Details

Written by Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 08 December 2015

Created: 08 December 2015

Last Updated: 21 July 2016

Hits: 12288

Ambitious plans for a major renovation to the Scarsdale Library were unveiled at an elegant party called Books, Bits and Blueprints on Thursday night December 3rd. The library never looked better – furniture in the main reading room was cleared to allow for a bar, a band and a spread of hors d'oeuvres, and a waterfall of sparkling lights was hung from the mezzanine, making the space look more like a nightclub than a study space.

On hand were hundreds of supporters, young and old including library employees, Village Trustees, school board members, bibliophiles, parents and community members. Renderings for the proposed new space were displayed, giving everyone a chance to preview what the library board and architects have envisioned for the future.

According to Library Director Elizabeth Bermel, the current library is heavily used and inadequately configured to meet the demands of the community. Though Scarsdale ranks 16th in population in the county, our library ranks fourth in usage. There are 300,000 annual visits and the library is "hopping" at all hours of the day, seven days a week. In order to offer a space where residents can work, meet, engage and utilize emerging technology the building needs to be transformed.

The plans, which can be viewed here, involve renovations to all the existing interior spaces and expansions around the perimeter to allow the library to be integrated with its park-like setting. Wiring and equipment for state-of-the art technology will be installed to allow users to collaborate, do research and access new media.

The entry will become a glass lobby and café where users can chat, relax and enjoy a snack or light meal. The new configuration will include several flexible meeting rooms and small group study rooms. The children's wing and children's program room will be updated and there will be a separate teen room as well. The main reading rooms will be encased in glass and surrounded by a reading gallery and deck that looks out on library pond. The current reference room will be a quiet reading room with comfortable seating. Those who work from the library will have access to a technology suite with a printer, copier, laminator and other equipment to accommodate hands-on projects.

The basement will be renovated to serve as a staff work and lunch area and there will be a room with historical archives that can be accessed by the public. The administrative offices on the second floor will be also be redone.

In addition to making the library more user-friendly, the renovation will address some structural issues:

The roof will be replaced
An elevator will be added for multi-level access from the basement to the second floor.
New ADA compliant restrooms will be built that can accommodate wheelchairs and families
There will be an updated kitchen
New windows will be installed
A powerful generator will supply heat, electricity and internet access to the building if the area loses service.

The price tag for the project is estimated at approximately $18.5 million with an additional million needed to set up a temporary library at Supply Field for the 18 months it would take to build the new library. The Library Campaign Committee is seeking to raise $7.5 million in private monies to fund a portion of the project, with the balance coming from Scarsdale Village, who will post a bond to finance their share. There is a precedent for a public private partnership from the construction of the original library.

At a meeting at the library with leaders of Scarsdale's neighborhood associations, (SNAP) on Monday December 7, Library Board President Terri Simon and Mayor Jon Mark revealed more about how the project might be financed.

Simon said the Campaign Committee is now soliciting major gifts to kick off the campaign. They hope to soon raise enough to pay the architects to do complete design and construction drawings that can be sent out for bids.

Mayor Mark said he was enthusiastic about the plans and that the other Village Trustees have expressed varying degrees of support for the project. He called the public portion of the financing, $12 million, "a big nut" and offered some back-of-the-envelope estimates of what the financing would mean to taxpayers. He estimated that if the Village posted a bond for $12 million at an interest rate of 2.75%, annual payments on the debt would be $985,000 a year. If this amount were divided by approximately 5,900 households, on average each household would pay $167 per year for 15 years.

Mark said that this expense needs to be balanced against other demands on the Village budget including funding for major sewer line renovations and road repairs. He asked the community to let the trustees know their views by sending an email to [email protected] or attending a meeting of the Board of Trustees and speaking at the public comments session.

At the SNAP meeting, audience members posed questions, including:

What will happen if the Library Campaign Committee is not able to raise the full $7.5 million? Mark said that either the Village would fund the balance or ask the Library Board to scale back their plans.

