only when republican don wuiote julio ramirez decided to run sgainst gofather leonard stavisky did the queens lawyer gang get him tossed off the ballot because he did not reside in the district
the case went to the ny court of appeals where a lawyer urged a real estate case and said since a republican could not beat stavisky he should be allowedto run, be beaten to a pulp, and if he eon move across the streent out of the cemetery into the district.
leonard stavisky mainained multiple residences for many purposes including being eligible to run for the ny senate
crime pays. realtors can buy politicians for a pittance
City Halts Court Order to Chop Much of West-Side Condo Tower
Judge had cited zoning violation at 200 Amsterdam project; appellate panel will now take up issue
A judge had ordered the developer of 200 Amsterdam Avenue to cut the size of the building which was—and is—almost complete..
PHOTO: JAMES SPRANKLE FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
New York City officials Tuesday halted a judge’s order that a developer stop construction and demolish much of a 55-story condominium tower in Manhattan.
The ruling last month said the developer of the project known as 200 Amsterdam had to shrink the building because it violated the city’s zoning code.
Under the ruling, the building would have to shrink to less than 80,000 square feet and lose perhaps 40 stories in height, said George Janes, a zoning consultant, who worked with opponents of the project.
Work continued at the site even as the legal battle went on.
PHOTO: EDNA LESHOWITZ FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
The ruling sent shock waves through the real-estate industry. Developers worried it could spark challenges to other completed or nearly completed buildings where developers had already spent hundreds of millions of dollars.
New York’s real estate community was already feeling it had become a target of New York City and state lawmakers, who last year imposed higher transfer taxes and passed new tenant protection laws.
In this case, the city came to one developer’s defense when city lawyers notified the court that they had filed an appeal in the 200 Amsterdam case. Under state law, when New York City is a defendant, it is entitled to an automatic stay of a ruling against it, lawyers said.
The case will now be considered by an appellate panel and could face a review by the state’s highest court, the Court of Appeals.
The ruling by Justice Franc Perry of state Supreme Court in Manhattan overturned a series of decisions by the city’s buildings department, as well as a review panel, the board of standards and appeals, that had upheld the building permit issued in 2017 to the developer, SJP Properties.
The 668-foot tall building, at 200 Amsterdam Avenue, has already topped out, and many of the 112 condominiums there are on the market. Construction on the site has been continuing, despite the threat of partial demolition.
“We will continue to vigorously appeal this ruling in partnership with the City and are confident that the facts and justice will prevail,” said a spokeswoman for SJP Properties.
The real estate community was quick to criticize the judge’s ruling.
“If a specious lawsuit can reverse a nearly complete project, developers and lenders will lose faith that the City’s regulatory framework can actually be trusted,” James Whelan, the president of an industry group, the Real Estate Board of New York.
The case turned on an arcane issue in the zoning code: How city tax lots can be combined into larger zoning lots that allow for the transfer of building rights to a new construction site.
Developers routinely hire zoning consultants to research past advisory opinions and interpretations by the buildings department to find ways to maximize the height and bulk of new buildings—along with potential profits.
At 200 Amsterdam Avenue, the zoning lot was assembled from a collection of partial tax lots left out of other construction projects on the same block. A 1977 buildings-department memo allowed these partial tax lots to be combined into a single building site.
The permit application for the Amsterdam building shows a spiderlike network of skinny partial lots. The combination allowed the construction of a 370,000-square foot building.
Elizabeth Goldstein, president of the Municipal Art Society, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, said the developer violated the zoning code and continued to build while the lawsuit was pending.
“We are not against as of right zoning,” she said. “It is not OK for the development community to twist the zoning resolution to create mechanisms that are fundamentally illegal.”
SJP bought the site in 2015 for $275 million, after it had already been assembled, and relied on a decades-old interpretation, a spokesman for the developer said.
After the permit was issued, the city’s department of buildings circulated a draft ruling that would no longer allow the use of partial lots in new building projects.
In his decision, Justice Perry said the 1977 memorandum was incorrect. He also relied on the new interpretation of the zoning law by the buildings department after the permit had been issued.
Justice Perry cited a decision by the Court of Appeals allowing the city to revoke a building permit for an advertising sign that had already been completed. A lawyer for SJP noted that at 200 Amsterdam Avenue, the department of buildings doesn’t not want the permit revoked.
On Monday, as the city prepared to file its appeal, the department of buildings issued a final memorandum barring the use of partial zoning lots—but only for future projects where a permit hasn’t yet been issued.
That allows the mayor to show support for opponents of the project—and the city agencies that approved the building permit.
Jane Meyer, a spokeswoman for the mayor said the city was “closing this loophole for new projects, so that developers will no longer be able to cobble together partial tax lots for new buildings.”
On Tuesday, she said that the city was also appealing the decision because: ““It is the city’s responsibility to fix flawed policy—not the Court’s.”
Write to Josh Barbanel at josh.barbanel@wsj.com
No comments:
Post a Comment