Note.—This resolution in the Bulletin. Please formal errors so that BOARD MEETING OF: CALENDAR NO.: PREMISES: ACTION OF BOARD THE VOTE — Affirmative: Negative: Chair Commissioner Commissioner THE RESOLUTION The decisions October 1, 2018, acting (collectively, the Department of Buildings submitted in response Enforcement Unit registration of the documentation inadequate as such, the sign is to enforcement action This is an appeal Zoning Resolution Resolution”) and Section behalf of Clear Channel the Determination constitute legal non-conforming For the reasons The Premises the Queens Midtown district, in Queens. Van Dam Street, Expressway, 213 of lot area, and commercial building On the roof formation (the “Signs”): “Western Sign”) and Sign”). The face of feet in height, and width by 20 feet in On October registration of the Appellant commenced Vice-Chair Commissioner Sheta surrounding neighborhood. A public hearing due notice by publication on August 10, 2020, November 30, 2020. Because this such . . . determination premises in strictly Zoning Resolution, considered—but need Resolution in rendering the standard of review As discussed parties’ arguments ultimately finds that Signs constitute legal with Sections 42-55 In reaching its all of the parties’ Appellant and DOB, unpersuasive. Appellant contends Determination is constitute legal non-conforming First, Appellant because Appellant DOB did not issue so Appellant contends inadequacies in its Second, Appellant as “confirmed by the dating back to 1940.” “unlimited size, height more particularly, roof” in a 1966 Certificate means that the Signs current surface areas conforming use status further contends Department of Transportation of the Premises. Third, Appellant or variations observed degree of non-conformity “acknowledge[s] . facing sign increased “there were some the advertising signs placement of structural face itself, we submit area on which the conforming use status Resolution. Based on the be granted. DOB urges that demonstrated that advertising signs that of the Long Island accordance with Sections At the outset, premature or that Appellant needs to Signs are entitled advertising signs notwithstanding that produce such evidence. of Appellant’s sign York City Construction Appellant with notices the opportunity Appellant’s response lawfulness resulting 2018, allowing Appellant As to the merits the Zoning Resolution pursuant to Section advertising signs reconstructed prior interprets this provision conforming uses but they not be structurally date upon which Section 42-55(c). provides this qualification . . . 42-55.” Accordingly, legal non-conforming structurally altered, Here, DOB posits the Signs have indeed or reconstructed; they may have obtained; dimensions since prohibited structural terminate. The Eastern and is supported by a comparison between and from today. Specifically, Sign has approximately corroborated by representations [the] existing roof permit (later revoked photographs of the New York State corroborate the increase addition of a new connecting the Eastern increase in height. structurally altered, any attempt to restore result in further unlawful Eastern Sign has lost had and must terminate. The Western and supported by that comparing Department of Transportation in 1978, the Western supporting structure, these photographs increased. Accordingly, altered, relocated, to restore it to its further unlawful structural Sign has also lost had and must terminate. Based on the and the Determination As discussed has not demonstrated advertising signs and 52-83 of the Zoning record that the reconstructed after The Zoning Resolution use” be “lawful” before complies. Z.R. § 12-10 “non-conforming gradual remedy for uses are generally designed to restrict make them more locations.” Z.R. conforming uses). Since 1940, signs within 200 feet See Z.R. § 42-55. Despite limited enforcement illegal arterial advertising the Zoning Resolution. York, 594 F.3d 94, In 1979, fa

… (truncated, full text in PDF)