Have the architects supplied an estimate on constructing a new library, rather than renovating the existing structure? Simon said that community sentiment supported saving the library and conserving the stone portions of the exterior so this option was not explored.

Is it necessary to open the temporary library during the construction? Could Scarsdalians simply use neighboring libraries? Bermel said that the state mandates that the Village maintain a library or pay neighboring libraries hefty fees to service Scarsdale residents. Simon added that the renovations to the Supply Field building would be permanent and would improve the facility for the future.

Have the architects provided an estimate for the structural improvements without the renovation – i.e. a bid to repair the roof, build ADA compliant restrooms, repair the windows? Simon said that since the existing structure can't accommodate some of these changes all the pieces fit together for a complete renovation.

What do you think? Express your views in the comments section below.

All photos by Paula Whittlin

Details

Written by Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 14 December 2015

Created: 14 December 2015

Last Updated: 16 December 2015

Hits: 5765

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.

Details

Written by Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 25 November 2015

Created: 25 November 2015

Last Updated: 25 November 2015

Hits: 16262

A hearing about an application to open a residential treatment facility in a residential neighborhood on Morris Lane in Murray Hill drew a record crowd to Village Hall for a pre-Thanksgiving meeting on Tuesday night November 24. Prior to the meeting, the Village had received 41 communications in opposition to the application and another seven petitions. The room was filled with both advocates and objectors, including representatives from Monte Nido -- the corporation who runs similar residential treatment centers in New York, California, Oregon and Massachusetts, attorneys for both sides, local residents who fear the impact of the center, others who believe this area needs the facility, the leaders of the Scarsdale Advisory Council on People with Disabilities and experts on anorexia, traffic and more.

Since the property is accessed on Morris Lane in Scarsdale but borders on Dorchester Road, it affects residents of both Scarsdale and New Rochelle. Furthermore, since it is located on a flag lot, the driveway crosses several neighboring properties and a sewer line easement was formerly granted to run a pipe through a property on Heathcote Road.

For those who are puzzled as to why a commercial facility would be permitted to operate in an area zoned for residential use, the answer lies in the Padavan Act which was enacted in 1978. This legislation dictates that group homes serving those with mental and physical health needs be treated as single-family homes and that local zoning codes cannot bar their establishment in residential areas.

According to attorneys, the case law shows that municipalities that challenge the law have had very little success. Scarsdale needs to act within 40 days of the October 27th application and approve the application, suggest an alternative location in the village, or object if there is clear and convincing evidence that it would cause an over-concentration of facilities or an undue burden on the community.

Mayor Jon Mark gave representatives from Monte Nido and the lawyers from both sides the opportunity to speak first, which used up most of the meeting time. The trustees than went briefly into executive session before they opened the regular bi-weekly meeting of the Board of Trustees and amended their agenda to give more time to those who wished to speak on the issue.

Following public comments, there was a pause for another deliberation among the trustees and the Village Attorney. When Mayor Mark returned to Rutherford Hall and delivered their decision, it brought cheers from the crowd. He announced that after hearing the residents and studying the documents they received, the trustees have decided to file an objection to the application with the Department of Health and Human Services "on the grounds of over concentration, and such other grounds as may exist, if any." He anticipates that the Commissioner of Health will schedule a hearing within 15 days, but asked Monte Nido to reconsider their plans, saying, "It would seem contrary to pursue a plan that elicits this level of opposition." Though the Village does have the right to suggest another location for the facility within Scarsdale, Mark said the trustees would decline to do so and asked Monte Nido to look for other options in southern Westchester to locate the facility. (Mayor Mark's full comments are shown below.)

Representatives from both sides presented persuasive arguments. Attorney David Steinmetz was retained by Monte Nido to support their application and noted that he had declined business from opponents of the home who had also asked him to represent them.

Seeking to head off objections about traffic, he argued that Monte Nido's home in Irvington houses 14 adults who have their own cars and often come and go from the property. In Scarsdale, the adolescent girls would not have cars of their own. He sought to warn trustees about objecting to the facility, saying similar homes had been opened in Southampton, Chappaqua and Port Chester. Claiming, "there will not be more than 6-8 people on site at a time," he said, "I am disturbed at the vituperative comments."

