326-12-A thru 337-12-A APPLICANT – Gibson Dunn, for Contest Promotions- NY LLC by Jessica Cohen OWNER OF PREMISES: Lily Fong, Michael Maidman, Thomas Young, George Aryeh, Vincent J. Ponte, Hung Ling Yung, David James B. Luu, Fred G. Eng. SUBJECT – Applications December 11, Appeals challenging the Department of determination to revoke 12 permits previously permitting business accessory signs on the they are appear to be advertising signs. PREMISES AFFECTED – 52 Canal Street, Block 294, Lot 22, zoning district, Manhattan 2nd 1560 Avenue, Block 1543, Lot 49, zoning district, Manhattan 2nd 2061 Avenue, Block 1655, Lot 28, zoning district, Manhattan 1st 2240 Avenue, Block 1709, Lot 1, zoning district, Manhattan 25th 160 East Street, Block 880, Lot 50, zoning district, Manhattan 289 Hudson Street, Block 594, Lot 79, 2A zoning district, Manhattan 127 Ludlow Street, Block 410, Lot 17, 4A zoning district, Manhattan 3rd 1786 Avenue, Block 1627, Lot 33, zoning district, Manhattan 17 Avenue B, Block 385, Lot 1, R7A district, Manhattan 173 Bowery, Block 424, Lot 12, C6-1 district, Manhattan 240 Sullivan Street, Block 540, Lot 23, zoning district, Manhattan 1st 361 Avenue, Block 927, Lot 25, zoning district, Manhattan COMMUNITY BOARD #2/3/6/8/9/11M ACTION OF THE BOARD – Appeals Denied. THE VOTE TO GRANT – Affirmative: .....................................................................0 Negative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice Chair Commissioner Ottley-Brown, Commissioner and Commissioner Montanez ..........................................5 THE RESOLUTION – WHEREAS, the subject appeals come Board in response to the determinations of the Borough Commissioner of the Department of (“DOB”), dated November 14, 2012, to revoke Nos. 120975454, 120993283, 120993363, 120993327, 121037939, 120975427, 120993345, 120853736, 120993318, and 120993130 signs at the subject sites (the “Final Determinations”); and WHEREAS, the Final Determinations pertinent part: By letter dated September 12, 2012, 326-12-A thru 337-12-A noted businesses, but advertising signs are WHEREAS, these appeals are brought of the lessee of the Signs, Contest Incorporated (the “Appellant,” “Contest Promotions,” or “CPI”); and WHEREAS, the Appellant seeks a DOB’s determinations that the Signs are signs and therefore not permitted at the subject based on the Appellant’s contention that the accessory to the businesses at the sites; and WHEREAS, DOB appeared and submissions in opposition to this appeal; and PROCEDURAL HISTORY WHEREAS, on March 17, 2010, DOB Appellant met in response to Appellant’s discuss its proposed advertising sign plan believed its signs constituted accessory signs to the ZR § 12-10 definition of accessory; WHEREAS, on March 30, 2010, the wrote a follow up letter to DOB, which rendering of a typical sign with a picture advertisement for Tropicana Orange Juice; the ad, it said “Roberto’s Groceries” and then type “Enter our Sweepstakes Inside for a Win These Products;” and at the bottom of even smaller type “No purchase necessary. Where Prohibited. Open to legal residents and D.C. 18 and Over. See Store for Official and WHEREAS, on May 18, 2010, DOB responded CPI’s March 30, 2010 letter stating that it position that CPI’s proposed sign did not qualify accessory sign “simply because it depicts a is sold or may be won via a raffle contest, on lot;” the letter noted that the product displayed juice – directed attention to a product that grocery stores throughout the City, and was principal use of the zoning lot and thus advertising sign and stated that “It is the Department’s well-settled position that a sign may refer primarily product rather than the business itself, only business at the site is readily identifiable product.”; and WHEREAS, on June 30, 2010, CPI another letter to DOB, with an image of an at 132 Eldridge Street and sought a final determination about whether the proposed signs qualify as signs; and WHEREAS, on July 28, 2010, DOB that “an accessory sign at a groce

… (truncated, full text in PDF)