2/10/05 Petitioners-Plaintiffs Verified Petition and Complaint in the Ikea-Red Hook Litigation, Paras. 1-49

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
COUNTY OF NEW YORK
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X
COALITION TO REVITALIZE OUR WATERFRONT NOW,
JOHN McGETTRICK, MICHAEL IHNE, SUSAN PEEBLES
JOSEPH BERNARDO and CHERYL STEWART,

Petitioners-Plaintiffs,

For a judgment pursuant to Article 78 of the Civil Index No.
Practice Law and Rules,

v. VERIFIED
PETITION
AND COMPLAINT
CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CITY PLANNING
COMMISSION, AMANDA M. BURDEN as Chair of the
New York City Planning Commission, NEW YORK CITY
DEPARTMENT OF CITY PLANNING, NEW YORK
CITY COUNCIL, IKEA PROPERTY, Inc., and UNITED
STATES DREDGING CORPORATION,

Respondents-Defendants.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------X

Petitioners-plaintiffs, by their undersigned attorney, for their verified petition and complaint, allege as follows:
Nature of the Proceeding

1. This combined proceeding and action for a declaratory judgment, brought pursuant to Article 78 and Section 3001 of the Civil Practice Law and Rules, seeks a judgment and determination voiding certain land use approvals, declaring illegal an amendment of the zoning map and changes to the City map, and enjoining any action based upon those approvals and changes. The approvals and changes enable the construction of a gigantic shopping center on the waterfront in Red Hook, Brooklyn ("the project"). The project includes a 346,000 square foot IKEA furniture store, 69,000 square feet of additional retail development, parking for 1400 cars and a waterfront esplanade and ferry dock.

2. Red Hook is a transit-poor, housing-starved, truck-laden community with a waterfront that City planners have heretofore considered a critical piece of industrial infrastructure—all the wrong attributes for a regional waterfront shopping mall. This behemoth of an IKEA store, double the size of the City’s Home Depot and Costco outlets, is expected to draw customers from all over New York City and beyond. Its huge royal blue frame will desecrate the historic Red Hook waterfront, bring excessive traffic to the community’s streets, produce gridlock on the major traffic corridors surrounding the neighborhood, and fail to produce any real economic development locally. It has the potential to stall a positive residential redevelopment trend in the neighborhood which is increasing housing values and attracting needed population.

3. In finding such development appropriate, the City Planning Commission (CPC) and the New York City Council (Council) relied on a faulty environmental review, one which used unrealistic assumptions and specious reasoning in order to minimize the project’s significant environmental impacts, in particular its impacts on the socioeconomic character of the neighborhood; on traffic conditions in Red Hook and in greater Brooklyn; on zoning and land use policies established after careful and prolonged consideration to guide the neighborhood’s development; and on the community’s character. The review found that a giant IKEA store with an expected $173 million in annual sales will have no negative effects on the neighborhood, Brooklyn, or the City. It will not induce any substantial additional development in Red Hook, will not have any impact on other businesses in Brooklyn, will not affect residential trends, and will not create any traffic problems either in the neighborhood or on Brooklyn’s highways and service roads.

4. The approval of the project on the basis of an environmental review with data manipulated to reach pre-determined results and conclusions based on improper or non-existent premises violates the State and City environmental laws mandating full and fair public disclosure of a project’s potential significant environmental impacts, and requiring government agencies weigh the true environmental consequences of a proposed project and mitigate those consequences to the maximum extent practicable.

5. The CPC and the Council also abdicated their responsibility to amend the Zoning Resolution in a rational manner. They are not free to make amendments to placate the desires of a particular developer, or even to capitalize on economic development and tax revenues that are offered. Amendments to the Zoning Resolution must be consistent with established and well-thought out plans for the development of the area. The project is directly at odds with two major planning documents, one a citywide waterfront plan and the other a plan for the development of Red Hook. The Department of City Planning has not undertaken any effort to plan for today’s large retail establishments, and there is no existing plan or zoning in the City of New York that provides appropriate guidance on the siting of big box stores.

6. Both the City’s Comprehensive Waterfront Plan and the existing plan for Red Hook prepared pursuant to Section 197-a of the New York City Charter designate the Erie Basin, in which the project site sits, as a key City resource which should be maintained for maritime and industrial use. That designation was based upon a full consideration of the characteristics of the site and the surrounding area, the needs of the Red Hook community, and the needs of the City as a whole. Nonetheless, the CPC and the Council found that the land use approvals, zoning map amendment and map change to support a shopping mall were consistent with the existing plans, a finding that has no basis in fact.

