2018-22-A APPLICANT – NYC Department of Buildings, Eighteen Properties, LLC, owner. SUBJECT – Application February 14, 2018 for a revocation, by the New York City Department, of Certificate of Occupancy 301016898F issued for a four-story walk-up building. R6B zoning district. 18th PREMISES AFFECTED – 255 Street, Lot 69, Borough of Brooklyn. COMMUNITY BOARD #7BK Request ACTION OF THE BOARD – argument denied. THE VOTE TO GRANT – Affirmative: ..................................................................0 Negative: Chair Perlmutter, Vice-Chair Commissioner Ottley-Brown, Commissioner Commissioner Scibetta..................................................5 THE RESOLUTION – WHEREAS, this is an application to application previously heard and approved by on November 20, 2018; and WHEREAS, by submission dated February 2019, a representative of the owner of the (“Appellant”) filed an application, pursuant of the Board’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, reargue this application, filed by the New Department of Buildings (“DOB”), Certificate of Occupancy No. 301016898F subject premises on September 18, 2013 and WHEREAS, Appellant argues that determination was not supported by precedent, facts, the New York State Multiple Dwelling “MDL”), the Zoning Resolution (the “ZR”) York Supreme Court, Appellate Division’s Byrne v. Board of Standards & Appeals, 774 493 (1st Dept. 2004) (“Byrne”); and WHEREAS, specifically, Appellant consistent with the Board’s determination No. 166-12-A (638 East 11 Street, Manhattan) 20181) (the “East 11th Street Appeal”), should only have revoked the CO with regards portions of the building that the Board found complying and upheld issuance of the CO for first floor and dwelling units located at the subject building on the second through fourth the Board erred in concluding that the plans with Document 2 of the Alteration 1 The original decision for BSA Cal. No. (which was heard and decided with BSA 107-13-A, an application for common rights at the same premises) was rendered 17, 2017. Both DOB and appellant in that motions to reargue the application, which denied by resolution dated June 19, 2018. made its own motion, however, to review 17, 2017, decision and rendered such reviewed revised decision on July 17, 2018. 2018-22-A selected on the PW1 applications for either or 4 in response to this question; further, subheading “Plan Page Count,” also contained Section 7 of the PW1 form, both Documents state “0,” indicating that zero plan sheets were association with these documents; and WHEREAS, DOB also states that the of Documents 3 and 4 contained in Section respective PW1 applications state, “PAA ADD CONTROLLED INSPECTIONS ANSWER AUDIT OBJECTIONS” and “PAA TO AMEND PW1 SCHEDULE A,” and job, as described, requires the submission of and WHEREAS, DOB contrasts these descriptions with the job description of Document 2, which “REMOVE PORTION OF REAR WALL, CONSTRUCT NEW EXTERIOR WALLS PLANS,” and explicitly references associated and WHEREAS, Appellant asserts that Document was filed on March 12, 2013, in response Notice of Objections, dated October 16, 2012, among other objections, stated “No Plans Audit”; thus, the reference to “ANSWER[ING] OBJECTIONS” in the description on the Document PW1 application was to the applicant’s submission the missing plan set; and WHEREAS, Appellant also points records of plan examinations of Job No. accessible online through DOB’s Building Search (“BIS”), which indicate DOB plan examination approval related to Document 3 on April 5, WHEREAS, DOB states that the Document PW1 application directly undermines argument in its failure to check the “Yes” box to the query in Section 7 regarding the submission plans and, further, that Appellant’s argument the possibility that the plans submitted in the Notice of Objections and approved by April 5, 2013, were the same plans filed with 2 on October 5, 2000, indicating setbacks wall of the building; and WHEREAS, Appellant states that obligated, by

… (truncated, full text in PDF)