Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 29 October 2019

Created: 29 October 2019

Last Updated: 22 January 2020

Hits: 3608

Scarsdale residents are buzzing with excitement about the much-anticipated return of the Spelling Bee hosted by the Friends of the Scarsdale Library. This community event is back and will be the Friends’ primary fundraiser for 2020, supporting the Scarsdale Public Library.

Spectators of all ages will swarm to the Scarsdale High School auditorium on Friday, January 31st at 7:30 pm for a night of stellar spelling and trivia, including local celebrity emcee Ed Coleman, the radio voice of the New York Mets. Teams consisting of three people will compete in multiple rounds, and winners will receive prizes and more. Get your teams together soon because the event fills up quickly.

The registration fee is $180 for adult teams and $75 for high school-age teams. An event T-shirt and water bottle for each participant are included with registration. The deadline to enter is December 31st. Spectator admission is $10 for adults and $5 for children under 18 years old. 15 adult teams and 5 high school-age teams will complete in word-sleuthing fun. Join the fun for this centuries-old activity and prove your intellectual prowess in support of the beloved public library. Click here to register your team.

There are event sponsorship opportunities for corporate or individual donors. Click here to learn more about corporate or individual sponsorships.

This is also a perfect time to become a ‘Friend’ of the Scarsdale Library or renew your commitment to FOSL. Click here for details.

Throughout this transition period during construction of the Olmsted Road building, Friends of the Scarsdale Library continues to play a pivotal role in sponsoring popular programs such as free museum passes, children’s events, book talks, writers’ workshops and so much more. Proceeds from the Spelling Bee will go towards the enhancement of these programs. Your support is appreciated as Scarsdale Library remains a cultural and intellectual hub. Help them to keep this momentum going by joining the Friends of the Scarsdale Library at the Spelling Bee, Friday, January 31st, at 7:30pm. The snow date is scheduled for Friday, February 7th.

All links mentioned above are also available on www.scarsdalelibrary.org.

Details

Written by: Laura Halligan

Published: 24 October 2019

Created: 24 October 2019

Last Updated: 24 October 2019

Hits: 3582

The Scarsdale Board of Trustees Freightway Selection Subcommittee, which includes Mayor Marc Samwick, Trustee Justin Arest, and Trustee Jane Veron, provided an update on the Freightway project during the board’s last public meeting.

First, Mayor Samwick reiterated the justification to replace the current parking structure, which dates back to 1971. Freightway requires about $2.5 million in repairs and maintenance over the next five years, and that cost is expected to balloon to as much as $25 million over the next 15 to 20 years if Freightway remains as is. Scarsdale views redevelopment as not only necessary, but also as an opportunity to enhance the village center in a “viable and sustainable way.”

Citing the need to address changes in consumer needs, increased retail vacancy rates, and lack of vibrancy in the village center, Trustee Veron reminded the public about the board’s collaboration with village landlords, retailers, and residents to address these issues. Freightway is seen as a lynchpin of this effort. Veron said, “Many like-communities have embarked on mixed-use developments, with a significant amount of new residences built near their transportation hubs. These projects are called transit-oriented developments (TODs), and are often targeted to millennials and empty nesters. These new residents add the vitality and foot traffic needed for a flourishing local ecosystem.”

Samwick then briefly reviewed the village’s approach to the project, beginning with a visioning study conducted over three years ago, followed by requesting feedback and plans from the development community (via a request for expressions of interest, or RFEI), and issuing formal requests for proposals (RFPs).

Last month, Scarsdale received a number of responses to the RFP and currently is in the process of narrowing the proposals to two firms that will be invited to make public presentations to residents. The board, village staff, special counsel, and Scarsdale’s planning consultant (AKRF) are working to clarify specific issues and gain additional information, and expect to host the presentations in December.

Trustee Arest stated that, while the board sees the project’s potential to transform the village center and be welcomed by the community, “Any redevelopment project must provide a net community benefit. Otherwise, doing nothing is an option. It is not really doing nothing and it is not free, as there are already identified short and medium term costs associated with retaining the village’s ownership of the parking garage but, again, it is an option.”

