photo courtesy of wikipedia

The NSA is often called “No Such Agency” – since its operations are cloaked in secrecy – while the BSA has been called, by the Times, “a (powerful, but) relatively obscure agency”.  See the similarity?

Now, we can’t say that the Nation’s security hangs in the balance at the BSA – but, it does carry out a vital – and often misunderstood – role in City government and zoning law.  It is a powerful and quietly effective and efficient organization.  Like the NSA, it manages to avoid the spotlight, all the while subject to the (exclusive) control of the executive branch.  (NSA’s chief is, of course, appointed by POTUS – code for President of the United States; the BSA is controlled by Hizzoner, the Mayor). (more…)

A Zipcar, soon to be legitimized by the Zoning Resolution. Image via movementbureau.blogs.com

This Wednesday, the NYC Planning Commission held a hearing on the City Planning Department’s proposed car sharing zoning text amendment.  The text amendment would officially recognize and regulate car sharing services such as Zipcar.  Currently, Zipcar and other car sharing services are in somewhat of a gray area when it comes to zoning, in that they are not mentioned in the zoning resolution at all.  The proposed text amendment would allow car sharing vehicles in both accessory and public parking garages throughout the city. (more…)

Westchester County’s desegregation plan is again found inadequate and the court appointed monitor has given the County until August 9th to remedy.  The monitor questioned the County Executive’s “tone” in terms of providing leadership on this issue.  If dissatisfied, the monitor does have the power, under the original HUD consent degree, to revise the County’s plan. (more…)

Last week, the New York City Council’s land use committee unanimously approved CPC Resource’s application for the New Domino development.  As we discussed back in January (when the project was certified), the approval will permit the development of 2,200 units on the Brooklyn waterfront, along with community facility, office and retail space.   The project also includes 660 units of affordable housing, over 4 acres of publicly accessible open space, including a waterfront esplanade and a 1-acre lawn, and the preservation of the landmark Refinery building. (more…)

This week, the New York State Senate and Assembly passed legislation amending the “Loft Law” to apply to several hundred additional buildings.  The bill aims to bring illegally converted residential buildings into compliance with building and fire codes, and would essentially permit the legalization of such buildings without a variance or rezoning.  The bill, which was sponsored by Senator Martin Milave Dilan (D-Bushwick) in the State Senate and Assemblyman Vito Lopez (D-East Williamsburg-Bushwick and the Brooklyn Democratic Leader) in the Assembly, is awaiting signature from the Governor. (more…)

Image Courtesy of Landmark West!

As reported this week in the Wall Street Journal, an Upper West Side townhouse will have to demolish a top-floor addition (see shaded portion in above image) due to a lack of approval from the Landmarks Preservation Commission (LPC).

In 2005, the owners (at that time) of the townhouse, 12-14 W. 68^th St.,  received a permit from the Department of Buildings (DOB) to construct a 6^th-floor penthouse addition.  15 years earlier, however, the Upper West Side/Central Park West Historic District was created.  The Historic District covers this portion of West 68^th St.  Being in a Historic District, of course, requires approval from the LPC for any alterations to the façade of the building.  No such approval was obtained from the LPC. (more…)

This week, the New York Supreme Court decided in favor of the City in an “adult use” zoning case (For the People Theatres of NY Inc. v City of New York), drawing yet another chapter to a close in the ongoing saga of adult establishments vs. the City of New York.  As a result of this decision, which places substantial additional limits on the location of adult uses, a number of adult book and video stores that have been operating as “60/40″ establishments – businesses where only 40% or less of the floor area is occupied by adult uses — will likely have to close or move elsewhere.  The case, which dates to 2002 (and was remanded from the Court of Appeals), was in response to a 2001 amendment to the Zoning Resolution expanding the definition of “adult establishment.” However, the controversy over the regulation of adult establishments in the Zoning Resolution dates back to at least 1995, when the ZR was originally amended to classify adult establishments as different from other commercial uses.  (more…)

Image from Google Streetview

In 2007, an owner of an upper east side townhouse submitted a proposal to the Department of City Planning requesting permission to convert the townhouse basement into a 1-car garage.  Doing so would require creating a 9’2” curb cut in front of the property in question.

The Department of City Planning rejected the application, citing Section 25-633 of the zoning resolution:

In the districts indicated, curb cuts are prohibited for residential developments on zoning lots having a width of less than 40 feet…

City Planning felt that this section disqualified the applicant, since the property: (more…)

Local Law 11 of 1998 required the inspection and maintenance of facades of buildings greater than 6 stories tall.  Owners must have an architect or engineer inspect all facades of the building (including inner facades not seen from the street).

The façade inspections are required every five years and Cycle 7 starts this Sunday!

There is a staggered, 1-2 year window to file.  The timing depends on the last digit of the building’s block number.

The timing is as follows:

Last week, the monitor overseeing the settlement rejected the county’s affordable-housing plan, saying it was deficient on details, accountability and enforcement. Instead of specifying what the county would do to meet certain desegregation bench marks, Westchester merely restated the bench marks. The plan didn’t specify where and how the money would be spent. It had no “concrete time frame” for finding and buying properties to develop and was “unnecessarily vague on the whole.” (more…)