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
Land Use and PlanningThis 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This content has been archived.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
© 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 AllLaw Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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