Zoning Therapy

For 34 years the City has required a special permit for physical culture or health establishments. This requirement burdens owners and operators of health clubs, gyms, spas and studios, even where such uses would otherwise be permitted as-of-right. With the elimination of the now-unlawful adult physical culture establishments, the purpose and usefulness of the remaining regulations place an unnecessary burden on legitimate small businesses and should be modified or eliminated entirely.

During the crime-ridden 1970s, regarded by some as the City’s nadir, the City Planning Commission enacted amendments to the Zoning Resolution distinguishing between “physical culture or health establishments” and “adult physical culture or health establishments.” As explained at the Commission’s public hearing, “zoning has proved to be the most effective tool in closing down houses of prostitution masquerading as massage parlors or physical culture establishments.” The Commission’s action, which followed a one year moratorium on physical culture or health establishments within the City, was approved by the Board of Estimate in early 1979.

(more…)

Credit: The Department of City Planning

City Planning Commission certified 140-block Bed-Stuy North Rezoning and 90-block West Harlem Rezoning: included in the Brooklyn proposal is a text amendment that would also apply Citywide and to areas of the Bronx. At City Planning Commission’s review session on May 7, 2012, the Commission certified the Department of City Planning’s contextual rezoning proposal for the northern half of Brooklyn’s Bedford-Stuyvesant neighborhood. The Bedford-Stuyvesant North Rezoning plan would impact a 140-block area generally bounded by Flushing Avenue to the north, Quincy Street to the south, Broadway to the east, and Classon and Franklin Avenues to the west. The proposal was requested by Brooklyn Community Board 3 and local elected officials after the City rezoned the southern half of the neighborhood in 2007. (read CityLand’s coverage here).

Bedford-Stuyvesant is a residential neighborhood characterized by late 19th- and early 20th-century rowhouses, small and medium-sized apartment buildings, and several large, tower-in-the-park NYCHA (more…)

Modification established 80-foot building height limit along portion of Queens Boulevard. On June 23, 2011, the City Council’s Land Use Committee modified the Department of City Planning’s rezoning proposal for the Sunnyside and Woodside sections of Queens. The plan would impact 130 blocks in western Queens south of the Sunnyside Rail Yard and east of the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway.

Sunnyside, bisected by Queens Boulevard in the western portion of the rezoning area, is predominantly characterized by large residential and commercial buildings. Woodside, in contrast, is characterized by one- and two-family detached and semi-detached homes and low-rise apartment buildings. The populations of both neighborhoods have increased during the past two decades, and subsequent out-of-scale development has disrupted street wall continuity and led to inappropriate commercial uses on residential side streets.

Planning’s proposal would replace the study area’s 50-year old zoning with contextual zoning districts to establish building heights, reinforce existing development patterns, and provide residential development opportunities along appropriate corridors. Accompanying zoning text amendments would alter sidewalk cafe regulations along Queens Boulevard and Skillman Avenue and apply the City’s Inclusionary Housing Program along a portion of Queens Boulevard in Woodside. (more…)

Text amendment would introduce curb cut prohibitions and limit front yard parking spaces in certain residential districts. On February 24, 2010, the City Planning Commission approved, with modifications, the Department of City Planning’s Residential Streetscape Preservation text amendment. Planning proposed the City-wide amendment in response to community concerns about inappropriate curb cuts and front yard parking spaces in residential districts. Planning seeks to clarify parking requirements and preserve and enhance residential streetscapes.

The proposed amendment includes a host of modifications such as requiring new parking spaces in all single- and two-family districts to be located within a residential building or to the side or rear of a building. This requirement currently applies to R1 and R2 districts and certain districts in Lower Density Growth Management Areas in Staten Island and the Bronx. In order to ensure that required front yard plantings are of sufficient quality, the amendment would close a loophole that allows narrow strips of plantings located in driveways to count towards the required minimum front yard planting requirements. (more…)

Air rights text and new setback rule slightly changed to respond to Council’s concerns. The City Council approved 12 significant text amendments to the Hudson Yards zoning text after the Department of City Planning made two small modifications. Overall, the final text encompasses the transfer of development rights from the MTA’s eastern rail yards, the use of the Hudson Yards District Improvement Bonus, and the relocation of subway entrances for the No. 7 line. The final text also encompasses several design issues such as street wall setbacks, sidewalk widening rules, and window glazing requirements. 5 CityLand 104 (Aug. 15, 2008).

Right before the City Council’s Land Use Committee voted on the text, City Planning staff presented two small changes. The original text allowed developers to obtain a building permit for a project without precluding the possibility of later increasing the proposed building’s size through an air rights transfer from the MTA’s rail yards or through the use of the Hudson Yard District Improvement Bonus. Council Member Melinda Katz criticized this text at the Council’s July hearing. The final text requires developers, prior to receipt of a building permit, to send a letter to Planning outlining whether the project includes the transfer of air rights from the rail yards or uses either the inclusionary housing or the district improvement bonuses. (more…)