The mayor continued, “The village owns the Freightway property, so we are in the enviable position of controlling our own destiny. As property owners, it is important to maintain our negotiating position relative to potential developers… This is why many of our recent discussions have to be in executive session. We would certainly prefer to engage in a more public dialogue. And there will be many substantial opportunities in the future for everyone to weigh in. But, while we are engaged in executive session discussions, please note that we, as your elected officials, represent the community at large and are very focused on the same things that matter to you, such as potential school, parking, fiscal and village center impacts.”

Bob Harrison (Fox Meadow Road) stated that he was concerned about the “openness” of the Freightway development process thus far. “I’m not sure, if you’re down to two candidates here, why it wasn’t open further for other presenters and other information for the community. I hope you’ll do a good job in evaluating things. It’s a tricky economy and a tricky future with the change in the tax laws.”

Bob Berg (Tisdale Road) said, “I’m very concerned with the complete secrecy with which the board is conducting its review of the three bidders… There should be no confidentiality attached to the identities of these bidders now that they’ve submitted their bids. There should be really no reason (why) their identities should not be disclosed at this time. Certainly, portions of their bids may be exempt from disclosure under FOIL, but the basic outlines of their bids that you’re reviewing are not proprietary. There’s no confidential information in a discussion of what they are proposing in terms of the mix (of) retail and the type of living arrangements – are living units going to be rentals, condos, or co-ops; how many living units does each bidder propose and in what configuration; are they going to be studios, one-bedroom, two-bedrooms, three-bedrooms, and how many of each? None of this is proprietary or sensitive.”

He added that it would be useful for residents to have information prior to the public presentations so they were prepared to ask relevant questions. “At this point, I’m fearful that we’re going to get all this information sprung on us at the last minute,” he concluded.

Mayor Samwick responded, “What we are trying to do is balance providing as much information as we can to the public as well as maintain our negotiating position… We are actually going back to at least some of the (developers), and asking for clarifications and additional information, and other things. At this point… if we’re asking people to come back with anything else, (and) they had their competitors’ information available to them, it could easily impact what we, as a village, end up with.” He later added, “We want to give you disclosure as soon as possible… but we have a fiduciary obligation to try to maintain the value of this property for the benefit of the residents… We will, as soon as possible, disclose as much as possible.”

Harrison then pressed the board on how many firms and/or presentations currently are being considered. Trustee Veron explained why the trustees would not be providing answers to specific questions. “We asked our consultants and counsel… (about) best practices to preserve our negotiating leverage, and doing what’s best for the village, and we were strongly advised that, at this point, disclosure of information would compromise our ability to make better deals for our community. We actually pressed our team, who are experts in this, to ensure that we were fully educated. We 100 percent understand what it’s like to… want information… I wish we could share, but we were guided that it was not in the best interest of the village at this time. I promise you that as soon as we possibly can we will because that’s what we want to do.”

Samwick followed by stating, “This is the most difficult part of the process for all of us. We don’t like not being able to talk about this with you... we’re doing this for our collective best interest. There will be ample opportunity for us to speak together about this. In the meantime, know that the things that matter to the community matter very much to us.”

Esannason Returns… For NowWayne Essanosen
As reported earlier, Wayne Esannason, Scarsdale’s former village attorney, now is serving as acting village attorney, replacing Angela Martin. Martin has returned to her previous position as director of personnel.

Esannason already was working as a legal consultant for the village, assisting Martin during her brief tenure as village attorney, and was a logical choice to fill the position on a temporary basis. His contract runs through December 31, 2019 or until a new lawyer is appointed.

During the meeting’s public comment session, Bob Berg expressed his concerns about how the village attorney staffing issue has impacted village taxpayers. He began, “When Wayne announced his retirement… I urged that the forthcoming village attorney vacancy be advertised widely and publicly, that a thorough public search… be conducted, and that an advisory committee of resident attorneys be appointed to help screen for an appropriate, qualified replacement.”

He continued, “I’m certain the position would have attracted many qualified and experienced candidates. I was shocked, however… that without any public or advance notice, the board was going to vote… to appoint Angela Martin, then the village’s director of HR, to be the next village attorney. Ms. Martin, a recent law school graduate who had only practiced law for two years… simply lacked the relevant qualifications and experience to handle the multifaceted responsibilities of the Scarsdale village attorney job. For our village manager to recommend her as the next village attorney and to increase her salary… without conducting a public search for the most qualified candidate was pure patronage, malfeasance, and a waste of taxpayer funds.”

