Traffic, School Enrollment Concerns in Thornwood Housing Proposal

By Anna Young

Residents packed the Mount Pleasant Town Hall meeting room last Monday night to raise wide-ranging concerns about a proposed 116 single-family house subdivision in Thornwood.

During a Sept. 19 public hearing before the town’s planning board, neighboring residents contended the cluster development, proposed for 582-590 Columbus Ave., would generate excessive traffic, flood the Mount Pleasant School District with children and devalue their homes.

“There’s a 166 homes on the market right now for sale, why do we need this?” asked 30-year Thornwood resident Veronica Powell.

Attorney David Steinmetz, representing developer Baker Residential LP, said the proposed development uses existing zoning to preserve open space and protect the environment. The proposal calls for 68 four-bedroom carriage homes and 48 three-bedroom semicustom homes.

Of the 165 acres, Baker Residential has proposed that the subdivision would be constructed on roughly 46 acres, with the remaining acreage undisturbed, according to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). Access to the site will be from East Stevens Avenue and Westlake Drive.

Steven Cabbey, chairman of the town’s Conservation Council Advisory, said of the options presented by the applicant, this plan is the best choice for the environmental. He suggested landscaping with native plants to create a habitat within the new community.

The DEIS states that during the peak afternoon traffic period, there would be a 2.5-second increase in average delay time on the westbound Stevens Avenue approach at the Columbus Avenue traffic signal if the development is built. There would be no change in service level at other surrounding intersections.

But residents criticized the proposal, arguing that there is worsening congestion and existing concerns about speeding in the area.

“You’re lucky if you can get out on Westlake Drive to Stevens Avenue as it is now,” said Herb Shupert, a 47-year resident.

Shupert suggested that police officers patrol the area and traffic lights be installed to keep traffic flowing should the development be constructed.

Residents Ronald Presner and Phil Karl added that Westlake Drive is a busy road because of local traffic, including school buses. Karl said sidewalks could be added to ensure the safety of children walking on those roads.

Raising the issue of impact on the local schools, Mount Pleasant Board of Education Vice President Thomas McCabe said the district’s population has averaged between 1,800 and 1,900 students a year. School officials are concerned that such a large development would add significantly more children to the district and negatively impact the budget, he said.

Assuming an average of one child per household, McCabe said 116 children at a roughly $30,000-per-student cost, would result in a shortfall of more than 8 percent in a Mount Pleasant school budget, likely forcing the district to exceed the tax cap. McCabe requested that the developer produce an up-to-date study to project on how many additional schoolchildren will be produced.

Former planning board member Keith Rosner said he conducted his own analysis regarding impact on the schools and found there would be a 15 percent increase in school taxes should the project be built..

However, Steinmetz said the industry accepted standard for calculating school age children shows that the development would add about 76 students to Mount Pleasant. That would be easily offset by the 116-student decline in district enrollment since 2010, he said.

“Baker is fully mindful that thoughtful questions were raised by the community and members of the school board,” Steinmetz said. “All of those questions will be addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Statement.”

When residents argued that the project shouldn’t be considered, Planning Board Chairman Michael McLaughlin said that was not the members’ role.

“People have rights and we cannot tell them what to do,” McLaughlin said. “It’s not a concern of this board whether or not it is needed, it is a concern what is being proposed meets zoning laws and other requirements.”

“Baker has demonstrated they can build 116 houses,” McLaughlin added later. “You can’t stop it, so unless you’re going to buy the property you cannot take it from them.”

Aside from McLaughlin’s remarks, there were no other comments from the board and questions posed were not answered. All comments and questions will be addressed by Baker Residential as part of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),

The hearing was adjourned and will remain open until Oct. 31 for written comments.