UPDATED JULY 2022

The Lower Seaman Avenue Tenants' Association opposes the 22- 38 Cumming Street / Seaman Avenue BSA variance application by Artimus. 

• R7A ZONING VIOLATION
  Two Extra Stories and Way Too Tall (30 ft. higher than neighboring buildings)
• DEVELOPER LIES! PARKING NIGHTMARE
• NOT AFFORDABLE HOUSING!
  Profits Over People and Community If Approved

ADD YOUR NAME to the petition and let the BSA (Board of Standards and Appeals) know that Inwood says NO this development plan by Artimus!

• VIOLACIÓN DE ZONIFICACIÓN R7A
  Dos pisos extra y demasiado alto (30 pies más alto que los edificios vecinos)
• ¡MENTIRAS DEL DESARROLLADOR! ESTACIONAMIENTO DE PESADILLA
• ¡VIVIENDA NO ASEQUIBLE!
  Ganacias en vez de las personas y la comunidad si se aprueba

AGREGUE SU NOMBRE a la petición y deje que la BSA (Junta de Estándares y Apelaciones) sepa que ¡Inwood dice NO a esta variación y plan de desarrollo de Artimus!

Context on why we stand in opposition:

1. This is the same project that appeared before the Board in December of 2021. The BSA received copies of this petition, emails from concerned citizens regarding that application, as well as extensive public spoken testimony -- and all of those concerns remain valid. Nothing about the proposed project by the Applicant has changed since December so all points made in writing and at the December public hearing must remain part of the public record against this request for variances.

2. It is NOT really an application for variances. It is a rezoning disguised as a variance application. This was true of Applicant’s last submission, and it is still true with the current submission. Totally blowing through the requirements of a zoning district to enable a project much larger than an “as of right” project would normally be accomplished through a rezoning. But the applicant knows City Planning would never grant a rezoning so soon after the whole neighborhood was rezoned. This is an egregious abuse of the variance process.

The R7A contextual zoning was an important part of the Inwood rezoning. As the eastern area was upzoned for residential buildings up to 30 stories, the R7A zoning west of 10th Avenue balanced that by providing contextual protection for most of Inwood’s existing residential built environment. The community fought hard for R7A rezoning and several elected officials supported it. Any variance from R7A should not be granted without great scrutiny. This is not a small variance being requested. This is a large variance that increases a project massively over the as-of-right cases. It would be a terrible precedent to set going forward for other property owners who may seek to build more profitable projects than they can under R7A zoning. If more of them seek variances of this scale, the whole idea of contextual zoning to protect the current built environment will be lost.

3. Applicant’s claim that the bedrock they identify as a “hardship” on their site is a “unique” condition is still wrong. Bedrock outcroppings are common in Northern Manhattan, including on some soft sites that could be developed. In claiming uniqueness in their last submission, applicant only compared their site with a few sites identified as projected and potential development sites in the development scenario of the Inwood Rezoning EIS. They have now recognized in their updated application there are in fact two completely undeveloped soft sites covered by bedrock nearby on Cooper Street, also in the R7A district. So the applicant’s site is not in fact unique and if variances were granted they would set a dangerous precedent of avoiding the contextual zoning were other sites to then apply for similar variances. That would be in fact “tantamount to a zoning change” by undermining the R7A contextual protections most of residential Inwood was granted as part of the Inwood rezoning.  

4. Applicant’s claim that granting the variances will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood is clearly WRONG. Their claim that their proposed development with the height waiver is “comparable” with the surrounding context and zoning does not stand up to scrutiny. Applicant said their proposed nine-story building will exceed the R7A height limit of 80 feet by only 14 feet 6 inches. What they do NOT say is that considering the higher base plane created by building on top of the bedrock, the true viewable height from the sidewalk will be about another 15 to 20 feet higher—or about 110 to 115 feet from the sidewalk, not 95 feet. Context is what people on the street see, not what is measured in isolated plans. People will see the proposed building rise about 70% to 90% higher into the sky than the existing surrounding buildings, all about 6 stories high. That is not in context, not in character. Applicant’s own renderings show the gross mismatch with the surrounding area.

5. Applicant’s updated parking study makes unsubstantiated claims with no basis in reality. Because the original application tried to rely on outdated parking data, the Applicant’s consultant conducted a new study on Wednesday, June 22, 2022. Applicant’s consultant makes the outrageous claim that there are 52 on-street parking spaces available overnight and 39 during the weekday midday. The midday number cannot be taken seriously given that some nearby streets (such as Cooper St) have Wednesday alternate-side-parking rules and so cars may have been moved for street cleaning. The overnight number is simply farcical, since it is well known that one must circle for long periods to try and find a parking space at night and the situation is so desperate that hydrants are often blocked with illegal parking. The proposed site is also but one block from the extremely busy Dyckman Street entertainment district that floods the area with cars on Thursday through Sunday evenings, something not captured in the study. Since the study provides no backup data explaining where they found the 52 available parking spaces their claim cannot be verified and should not be trusted.

