Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 16 September 2026

Created: 16 September 2026

Last Updated: 16 September 2026

Hits: 769

The following letter was written by Christine Weston, President, Crane Berkley Association

To the Editor:

The Crane Berkley ponds have long been a beautiful part of our neighborhood, enjoyed not only by the families who live around them, but also by members of the broader Scarsdale community who walk through, enjoy the wildlife, and occasionally fish. We are happy to see people appreciate this special place, and we want our neighbors to continue to feel welcome—as long as the property and its wildlife are treated with care.

Recently, however, we discovered an unexpected challenge: one of our ponds is listed on the Fishbrain fishing app under the incorrect name “Zynabon Lake.”

The listing doesn't simply identify the pond on a map. It presents it as a fishing destination, with hundreds of logged catches, ratings and information about fishing there. We believe this may be contributing to an increase in young people coming to the pond specifically to fish, many of whom may have no idea that they are entering privately owned and maintained property or that there are rules intended to protect the pond.

The Crane Berkley ponds and surrounding parkland are private property, owned and maintained by our neighborhood association. Our residents fund their upkeep and work hard to preserve what is a surprisingly rich little ecosystem in the middle of Scarsdale.

Our concern isn't about keeping respectful neighbors away. It's about making sure everyone who enjoys the ponds understands that they need to be treated with care.

Unfortunately, we've recently seen some troubling behavior. A neighbor reported witnessing kids taking live fish and using them as bait to catch other fish. Fishing line and hooks have been left behind around the pond. Most upsetting, discarded fishing line resulted in the death of one of our snapping turtles.

Those incidents are why we are asking for the community's help.

Fishing at the ponds is catch-and-release only. Nets should not be used, and fishing line, hooks and other materials need to leave with you. Please don't disturb or remove the wildlife, and please leave the park exactly as you found it.

We've contacted Fishbrain and asked them to correct the listing so that users understand that this is private community property and not an unrestricted public fishing location. We have also shared documentation confirming the private status of the ponds.

But an app can only do so much. Parents can help by talking with their kids about responsible fishing and reminding them that finding a fishing spot online doesn't necessarily tell you who owns it or what rules apply there.

And to our neighbors throughout Scarsdale: we hope you'll continue to enjoy this beautiful corner of our community. If you come by, please respect the property, the people who maintain it, and especially the animals that call it home.

If you see something concerning—wildlife being mistreated, fishing line or hooks being left behind, nets being used, or damage to the park—please let us know so that we can address it.

We don't want to put up barriers between our neighborhood and the larger Scarsdale community. We simply want to make sure that sharing this special place doesn't come at the expense of the place itself.

Christine Weston
President, Crane Berkley Association

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 09 September 2026

Created: 09 September 2026

Last Updated: 10 September 2026

Hits: 1498

Broken windows at 27 Woods LaneResidents of the Woods, in Edgewood, returned to Village Hall on September 8, 2026 to ask the Village to prevent the neglect of a historic and unoccupied house at 27 Woods Lane. These same neighbors led a successful campaign to save the house after a realtor purchased it and applied to knock it down and subdivide the lot. Since it sits on a prominent lot on a well-preserved street in a historic portion of Edgewood, they were passionate about saving it.

Now, years after the Village designated the home as historic, the owner has left it empty and uncared for, and teens have broken in on several occasions to party on the premises. Neighbors are concerned about the deterioration of the home.

Maura Lee, who lives next door to 27 Woods Lane came to the meeting to “request that the village take meaningful action regarding this property.”

She said, “27 Woods Lane is a historic home and has been allowed to fall into a serious state of disrepair. The broken door and windows, repeated trespassing, indoor and outdoor parties by intruders, and the ongoing neglect of the property all demonstrate deterioration that is affecting not only the structure itself but our surrounding neighborhood. Section 182.12V of the Village Code states: No owner or person with an interest in a building that has been identified by the committee to be an historic building shall allow the property to fall into a serious state of disrepair, so as result in deterioration of any part of the building or significant architectural feature. Based on what has happened at 27 Woods Lane, I do not believe there's any real question that this standard has been met:
“After contacting the police multiple times to report intruders, I also reached out directly to the owner of 27 Woods Lane. Since she is both a Scarsdale Realtor and a current resident, I asked her to secure and care for the property in the way any of us would expect from a next-door neighbor. When I asked that a security camera be installed, she declined, stating that the property does not have Wi-Fi.”
“To me, that response reflects a lack of basic investment in securing the home, especially after repeated break-ins and damage to both the interior and the exterior. As we enter storm season and colder temperatures, I'm also concerned that continuing neglect could lead to additional damage, including frozen pipes, packed pipes, and water damage. These are foreseeable risks when a house is left unsecured and unattended.”

