Village Voices

Details: Published: 17 August 2010; Created: 17 August 2010; Last Updated: 17 August 2010; Hits: 3949

Car break-ins: There were three car break-ins on the night of 8/15-8/16, and in all three cases the robber broke the passenger side front window to gain access to the car.

A Thornwood man parked his 1998 Audi on Foxhall Road over night and when he went outside in the morning he found a broken window and his iPod was gone. There was also a crack in the car windshield. That same night, a 2005 Honda Pilot, parked on Tyler Road was vandalized and a Nikon Cool Shot camera was taken from the car. In addition, the passenger side window of a 2004 Toyota Sequoia parked at 323 Heathcote Road was broken and a Dell Inspiron laptop computer valued at $2,430 was taken along with a broadband card.

A Garmin GPS device, valued at $400, was stolen from a 2009 Subaru Outback, parked in the Balducci’s parking lot on the evening of 8/13. There was no damage to the car.

Around midnight on 8/15, Kelwynne Road residents heard a loud thud and then their burglar alarm went off. The residents found that a large rock, approximately 40 pounds, had been thrown through their front bay window. Police later learned that the White Plains police had arrested three kids that night for throwing rocks through home windows and the Scarsdale police suspect that these kids may have done the damage on Kelwynne Road.

Arrested: An Edgewood man who was wanted for assaulting his wife and damaging the contents of her home turned himself into police on the afternoon of August 13th.

A man needing money from his ex-wife came to police headquarters on 8/12 to ask them to call her. His wife has an order of protection against him and does not accept his calls. He failed to collect his weekly support payment from her and needed money to get home to Manhattan. The ex-wife came to headquarters and gave the man his funds.

Graffiti: The slide at Hyatt Field playground was spray painted with an expletive in blue and orange. The paint was found on the afternoon of August 9th.

Missing: a visitor to 88 Popham Road left a rucksack in the house when he accompanied the family on an outing on 8/13 at 10 am. When they returned at 2 in the afternoon they found that the rear sliding door to the was open, but everything was in order at the house. However, on August 14, the guest noticed that $4000.00 was missing from his rucksack. The sack had been left in the second floor guest room and the family does not suspect any family members and no other people were in the house at the time.

In another curious incident, a Mamaroneck Road woman reported that her $60,000 4-carat diamond ring has been missing since February. She also reported that a bathing suit and cover-up were missing as well.

check Even stranger, the loss prevention supervisor from Balducci’s came to police headquarters to report a stolen company gas card. The card was supposed to be cancelled in February when someone noticed it was missing, but due to an internal error no one cancelled the account until August 10th. In the intervening six months $34,751 was charged to the card.

A Walworth Road woman who had previously been the victim of a scam on Craig’s List found that the culprits had written another fraudulent check from her account. Though Chase Bank had instructions to close the account they cleared an additional fraudulent check for $3,950.87.

Someone attempted to open a Bank of America credit card in the name of a Heathcote man on 8/4 using his date of birth and social security number. However, the person provided the wrong address and no card was issued.

A representative from the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation came to Scarsdale police to report two bad checks he received at an outing at Quaker Ridge Golf Club. Police contacted the man who wrote the checks and he said he would rectify the situation.

Harassment: A Sage Terrace man reported that he received a disturbing voicemail on his home answering machine on 8/12. Earlier that day, the man’s wife had given his seven year-old daughter a number to call and later realized she had given the girl the wrong number. They suspect that the disturbing call came from the number the little girl dialed in error. In addition, the nanny for a Scarsdale family has been receiving phone calls at all hours of the day since February from an ex-boyfriend who lived in Brazil. Though the nanny let the man know she no longer wished to speak to him, he continued to call.

A Saxon Woods Road man has been receiving a call at 8:13 am everyday since June 1st and when he picks up the phone, there is no one on the line. After the initial call he receives additional calls every 20 minutes. The caller i.d. says “out of the area.” Though the man was not fearful, he was unsure of what to do. Police advised the man to call Verizon and to call the police again if the calls do not stop.

