Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/07/2006

Home

( c Z.B. August 10, 2006 - Page 7 Variance _ Developer seeks to convert warehouse for residential use Local chamber of commerce among those in opposition Citation: In the Matter of Red Hook/Gowanus Chamber of Commerce v. New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, Suprern,e Court of New York, No. 2308/04 (2006) NEW YORK (06/02/06) - Imlay Street Real Estate, LLC, acquired a warehouse property located in an M2-1 manufacturing zone along the waterfront at the , ' Red Hook section of Brooklyn. Imlay purchased the property with the intention of leasing it to various telecommunications companies. The purpose was frus-: trated in 2001 by a decline in the telecommunications industry. Imlay spent the next two years trying to market the property to various commercial tenants without success. Imlay decided to convert the building to residential use. Resi- dential uses were not allowed in the property's zoning district. Imlay submitted an application to the New York City Board of Standards and Appeals requesting a variance to convert the building to residential use and increase the size of the building from six stories and 220,000 square feet to nine stories and 284,329 square feet. Imlay planned on converting the property to'14S'condominium units with onsite parking. The board held four public hearings. At these hearings various parties spoke in favor of and in opposition to the variance. In response to some of the negative comments, Imlay modified its plans for the property by eliminating three floors of the structure and replacing some of the [ust-floor residential units with retail space, which was more in hannony with the surrounding commercial uses. Ultimately, the board granted the variance. The Red HooklGowanus Chamber of Commerce and other parties sued the board, seeking to nullify the variance. DECISION: Reversed. Generally, local zoning boards have broad discretion in considering appli- cations for variances. Courts reviewing decisions of local zoning boards are limited to determining whether the actions of the board were illegal, arbitrary, or an abuse of discretion. A local zoning board's decision would be sustained if it was rational and supported by the evidence. To grant a variance, the board must have found that: 1) the premises had unique physical conditions that made strict compliance with the zoning code an unnec- essary hardship; 2) the physical condition of the property precluded the reason- able possibility of a reasonable rate of return on the investment, and that a variance was required for the owner to make a re.asonable return; 3) the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare, alter the essential character of the neighborhood, or impair the use or development of adjoining properties;4) the owner had not created the practical difficulties or unnecessary hardship; and 5) the variance would be the minimum action necessary to afford relief to the landowner. The court concluded that Imlay had not satisfied the requirement that the physical condition of the property precluded the possibility ofa reasonable @ 2006 Quinlan Publishing Group. Any reproduction is prohibited. For more information please cail (617) 542-0048. 95