81 10th Ave. btwn 15th and 16th Streets « Illegal Billboards Forum

Illegal Billboards Forum » So I saw this sign...

81 10th Ave. btwn 15th and 16th Streets

(22 posts)

Started 2 years ago by sjolly
Latest reply from steve

Tags:

sjolly
Moderator
This building sits directly across from the Chelsea Market 10th Ave. entrance. The building takes up the entire block btwn 15th and 16th Streets / btwn 10th and 11th Aves.

The current billboard is for "Belvedere Vodka". Covers several windows on the 15th St. side of the building.

I think this is one of the permits (but its hard to tell since the building has several addresses)::But the permit reads really sketchy
http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/WorkPermitDataServlet?allisn=0001550217&allisn2=0000551849&allbin=1012277&requestid=4

"NON ILLUMINATED NON ADVERTISING ACCESSORY BUSINESS SIGN IN WINDOW-INSIDE
PROPERTY LINE WORDING- PICTORIAL OF CHAMPAGNE BOTTLE AND GLASSES
NOT WITHIN VIEW OF AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY OR PUBLIC PARK OF 1/2 ACRE OR MORE
NO CHANGE TO USE, EGRESS OR OCCUPANCY"

also here's the list for the block. maybe someone can help me sift and sort and locate the specific permit (if any exists).

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/PermitsInProcessIssuedByBinServlet?requestid=3&allbin=1012277
Attachments
1. Picture-1.jpg (133.3 KB, 4 downloads) 2 years old
2. IMG_0002.jpg (34.7 KB, 2 downloads) 2 years old
Posted 2 years ago #
jordan
Moderator

i looked at this one last night too. if the permit you are looking at is legal which it prob isnt due to windows, it doesnt matter cause it expired 2 days ago.

Posted 2 years ago #
steve
Administrator

this is the one right? google street view

I looked at it tonight. It's gotta be covering windows.

It looks like you found the right permit, but I see that it doesn't expire? Also, this statement "NOT WITHIN VIEW OF AN ARTERIAL HIGHWAY OR PUBLIC PARK OF 1/2 ACRE OR MORE" Not sure if it's over 1/2 acre, but there's a park across the street. Also, does the west side highway count as an arterial highway?

P.S. I just found a link to the sign code

Posted 2 years ago #
steve
Administrator

Also, I think you should call this one in Simon. Tell them that you think the permit was issued in error because it is blocking windows, near a park, and within view of the west side highway. See what they say when they investigate it.

Posted 2 years ago #
johnny
Member

So I called it into 311, the complaint number is 1229786 and the department of buildings is looking into it. They asked me for my address and I didn't give it to them but I gave my phone number... seemed strange, and I wasn't sure whether to remain anonymous, so I gave my name. takin' em down, one by one.

Posted 2 years ago #
johnny
Member
Also, any billboards less than 200 feet from bridges or approaches to bridges are illegal. here's a pdf of arterial highways, that is, roads from which billboards must be at least 200 linear feet away from :
Attachments
1. appendixc.pdf (27.5 KB, 3 downloads) 2 years old
Posted 2 years ago #
Rami Tabello
Moderator
Notice that a complaint was filed in Dec 2006 regarding this sign and the DOB said it was legal: http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/OverviewForComplaintServlet?requestid=2&vlcompdetlkey=0000794890 "NO ACTION NECESSARY-NO ADVERTISING SIGNAGE. ACCESSORY BIZ SI GN. PERMIT NUMBER 104305146"

I highly suspect they made a serious mistake.

Somebody needs to make an appointment at 280 Broadway to look at the specifications of this permit, including the material of the sign and it's exact permitted location.

Here is the permit: http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/JobsQueryByNumberServlet?requestid=3&passjobnumber=101107464&passdocnumber=01

The permit was issued to Metro Lights, a predecessor company of Fuel Outdoor (who else) in 1995.

