Board Enacts Six Month Building Moratorium in Scarsdale
- Details
- Written by Joanne Wallenstein
- Hits: 4404
After much debate, discussion and two public hearings the Scarsdale Board of Trustees passed a resolution calling for a six-month building moratorium at their meeting on January 9, 2024. The moratorium calls for modest reductions in the allowable floor area ratio (FAR) of homes, building coverage and lot coverage and bars whole home demolitions during the six-month period. It continues to allow renovations that do not exceed the maximum size and coverage regulations and subdivisions that meet the temporary guidelines.
The original resolution, calling for a more complete halt to applications, was modified after the Board received feedback from the community. The approved version permits renovations and subdivisions but cuts back the size of homes, requiring a 5% cut in the floor area ratio, a 5% cut in building coverage and a 10% cut in total lot coverage.
During this time, the Village will consider amendments to Village land use code and processes to address home bulk, neighborhood character, flooding and tree removal. At the December 26, 2023 meeting, the Board retained BFG Planning to review the Village’s zoning code and make recommendations.
Explaining his vote in support of the moratorium, Deputy Mayor Randy Whitestone summarized many of the concerns that led the Village to this moment. He said:
“I don’t approach this vote lightly. I have spent time thinking about the impact that a temporary moratorium will have on the community – as well as the impact of not having a moratorium.
For me, the key considerations are:
-What is the most effective way to ensure that any code changes and adjustments to our land use procedures are the product of careful objectives-based analysis and subject-matter expertise. We’ve enacted various code changes in recent years, but they haven’t addressed the issues we’re discussing – and trying to solve for – in a holistic way.
-How can we ensure that our housing stock continues going forward to meet the needs of our families in ways that account for the needs of neighbors and the broad community and the character that has long defined our village in a park.
-How can we make sure village staff have the right tools at their disposal to deal with the amount and pace of development and the resulting impacts on our infrastructure.
-How do we ensure that our land use boards have the necessary interconnectivity, training, and division of responsibilities – avoiding loopholes that advantage one group over another -- to deal with the at times rapid-fire pace of applications.
Finally, what approach to local land use regulation best serves the most people, because my dedicated colleagues and I serve the interests of the entire community not any specific group, or ourselves.
Change is a constant, and Scarsdale through the years has proved adaptable, vibrant, and dynamic; just look at the rebound from Covid! But our village has also always tried to be the best version of itself, defined by a community mindset and sense of public spirit. In line with this, I believe a brief and somewhat limited “time out” – importantly, both finite in terms of time and limited in scope – gives us a chance to undertake bringing our long-run code in line with real-world outcomes and best practices to ensure that they align with the community's long-term vision. The larger point is that this is not about standing still, this is about moving forward in a thoughtful way.”
The call for a moratorium originated with Edgewood resident Jim Detmer who fought the demolition of a treasured home in “The Woods” section of Scarsdale and the plan to subdivide the property. He rallied neighbors to object and also posted a petition calling for a reconsideration of Village policy.
Commenting on the Board’s 6-1 vote to approve the moratorium Detmer said, “The moratorium allows the BOT, with the help of consultants and the community, the space and time to effectively address important local land use and building code issues. It is critical that the Board discuss, draft and enact changes in zoning and land use that reflect the values of the citizens of Scarsdale. The amended moratorium that was approved last night is an important initial compromise. Neither side got everything they wanted. Obviously, there is a lot of work to be done and a tight timeline to consider. We would do well to help and assist the Board in their effort to evaluate these problems, working towards meaningful long-term solutions that reflect the principles and values of Scarsdalians.”
The resolution was highly controversial. The Scarsdale Planning Board issued a memo against it, and builders, architects, realtors and tradesmen fought hard to prevent its passage.
The development community argued that the move would hurt Scarsdale’s economy, reduce property values, impact earnings for the construction industry, realtors and tradesmen and deter buyers and sellers. About flooding, they said that the Village’s aging infrastructure, not new construction, was the issue and that the Village should invest in upgrading the drainage.
