Dear advocates, Please submit feedback by July 12 at 11Am. Below we have our concerns and objections listed. Please feel free to use this as inspiration. To submit written testimony please email landusetestimony@council.nyc.gov Please put Parkchester rezoning in the headline.

Dear City Council's land use committee,

Parkchester Watch Group is writing to put on record that we do NOT support R8X zoning. We propose r6 instead. Overall we feel the zoning changes are too dense, and allow for buildings to be too tall compared to our existing buildings. We are against the removal of the parking requirement in new construction. We also are expressing our concerns regarding three proposed buildings to be built on E Tremont Ave. The buildings we have the most concerns about are the ones proposed at 1990 and 2040 E Tremont Ave. These two buildings are owned by the Parkchester Condos’ sponsors who also own the Parkchester rentals. We have made numerous requests to meet with the board and the condo sponsor to discuss the sponsors proposed buildings and our quality of life issues to no avail. We also have some concerns about the proposed buildings at 1880 E Tremont Ave at the corner of Unionport Rd. 

Parkchester Watch Groups’ Concerns

Our general concerns and suggestions for the Parkchester area in regards to E Tremont Ave and or the rezoning are as follows. 

School overcrowding with plans to add a total of 7500 units of housing,  Our understanding is that CB 11 on Bronxdale ave will get a new elementary school. But how about residents of CB9? If there is not enough space for a full-sized public school, then how about an annex to PS 106? 
YMCA with pool: Over the years Parkchester management along with the board gutted our recreation department. As a result we can use a full-sized community center with programs for all ages; but especially children \and teens to keep them off the streets and out of trouble. Many residents floated the idea of a YMCA with a pool which would make a great addition to the neighborhood which is needed. 
NYPD security cams and improved lighting: E Tremont Ave is currently known as a street with a lot of auto crimes including theft, burglary, and cars parked/ abandoned cars with no plates or invalid plates. We are asking for NYPD surveillance cameras to be installed at regular intervals between at least White Plains Rd and Castle Hill ave. We asked DOT to improve street lighting on the same stretch of street Dot request # 653221-X1C6. 
Traffic mitigation: What plans will be implemented to reduce traffic on E Tremont Ave? Can angled parking be added to the north side of the street or bus stops re-aligned to where fire hydrants are to minimize no parking areas?
MTA PD substation Parkchester MNRR station: Our Neighborhood is currently struggling to deal with the homeless situation, robberies being committed, as well as other crimes. Our NYPD precinct which is the 43 
the precinct is currently understaffed. The 49 precinct which borders the north side of the future station has its hands full as well.  This doesn’t even factor in the proposed 7,500 units of housing to be built in the area. Our community deserves and expects a MTA police substation as the current nearest is Harlem. The next closest one is in Mount Vernon. Parkchester MTA PD substation can serve as an in-between to cover all the Bronx Stations and lower Westchester stations.  The Parkchester station is close to the Cross Bronx, Bronx River Pkwy and the Hutch. We can not rely on cameras and the local PD to respond when they are already burdened with the current amount of residents let alone before the new residential buildings open. 

While PWG and its members appreciate the supermarkets we have in the area they are small and already bursting at the seams. They get so packed at peak times the aisles are hard to pass and lines back up into the aisles. We desperately need a large scale, healthy supermarket, with a large selection of affordable produce; perhaps a Trader Joes. We want a developer in Parkchester to secure a lease with a grocery store fitting the description above. The site on E Tremont Ave and White Plains Rd would make a great location. Perhaps most of it could be below ground including below the outdoor pedestrian plaza.  

We also have concerns about the accuracy of NYC Planning studies that have at least two erroneous pieces that I picked up. It refers to 14 metropolitan oval as a utility building next to the proposed buildings of 1990 & 2040. I believe they mean the heat plant located at 2020 E Tremont Ave. 14 Met Oval is an apartment building near the center of our community. It also lists we have Tennis Courts. I have been living here for 10 years and haven’t seen any. I heard decades ago there were. We ask that all the documents are double checked to make sure there are no additional errors or omissions. 
“A portion of the S/NR-eligible Parkchester Special Planned Community Preservation District is located along East Tremont Avenue within the Parkchester/Van Nest Station Area. This portion contains three adjoining buildings (2000 East Tremont Avenue, 14 Metropolitan Oval, and 2040 East Tremont Avenue,) that are contributing elements to the overall S/NR-eligible Parkchester Special Planned Community Preservation District. 2000 East Tremont Avenue is a five-story, brick building that is used as storage, office, and commercial space. 14 Metropolitan Oval is an approximately 90-foot-tall brick building with an approximately 200-foot-tall exhaust stack that protrudes from the building’s rooftop that functions as a utility building for the larger Parkchester Special Planned Community Preservation District. 2040 East “ Neighborhood character Pg 18-7  https://zap-api-production.herokuapp.com/document/artifact/01QY2C5KOJ6IG5T6KKNJEK3EHEJJMZUG5L

Feedback on 3 proposed buildings. We oppose the planned buildings at 1990 E Tremont Ave and 2040 E Tremont ave. We think the building proposed at 1880 E Tremont is too tall and we have shadowing concerns.