The Applicant’s claims regarding off-street parking facilities are also wildly misleading since it makes no reference to monthly parking, which is how residents actually park their cars -- they do not park using hourly or daily rates. Garage #1, Inwood Auto Repair, is a gas station offering valet parking to the adjacent restaurant. It does not offer monthly parking (confirmed by phone, July 8, 2022). Garage #2 does not have a working phone but is primarily a transient garage for restaurants. Garage #3 is another gas station that also does not offer monthly parking (confirmed by phone, July 8 2022). Garage #4 also does not have a working phone number and is also primarily a transient garage. Garage #5, the largest garage and one that does offer monthly parking, is claimed to have weekday overnight availability of 113 spaces -- but in a phone call of July 8, 2022 they said they have only “2 or 3” monthly spaces available. Table 4 is essentially a lie – there are almost no garage spaces available in the area for new residents.

Finally, Applicant states that even with anticipated growth from rezoning there will be enough nearby parking to absorb all parking needs created by their project. This is inconsistent with the Inwood rezoning FEIS, which says the rezoning area will have deficits of 1,049 on-street and off-street parking spaces mid-days and deficits of 291 spaces overnight. Parking spaces are also to be removed on the southernmost block of Seaman Ave per DOT plans, a loss not captured in the study.

6. The hardship claimed by applicant is self-created, so no variance should be granted. Removing bedrock is difficult but not as difficult as the application made it seem given that it happens frequently on development sites in Upper Manhattan. The cost to excavate the bedrock should have been factored into the land purchase price, but the updated economic analysis simply ignores the bedrock and values the land like any vacant site without a visible mountain of bedrock on it. This is deceitful. The lot was subdivided with full knowledge of the existing subsurface conditions. It was sold with full knowledge of the existing subsurface conditions. So this, again, is a self-created hardship. The existing subsurface conditions were well-known on this site and thus the land purchase price should have been deeply discounted. A reduced land price would have a major impact on the supposed deficit of the as-of-right scenario. It is not the BSA's problem or the community's problem if the applicant paid too much for the land assuming the rock could be left in place.

7. Applicant went on at length about bedrock in their narrative but did not adequately explain why it specifically created a need for relief from the R7A height limit. There was a claim that the first floor footprint would be slightly constrained by the bedrock condition, but their own revised plans show the same very large first floor footprint in all three as-of-right cases with similar lot coverage to the proposed case. This would seem to negate the argument that there is a significant enough constraint involving building footprints to justify a 19% increase in zoning height. 

8. Community Board 12 voted UNANIMOUSLY for a resolution opposing BOTH variances requested by the applicant. In the public discussion of this issue, many community residents spoke against the variances. Also speaking against the variances were Borough President Gale Brewer, State Senator Robert Jackson, and Assemblywoman and Council Member-elect Carmen De La Rosa.

Community Board 12’s opposition to the variances is justified by the facts, including those that residents presented at BSA’s December 2021 hearing. Their opposition was also justified because the Applicant hid their intentions from the community, especially nearby residents, and the Community Board, for months. Applicant initially applied for their variances in June 2021 but did not appear at Community Board 12’s Land Use Committee until November, not long before next submissions were due to BSA. It was not until after that meeting that most concerned community members learned about the proposed variances and non-contextual project. A responsible developer would have started transparent discussions with nearby residents and the Community Board months earlier. Now updated responses have been sent to the Board while the Community Board is shut down for summer 2022 and thus cannot comment further. Artimus is not acting like a responsible, community-friendly developer. They do not deserve these variances.

****

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2021

Why do we stand in opposition?

1. Increased Building Height from 80’ to 110’ is unacceptable.

R7A zoning in this area was guaranteed by the 2020 Inwood Rezoning and must be upheld. To approve this would violate the 2020 R7A zoning. This building would tower over the neighborhood 60’ buildings, about 5 stories higher than apartment buildings in area. The building would increase from 94 units to 140 units. 

2. Exemption from providing parking will further stress the lack of on-street parking in area.

R7A zoning requires developer provide 70 off-street parking spaces for a building this size. Developer states there is enough on-street and off-street parking in area to accommodate their building.

As residents of the area, we strongly condemn the obfuscation tactics behind this application and urge rejection of the proposed variances. They simply are not merited at this location nor anywhere else within the Inwood Rezoning. The financial hardships Artimus (developer) claims were known before property was purchased. The developer making a higher profit should not be done on the back of the community. 

***

La Asociación de Inquilinos de Lower Seaman Avenue se opone a la resolución del Comité de Uso de Terrenos de CB12, la cual aprueba una solicitud de varianza a Artimus, el promotor del edificio nuevo en el 22-38 de la calle Cumming (antiguo sitio de la Iglesia Holy Trinity).

¿Por qué nos oponemos a la varianza?

Esta varianza permitiría incrementar la altura del edificio de 80 a 110 pies, contrario a la ley de rezonificación R7A de Inwood de 2020.  El edificio pasaría la altura de los demás edificios de la área por 60 pies, o aproximadamenta 5 pisos.

Además, le varianza permitiría la contrucción de 140 apartamentos, en vez de los 94 del plan original, y encima permitiria a Artimus no proveer ningún estacionameinto, en vez de los 70 espacios prometidos-- lo cual empeoraría la gran falta de estacionaiento en esta área. El promotor insiste que hay estacionamiento suficiente en la calle para acomodar los residents de su edificio.

Como residentes de la área, condenamos fuertemante las tácticas de decepción, y insistimos en el rechazo de las excepciones propuestas, que no tienen cabida ni aquí ni en ningún otro lugar en Inwood.

Las citdas “dificultades financieras” causadas por la piedra de la zona que afirma el promotor se conocían antes de la compra de la propriedad.  Esta varianza es su intento de incrementar sus ganancias sin preocuparse por el daño que causaría a nuestra vecindad.