Restrictions in Certain Anti-Harassment Districts Could Impede Development
Kara I. Schechter Rakowski and Alexa Englander write: The development of multiple dwellings in Special Anti-Harassment zoning districts located in Manhattan has historically come along with its own special kind of red tape. In the last few decades, restrictions on demolition and material alterations have made it very difficult for development in certain special districts. Within the last two years, however, the NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development has started to enforce a previously overlooked provision of the Zoning Resolution which has presented even more obstacles for developers to navigate in order to develop sites in the Special Hudson Yards, Clinton, West Chelsea and Garment Center districts in Manhattan.
August 15, 2017 at 02:03 PM
7 minute read
The development of multiple dwellings in Special Anti-Harassment zoning districts located in Manhattan has historically come along with its own special kind of red tape. In the last few decades, restrictions on demolition and material alterations have made it very difficult for development in certain special districts.
For example, as a prerequisite to pulling permits from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) to demolish, partially demolish or perform material alterations to multiple dwellings constructed in a special district (and initially occupied prior to Jan. 1, 1974), the owner must first apply for and obtain a Certificate of No Harassment (CONH) from the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD). The CONH application process requires disclosure of information pertaining to current and former building occupants, owners and managers dating back over 10 years (and in the case of the Special Clinton District, dating back over 40 years) with the goal of determining whether any building occupant was “harassed,” as such term is defined under both the Housing Maintenance Code and the Zoning Resolution (ZR).
The CONH requirement has traditionally served to discourage, deter or otherwise limit development of some buildings in special districts, largely due to the various unknowns associated with a lengthy look-back period and treatment by prior owners of former or current building occupants.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllStanding To Challenge Zoning Resolution; Breach of Contract Action Against Bank: This Week in Scott Mollen's Realty Law Digest
Trending Stories
- 1'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Ex-Prosecutor and Judge Fatally Shot During Attempted Arrest on Federal Corruption Charges
- 4Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 5Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
Who Got The Work
Burr & Forman partner Garry K. Grooms has entered an appearance for 4M Acquisitions and Wallace D. Tweden in a pending environmental lawsuit. The action, filed July 22 in Tennessee Middle District Court by the McKellar Law Group and Mark E. Martin LLC on behalf of Tennessee Riverkeeper, contends that the defendant's violated the Clean Water Act and Tennessee Water Quality Control Act by allowing for the discharge of pollutants into waters of the U.S. without obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge permit. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Aleta A. Trauger, is 3:24-cv-00886, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. v. Tweden et al.
Who Got The Work
Ramsey M. Al-Salam, Gene W. Lee and Stevan R. Stark of Perkins Coie have entered appearances for R-Pac International in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed Aug. 12 in New York Southern District Court by PinilisHalpern LLP and Friedman Suder & Cooke on behalf of Adasa Inc, asserts a single patent related to wireless sensors used for tagging products. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein, is 1:24-cv-06102, Adasa Inc. v. R-Pac International LLC.
Who Got The Work
Walmart has tapped lawyer Nicole M. Wright of Zausmer PC to defend a pending product liability lawsuit. The action was filed Aug. 12 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Wolfe Trial Lawyers on behalf of a plaintiff claiming burns from a defective propane tank. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Leitman, is 2:24-cv-12100, Hill v. Ferrellgas, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Kevin Simpson and James Randall of Winston & Strawn have stepped in to represent Comcast in a pending consumer class action. The case, filed Aug. 11 in Georgia Northern District Court by Kaufman PA, contends that the defendant placed pre-recorded debt collection phone calls to the plaintiff in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge J.P. Boulee, is 1:24-cv-03553, Pond v. Comcast Cable Communications LLC.
Who Got The Work
Potter Anderson & Corroon partners Christopher N. Kelly and Kevin R. Shannon have stepped in to represent cloud computing company Fastly and its top executives in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 23 in Delaware District Court by deLeeuw Law and Bragar Eagel & Squire on behalf of Mark Sweitzer, accuses the defendant of failing to disclose that revenue growth in 2023 was primarily driven by a 'consolidation trend' in which companies simplified operations by reducing the number of content delivery network vendors under management, thereby reducing competition and increasing the defendant's market share. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gregory B. Williams, is 1:24-cv-00969, Sweitzer v. Nightingale et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250