Confused: an elderly Fox Meadow woman called police at 4 am on 8/10 when she became confused and could not remember where she was. She reported taking an ambien to help her sleep but she woke up disoriented and fell several times and cut and bruised her elbow. With the help of the police, she realized she was at home. SVAC was called but the woman refused medical attention and police called the woman’s daughter to take care of her.

Watering Summons: Police served a summons to a Ferncliff Road man who was watering his lawn on the wrong day of the week. The man had previously been warned about the restrictions but continued to water.

Feuding neighbors on Ferncliff Road called police to intervene. One accused the other of calling the police to report that they were violating the watering restrictions. The other told his neighbor not to talk to him or his wife or he would be sorry. Both parties agreed not to speak to each other, call or approach their neighbor.

An Ardsley woman came to Scarsdale police headquarters on August 12th to complain that she had tripped on a store display at Great Stuff on August 5th. The fall caused bruising and pain to her knee. Police called the store and the owner’s son said they were aware of the woman’s fall and that she had been wearing big dark sunglasses at the time. They offered her ice and water.

A homeless man was found yelling and screaming in the middle of East Parkway on the afternoon of 8/13. The man appeared to be heavily intoxicated and police took him to White Plains Hospital for treatment.

Details: Written by Joanne Wallenstein; Published: 15 August 2010; Created: 15 August 2010; Last Updated: 18 August 2010; Hits: 13075

greenburghtownhall U.S. District Judge Stephen Robinson found Greenburgh Town Supervisor Paul Feiner and four town councilmen guilty of violating the Fortress Bible Church’s first amendment rights of free speech, free assembly, equal protection and due process in preventing the Mount Vernon church from gaining approval for their application to construct a new facility along Dobbs Ferry Road near the entrance to the Sprain Brook Parkway in Hartsdale. The court also ruled that the town had discriminated against the church under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act or RLUIPA. The decision was issued on August 12, 2010, more than three years after the 2007 trial. The church purchased a 6.53-acre parcel of land in 1998 with the intent to construct a new facility for their congregation that had outgrown their location in Mount Vernon, and now 12 years later, they still have not broken ground.

The ruling cites the town’s intentional delay, hostility and bias toward the church’s application and sanctions the Town of Greenburgh for destroying and failing to produce evidence. The court ordered the town to grant the church approval to build, and directed the church to submit an application for an award of damages, which is estimated to be $4-$5 million dollars, to be paid by the Town of Greenburgh.

The 206-page court decision tells the story of the church's 12-year battle to gain approval to build their new facility. Why did the town seek to block Fortress Bible Church from moving to Greenburgh? The case offers evidence of racial bias against a predominantly African American church being located in a mostly white neighborhood and the town’s displeasure at housing an additional religious facility with tax-exempt status. However, during the same period, Greenburgh approved new buildings for several other religious and educational institutions, including Solomon Schechter in the same neighborhood, and the Union Baptist Church in predominantly African American Fairview. The town also gave expedited treatment to the Hackley School's application.

The entire history of the church's quest to relocate to Greenburgh is outlined in the decision, which has been summarized below. You can also see the entire ruling here: FortressBibles.pdf .

In 1998, The Fortress Church had outgrown their facilities in Mount Vernon where they worship and educate at the Fortress Christian Academy. Reverend Dennis Karaman of the Fortress Bible Church found property on Pomander Drive and Dobbs Ferry Road (Route 100B) and advised the Town of Greenburgh of his intent to construct a church and a school on the property. He told the town, “that if the property was not suitable for its intended purpose he would not pursue the purchase.”

The church then made plans to build a church and school that could accommodate a maximum of 500 people in a single structure. Although a church was entitled to build its chapel and school "as of right" in that location under the town's zoning code, the church was nevertheless required to obtain site plan approval, a waiver to construct landscaped parking islands and a variance from the Zoning Board of Appeals for side yard setbacks.