Residents who supported the moratorium asked trustees to examine ways to limit the bulk of new homes, prevent the teardown of neighborhood homes, save trees and address flooding. Susan Douglass, a former president of the Scarsdale Forum called in to the meeting and said, “I am dismayed by the huge, oversized homes being built. A thoughtful pause on what we are trying to achieve would be helpful. I think there is a silent majority of people who want the board to take a pause to think about our infrastructure and how can we support more homes, larger homes and protect our trees. Let’s just be careful – once everything is gone we can’t put it back. Be mindful and listen and take care of our valuable resources before they are gone.”
Rain and winds may have deterred some from coming to Village Hall for the hearing, but there was a sizable contingent of builders, architects, realtors and an engineer at Village Hall and more commented via Zoom. Many echoed what they said at the December 19 hearing, but here is a sampling of their remarks. You can watch a recording of the entire hearing at Scarsdale.com.
Rob Frangione an engineer from CT said, “(The moratorium) will do nothing to stop the flooding in town. Some are blaming rapid overdevelopment. In Scarsdale all runoff needs to be considered. After development there is less runoff than before. I believe it’s a problem with the Village’s drainage system – the Village needs to invest in its drainage infrastructure. It is easy to blame the drainage woes on development.”
Architect Roz Young said she “supports code review but not a moratorium.” She asked a series of questions about which rules would apply to which projects and was told that an FAQ from the Building Department would be posted to answer those questions.
Bana Choura, also a local architect, said, “I still object to the moratorium.” She said that the “5% reduction in the FAR could mean the loss of 200 square feet, or an extra bedroom on homes on smaller lots.”
Boning Liu of 45 Jefferson who is an engineer said, “Halting development alone may not address flooding. We need a comprehensive drainage plan to address climate change. Consider the bigger picture.”
Raj Krishnan, a local developer and physician said, “My wife and I have grown to be aware of socially conscious building. We are builders and Scarsdale has offered a wonderful opportunity to do this. We are subdividing to enhance the texture and diversity of Scarsdale. We all live in a subdivision. The moratorium is a penalty against builders and the public and those who want to move here. People want to come here and live in new houses. It would be a travesty to stop development in Scarsdale. These new houses increase the revenues. Let’s take those funds and put them into infrastructure improvements.”
Lee Handler, a builder who now lives at 17 Morris Lane said, “I used to live at 14 Lebanon Road and I had a sump pump. I got a violation notice from the Village – I put in a dry well and nothing was wet after that. It solved my water problem. I understand that people don’t want to spend money on things you can’t see. There is no water issue in the homes that I build. If your house doesn’t have an adequate draining system you are going to have a water problem.If you implement the 5% reduction you are going to devastate Edgewood. The housing values are going down. I think the Village should offer incentives to put in drainage.”
Builder Eilon Amidor said, “It is a bad mistake to vote on the moratorium. Most of the speakers who came today were mostly against the moratorium. A moratorium can devastate the Scarsdale real estate. Why don’t we make a referendum. It is a big change to just be voted on by the Trustees. You are talking about losing half a billion in real estate. This needs to be voted on by the whole Village of Scarsdale. Only 100 people started the movement. Make it to the entire Village and I am sure you are going to find out that people want not to lose money. Every new construction takes care of water. If you deem a house is historical you can allow people to build it the same way – the same material. No reason to cause more economical hardship. People who want to sell their houses are going to have a hard time selling it.”
Speaking in support of the moratorium Maura Lee said, “I think there is a strong majority who are not speaking because it’s not in their backyard. Many are dismayed by the building that is going on. The green space that we’re taking away, cannot be good. I have lived in Scarsdale my whole life. We are knocking down Scarsdale and building many of the same homes and I do support the moratorium.”
Jeff Wang of Ferncliff Road said, “In the past few years three new houses were built around my house. One is elevated. A huge house replaced a small house. They pump water out of their basement, down their driveway to a small drain on my street and flooded the street and my basement. Everybody is a victim.The building department did not make sure that the water was properly drained.”
Anne Hintermeister felt that the resolution did not go far enough. She said, “Subdivision applications were wisely included in the initial moratorium resolution. “Rampant subdividing,” to quote the Scarsdale Inquirer editorial supporting the first draft, was among the concerns that led to the proposed moratorium. Building two houses in a lot previously occupied by a single house could double the negative “pervasive adverse impacts” described in the moratorium resolution—specifically large-scale tree removal, elimination of permeable surfaces, bulk, and loss of neighborhood character.
