A group of seven New York City Council members announced this morning that they, together with other elected officials, civic organizations and individuals, were initiating litigation to challenge the validity of the whole of New York’s recently adopted City of Yes for Housing Opportunity (COYHO) zoning amendment. We are reviewing the litigation papers with an eye toward the lawsuit’s implications for investments that rely on the zoning changes included in COYHO.
COYHO was a comprehensive amendment to New York City’s Zoning Resolution. Its purpose was to advance the city’s efforts to provide all its residents with decent and affordable housing. In recognition of New York City’s diverse range of neighborhoods, each with its own built context, COYHO included a variety of zoning tools so as to generate housing that complemented each community’s existing character. For lower-density neighborhoods, these tools include creation of ancillary apartments, allowance for low-scale, low-density development along neighborhood commercial strips and within walking distance of mass transit stations, and a modest reduction in required parking.
The approved COYHO text included changes made by the City Council in response to the concerns of residents of these lower-density areas, including changes that made the legislation more respectful of existing neighborhood character. The City Council also secured a commitment to invest $2 billion for improvements to sewers, streets and open space infrastructure to provide neighborhoods with the capacity for any additional density that COYHO might generate. But the changes made to accommodate lower-density neighborhood concerns and the multibillion-dollar commitment to new and improved infrastructure were not enough to satisfy the plaintiffs.
The lawsuit claims numerous violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act and the City Environmental Quality Review, including the failure to conduct a coordinated review of COYHO with two other rezoning packages adopted under the City of Yes banner; a failure to study properly the density implications of ancillary dwelling units and of town center and transit-oriented development projects; and a failure to identify and implement measures to avoid or mitigate claimed environmental harms. For relief, it asks the court to invalidate the entire COYHO text even though it does not cite even a single defect in those portions of the environmental documentation addressing development in the higher-density zoning districts.
We encourage you to reach out to Kramer Levin’s land use attorneys and other professionals for help in assessing the practical implications of the lawsuit on past and proposed activities, plans and investments induced by the zoning change. And stay tuned. We are committed to keeping you informed as to the substance of the lawsuit and its journey through the judicial process.
[View source.]
