The Practitioner's Guide to the Powers of the Zoning Resolution
The Zoning Resolution, with its accompanying 126 Zoning Maps, is a voluminous yet concise organic document, amended continually since its adoption on Dec. 15, 1961, and it has intrigued me ever since I first laid eyes on it.
November 15, 2022 at 11:00 AM
8 minute read
This is the first in a series of articles focusing on how to utilize the Zoning Resolution of the City of New York to increase the development potential of a particular parcel. Recently, there has been an influx of articles discussing zoning, whether it is in regards to Mayor Adams' "City of Yes," opinions denouncing zoning regulations as an onerous obstacle to free market development, or discussions on a reduced role of the public's and political authority in the land use process. This series does not take a position on the effectiveness of zoning, although there is no doubt that a zoning framework must be in place.
The Zoning Resolution, with its accompanying 126 Zoning Maps, is a voluminous yet concise organic document, amended continually since its adoption on Dec. 15, 1961, and it has intrigued me ever since I first laid eyes on it. I try to be a creative and innovative lawyer, and the Zoning Resolution continuously inspires me. Within its chapters are processes that can be effectuated to not only assist clients in maximizing their profits, but also allow a practitioner to shape the landscape of the City itself.
This series begins with a discussion of rezonings, as an amendment to the Zoning Map encompasses a broad spectrum of land use processes and is the most effective means to maximize development potential without a NYC agency maintaining jurisdiction of a site. Unlike a variance, discussed later in this series, to which amendments must be approved by the Board of Standards and Appeals (the BSA), once a rezoning (an amendment to the Zoning Map) is adopted, a proposed design that conforms (to use) and complies (with bulk) with the rezoned regulations may be constructed as-of-right.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllCourt of Appeals Provides Comfort to Land Use Litigants Through the Relation Back Doctrine
8 minute readBinding a Successor Town Board; Default on Stipulation of Settlement: This Week in Scott Mollen’s Realty Law Digest
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Thursday Newspaper
- 2Public Notices/Calendars
- 3Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-117
- 4Rejuvenation of a Sharp Employer Non-Compete Tool: Delaware Supreme Court Reinvigorates the Employee Choice Doctrine
- 5Mastering Litigation in New York’s Commercial Division Part V, Leave It to the Experts: Expert Discovery in the New York Commercial Division
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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