During 1999 the church reformulated their plans based on feedback from the Town of Greenburgh and in January 2000 they submitted a revised site plan, comprehensive traffic study, drainage study, architectural renderings, floor plans, a watershed map, site sections and photographs. In February 2000, the town’s Building Inspector said that the town’s zoning ordinance required that the church school have “ a curriculum approved by the Board of Regents of the State of New York.” In fact, non-public school are not required to be registered with the Board of Regents.

The town subsequently failed to put the application before the Planning Board in March, April and May 2000, despite written letters from the Church requesting review.

The town then considered issuing a Positive Declaration indicating that the project would have a significant adverse impact on the environment and necessitating an environmental impact statement. The court found that this requirement prolonged the SEQRA process and caused the church to incur significant expense.

In July, at a work session of the Town Board, Feiner stated that “50 percent of the issue (with the church approval) was traffic and the other 50 percent was the church’s tax exempt status.” Feiner then asked the church to donate a fire truck to the Fairview Fire District or to make some other payment in lieu of taxes to the Town of Greenburgh. Reverend Karaman understood the request for the donation to be a basis for favorable processing of the application to build the church. Feiner had made a similar request to the Hebrew Home for the Aged, when it sought permission to build a new facility on Knollwood Road. The Hebrew Home complied and the town issued the required permits.

In July 2000, after the church declined to purchase the fire truck and make certain other financial contributions requested by Feiner, the town issued a 'Positive Declaration" of potential environmental impact, thereby prolonging the SEQRA process. Their stated reasons were concerns about traffic, pedestrian access and safety, though the Town’s Planning Commissioner found that the church “had developed a good mitigation plan” for the traffic. However, the court found that "the town used the SEQRA process and the issuance of a Positive Declaration punitively because of the church's refusal to make a significant donation of value or monetary payment to the town and because of certain town board members' desire to delay the project and increase the expense of the SEQRA process for the church."

In August 2000, Feiner said that a task force was being formed to lobby for payments in lieu of taxes from the church and in October 2000 the town authorized more traffic studies, many of which had been previously addressed.

In response, in April 2001, the church complied and submitted lengthy documentation to the town including:

A summary of the potential impact and mitigations
A description of the impact on community services
A landscape plan
A traffic study
A noise study
A sketch plan
A traffic volume and flow illustration
A table summarizing the impact of each study

Then the town advised the church that it had adopted a moratorium on approval of certain applications that involved, among others, steep slopes, though it was legally impermissible for the town to introduce new legislation to restrict development on an already pending application.

Finally in October 2001, two and a half years after the church filed its initial application the town accepted the application as complete. The Westchester County Planning Board and the New York State Department of Transportation both founds the plans acceptable.

However, in May 2001, the Reverend met with Feiner to ask what he could do to move the building of the church along, and Feiner again suggested that the church make a monetary contribution -- “pay some taxes to the Fire Department, $1,000 or $1,500, saying, "this will go a long way.”

In an email in December 2001 to a nearby resident who objected to the church, Feiner wrote, “Although I anticipate that the Town will vote against this, I think we have to do as much research as possible re: new federal law which makes it very difficult to stop religious institutions. Any research or ideas you could provide us with to help us would be appreciated. I’ll have the Town work on this but the more ideas the better [.]" Moreover, the court found that Feiner did, in fact, direct town staff, including the town attorney's office and consultants to perform research and provide ideas for ways in which federal law would support denial of the church's application.

In January 2002 the town hired three new sets of consultants to analyze engineering, planning and traffic aspects of the application. The church met with the Police Chief, town traffic consultants, the Planning Commissioner and the Deputy Town Attorney in March 2002 and again modified their parking plans in April 2002.

The court found that the town used the process to delay and frustrate the church's application. They hired new consultants who raised issues and requested new information that was not in the original scope and was not necessary. Though the church objected to new requests for studies on drainage, fire safety and traffic they continued to supply additional information to the town. In addition, the town’s attorney’s edited memoranda from their own Planning and Traffic Consultants, striking language that was favorable to the church and an offer to meet with the applicant.

