Petition to Deny the Non-Contextual Expansion of Grand Prospect Hall

Signatures 418 total

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 9 › »

1. 1
   Name: Jill Burkhart on Feb 13, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
2. 2
   Name: Susi Graf on Feb 13, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
3. 3
   Name: Josephine Fassari on Feb 13, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
4. 4
   Name: Richard Sturgeon on Feb 13, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
5. 5
   Name: Luca Sturgeon on Feb 13, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
6. 6
   Name: Molly Mackaman on Feb 13, 2011

   Comments:

   Flag
7. 7
   Name: Peggy Shorr on Feb 13, 2011

   Comments: This is not the environment to do this in.

   Flag
8. 8
   Name: Jennifer Gordon on Feb 13, 2011

   Comments: My main issue is with the entrance to the parking lot being on 16th St, not with the expansion per se.

   Flag
9. 9
   Name: Aaron Brashear on Feb 13, 2011

   Comments: The GPH should respect the ZR they supported in the rezoning of South Park Slope and Greenwood Heights in 2005. They can expand withing the ZR and still benefit from the expansion of their business.

   Flag
10. 10
    Name: Diana Mora on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: Additionally, as more families move to this area, we should be wary of the dangers that a truck entrance can cause. It would not be a safe block to live on anymore.

    Flag
11. 11
    Name: R. Brooke on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
12. 12
    Name: Negar Ahkami on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
13. 13
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
14. 14
    Name: Deirdre Dolan on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
15. 15
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
16. 16
    Name: Elena Delucia on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
17. 17
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
18. 18
    Name: Chris Lucas on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
19. 19
    Name: Delia Hernandez on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
20. 20
    Name: Arthur Bell on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
21. 21
    Name: Thomas Riley on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
22. 22
    Name: Brian Wilson on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
23. 23
    Name: Justin Crum on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: I'm specifically concerned in the parking and traffic plan.

    Flag
24. 24
    Name: Michael Minnich on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
25. 25
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
26. 26
    Name: Phil Hoff on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
27. 27
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
28. 28
    Name: Matthew P. Dwyer on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: I am opposed to this request for a spot-rezoning variance.

    Flag
29. 29
    Name: Anthony Staiano on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: This is a bad idea.

    Flag
30. 30
    Name: PAUL FRIEDMAN on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: 4 or 5 stories at most!

    Flag
31. 31
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
32. 32
    Name: Marilou Vetter on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: First of all, this is an historic building which should not be altered. As is, it is busy enough with traffic and late night gatherings in a residential area without expanding it into an even bigger headache for the community. Leave it in it's current form. We spent a lot of time and money restricting the zoning in the community WE live in, to NOT have developers make end runs around the rules.

    Flag
33. 33
    Name: Elizabeth Lynn on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: Please consider the impact on property owners in the neighborhood. The quiet character of the area is a huge part of its appeal, and justifies the million-dollar price tag on houses on the market. This idea would be a detriment, not an enhancement, to the living conditions of long-term reisdnets.

    Flag
34. 34
    Name: John Deragon on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
35. 35
    Name: Geri Bredhoff on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
36. 36
    Name: Miranda Purves on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: GPH is already a poor neighbor in terms of garbage and noise pollution. While I support them as a business and would love to see them thrive now and in the future, before they even consider a massive expansion they should prove they can manage better what they already have. And any plans that impact the community must be discussed with the community. Obviously going over the height limits in the area is simply against the zoning laws, so I don't even know why it would be on the table. In short: I do not approve these plans, and further discussions should happen before they come up with new ones.

    Flag
37. 37
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: I do not see this project as being beneficial to our neighborhood - in fact, on the contrary, it will have a deleterious impact to our quality of life and to the value of our homes.

    Flag
38. 38
    Name: Susi Graf on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
39. 39
    Name: Reggi May on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: Serious study must be completed prior to any green lights on this project.

    Flag
40. 40
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: do NOT let this happen! This will destroy our neighborhood!

    Flag
41. 41
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: NO!!!

    Flag
42. 42
    Name: Anthony Vassallo on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
43. 43
    Name: Rusty Mae Moore, Ph.D. on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: The plan to use 16th Street as a feeder street for the hotel clients and supply trucks is a major problem of the project for me. Prospect Avenue already is a two lane fast street, and the GPH parking comes off this street now. 16th Street is a residential street. Children go up and down the street constantly. Any architect worth their salt can design an attractive hotel with entrance and exit off Prospect Avenue. Good architects could also lower the needed height of the building. I have lived on 16th for 17 years, and am passing our house to my children and their children to live in.

    Flag
44. 44
    Name: Suzanne McCoy on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: there are too many negative down side effects to justify the financial gains of this company...I am opposed to this under any circumstances but surely if they are to be allowed to do this, it must be done under the supervision of an independent environmental company that would address these concerns of traffic, pollution, waste etc...

    Flag
45. 45
    Name: Fredric Stein on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
46. 46
    Name: Anonymous on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
47. 47
    Name: Sonia Ruschak on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: please do not allow GPH to expand in the way they propose. it would be a huge detriment to out neighborhood and is grossly unfair to the homeowners in south slope. sonia ruschak

    Flag
48. 48
    Name: Simon Eventov on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
49. 49
    Name: Stephanie Singer on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments:

    Flag
50. 50
    Name: Louis Tufino on Feb 14, 2011

    Comments: Grand Prospect Hall (GPH) owners/representatives and the community affected by the issues described in the petition can work together to reach an agreement that is the best for the interests of the GPH owners and for the affected communities. Let's begin/continue the dialogue to attain a win win result.

    Flag

Page: 1, 2, 3, 4, ... 9 › »