Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board continues Greenwich Street appeal after title and record discrepancies raised
Summary
The Board of Appeals continued consideration of Gail Elston’s appeal of a zoning determination that Unit 850 at 850 Greenwich Street was not a legal commercial use. The dispute centers on whether a notice of termination and other restrictions were recorded and whether the city’s 3R report and title report put buyers on notice.
The Board of Appeals continued the appeal over 850 Greenwich Street after testimony revealed conflicting documentary evidence about the property’s historical commercial use and whether the city properly recorded a notice of termination for the commercial nonconforming use.
Appellant Gail Elston told commissioners she relied on city records and a 3R report when she bought the building and that the title report she obtained did not show a special restriction or notice of termination. Elston submitted archival telephone‑book listings and microfilm covering use back through the 1970s to argue the ground‑floor unit historically operated as a store.
Zoning Administrator Larry Badner told the board that the planning department had recorded a notice of termination (stamped in August 1987) and that amortization notices and other communications were sent to prior owners. He conceded the 3R report did not include that notation and acknowledged differences across the city’s historic records. Planning staff recommended further review of recorder and title records.
Commissioners asked whether the notice had been recorded correctly and why it did not appear on a private title report; whether the relevant period for abandonment under section 183 (three years) applied; and whether the planning department’s amortization (section 185) was properly perfected. After discussion the board granted a continuance to allow staff and parties to research recorder and title records; the matter was set for a future date for supplemental evidence and possible rehearing if new facts emerged.
Why it matters: The appeal hinges on whether the property was legally allowed to continue commercial use after amortization periods and whether city records placed subsequent purchasers on notice. The outcome affects the owner, the tenant using the space as an art gallery and local property‑law practice about relying on city 3R reports.
