Sie sind auf Seite 1von 41
‘SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. COUNTY OF NEW YORK In the Matter of the Application of SAVE GANSEVOORT, LLC, Petitioner, Index No. For Fudgment Pursuant to Anictes 63 and 78 ofthe : Civil Practice Law and Rules, VERIFIED PETITION against CITY OF NEW YORK, THE NEW YORK CITY LANDMARKS PRESERVATION COMMISSION, MEENAKSHI SRINIVASAN, 60-74 GANSEVOORT STREET LLC, GANSEVOORT STREET VENTURES LLC, AURORA CAPITAL ASSOCIATES, LLC and WILLIAM GOTTLIEB. REALTY CO. LLC, Respondents, Petitioner Save Gansevoort, LLC (“Save Gansevoort” or Petitioner”), as and for its Article 78 Petition to annul, vacate, and reverse a determination of the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission, alleges and avers as follows: NATURE OF CASE 1. By this Article 78 Proceeding, Save Gansevoort seeks an order, annulling, vacating, and reversing a cectificate of appropriateness (he “Delermination”) issued by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission (“LPC”) on June 7, 2016, Unless overtumed, the Determination would, not only eviscerate the historically rare Gansevooet Market Historie District, but worse, it would threaten the existence and vitality of every other designated historic district in New York City 2. By the Determination, the LPC granted permission to Gansevoort Street Ventures LLC, 60-74 Gansevoort Street LLC, Aurora Capital Associates, LLC andlor William Gotlieb Reshty Co, LLC (collestively, the Developers) to construct two tall, outoscale commercial buildings ‘onthe south side of Gansevoort Seat (between Greet and Washington Streets) within the Gansevoort Market Historie District (Historie Market District”). As shown below. the LPC originally designated the Historie Market District in 2003 based upon its historic significance and architectural alueasa market district, with ts one-to two-story market architecture along the south side of Gansevoort Street as its signature feature, Indeed, the photograph on the cover ofthe PC's Designation Repor for the Historie Market et (‘Designation Report”) depicts the very same cone-to-two story market buildings reflecting that they, in particular, are representative of the buildings and architecture comprising the Historie Market District (Designation Report at 1, Ex. 1). And two ofthese buildings ~ 60-68 Gansevoort Street and 70-74 Gansevoort Stet (collectively, "Market Bi ings”) are included among those thatthe LPC granted the Developers permission to permanently alter and/or demolish. 3. If the Market Buildings were to be replaced by large commersal buildings hased ‘upon te “reasoning” provided by the LPC (set forth in 4, iff, the Historic Market Distriet would ‘cease to be @ market district and would instead be resigned tothe status of « neighborhood that includes a hodgepodge of buildings of different scale design and purpose, Thus, the Determination, were it to he stained om the grounds proffered hy the LPC, wonld constinite# rescission oF the ‘designation ofthe Historie Market District, and its re-designation into a nondescript commercial dlistit. 4. The stated-basis by the LPC for its grant of permission to convert the Market Buildings into large comercial buildings is that, approximately 50 years rior its development 454 meat matket disc, the Historie Market Disc included a residential neighborhood, with several tenement buildings doting the skyline, Th ils Detenination, the LPC announced! that ‘because the Historie Maret Disc, at onetime, housed residents in tenement uidings, conversion ‘fhe Market Boling (1-2 tries each) into Iepe commercial towers weld he consistent with the area's history. However, as shown below, the tenement buildings were referenced inthe Designation Report merly to provide historical context the Historie Marko Distret—notio offer a proposed altemative tothe tretscae ofthe Historie Market District. Indeed, according tothe Designation Report the only significance ofthe earlier tenement buildings was the manner in whieh some of them were converted into the Market Buildings (ather than demolished), 5. Upon information and belief, the LPC has never previously granted permission to Ind within a designated Historie Distt based upon an historeally-insignifcan condition in existence prior tothe poo to be preserved ("Period of Significance"). Indeod, atthe hearings during whic the Devslper application (“Applicaton”) was considered one ofthe Commissioners andy acknowledged thatthe LPC” considered ction would generally unprecedented, leaving him to question repeatedly the scape of LPC’sjuisditon,autority and responsibility in such raters! 6. Unless nnsle, vacated and revere the Determination would posearsk to every store doit in Now Yor: iy, athe LPC, heneforth, woul be fee to emovethe very itr, architectural, culture and aesthetic fabric of every designated neighborhood in favor of some prior sot of pattems or values that lack the same (ot this instance, any) historical, architectural, and "Uhimatoy, shat Commissioner voted apaint the Application, 3 cultural values that formed the basis forthe designation to preserve in he first instance ‘Comespondingly, developers throughout te City would be ie (and indeed, would be embodened) to scour designation eports pertaining to her histori distil, searching for a period of ealcr ‘development though historically, architecturally and culturally insgniicane, would pave the _way foe demolition and reconstruction of histori buildings in fivor of newer souctres that generate greater financial return. And then no histori disret would be sal. 7. Thispartioular Determination consttutesan especially egrgious departure from the C's prior rulings and decisions. Not only does this appear tobe the first instance in which the LPC granted permission to change an historic district toa condition that pre-dates the Period of Significance, bt worse, the pre-preservaton condition atenement-style building — would noteven be restored. lasted, it boars emphasis thatthe Developers here have been granted permission to constuct commercial buildings ~ buildings which have no connection with the neighborhood. The ‘supposed reasoning” underlying th Determination, which imation, isthat the new commercial towors would be similar to the size and scale of the tenement buildings that existe before the Period of Significance. “Thus, the LPC granted the Developers hervin the right, not to restore the historically, architecturally and cuturlly-insignifiant tenement buildings, but rather to erect structures whieh may merely look ike them — another aspect of the Detemination whieh, upon information and belief, would be unprecedented $A reviow of the LPC's hearings, particule those at which the Commissioners