N800458ZRM Amenaments of the Zoning Resolution
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
-44 " ar CITY PLANNING COMMISSION N800458ZRM February 9, 1981 / Calendar #1 to Section 200 of the New York Amenaments of the Zoning Resolution pursuant 15-00, and Charter relating to Article I, new Chapter 5, Section City conversion non-res- miscellaneous changes in other Sections, regarding the of Communitu Boards Z through 6. idential buildings to residential use in Manhattan S.- 0110". The amendments seek to protect the vitally important Manhattan based industries from the effects of unbridled conversion of loft buildings to residential use. Concurrently, additional opportunities are provided for housing in areas where residential use will not have an adverse impact on the City's economy. The zoning map changes define current manufacturing districts, create new mixed use districts, and remap a manufacturing district to commercial. The text changes establish standards for the conversion of non-residential buildings to residential use outside the manufacturing districts. The text changes also provide a mechanism for relocation assistance for industrial uses displaced by conversion when they relocate in New York City. BACKGROUND In adopting the 1961 zoning ordinance, the Board of Estimate-- sought to ensure "that sufficient space will be available for use for manufacturing and related activities". Large areas of Manhattan which were occupied by industrial uses were mapped manufacturing. Other areas with significant industrial activity were mapped commercial, because they were adjacent to the central business districts or residential areas. The industrial uses in these commercial areas were expected to decrease over time. The first major review of this policy was undertaken in 1963. In response to the proposed Lower Manhattan Expressway, and to the sug- gestion that the area between Broome and Houston Streets be cleared for high-rise housing, Chester Rapkin was commissioned to study the S.. South Houston Industrial Area. The Rapkin report declared, "These , dingy exteriors, however, conceal the fact that the establishments operating within them are, for the most part, flourishing business enterprises of considerable economic value to the City of New York". The report provided a basis for the City's eventual decision not to build the expressway or the new housing. - - - / k /4 t T ,- - , 11 r . ..., In 1968, a group representing artists in SoHo requested that the Zoning Resolution be changed to permit occupancy of loft buildings for joint living-work purposes. Studies at that time showed more than 27,000 blue-collar jobs in this area. Some loft spaces, which had been vacated by industry, were occupied by artists who needed large spaces for both living and working. In adopting zoning amendments to permit limited artists living-work quarters, the Commission sought to balance the needs of artists and traditional industrial uses. Joint living-work quarters for artists were permitted in the smaller buildings which were experiencing the greater vacancies, while the larger build- ings were reserved for industrial uses. When adopting these amendments in January 1971, the Commission cited the need to study the area north of Houston Street, known as NoHo, and Washington Market/Tribeca, the area to the south of Canal Street. Following the completion of these studies, in 1975 the Commission proposed to amend the SoHo regulations and extend the district to NoHo, and to create the Special Lower Manhattan Mixed Use District south of Canal Street. In SoHo/NoHo the Commission recognized the importance of artists and cultural activities in New York City which generated over three billion dollars in annual receipts. The Commission stated in its report "that since 1970 when it first allowed Joint living-work quarters for artists in SoHo, the area has developed into a major cultural center of international renown". Between 1970 and 1975 industrial employment declined in New York City in general, including in SoHo, and increasing vacancies in loft buildings of less than 5,000 square feet were noted, except on Broadway where levels of occupancy were high. Therefore, the Commission adopted amendments which increased the space available for artists by extending the SoHo M1-5B district to include NoHo and by permitting conversion in buildings of up to 5,000 square feet lot coverage. To protect industrial uses, the over 5,000 square foot buildings (and the over 3,600 square feet buildings along Broadway) and the ground floor of most M1-5B buildings were reserved for traditional industrial uses. , In June 1976, the Commission adOted the Special Lower Manhattan Mixed Use District,,permitting generl residential use in an area south of Canal Street. Although artists' use was desirable and there- fore was permitted in the district, the existing occupancies indicated a broader residential population. The Commission divided the district into Area A, where every building could convert above the second floor, and Area B, where buildings of less than 5,000 square feet lot coverage could convert. The northern "B" area had considerably higher occupancy levels of industrial uses and contained buildings especially designed for printing and warehousing, both significant uses in the area. The Department of City Planning continued to study loft conversions in Manhattan. In December 1977, it issued Residential Re-Use of Non- Residential Buildings which surveyed conversion activity in Manhattan south of 59th Street. The report dramatized the extent of conversion---- activity in these areas and the extraordinary degree of illegality. Of 1023 identified conversions, 936, or 91.5 percent, were illegal. Widespread illegality had occured in all conversion areas whether or not residential use was allowed by the zoning ordinance. The study recognized the increasing role of conversion in helping to meet the market demand for housing. The report also identified four important policy concerns: 1. the impact of strong residential demand on space occupied for business uses; 2. the potential hazards and liabilities to the public, indivi- duals, and property from ad-hoc, unregulated, and illegal conversion; 3. the need for protection for tenants, co-operators and property owners in an unregulated market; and 4. the inability to achieve City policy objectives due to ineffective enforcement. In addition to the need for enforcement, the report cited the importance of coordinating various City agencies which establish housing, economic development, land-use, and law enforcement policies. Mayor Edward I. Koch responded to the need for coordinating these policies by creating the Loft Conversion Task Force within the City. In July 1978, the Task Force issued its report, the Action Plan. It recommended various City and State actions consisting of the following: 1. an enforcement plan to prevent fruture illegal conversions and an accelerated inspection program for eiysting illegal conversion; 2. a review of and revisions to Code requirements to provide for safe housing in conversions; 3. support for state legislation which would create an anti-harassment measure to protect manufacturing tenants; 4. support for state legislation which would amend the requirements for the sale of co-operative units to ensure that only legal units would be offered to prospective purchasers; 5. relocation assistance to industrial tenants who are displaced by conversions receiving J-51 tax abatement; 6. examination of the appropriateness of mixed use zoning; 7. public information for interested parties about City and State policies concerning the use of loft buildings; and 8. incentives to upgrade industrial buildings for industrial uses. Based on the Planning Department's March 1980 report, Manhattan Loft Rezoning Proposal and the Action Plan, in September 1980, the Mayor released for public comment a comprehensive Manhattan loft conversion policy. The policy sought to resolve the valid needs of industrial and residential loft occupants, as well as the concerns of property owners. The proposal was composed of six elements: Zoning text and map changes which are the subject of this report and which are discussed below. Relocation incentives to displaced industrial tenants to encourage their relocation within New York City. Residential re-use results in increased property values for landlords and developers, while industrial tenants who are forced to move because of the conver- sions must bear the full costs of such moves. Faced with these costs, many businesses close or relocate outside of the City, resulting in job and tax losses for the City. There are two elements to the relocation program. For Manhattan south of 59th Street a relocation program would be included in the Zoning Resolution and is discussed below. A second program, prepared by the Department of Housing Preservation & Development and applicable in Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx, Staten Island and in Manhattan north of 59th Street, would tie the availability of J-51 tax benefits to an owner's provision of relocation awards to manufacturing tenants displaced by conversion. A resolution of the status of illegal loft dwellers by state legislation prepared by the Deportment of Housing Preservation and Development. The illegal nature of most loft conversions has resulted in a myriad of legal problems for both tenants and landlords. In particular, pioneering loft tenants, whose sacrifices have made lofts a viable and attractive form of housing, have been the victims of inadequate legal protections. The courts have experienced great difficulty applying existing