Hearing on Proposed Moratorium Brings Record Crowd to Village Hall

The prospect of a building moratorium in Scarsdale drew a full house to Village Hall on Tuesday December 12. The Village Board had proposed the moratorium at their November 14 meeting with the goal of giving the Village time to study zoning and flooding regulations, building code and the land use approval process. The resolution was proposed in response to residents’ complaints about tree loss, increased flooding, loss of neighborhood character and crowding due to subdivisions.

Prior to the hearing, Michelle Sterling from the Conservation Advisory Council gave an update on the Village’s tree policy which was adopted in 2018 and 2019. Several years ago the CAC did a study and found that Scarsdale has an approximately 50% tree canopy. However the data they have now shows that in 2021, 803 trees were removed with a permit but only 308 trees were planted to replace them. This count does not include the trees that were taken down without a permit. Sterling estimated that a total of about 1,000 trees are taken down each year. The CAC recommended stepped up enforcement measures to ensure that the trees were replaced. The report was timely as trees absorb water and stormwater mediation was a significant factor in the discussion about the proposed building moratorium.

Comments from the Mayor

Before opening the hearing on the proposed moratorium, Mayor Justin Arest thanked everyone for their letters and for coming and said that the draft legislation was created to begin the community conversation. He said no decision would be made before the end of the year and that the Board would consider revising the draft to limit its scope. An interim measure might be to limit construction to 85% - 90% of the current floor area ratio requirement, so if 10,000 square feet is now permitted, during the moratorium an 8,500 square foot home or addition could be built. In addition, there would be no hook ups to the stormwater system.

He added, “We must limit inflows to the stormwater system which is already overwhelmed.” He asked those who commented to make suggestions on how the code could be changed. He said that the Board plans to retain BFJ planning consultants to consider Scarsdale’s building and zoning code and said, “This review will be about the future. Passing incremental improvements may be satisfying, but we want to set up something that will work for decades.”

He noted that the Board had received two petitions: One with about 400 signatures in favor of the moratorium and another with 800 names against it. However the second petition only included first names and an initial for the last name. He asked for full names and addresses.

Comments from the Community

The first half of the comment period was dominated by many from Scarsdale’s thriving development industry, including architects, developers, tradesmen and realtors. They outlined the hardship the moratorium was already causing, including uncertainty among sellers and buyers, the prospect of decreased sales and eroding property values.

Most agreed that changes to the code were needed but contended that these changes could be made iteratively and that a moratorium should be avoided. They argued that newly constructed homes are required to include their own stormwater retention systems and they are drier than the older homes. They spoke on behalf of the tradesmen they employ and said they would have no work and risk their livelihoods.

In response to resident complaints about home bulk and crowding, architect Roz Young said, “I support new rules but not a moratorium. Updated codes on a new schedule can be set without a moratorium. It’s not fair to impose a moratorium because of a few egregious cases … If each board had clear guidelines they could follow them and there would be less bulk, more trees and more open space …. Give us new code today and we’ll design a beautiful Village for tomorrow.”

Some cited plans for renovations that did not increase the home footprint, such as the addition of a second floor, and the Mayor responded saying did not believe that these projects would be barred by the moratorium.

Realtor Zach Harrison reported that when Larchmont passed a moratorium in 2016 prices there declined 9.7%. In the same year in Scarsdale, where there was no moratorium, our prices increased 5.7% meaning there was a 15.4% difference between Larchmont which had a moratorium and Scarsdale which did not. Based on our average selling price of $2.36 million this year in Scarsdale, a similar 15.4% impact on the Scaradale market would result in about $360,000 in property value damage per Scarsdale homeowner." He said,"This is completely unnecessary and I ask that you reject this tonight.”

There were repeated comments about the spillover effect on other Scarsdale businesses. Realtor Dawn Handler said, “What about the plumbers and electricians who have built their businesses in Scarsdale. It might sound easy for them to go work in another town. The delis, food trucks; there is already concern on how this moratorium will affect them.”

Developer Eilon Amidor agreed. He said, “We can change the code without a moratorium. It is affecting the residents, workers and home prices. This will affect the cost of construction. Here we need a chain link fence on our job sites– it’s another $2,000. Other towns don’t have so many rules and regulations. It takes months to get a C of O here and that’s why it’s so expensive to build here.”

Paul Fontana, of the Cum Laude Group in Rye said he has “been working here for 23 years and is opposed to a moratorium.” He continued, “What is an intellectual problem for you is a real problem for me and my 42 employees. A moratorium is a blunt instrument. We can figure out the problem without shutting down the industry.”

Raj Krishnan said, “I am a doctor but we are builders and developers. I continue to provide opportunities for other families. We have built several homes at this point. These people share in that journey. It brings in diversity and I would hate to see that end. New homes bring diversity. The new homes are better and reduce our carbon footprint. We want more newer homes in Scarsdale. We employ a lot of people. We have tradesmen here and they will be significantly impacted. The aesthetic is changing. New families like that. It’s great to subdivide.”

Some younger residents with expanding families also expressed their objections. Kristen Cipriano of 81 Greenacres Avenue opposed restrictions, “especially on external renovations.” She said, “We need to expand our house. We planned with our architect to build this summer. It is unnecessary that renovations like the one I am planning can’t be accommodated.”