Berg went on to say that the costs related to Martin’s appointment and the hiring (and subsequent firing) of the individual who took her place as head of personnel were considerable, when taking into account a pay raise for Martin, and legal consulting fees spent to support Martin in the position. “The bottom line is that last year’s decision to replace Mr. Esannason with Ms. Martin… was a patently bad idea that smacked of patronage over qualifications.”

Harrison followed and said, “I’m going to endorse… Bob Berg’s comments (which) concern me as a resident taxpayer. We’re being, maybe, frivolous a bit in salary payments and how we’re handling personnel. I urge you strongly to work on that process.”

Details

Written by: Anna Cho

Published: 16 October 2019

Created: 16 October 2019

Last Updated: 16 October 2019

Hits: 3790

The Scarsdale’s Girls Varsity Soccer team celebrated Senior Day before their game against Mamaroneck on Saturday October 12. About the seniors, junior Ani Stefanuo, who has played on the team since her freshman year, said, “Gonna miss them.” Returning members of the team are used to the continuous change in the team line-up.

The team’s underclassmen made a personal poster for each senior on the team. In addition, the teammates created a T-shirt for each senior using spray paint and stencils. The senior’s last name and number were placed on the back while “ders” was written on the front. Friends, family and a supportive team all gathered to honor senior players: Bela George, Elizabeth Shawn, Ines Hall, Meghan Quirk, Olivia Bryant, Olivia Silberstein, Sophia Caione, Sophia Trujillo, Sophia Verelli, and Sophie Hu.

Photos by Jon Thaler: See more here: 

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 10 October 2019

Created: 10 October 2019

Last Updated: 10 October 2019

Hits: 4099

Every day, more residents are becoming concerned with increased bulk in Scarsdale. No, it’s not the kind that an Equinox membership can fix; it’s the ever-expanding crop of new single-family homes and major additions that are making residents feel crowded. And, like that unwanted weight gain, it’ll take a while to shed the excess mass. The question is, how to pare down?

Several years ago, the village held land use committee meetings to address various issues, notably the appearance of bulk related to new construction. Since then, staff have researched what Scarsdale could and should consider in curbing the size of so-called McMansions, and have surveyed other municipalities to learn more about best practices. When comparing the village zoning code to its peer communities’ regulations, staff confirmed that Scarsdale already was utilizing all tools available to address the issue, and that it was comparable to or a bit more restrictive in its zoning requirements.

So, how to address the public’s concerns? Fast forward to the establishment of the Scarsdale Bulk Review Subcommittee, which was asked to dive deeper and consider how to limit the size of homes being built throughout this “village in a park.” Comprised of members of the planning board, zoning board of appeals, and board of architectural review (BAR) – the committee offers insights and experience of volunteers who routinely deal with the issue when working with builders and property owners.

On Tuesday, the village trustees listened to the subcommittee’s recommendations. Scarsdale Village Planner Liz Marrinan began the discussion by stating, “The bulk issue has been around in this village for decades… In 2000, we adopted a map change… to make the zoning requirements a little more restrictive and help prevent subdivisions... In 2002… we (adopted) FAR regulations for single family homes… for those who do not know, it’s the ratio of the floor area of your structure to your lot size.” She continued, “In 2007… we found that, while it hadn’t totally limited large houses from being built, it brought down the trend of ever, ever, ever expanding (structures). It did… level things out. “

Marrinan went on to say that the village has continued to review and tweak village regulations to control bulk, but that it “is very difficult to define. It’s often in the eye of the beholder… When we did the initial FAR study, we were surprised to find that big wasn’t necessarily bad. Large houses with a lot of FAR (often appeared smaller) from the street (due to) the design or the landscaping, or what have you. What was important was design, function, and those sorts of things to help mask it.” She asserted, “That is the issue with using a zoning tool based on quantitative data to address a qualitative issue.”

In introducing the committee’s recommendations, Marrinan explained that the group examined incremental changes that would result in a gradual reduction in bulk. “I can pretty much guarantee, as a planner, that if you make any of these changes tomorrow… you’re not going to see any difference… You’re still going to get complaints about bulk,” she said. “But, over time, as more homes and additions are built, you will see a gradual reduction.”

