THE LETTER TICKER: BURNING QUESTIONS ON FASNY UNANSWERED. (PART 1)

 
How come after 4+ years of Common Council reviews there are still so many open resident concerns on this FASNY project that require Common Council attention and solutions?
We’re not just referring to a couple of more notable concerns such as FASNY’s massive Traffic, 10-year (Editor’s Note: projected) Construction and the attempts to Circumvent WP Laws as written. . .There are dozens more as our list of 30 resident-driven concerns below details.
Some of our concerns weren’t even brought up by FASNY and discussed in the SEQR process and in Site Plan meetings. . . others were discussed yet contained misleading information and recommendations.
And with so many of our list of FASNY concerns still in need of Common Council real solutions. . .we are wondering if the Council may have received bad advice on the requirements of the SEQR process and the Site Plan reviews?
 
Here’s our list of resident-developed FASNY negatives and concerns that still have not been addressed with realistic solutions:
1.  Current neighborhood Traffic and Living Conditions, starting early in the SEQR process, were never described correctly. . .especially where information on local Commuter Traffic flow and Accident Experience was lacking.
2.  In the SEQR there was no mention of the 10 existing schools on the perimeter of our neighborhood where start times are essentially the same as FASNY’s proposed schedule. . .and the resulting Traffic risk to WP school children walking, biking and in cars or buses will be substantial.
3.  FASNY’s significant Traffic increases of more than 2,000 Vehicle Trips traveling each day into residential neighborhoods was never mentioned at all.
4.  FASNY never acknowledged our country-style streets without sidewalks where any type of permanent Traffic increase is a concern.
5.  FASNY’s flawed North Street Entrance will negatively impact WP school children, seniors and other residents. . .our WP Board of Education pointed this out. . .yet FASNY never came up with any solutions.
6.  FASNY trying to close Hathaway Lane, a Public Street, will increase Emergency Response times to neighborhood homes.
7.  The North Street Entrance and Hathaway Lane Closure decisions both make FASNY’s Traffic worse.
8.  New Environmental Impact Studies (EIS’s) should have been prepared for the North Street Entrance, the Closure of Hathaway Lane and for the Conservancy.
9.  FASNY did not disclose that the Closure of Hathaway Lane helps the value of their property by combining 2 land parcels while also helping them to getting around the “Accessory” restrictions.     
           
10. FASNY’s 10-year Construction program in an area surrounded by private homes is just not right. . . and neither is there claim of 75 ft setbacks from resident homes when FASNY’s own maps show only 25 ft. setbacks from adjacent homes.
11. Also 10 years of significant Noise and Pollution in a current quiet residential neighborhood is a significant Safety and Health hazard to residents.
12. FASNY’s SEQR didn’t acknowledge that large Construction projects in residential areas need stricter requirements than development projects in downtown areas (as we learned with the German School).
13. FASNY doesn’t understand that their plan to destroy 300 of our 100-year old trees and replacing them with new saplings. . .is not a 1 to 1 swap.
14. FASNY building on 53-acres of current grassland is a significant loss of Open Space for our City.
15. FASNY’s planned 3,000 foot-long roadway near NYS designated sensitive land is a threat to our environment.
16. FASNY’s plan to dump carcinogenic herbicides next to resident homes with their planned Conservancy is disgraceful and will harm the Health and Safety of citizens near their property.
17. Additional Water in basements will flow from FASNY building over underground streams and on top of 53 acres of current grasslands.
18. FASNY has been misstating and trying to get around our existing Comprehensive Plan, Zoning and other WP laws as written.
19. (Edited out)
20.  Some Common Council member comments that “you have to give a Special Permit to a school” were not true in the R1-30 Zoning District where a “private secondary or a private elementary school may be eligible for a Special Permit but not both together and certainly not a private regional school campus.  
                                                                                                                                                                          
21. FASNY has ignored discussing the old golf course’s 1925 Restrictive Covenant that would prevent FASNY’s regional school campus.
22. FASNY’s project has (Editor note: may be a contributing cause) already caused resident Property Values to decline before the Construction work even starts.
23. FASNY’s SEQR never considered the alternative of additional residential housing which would be allowed under the existing R1-30 zoning of the old golf course. . .and would provide needed property tax revenue.
24. FASNY’s 53-acre regional school campus is not in Character with our neighborhood and WP laws.
25. With other non-profits experiencing financing difficulties with their expansion plans. . .no mention was made in SEQR of FASNY’s lack of Money on-hand to complete their project in a reasonable time period. . .and what the options for the City and residents would be if FASNY can’t raise enough money.
26. (Edited out)
.
27. The Common Council throughout the 4+ years of reviews have asked few questions of FASNY and provided even fewer answers to their constituents’ questions.
28. The Common Council has allowed FASNY to get away with not having all their up-to-date plan details in one place.
29. Throughout the 4+ years of the SEQR process FASNY has not shown a lot of respect or concern for the Health, Welfare and Safety of neighborhood residents.
30. The Common Council as Lead Agency during the SEQR process didn’t address and eliminate all of the FASNY negatives and adverse impacts.
Marie and Ron Rhodes

Comments are closed.