P.O. Box 199, White Plains, New York, 10605

To: White Plains Mayor Thomas Roach

The Common Council of White Plains

Date: January 24, 2025

Subject: 1 Sycamore Lane Development Proposal

Dear Mayor Roach and Members of the White Plains Common Council,

As you are aware, concerned residents of the Rosedale neighborhood have appeared before either the Common Council or the Zoning Board of Appeals on a continuous basis since May of 2024 to express their concern over the proposal to develop 1 Sycamore Lane into a Buddhist Temple Campus.

On August 7, 2024 the ZBA held its first public hearing regarding their request to obtain several variances for wetlands setbacks, parking, setback and structure height.  In response to the development proposal, on August 23, 2024, residents of the Rosedale neighborhood filed an appeal of the City’s Building Department’s interpretation of the City’s Code as it relates to the number and scope of the required variances.

At the ZBA public hearing on September 4, 2024, the attorney representing the 1 Sycamore applicant represented that the applicant intended to file a revised plan for its campus within the next couple of weeks.  Inasmuch as the plans would be changing, it was agreed between the ZBA and the counsel for the Rosedale Neighborhood’s interest that the appeal application would be adjourned until the revised plans were submitted and the concerned neighbors had an opportunity to review the revised plans.

Weeks turned into months and we didn’t see any new plans.  So, in September, October and December 2024 we made FOIL requests for the entire file regarding the 1 Sycamore Lane application.  On December 30th, in response to a call requesting the status of the plans from a Sycamore Lane resident to the ZBA secretary, the secretary informed the resident that no new plans had been submitted.

On January 7th, one day before the January 8th ZBA hearing, we received a response to the FOIL requests. What we discovered was both shocking and disturbing.  For starters, we learned that revised plans WERE filed with the City on at least THREE separate occasions, September 26, October 28 and November 1. HOWEVER, none of the plans were provided to us in response to the FOIL request.  It was only after we brought this to the attention of the ZBA that they were sent to us, two days after the January 8th ZBA hearing.

Besides the failure to disclose the three plan submissions, we were appalled to read in a communication from counsel for the 1 Sycamore Lane applicant to the Deputy Building Commissioner that he was aware that the City intended to stand by its “previously issued interpretations and application of the White Plains Code.”  That email is dated September 19, 2024, just 27 days after our appeal was filed.  We ultimately did receive a formal decision from the City at 5:00 PM on January 8th, two hours before the scheduled ZBA hearing.  Of note, earlier in the day on January 8th we received an email from the ZBA secretary reminding us that our appeal application was on the agenda for that night.  We never received such an email for our prior appearances.  Despite the fact that we had not received the plans and despite the fact that we received the City’s position regarding our appeal just moments prior to the hearing, it appeared that the ZBA was ready to rule on our appeal.  We ultimately convinced the ZBA to adjourn our application until we could review the plans and the position taken by the City’s Building Department.

We believe there are some very serious problems within your Building Department.  Why would they not provide us with copies of the plans in response to a FOIL request? As you are aware, failure to comply with a FOIL request can expose the City to significant damages. Why would the opposition attorney know the City’s position with regard to our appeal and we were not told of the decision some three months later, just a couple of hours before the Building Department wanted the ZBA to make a ruling?

As a result of the above we have serious concerns as to how the City will fairly review the application to develop this property.  Among others, are questions of collusion, bias and transparency.

This proposal is best described as trying to place a square peg into a round hole.  The property is located in a R1-30 zoning district which does allow for religious facilities.  In fact, the Unitarian Church is situated on the opposite side of Sycamore Lane.  The use of this property as a Buddhist Temple is not our concern.  Our concerns are the environmental impact and the impact on the character of the neighborhood.

We encourage each of you to visit the site to understand what we are referring to.  This 4 acre site is bisected by a bucolic stream that feeds directly into the Mamaroneck River.  As you are keenly aware, during storm events, the residents downstream of this body of water are continuously flooded.  And, it’s not just your constituents, but our neighbors in Harrison, Mamaroneck, Scarsdale and Rye are catastrophically impacted as well.  Both the Town of Harrison and Village of Mamaroneck have submitted to the ZBA letters of opposition to this proposal.  Of the 4 acres, approximately 3 acres are either wetlands or in the wetlands buffer.  This proposal, if allowed to be built, places a parking lot, an ancillary “tea house/souvenir shop” and a 12,000 – 9,000 SF temple (which includes dormitory style bedrooms for visiting worshipers) all within the wetland buffer (Including one structure within 5’ of the stream).  Additionally, and significantly, the proposal calls for the erection of a 30’ tall pagoda to be placed atop an environmentally protected rock outcropping.  The Building Department noted that this site is “Environmentally Sensitive” and hence requires Planning Board approval.

Recognizing the importance of protecting environmentally sensitive locations and the City’s wetlands, as recently as 6 months ago you enacted a law to provide further protections against this exact type of encroachment into the wetlands and the wetlands buffer.  This proposal will be the first (or one of the first) tests as to whether the City actually cares about environmentally sensitive lands or if it was just giving lip service to appease certain constituents.

While we continue to dispute the Building Department’s code interpretation and believe that the applicant’s proposal requires more than 10 significant area and use variances, the Building Department in its denial letter recognized 4 required variances, 3 of which exceed the requirement by more than 50%.  In other words, these are not just minor variances.  It’s as if the applicant totally disregards the existing zoning!

The applicant would have the City believe that it wants to develop this property with over 15,000 SF of buildings to accommodate no more than 12 monks and a once-a-year celebration with 50 visitors.  In order to meet their needs, they require the City to grant a significant parking variance (They claim they need a variance of 36 spots) and they need the City to agree to totally disregard the wetlands protection law that it so recently enacted.

We can’t think of a worse scenario for the use of this property.  If this applicant wants to use this property for a Buddhist Temple, we will welcome them as neighbors.  Just don’t allow them to destroy our sacred wetlands and the character of our neighborhood.  Grant them permission to build in conformity with the existing zoning and environmental laws of the City.  No one is interested in infringing upon their rights to practice their religion, but it can’t be achieved by taking away our rights and our property.  This property can be used to accommodate a Buddhist Temple, just not as the current proposal desires.

Thank you for hearing our concerns regarding the impact of this proposal and the handling of the applications before the ZBA.

Very truly yours,

Rosedale Residential Association

Anthony Fiorenza, President

Shawn Woodford, Vice President

Sara Bergman, Secretary

Angie Shaver, Treasurer

John Cherico, Board Member

Jeanene D’Ambrosio, Board Member

Laurie Halstead, Board Member

Carolyn Kennedy, Board Member

Jeremy Arcus Goldberg, Board Member

Mike Sanchez, Board Member

Charles Lederman, Board Member

Chris Barry, Board Member

Jolie DeLaCruz, Board Member

Gregory Fitch, Board Member

Ariel Jamil, Board Member