The citymeetings.nyc logo showing a pigeon at a podium with a microphone.

citymeetings.nyc

Your guide to NYC's public proceedings.
TESTIMONY

John Sheridan, resident of City Island, Bronx, on City of Yes for Housing Opportunity's impact on special purpose districts

3:34:14

·

3 min

Report an issue

John Sheridan, a resident of City Island in the Bronx, expresses concern about the City of Yes for Housing Opportunity proposal's impact on special purpose districts. He argues that the proposal does not adequately address the unique characteristics and existing protections of these districts, including City Island's specific zoning regulations.

  • Highlights that City Island's special purpose district zoning was approved in 1977 and reaffirmed in 2003 and 2011, countering claims of outdated regulations
  • Emphasizes the importance of maintaining City Island's low-rise character, environmental quality, and specific parking requirements
  • Characterizes the proposal as bringing "a little more Manhattan in every neighborhood" and urges the commission and City Council to vote against it
  • The proposal threatens zoning regulations for special purpose districts, including City Island
  • City Island's special purpose district was approved in 1977 and reaffirmed in 2003 and 2011, not outdated
  • Current City Island regulations protect low-rise character, environmental quality, and village character
  • The proposal ignores unique characteristics of diverse neighborhoods
  • The initiative represents 'a little more Manhattan in every neighborhood'
  • Urges commission and City Council to vote against the proposal

[EXPERIMENTAL]

Which elements of City of Yes for Housing Opportunity were discussed in this testimony?

  • Parking Mandates

The following are AI-extracted quotes and reasoning about which elements of the proposal were discussed in this testimony.

This is a quick, close approximation. Occasionally, the connection between a testimony's transcript and specific elements of City Planning's proposal is tenuous.

Read about this AI-generated analysis here.

Parking Mandates

"Number 3, parking requirements for developers. Including the prohibition of eliminating parking availability, as well as the requirement for providing additional parking when adding 150 new square feet of floor area."

This quote directly addresses parking requirements, which is related to the proposal's element of removing parking mandates. The speaker is emphasizing the current parking requirements in City Island's special district, which contrasts with the proposal's aim to remove parking mandates.

About this analysis:

This analysis is done by AI that reasons whether or not a quote from the testimony discusses a particular element of the proposal.

All the prompts and data are open and available on Github.

You can search for testimonies that mentioned a specific element in the table on the main meeting page.

When an element is explicitly stated in the testimony (e.g. "Universal Affordability Preference" or "UAP"), the analysis is accurate.

But the connection between a quote from the testimony and an element of the proposal is sometimes implicit.

In these cases, the AI might eagerly label a testimony as discussing a proposal when the connection is tenuous, or it might omit it entirely.

↗ Why are there transcription and diarization errors?
John Sheridan
3:34:14
Okay.
3:34:15
So good afternoon.
3:34:16
As a resident of City Island in the Bronx, I would like to take this opportunity to remind this commission that it is not only New York City's regular or should I say standard zoning regulations for housing that are at stake here if this proposal becomes law.
3:34:31
What is also at stake is the zoning for the city's special purpose districts, of which City Island is just one of at least 50.
3:34:38
That's at least 50 neighborhoods like mine whose unique characteristic have been specifically recognized as worthy of specific regulatory protections until now.
3:34:49
At presentations by this commission that I have attended, my questions my questions about accommodations for the city's special purpose districts were either ignored are answered with a way of looking into it kind of response, but they never did as subsequent presentations were to bear out.
3:35:06
One answer I did hear again and again as to the reason for the new zoning regulations was that the current ones are outdated.
3:35:13
Here at this meeting, I've heard that regulations from 1961 are too long ago.
3:35:19
Online documents posted by Mister Goranek and his team say similar things such as The current regulations have been in place since the 19 fifties or for decades.
3:35:29
An asset should be replaced.
3:35:31
But that is not the case for City Island.
3:35:33
City Island's special purpose district was approved in 1977, not the 19 fifties.
3:35:38
And even if Mister Gorodny's team would try to make their outdated argument for new zoning regulations on City Island, they can't because The same special zoning regulations were reaffirmed by DCP in 2003 when it approved the city island rezoning proposal.
3:35:54
Then in 2011, DCP did it again, re reaffirming the following city island special district regulations.
3:36:01
Number 1, the maintenance of the existing low rise residential and commercial character of this district.
3:36:07
Number 2, the maintenance and protection of the environmental quality and village character of City Island Avenue by imposing special controls on building setbacks.
3:36:16
And number 3, parking requirements for developers.
3:36:19
Including the prohibition of eliminating parking availability, as well as the requirement for providing additional parking when adding 150 new square feet of floor area.
3:36:31
Since it is clear to me that the age of certain zoning regulations is not the reason for the new codes that are being proposed.
3:36:39
And since it is also since it is also clear that Mister Goranek and his team choose not to be bothered with unique characteristics of parts of this wondrously diverse city of ours simply because it is inconvenient to do so.
3:36:51
Let us be clear then about what this housing proposal does in fact represent.
3:36:56
A little more Manhattan in every neighborhood.
3:36:59
That is this proposal.
3:37:00
A little more Manhattan in every neighborhood.
3:37:02
And I submit to you that these days, not even Manhattanites, would wish that on their worst enemies in the outer boroughs.
3:37:08
So why would any of you?
3:37:10
I strongly urge members of this commission and the New York City council to sue to see clearly what is at stake here and vote no for a little more Manhattan every New York City neighborhood.
3:37:21
Thank you.

Subscribe to the citymeetings.nyc newsletter

Highlights of meeting moments and curious claims every 1-2 weeks.

Read previous issues

Citymeetings.nyc pigeon logo

Is citymeetings.nyc useful to you?

I'm thrilled!

Please help me out by answering just one question.

What do you do?

Thank you!

Want to stay up to date? Sign up for the newsletter.