Even though town policy is to meet with applicants to resolve issues, including applicants that are suing the town, they repeatedly refused to the meet with the church to resolve the issue. In a letter from the church’s planning consultant, he says:

“The town has continued to show no inclination to work toward an agreement. As noted above, you have not set up a meeting where we could discuss technical issues regarding the site plan and determine whether our latest revision is acceptable. And, the town refuses to schedule a public hearing on the site plan. At the same time, your consultants ask for detailed information that goes beyond what is appropriate at this stage in the environmental review.”

The town then demanded that the church pay them for SEQRA review fees, and in January 2003 the Church paid the town $20,000.

Ultimately, In January 2004 the town denied the church’s application in a document that the court declared void because the town violated the NYS Open Meeting Law. They denied them on the basis of a Steep Slope Ordinance, which was not in force at the time the church submitted its application. The ordinance regulates the disturbance of steep slopes that would be required to build the project. The court found that the town manipulated calculations to cast the project in a negative light.

At the 2007 trial, the Police Chief and Fairview Fire Chief testified about the traffic and fire objections raised by the town. Police Chief Kapica said, he “had no idea” why the report said, “Based on testimony of fire and police officials …emergency access to a use that includes place of assembly and school children is not acceptable.” Fire Chief Mauro’s testimony revealed that the town had fabricated fire safety issues, claiming he had made statements about the impact of the project when in fact he had no objections to it.

In addition to making unfounded objections to retaining walls, traffic and parking, the town violated their own policies of meeting with the applicant to discuss issues and the consultants were directed by the town not to meet with church representatives.

The court found that the majority of town employees and consultants who testified at the trial had significant credibility issues; changing the testimony they gave at depositions or providing testimony that was untrue. Furthermore, the Town Board destroyed evidence and documents that were relevant to the trial and failed to produce evidence that did exist. The town was sanctioned $10,000 for their spoilation of evidence and failure to comply with discovery.

As the court ruled that the town had discriminated against the Church under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, the church is now entitled to relief, to cover increased construction costs due to the delay, increased traffic improvement costs, reimbursement for SEQRA fees, consultants and attorney’s fees. The tab for Greenburgh is expected to be four to five million dollars.

In an email to residents, Feiner defended the actions of the town, writing the following:

I am disappointed with the Order and Opinion of Judge Robinson, issued more than three years after the conclusion of the trial, and on his last day on the federal bench. It is not appropriate for a Court to substitute its judgment for the judgment of elected municipal officials who relied on the opinions of independent professional traffic consultants during the environmental review process. Here, in evaluating the church’s application to build a large combined school and church immediately adjacent to the busy entrance to the Sprain Brook Parkway on Dobbs Ferry Road, the town relied on its traffic expert, who advised the town that the project as proposed would cause unsafe and dangerous traffic conditions. I believe that it would have been irresponsible to disregard this conclusion. Notwithstanding Judge Robinson’s opinion, I believe that nothing the town did in evaluating the church’s application violated any provision of law. ..... I have always maintained, and continue to maintain, that the town would welcome the Fortress Bible Church at an appropriate and safe location in Greenburgh.

Feiner continues to maintain that there are traffic concerns when the court found that experts and the NYS Department of Transportation had no traffic issues. He also claims the town would "welcome the Fortress Bible School" after twelve years of blocking their attempts to move forward. The town has spent an unknown sum of taxpayer money on legal and consultant fees to block the church and to defend themselves in the lawsuit and now stands to pay $4-$5 million in damages at a time when the budget of the municipality is strapped.

Similar to Westchester County's fate in the Affordable Housing lawsuit, Greenburgh's attempt to stop the church from moving to town will now cost them far more than the lost tax revenue from a tax-exempt institution.

Details: Published: 05 August 2010; Created: 05 August 2010; Last Updated: 05 August 2010; Hits: 4471

The Heathcote Five Corners Coalition has sent a strong letter to Scarsdale Village Trustees, commenting on the proposed lease renewal of the driveway to the Heathcote Tavern parking lot to developers Fish and Oder. Fish and Oder have located a new tenant for the building who plan to open an Italian restaurant called Apulia in mid-September and require access to the parking lot for customers.