So I was surprised to see that the moratorium was revised to allow subdivision applications to continue subject only to the new FAR and coverage haircuts devised by the Board on each of the new houses in the subdivided property.
Even if the FAR and coverage “haircuts” in the new draft are sufficient to protect the community from pervasive adverse impacts from new and remodeled houses generally, why would you assume that replacing a home with two compliant houses will have no greater negative impact on stormwater, on tree removal, on neighborhood character?
The stakes are high. Pausing subdivision applications does not inconvenience residents. Pause them while the Board and the land use officials and the consultant devise a carefully considered plan to address them, including possible changes to the multiple board review process that the land use Chairs discussed at a work session last month.”
Ultimately, the resolution passed, with six trustees in favor and one opposed.
Trustee Ken Mazer said, "The first draft of the proposal limited all construction for six months. After back and forth with residents and people in the industry I believe a reasonable compromise has been reached to give us space to craft a land use policy that reflects current land use needs."
Explaining her vote, Trustee Dara Gruenberg said, "We are not going to make everyone happy. But I think ultimately we have found something that I feel comfortable voting in support of that is balanaced. I do feel comfortable because we have worked with land use experts and our village professionals on this moratorium proposal and we have a land use consultant lined up who is already working."
Trustee Karen Brew said, "This has been a difficult debate. I do think that as trustees we represent the entire community. And we have to vote in their interest. I think there are economic consequences that everyone suffers. I think a six month pause on the rapid building will allow us to make some modifications to do what’s best for the entire community so that the residents don’t bear the cost for development."
Trustee Jeremy Gans was the sole no vote and explained, “I agree a review is needed but I don’t support a moratorium. Our job is to set policy. In the past we have relied on consultants and land use board and staff. We have not engaged with staff on these questions. The outside consultant has not weighed in. Our planning board advised against it. Our zoning board chair wrote a memo advising against it. No board has been asked to comment. This is temporary it is not permanent. During the six-month period we will hear from consultants and land use boards and I wish that had happened before.”
Trustees Post Revised Draft of Proposed Building Moratorium
- Details
- Written by Joanne Wallenstein
- Hits: 1925
(Updated 1-4-24) The Scarsdale Village Board has released a revised draft of the proposed building moratorium, easing some of the restrictions in the original draft.
Terms outlined in the new draft will permit some renovations and building to proceed but with restrictions on the floor area coverage, building coverage and lot coverage to limit the size of projects and their impact on neighboring homes. The revised code rolls back the effective date of the moratorium from November 14, 2023 to December 19, 2023 which means that any applications filed before December 19 can proceed through the former application process.
For those wishing to renovate while not demolishing an entire house, the new language would assign the application to an interim review board for consideration. If passed it would be allowed to go before any necessary boards. The revision says, “For any demolition permit for less than a substantial part of a building (as defined in Section 182-3(E)(1) of the Village Code) or for a building permit, an applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Interim Review Committee “three members with architectural or historic building experience, to be appointed by the Mayor) that any proposed exterior alteration will not impact the special character or special historical, cultural or aesthetic interest of the building proposed to be altered.”
These new terms address concerns of residents wishing to do additions or renovations of their homes, while limiting home size and bulk but also address concerns of those who were calling for limitations on teardowns and the size of new builds.
The law scales back the allowable square footage and coverage of projects to be approved during the moratorium as follows:
“Any application for new construction or an addition that increases the bulk or footprint of a building that demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Village Planner, Village Engineer and Building Inspector all of the following:
a. The proposed FAR, Building Coverage and Lot Coverage are less than 95%, 95% and 90%, respectively, of that permitted under the existing Zoning Code;
It also increases the required setbacks:
b. The proposed side yard setback shall be no less than the following for each Zoning District, (with any FAR Bonus permitted pursuant to Section 310-104 being measured from the revised set back listed below):
i. AA1 Zoning District: 33 feet;
ii. A1 Zoning District: 22 feet;
iii. A2/A2a Zoning District: 16.5 feet;
iv. A3 Zoning District: 12 feet;
v. A4 Zoning District 11.5 feet; and
vi. A5 Zoning District: 11 feet
Subdivision applications could go to the Planning Board but any project would have to be based on the reduced setbacks and other zoning limits as specified in paragraph 7L.
