Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Community board hears planner’s account of zoning-text changes and plans resolution
Summary
Planner George James told the board about a zoning challenge related to a 14th Street building and described what he said were post-approval corrections to the zoning text by the Department of City Planning; members discussed seeking legislative oversight and will prepare a resolution in January.
Planner George James told the Manhattan Community Board executive committee that he had filed a zoning challenge on behalf of a neighbor about a building on 14th Street and flagged what he described as untracked corrections to city zoning text after its passage.
James said the Department of City Planning has issued corrections that, in one example he provided, removed a sentence referencing mandatory inclusionary housing in R11 and R12 zoning. He told the committee those changes appeared to take effect after city council deliberations and raised concern that there was little or no public record or explanation of the edits.
Members said the change was troubling because it removed language they understood to be part of Council deliberations. A representative from Councilmember Mark D. Epstein’s office joined the land-use meeting and proposed drafting a bill to create more oversight of post-adoption text corrections. The committee agreed to continue the discussion and to prepare a resolution for its January meeting.
Land-use committee members also described related procedural work: they plan to ask the Department of Housing Preservation and Development to brief the committee and consider a resolution that would summarize the zoning challenge and request a formal explanation of the DCP edits. No formal vote on that resolution was taken at the executive committee meeting.
The board’s report noted that George James serves as a consultant and planner who has advised community groups on development matters. Members said they will return to the matter at a January meeting and may consider legislative or oversight options depending on DCP’s response.
