the Milbank Frawley Circle East Urban Renewal Area. IM Gas Inc., the property owner, timely filed its notice of claim and an appraisal report, seeking compensation for the taking. When the City did not file its appraisal report within nine months after IM’s claim, IM moved for an order preventing the City from filing its appraisal report, claiming a trial would be delayed by the City’s inaction.

Justice Martin Schoenfeld allowed the City to submit its appraisal report, ruling that IM would not be prejudiced and the City would not be unduly advantaged. The court considered the local practice that parties customarily submit appraisals after a request for a mutual exchange of reports has been made. The court also found there would be no delay to trial since the City’s condemnation plan involved multiple parcels and the City filed eight months earlier. (read more…)

Owner challenged the necessity of taking entire property. DEP applied to the Planning Commission to acquire a 12,500-squarefoot unimproved property used as a parking lot on Grand Street between Crosby and Lafayette Streets for the construction and maintenance of Shaft 30B of the Third Water Tunnel. After its construction, DEP proposed to use the lot as public open space. Following a public hearing, the Commission approved in April 2004.

In November 2004, the City filed a petition to condemn the property and the owner, Grand Lafayette Properties, objected. It argued that suitable alternative sites existed, Shaft 30B could be constructed and maintained without taking the entire lot, and the ULURP process was defective. The lower court granted the petition, finding that the City demonstrated its need for the entire lot, had broad discretion to determine the extent of land needed and should not have to rely on a private landowner to deal with a future repair or crisis. The City’s (read more…)