As Town Board members, I trust you will be discussing in public all of the issues before arriving at a decision regarding which Alternative should be approved for development at the site of the former Elmwood Country Club. The public deserves to know how and why the Board arrived at its decision regarding this application. Executive Session discussions would be inappropriate.
The community learned on April 5, 2022 that the applicant is now urging your Board to adopt Alternative 1 “as the best and most viable alternative.” Alternative 1 would include 159 townhouse units, sold as “fee simple,” with 15 units set aside as affordable and 14.2 acres of land dedicated to the town for recreational purposes. It would be helpful for the public to know whether it was the Town Board who urged the applicant to include an alternative with affordable units, since the applicant summarily ignored the public’s request in the Scoping Document to study the possibility of affordable units and totally dismissed any discussion in the DEIS. It would also be helpful to know why affordable housing units were not introduced in the other Alternatives.
In its March 14, 2022 letter, the Westchester County Planning Board stated it supported Alternative I, in part, because of the inclusion of affordable units. However, Alternative I was not the County’s first choice. The letter made it very clear “we would have preferred that Alternatives C, D and F could continue to be considered.” The County’s letter also questions the number of affordable units and notes that work is necessary to ensure these units are properly marketed and integrated. In fact, Greenburgh has no regulations in place to deal with marketing or integrating affordable homes in One-Family residential zoning districts or in Planned Unit Development districts. The way the applicant has placed these proposed affordable units in three buildings of five units each while all the other buildings of luxury housing contain four units shows a total lack of integration and any understanding about how not to stigmatize those who would be living in these affordable units if Alternative I were adopted.
We learned on April 6, 2022 that the Planning Board is now stating that Alternative I “provides the greatest overall benefit to the Town.” Interestingly, the Planning Board’s recommendation doesn’t ring 1000% in favor of Alternative I, and it readily endorses Alternative H (113 one family homes) as a second choice. The Planning Board’s recommendation makes very clear “its disappointment that only one of the five alternatives contains affordable housing.” The Planning Board “strongly recommends that affordable housing be included in any approved alternative.”
We noted with interest the email to CD&C Commissioner Garrett Duquesne, dated April 5, 2022, from the Westchester County Department of Planning mentioning that all of the FEIS Alternatives “would generate more than 150 gallons per capita per day” which is the limit defined in the County’s sewer law. The public needs to know how this issue will be addressed.
We are also aware of the New York State Department of Transportation letter, dated April 7, 2022, regarding the Elmwood Preserve project. The DOT letter refers to traffic issues with each of the Alternatives in the FEIS and indicates six mitigation measures which have not been addressed. The letter states: “It is critical that these mitigations be included in the SEQR process prior to final determination.”
How can the Town sign off on the SEQR process if issues with sewage and traffic have not been adequately addressed?
As a multi-decade resident of Greenburgh, I believe “planning and zoning” are the foundations of a community. That is why from the date of being appointed to the Comprehensive Plan Steering Committee (CPSC) in March 2007 until the plan was adopted in September 2016, I had unmatched attendance at CPSC meetings and devoted an untold number of other hours working with CD&C Commissioner Duquesne to refine the plan. The CPSC made promises to the community. When the Town Board adopted the Comprehensive Plan, it too made promises to the community.
I urge the Town Board to uphold the promises made to the community. Do not downzone the existing zoning on the former Elmwood Country Club property and permit increased density and multifamily housing in this one-family residential neighborhood. Please uphold the existing zoning on the site and permit only one-family housing to be built with necessary land transferred for recreational purposes.
Members of the surrounding community have already publicly stated that they would support workforce one- family housing being built on the Elmwood site. Appoint a committee to amend the Zoning Ordinance to require workforce housing in one-family zoning districts. The amendments could be in place before subdivision plans are submitted for this property. Any reputable developer would accommodate building workforce homes.
The current owner, Jonathan Grebow bought the Elmwood property knowing what the existing zoning permitted. And it is not the first time he didn’t get everything he wanted. A Journal News article from 2017 noted that in 2014 Mr. Grebow bought a 108-acre former country club property in New Jersey for $10.4, planning to build 34 single family homes on the Mahwah site and 353 multifamily homes, including 71 affordable units on the Saddle River site. After long negotiations Mr. Grebow agreed to build 44 single family homes. After obtaining approvals he sold the project to Toll Brothers which paid $20 million more than he had paid for the property. Not a bad profit!!
– Ella Preiser
No comments:
Post a Comment