Don't stop, your posts are very informative!
I've been reading the complaint you posted, and I find their claims to be interesting. They don't really base their argument on the fact that the zoning lot is gerrymandered. Instead, they make several more compelling arguments. Here are my thoughts on their arguments one-by-one:
(1) Their first argument is that parking spaces can only count as open space if they're accessory to the building on the zoning lot. The parking spaces on this zoning lot are for the Lincoln Towers buildings, which are on a different zoning lot, so they don't meet this criterion. On this, I think they're right. Where I think their case is seriously misleading and not as strong, is that they also assume the driveway space doesn't count as open space under the Zoning Resolution because it's not accessory to the building either. But while the Zoning Resolution is very clear that the parking spaces must be accessory to the building, it does not say that driveways must be accessory:
Driveways, private streets, open #accessory# off-
street parking spaces, unenclosed #accessory# bicycle
parking spaces or open #accessory# off-street loading
berths [count toward the required open space],
provided that the total area occupied by all
these items does not exceed [50% of the required open
Most of the land that they claim doesn't count toward the open space is, in fact, driveways, not parking spaces. The zoning resolution does not define 'parking spaces,' but in several sections of the code it does contrast 'parking spaces' vs 'driveways.'
Obviously, that's just my interpretation, and it's up to the judge to resolve, but I think this seriously weakens their case on this point. It becomes a matter of how 'driveway' vs 'parking space' is defined.
(2) Their next argument is that the open space is not accessible. I'm less certain about this one, but it doesn't hinge on the shape of the zoning lot or the fact that it's gerrymandered, but on whether the developer has an access easement for this land which is owned by Lincoln Towers.
(3) Their next argument is that the rear yard does not comply with the rear yard regulations because it contains parking spaces for Lincoln Towers. This would be correct, except that since the zoning lot is a through lot, a rear yard is not required--instead under section 23-532 of the Zoning Resolution, you can provide instead
an open area with a minimum depth of 60 feet, midway (or within
five feet of being midway) between the two #street lines# upon
which such #through lot# fronts;
which, if you look at the zoning diagram, the developer does provide.
(4) Their final argument, about the sky exposure plane, seems like it could be easily fixed without making the building unbuildable.
Conclusion: If they win on point (1), the project would probably have to be smaller. If they win on point (2), this lot might be unbuildable under current zoning.