Developer, Residents Face Off Over Proposed Sterling Avenue Subdivision
As the White Plains Planning Board re-opened the public hearing on the proposal for a three-lot subdivision at 1 Sterling Ave. during its Sept. 17 meeting, David Steinmetz of the White Plains law firm Zarin and Steinmetz immediately took the floor.
Having been retained by the owners of 1 Sterling Ave. after last month’s opening of the public hearing, Steinmetz seemed to try to stall pubic criticism of the project by citing how the proposal meets all the legal zoning requirements as well as criteria for development in a “close-in” neighborhood as defined by the White Plains comprehensive plan.
The subdivision is located in the Fisher Hill neighborhood of White Plains, which is considered to be a close-in neighborhood, with regard to its proximity to the city’s downtown.
Steinmetz encouraged the Board to focus on the legal elements of what he called “pretty much a straightforward application” and not generalized community opposition because “people don’t like it and people don’t want it.”
Steinmetz’ comments were partly in response to a letter sent to various city commissioners by the Fisher Hill Association outlining their specific concerns, and he emphasized that the developer had nothing new to present, but would answer questions during the public hearing.
Picking up from the previous month’s discussion, Planning Board Chairman John Ioris noted that there had been concern among Board members about a design change to include two driveways rather than one shared driveway, causing a potential hazard for cars entering Orchard Parkway from the subdivision. However, the developer said the previous proposal with a shared driveway was not the best path forward due to stormwater management issues and preferred to leave the driveway as is.
Traffic conditions already a concern in the area because of one-way streets and narrow vehicle access in some spots, plus hills and slopes that are difficult to manage in icy conditions were cited as dangerous and would be aggravated with the addition of 10 cars to the subdivision.
The subdivision plan has taken a one-family site with a deteriorating and falling down building – acknowledged as an “eyesore” by everyone – and converts it to three lots with two two-family homes and one one-family home, building out to the maximum parameters allowed by the 5.3 zoning district.
The site is considered environmentally sensitive because of steep slopes.
Michael Dalton, president of the Fisher Hill Association told the Board he was the author of the letter sent to various city commissioners. Addressing Steinmetz’ opening comments Dalton said, “We strongly support the redevelopment of 1 Sterling. The principal issue is not ‘I don’t like it. It’s a question of proportion and density and pushing the envelope of this project to the edges, which is understandable considering the realities of the new property owner’s position. He would like to maximize the economic benefit. The community understands that.”
Dalton explained that looking at the “topo” scheme, drawn in two dimensions with topo lines does not begin to describe what this site is like. “That is why you have to go out and look at it,” which he acknowledged several Board members said they had.
Dalton and several other neighbors on Orchard Parkway said they were concerned about the integrity of the 120-year-old retaining wall and how it and several old large trees on the site would withstand the redevelopment.
That retaining wall plays a key role in the structural integrity of the property where the ground steeply slopes.
The developer said they had looked at the wall and determined that below ground level it was sturdy. Steinmentz said a statement would be prepared to clarify this point, but at the suggestion of Common Councilmember Nadine Hunt-Robinson, a Fisher Hill resident, a report was requested.
Speaking during the hearing Hunt-Robinson said she had several concerns regarding the safety of the roads in the immediate area and suggested the developer could have done more outreach to the community before finalizing a plan. She also said, “it’s not all about profit. It’s about the character of our city. One of the things that make our city such a drawing point – it’s not just the downtown – but there are 24 neighborhoods that circle the downtown.”
The public hearing was adjourned to October 15, but before closing Ioris said that it was his opinion as one member of the Planning Board that “the Board must use a different set of glasses (from the general community) to view the proposal and that there seemed to be a lack of understanding of the criteria we have to work within.”
“We will apply the criteria and will try to solve the problems the neighbors brought up,” he concluded.
