Trustees Say NO to Tavern Owner

At a special meeting on Monday night, the Scarsdale Village Trustees indicated they would vote unanimously against Frederick S. Fish’s proposal to purchase land adjacent to the Heathcote Tavern to facilitate development of 2-4 Weaver Street into a multi-use complex of residential and retail space. Residents were braced for a fight and turned out in force to voice their objections to Fish’s demands that were outlined in a January 20th letter to the Trustees. The meeting, originally scheduled for the third floor meeting room of Village Hall had to be moved downstairs to Rutherford Hall to accommodate the overflow crowd.

However, the fight never materialized. Trustee Sharon Lindsay, who had made a convincing argument in favor of a deal brokered with Fish last year, presided over the meeting, which was attended by the Heathcote Five Corners Coalition, representatives for Frederick S. Fish and a host of other interested parties.

She opened by giving the group a recap of events to date to provide background and perspective on the negotiations that go back to 2006. She explained that in 2008 Fish had a “pre-app” meeting with the Planning Board to discuss the development of senior housing on the site. At that time the Planning Board recommended that Fish ask the Village for a long-term lease or the right to purchase the contested strip of Village-owned land. During this period the Land Use Committee fully considered Fish’s proposal and commentary from concerned residents.

Based on these discussions, Fish came forward with a proposal for age restricted housing and agreed to maintain the façade of Heathcote Tavern and to investigate ways of ameliorating the traffic impact of the project by applying to Westchester County for access to the Heathcote Bypass from the rear of the property. His plan at the time called for fourteen residential units and a building no larger than 27,000 square feet.

In response to considerable resistance from the community, the Village Trustees voted in June, 2009 to return Fish’s proposal to purchase the strip back to the Land Use Committee for further study. At the time, some warned that if Fish was denied the Village land, his next proposal might not be so accommodating.

Fish’s representatives met with the Village Trustees again in the fall of 2009 to address concerns, including clarification on age-restricted housing, preservation of the façade and the timing of the contract and covenance. However, according to Lindsay, communications came to a halt after November and Fish failed to indicate whether or not he would sign a re-negotiated agreement if one could be hammered out. On January 20, 2010 a new proposal was received by the Village that outlined three scenarios.

Lindsay turned the meeting over to Michael Zarin, Fish’s attorney, who was invited to review the proposal and present the scenarios. Zarin mockingly told the group that “it was good to be back,” and said that he was here in the “hope of arriving at a reasonable agreement.” “We have been at this for almost two years,” he stated, and expresseing his desire for closure and for no “finger pointing.” However, he warned that if the Village could not consent to a land sale, “then we all have to do what we have to do.” With that ominous claim he went on to tell the group that “the world has changed since 2008 and it was now difficult to get financing for deals with age restrictions.” He went on to add that the restaurant was now empty and the property was generating no income. He added, “If we could have closed this prior we would have been in a different position.”

He presented no evidence to support why it would have been easier to get financing in June 2009 than today and did not supply any information to demonstrate that Fish had applied for, or been denied funding for age-restricted housing.

Zarin went on to review the three options presented in the proposal. Versions A and B were contingent upon the land sale and Version C is what Fish claimed is their “as of right” plan if the Village did not cooperate. Both A and B called for larger properties than outlined in the prior agreement, and did not provide for age-restricted housing. With fourteen new units, Zarin claimed that averages showed that only seven school-age children would be added to the Scarsdale Schools, a figure that raised eyebrows around the room. With proposal B, where two residential units would be built in the Tavern Building, Zarin danced around how the façade could be kept intact if these new apartments required windows. Even less clear was why Fish could no longer apply to Westchester County for access to the Heathcote Bypass. Making a vague claim about the sentiments of the “powers that be,” he told the group they would not pursue this option.

However, when he turned to explain Option C, the fallback plan, he seemed to be describing virtually the same size buildings as outlined in options A and B. This four story “as-of-right” building would contain 12 apartments in 27,000 square feet of space plus a 10,000 square foot retail space on the street level that he claimed could be rented to yet another drugstore. The developers assert they can meet the requirement for 100 parking spaces by having parking on two subterranean levels.

With that, Zarin ended his presentation, reminding the group that this has been a “dynamic process” and that they have “tried their best.”

Trustee Lindsay spoke first on behalf of the Trustees and in stern tones told Zarin that she did not find the new proposal to be within the spirit of the original agreement, which provided benefits to the Village in exchange for the land sale including senior housing, access for traffic to the bypass and a building of limited bulk and density. Since neither of the proposals provided these benefits to the Village she said, “I cannot recommend that we even consider this and recommend to the Board that they vote 'no' to proposals A and B.” Trustee Richard Toder concurred, saying that age-restricted housing was an important piece of the original plan and that he would vote against it. David Irwin reminded the group that he was against the proposal in June ’09 and added that without provision for age-restricted housing, the limitations on building size or protection of the façade the proposal was not in any effect “more favorable.” Trustee Hochvert felt no need to amplify what had already been said and at that point Lindsay indicated that a motion to deny the sale would be unanimously approved by the Trustees.

Though it was a temporary victory for neighborhood residents, Fish will certainly return with the plan to develop the site. As the owner, he does have the right to build within our zoning code and this was just one more step in a very lengthy process. However, there are many questions about how much can be shoehorned into the existing footprint and to date Fish has not provided site plans to back up his proposal.

The Heathcote Five Corners Coalition is already urging the Village Planning Board to “fully enforce all existing parking, setback and zoning requirement without variances” if Fish should apply to build on the site. They are also asking the Village to “identify and implement any action that can be taken to preserve the Tavern building” that would not be protected under our current preservation laws for another fifteen years. According to the Coalition, if Fish did want to demolish the Tavern he would need to apply to the Committee on Historic Preservation who would consider eight criteria for preservation, among which age is only one. Furthermore, the building is already listed in the Westchester County Inventory of Historic Places

In the interim, it surely would seem easier for Fish to lease the space to another restaurant and generate some income rather than leave it empty. Heathcote Tavern ran a very successful business for many years and it is puzzling why they left, and why so many others have failed in their wake. Mario Batali – can we interest you in a restaurant in Scarsdale?

Photo courtesy of the Heathcote Five Corners Coalition