Israeli-French businessman set to convert a dilapidated residential building in Talbiya into a boutique hotel

The Jerusalem District Appeals Committee has rejected an appeal by residents of Jabotinsky Street, Talbiya, against Israeli-French businessman Laurent Levy, who sought a special permit to convert a preserved residential building into a boutique hotel. Residents argued that the location of the reinforced security columns posed a significant detriment to their apartments. The appeals committee dismissed their claims and upheld the decision of the local planning committee, which approved the project, stating: “This is an abandoned building; the special permit should be granted.”

By Dror Nir Kastel, Nadlan Center

Advertisement

Businessman Laurent Levy will transform an abandoned building in the heart of Jerusalem’s upscale Talbiya neighborhood into a boutique hotel. The Jerusalem District Appeals Committee, chaired by attorney Sarit Arieli Ben Shachmon, ruled last week to essentially dismiss an appeal filed by residents of Jabotinsky Street against the request for a special permit to convert the adjacent building into a hotel and against the local Jerusalem planning committee.

The permit applicant, Laurent Levy, is an Israeli-French entrepreneur, optometrist, and real estate investor, as well as the owner of the international chain Optical Center, which currently operates more than 650 branches across Europe, Canada, and Israel. Levy immigrated to Israel with his wife and seven children in 2005 and now resides in Jerusalem, where he owns hundreds of luxury apartments and commercial properties.

The property is an abandoned five-story residential building with a basement and a tiled roof designated for preservation. A plan was submitted to change its special residential designation, requesting permission to use the building for hospitality, accommodating 26 guest rooms, modifying the building’s façade, and adding service areas for safe rooms (mamad). The proposal was made public due to exemptions in setback requirements for protected spaces at the rear of the building, changes to the façade and openings, and the request for a special use permit.

During the proceedings, residents opposed placing the security column along the entire building length, arguing that it would disrupt the surroundings and be too close to neighboring homes. They also claimed that the developer had promised to reconsider its placement. The neighbors argued that constructing the external security column on the southern side of the building would significantly impact their apartments and those of other residents in the adjacent building. They requested an examination of the possibility of adding protected spaces within the hotel or in the southeastern niche of the building.

…residents opposed placing the security column along the entire building length, arguing that it would disrupt the surroundings and be too close to neighboring homes. They also claimed that the developer had promised to reconsider its placement. The neighbors argued that constructing the external security column on the southern side of the building would significantly impact their apartments and those of other residents in the adjacent building.

Additionally, residents accused the developer of building violations, stating that the foundations for the security structures had already been poured without a permit and, therefore, should not be retroactively approved. They also claimed that converting a five-unit residential building into a hotel would cause substantial harm to the neighborhood in terms of traffic, parking, noise, waste management, and changes to the area’s character.

The local committee approved a three-year special permit despite residents’ objections

After the process and repeated discussions, the local committee decided in July 2024 to approve a special use permit for three years, including constructing the reinforced security column. In previous discussions, the committee had opposed relocating the security column due to a decision by the preservation department, provided that a condition for issuing the permit would be the actual deposit of a zoning plan, modifying the designation by an appropriate decision by the district committee.

An appeal was subsequently filed, in which the appellants reiterated their arguments. The local committee, however, maintained that, given all the constraints of the property, placing the security column at the rear of the building was the most logical and appropriate planning solution, considering the existing structures. The preservation department had approved this placement, which was consistent with local committee policy on positioning protected spaces. The committee further emphasized that the permit would only be granted following the district committee’s official deposit of the zoning plan and noted that the appellants had not provided detailed evidence of environmental harm. They also stated that the alleged building violation did not invalidate the permit request. Moreover, the local committee stressed that leaving the building abandoned would lead to hazards. The permit applicant essentially reiterated the local committee’s arguments.

Appeals committee: “This is an abandoned building; the special permit should be granted”

The appeals committee ruled that “considering the local committee’s decision that a permit will only be issued upon the official deposit of a zoning plan for changing the designation from residential to hospitality, and given that the property is currently abandoned, there is reason to approve the special use permit.”

The committee added that “the transition from residential to hospitality use, given the circumstances and the building’s location on Jabotinsky Street—starting from the President’s House and passing through the Van Leer Institute, the National Academy of Sciences, the Arts High School, and the Inbal Hotel, within the historic city—makes it a suitable site for a mixed-use development combining residential and boutique hospitality.”

Leaving the property in its current abandoned state would harm the preservation-listed building itself, and its neglect could become a source of nuisances.

The appeals committee also upheld the local committee’s position that “leaving the property in its current abandoned state would harm the preservation-listed building itself, and its neglect could become a source of nuisances. In this sense, there is no urgent need to reject the request outright. Although the existing zoning plan has expired, there has been no change in policy, and a prerequisite for approval is the submission of a new zoning plan.”

Committee acknowledges impact on residents but allows project to proceed

Regarding the impact on residents, the committee acknowledged that “the addition of the security column will result in a significant obstruction of views towards the landscape. However, such an obstruction could also have occurred had residential apartments required protected spaces at the rear of the building.”

Therefore, “approving the special use permit does not permanently determine the existing design, as the district committee will review the final building plans during the deposit process of the specific zoning plan. The committee will be able to examine alternative designs for the security column’s placement if deemed necessary when approving the zoning change—before the permit is issued.”

However, the appeals committee recommended that the district committee consider reducing the size of the security rooms from 22 square meters to 15 square meters, given that these spaces will serve as guest rooms, subject to approval from the Home Front Command.

Ultimately, the Appeals Committee ruled that “considering the limited timeframe of approximately three years for the special use permit, alongside the fact that the issuance of the permit was conditioned upon the actual deposit of a specific zoning plan, with all its implications as detailed above, we see no reason to interfere with the local committee’s decision, except for our directive to reduce the size of the security rooms or to comply with the district committee’s approval regarding their dimensions.” The appeal was largely rejected, and no order for costs was issued.

Stay updated with Buyitinsrael! Receive WhatsApp alerts on real estate news, market updates, special offers, and more!

The contents of this article are designed to provide the reader with general information and not to serve as legal or other professional advice for a particular transaction. Readers are advised to obtain advice from qualified professionals prior to entering into any transaction.

Share This