Vicki Kroviak, the Monte Nido CEO who lives in Irvington told the group that she suffered from an eating disorder as a teen and now has a child with special needs. She said Monte Nido chose Scarsdale because they were looking for a home in "lower Westchester that met our specific requirements." She said, we "receive a large number of calls from people who want us to take their adolescent daughters and we are not licensed to do that here." She said, "We have been looking for almost a year," and this home is large enough, has a large lot, beautiful rooms, a swimming pool, a six-car garage, wide hallways, an elevator and a "high degree of accessibility for those with physical disabilities."

Attorney Joshua Grauer of Cuddy and Feder represented four residents who live near the proposed facility. He discussed the "Unique natures of the lot," and limited access to it caused by a driveway which he said was 200 feet long and only 12 feet wide and poses a problem for cars, trucks and ambulances that might need to access the property. He said, "We need a full blown parking plan and site study in conjunction with the proposal. We are asking the village to review all of the facts and obtain all the details before you reach a decision. Does this location create an over-concentration and will it substantially alter the character of this particular locale. We contend that it will."

Traffic Engineer Bernard Adler sought to estimate the number of daily trips in and out of the driveway that would be generated by the new facility. While a single family home has on average 10 trips a day, he thought this facility would act more like a commercial site than a residence and bring anything from 32 to 64 trips a day to the street.

Mark Hauser of Heathcote Road said, "This is not about helping young girls. I looked into buying one of these facilities as an investment." He said, "Monte Nido is owned by a private equity firm who are focused on generating cash flow and profits. If it means charging more and cutting costs, so be it." He conjectured, "If it's sold, we don't know who will buy it and what they will do with it. There is nothing that prevents them from changing the license to accommodate different kinds of patients...Even if you impose regulations, how will you enforce and monitor these rules?"

Mayor Jon Mark asked attorney Steinmetz if he was willing to give the Village an extension on the 40 days to consider the project. Steinmetz replied, "We need to know what we will be asked."

Nancy Turett, a mother of four and an advocate for Monte Nido explained that her daughter had anorexia and had to be sent 1,000 miles away for treatment. She said, "That's why there needs to be a Monte Nido in lower Westchester. This property is perfect for meeting the needs of caring for these girls. I am a health communications advocate. Monte Nido has impeccable values. If you really want to get rich, you don't go into healthcare facilities. (The audience roared in response.) She said, "These people are only good and my daughter is alive because she had residential care."

Speaking for the Advisory Council for People with Disabilities Mark Carter said, "We met with Monte Nido and discussed the application with them. The facility meets a critical need for a treatment facility for adolescent girls. It would be the only one in New York State. As a result of our review process we support the application."

Marian Green, also of the Advisory Council said, "We have determined that the facility would not pose hazards or extra costs to the community. The girls will not go to school. They are an approved healthcare provider. They are a protected class of citizens."

Dr. Gil Botvin of Heathcote Road said he has lived here for 25 years and considers himself "immensely fortunate." He said, "We were stunned when we learned that a company planned to transform a house into a treatment facility.... They will need dieticians, nurses, specialty practitioners, cooks, housekeepers and workers. It adds up to a lot of people. They would be permitted to have up to 14 girls there. That's more than in any normal home in Scarsdale. They will need increased services such as fire, police and sanitation. It raises serious concerns about traffic and safety. Traffic on Heathcote Road is often backed up and it is already difficult for us to get out of our driveway. We appreciate the need for the facility but think it is wrong headed. Protect our interests by asking then to extend the review process and to provide information on impact on the community. Look at saturation in terms of Scarsdale and New Rochelle. There must be more suitable sites for a facility like this."

The Mayor again asked Steinmetz for an extension on the 40 days, and Steinmetz said, "We don't have the burden of proof. The municipality has the burden, adding, "We could certainly get a traffic study."

