94-10-A APPLICANT – Borah, Goldstein, Altschuler, Goidel, P.C., for Twenty-Seven-Twenty Four Corporation, owner. SUBJECT – Application May 26, 2010 challenging the Department of Buildings’ determination that signs located on the north and south subject building are not a continuous nonconforming use. C2-2 Zoning district. 21st Street, PREMISES AFFECTED – 27-24 21st Street south of Astoria Boulevard, of Lot 35, Borough of Queens. COMMUNITY BOARD #1Q APPEARANCES – None. ACTION OF THE BOARD – Appeal Denied. THE VOTE TO GRANT – Affirmative: ..................................................................0 Negative: Chair Srinivasan, Vice Chair Commissioner Ottley-Brown, Commissioner and Commissioner Montanez........................................5 THE RESOLUTION – WHEREAS, this is an appeal determination, issued by the Queens Commissioner of the Department of Buildings on February 14, 2011 (the “Final Determination”), brought by the property owner (the “Appellant”); WHEREAS, the Final Determination pertinent part: “Advertising sign, for which present application is filed for, is not permitted under the Resolution Section ZR 32-68;” and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held appeal on May 17, 2011 after due notice by publication The City Record, with a continued hearing 2011, and then to decision on August 16, 2011; WHEREAS, the premises and surrounding had site and neighborhood examinations Srinivasan, Commissioner Montanez, Commissioner Ottley-Brown; and WHEREAS, the subject site is located 21st Street south of Astoria Boulevard side of C2-2 (R7X) zoning district; and WHEREAS, the site is occupied by mixed-use commercial/residential building illuminated signs – two on its north wall and south wall; and WHEREAS, as of December advertising signs were not permitted as of the subject zoning district; and PROCEDURAL HISTORY WHEREAS, the Appellant sought to existing sign and to establish the legal status of on May 21, 2009, the Appellant sought a preconsideration from DOB that the four signs be accepted grandfathered signs per ZR § 52-83 (Regulations Applying to Non-Conforming Signs, Non-Conforming Advertising Signs); and WHEREAS, at DOB’s request, on October 94-10-A In the districts indicated, any #use# listed Group 1 or 2 shall conform to the regulations for #Residence Districts# or buildings#, #residential sign# regulations apply to the #residential# portion. Where non-#residential uses# are permitted occupy two floors of the #building#, all accessory# to non-#residential uses# located the second floor shall be non-#illuminated signs#, and shall be located below the the finished floor of the third #story#; * * ZR § 52-11 (Continuation of Non-Conforming Uses) General Provisions A #non-conforming use# may be continued, except as otherwise provided in this and * * ZR § 52-61 (Discontinuance) General Provisions If, for a continuous period of two years, the #nonconforming use# of #land with improvements# is discontinued, or the operation of substantially all the conforming uses# in any #building structure# is discontinued, such #building or other structure# shall thereafter used only for a conforming #use#. resume active operations shall not affect foregoing . . . ; and THE APPLICABLE STANDARD FOR CONFORMING USES WHEREAS, DOB and the Appellant agree site is currently within a C2-2 (R7X) zoning that the existing advertising signs are not permitted right within the zoning district; and WHEREAS, accordingly, in order to affirmative defense that the non-conforming permitted to remain, DOB asserts that the Appellant meet the ZR criteria for a “non-conforming defined at ZR § 12-10; and WHEREAS, ZR § 12-10 defines “non-conforming” use as “any lawful use, whether of a building structure or of a tract of land, which does not any one or more of the applicable use regulations district in which it is located, either on December or as a result of any subsequent amendment thereto”; WHEREAS, additionally, DOB asserts Appellant must comply with ZR § 52-6

… (truncated, full text in PDF)