In addition to their objections to the terms of the proposed new lease, the Coalition expressed their dissatisfaction with the lack of transparency in the negotiation of the lease, saying, “the lease apparently has been substantially negotiated without any community input, even though, in particular, the Coalition specifically requested participation in the process and asked that the Village Board of Trustees keep it informed during the negotiation process … This process disregards the considerable involvement and strong views of the community and various community organizations, including of the Coalition and several neighborhood associations in Scarsdale concerning development at Heathcote Five Corners.”

The proposed new lease has a term of five years with automatic renewals of up to ten additional years provided there is an existing lease for a restaurant at the time of renewal. In exchange, Fish/Oder will pay the Village $15,000 per year.

The Coalition was formed to relieve traffic congestion at the Five Corners, improve pedestrian safety and ensure development consistent with the “Village in the Park” concept. They currently have a membership of 200 Scarsdale families, and in their view, the new contract does little to achieve their goals:

The new contract has no provisions limiting the development of the site or preservation of the Tavern building
A long term lease is not necessary –renewal of the old lease would suffice
The benefits of the lease to the community are not clear
The current lease will last for five years, with renewals every ten years, even if the existing restaurant ceases operation in the intervening years.

Read their letter below, and view the most current public version of proposed lease at www.heathcotefivecorners.com. Please share your comments!

Dear Mayor Stevens and Trustees:

On Monday evening, August 2, 2010, the Law Committee of the Board of Trustees reviewed a draft of a new lease of Village land from the Village to the developer of the Heathcote Tavern (2-4 Weaver Street) property and scheduled a hearing on such lease for 6:55 p.m. on Monday, August 9th. The proposed lease covers the same land the Land Use Committee of the Board of Trustees (LUC) considered selling to the developer in 2009. We understand that the Board of Trustees currently intends to vote on the lease on September 14.

Background – The Proposed Sale of the Village Land

For much of 2009, the LUC was in favor of selling the developer such land, including the current driveway to the Tavern parking lot, pursuant to a contract that had been materially negotiated with the developer prior to it becoming public. In response, residents throughout Scarsdale formed the Heathcote Five Corners Coalition. More than 200 Scarsdale families are dues paying members of the Heathcote Five Corners Coalition. The Coalition’s mission is to provide a voice for the public, to articulate the concerns of residents of Scarsdale, and to persuade the Village to relieve and reduce traffic congestion and improve pedestrian safety at the Heathcote Five Corners and ensure development in the Heathcote Five Corners area consistent with the “Village in the Park” concept of Scarsdale’s Master Plan.

The LUC held hearings at which it stated its goals in selling the land to the developer and explained how it believed that the proposed contract achieved those goals. At a LUC meeting on May 14, 2009, the Trustees’ goals were displayed on a chart (a copy of which is attached), namely:

1. Minimize Overall Project Density to a Level Well Below that Permitted by Zoning.
2. Mandate Restricted Age Residential, Rather than Commercial, Use Consistent with the Village’s Comprehensive Plan.
3. Reduce Current Curb Cuts on Weaver Street
4. Ameliorate the Volume of Vehicular Traffic Through 5 Corners.
5. Enhance the Visual Streetscape and Improve Pedestrian Friendly Amenities at 5 Corners.
6. Ensure the Preservation of the Existing Tavern Building.

The Coalition agreed with the LUC’s goals. At issue was whether and to what extent the proposed contract of sale to the developer actually achieved the goals.

The New Direction – a Long-Term Lease

The proposed lease with Fish/Oder, the developer of the Heathcote Tavern site, would replace a former lease that recently expired. The former lease had a five year term subject to termination at the option of either party on 90 days’ notice with a fixed annual rent of $14,000 payable in advance; and, most importantly, provided that the lease automatically terminated if the operation of a restaurant ceased. The proposed new lease provides for annual rent of $15,000 per year and a minimum term of five (5) years, with automatic annual renewals up to ten (10) additional years simply if a lease for a restaurant exists on May 31, 2015 and on each May 31st thereafter. The proposed lease includes references to a lease between the developer and a restaurant company from Italy called Apulia, for a restaurant that is currently anticipated to open in mid-September. To access a copy of the mostly recent publicly available version of the proposed lease between the Village and the developer, click on www.heathcotefivecorners.com. The Apulia lease has not been made public.