So this is a Fuel Outdoor sign and it's across the street from a park and appears to be along a highway. Non-compliance galore.

280 Broadway, 3rd Floor. 212-566-0248 - that's how to make a complaint

Also, notice that there was another complaint about this sign on May 5, 2008: http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/OverviewForComplaintServlet?requestid=2&vlcompdetlkey=0001023200 The complaint was refered to the "special investigations team."

It may be worthwhile to file an FOI for all documents concerning the investigation of sign complaints at this address.

-Rami, illegalsigns.ca
PS. I took a photo of the sign when i was in nyc last time.
Attachments
1. DSC01653.JPG (146.2 KB, 4 downloads) 2 years old
Posted 2 years ago #
BIZ
Member

Also, any billboards less than 200 feet from bridges or approaches to bridges are illegal.

WRONG!!!!

You should learn the code people.

Posted 2 years ago #
BIZ
Member

The sign is LEGAL.

There is a permit for a non-advertising sign.

Belvedre Vodka is part of the LVMH Group. LVMH Group has its nyc offices in 85 10th Avenue!!

Therefore, the sign is allowed to be for any (get it, any!!) product of the LVMH Group since they have their offices in 85 10th Avenue.

Posted 2 years ago #
steve
Administrator

@BIZ, please keep it civil. I took the name calling out of your post. We appreciate the input, but please keep it polite.

Also, if you're referencing a permit, please include a link.

Once we know you're correct, there remains an issue with the sign covering the windows.

Posted 2 years ago #
BIZ
Member

Sorry for the name calling.

A complaint was made in 2006 : http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/OverviewForComplaintServlet?requestid=1&vlcompdetlkey=0000794890

You will see even DOB recognizes the sign is legal.

Posted 2 years ago #
BIZ
Member

sorry about that steve!

Posted 2 years ago #
BIZ
Member

Also, any billboards less than 200 feet from bridges or approaches to bridges are illegal.

That is incorrect. You are allowed to have signs within 200 feet. There is not a complete ban on signs (advertising or not) within 200 feet of an arterial highway, public park or bridge.

They are trying to pass that law, but the current law allows for it. Please reread the text again.

Posted 2 years ago #
jordan
Moderator

so im assuming ten cane rum is also a subsidiary of the LVMH group cause thats what up now

Posted 2 years ago #
BIZ
Member

You are correct Jordan

Posted 2 years ago #
steve
Administrator

I say it's still worth pursuing because it's covering windows. The other complaint was for no-permit. I still think this one is fishy.

Also, the Manhattan Public Storage people lost when they tried to argue 1st party when they rented a space to Delta. Since this isn't a retail outlet, maybe the same argument can be made. It's definitely not in the spirit of the law - imagine if every office building could be wrapped in banners for any sub-company of any tenant?

This one might be good to look at the actual permit at city hall.

-- actually, i just talked to simon and that's what we're doing!

Posted 2 years ago #
steve
Administrator

we now know that this is adjacent to an arterial highway based on what we know about 520 w 17th

Posted 1 year ago #
steve
Administrator

Ah, the complaint for this billboard has been forwarded to this number - which is a complaint that the billboard is across from a park.

Disposition: 08/20/2008 - - B1 - BUILDINGS VIOLATION(S) PREPARED & ATTEMPT TO SERVE WILL BE MADE

Posted 1 year ago #
BIZ
Member

Steve- You can 100000000000% have on on-premise sign adjacent to an arterial highway.

Posted 1 year ago #
steve
Administrator

then why is the DoB issuing a violation?

Posted 1 year ago #
steve
Administrator

Violation was prepared on 8/20/08 and apparently still hasn't been issued? How long does this take?

http://a810-bisweb.nyc.gov/bisweb/OverviewForComplaintServlet?requestid=2&vlcompdetlkey=0001023200

Posted 1 year ago #
steve
Administrator

still no action on this sign...

Posted 5 months ago #