Pittsburgh-based developer Walnut Capital told the city\u2019s Zoning Board of Adjustment on Thursday that it wants an exemption from rules that require its long-awaited development in Oakland to include affordable housing. <\/p>\n
But no matter what the board decides, the long fight about the city\u2019s inclusionary zoning policy seems likely to continue.<\/p>\n
Inclusionary zoning, or IZ, requires new developments in designated neighborhoods to set aside a percentage of housing units that are affordable for people at lower income levels. Established in 2019 for Lawrenceville\u2019s skyrocketing real estate market, it expanded into Bloomfield, Polish Hill and parts of Oakland during former Mayor Ed Gainey’s administration.<\/p>\n
Walnut\u2019s project in Oakland, called The Caroline and located on McKee Place, got underway with the IZ rules in place. But on Thursday, Walnut attorney Jonathan Kamin said the developer still hopes to have them lifted.<\/p>\n
\u201c\u200aBecause this is a student-housing project and because of my client’s ability to get it done, we were able to make it work, and that’s why the project is under construction,\u201d Kamin said. \u201cBut it is a very difficult challenge to [place] on people who are looking to develop housing in Pittsburgh.\u201d<\/p>\n
Not everyone in attendance was impressed by that argument.<\/p>\n
Andrea Boykowycz, executive director of the Oakland Planning & Development Corporation, said she was struck by \u201c\u200athe chutzpah that it takes to demand a variance to a law merely because you don’t like it.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201c\u200aWalnut Capital undertook this project with full knowledge that it would be governed by the inclusionary-zoning overlay,\u201d said Boykowycz.<\/p>\n
Kamin\u2019s attempt to refight IZ\u2019s application for the 11-story, 159-unit Caroline project is part of a broader legal strategy \u2014 one that may yet undermine the policy everywhere in the city.<\/p>\n
The Builders Association of Metropolitan Pittsburgh challenged the policy by suing the city in federal court in 2022. In its suit, BAMP argued that the policy violated developers’ property rights by forcing them to absorb the costs of the city\u2019s affordable-housing initiative.<\/p>\n