1990 & 2040 E Tremont Ave

Ruining the look of our historic planned community. Parkchester should be landmarked! Both garage buildings have unique statutes with historical significance. If we can not stop the destruction of these garages then we insist these statutes are saved and incorporated into the design of the new buildings’ facade. 
Height:  Both buildings are proposed to be only a few feet shorter than our heat plant smoke stack at about 25 floors which is almost twice as tall as our current tall buildings of 13 stories and is over three times the height of our ‘short’ buildings of 8 floors. The proposed buildings come close to our current residential buildings. We have concerns the height coupled with the close proximity to our current residential buildings will block daylight, views and breezes. Here are more details in the study I want to point out. “The study shows The Proposed Actions would result in significant adverse shadow impacts on three sunlight-sensitive resources: a portion of the larger 129-acre Parkchester Special Planned Community Preservation District.” “For all three identified resources, the analysis determined that they would not receive adequate sunlight during the growing season.” Besides the plants, sunlight is good for our mental health. Our community was planned so we can all get adequate light; let's not ruin that by developers https://zap-api-production.herokuapp.com/document/artifact/01QY2C5KJ2OBDQ74DSGZCJRHYHRIGCA6D2
The condo sponsor owns the Parkchester rentals and garages. If they have money to build new buildings they should make a financial commitment to improving our buildings. New elevators, wheelchair ramps, cameras in the halls, properly fix leaks and mold. Our current condo buildings are in disrepair. We also ask for modernization to an energy efficient heating system, and thermostat control. We want a sizable upfront financial commitment from the sponsor that will go directly towards capital improvements, as well as an annual financial commitment for an agreed number of years that will be used for capital improvement. If they have money to build two new 25 floor buildings they can assist in capital improvements that will benefit their rentals in Parkchester Condos as well. 
Parking: Will the parking garages built have enough spaces? Will we be allowed to use them? Will the new buildings get priority? Will the garage prices be affordable for Parkchester residents or will the garage rates go up significantly? During a DCP meeting the sponsor rep Mr Buehrer stated the garage will be for the new buildings’ residents, Parkchester Condo residents and daily commuter parking; meanwhile during the public meeting with Parkchester residents he conveniently left out the mentioning of allowing daily parking for commuters. During the meeting with residents he also stated there would be more spaces then we currently have now. If his building plan goes through we want a legallying binding agreement that gives Parkchester residents a minimum number of spaces in the garages which would be more than we currently have.   
 Can current Parkchester residents apply for new affordable units: We received unconfirmed reports when the housing lottery for Parkchester Gardens opened up a few years ago that current Parkchester Condo residents were ineligible for that housing lottery. We want an agreement in writing if these buildings are allowed to proceed so that Parkchester Condo residents are not disqualified by living at the condos, and they receive priority over other CB9 residents since we had to deal with the quality of life issues and eventually the construction. 
We also have concerns that the condo sponsor will allow the residents of their new buildings to use our amenities. The condo sponsor has seats on both condo boards, in the south they have one less sponsor rep then owner rep on the board. They could convince another board member to vote in their favor and allow the residents of the new buildings to use our basketball courts, playgrounds, athletic fields, and parking permits for our private drives. Condo owners pay for the upkeep of the above out of their maintenance payments, not to mention concerns about overcrowding, Parkchester is lucky enough to have their own police department (PPD) funded by unit owners monthly maintenance charges we have concerns the sponsor may try to convince the board to allow PPD to respond to calls in their buildings stretching thin our already busy police department.  
Will our heat plant be providing heat and hot water to new buildings?

Our concerns for 1880 E Tremont Ave which is NOT owned by the condo sponsor is shadowing, blocking of light and breezes from the proposed height of 21 floors. We also have crime concerns of that location especially with the proposed internal pedestrian plaza in the middle of the proposed buildings. Guerlain St between E Tremont Rd and Unionport rd is a ‘hot street’ if you want more details we can have a discussion. We are not opposed to the pedestrian plaza. We want to know what safety measures will ensure this won’t be a sheltered area allowing more cover to commit crimes; security cameras and lighting will not be enough.