Regarding Heathcote Manor

Other Scarsdale residents have expressed their feeling about the “Heathcote Manor” development now being built on Weaver Street, not far South of the Five Corners and the Scarsdale Volunteer Ambulance Corps building.  I want to join in their dismay, and emphasize some additional issues.

To use President Obama’s phrase in connection with the recent security lapses on the airline flight from Amsterdam to Detroit, what has happened and is happening at the Heathcote Manor project reflects a “systemic failure” of Scarsdale’s oversight of development.

First, as others have noted, “the Wall” is an abomination.  I find it ironic that it was built just about on the twentieth anniversary of the demolition of the Berlin Wall, to which it bears some resemblance in appearance.  If a Scarsdale homeowner had proposed building even a miniature version of such an ugly wall, the Planning Board and Board of Architectural Review would have stopped it in its tracks.  Indeed, there have been cases in which wither the Planning Board or BAR have required the tearing down or painting over of four foot high fences that weren’t the right color.  Not only is the Weaver Street Wall incredibly ugly and inconsistent with the character of Scarsdale, it appears to violate the setback requirements for structures bordering State or County roads such as Weaver Street/Route 125.  The Wall also constitutes an “attractive nuisance” because it presents a temptation for children and teens to “test their mettle” by jumping from it or even merely trying to paint graffiti on such an inviting canvas.

Second, how could the Planning Board have approved clear-cutting almost three (3) acres of woods, including some trees well over two feet in diameter?  Again, had a homeowner proposed anything even roughly analogous, the Planning Board would almost surely have denied permission.

Third, our local law seems to allow a developer to apply for site plan approval, allow that approval to lie fallow, and then start to build twenty (20) years later, when conditions have changed significantly, without ever undergoing an updated review.  That is precisely what has happened at Heathcote Manor.  Environmental conditions – primarily traffic congestion – along Weaver Street have indeed changed (for the worse): There are currently under construction a number of residential subdivisions on the New Rochelle side of Weaver Street, which can only increase traffic flow, adding still more volume to the highly congested stretch of Weaver Street north of Quaker Ridge Road, the retail development at the Citgo site at Five Corners is moving through the Planning Board approval process, and there is a proposal to build an apartment house next to the Bistro Citron (formerly Heathcote Tavern), also on Weaver Street, and SVAC has moved its expanded headquarters to Weaver Street, all since the Heathcote Manor subdivision and site plan were approved. 

I submit that the Board of Trustees and its relevant committees or the Planning Board consider amendments to local law to impose an expiration date – say three years – on any permit or site plan approval and to require re-application if an issued permit or approval has not been “activated” by genuine efforts to build the proposed project.  I use “genuine” to avoid a developer obtaining approvals, sitting on them until just before expiration, then starting – and quickly stopping – some merely token activity to keep the permit “alive.”

I suggest that the Village Board and the Village Planning Board become more proactive with respect to regulating significant development projects, and not merely react when the community expresses outrage.  I also suggest that the Village authorities be as “hard nosed” and vigilant in monitoring the activities of professional developers as they are in policing the small additions or modifications of owners of single family homes.

Sincerely yours,
Martin S. Kaufman