“This is no longer just a private property issue. The owner's neglect has allowed 27 Woods Lane to become a public safety concern and a public nuisance, affecting the health, safety, and welfare of our neighborhood. I understand that the Village has tried to give the owner time to comply, but from the perspective of neighbors who live with the consequences every day, that time has passed. The burden should not continue to fall on Woods Lane residents to monitor the property, call the police when something happens, and live with the risk created by another owner's inaction.”

There's been a great deal of emphasis on the owner's rights, but the neighbors are also being harmed. We are less safe. The house has become an eyesore, and continued deterioration threatens the character and property values of the surrounding neighborhood. It is deeply frustrating to watch a historic property that we fought so hard for be neglected to this extent, while the surrounding community continues to invest in and care for this neighborhood.”

“I grew up on Hampton Road in Scarsdale. My sister recently visited and saw the condition of 27 Woods Lane. She was shocked that this level of neglect is being permitted in Scarsdale. Broken windows and unsecured openings are not minor cosmetic issues. They invite trespassers and allow weather and water to further damage the home. Section 18210 gives the board enforcement authority, including civil penalties up to $50,000 and the ability to seek a court order requiring compliance. I respectfully ask the board to treat this matter with urgency and to use the enforcement tools available under the village code to require the owner to secure, weatherproof, and properly maintain 27 Woods Lane before the historic property deteriorates further and before the neighborhood is asked to bear even more of the consequences. If the owner does not comply immediately, any necessary repairs should be completed at the owner's expense.”

Jared DePalma of 10 South Woods Lane. I wanted to also address 27 Woods Lane specifically in relation to Section 180 2b of Historic Preservation Code. We believe the facts at this point are fairly straightforward. The property has been formally identified as a historic building under Chapter 182. The village has acknowledged that the current condition of the property requires remediation, and the village has received multiple documented complaints regarding the condition of the property. Despite this, the property continues to deteriorate, and as far as we are aware, there has been no meaningful enforcement action on the owner.”

“Our concern is no longer simply the condition of the particular property. The larger question is whether the village intends to enforce a provision of its code after it has determined that a violation exists. We completely understand that the village should give a property owner reasonable opportunity to correct a violation, but at some point, if there is no remediation, there needs to be a consequence or a next step. Otherwise, Section 188212B has little practical meaning. This also affects the surrounding neighborhood. Residents maintain their properties, comply with village requirements, and reasonably expect the village to enforce its code consistently, practically, and when the purpose of this provision is to prevent the deterioration of a historic property, so we would respectfully ask the village to answer three questions this evening.

One: Does the village consider this property to be a violation of Section 182 12 B?

If the answer is yes, what is the next formal enforcement step available to the village?

And third, what is the timetable for taking the steps if the owner does not bring the property into compliance?
We are not asking the village to prejudge the owner or take unreasonable actions. We are asking for a clear enforcement process and a reasonable timeline.

Jim Detmer said, “I live next to 27 Woods Lane, and in its current condition, it suggests abandonment and purposeful neglect. We are convinced the owner developer is dead set on demolition by neglect, as indicated by their inaction over the past three years, and specifically their inaction over the past three months. We ask the village investigates developing more robust building and enforcement code to mitigate purposeful neglects.

Ideas may include the denial of any demolition or infill permit for the neglected property, no building permit, unless the alterations, additions, and renovations enhance the existing structure, and align with the historical footprint of the house and align with the historical fabric of the neighborhood. We need to get tough here. We need to come down harder.

If you have a two and a half million dollar investment and you have that sitting around three years doing nothing, a $50,000 fine is not going to move the needle. We need to be more impactful with the consequences for failure to comply. My genuine fear is that we're sitting here a year or two from that, talking about purposeful neglect”

“We must act now and head off this potential disaster for the community and neighborhood. So the question is, what can we do to enhance penalties for purposeful neglect, we must get ahead of this. We can't be sitting here, like I said, a year or two from now, playing around with the same issue. Three years ago, almost to the day, it was deemed that this was a historical property, and it just been spin on for three years.

Linda Killian said, “I live down the street from 27 Woods Lane, and I see this house every single day. Over the past three years, I think the village has received ample documentation in this room through meetings with mayor and through complaints to the police department about activity at the house.”

“I'd like to bring up just a couple of additional points that my neighbors didn't bring up, and one is that it is one house, but it is a house that is historic and it's very important for Scarsdale to maintain the integrity of our community. And part of our heritage is the beautiful older homes that were built during the 1920s and early 1930s. This is one of those homes in a planned, in an era of planned suburbanization.

