MIL

ZRD2: Zoning Challenge

ZRD2:
with response

Buildings

Scan sticker will be affixed

by Department staff

Must be typewritten

DECISION (To be completed by a Buildings Department official)

Review Decision:

Challenge Denied

El Challenge Accepted, Follow -Up Action(s) Required (indicate below)

El Issue notice of intent to revoke

o Issue stop work order

Applicable Zoning Section(s):

Comments:

RE: 15 East 30th Street, Manhattan (BIS Job Number 122128679)

The zoning challenge to the Department's zoning approval, submitted by The Board of Managers of Sky House
Condominium and others, in connection with the above referenced address, has been reviewed by the Department. The
Challenger's attached Letter and Statement in Support raises several issues in connection with the approval of a
mixed -use building at 15 East 30th Street, located in a C5-2 District. The challenge has been accepted for the
challenger's listed item 5 below in that the apparent size of the proposed outer court is deficient. The 6 main challenge
points are listed and responded to below:
1.The use classification of an existing hotel on the zoning lot as a residential use. The challenger claims that the existing
Chandler Hotel at 12 East 31 Street is not a commercial use (transient hotel - UG 5) but rather a residential use since the
building contains several permanent residents.
Response: For this item the challenge is denied. Department records indicate the lawful use of the Chandler Hotel is a
commercial Hotel per CO #30263. (M000038263.PDF) An occupancy that is contrary to the Certificate of Occupancy
does not change the lawful use.
2. Minimum distance between required windows and lots lines and minimum required distance between buildings. The
challenger claims the provisions pursuant to 23-71 (Min. Distance between Buildings on a Single Zoning Lot) and 23-86
(Min. Distance Between Legally Required Windows and Walls or Lots Lines) would be applicable.
Response: For this item the challenge is denied. As stated above, the Certificate of Occupancy for Chandler Hotel
confirms that the lawful use is that of a transient hotel and is therefore a commercial building. As such 23-71, 23-86, and
23-82 do not apply. Further, ZR 23-71, is not applicable because the existing and proposed buildings are abutting on the
same zoning lot and therefore are considered to be one building.
3. Mechanical Floors of the Building. The challenger claims that (1) the applicant has not provided a justification for
having two mechanical floors that are each approximately 44 feet in height; and (2) the mechanical space on floors two
through four and the amenity space on the fifth floor should be considered non-residential uses.
REVIEWED BY

Scott D. Pavan, RA
...continued on the next page

Name of Authorized Reviewer (please print):

Title (please print):
Authorized Signature:

Date:

Time:

Date: 06/29/2016

Issuers: write signature, date, and time on each page of the challenge forms; and attach this form

6/09

Buildings

ZRD2: Zoning Challenge

with response

Scan sticker will be affixed

by Department staff

Must be typewritten

DECISION (To be completed by a Buildings Department official)

Review Decision:

Challenge Denied

El Challenge Accepted, Follow -Up Action(s) Required (indicate below)

El Issue notice of intent to revoke

o Issue stop work order

Applicable Zoning Section(s):

Comments:

Response: For this item the challenge is denied. There is no prohibition in the Zoning Resolution on the height of building
stories regardless of use or occupancy. Additionally, the mechanical floors and the amenity space on floors two through
five are accessory to the residential units above and therefore constitute residential uses.
4. Limits to mechanical floor area. The challenger claims that the mechanical space in excess of 1,940 square feet
should be included in the floor area calculations in accordance with ZR 12-10 definition of floor area subsection (m).
Response: For this item the challenge is denied. The limitation on mechanical space found in the definition of floor area
in ZR 12-10(m) applies only to buildings in R2X, R3, R4 or R5 Districts. As the building at issue is located in a C5-2
District (with an R10 residential bulk equivalent), this provision does not apply.
5. Size of Outer Court. The challenger claims the outer court facing East 30 Street does not comply with ZR 23-841
(Narrow Outer Courts) and therefore must have a dimension of at least 10 feet.

Response: The Department upholds this challenge. The small outer court facing 30th street does not comply and the
Department will issue Notice of Intent to Revoke.
6. Required Rear Yard Equivalent. The challenger claims that the proposed building does not comply with the required
rear yard equivalent provisions of 23-532 which is applicable to the through lot portion of the zoning lot.
Response: For this item the challenge is denied. The proposed new development meets the required rear yard equivalent
pursuant to 23-352(b). Two open areas are proposed along both street lines (on both 30th and 31st) except where there
are existing buildings to remain on the zoning lot which is permissible.
7. Zoning lot merger creating non-compliance. The challenger claims that the zoning lot merger created new
non -compliances on the newly created zoning lot. Specifically, tax lots 11, 12, and 74 which had non -complying rear
yards and are not abutting, were compliant with 23-711 prior to the zoning lot merger.
Response: For this item the challenge is denied. The Department disagrees with this interpretation. The existing buildings
on the newly created zoning lot can remain and do not create new non-compliances.c
REVIEWED BY

Scott D. Pavan, RA

P----"-'--:--er
Name of Authorized Reviewer (please print):
Title (please print):
Authorized Signature:

Date:

Issuers: write signature, date, and time on each page of the challenge forms; and attach this form

Time:

Date: 06/29/2016

I
6/09