Details

Published: 22 April 2011

Created: 22 April 2011

Last Updated: 22 April 2011

Hits: 4728

Here is a statement from the Scarsdale Conservation Advisory Council that was read at the Scarsdale Village Planning Board meeting on April 14, 2011 during a discussion of the sale of Village owned land at 2-4 Weaver Street to developer Stephen Oder.

Good evening, I am Lena Crandall, speaking on behalf of the Village of Scarsdale Conservation Advisory Council. We are concerned with the long-term impacts the current and future use of the subject property may have on open space, neighborhood character and storm water management given the proximity of the land in question to neighboring undeveloped village parcels, the Five Corners Village Center, and the Sheldrake River Watershed.

The CAC’s Open Space Report, which is available on the Village website highlights the often unrecognized value of undeveloped land. The parking lot area in question, together with the other Village-owned parcels along Weaver Street and the By-Pass create a greenspace buffer and natural entrance to the Five Corners. Equal consideration should be given to the resident-friendly opportunities at this crossroads to promote pedestrian safety, extend the New Rochelle Bike Route into Scarsdale, and beautify the area with landscaping designed to absorb storm water runoff.

Returning now to the driveway and parking lot, please take notice of the intrusion of asphalt over the boundary line and under the trees in lot 91. We are told this is to accommodate excess parking needs for the Scarsdale Volunteer Ambulance Corp. While this small, messy area may seem insignificant, it raises a number of red flags. If there is a demonstrated need for more Ambulance Corp parking; then an attractive, environmentally responsible solution should be determined after public hearings by the appropriate land use boards.

The Village-Wide Comprehensive Storm Water Management Plan details the importance of viewing all lands as being in a watershed. It is our understanding that there is a wet area located across the By-Pass, as well as continued flooding concerns downstream in the Village of Mamaroneck. Accordingly, this conservation council urges an analysis of the Draft Wetlands Map, prepared by Evans and Associates as well as the drainage patterns identified in the storm water study, in order to determine the relationship of these Village-owned lots to the local and regional wetlands and storm water systems. Given the recent development at Heathcote Manor, further studies may be warranted to protect the public.

In conclusion, it is the “big picture” of environmental considerations we ask you to include in your analysis of all village lands - all the time; but, this evening with particular focus on the public parcels located along Weaver Street. As the Village’s Conservation Advisory Council, we recommend that the Land Use Committee work together with staff

“...to give adequate consideration to ensure both the preservation of community character as described in the Village Comprehensive Plan and the protection of residents from the adverse environmental consequences our laws are designed to prevent.” Quote from the Scarsdale Forum’s [previously known as The Town and Village Civic Club Education Forum] Report of the Zoning and Planning Committee on Construction Project Approval Activities.

Details

Published: 27 April 2011

Created: 27 April 2011

Last Updated: 27 April 2011

Hits: 4560

Due to construction on the Popham Road Bridge, drivers who are entering Scarsdale from the bridge are no longer permitted to make a left turn onto East Parkway. Those wishing to turn left must proceed to Chase Road to turn left. Though there is a sign on the bridge, many residents are creatures of habit and fail to notice the new regulation.

In order to enforce the new traffic pattern, the Village has installed a video camera at the intersection and a policeman is posted, at-the-ready, to give tickets to those who fail to notice that they can no longer turn left.

A woman from Edgemont reported that she inadvertently made the left onto East Parkway on Monday morning and was swiftly pulled over and given a moving violation. She asked the policemen if others were confused and he replied, “Yes, lots!”

We asked Deputy Village Manager Steve Pappalardo about the new rule and why a traffic cop was not placed at the intersection to direct traffic, rather than having a policeman on the side dispensing tickets. Here is his response.

“It’s difficult during AM and PM rush hours to physically place an officer in that intersection to direct traffic. Although we do utilize this detail, it is a tight area and the officers need to be careful not to get in the way of traffic for their own personal safety.”

“We publicized the restriction at a televised Village Board meeting and the Scarsdale Inquirer and the bridge contractor installed the appropriate signs on April 14. There are “No Left Turn” signs for eastbound traffic on the southwest side of the bridge as you approach the intersection and another on the traffic signal pole adjacent to the light. We also have a small hand written sign adjacent to the traffic island on the north side of the intersection between the East Parkway north and southbound lanes. In addition, after reviewing the situation in the field yesterday, the Village will be painting pavement markings to read “No Left Turn” at the intersection and will replace the small hand written sign with a larger sign to match the one on the bridge.”

“We will also eliminate the 10 second red signal delay for westbound Popham traffic to allow for eastbound Popham motorists to make the left hand turn onto East Parkway. This was no longer needed since the left hand turn is prohibited.”

“Regarding enforcement, we have found it to be the best way to quickly achieve compliance which is ultimately our objective. From a traffic safety standpoint it is important that this left hand turning movement be eliminated and the turn occur at the Chase Road intersection. In observing the traffic movements yesterday afternoon, I was very pleased with the compliance and believe that motorists are more aware of the prohibition and that violations will diminish.”