PARTIES

7. Petitioner-plaintiff Coalition to Revitalize Our Waterfront Now (CROWN) is a voluntary association of Red Hook residents dedicated to a vibrant, mixed use waterfront which will benefit the local community and strengthen Red Hook’s historic character. It represents over a hundred residents and businesses who have been actively involved in planning the community’s future, in advocating for development that serves the needs of the residents and businesses in Red Hook, and in promoting re-use of the waterfront that maintains water dependent uses while maximizing public access and enjoyment.

8. Petitioner-plaintiff John McGettrick has lived at 178 Coffey Street in Red Hook since 1988. His home is five blocks from the northwest corner of the project. McGettrick works at a security and investigations company outside the neighborhood and either drives or takes the local bus to the subway to get to work. The project will cause traffic to experience significant waiting time at a number of intersections in Red Hook and make McGettrick’s commutes longer and more stressful. The increases in traffic will also affect his ability to shop in the neighborhood.

9. On weekends, McGettrick walks to the Red Hook Recreational Area, on the other side of the project from his home. There, he often runs on the open air track, and/or samples the ethnic street food that is purveyed from numerous carts on Bay and Columbia Streets and sold to the large crowds enjoying the soccer games that take place at the Recreational Area. Once the project is built, Bay and Columbia Streets will be handling almost ten times the number of cars on a typical Saturday peak hour as they do now, which will clog the streets with traffic, produce a lot of vehicle emissions that will worsen air quality, create a high level of noise, and generally degrade the environment around the Recreational Area and McGettrick’s ability to enjoy his neighborhood.

10. Petitioner-plaintiff Michael Ihne has lived for sixteen and a half years at 174 Beard Street, two blocks from the project site. He is an insulin-dependent diabetic who receives medical care in Brooklyn Heights and at Long Island College Hospital on Atlantic Avenue. To reach his medical providers, and to perform other normal tasks of his daily life, he drives from his home east on Beard Street, directly past the project site. He also must cross Hamilton Avenue in order to reach his medical appointments. The traffic generated by the project on Beard Street, Hamilton Avenue, and other streets will cause him to spend more time commuting in his car, will clog the street in front of his house and subject him to vehicle emissions and noise, and at worst will cause him to be delayed for medical and other appointments.

11. Petitioner-plaintiff Susan Peebles has lived for sixteen and a half years at 174 Beard Street, two blocks from the project site. She is the only child of a 93-year old mother who resides in Brooklyn Heights and who requires petitioner Peebles to attend to her needs. There are often emergencies which require Peebles’ immediate assistance. Indeed, Peebles bought her house with consideration of its proximity to her mother and her caretaker responsibilities. The increased traffic and congestion that the project will produce will have a major effect on her daily life, making it more onerous to travel to see her mother, causing anxiety in any emergency situation, and subjecting her to vehicle emissions and noise every time she leaves her house.

12. Petitioner-plaintiff Cheryl Stewart owns her home at 53 Coffey Street, less than two blocks from the project site. She is a sculptor, and has a studio in her home. She also works as a sculptor and scenic artist in many locations within and outside of New York City. She has lived in Red Hook for six years. She bought her home together with her late partner, who was killed in 2003 several blocks from their home when a truck ran a stop sign at Richards and Delavan Street.

13. Stewart was recently diagnosed with asthma. The increases in traffic associated with the project will make her daily life more difficult, and could have an effect on her health. She often takes the bus from Red Hook to her places of work, and travel times on the bus will be increased by the additional project traffic. She receives business-related deliveries and pick-ups at her home, which will take longer to complete with the new traffic. The diesel emissions from idling or stopped truck traffic may aggravate her asthma. Response time for emergency vehicles may be affected, which is a great concern since time is critical in addressing an asthma attack. Finally, she is concerned, as an artist who has shown her work in galleries in Red Hook, that the nascent artist community will be stifled by the growth of suburban-style shopping in the neighborhood.

