Opinion
203
February 7, 2002.
Determination of respondent New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, dated August 8, 2000, which granted respondent building owner's application for a variance, unanimously confirmed, the petition denied and the proceeding brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, New York County [William Davis, J.], entered November 9, 2000), dismissed, without costs.
ROBERT E. CROTTY, for petitioners.
RONALD E. STERNBERG ERIC S. PALATNIK, for respondents.
Before: Williams, J.P., Saxe, Ellerin, Lerner, Friedman, JJ.
The Board's finding that the minimum variance necessary to remedy the subject premises' inefficient elevator service is a new elevator bank to be contained in an external tower in the building's rear yard is supported by substantial evidence of a unique physical condition rendering it impractical to install a new elevator bank in the premises' interior space, namely, the construction of a large portion of the premises on pilings. We reject petitioners' contention that the requirement of "unique physical conditions" in New York City Zoning Resolution § 72-21(a) refers only to land and not buildings (cf.,e.g., Matter of SoHo Alliance v. New York City Bd. of Standards Appeals, 95 N.Y.2d 437, 440-441). We have considered petitioners' other arguments and find them unavailing.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.