Set forth below are the comments of the Heathcote Five Corners Coalition on the lease currently proposed by the Law Committee with the developer of the Heathcote Tavern site:

1. Lack of Transparency; Process. There has been a lack of transparency in the negotiation of the draft lease agreement as the lease apparently has been substantially negotiated without any community input, even though, in particular, the Coalition specifically requested participation in the process and asked that the Village Board of Trustees keep it informed during the negotiation process. Moreover, it is a less than desirable governmental process that something as significant as what is being proposed is scheduled to be approved by the Law Committee at a time when many Scarsdalians are not in town and to put the lease on a direct fast track for approval by the Trustees in mid-September. This process disregards the considerable involvement and strong views of the community and various community organizations, including of the Coalition and several neighborhood associations in Scarsdale concerning development at Heathcote Five Corners.

2. Financeable Contract Potentially Forecloses Village Board’s Ability to Address Trustees’ Objectives Developed In Connection With Proposed Land Sale. The new lease creates a 15-year financeable contract, enabling the developer to get long-term financing for development of the Tavern property “as of right” without any limits on such rights. In addition, the proposed lease disregards all, and does not in any way achieve any, of the goals the LUC identified as a quid pro quo for granting the developer title to the Village land. In effect, the Village is giving up any meaningful ability to address the goals of the LUC (and the community) identified in connection with the land sale negotiation, including the obligation to maintain and preserve the Tavern building. A long-term lease is not materially different from a sale for these purposes.

3. After Months of Discussion of the Land Sale, it is Not Necessary to Enter into a Long Term Lease at this Time. It is not necessary for the Village to enter into a long-term lease with the developer before the restaurant opens. The critical elements for the survival of a restaurant, particularly one apparently on the verge of opening, do not include the length of the lease for the Village land. The restaurant’s leasehold improvements are not affected by the term of the lease for the driveway to the parking lot. The critical elements include the quality of the chef and the food and the restaurant owner’s fixed costs, the largest of which probably is the rent being charged by the developer. Prior restaurant tenants did not require a long-term lease of Village land, so what is different now? Nevertheless, a 6, 9 or 12 month renewal of the old lease would be acceptable, and during that time, a proper, new longer-term lease, structured to enable the Village to reduce the density of development of the Tavern site below "as of right" development and address other LUC goals, could be negotiated and properly reviewed and commented on by the community.

4. Village Has Not Explained the Need for this Lease or its Benefits to the Community. Other than to please the developer at the expense of the community, we do not see benefits to the community of the long-term lease being proposed. We appreciate that it could be prudent from the Village's perspective for a lease to be in place if the property is being used for a desirable purpose governed by the lease, but the proposed lease has significant deficiencies, as discussed herein. In fact, the approval of the presently proposed 15-year lease could be interpreted as an effective repudiation of the LUC’s goals and as a surrender of the Village’s opportunity to control development of the entire Tavern site in exchange for $15,000 per year.

