Agenda - Planning Commission - 11/12/2015

Home

October 25, 2015 1 Volume 9 1 Issue 20 Zoning Bulletin Each of the OACs submitted registrations for signs on property owned or under control of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("MTA"). CBS Outdoor had also submitted registrations for signs on property owned by CSX Transportation Inc. ("CSXT"). In 2012, the DOB issued Notice .of Sign Registration Rejection letters denying registration for those signs on the MTA property and on the CSXT property. The DOB rejected the sign registrations, finding the signs were not allowed because they were too close to an arterial highway or in a residential or low-density commercial zoning district. The OACs each appealed the denials to the City's Board of Standards and Appeals ("BSA"). The BSA reviewed the appeal applications together. The BSA ultimately denied the appeals of the OACs with respect to the total 13 signs on MTA property. The BSA also denied CBS Outdoor's application with respect to CBS Outdoor's 12 signs on CSXT property. The three OACs brought legal actions, seeking to vacate and annul the DOB's rejection of their applications to register their outdoor signs and the resolution of the BSA, which upheld the DOB's rejection. The OACs also asked the court to declare that local laws governing outdoor signs do not ap- ply to property or facilities owned, leased, or controlled by the MTA. They maintained that the local laws conflicted with the Public Authorities Law, which exempted MTA facilities from local regulation. CBS Outdoor also argued its signs on CSXT property were legal noncon- forming uses. CSXT also brought a "cross claim" under which it argued that the local zoning laws did not apply and were preempted under federal law the Interstate Commerce Commission Termination Act of 1995 ("IC- CTA")—which preempts all local laws managing or governing rail transportation. DECISION: Petitions challenging determination of Department of Buildings granted in part and denied in part. The Supreme Court, New York County, New York, held that the City regulations restricting the placement of outdoor advertising conflicted with the Public Authorities Law. The court concluded that the City's laws govern- ing outdoor sign placement did not apply to property or facilities owned, leased, or controlled by the MTA. In so concluding, the court found that, by its teirus, the Public Authorities Law § 1266(8) expressly provides that local laws and rules that are "in conflict" with the Public Authorities Law are inapplicable to MTA facilities, except for "facilities that are devoted to purposes other than transportation or transit purposes." The Public Authorities Law discusses, in part, jurisdiction of municipali- ties over MTA facilities. Public Authorities Law § 1266(8) provides in rele- vant part that: "Except as hereinafter specially provided, no municipality or political subdivi- sion, including but not limited to a . . . city . . . shall have jurisdiction over any facilities of the authority and its subsidiaries, and New York city transit authority and its subsidiaries, or any of their activities or operations. The local laws, resolutions, ordinances, rules and regulations of a municipality . . . 6 © 2015 Thomson Reuters