 

 

Details

Published: 13 April 2011

Created: 13 April 2011

Last Updated: 14 April 2011

Hits: 8284

The announcements of appointees to Village Boards and Councils on Tuesday night April 12th, omitted one important appointment. It had previously been announced that former Village Trustee Sharon Lindsay would be given a seat on the Planning Board. In fact, Lindsay, who was also a write-in candidate for Mayor in the last election applied for the spot and was told that her appointment to the Planning Board was approved by the entire Board and Mayor Carolyn Stevens in early March. However Tuesday night’s agenda did not include her name and the former Planning Board Chair, Beverly Sved, was asked to continue to serve until another person is nominated.

Below please find the story from Sharon Lindsay, with comments from former Mayors Carolyn Stevens, Peter Strauss and Beverly Sved:

Here is a note from Ms. Lindsay:

“I submitted my CV for consideration for the position opening on the Planning Board in late January. I have an extensive interest and background in the type of land use and zoning issues that Board deals with and, frankly, have always wanted to serve the Village in this capacity. I studied planning and land use at University level and, while at Harvard Law School, worked part time with the Harvard Land Use Task Force at the Graduate School of Architecture on a wetlands evaluation project in the southeastern Boston suburbs. In Scarsdale, I have served as a member of the Board of Appeals for 4 years and went on to Chair that Board for another 4 years. I then became a Village Trustee and was a member of its Land Use Committee for 4 years and its Chair for 3 of those. During my years as Trustee, I also served as Board liase to the Board of Architectural Review and the Board of Appeals for one year each, and the Planning Board for the last three years of my term. This past Fall, I participated in Pace Law School programs on land use planning.”

“I felt I was qualified to apply to serve on the Planning Board and was delighted to hear that my appointment had been agreed upon by the entire, then sitting, Village Board in early March. I subsequently attended Beverly Sved’s retirement dinner on March 16th, at which it was announced that Jane Veron had been nominated by the Board of Trustees to serve as Chair in the coming year and that I had been nominated to fill the position created by Beverly’s retirement.”

“Having served on the Board of Trustees for the past four years, I am well aware that the nominations to Village Boards and Councils that were approved by the then sitting Board are routinely and unanimously ratified at the first meeting of the new Board. Frankly, it would be impossible for the new Board to fill the extensive roster of appointments that must be made at their first meeting in the few days they would have since being sworn in – just as the Village Budget is adopted at that first meeting, in trust that the prior Board had done its homework.”

"So, suffice it to say that I was shocked and surprised when I heard that Mayor Flisser had made efforts in the past weeks to remove my name from the roster of candidates who had been previously approved by the Board, of which she was a member at the time, and substitute someone else … and then, presumably because that effort failed, just remove my name altogether and make no appointment until some later, undetermined, date… which was apparently what the Board voted to do last night."

"At no time, before or after the March 16th announcement, did any then sitting Trustee who approved my nomination – including Mayor Flisser – or either of the two new Trustees sitting on the new Board – discuss with me my qualifications or my nomination. Had they, I would have been happy to discuss any concerns with them. This absence of communication is particularly surprising, since I have had several conversations with Mayor Flisser and several of the Trustees in the past several weeks at various Village and social functions, all of which I thought were quite amiable and during which this subject never was raised. I certainly had no reason to bring it up since I was under the distinct impression that I had been duly discussed and vetted and would have my suggested appointment ratified."

"I have no idea what has gone on here.”

Former Mayor Carolyn Stevens was asked to comment as well, and here is what she said:

“The Personnel Committee met in February and in early March (before the Village election) with the entire Village Board present – including Dr. Flisser. A few candidates were considered and eventually the Village Board selected Ms. Lindsay to fill the vacancy on the Planning Board that would be left with Ms. Sved’s term ending and Ms. Veron was selected to serve as chair. Dr. Flisser told me and the trustees of her intention not to appoint Ms. Lindsay several days before she was sworn in and informed her and the others of her intention to name Dan Hochvert to the post, but he was not appointed either.”

“What is at the root of Dr. Flisser’s failure to appoint Ms. Lindsay? Ms. Lindsay is clearly qualified .The entire Village Board agreed and she and the Planning Board as well as staff had been notified as is custom so that there can be a smooth and easy transition. One can only speculate about the motives.”

Former Mayor Peter Strauss added the following:

“It is certainly unusual to have appointments vetted and tentatively approved by an outgoing Mayor and Board changed by the incoming officials. However, since it is the responsibility of the new Board finally to approve the appointments, that is where the final decisions are made.”

“To miss the opportunity to utilize in a very critical role the service of an extraordinarily qualified and talented person such as Sharon Lindsay would be a terrible loss for the Village.”

And last, here is input from another former Mayor Beverly Sved, who just completed her term as chair of the Planning Board:

“I'm disappointed the Mayor did not appoint Sharon. With her extensive land use experience, she is a natural choice and would be a valuable addition to the Planning Board. Any thoughts on Mayor Flisser's action -- or inaction -- would be speculation on my part.”

No one is certain why Lindsay was denied the spot. It could be that she was the unfortunate casualty of a contentious debate about development at the Five Corners during her last term as Village Trustee, or perhaps Mayor Flisser has personal reasons for denying her rival for Mayor a position in the Village Government.

Whatever the origins of the decision, it should be resolved when the Board of Trustees convenes a Personnel Committee Meeting on April 27th. More to come….