Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/09/1995

Home

z.g. October 15, 1995 -- Page 3 revitalize its downtown commercial district. Steam Heat got most of the per- mits it needed before Nov. 30, 1994. On NC~v. 30, 1994, the New York City Zoning Resolution was amended to include a one-year moratorium on the opening of new adult entertainment estab- lishments.~ Under another section of the resolution, Steam Heat's construction permits lapsed automatically because of the moratorium. Steam Heat then had to apply to th~ Board of Standards and Appeals (board), which would decide whether the constrUction was substantially complete and whether to renew the permits. After iklov. 30, Steam' Heat continued construction even thoUgh it never applied to ~enew the permits. The city's Department of Buildings (department) asked Steam Heat to give it evidence about the construction's status. After Steam Heat submitted the information, the department determined that 75 to 80 percent~of the construction was done before Nov. 30. The department issued Steam He~t the appropriate permits. Brooklyn Borough President Golden and commercial tenants from the MetroTech Center appealed the department's deci- sion to theboard. In April 1995, the board had not made a decision. Steam Heat got a tempo- rary certifi;cate of occupancy and opened for business. Several days later, Golden and the neighboring tenants Sued for an order preventin~ Steam Heat from staying open for business. They claimed Steam Heat woul~l adversely affect the commercial district. Golden and the tenants asked for aN initial order to stop Steam Heat from operating for 30 days, which the court granted. Steam Heat appealed. It argued that neither Golden nor the tenants could ask for the~ court order because they did not claim the establishment would specifically harm them. DECISION: Order reversed. The tenants did not prove Steam Heat would cause them imminent and irreparableiharm by staying open while the board appeal was pending, so the order was reversed. However, their case could proceed. Golden could not even ask for the Court order because he was not an aggrieved party -- he claimed to be acting o~ behalf of the borough's 2.5 million residents, not himself or the commercial tenants. The tenants were aggrieved parties who could proceed with the lawsuit because th~. MetroTech Center was directly across the street from Steam Heat. Because there was evidence that adult entertainment establishments had ad- verse effects on any surrounding area, their loss could be presumed and they did not have to allege specific injury. The moratorium was designed to protect their interests. Even though the tenants could sue, they were not entitled to the court order. They did nO~t prove they would suffer irreparable harm while the board appeal was pendinl[. All they claimed was that the district would be harmed sometime in the future. · Matter of StmBrite Car Wash v. Board of Zoning & Appeals, 515N. YS. 2d 418.