Local landlord sues city over trash container requirement
277 Church
A Tribeca landlord who owns three small mixed-use buildings in the neighborhood has filed a complaint against the city arguing that it is impossible to containerize the building’s trash as required. The Post had the story here. In the meantime, fines are piling up.
(This is a classic bureaucratic issue, and I know other landlords and small business owners are struggling with the new rules, which are hard to follow for historic buildings.)
All properties with 1 to 9 residential units are now required to use bins, 55 gallons or less, with secure lids for trash set-out. They also must store the containers on their property — either withing three feet of the front of the building on the sidewalk, or in the basement or rear yard. In the case of these buildings — and in a lot of Tribeca conversions that do not have rear yards — that’s not an option. (See the rules here, and the new rules coming out soon for buildings with 10 units and more.)
Only Properties is the owner and landlord of 92 Reade (which is Heyday, just west of Church), 31 Walker (Añejo, which has been there since 2014) and 277 Church (formerly Shigure, now Faux, from George McNally). The company has been issued summonses for putting its trash out in bags and even after appealing, had to pay fines. There is no spot to store them outside at any of the properties without blocking pedestrian traffic (the sidewalks are 9 feet); there is no rear yard; and garbage can not legally be stored in a lobby. Despite these arguements, the Appeals Division rejected the appeal — and now there’s a lawsuit.
“The Appeals Division’s refusal to take judicial notice of where the building at issue is located and the fact that no outdoor space exists to build a fenced-in enclosure is arbitrary, capricious and the decision should be vacated and the underlying summons dismissed,” the complaint reads.
The Appeals Division even suggested that the landlord should renegotiate its lease with its commercial tenants on the ground floor so it can use the basement — which, Only Properties argued, is “unreasonable and contrary to law.”
“Petitioner should not be required to prove that it cannot store items in areas it is not currently in possession of. Would a building owner also be required to demonstrate it contacted all of its neighbors and was unable to obtain permission to
store its garbage in neighboring buildings?” the complaint read. “Finally, the argument that Petitioner did not prove it has no other storage space within the building itself is also unreasonable. Petitioner cannot prove a negative.”
The conclusion states that it is impossible for the buildings to follow Sanitation’s requirement, and that they summonses must be dismissed.