5. Term/Termination Provisions. The draft lease currently provides that it remains effective for 5 years even if there is no restaurant lease, and it also states that if a restaurant lease exists on May 31, 2015 (even if there is no functioning restaurant), the lease will automatically be extended. The term/termination provisions should be revised as follows:
a. Need a Restaurant; Not Merely a Lease. The discontinuance of the “operation” of a restaurant and cocktail lounge in accordance with past practice for more than a modest number of consecutive days specified in the lease should automatically terminate the lease. The draft lease only requires that a lease exist; it does not require that a functioning restaurant and cocktail lounge be operational. (The old lease provided that the cessation of the operation of a restaurant and cocktail lounge immediately terminated the lease.)
b. Possible 5-Year Term without a Restaurant or Lease. The proposed lease provides that if the Apulia lease or any replacement restaurant lease terminates prior to the end of the 5 year term of the Village lease, the Village lease stays in effect for 5 years. The new lease should automatically terminate as discussed above and should require Apulia to open within a period of time specified in the Village lease.
c. Type and Size of the Restaurant Should be Specified. The Village lease should require the operation of a restaurant of the same type (e.g., serving food, drink and dessert to be eaten on the premises) and scale as in the past for the duration of the lease. For example, the new lease would not be breached if the developer expanded the size of the Tavern building and/or reduced the amount of space utilized by a restaurant.
d. Make Terminable on same Basis as Old Lease. The proposed lease should be terminable by either party upon 90 days’ prior written notice, as was provided in the old lease.

6. Prohibit Use of Village Land for Greater Development of the Tavern Site. The lease should prohibit construction on or other improvements to the Village land without the approval of the Board of Trustees. Similarly, the Village land should not be usable as access to a decked parking lot for any purpose – the leased land should not be available for access to the parking lot for expansion of office space or other development of the Tavern site which may be of the same type but expanded from its “current uses.”

7. Other Comments. The Coalition has provided the Law Committee with, and posted on the Coalition’s website, www.heathcotefivecorners.com, additional comments on the proposed lease, correcting various other deficiencies, including clarifying permitted uses and rights of the developer’s mortgagee, limiting transferability of the lease, allocating maintenance responsibilities to the developer, and being more precise with respect to rent escalations.

Sincerely,
Millicent Kaufman Chairperson,
Heathcote Five Corners Coalition

Details: Published: 11 August 2010; Created: 11 August 2010; Last Updated: 11 August 2010; Hits: 4560

In one of the most heated Village meetings in recent memory, the Trustees Law Committee faced off with members of the Heathcote Five Corners Coalition on Monday night August 9th. Originally scheduled for the trustees meeting room in Village Hall, the meeting had to be moved to a larger venue on the third floor to accommodate at least 30 members of the community and a cameraman and a reporter from News Channel 12.

The subject of the meeting appeared to be a simple matter, but once the discussion began, the complexities of the issue emerged. At stake is the lease for a small tract of village-owned land that provides access to the Heathcote Tavern parking lot. Tavern owners Fish and Oder claim they need a signed lease to the driveway and a small portion of the parking lot in order to sign a deal with a new restaurant tenant, Apulia, who is due to open there in September.

The prior lease expired on May 31, 2010 and the developers are asking for a long-term lease, ostensibly to justify renovations and the opening of a new restaurant. However, members of the Heathcote Five Corners Coalition question why a renewal of the prior lease won’t do, and suspect that the developers want a long-term lease in order to get financing to develop the Tavern property. Earlier this year Fish and Oder sought a 49 year lease on the driveway with a 49 year option to renew and prior to that they asked to purchase the strip of land from the Village so that they could get financing to build a multi-use complex of residential and retail space.

Monday’s discussion surrounded the lease trustees had negotiated with Fish and Oder that provides for a five year initial lease with automatic renewals of up to ten additional years provided there is an existing lease for a restaurant at the time of renewals. The initial fee would be $15,000 per year for use of the Village-owned land.

In a letter dated August 4, 2010, the Coalition had objected to the lack of transparency in the negotiation process and said that the lease had been negotiated in executive session without community input. Mayor Stevens addressed the charge claiming that it was good legal practice to negotiate in private and assured the group that the Trustees had considered the Coalition’s concerns in their discussions.

Both Stevens and Trustee Richard Toder contended that the lease only pertained to the use of the driveway and that no new development had been proposed. Toder argued that the lease would allow for the opening of a viable restaurant and prevent a key landmark in Scarsdale from sitting idle and potentially falling into disrepair.

However, members of the Coalition argued that the new lease did little to meet any of the goals laid out in the Comprehensive Village Plan or the goals of the Heathcote Five Corners Coalition to relieve traffic congestion, improve pedestrian safety, ensure development consistent with the concept of a Village in the Park and preserve the Tavern façade.

