Setting the Record Straight
In case anyone read the article published on the Scarsdale 10583 website on Saturday, April 16 entitled “Trustees Diffuse Heathcote Coalition’s Objections to Village Land Sale,” we wanted to advise you of several of the inaccuracies contained in the article. (As for the anonymous comments posted after the article, we urge you to ask yourself why anyone should give credence to comments made by persons who are not willing to have the comments associated with their names.)
First, the title of the article is inaccurate. Nothing was decided at the April 14 meeting of the Land Use Committee of the Board of Trustees. Comments on the developer’s proposal were withheld by the Land Use Committee, and were largely withheld by representatives of the Coalition, pending receipt from the developer of additional information requested by the Land Use Committee. The April 14 meeting was devoted to fact-finding.
However, we are pleased to report that the process by which the latest proposal from the developer is being considered is materially different and much improved from the process employed a year ago when the developer’s first proposal was considered. Specifically, (1) the community is being permitted to participate at the beginning of the process, (2) efforts are being made to answer questions posed by members of the community (the article correctly reports that many of the questions submitted by the Coalition had been asked in the past, but not answered), (3) relevant members of the Village staff were made available at a public meeting, (4) a member of the Planning Board was invited to participate, (5) the meeting was televised and (6) the meeting was interactive. Mayor Flisser and the current Trustees are to be congratulated for implementing these very significant improvements in the decision-making process.
Second, Peter Gordon did not indicate that the Coalition had changed its position on the project. On the contrary, after making the comment quoted in the article, Peter reminded the Trustees that the Coalition had proposed amendments to last year’s draft contract of sale that, if agreed to, would have garnered the Coalition’s support. It is difficult to understand how the author of the article could have omitted those remarks by Peter and then reported exactly the opposite without attempting to contact Peter or any of the other Coalition representatives who attended the meeting (all of whom, contrary to the article, were present for the entire meeting) to verify the accuracy of the author’s statement. This is particularly true given that the Coalition from time to time last year posted to its website various correspondence between Coalition representatives and Trustees, and reports on meetings of Coalition representatives and Trustees, outlining amendments to the developer’s then pending proposal that the Coalition would have supported. These documents are still available for viewing on our website – www.heathcotefivecorners.com
Third, the article prematurely reports that “this divisive issue has now been largely resolved.” Although we are hopeful a fair deal for the Village can be reached, that remains to be seen.
We agree with Beverley Sved, the Planning Board chair at the time of the developer’s pre-application conference on March 16th and the Planning Board’s representative at the Land Use Committee meeting, that the Village land should be used to provide a project with less height, fewer and better located curb cuts, and otherwise a better-sited project for the neighborhood and should not be used to increase the bulk or density of the project. As the plans the developer recently submitted to the Village with respect to the project provide for both four-story and three-story buildings above grade, and do not reflect the project restructured with the Village land, the benefits to the Village of the proposed use of the Village land in the project is not yet known. The chairman of the Land Use Committee has, quite sensibly, directed the developer to present at the next meeting of that committee detailed drawings of the actual proposed project both with and without Village land.
Although better siting of the developer’s new building and a lower building are desirable, they will not ameliorate traffic conditions at the Five Corners and therefore should not be the only benefits bargained for by the Village. Likewise, while including one affordable housing unit may accomplish other Village policy objectives, it will not ameliorate traffic, particularly if the developer (as he has proposed) is permitted in exchange to expand the density of his project by at least one additional market rate unit for each affordable unit and to increase project height and bulk.
As stated by Peter Gordon at the meeting, in order to meaningfully address the traffic problems at the Five Corners, the usage of the entire site should be considered – the new building needs to be restricted to residents and their guests and usage of the Tavern building needs to be restricted to its current uses or other uses which generate traffic at the same times and in no greater volume as generated by the current uses. Only the Board of Trustees has the authority to bargain for such restrictions. In this regard, we note that the developer stated at the April 14 meeting that he did not intend to have any retail uses in the Tavern building.
Exchanging the Village land at this site for agreements on curb cut locations and landscaping and other aesthetic improvements in lieu of other restrictions is not desirable. As reported at the meeting, other entities with jurisdiction will analyze and regulate those matters and the developer will beautify his property in any event in order to sell his apartments. More importantly, such improvements will not ameliorate traffic effectively. The key is for the Village Board to exchange the Village land for limitations on the density and uses of the entire site in a manner that will minimize the volume of peak hour traffic that will flow through the curb cuts.
Another desirable concession that only the Board of Trustees has the authority to obtain is the preservation of the sides of the Tavern building facing Wilmot and Palmer Avenues and Weaver Street. Given the developer’s remarks at the meeting (to the effect that he intended only to change the window lines to be more suitable for residential use), we are hopeful an agreement on this point can be negotiated.
We believe that, as Martin Kaufman stated at the meeting, in order for the interests of the Village to be protected effectively all agreements must be included in a carefully drafted legal document that also provides that the agreements will “run with the land” so that subsequent owners and users of the property must abide by them.
We will keep you informed of developments as best we can and urge you to attend subsequent meetings of the Land Use Committee and otherwise to participate in this ongoing process.
Millicent Kaufman
Chairperson
Heathcote Five Corners Coalition |