1998 zoning amendment required contribution to theater fund for transfer of development rights from certain theaters. On October 19, 2011, the City Planning Commission held a public hearing on a proposed amendment to the City rules that would increase the contribution to the Theater Subdistrict Fund connected to the transfer of development rights from 46 listed theaters in Manhattan’s Theater Subdistrict. The proposal was published in the City Record on September 15, 2011.

The City in 1982 created the Theater Subdistrict to halt further demolitions of Midtown theaters. The Subdistrict comprises an area generally bounded by West 40th and West 57th Streets and Sixth and Eighth Avenues. The Subdistrict restricted the demolition of designated theaters and permitted theaters to transfer development rights to other parcels in the area. A set of amendments to the Subdistrict approved in 1998 created a mechanism that permitted certain theaters to transfer development rights on an as-of-right basis. A theater could transfer its development rights if it committed to operate as a legitimate theater and if a financial contribution was made to the Theater Subdistrict Fund. The fund is administered by the Theater Subdistrict Council, which was created in 2007 and allocates grants to promote the theater industry.

The City Planning Commission is required to review and adjust the contribution amount no more than once every three years and no less than once every five years. The adjustment reflects changes in the assessed values of properties within the Subdistrict. In 1998, the contribution amount was set at $10 per square foot of transferred floor area and increased to $14.91 in 2006.  (more…)

Rule amendment would expand staff-level approval authority for some types of window and sign alterations. On March 1, 2011, Landmarks held a public hearing on proposed amendments to the rules pertaining to construction work on properties under Landmarks’ jurisdiction. Landmarks proposed the changes to streamline the application review process, codify current practices and policies, and address inconsistencies. Chair Robert B. Tierney stated that the proposal was partially intended to remove from the calendar issues that have consistently been decided based on similar circumstances and to make the City’s preservation law as “simple [and] transparent as possible.

The rules include permitting staff-level approval of modifications to certain visible windows, more staff-level approval of storefront signage, and expedited review of cellar and basement work provided it would not involve excavation. The new rules would no longer allow staff-level approval of modifications to non-visible windows on the top floors of rowhouses, keeping with comments from Commissioners regarding the significance of historic rowhouses. The changes would require staff to consider applications for rear or roof additions in the context of aggregate enlargements to the buildings, including approved and grandfathered additions. The definition of mechanical equipment would be broadened to include solar panels, wind turbines, and micro turbines, in order to ease the approval of green technologies. (more…)

Stringer, the community board, and Council Members Katz and Avella voice strong opposition;vote planned for August. The Department of City Planning initiated a proposal for twelve text changes to sections of the Hudson Yards zoning text which the Council passed in 2005 and impacts West Midtown below 42nd Street. The proposed changes encompass design points, such as applying sidewalk widening rules along Eighth Avenue and waiving window glazing for projects along a portion of Hudson Boulevard, a new north-south commercial avenue in the heart of the zoning district. More significant text changes deal with relocating subway entrances for the No. 7 line, the transfer of development rights from MTA’s eastern rail yards, use of the Hudson Yards District Improvement Bonus, and alterations to street wall rules.

Under the proposed new text, developers could obtain a building permit for a project without precluding the possibility that they could later seek a transfer of development rights (TDRs) from MTA’s rail yards or the use of the District Improvement Bonus to increase the size of their building. The proposal would also give the Planning Commission rulemaking authority that will allow it, over time, to alter the rules on how to implement the District Improvement Bonus. The new street wall provisions would allow buildings along portions of Eighth and Ninth Avenues and West 34th Street to be set back five feet starting at the building’s third story. (more…)

Grounds for suspension of architects and engineers expanded. On January 10, 2007, the Department of Buildings adopted changes to its self-certification program, expanding grounds for exclusion and suspension of participating architects and engineers and authorizing the Commissioner of Buildings to immediately suspend participants to prevent a serious public safety threat. Included within the new grounds for suspension were cases of fraud, improper use of licenses or professional stamps, and negligence or incompetence in relation to Building’s rules and the zoning resolution.

Two speakers attended Buildings’ hearing on the proposed rules, both in opposition. Buildings also received six written comments, all opposed. After the comment period, Buildings made only one additional change, slightly altering the definition of engineers and architects. For a more comprehensive summary, see 3 CityLand 143 (Oct. 15, 2006). (more…)

Only two speakers opposed proposed rule changes. On October 6, 2006, Buildings held a public hearing on the proposed amendments to the professional certification program rules that would expand the potential grounds for suspension and permanent exclusion of architects and engineers from the program. 3 CityLand 143 (Oct. 15, 2006).

Only two individuals appeared at the hearing, both speaking in opposition. Michael Zenreich, an architect and chair of the Architects’ Council of New York, called the new provisions “too broad,” arguing that the text could be misused and would create a dynamic where an architect is “guilty until proven innocent.” He suggested peer review as an alternative and commented that the proposal was a “heavy-handed reaction to abuse of a few practitioners.” Lester Lao testified that the current system worked fine and he did not see the shortcomings. (more…)