NEW YORK CITY—Community members and local government representatives came in full force to the Board of Standards and Appeals hearing to oppose the proposed 51-story, $700 million condominium development, a joint venture of SJP Properties and Mitsui Fudosan America.

Construction of the 668-foot condo skyscraper is underway at 200 Amsterdam and 69th Street but had been stalled, due to the Committee for Environmentally Sound Development's challenging the project.

Opponents of the mega-tower high-rise say not only will the quality of life of people in the neighborhood be harmed by the out-of-context, out-of-scale development but the integrity of the city's zoning process is at stake. They want the board to revoke the permit and to force the developer to submit new plans consistent with the Zoning Resolution.

But a strong showing of the real estate industry including representatives from local unions, AIA's New York City Chapter, the Real Estate Board of New York, Association for a Better New York, and the New York Building Congress also came to Tuesday's hearing to support keeping the permit in place.

The real estate industry representatives argued reversal of the building permit decision would set a bad precedent. They said developers must be able to rely on permits being granted or this could undermine construction in New York City, including obtaining capital. They warned injecting uncertainties in as-of-right developments would unnecessarily raise the costs of real estate, cause delays, and result in the loss of projects that create good jobs and fuel the economy.

Frank Chaney, an attorney at Rosenberg & Estis, representing the Committee, argued that the developer's proposal violates the Zoning Resolution's definitions of a zoning lot because instead of being complete adjacent lots, the transfer of development rights was based on isolated bits and pieces of lots strung together. Chaney also says zoning lots must be defined by tax lots as shown on the city tax map. But the proposal is made up of bits and pieces of different tax lots that were never on a tax map.

William Raudenbush, VP of the Committee, said the organization is not trying to stop the entire construction, but is looking for a scaled-down version of the building, that legally complies with the Zoning Resolution. He added, “It's terrible public policy to subdivide tax lots.” Other community members also spoke about possible confusion in the context of the opaque, multi-layered governmental process already involved in zoning.

Michael Zoltan, assistant general counsel, New York Department of Buildings, had written a memo to the BSA, which clarified the definition of “zoning lot.” The department had approved the zoning lot for 200 Amsterdam. The memo explained on May 18, 1978, the acting commissioner of the buildings department, Irving Minkin, issued a memo known as “Zoning Lot Exhibits,” which stated “a single zoning lot, which may consist of one or more tax lots or parts of tax lots…”

Zoltan's memo accepts Chaney's position that the Zoning Regulations did not intend to allow zoning lots to consist of partial tax lots. However, he also concluded that not applying the Minkin memo to 200 Amsterdam would be “arbitrary and capricious.” The department was still in the process of preparing a bulletin that would supersede the Minkin Memo and has not yet rescinded it.

Paul Selver, an attorney at Kramer Levin, represents the developers. He argued that the plain language of the Zoning Resolution never required that boundaries of zoning lots had to be consistent to tax lots. He also asserted all of the agencies involved in administering New York City zoning laws for two generations allowed zoning lots to be partial tax lots and there were no cases presented that demonstrated this leading to problems in zoning administration.

The next BSA public hearing on 200 Amsterdam is scheduled for June 5.