Demolitions however are barred during the six month period. The law is very clear on this provision and says, "No board, committee, agency, department, officer, employee, consultant, or agent of the Village of Scarsdale shall accept for review, continue review, hold a hearing on, continue a hearing, or make any decision upon any application for approval for a building permit or demolition permit to enlarge, construct, or demolish a one-family residential dwelling, accessory building or structure. All time periods set forth under state law or the Village Code for the processing and making decisions and all aspects of applications for building permit or demolition approval as indicated herein are hereby suspended and stayed while this local law is in effect.
It also allows for hardship applications.
The language can be reviewed here.
The Mayor previously said that a public hearing and a vote would be held at the Board of Trustees first meeting of the year on Tuesday January 9, 2024.
Land Use Chairs Give Feedback to the Scarsdale Board of Trustees
- Details
- Written by Joanne Wallenstein
- Hits: 1564
In response to concerns about flooding and land use issues the Scarsdale Village Board held two work sessions this week to gather more information.
On Monday they met with the people on the front lines of the Committee for Historic Preservation, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board of Appeals and the Board of Architectural Review. These committees consider all applications for home demolitions, subdivisions, new construction, swimming pools and variances.
You can view the discussion online – but here were a few interesting observations and comments from the chairs.
The Planning Board considers subdivisions, which often result in building two homes where there was previously just one. The applicants submit plot plans that show the proposed lot lines but do not provide plans of the homes that will be built there. As a result, the board has no say in the size, setbacks or height of the new homes and often cannot envision what the final product will look like.
About the height of the new homes, a representative from the Board of Architectural Review, noted that the submitted plans are not required to report the height of the home at the peak of the roof, allowing them to tower over neighboring homes.
The Chair of the Committee for Historic Preservation, that provides permission to demolish homes said his greatest concern was that the preservation law was under attack in the courts. In addition, he said that many of the committee members have not received training and that the board lacks an architect. At the same time, the number of applications has grown exponentially.
A former BAR member said, “The Village is at a point where the application process needs to be more holistic. It would be good for the CHP application to include a plan for what is going to replace it. A house? A subdivision? In Mamaroneck there are signs on the properties to say there are applications to build there. People should be more transparent about their plans at each level of the process.”
The Planning Board Chair agreed. He said, “The developers know how to run through the system. It frustrates residents who are concerned as there are so many meetings and no one board is accountable. Perhaps the full application should be filed upfront. It would require a change to the code.”
Commenting on the new homes, a BAR member said, “The problem is not aesthetics – it is bulk. The design of the house is okay – for a developer. It comes down to bulk. We try to minimize the impact of bulk but it comes down to bulk guys. Height, floor area ratio (FAR), and setbacks are the tools we have to regulate bulk.”
He continued, “New houses are built to 95% FAR. The renovators are constrained by their budgets and the FAR. The developer houses are always maxed out. The private homes are not.”
Summarizing at the conclusion of the meeting, the main issues were identified as stormwater, aesthetics and bulk along with the lack of coordination and communication between boards. Also to be considered are tax incentives for maintaining historic properties or pre-designation of historic homes.
The Mayor said, “Bringing on a planning consultant should help our professional staff and help us to define bulk and use best practices to find the right balance.”
Hearing on Proposed Moratorium Brings Record Crowd to Village Hall
- Details
- Written by Joanne Wallenstein
- Hits: 3247
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.”
Engaged Residents Speak Out at 11-28 Village Board Meeting
- Details
- Written by Joanne Wallenstein
- Hits: 2672
There was lively public comment on the role of the Village Manager and the proposed building moratorium at the Scarsdale Village Board meeting on November 28, 2023.
Role of the Village Manager
The meeting opened with a public hearing on changes to Chapter 57 of the Village Code regarding the role of the Village Manager. In effect the change moves some of the code that was in an appendix into the actual Village Code. The new code clarifies the role of the Village Manager vis a vis the Village Board and establishes the Village Manager as chief administrative officer of the Village of Scarsdale and executive assistant of the Mayor and the Board of Trustees in connection with the conduct of the affairs of the Village. It says that the Village Manager’s authority is subject to the approval, direction and control of the Board of Trustees and lists his roles and responsibilities.
