Agenda - Planning Commission - 07/10/2006

Home

June 25, 2006 -- Page 5 Spot Zoning-- Potential development downsized Landowner claims its property specifically targeted Citation: Peck Slip Associates, LLC v. City Council of the City of New York, Supreme Court of New York, App. Div., 1st Dept., No. 7274 (2006) NEW YORK (02/14/06) -- Peck Slip Associates, LLC, owned a parking lo~t near the South Street Seaport and made several applications for'approval of a high- rise, mixed-use building on the site. Most of these applications were with- drawn. In 2003, the city council passed amendments to the zoning code that re- zoned a 10-block area that included Peck's property. The amendme.nts revoked the previous allowance for high-density buildings in that area;, the code was changed to allow only "medium-density, contextual commercial" buildings. Peck sued, contending that its property was targeted specifically for downsizing. The court ruled in favor of the city council. Peck appealed. DECISION: Affirmed. The allegation that the amendments constituted discriminatory or "reverse spot" zoning was dismissed properly. Such an allegation required proof that the zoning was site-specific and that it was inconsistent with the well-considered land-use plan for the area. A well-considered plan could be shown by "evidence, from wherever de- dyed," that served to "establish a total planning strategy for rational allocation of land use, reflecting consideration of the community as a whole." Importantly, the public interest could not be undermined by a special one. Even if the validity of a provision was debatable, the municipality had the ultimate say in its necessity. Since 1972, the city had consistently turned away from high-rise develop- ment in the district, know as the Seaport Subdistrict. The trend was toward contextual development to preserve the original historic character of the neigh- borhood, emphasizing density on scale with that of the 19th century. Thus, there was a well-considered plan that included no large-scale development in the Seaport area; no spot zoning had occurred. see also: Wilkins v. Babbar, 294 A.D.2d 186 (2002). Variance -- Regulation requires 1,500 feet between liquor stores Proposed site falls 25feet short of regulation Citation: Wine Seller Spirits v. Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Fairfield, Superior Court of Connecticut, Judicial District of Fairfield, No. CV040411900S (2006) CONNECTICUT (03/01/06) -- Kewalramani sought to open a liquor store in Fairfield. He applied for a variance from the zoning regulation that required 1,500 feet between liquor stores. If the variance was granted, Kewalramani's liquor store would have been located 1,475 feet away from the entrance of © 2006 Ouinlan Puolishing Group, Any reproduction is prohibited, For more information p~ease call (617) 542-0048. 183