Trustees Acted Responsibly on Monte Nido

The following is an opinion piece from Scarsdale10583: There's no easy answer to the dilemma posed by the application of Monte Nido to purchase a home in Scarsdale's most exclusive neighborhood to open a facility for teenagers with eating disorders. On the one hand, the company is proposing to operate a commercial enterprise in an area governed by strict zoning codes that bar businesses from residential areas. Yet on the other hand, Monte Nido is serving teens with a life threatening condition and they have NYS law on their side. New York State's Padavan Law dictates that group home operators can break local code to operate "family-style" treatment homes in areas zoned for single-family houses.

Parties from both sides are passionate about their convictions and have called on the Scarsdale Board of Trustees to endorse their respective sides. In recent weeks, residents have questioned the role of the Mayor and the Village Board in the decision making process. According to New York State law, the duties of Village trustees include, "the protection of its property, the safety, health, comfort, and general welfare of its inhabitants, the protection of their property, the preservation of peace and good order, the suppression of vice, the benefit of trade, and the preservation and protection of public works."

Given their responsibilities, should the Board act to safeguard residents' property rights and use their power to block the treatment home, or do they have an ethical responsibility to welcome the facility, which will treat adolescents who may be very similar to young girls in Scarsdale? In short, is it the Board's responsibility to defend the folks that have already made a significant investment in the Village or to open doors for a company to use the Scarsdale name to draw select clients to their facility? As with most controversies, the issue is not black and white. I would contend that it is the Board's job is to weigh the rights of residents vs. the needs of Monte Nido and their patients.

When the application was filed, the Trustees cast a wide net to be sure that everyone concerned could be heard. They provided residents with a forum to find out the facts and air their views at an information session with the leadership of Monte Nido at the Scarsdale Library on November 15. This session was followed by a meeting at Village Hall on November 24. When there was not enough time for everyone to speak at the forum, Mayor Mark made an unprecedented decision to delay the regular session of the Village Board to give everyone a chance to come to the microphone.

It should be noted that the issue drew one of the largest crowd I've ever seen at Village Hall as well as petitions, emails and letters. And though some advocated for Monte Nido, the overwhelming sentiment among those who spoke was against allowing the facility to operate in the Village. Neighbors of the home feared diminution of their property values, added traffic, a strain on village services and the presence of a commercial enterprise in a residential area with it's own historic covenant. Though it was acknowledged that the Padavan Law trumps local zoning code and has rarely if ever been successfully challenged, residents lobbied the Mayor and Trustees to object and make an attempt to discourage the facility in Murray Hill. To many, the use of the Padavan Law to open a for-profit treatment center owned by a private equity firm appeared to twist the intention of the law.

Following much deliberation the Board of Trustees voted unanimously to file an objection. In a statement explaining the decision, Mayor Mark noted that the facility would likely pose no risk to the neighborhood but said, "The Heathcote area through which Morris Lane runs has been an exclusively a residential area throughout its more than 100-year existence as a developed part of the Village. Neither Monte Nido, nor any other facility similar to the one proposed, could locate in that part of the Village absent the Padavan Law."

Though it's doubtful that the Commissioner of Health will sustain the Trustee's objection to the home, in their decision to oppose Monte Nido, it appears that the trustees listened to a large group of constituents and weighed their concerns versus the desires of an outside group to challenge Village code.

To me the issue is similar to the discussion about Fair and Affordable Housing. When the Anti-Discrimination Center won a lawsuit against Westchester County in 2009, the county was charged with building 750 units of affordable housing in areas that lacked diversity and where "restrictive zoning code" blocked affordable housing. The Federal Monitor called on the County Executive to " take communities to court to stop them from blocking integration through restrictive zoning." In Scarsdale, this could mean that a 3-acre plot on Heathcote Road might be the site of a 10 or 20 unit building of affordable units.

How did the Village react to this challenge? Rather than invite the construction of multi unit housing in areas zoned for single-family homes, the trustees formulated a new comprehensive village plan that allowed for multi-unit buildings in Scarsdale's commercial districts. In addition, they adopted model code that required the inclusion of affordable house into new developments in the Village. In this way, they complied with the HUD settlement while safeguarding property rights.

But Monte Nido is a tougher nut to crack. Two weeks after the Trustees sent their objection to the Commissioner of Health, four residents appeared at the December 9 meeting of the Board of Trustees and harshly criticized their decision. They questioned the Trustees values and called the decision "selfish" and "intolerant." Jeff Blatt said, "you are elected to use your judgment," and Josh Frankel called this "Scarsdale's sorriest moment." Dr. Andrea Grant said, "The only reason left for continued opposition is prejudice and Jonathan Bradlow said it was a "vote of support for the stigmatization of mental illness," and asked the trustees to withdraw their objection.

Though these residents have every right to disagree, their comments would have been more helpful before the die was cast. They had ample opportunity to make their views known when the Trustees were assessing the views of their constituents. Furthermore, the latecomers called on the trustees to exercise moral leadership. They believed that the trustees' ethical responsibility should supersede their charge to protect the property of their constituents, which is one of the mandates of serving as a trustee under NYS law. The law is silent on the moral or ethical responsibilities of Village trustees.

On balance, I believe that the Board did carefully weigh all the factors. They received a loud message from those who live nearby the proposed facility and balanced their objections against ethical concerns and the realities of the Padavan Law. By filing the objection to the facility they responded to homeowners who have made a significant investment in Scarsdale and bear a hefty tax burden. At the same time, the Trustees surely realize that their move was more form than substance as the odds are slim that Monte Nido will be turned away.

Critics might not agree with the Board's decision to object to Monte Nido, but they should acknowledge that the Board listened, deliberated and voted to do what they determined was best for Scarsdale. In other words, they did their job.

Scarsdale received this note from the Village Attorney on December 14: In response to the Village's Notice of Objection to Monte Nido's Padavan Notice, the Office of Mental Health informed the Village that the requested hearing will be scheduled sometime after the upcoming holidays.

Note from the Village:  CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL VACANCIES ANNOUNCED:

The Personnel Committee of the Village Board of Trustees has announced two (2) vacancies on the Conservation Advisory Council (CAC).

The Conservation Advisory Council's (CAC) mission is to advise the Board of Trustees on issues affecting the Village's environment and the maintenance of its natural character. In recent years the CAC has undertaken a review of the Village's tree ordinance, explored leaf collection alternatives and it is now reviewing municipal storm water strategies and policies.

The CAC's approach is to carefully research and discuss policy alternatives and to craft recommendations that attempt to respect the legitimate concerns of all stakeholders. The CAC meets once monthly for lively and often creative discussion. To insure independence of thought, it relies on diversity and is an ideal entry into Village government. If you care about your local environment and beyond, joining the CAC is one of the best ways you can help.

The CAC meets once a month to research and formulate Village policy regarding the environment, trees, landscaping, leaves and other issues. Are you interested in preserving Scarsdale's natural character? Want to positively affect the future? Apply to join the CAC.

All interested residents may apply online at the Village website, www.scarsdale.com, under "Village News, Volunteers Needed for Boards and Councils" or submit their resume directly to the attention of the Personnel Committee Chair, Trustee Carl Finger, Scarsdale Village Hall, 1001 Post Road, Scarsdale, N.Y. 10583. For further information contact the Village Clerk's office at 914-722-1175.