This change evolved after Village Manager Rob Cole was dismissed in September 2023 over a disagreement about his role in Village Government.
Former resident Robert Berg had lots to say on the issue. He said, “I’m in the Mamaroneck strip now renting but I've been a 22-year resident of Scarsdale until a little bit earlier this year. This proposed local law is an odd one right now. Since 1949, 74 years ago, the village has had a professional village manager and professional staff who've run the village on a day-to-day basis and they always reported to the Village Manager and served at the pleasure of the village board. These structures have been enshrined in the Village's code for decades. And it's set forth in the annual employment agreement provided to the Village Manager each year. And this structure has worked for decades and for dozens of Mayors and Village Boards.”
Berg continued, “And then somehow all of a sudden halfway through Mayor Arest’s term he awoke earlier this year with a nagging concern that he didn't quite understand the role of the Village Manager. So now we are proposing to change the law to really do nothing substantively. The resolution exists in the appendix and nothing is really wrong. There's no difference. So I don't know why we're tinkering with this. It strikes me as really an effort to sort of sweep under the rug the firing of Robert Cole earlier this fall which has never been explained to the public. It was reportedly some misunderstanding as to his role, which is not really conceivable since his employment agreement clearly stated his role, which is the same as reported in the appendix.”
So I don't understand why we're going through this exercise for something that has worked beautifully, except for this recent incident, for 75 years. It's unnecessary to do this. You shouldn't go around changing laws for cosmetic reasons or otherwise, and the public has a right to know what happened here. You have never explained what happened and why Robert Cole is no longer with us. He was fired by the Village. So something happened and the Village as a bond issuer has a public duty to bondholders to disclose material events and what happened there and so this was a serious issue. I have a concern that the public is not being properly informed as to the circumstances. Did he do something wrong or not? And this proposed law doesn't really accomplish what it's supposed to do. I mean, there's no reason for this law. And I urge the Village Board to come clean and explain the circumstances of his firing. And does he have a claim against the Village for wrongful termination? What's going on here?”
Additional comments were made on a proposed 6 month building moratorium that will be discussed at a public hearing on December 12, 2023.
Former Village Trustee Jonathan Lewis of 56 Words Lane said, “I want to congratulate the Board of Trustees and the village attorney for the excellent draft resolution 
Former Village Trustee Jonathan Lewison the proposed moratorium. Our community is at a tipping point. Unchecked development is overwhelming our infrastructure, destroying our environment and diminishing the precious heritage of our community. We need this moratorium to save our village and and it's good for property owners, property values and property taxes. Studies show that strong preservation codes combined with forward thinking environmental policies improve property values, yet, not surprisingly, negative rumors are being spread in the community about this excellent draft moratorium resolution. Let's beware when the rumors spread are by those who have a monetary interest in home sales. Subdivisions may inflate commissions. They also leave the taxpayers who live here with a permanent cost burden, more garbage to collect, more sewage, more runoff overwhelming our sewers, more flooding as our environments natural ability to absorb water is weakened by even more lot coverage. I encourage you as a board to educate the community about this excellent, well considered draft resolution. If you pass it, you will have six months to thoughtfully design policies and code to preserve our community well into the next century. That will be an extraordinary legacy for all of you.”
Myra Saul of 5 Lincoln Road said, “I appear here tonight in my personal capacity. I wish to thank personally the mayor and the trustees for listening to residents and for acting by proposing a six-month moratorium on new real estate development in the Village. This moratorium will give the trustees and the public the time to appropriately determine how our building guidelines can better reflect the needs of our community, especially in light of our shared infrastructure. Let's take this opportunity to look at each facet of the system holistically, not as a series of discrete decisions. I support this moratorium. It is undeniable that climate change is impacting our weather. We now seem to have a once in a century storm every six months. Our infrastructure was not made to sustain these assaults. A personal anecdote. I moved to Scarsdale 33 years ago and was told that I shouldn't have any problems with water in my basement because my house sits on a slight rise. I really didn't have any appreciation for that remark until the two so called unprecedented storms this year. I've experienced flooding and now expect it when we have an ordinary rainfall. There is no such thing as a free lunch. We all live in this community. Not every homeowner can have a pool. Not every homeowner can live in a mansion. We need to live together in harmony and in harmony with our environment and our infrastructure.