14. Petitioner-plaintiff Joseph Bernardo is an owner of the Hope & Anchor Diner at 347 Van Brunt Street, and a homeowner in Red Hook. He has lived there for six years. Over that time he has seen Red Hook slowly develop as an attractive location for small business owners and residents who seek the unique type of urban environment Red Hook offers.

15. His employees at the diner depend on public buses to reach their jobs. Service is already slow, and will be hampered by the onslaught of traffic generated by the IKEA. His operations will be adversely affected if deliveries take longer and become more difficult for suppliers. He is fearful that the huge volume of cars on weekends will discourage patrons and destroy all he has worked for in pursuing his own business.

16. Respondent-defendant City of New York is a municipality organized under the laws of the State of New York.

17. Respondent-defendant New York City Department of City Planning (DCP) is an agency of the City of New York established pursuant to Section 8 of the New York City Charter. DCP is responsible for the City’s physical and socioeconomic planning, including land use and environmental review. DCP performs land use analysis in support of the City Planning Commission’s review of proposals for special permits under the Zoning Resolution and changes in the City map, and was the "lead agency" under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) reviewing environmental impacts of the project.

18. Respondent-Defendant New York City Planning Commission (CPC) is a commission established pursuant to Section 192 of Chapter 8 of the Charter. CPC is responsible for performing a substantive review of, holding a public hearing on, and issuing a report and resolution on most proposed land-use actions in New York City.

19. Respondent-defendant New York City Council (Council) is a legislative body established by Chapter 2 of the New York City Charter.

20. Respondent-defendant IKEA Property, Inc., is located at 496 West Germantown Pike, Plymouth Meeting, Pennsylvania, and, upon information and belief, is an affiliate of IKEA and the developer of the project. IKEA is a privately held company that is a major home furnishings retailer, with $15.5 billion in sales for 2004 and 84,000 workers in 44 countries. It has 205 stores in 32 countries, including 22 stores in the United States. IKEA Property was the applicant for the land use approvals, zoning amendment and map change granted by the CPC on September 8, 2004 and approved by the Council on October 13, 2004.

21. Respondent-defendant United States Dredging Company, located at One Beard Street, Brooklyn, New York, is the owner of the property for which IKEA Property, Inc. sought the land use approvals, zoning amendment and map change.

VENUE

22. Venue is proper in New York County pursuant to § 506(b) because, among other reasons, New York County is where the material events at issue took place and are taking place, is where the City respondents have their principal offices and made the determinations complained of.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. Red Hook

23. Red Hook is a mixed residential and industrial neighborhood located on a peninsula in south Brooklyn, a community of 11,000 people, most of them in public housing, and 200 industries and small retail businesses. Robert Moses era planning made for an expressway that cut the community in pieces, separated the Red Hook peninsula from upland areas, concentrated the population in public housing, and killed off the maritime industry.

24. Yet Red Hook has unique advantages. Red Hook is a paramount waterfront community, surrounded by water on three sides. Few places in the City can offer so powerful a combination of extensive shoreline and breathtaking vistas. Red Hook’s proximity to the central harbor and lower Manhattan makes it an ideal location for new maritime activities including small boat storage and repair, a ferry stop, excursion boats, and other water-related and water-enhancing activities. See Affidavit of Thomas Angotti, sworn to February 7, 2005 ("Angotti Aff."); Exhibit 1, Red Hook: A Plan for Community Regeneration, p. 47. Red Hook’s setting and maritime character play a prominent role in the classic film On the Waterfront and the Arthur Miller play A View from the Bridge.

25. The Red Hook neighborhood is located on a peninsula in northwest Brooklyn just south of the exit from the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel. Because it is surrounded by water on three sides, ingress or egress to the neighborhood involves crossing Hamilton Avenue, a six- to eight-lane road running underneath and parallel to the Gowanus Expressway. The nearest subway stop is several blocks north of Hamilton Avenue, one mile from most residences in Red Hook and the project site. Exhibit 2, IKEA Red Hook Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), Figures 2-3 and 17-1.

26. Its geographical isolation (no one passes through Red Hook on the way to elsewhere), its low-rise and spread out nature, and its mixture of industrial and residential uses, shape the character and circumstances of the Red Hook community. It is a self-sufficient, close neighborhood with a small town atmosphere. Industrial uses predominate. Exhibit 3, FEIS Figure 2-1.

