Development

Lab Qualifies As Hospital-Related Facility

Matter of Abady v. Board of Standards and Appeals

NYLJ 4/14/03, p. 18, col. 1

Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty

(Stallman, J.)

In an article 78 proceeding, neighbors sought to set aside a determination by the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) approving a determination by the Department of Buildings granting a construction permit to Sloan Kettering Institute for the purpose of building a medical research laboratory. The court denied the petition, holding that the laboratory qualified as a hospital-related facility.

Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) currently operates a research laboratory on 68th Street between 1st and York Avenues, an area zoned for residential use. MSK sought to expand that facility by building an adjacent state-of-the art facility. Under the zoning resolution, community facilities may be built in the residential district if they can 1) “provide recreational, religious, health, and other essential services for the residents” or 2) “perform their activities more effectively in a residential environment,” so long as they do not create significant objectionable influences in residential areas. The zoning resolution (sec. 22-14(A)) defines community facilities to include non-profit or voluntary hospitals “and related facilities.” When MSK sought permission, the BSA concluded that the laboratory was a hospital-related facility, and therefore could be built as-of-right in the residential neighborhood. A coalition of neighborhood civic groups then brought this proceeding to challenge that determination, contending that the research laboratory does not meet the definition of hospital-related facility because it would not be engaged in providing any direct patient care.

In denying the petition, the court noted first that a zoning board's determination is entitled to substantial judicial deference. The court then noted that the record before BSA indicated that many of the physicians conducting research at the lab would also be treating patients at Memorial, and that tissue research conducted at the facility requires close proximity to the patients from whom the tissue samples will be taken. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the BSA's determination was rational, and the court denied the petition.

Variance Standard for For-Profit School

Matter of The Dwight School Neighbors v. Board of Standards and Appeals

NYLJ 4/14/04, p. 18, col. 3

Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty

(Schlesinger, J.)

In an article 78 proceeding, neighbors of a for-profit school sought to annul a determination granting the school an area variance to expand its building. The court denied the petition, holding that the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) had not acted irrationally in concluding that the school had demonstrated that it could not realize a reasonable return without the requested variance.

The Dwight School, located on West 88th and 89th Streets in Manhattan, sought to increase the height of a building, located in the rear yard, connecting its two larger buildings. The increase would be from one story to two, and would enable use of the additional story as a library/research center. Because the Dwight School is operated as a for-profit facility, the zoning resolution requires the school to demonstrate the presence of five factors, one of which is that it cannot realize a reasonable return without the variance. To meet that requirement, the school pointed to a slump in enrollment in the early 1990s when its facilities were less than ideal, and predicted that without improvement in its facilities, it was in danger of losing its accreditation with the international Baccalaureate Organization and the European Council of International Schools. The school argued that loss of accreditations could reduce its enrollment by 25%. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted the requested variance, resulting in this article 78 proceeding brought by a neighborhood group. Neighbors argued that the economic picture painted by the school was purely speculative, and noted that the school had six applicants for every spot in its kindergarten.

In upholding BSA's determination, the court first noted its obligation to uphold the determination so long as it is rational. The court noted that even if the BSA's determination was based on future, speculative events, other cases have upheld as rational determinations based on similar speculative events. Here, even if there is no proof that the school will lose its accreditation without upgrading its facilities, accrediting bodies had noted the commitment of the school to expansion of the library. These statements, in the court's view, provided the BSA with a rational basis for concluding that accreditation might be jeopardized without expansion. Similarly, reliance on past enrollment drops was rational even if those drops might be explained by other factors. As a result, the court concluded that the BSA had acted rationally in concluding that the school had demonstrated that it could not realize a reasonable return without the variance. Consequently, the court did not have to consider whether a for-profit educational institution should be entitled to special consideration or relaxation of the requirements included in the zoning resolution.

Lab Qualifies As Hospital-Related Facility

Matter of Abady v. Board of Standards and Appeals

NYLJ 4/14/03, p. 18, col. 1

Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty

(Stallman, J.)

In an article 78 proceeding, neighbors sought to set aside a determination by the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) approving a determination by the Department of Buildings granting a construction permit to Sloan Kettering Institute for the purpose of building a medical research laboratory. The court denied the petition, holding that the laboratory qualified as a hospital-related facility.

Memorial Sloan Kettering (MSK) currently operates a research laboratory on 68th Street between 1st and York Avenues, an area zoned for residential use. MSK sought to expand that facility by building an adjacent state-of-the art facility. Under the zoning resolution, community facilities may be built in the residential district if they can 1) “provide recreational, religious, health, and other essential services for the residents” or 2) “perform their activities more effectively in a residential environment,” so long as they do not create significant objectionable influences in residential areas. The zoning resolution (sec. 22-14(A)) defines community facilities to include non-profit or voluntary hospitals “and related facilities.” When MSK sought permission, the BSA concluded that the laboratory was a hospital-related facility, and therefore could be built as-of-right in the residential neighborhood. A coalition of neighborhood civic groups then brought this proceeding to challenge that determination, contending that the research laboratory does not meet the definition of hospital-related facility because it would not be engaged in providing any direct patient care.

In denying the petition, the court noted first that a zoning board's determination is entitled to substantial judicial deference. The court then noted that the record before BSA indicated that many of the physicians conducting research at the lab would also be treating patients at Memorial, and that tissue research conducted at the facility requires close proximity to the patients from whom the tissue samples will be taken. Based on these findings, the court concluded that the BSA's determination was rational, and the court denied the petition.

Variance Standard for For-Profit School

Matter of The Dwight School Neighbors v. Board of Standards and Appeals

NYLJ 4/14/04, p. 18, col. 3

Supreme Ct., N.Y. Cty

(Schlesinger, J.)

In an article 78 proceeding, neighbors of a for-profit school sought to annul a determination granting the school an area variance to expand its building. The court denied the petition, holding that the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) had not acted irrationally in concluding that the school had demonstrated that it could not realize a reasonable return without the requested variance.

The Dwight School, located on West 88th and 89th Streets in Manhattan, sought to increase the height of a building, located in the rear yard, connecting its two larger buildings. The increase would be from one story to two, and would enable use of the additional story as a library/research center. Because the Dwight School is operated as a for-profit facility, the zoning resolution requires the school to demonstrate the presence of five factors, one of which is that it cannot realize a reasonable return without the variance. To meet that requirement, the school pointed to a slump in enrollment in the early 1990s when its facilities were less than ideal, and predicted that without improvement in its facilities, it was in danger of losing its accreditation with the international Baccalaureate Organization and the European Council of International Schools. The school argued that loss of accreditations could reduce its enrollment by 25%. The Board of Zoning Appeals granted the requested variance, resulting in this article 78 proceeding brought by a neighborhood group. Neighbors argued that the economic picture painted by the school was purely speculative, and noted that the school had six applicants for every spot in its kindergarten.

In upholding BSA's determination, the court first noted its obligation to uphold the determination so long as it is rational. The court noted that even if the BSA's determination was based on future, speculative events, other cases have upheld as rational determinations based on similar speculative events. Here, even if there is no proof that the school will lose its accreditation without upgrading its facilities, accrediting bodies had noted the commitment of the school to expansion of the library. These statements, in the court's view, provided the BSA with a rational basis for concluding that accreditation might be jeopardized without expansion. Similarly, reliance on past enrollment drops was rational even if those drops might be explained by other factors. As a result, the court concluded that the BSA had acted rationally in concluding that the school had demonstrated that it could not realize a reasonable return without the variance. Consequently, the court did not have to consider whether a for-profit educational institution should be entitled to special consideration or relaxation of the requirements included in the zoning resolution.