Board found that Buildings retroactively applied building code provision after architect allegedly self-certified non-conforming plans. In 2006, architect David Millner submitted to Buildings self-certified alteration plans depicting the replacement of a 69 sq.ft. rear deck and the enlargement of a basement bathroom in a three-story home built in the 1930s at 1-69 Beach 91st Street in Rockaway Beach, Queens. Buildings audited the plans and in February 2010 issued Millner a notice of violation for submitting certified plans that did not conform to applicable laws pursuant to a section of the building code enacted in July 2008. According to the NOV, Millner’s plans depicted a rear yard of less than two feet, rather than the 30- foot rear yard required by the zoning resolution, and a rear deck made of combustible materials built within three feet of the property line. Buildings also claimed that the bathroom enlargement increased the building’s non-compliance with permitted floor area regulations. (read more…)

Board reverses ALJ, finds that lot was vacant when owner purchased property. 1115 Ocean Parkway LLC purchased a vacant lot in the Midwood section of Brooklyn and constructed a five-story building. An officer issued a Notice of Violation after he observed that a building had been demolished without a permit prior to the new construction. At a hearing, the owner claimed that the lot was vacant when it purchased the property, and submitted a recorded deed and accompanying survey that showed a vacant lot. The ALJ upheld the NOV, determining that the owner’s evidence was not convincing especially since the deed referenced the owner’s lot through a handwritten note and the survey contained no lot number.

The owner appealed to ECB, arguing that the recorded deed and survey proved the lot was vacant when the owner purchased the property. The Board agreed with the owner, reversed the ALJ’s decision and order, and dismissed the NOV. The Board ruled that the lot was vacant at the time of purchase, noting that the deed was recorded under the block and lot identified in the NOV and that the lot line boundaries on the survey matched the metes and bounds description of the lot on the recorded deed. (read more…)