We're trying to determine what the owner of the our building is up to.
The scene: A 10-story, (48 units) residential and (12 units) commercial building in lower Manhattan, built in the 1930's, a former printing building.
This building was converted from a commercial to residential, receiving the last C of O in 1981. Per the zoning, a portion of the building had to remain for commercial use. The ground, 2nd and 3rd floors were specifically designated in the C of O to remain for commercial use only. The floors above, residential. This was not converted or developed to be a rental building, the original sponsors intended it to be a co-op. When units failed to sell in 1979-80, the sponsors sublet the units.
One sponsor bought out the rest and applied for and received J51, all 48 residential units received rent-stabilization in 1982. Out of 48 RS units, 9 remain to date, all others have been decontrolled one way or another.
The owner turned a blind eye to the use of the commercial units, if the lessee happened to be living in them, the owner didn't bother them as long as the rent was paid.
5 years ago, the owner sought to change the zoning, and obtain a new C of O, to make all units in the building residential. That effort was thwarted by tiny group of RS tenants, using it as a bargaining chip to get the owner to maintain services in the building. In effect, we offered to support the zoning change if the owner, who had seriously slacked on services, would step up and restore and maintain service. The owner rejected the offer, and we appeared before the BSA, lending evidence that the owner was spinning a tall tale, they had no knowledge of the commercially zoned space being occupied by tenants living in them. The BSA demanded the rent rolls from the owner, and rather producing them, the owner withdrew the application to change the zoning.
3 months ago, several of the tenants occupying commercial units applied to the Loft Board for § 281 (5) of the Multiple Dwelling law. The owner is not contesting this coverage application.
How does a building which has a C of O that clearly states it's use, now qualify for parts of it to be covered by 281 (5) of the Multiple Dwelling law?
The few remaining RS tenants have very little fire power left, this zoning issue was one of the last, but it seems they've found a way around it, or city agencies simply don't communicate with one another, which would come as no surprise.