Rooftop addition at 514-516 East 6th Street. Credit: CityLand

Tenant objected to BSA’s interpretation of Multiple Dwelling Law that legalized sixth-floor additions to East Village tenements. In October 2006, Ben Shaoul, the owner of two adjacent five-story tenements located at 514 and 516 East 6th Street in the East Village, filed an application with the City’s Department of Buildings seeking an alteration permit to add two floors to each building. The proposal did not comply with the fire safety requirements of the Multiple Dwelling Law and the owner sought a waiver from Buildings. Buildings waived the Multiple Dwelling Law requirements and issued the permit. In November 2008, after the owner had already enlarged the buildings, the Board of Standards and Appeals revoked the permit because Buildings did not have the authority to vary the requirements of the Multiple Dwelling Law.

The owner applied to BSA to legalize the enlargement. BSA legalized the sixth-floor by granting the variance after the owner agreed to demolish the seventh-floor. (Read CityLand’s coverage of the legalization here.) Jean Chin, a tenant in one of the buildings, filed an article 78 petition challenging BSA’s decision. Chin denied the enlargement’s legality, arguing that BSA applied the wrong section of the Multiple Dwelling Law and instead should have applied a different more stringent section. Justice Cynthia S. Kern upheld BSA’s determination, holding that the statute was ambiguous and therefore BSA’s interpretation was entitled to deference so long as it was reasonable. The Appellate Division, First Judicial Department, affirmed Justice Kern’s decision. The First Department agreed that BSA’s interpretation of the Multiple Dwelling Law was reasonable because subjecting building owners to the statute’s more stringent requirements could create a chilling effect on renovations.

Jean Chin v. BSA, 2012 N.Y. Slip Op. 05599 (1st Dep’t July 17, 2012) (Attorneys: LeMare Moore, for Chin; Michael A. Cardozo, Susan Paulson, for BSA).

Google map view of St. Mary's Hospital

Opponent’s attempt to stop construction declared moot. St. Mary’s Hospital for Children operates a 97-bed children’s hospital on an eight-acre campus at 29-01 216th Street in Bayside, Queens. The hospital building was built in the 1950s. In 2006, St. Mary’s sought to add a five-story, 90,000 sq.ft. addition to the eastern side of the hospital. In October 2008, St. Mary’s sought a determination from the Department of Buildings confirming that the site was permitted a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.0. Buildings denied the request, stating that the proposed addition needed to comply with a 1973 amendment to the zoning resolution restricting community facilities like St. Mary’s to a maximum FAR of 0.5. The amendment included an exception clause indicating that the amendment “shall not apply to buildings for which plans were filed with the Department of Buildings prior to November 15, 1972 including any subsequent amendments thereof.” On October 20, 2010, Buildings reconsidered, approving the request and allowing an FAR of 1.0 because the hospital was built prior to November 15, 1972.

(read more…)

Sunset Park Rezoning used with permission of NYC DCP. All rights reserved.

This article was originally published on 10/15/2011 (see below for update).

Dissent argued that City only belatedly added consideration of rezoning’s impact on low-income residents. In April 2009, the Department of City Planning proposed a 128-block contextual rezoning of Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Planning sought to preserve the residential neighborhood’s built character while allowing new construction at a height and scale consistent with existing development. The proposal called for establishing height limits, mapping new commercial overlays to allow a wider range of uses, and applying the inclusionary housing program along certain corridors to encourage the creation of affordable housing and allow increased residential development. After conducting an environmental assessment, Planning determined the rezoning would have no significant adverse impacts and issued a negative declaration. Residents and community groups opposed to the plan claimed that Planning had not adequately considered the rezoning’s socio-economic impact, and argued that it would lead to the displacement of low-income residents. The City Council approved the plan in September 2009.

(read more…)

Zoning restrictions against adult businesses survive trial on adequacy of prior study. The Department of City Planning conducted a study on the negative secondary effects of adult businesses in the City, and concluded in 1993 that such businesses increased crime and lowered property values. Based on this study, the City in 1995 amended the zoning resolution to restrict the location of adult businesses in certain areas, banned the enlargement of existing adult uses, and prohibited the change of any use to an adult use. The amendment also defined “adult establishment” as a commercial establishment where a substantial portion (40 percent or more of accessible floor area) of the establishment included adult uses. Some adult businesses closed, but others remained legal by keeping their adult material within less than 40 percent of their accessible floor areas.

The City believed these 60/40 percent businesses were in sham compliance based on actual adult versus non-adult material sales receipts. In 2001, the City amended the zoning resolution again in 2001 to prevent stores which focused on providing adult material from avoiding the adult establishment restrictions. Adult businesses challenged the constitutionality of the amendments and sought a preliminary injunction. (read more…)

First Department ruled that preservation group failed to show its members were affected differently than general public. The City’s Landmarks law provides the public with the ability to nominate properties for landmark designation by submitting a Request for Evaluation form. After receiving a request, the Landmarks Preservation Commission’s Request for Evaluation Committee, which includes the Landmarks Chair, screens the nomination in order to determine whether additional consideration is appropriate.

A nomination requiring further consideration is sent to each Landmarks Commissioner, along with a photograph of the property, a statement of significance, and the Committee’s recommendation. After considering the Commissioners’ comments, the Chair then, at his or her discretion, decides whether to recommend that the full Commission calendar a public hearing to formally consider the nomination. (read more…)

Property owners challenge ESDC’s authority to use eminent domain on behalf of Columbia. Looking to expand in West Harlem, Columbia University teamed up with the City’s Economic Development Corporation in 2001 to redevelop the area. Not long after, EDC issued a West Harlem Master Plan. The plan stated that West Harlem could be redeveloped through rezoning, and did not mention any blighted conditions in Manhattanville. Columbia began purchasing property in the area in 2002 for its own redevelopment and expansion plan. The seventeen-acre project site, bounded by West 133rd Street on the north, West 125th Street on the south, Broadway and Old Broadway on the east, and Twelfth Avenue on the west, would include sixteen new buildings, and a contiguous below-grade support facility.

Two years after the purchasing began, Columbia met with the Empire State Development Corporation and EDC to discuss Columbia’s plan and the condemnation of land. Subsequently, EDC issued a study concluding the area was blighted. ESDC retained Columbia’s consultant, who also found the area suffered from blight. ESDC later commissioned a second blight study with a consultant without ties to Columbia. The study also found blighted conditions throughout the area. Seven months after the second study, ESDC authorized the acquisition of certain property through eminent domain, and several affected property owners filed petitions challenging the determination. (read more…)