Dr. Mark Koch from Birchall Drive said "I work with hospitals and critical care units.
They change their missions when needed. This sounds like a hospital to me. I am worried about it."

Susan Biarritz of Dorchester Road said the intersection of Dorchester and Morris was already so dangerous that the children's bus stop had been moved. She questioned accessibility to the driveway, the lack of street parking and said, "this is not the right location."

Mark Jason of South Morris Lane said that there are 120 kids under the age of 15 living within 2 blocks of this site. He wanted to know what would happen to kids on bikes and skateboards when cars back out of the driveway onto Morris Lane.

Bob Berg of 32 Tisdale Road supported the application. Though he said he "was initially surprised," he did research on Monte Nido and the Padavan Law. He determined that Monte Nido was an "excellent organization," and that the Padavan Law is enacted to allow facilities like this in residential neighborhoods by supplanting all local zoning. He said he looked at case law and said, "No one has ever succeeded in challenging a home like this. I don't think the board would win a fight a court. I urge you not to try to delay to pacify the neighbors. Do the right thing and encourage homes like this in Scarsdale."

Michael Wachs of 18 Dolma Road said he has a son with cerebral palsey and he "can only imagine the pain and suffering of families with children with eating disorders." However, he questioned the location and said Monte Nido had made misrepresentations." He urged the board to get independent input.

A psychiatrist who lives on Morris Lane said that anorexia is on a spectrum of disorders that is difficult to treat. She said it is often associated with self-inflicted injuries like cutting, which could require ambulances. She said, "If you have 2 or 3 emergencies at the same time – can you bring in the staff? We will not do justice for the people who are being treated or the community to place a home at that site."

Bob Harrison said, "Scarsdale is a Village in a Park and this is not the right location for a facility. He urged the applicants to look at White Plains and reconsider their plans.

Emma Rose Turett, Nancy's daughter, said that she had to go to a treatment facility in Utah. She was there for six and half months and during that time there was only one ambulance at the facility. She said, "Monte Nido is for people who are mentally and physically stable. It's very rare for suicide attempts or runaways. It's a controlled environment and no one is ever alone."

With that, Mayor Mark read the statement below, announcing that the Trustees had decided to file an objection. He urged Monte Nido to look for other sites, but if they persist, Mark anticipated that the Commissioner of Health would hold a hearing on the matter within 15 days. Should the Commissioner decide in favor of Monte Nido, it is not clear whether the facility would open or if the Village and its residents would take other measures to block the application.

Statement from Mayor Jon Mark:

Monte Nido Padavan Notice

The purpose of the joint meeting of the Land Use and Law Committees held earlier this evening was to gather more information concerning a notice received from Monte Nido & Affiliates that it intends to establish a residential treatment center on 2 Morris Lane South. The facility would be for the treatment of up to eight adolescent girls ages 12-18 with eating disorders. The notice, received in hard copy on October 28, 2015 (electronically on October 27, 2015), was sent pursuant to Section 41.34 of the New York State Mental Hygiene Law – a provision referred to as the Padavan Law. A copy of the notice is posted on the Village web site under the Board of Trustees tab.

The Padavan Law has been on the books for 37 years. Its purpose is to permit certain facilities licensed by the New York State Office of Mental Health to be established in residential areas, notwithstanding local zoning laws that might otherwise prohibit locating these types of facilities in residential areas. By serving a Padavan Notice, Monte Nido triggered a 40-day period that started when the notice was electronically received on October 27th. Prior to the expiration of the 40-day period, the Village may do one of the following;

• Approve what is proposed in the notice;
• Propose alternate sites within its jurisdiction for the proposed facility; or
• Object on grounds that the facility would result in such a concentration of community residential facilities for the mentally disabled in the municipality or in the area in proximity to the site selected that the nature and character of the areas within the municipality would be substantially altered, a concept referred to as "over concentration."

