Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
NY Appellate Courts Defer to Board of Standards In Zoning Cases
In a dispute over West Side development, the First Department handed a victory to developers seeking to build a 39-story building on the block between West 65th and West 66th Street, and Columbus Avenue and Central Park West. (City Club of New York v. New York City Board of Standards and Appeals, 202 WL 3083700). Together with the First Department's previous decision in favor of the developer in the 200 Amsterdam Avenue case (see, Paul D. Selver and James P. Power, "Appellate Division Overturns Supreme Court Order to Partially Demolish 55-Story Building" in this newsletter's LJN sibling New York Real Estate Law Reporter, May 2021), the City Club case highlights the extreme deference appellate courts accord Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) determinations interpreting New York City's extraordinarily complex zoning scheme.
The proposed project includes a synagogue on the lower floors and 130 condominiums on the upper floors. Part of the project site lies in a C4-7 district while the remainder lies in an R8 district. Although the two districts have different density limits, the total permitted floor area for the project is 548,543 square feet, a number not in dispute in the case. The dispute centered on two other features of the project: first,, the distribution of square footage between the building's tower and the building's base, and second, the inclusion of four floors for mechanical equipment with a combined height of 198 feet. The developer located much of the project's square footage to a narrow tower above the building's base. The result is a 775-foot high building that provoked opposition by many in the neighborhood.
Because the project is located in the Special Lincoln Square District, the project is subject to special provisions applicable within that district. The first legal issue revolves around the interplay between two of those provisions: section 82-34 of the resolution, which governs bulk distribution, and section 82-36 of the resolution, which deal with tower coverage. Section 82-34 requires that at least 60 percent of the total permitted floor area be located below a height of 150 feet from curb level. That provision applies both in a C4-7 district and in an R-8 district. Section 82-36 requires that a tower shall occupy between 30 and 40% of the zoning lot. The tower regulations, however, apply only to the C4-7 portion of the lot; towers are not permitted in an R-8 district.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?