The second point that I'd like to make up that wasn't touched upon is that by allowing this to persist and by not enforcing village code, you are encouraging other developers to employ the very same strategy of intentional neglect to obtain permission to tear down an historic designated home or an older home, it will simply encourage more of this unless it stopped.

Finally, what I'd like to bring up is something that I've done some research on, but I'm not certainly not an expert on, and that is the issue of liability. Who is going to be liable if there is another party, and someone gets hurt? Some teenager drinks too much, gets hurt, gets raped, lies out in the snow after having consumed a lot of alcohol or drugs, who gets sued? Does the homeowner the does the owner of 27 Woods have liability insurance?

If an incident happens and it's not insured I sincerely believe the village, meaning all of us, are at risk of a lawsuit brought by the parents of one of these teenagers, and I just want you to think about that from a risk and legal standpoint.

Jordan Copeland, also a neighbor said, “One of the harder things the Village and staff have to balance is flexibility. Being overly rigid with a property owner who is genuinely trying to comply can feel punitive, so I’d think that any municipality would be justified in assuming good faith and giving an owner a fair chance to fix problems. But good faith is not a permanent, unearned status. At some point, good faith has to be demonstrated in results, and in this case, it has actually been refuted.

27 Woods Lane has been vacant for years, now with damaged windows, unauthorized entry, debris, and ongoing exposure to the elements. If the owner were genuinely acting in good faith, we would be able to see it already: the house secured, openings repaired or weatherproofed, and clear Village deadlines being met. But at some point, continued delay merits strict, formal enforcement.
The code itself gives the Village a reasonable framework. Under Chapter 132, once the Building Inspector issues an unsafe-building order, remedial work generally must begin within 10 days, and be completed within 30 days, unless the Inspector grants more time. That is not an aggressive standard. If someone were actually living in this house, we know these issues would have been fixed long ago. If the property owner was genuinely interested in protecting their property, these issues would have been fixed. Windows or wifi are a pretty small cost to protect a multi million dollar property, if you’re actually concerned with protecting it.

I am not asking for a harsh response. I am asking that when a property is demonstrably not being maintained or protected, informal assurances by the owner need to give way to formal requirements and consequences from the village.

That matters especially here because 27 Woods Lane is not just any vacant house. The Village has already determined that it is worth preserving. That designation only means something if the house survives long enough to be preserved. Otherwise, neglect quietly does what demolition review was designed to prevent.

So my ask is that the village set specific, measurable requirements; set a deadline; schedule a follow-up inspection; and escalate enforcement if the owner does not comply. Giving an owner a fair chance is reasonable, but letting a protected property deteriorate indefinitely without measurable proof of progress is not.

The Mayor responded to the speakers, saying,, “… I really appreciate the concern and the passion and the involvement and the willingness to keep coming and speaking with us. Of course, we understand how important of an issue this is for many. I think I can say that this board, particularly over the last few years, has a very proud and strong record on historic preservation and on building code enforcement. Something I certainly stand by, and I'm happy to debate.”

“You know, in any regard, I believe some of the challenges here, and I really do not like talking about any specific situations, applications, homes from up here. But what I would say briefly is, the Building Department and Police Department have been involved in this matter. We will be getting another update, but to my knowledge, the Building Department has not determined that it is in a serious state of disrepair at this point.”

“…If we believe that there is an infraction of our code, we will enforce it. Period. Full stop. And that is not going to change. And we will stay involved in in any matter that there's concern, and we will try to be objective, and we will make sure that our codes are enforced.”
“I want to mention that some of the possible suggestions for code changes -- which we always appreciate and welcome -- can be a slippery slope. I don't think we can require someone to live in a house. And what happens if someone goes to Florida for six months? What happens if somebody gets relocated for work and leaves for two years? I'm not saying that's what's happening here, and I'm not trying to belittle or minimize the concerns of any residents. But we just have to be careful that as we change our code, there could be unintended consequences, and we always have to be aware of that.”

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 03 September 2026

Created: 03 September 2026

Last Updated: 03 September 2026

Hits: 1083

The owners of 26 Circle Road have withdrawn their application to raze their Dutch Colonial.

The owners originally applied, saying that the home had deteriorated and providing a structural assessment that showed that an addition of a sunroom over a porch was settling and unsafe.

They retained the law firm of Cuddy and Feder along with consultants Emily T. Cooperman and Kyle Toth at PS&S to provide evidence that the home did not meet Scarsdale’s criteria for historic preservation.

However, at the request of the Committee for Historic Preservation, the Village asked their consultant Andrew Dolkart for his assessment and he concluded that the home did meet the criteria for preservation.