27. Red Hook’s waterfront includes important clusters of maritime activity and port-related infrastructure at the Red Hook Marine Terminal and Erie Basin. Exhibit 4, Department of City Planning, Plan for the Brooklyn Waterfront (excerpts), Fall 1994, p. 37 (hereafter "PBW"). Red Hook was formerly one of New York’s most active shipping and warehousing terminals, and served as a major shipping facility during World War II and the Korean War. PBW, p. 41. In recent decades, the rapid growth in containerized shipping and the shift of most of the port operations to the New Jersey side of the harbor have resulted in the decline of maritime-related and manufacturing industries. Ibid.

28. Currently, the Red Hook Marine Terminal is operated by a private company and functions as a terminal for the loading and unloading of container cargo. However, the City has announced that it intends to refurbish and use two of the larger piers as a passenger terminal for cruise ships. Exhibit 5, New York City Economic Development Corporation, News Release, January 12, 2005. Erie Basin has a mix of industrial and warehousing activity in multiple buildings, two floating dry docks for ship maintenance and repair, including an historic graving dock that still functions, and a New York City Police Department Evidence Vehicle facility. Exhibit 6, FEIS, pp. 2-3 to 2-6. The remainder of the Red Hook waterfront, between the Marine Terminal and Erie Basin (see Exhibit 2), is still predominantly industrial, with uses such as warehousing, shipping, receiving and industrial parking. Exhibit 6, p. 2-5. One exception is the Beard Stores in the southwest, which are renovated Civil War-era buildings with offices, warehouses, art studios, arts organizations, and exhibition space.

29. Waterfront public access is provided at the Valentino Park and Pier at the end of Coffey Street, the Columbia Street esplanade which extends for one-quarter mile facing the former Port Authority Grain Terminal, and the end of Van Brunt Street, which has a planned and partially completed one-half mile waterfront corridor. The Columbia Street esplanade includes a bikeway, a walkway, fishing area, seating, lighting, parking, and views of New York Harbor. Exhibit 6, p. 2-5.

30. Residences are concentrated in the center of the peninsula. The majority of the population lives in the Red Hook Houses, a New York City Housing Authority development that was built in the 1930s to house port workers and that covers several blocks along Columbia Street. However, there are communities of long-time residents, artists, and young families in owner-occupied and rental housing throughout the neighborhood.

31. The community has plentiful open space at the Red Hook Recreational Area, a 59-acre park facility comprised of open fields and sports facilities just north and east of Erie Basin and the project site. On weekends from early spring to late fall, the Recreational Area attracts soccer players and other sports participants from all over Brooklyn. The project will be sited just south of the Recreational Area, and the main traffic route to reach it cuts through the playing fields.

32. The Red Hook waterfront is zoned M-2 and M-3 for heavy industrial uses. There are some M-1 zones between the waterfront and the residential areas, providing a buffer or transitional area for light industrial activity that is more compatible with residences. Exhibit 2. Recently CPC approved a zoning change for the development of a 230,000 square foot building at the foot of Van Brunt Street which will include 100,000 square feet of space for a Fairway supermarket and 130,000 square feet of space for offices and artists’ studios. Another new large retail establishment is the 158,000 square foot Lowe’s Home Improvement store at 2nd Avenue and 12th Street, just on the border of the neighborhood.

33. Red Hook has lost population and employment since the 1960s, and has large tracts of vacant land, a lack of neighborhood-based commercial activity, and an unemployment rate of 20%. The City has invested very few resources in the area. Over the past decade the City has provided support for the privately developed Beard Stores project, and has made upgrades to the facilities at the Red Hook Recreational Area. The recent announcement concerning the Passenger Cruise Ship Terminal (Exhibit 5) will be the first major public investment in the area in a very long time. Nonetheless, given the current and recent tight residential housing market, and with relatively affordable housing stock, Red Hook has attracted new residents, and there is currently upward movement in housing values. Affidavit of Hugh F. Kelly, sworn to February 3, 2005 ("Kelly Aff.").

B. The City’s Waterfront Plans

34. In 1992 DCP issued the New York City Comprehensive Waterfront Plan (CWP). www.nyv.gov/html/dcp/html/pub/wf.html. The CWP expresses the City’s long range goals for a 21st century waterfront. See Department of City Planning, The New Waterfront Revitalization Program, September 2002, p. 6 (www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/wrp/wrp.html). The CWP divides the waterfront into four principal functions and sets goals according to nature of each function: (1) the Natural Waterfront; (2) the Working Waterfront; (3) the Public Waterfront; and (4) the Redeveloping Waterfront. Ibid; Exhibit 4, pp. 3-4.