Cynthia Sanossian of 132 Brewster Road moved here five and a half years ago and three children with another on the way. She said, “We are working with an architect to plan the design. We will not max out our floor area ratio. The infrastructure is outdated and should be addressed. Drainage is a focus as we finalize plans for our addition/ A moratorium would solve nothing.”

Michal Levine of 54 Walworth Avenue said, “I moved here in 1967 with my parents. It is interesting when I find myself agreeing with Bob Harrison. I think the right thing is to not do the moratorium as drafted. It is too disruptive to many people. It is to blunt of an instrument.”

Also echoing objections to the moratorium were Bana Choura, You Zou, Joshua Lamberg, Randi Culang, Adrienne Price, Bob Harrison, Natalie Schroeter and Jeff Osterman.

However, some residents did speak in favor of the moratorium.

Mitch Seider said, “We support the moratorium. We have lived here for 22 years. It’s about community and balance.” About the previous speakers he said, “All of these people are here in their own best interest in the subdivision and tearing down of houses.” He quoted Jane Austen saying, “Tis because you are an indifferent person that your judgement might justly have such weight with me. If you could be supposed to be biased in any respect by your own feelings, your opinion, would not be worth having.” About the moratorium he said, “The negative impact would prevent the sale to a developer or a buyer who wants a new house on that property. There is nothing inherently wrong with restrictions. I could tear down my house and build a 3-story apartment building, but I am not allowed to do that.”

Mary Beth Evans of 16 Edgewood Road spoke in support of the moratorium. She said, “Our existing village code is failing to preserve the Village’s architectural character and scale and to maintain a Village in a Park. The development threatens to exacerbate stormwater issues. The size of new homes has been steadily increasing. The most recent trend is to build as much home as possible without regard to how the new home relates to the existing ones. In Edgewood we are now seeing 4,000 square foot homes, with 7 baths, and 9 to 10 foot ceilings on small lots. We are losing our tree canopy and subject to flooding. We need to weigh all these lasting costs against a single family housing policy. In the meantime there will be more construction that will take away from the quality of our lives.”

Jack Miller of 45 Fayette Road offered contradictory evidence to the claim that the moratorium would decrease home values. He said, “A few years ago there was a movement to preserve Larchmont and they enacted a 6-month moratorium to allow time to holistically evaluate the stormwater code, tree laws, lot coverage and soils and excavation. They added a pre-submission conference for applicants. … We could use what they did as a playbook for the community. It allowed for the preservation of their entry level homes. When Larchmont unveiled the new laws both sides were unhappy which means both sides had compromised. Today homes in Larchmont are selling for $620 per square foot as compared to $582 per square foot in Scarsdale and the woman who led the moratorium, Sarah Bauer, is now the town’s Mayor.”

Helen Maccarino of Cushman Road said, “I am concerned about development in sensitive drainage areas. A moratorium would allow us to redo the code about what is built in the wetlands. They manage stormwater runoff. Parts of Scarsdale are soggy. It is not unusual to find water just 2 or 3 feet below the surface. You can’t put a cultec in a place where it will fill up immediately. This will allow us to reconsider variance proposals to encroach into wetlands that will have a significant impact. We can consider our infrastructure. I believe a moratorium would allow us to view the big picture.”

Lisa McIver from Branlee Heights said, “We have had overbuilding, overbuilding, over-building. The foundations of the new houses are all raised to create problems. They took down 5 homes and built 11 on Brambach. There must be consideration of the water problem… everyone is flooding.

Cynthia Roberts of 15 Autenreith Road said she has lived here for 24 years and her home is 112 years old. She said, “We consider it a privilege and invest heavily in maintaining the charm of Old Scarsdale. I am always looking for a carpenter or a plumber.”

To those who asked for incremental changes she said, “This is not normal. Our climate is changing faster than we ever imagined. We are hearing about residents’ homes flooding again again and again. One man couldn’t even go on vacation. The Village Engineer said if we spend $3-$12 mm this would not guarantee that there would not be flooding. It is already impacting the health and safety of our community… We need to step up and act as a community. I think misinformation has been spread. A lot of work could still be done.”

Claire Hunt of 44 Carman Road called and exclaimed, “So many builders and architects only work in Scarsdale? I think it shows what a building problem we have! I live in a small home – just 1,700 square feet. There are no small modest homes left in Scarsdale. The builders snap up the more modest homes, tear them down and build a home at three times the value. People don’t have the chance to come here and put in the sweat equity. We need to encourage people to renovate these greener homes. We need to work with what we have. Let these builders renovate these older homes.”

Jim Detmer of Woods Lane who started the petition for the moratorium said, “Houses are being built without regard to space, land use and aesthetic value. We are about to have a village of large white boxes on small lots. There are also the stormwater issues. In Edgewood there is raw sewage in some of our homes. One major ally in fighting stormwater is trees – this needs to be addressed. The moratorium provides the space and time to address these critical issues. Please discuss, draft and act on legislation that addresses the needs and values of Scarsdale.”

At the conclusion of the hearing, Mayor Justin Arest said, “I am in favor of the zoning and building code review. The iterative approach has not been effective. I am in favor of discussing a more limited moratorium. We are already moving forward on the land use review.” He added, “No decision has been made. I would encourage you to share your ideas on how to limit the moratorium should it proceed to have the least amount of impact for the most positive outcome.”

In response to speaker Adrienne Price who suggested that the trustee’s views might be affected by where they live, Trustee Karen Brew said, “We represent all of Scarsdale and we are trying to do what is best for the entire community. We factor in what we heard.”