Zoning restrictions against adult businesses survive trial on adequacy of prior study. The Department of City Planning conducted a study on the negative secondary effects of adult businesses in the City, and concluded in 1993 that such businesses increased crime and lowered property values. Based on this study, the City in 1995 amended the zoning resolution to restrict the location of adult businesses in certain areas, banned the enlargement of existing adult uses, and prohibited the change of any use to an adult use. The amendment also defined “adult establishment” as a commercial establishment where a substantial portion (40 percent or more of accessible floor area) of the establishment included adult uses. Some adult businesses closed, but others remained legal by keeping their adult material within less than 40 percent of their accessible floor areas.

The City believed these 60/40 percent businesses were in sham compliance based on actual adult versus non-adult material sales receipts. In 2001, the City amended the zoning resolution again in 2001 to prevent stores which focused on providing adult material from avoiding the adult establishment restrictions. Adult businesses challenged the constitutionality of the amendments and sought a preliminary injunction. (more…)

Sunset Park Rezoning used with permission of NYC DCP. All rights reserved.

This article was originally published on 10/15/2011 (see below for update).

Dissent argued that City only belatedly added consideration of rezoning’s impact on low-income residents. In April 2009, the Department of City Planning proposed a 128-block contextual rezoning of Sunset Park, Brooklyn. Planning sought to preserve the residential neighborhood’s built character while allowing new construction at a height and scale consistent with existing development. The proposal called for establishing height limits, mapping new commercial overlays to allow a wider range of uses, and applying the inclusionary housing program along certain corridors to encourage the creation of affordable housing and allow increased residential development. After conducting an environmental assessment, Planning determined the rezoning would have no significant adverse impacts and issued a negative declaration. Residents and community groups opposed to the plan claimed that Planning had not adequately considered the rezoning’s socio-economic impact, and argued that it would lead to the displacement of low-income residents. The City Council approved the plan in September 2009.

(more…)