If the Village takes no action within the forty days, the law would permit Monte Nido to proceed with its plan.
We note that because a small sliver of the property in question, specifically the access drive to the site that crosses the New Rochelle border, a similar Padavan Law notice was sent to the City of New Rochelle. Our Village Manager Steve Pappalardo spoke with the New Rochelle City Manager and learned that New Rochelle uses an Advisory Committee to review proposals of this nature and provide a recommendation to the City Council prior to the City taking any action. Mr. Pappalardo understands that as of today, the City of New Rochelle has yet to take any formal action on this matter.

At the meeting just concluded and during the course of this meeting, we heard from representatives of Monte Nido and from residents. We have also reviewed the materials submitted by their counsels over the past week or so. The gist of what Monte Nido has presented is that the facility would be operated in a very low key way – as a residence – with a view to protecting the privacy of those in treatment and with due regard for the residential neighborhood in which it is located. They represented there would be no signs or outdoor lighting announcing the facility, no vans with Monte Nido logos ferrying residents or staff, that anticipated parking needs could be handled on site, with no need for street parking. Visits to the facility by family members would be scheduled with no drop-in traffic. They also stated that the footprint of the existing structures would not be changed and that any modifications to the structure would be to the interior. Monte Nido would go through the Village's customary processes to obtain any building permits needed for such work. In terms of compliance with fire and other safety codes, Monte Nido has represented that they expect to have to comply with them as any other residence would. While Monte Nido noted that they did not have a contract to purchase the vacant lot next to their property on the corner of Morris Lane South and Dorchester, their acquisition of the property would include an easement over that lot in the event they needed to provide additional access to the house under applicable safety codes.
It is noted that prior to the meeting this evening, Monte Nido had hosted an informal meeting in the Library on November 15, 2015 at which their CEO, Ms. Vicki Kroviak, and some of her colleagues went over certain of the points just mentioned. About a dozen residents attended that meeting as did Trustees Lee, Pekarek and I. A handout prepared by Monte Nido, containing FAQs addressing certain of the points noted is posted on Scarsdale 10583.com.

For their part, most of the comments from residents we have received by letter and email over the past week and heard this evening strongly object to the Monte Nido proposal with a minority of comments in support. It must be said that residents of Scarsdale are sympathetic with the health issue Monte Nido seeks to address. Many of us are aware, either from experience in our own families or in families of friends, of the prevalence of eating disorders in adolescents and the need to treat those disorders. Some residents also understand the desire for discrete treatment centers that allow services to be provided in a home-like setting in order to allow those being treated to experience an ordinary day-to-day routine as part of their recovery process.
However, while the particulars of the residents' objections vary there is a common theme, namely that the siting of this type of facility in a residential neighborhood is simply inappropriate. 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.

This Board has listened to the residents who have written and appeared before us. In light of what we have heard, our review of the materials before us and after consulting with counsel, it is the intention of the Board to file a notice of objection to the Monte Nido proposal on the grounds of over concentration, and such other grounds as may exist, if any. However, although one of the alternatives under the law is to propose alternative sites within the jurisdiction, it is not likely that the Village will pursue that route under the statute since Board does not feel it appropriate to suggest Monte Nido relocate its proposed facility from one Scarsdale neighborhood to another. It is noted, however, that even a cursory look at on the internet indicates that there may be many properties available in Southern Westchester that might meet the needs of Monte Nido for the proposed facility.

It is our understanding that once the objection is filed, either party may request that the Commissioner of Mental Health conduct a hearing on the matter. The Commissioner must then conduct a hearing within 15 days of any such request and make a determination within 30 days after the hearing. It is hoped that during the pendency of the matter, Monte Nido will seriously consider, or reconsider, alternatives in other areas that would meet its needs. Separate and apart from its treatment mission, it would seem contrary to Monte Nido's business interests to pursue a plan that prompts the level of opposition that has been elicited by this proposal. Once we hear back from the Commissioner, and depending on what the ruling is, we will consider what next steps, if any, to pursue. In the interim, if people wish to submit additional materials to the Board, they may be emailed to [email protected] which will cause them to be distributed to the Board and relevant Village staff.