35. The CWP was followed by the companion Borough Waterfront Plans, issued in 1993-94, which offer site-specific recommendations in accordance with the CWP’s planning goals. The borough plans, of which the PBW is one, assess local conditions and propose short- and long-term strategies to guide land use change, planning and coordination, and public investment for each of the waterfront areas.

36. The PBW identifies Erie Basin as part of the Working Waterfront. The purpose of the working waterfront is to facilitate water-dependent uses and ensure sufficient manufacturing-zoned land to accommodate them. Within the working waterfront category, Erie Basin receives a special designation as a Significant Maritime and Industrial Area (SMIA), one of six SMIAs in the City. According to the CWP, the SMIAs are "where land use and public investment strategies would support and promote working waterfront uses." According to the PBW

The designations aim to protect and facilitate concentrated working waterfront and industrial uses, and to ensure sufficient industrially zoned land to accommodate future growth, including water-dependent activities. To meet these objectives, manufacturing zoning would be maintained and infrastructure investment would be targeted to the areas. In addition, the city’s Waterfront Revitalization Program policies would be revised to give higher priority in the significant areas to industrial development over other waterfront planning concerns.

Exhibit 4, p. 92. Among the attributes that make Erie Basin worthy of this designation are the deep water in its harbor, never less than 25 feet; its 30 acres of waterfront open space and buildings; its protected harbor of over 80 acres; its concentration of M2 and M3 zoned land that is relatively well-buffered from residential communities; and its existing maritime, water-dependent and industrial activities. Exhibit 4, p. 71; see also Angotti Aff. ¶ 15.

C. Red Hook’s 197-a Plan

37. Section 197-a of the New York City Charter provides that plans for "the development, growth, and improvement of the city and of its boroughs and community districts" may be proposed by a local community board. A community board that prepares a 197-a plan shall submit it to the CPC, and the CPC, if it finds that the plan meets CPC standards and "is consistent with sound planning policy," must approve, approve with modifications, or disapprove the plan.

38. In 1992, Red Hook began an effort to develop a 197-a plan. The community had spent years fighting the proliferation of waste transfer stations in the neighborhood, and there was a feeling that the creation of a plan could help move from protest to development. Planning would transform Red Hook from a community that always has to say no to things, and build a consensus about what it wants. At the time, only one community board had been successful in getting a plan approved. Angotti Aff. ¶ 9.

39. The Red Hook 197-a Plan (197-a Plan) was developed over a two-year period through a process that brought together the neighborhood’s diverse residents and businesses. There were more than two dozen meetings and numerous presentations to interested government and private entities. The 197-a Plan foresaw a mixed residential/industrial community without separate waterfront enclaves. It was adopted by Brooklyn Community Board 6 on June 8, 1994, and approved, with modifications, by the CPC on August 21, 1996. It was widely praised by Red Hook’s civic leaders and featured on the front page of the Sunday New York Times. Although changes were made by the CPC during the two years it took to analyze and approve the plan, the basic principle of mixed use, integrated development remained intact. Angotti Aff. ¶ 10.

40. The 197-a Plan envisaged the construction of new housing, the fostering of mixed commercial/industrial/residential areas, the creation of new community facilities and open spaces that would be located so as to knit together sections of the community, the support of existing industrial activity and the enlistment of economic development resources that would revive dormant or underutilized industrial areas, and the improvement of transportation routes and public transit in the neighborhood. Angotti Aff. ¶ 12.

41. All of the waterfront areas are to remain zoned for industrial use, with the exception of two vacant areas that are to be turned into open space. Residential uses are to be continued and expanded in the core of the peninsula, and the areas between the residential core and the industrial perimeter are to become mixed use neighborhoods that would support light industrial and manufacturing, commercial and residential uses. Exhibit 1, p. 21.

42. With respect to the future of industrial activity in Red Hook, the 197-a Plan states

We wish to promote industry that is compatible with the residential community while maintaining the historic mixture of housing and industry.