Scarsdale Zoning Board of Appeals Chairman Jeffrey Watiker, who also serves on the bulk subcommittee, then reviewed the five suggested zoning techniques that may mitigate bulk. “One of the things we tried to do, in addition to being incremental, (was) to focus on the land use controls that directly address the problem that’s being looked at. So, if the buildings seem too high, let’s look at the height requirement. If the buildings look like they’re too bulky, we have a rule that’s written to address bulk; let’s look at that.” He continued, “I think you’ll find that the recommendations are targeted not only to be incremental, but they’re targeted at precisely what we’re trying to fix.”

Specifically, the committee proposes:

• Reduce the roof height limit from 35 feet to 32 feet (as measured from middle of roofline) to address perception that homes are “getting too tall.” Since the measure is taken at the middle of the roofline (an industry standard) a structure may have sections that rise higher than 32 feet, but the committee believes that, in theory, the highest houses would be pulled down a bit.

• Lower the FAR by 5 percent by reducing the side yard setback bonus by 30 percent to address bulk. This approach is tailored to those homes that would qualify for the setback bonus -- typically the largest new-construction homes on the largest lots (e.g., many houses in Edgewood are on much smaller lots that do not qualify for the side yard setback bonus).

• Improve the FAR law to allow additions to an existing home in a location other than the back of the structure. Currently, additions must be built in the back of houses to limit a bulky appearance from the street. However, if there’s not sufficient space in the backyard to accommodate an addition, a homeowner may opt to knock down the structure and build a new, larger home. By providing more flexibility for updates and modifications, the committee hopes to discourage teardowns (and bulky new builds) throughout the village.

• Amend the “garage rule” to limit the garage exemption to the ground floor of the structure, excluding any space above. The tweak would allow for any living space on the second floor to be properly considered with regard to FAR, thereby reducing space elsewhere on the property.

• Require homeowners who wish to build very large homes (more than 15,000 square feet) on the largest lots (greater than 1.5 acres) to file a site plan review with the village planning board. Currently, homeowners typically deal with the zoning board of appeals, which is not positioned to perform thorough reviews.

Other methods considered but ultimately rejected by the committee for implementation at this time were:

• Limiting house size by linking height to setback, which would be difficult to implement due to numerous possible variances;

• Increasing the reduction of FAR, which would increase the number of nonconforming properties throughout the village, and, possibly, adversely affect the marketability of homes or practical needs of homeowners; and

• Eliminating the garage setback, which could be seen as a penalty for owning cars and/or needing extra storage space.

Looks Often Are Everything
Members of the BAR often look beyond regulations and code to simple aesthetics of a property. There are practical ways to mask bulk, namely design and landscaping.

A significant problem is clear cutting that often accompanies new construction. In addition to the negative environmental impact of eliminating mature trees and other plantings, replanting efforts typically don’t match or effectively replace landscaping that has been razed. And, in the absence of large trees, bulk is painfully visible.

While the BAR often effectively collaborates with homeowners to improve the appearance of new homes and additions, and reduce the appearance of bulk, the rules by which the board operates are “fairly loose.” Dan Steinberg, one of its members, suggested that the village “explore ways of giving greater structure to the BAR, which would allow it to be more forceful in controlling bulk.” He also noted that the committee looked at how Scarsdale calculates lot coverage and how it affects the appearance of various homes. Because some underground items are not included in FAR, they may be included in new construction more often and will affect what can be planted above ground. This restricts replanting and overall appearance of the property.

“We also talked about the possibility of financial incentives or tax abatements to discourage the tear down of older homes in some of our older sections of the community,” Finger added. “Generally, we discovered that, to be able to provide some kind of tax abatement to encourage builders to renovate… would require legislation in Albany… We also (discussed) the possibility of an historic landmark district. It would apply to older section of the community and impose restrictions on the ability to replace older homes. Again, it has its advantages and disadvantages.”

For now, the committee recommends those steps that can be taken today that can make a difference, albeit slowly. For more details, including a discussion of village concerns versus property owners’ rights, as well as the trustees’ reaction to the committee’s recommendations, you may view a recording of the meeting online here.