John Schwarz from Norma Place said, I'd like to applaud the board's willingness to consider this moratorium and have a look at the regulations going forward. As things have changed in the community as cited by several people who have made comments to you. There is one example in our neighborhood that glaring that I think maybe should be an example for this effort. It's nearly around the corner from us. A fence is up for demolition of this house. It's on roughly a third of an acre, a 2800 square foot house. It's proposed to be replaced by a 6800 square foot house. On this third of an acre being advertised as the potential for a pool as well but I'm not sure there would be room for that. The asking price for this house is not quite three and a half times what the company that proposes to build it paid to buy this house to demolish it. There is no house in the neighborhood that is close to the size. And it is an example of how things are changing in the village. And projects like this should be carefully watched.”
“The second comment relates to a proposed gift to the village to the fire department. From Fenway Golf Club. I'm sincerely hoping that this is an altruistic gift on the part of the donor who has repeatedly had issues with noise in the area, in the past and in the present as recently as three days ago. So I'm hoping that this is a generous, honest donation with the intent of having nothing to do with the noise issues surrounding the donor and the neighborhood. “
Bob Harrison had some questions about the proposed moratorium. He said, “How does this affect tear downs period? Or does it affect the entire community where residents want to make improvements to their homes? And I hope it doesn't include what residents should be allowed in their home that's not a teardown. It's an improvement to their home. Will there be a restriction in this moratorium on any homeowner to make improvements to their home that has nothing to do with a teardown? So I hope there's nothing in this moratorium that would affect every resident in Scarsdale who wants to do improvements to their homes and get a building permit to do it has nothing to do with the tear down.”
Mayor Arest replied saying, “If you're just trying to improve your house, whether it be on the exterior or the interior, the moratorium should not impact you unless you are trying to expand on your house.“
Board Meeting Minutes
Bob Harrison pointed out that the written minutes for the previous Board of Trustees meeting shows no details of the public comments from the members of the community who spoke at the last meeting. He said, “As has been done historically public comments of residents should be included in the public minutes as these comments often offer excellent ideas and suggestions and recommendations for the current future board and future village boards. So I hope that this process has been going on for years to include the public statement by residents to come to this might be totally included in the future.”
Mayor Arest replied that this was an oversight and that the minutes would be reissued to include public comments.
Community Events
Trustee Ken Mazer discussed two upcoming events targeted for our seniors.
On Monday December 4 at 11 o'clock at the Girl Scout house there will be a get together to talk about fashion and style led by a experienced fashion consultant.
On Wednesday, December 6 at 11 o'clock there will be a crafts hour for seniors to use their hands to make a holiday gift for a friend or a loved one, also at the Girl Scout House. RSVP to Msilver@scarsdale.com to participate.
Resolutions
Menorahs
Trustees approved resolutions to permit Westchester Reform Temple to place a menorah in Boniface Circle from December 1 through 15 2023 as well as a resolution to permit Chabad to place a menorah in Chase Park from December 4-18, 2023 and a menorah lighting ceremony on December 10, 2023.
Overnight Parking
The Village Board approved a resolution to permit the police to tow cars parked in the street during times of road resurfacing, storm/drain cleaning and water system maintenance after attempting to contact the owners to move their cars. If the owner cannot be contacted in a timely manner the police will have the right to impound illegally parked cars.
Tax Exemptions
The board approved a resolution to hold a public hearing on December 12 on a change to the senior citizen real property tax exemption that was discussed at a work session prior to the meeting. The code changes the definition of “eligible income” to be the resident’s adjusted gross income on their Federal tax return. The change is intended to make income requirements for eligibility more consistent.
Meals on Wheels
Trustees approved a resolution to provide meals to housebound residents at a cost not to exceed $12,000.
Gifts
They accepted at $5,000 gift from Fenway Golf Club to the fire department to be used for the purchase of equipment to assist in the safety of the firefighters or the general public along with another gift for $1,000 for the fire department from Dr. and Mrs. Mittleman.
Upcoming Meetings
At the conclusion of the meeting, Mayor Arest reminded the community that there will be a work session on stormwater regulations on December 5 at 6 pm and a public hearing on the proposed building moratorium at the Village Board meeting on Tuesday December 12 at 8 pm.