Exhibit 1, p. 55. For Erie Basin and the New York Shipyard site (the project site), the 197-a Plan supports the CWP’s designation of the Erie Basin as a "Significant Industrial and Maritime Area (SMIA)." In furtherance of this, the 197-a Plan recommends that a strategy be developed, with the assistance of the New York City Economic Development Corporation, to use the New York Shipyard site more intensively. It suggests that the relocation of the New York Wholesale Flower Market to the Shipyard might be an appropriate use. Exhibit 1, pp. 62-63, 70.

43. The 197-a Plan’s endorsement of the Waterfront Plan designation of Erie Basin as a SMIA was a deliberate decision. The planners had been informed that DCP considered Erie Basin one of the few areas left in the city that was ideally suited to be preserved as a SMIA. Erie Basin is the only fully protected deep-water facility along the Brooklyn waterfront and therefore ideal for a number of maritime uses including shipping, and boat repair. DCP anticipated that areas with deep-water access such as Erie Basin would be needed in the future for shipping, the installation of waste facilities, and other water-dependent uses. The 197-a planners were further informed that formerly industrial stretches of the waterfront most appropriate for conversion to non-industrial and non-maritime uses were designated in the CWP for development. Angotti Aff. ¶ 15.

44. A consensus emerged among the planners to agree to the official designation of Erie Basin as a SMIA. The 197-a Committee of CB 6 came to the conclusion that other areas along the Red Hook waterfront would be more appropriate for non-industrial and non-maritime uses. It was specifically recommended in the original 197-a Plan document that residential zoning be extended to the waterfront only at Van Brunt Street.

45. The CPC, in adopting it, modified the 197-a Plan in several major respects, but did not change the recommendations for maintaining Erie Basin as an industrial and maritime area. The CPC noted that the 197-a Plan requires the assistance of City agencies and other entities in implementation, and it called on the Borough President to spearhead coordination of the implementation. The CPC scaled back the 197-a Plan’s recommendation for new housing units, and eliminated a provision that would have provided capital funding for jobs training. It deleted the recommendations for new truck routes and changed some of the zoning recommendations in a way that did not significantly affect the overall land use patterns in the 197-a Plan.

46. Since 1996, the City has taken no responsibility for implementing the 197-a Plan. The Borough President did not coordinate implementation, and many of its recommendations have therefore gone unrealized. The IKEA proposal ignored the 197-a Plan for Red Hook. The City should have redirected IKEA to downtown locations where the transit infrastructure is adequate, and preserved this section of the Red Hook waterfront for industrial and maritime uses. Angotti Aff. ¶ 19.

D. The IKEA Retail Center

47. On March 31, 2003, IKEA Property, Inc. (IKEA) applied to DCP for the following actions:

* A special permit pursuant to Section 74-922 of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR);

* A zoning map amendment from M3-1 to M1-1;

* Changes to the City Map;

* A special permit to modify the waterfront bulk regulations pursuant to Section 62-736 of the ZR to permit a building exceeding 30 feet in height;

* An authorization to modify the waterfront public access and visual corridor regulations pursuant to Section 62-722 of the ZR; and

* Certification by the Chair of the CPC pursuant to Section 62-711 of the ZR that a site plan has been submitted showing compliance with the waterfront zoning regulations.

These actions were sought to facilitate the construction of a 346,000 square foot IKEA furniture and home furnishings store, 69,000 square feet of additional retail development, a 1400 car parking lot, and a waterfront esplanade on a 22-acre site in Red Hook. Exhibit 7, CPC Report, September 8, 2004.

48. The site is part of the Erie Basin and has been a shipyard since the 1860s. It includes five piers, two floating dry docks, one other dry dock, and five gantry cranes. The site currently supports a number of commercial and industrial uses, including offices, film production storage space, parking for towing and limousine services, boat repair, and furniture manufacturing and restoration services.

49. At the time of the application, it was zoned M3-1. This is a manufacturing district category designed to accommodate heavy industrial uses which generate noise, traffic and pollutants. M3 districts are usually located near the waterfront and buffered from residential areas. Large retail stores are not permitted in M3 zoning districts. Exhibit 7, p. 8. IKEA sought to rezone the site to M1-1, which would allow it to construct a furniture store, with no limitation on size, upon grant of a special permit from the CPC. M1-1 districts are designed for light industry, and have strict performance standards that all allowable uses must meet. Performance standards limit noise, air pollution and other nuisance-creating activity.

INCOMPLETE. CONTINUED IN NEXT POST.