Speaking eloquently for the Coalition, Larry and Janet Bell pointed out the deficiencies of the agreement. It did not prevent the developer from building decked parking, would not prevent more curb cuts and would not prohibit Fish and Oder from increasing the density of the project. In fact, they believed the lease was for the convenience of the developers, and did little for the Village. Janet Bell said, “this is the Village’s opportunity to gain control over what will be developed and to control the size of it.” She urged the trustees not to sign the lease and to “put the time in to do it right so that it works for the entire community.”

In essence, the Coalition argues that by signing the lease the Trustees are giving up the leverage they have to decide the fate of the property. The Coalition is asking the Trustees to use the lease to gain concessions on what might be built on the site.

Toward the end of the meeting it appeared that the resident’s pleas were heard. Trustee Bob Steves said that the Trustees should sort out the issues and see if the lease could be used to control development. Former Trustee David Buchen said that “executing the lease came as a surprise. “ It would be” good and beneficial” if the elected representatives communicated with the residents and if they do it well, “there will be no mistrust.” Ken Rilander agreed that by keeping the negotiations behind closed doors, the “trustees are violating a tradition of transparency.”

Richard Toder, Chairman of the Law Committee told the group that the committee would contemplate the discussion and bring recommendations to the entire Board of Trustees for consideration.

It was another interesting night of lively discussion among some of Scarsdale’s most gifted debaters. Until their issues can be resolved, the Tavern building sits empty and the fate of the site remains up in the air.

Details: Published: 04 August 2010; Created: 04 August 2010; Last Updated: 04 August 2010; Hits: 5588

The Scarsdale Trustees convened on Monday night 8/2 to give more thought to a Village-wide tax revaluation. Given the ever-growing number of tax grievances filed this past year and the large disparity in the tax assessments of homes of equal market value, many are calling for a reassessment.

Village Manager Al Gatta chaired the meeting. In addition to his role here in Scarsdale, Al serves on the Westchester County Assessment Commission. He has a wealth of knowledge about the tax situation in Westchester County and shared a draft of a recent report drafted by the commission for the county.

He also provided some data about the experience of other municipalities who have already undergone a reval:

Pelham conducted its revaluation in 1998. Over the next 10 years, the number of grievances went down from 398 in 1998 to an average of 178 annually over the next decade
In Rye where a revaluation was conducted in 2004, the number of grievances declined from 17% - 50% over the next few years.
Results were similar in Bronxville, where following their 2007 reassessment, the number of grievances fell 30% to just 100 grievances filed in 2010.

Al let the group know that Scarsdale is now spending an estimate $155,000 per year defending the village against tax claims. Though there is no guarantee that expenses would be reduced following an assessment, the experiences of other municipalities indicates that the number of claims would decrease and he believes that the Village would receive more favorable rulings from the hearing officers as our assessments would be up to date.

The County is also considering a Westchester-wide revaluation, and if this is approved, Scarsdale would be saved the estimated $1,750,000 cost of conducting a revaluation. The County has already approved the expense for aerial photography, and this data can be used in making the reassessment. Scarsdale will receive their digital aerial photographs in November 2010.

The report form the Westchester County Assessment Commission recommended the following:

Compilation of a centralized commercial property database
Use of aerial photography
Updating of tax records
Recommendations for property tax relief methods for those who cannot afford to pay their taxes after a revaluation
Regular cycles of tax reassessments after the initial revaluation – every four years
Regulation on the number of appeals allowed
Nineteen characteristics to be considered in the revaluation

Since Westchester County will decide on a countywide revaluation before the end of the year, the Trustees decided not to make any resolutions as an outcome of the meeting. They asked Al to keep them appraised of new developments and will continue to monitor County moves on this issue.

Do you think it’s time for a revaluation? Please take this short confidential survey and let us know. We'll publish the results when they are in.

Click here to take the survey: or copy this URL into your browser to begin: http://survey.constantcontact.com/survey/a07e2zchcnfgc6f9qg0/start