PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Testimony by Lo van der Valk, Representative of Carnegie Hill Neighbors
10:34:24
·
126 sec
Lo van der Valk, representing Carnegie Hill Neighbors, expressed support for the goals of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity (CHO) but raised several reservations about specific aspects of the proposal. He outlined six main points of concern related to zoning changes, building regulations, and administrative processes.
- Advocated for preserving the Madison Avenue special preservation district's bulk and setback provisions
- Opposed height increases for narrow street mid-blocks and reduction of required rear yards
- Expressed concern over diminishing rear yard open space and expansion of City Planning Commission's authorizations
- Opposed the expansion of landmark transfer development rights (TDRs)
Lo van der Valk
10:34:24
Yes.
10:34:24
My name is Lofanderholt, and I represent Carnegie Hill Neighbors, a civic organization in the upper east side.
10:34:31
We support the goals of COI housing opportunities, but we have several reservations.
10:34:37
1, we would like to keep the bulk and setback provisions of the Madison Avenue special preservation district created in 1973.
10:34:45
This allows for a pyramid shaped tapering at the top 3 or 4 floors.
10:34:50
It is unique to Madison Avenue and worth keeping, especially because Madison Avenue is the premier shopping avenue of New York City.
10:34:59
2, we oppose the proposed height increases for the narrow street mid locks.
10:35:04
These apply mainly to the contextual r eight b mid locks zoning, whose allowed height limit currently at 75 feet and will be raised to a 105 feet.
10:35:15
If affordable housing is provided.
10:35:17
This is a height increase of 40% and out of balance with the allowed 20% FAR increase for affordable housing.
10:35:26
A major understanding going back more than a 100 years is that the avenues can be tall, but the mid walks must be short.
10:35:35
We oppose 3.
10:35:36
We oppose the proposed reduction of the required rear yards from 30 to 20 feet.
10:35:41
Smaller rear yards will result in less light and air.
10:35:44
In the valued green internal donut space.
10:35:48
4, we oppose provisions that further diminish the rear yard open donut space, including accessory dwelling units and accessory residential space.
10:35:59
5.
10:35:59
We oppose the expansions of the city plant of city planning commissions authorizations.
10:36:06
These grant the CPC the authority to permit applications to break zoning laws without any public review by community boards or the city council.
10:36:16
6, and finally, we oppose the vast expansion of the landmark transfer development rights, TDRs.
10:36:22
This provision will vastly expand the reach of of the receiving lots.
10:36:27
From the current 2 or 3 Blocks to potentially Thank
Kevin C. Riley
10:36:30
you, Mister Lavonne.