In his opinion Dolkart wrote a lengthy history of the Overhill subdivision, where development began in 1905. Reviewing the history of the Overhill neighborhood, Dolkart argues that 26 Circle Road meets the first criteria, which is, “The house is representative of the broad patterns of Scarsdale village history.”

Dolkart says, “As noted previously, it is the suburban development of Scarsdale in the early decades of the twentieth century that is the most significant historical pattern in the creation of the Village and 26 Circle Road is representative of the earliest phase in this broad character defining trend … “What is significant about Overhill is that it is a residential subdivision that marks the beginning of the transformation of Scarsdale into one of the premier suburban communities in the New York metropolitan area.”

Commenting on the homes integrity he concluded, ”The house retains its integrity to a high degree. It has "integrity of location, design, setting, materials and workmanship," to quote a necessary finding in Scarsdale's preservation ordinance. It is on its original site (a relatively small lot in the Overhill Tract); its design is unchanged except for the rear addition that occupies approximately one-third of the rear elevation; its setting is intact (the houses of Overhill are largely unchanged since their construction; its materials are intact; and its workmanship remains untarnished.”

Dolkart also contested Dr. Cooperman’s findings saying, “In her report submitted by Cuddy & Feder, Dr. Emily Cooperman states that in order to make this finding for a property it "must be distinguished in its historic time period as important relative to other properties. There must be some evidence that the individual property in question was historically important within the context of the time in which it was created."

Dolkart corrects her saying, “The criterion in the Scarsdale ordinance does not say this; this is not the standard on which a property should be judged under criterion 1. The criterion states "that the building is associated with events that made a significant contribution to broad patterns of Village, regional, state or national history.” The criterion says nothing about a property being "distinguished in its historic time period." It concerns a broad pattern of history which encompasses the early twentieth-century suburban development of Scarsdale.”

He also notes that one of the home’s owner, Rollin Kirby was a prominent editorial cartoonist who won Pulitzer prizes but he do so after he sold the house.

Last Dolkart commented on the report about the structural integrity of the addition in the back. He said, “As noted, 26 Circle Road retains its architectural integrity to a high degree. The only evident change to the exterior is the rear addition. The engineering report completed by Martos Engineering finds that this porch is structurally unsound. It is clear that the weight of the second-story sunroom has destabilized the addition. This is the argument being made for why the entire house must be demolished. To me, this appears to be a case of "throwing out the baby with the bathwater." The porch and sunroom could either be removed, rebuilt, or shorn up. The bulk of the house would not be impacted by this work. I would recommend that the Village retain an engineering firm that specializes in the preservation of old buildings (Old Structures Engineering or Silman/TY Lin, for example) to assess whether the entire house should be demolished because of the condition of the rear porch and sunroom. This would aid in determining if a demolition permit should be issued.”

Following the submission of the report, the Village received a letter from Cuddy and Feder withdrawing the application to tear down the house.

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 20 August 2026

Created: 20 August 2026

Last Updated: 20 August 2026

Hits: 2077

An appllication has been filed to demolish 26 Circle Road, built in 1908Despite code changes to strengthen Scarsdale’s land use code to curb the size of new homes and preserve setbacks and open space, builders and property owners were busy this summer filing applications to raze Scarsdale homes, at both the Committee for Historic Preservation and the Planning Board.

This may be contributing to the shortage of home inventory for new buyers, as it often takes years to get approvals to demolish homes and replace them. In that time, buyers are frustrated and lots stand empty.

Here’s the most recent activity:
At their July 28 meeting, the Committee for Historic Preservation approved the demolition of:

41 Secor Rd – Demo house built in 1950

2 Coralyn Rd – Demo house built in 1930

And at their upcoming meeting on Tuesday September 15 at 7 pm, they will consider these applications:

26 Circle Road– Demo house and detached garage built in 1908

54 Park Road – Demo all structures built in 1918 (Original house already razed.)

5 Cohawney Road – Demo house built in 1927

387 Heathcote Road – Demo house built in 1955

At the Planning Board meeting on August 5, 2025 demolitions were also considered.

-At 7 Mayflower Road a demolition along with site disturbance and incursion into the property buffer was approved.

-An application to subdivide a lot at 19 Woodland Place was held over. (The home was already demolished.)

-Also held over was a proposal to demolish 16 Cooper Road and for approval of incursions into the property buffer and site disturbance.

Plans to demolish 43 Church Lane along with a site disturbance and incursion into the property buffer were referred to the Board of Architectural Review and were also held over to the September meeting.

Follow these applications here
https://www.scarsdale.gov/AgendaCenter/Search/?term=&CIDs=4,&startDate=&endDate=&dateRange=&dateSelector=