To A Better Greenburgh,
A Scarsdale Inquirer article of 8/10/18, concerning the proposed development of the former Elmwood Country Club by the New Jersey based company, Ridgewood Realty, contained mis-information and omissions.
The “pre-submission conference” with the Planning Board that was requested by Ridgewood should NOT have been granted because there is no provision in NYS Town law enabling legislation or the Code of the Town of Greenburgh that allows an applicant seeking a map change and proposed rezoning to bypass the normal procedure of first going to the Town Board. According to the Code of the Town of Greenburgh, this type of meeting is allowed for site plan or sub-division approval only. It is not allowed for projects that require changes of zoning. All zoning changes must be approved by the Town Board.
In a July 3rd letter to the Planning Board, Ridgewood blames the Town Board for delaying action on their application. The problem of the delay is not the fault of the Town Board. At a Town Board Work Session, a request was made to Ridgewood to submit their plans (site plans, landscaping, water course, steep slopes, utilities, roads, etc.) for the as-of-right 119 Single Family Homes development. To date, they have only submitted an engineer's rendering of the Single Family Homes. Ridgewood is the problem for the delay, not the Town Board.
In the article, Ridgewood claims that the Town House Condo proposal, an Adult 55+ Community, will generate $350,000 more tax revenue (Town, School, Fire District, etc.) than the Single Family Homes proposal. That statement is incorrect because of the fact that Town House Condo units are assessed at between 50-60% of their value as compared to 100% assessment of Single Family Homes. At comparable selling prices, the 119 Single Family Homes will generate more tax revenue than the 175 Town Houses.
Ridgewood also states that their traffic engineer says that “the traffic generated from the 175 unit development proved to be less than the traffic generated from the as-of-right 119 unit single family home plan”. At our Civic Association meeting, the Ridgewood CEO, made the statement that people over 55 do not go to work. That claim was strongly disputed by the association members. If that assumption is being used as a criteria for the traffic study, there is a major problem.
Our community strongly believes that a full comprehensive SEQRA review of the project should be conducted by an outside, independent consulting firm to study all the issues concerning this development: financial, density, environmental, traffic, alternative development options, etc., as has been done previously by the Town for major projects such as The Jefferson (JPI) and Regeneron.
Dorrine Livson
President
Worthington-Woodlands Civic Assoc.
In addition, my understanding is that Ridgewood is proposing to donate land (for parks) in leiu of paying a developer fee. Serious consideration MUST be given, if Edgemont incorporates, do we need extra parks for TOV? Will we have trouble paying for upkeep of the parks we already have with a reduction in TOV tax revenue?
ReplyDeleteIn addition, the Ridgewood comments on the effect of a proposed 55+ community on schools was totally irrelevant as to Greenburgh. He went on and on about how legally they can restrict to over 55 and keep students out. Frankly, it is unlikely an expensive development will result in many students in Greenburgh Central, and even if it did, more middle class, or upper middle class students in the mix would help the schools.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the first comment, the law actually says that developers are required to allocate parkland for any new development and should only pay a fee in lieu if that is not available. Obviously in most cases the fee is paid but its actually the other way around, fee's should be paid unless land is donated. Town Code Section 250-19-A-2.
ReplyDeleteI also have to disagree with the following statement "The problem of the delay is not the fault of the Town Board. At a Town Board Work Session, a request was made to Ridgewood to submit their plans (site plans, landscaping, water course, steep slopes, utilities, roads, etc.) for the as-of-right 119 Single Family Homes development. To date, they have only submitted an engineer's rendering of the Single Family Homes. Ridgewood is the problem for the delay, not the Town Board."
There is no reason before referring a plan to the planning board that a developer needs to submit plans for something they have zero intention of doing. The exploration of alternative uses for the site and their impacts should be done during the SEQR review. The Town Board should not be holding the developer hostage to present these plans prior to a SEQR review.
It is a consistent pattern of the town board to do this. They insist on ironing out every single detail and delay projects for months if not years before referring projects to the planning board. This is a mistake on the part of the town board.
@Hartsdale Resident, the developer's "right" is to build 119 homes, but what they are actually intending to do requires the town to cede to their demands. I don't know how it works in your mind, but normally, there is a process for towns to create a deviation from their norms, and determine if that deviation would be for the better good. Apparently, the way to do that in this case is to have a full independent review of the the potential impacts that their requested zoning change would create. They can't simply "demand" that their plans be acquiesced to by the Town Board.
ReplyDelete