Hits: 294
ANOTHER HEARING IN FRONT OF COUNCIL ON “THE COUNCIL’S FINAL PLAN” BEFORE APPROVAL OR DENIAL.COUNCIL HEARING DATE UNCERTAIN AT THIS TIME.
28 OF 34 SPEAKERS (MOST FROM NEIGHBORHOOD STRONGLY AGAINST NEIGHBORHOOD REZONING FOR DEVELOPMENT after 2 HEARINGS IN 2 MONTHS LASTING A TOTAL OF 2 hours 31 MIN.
WPCNR COMMON COUNCIL CLARION-LEDGER. PART 2 By John F. Bailey. March 7, 2024:
The public had their say in the second half of the Common Council meeting Monday night.
You of 16 days to send your comments and feelings on the plan to the city.
Commissioner of Planning Christopher Gomez and Mayor Tom Roach took 43 minutes of hearing time, delivering detailed explanations of why the ONEWHITEPLAINS Draft Comprehensive Plan was simply a “guide” and not a “set in stone” rezoning of the city.
The city hall duo leading off the public hearing, strongly endorsed more affordable housing by making residential neighborhoods possibilities for building Accessory Rental Units, Cluster-housing and building homes on Conservation Developments such as the Farrell Estates (formerly Ridgeway Country Club), New York Presbyterian p
Mayor Roach followed Mr. Gomez saying the Comprehensive Plan was just a guide. That it was just a “guide” and some or all of the suggestions might never be used. Then he called the first speaker from the public of this continued hearing from last month, After approximately 1 hour and 16 minutes, with all-new speakers who had previously signed up to speak that night, the hearing was closed by the Common Council by unanimous vote.
The takeaway of the their testimonies showed thought, passion, revealing statistics, and at the end of the testimony of 19 speakers pointed some glaring holes in the plan as written that the council might want to take a look at, trust and verify.
The following comments have been edited for clarity and content. The recorded testimonies may be seen on the city website at this URL, or view it on the Government channel FIOS 44 OR OPTIMUM CH.45:
http://whiteplainsny.new.swagit.com/views/701/live
- The lead speaker supported Accessory Dwelling Units that, he said work very well in Los Angeles where he said upscale communities like Glendale, Burbank, Beverly Hills, Glendale have used them to provide workforce housing, affordable homes for young people, and senior living. The Council might want to look into how they do that. The speaker cautioned that “Affordable housing is not going away. .. we have to deal with it. Accessory Dwelling Units are in the public interest.”
- The second speaker a union worker said the city needed to work with Labor unions. He said what was missing from the plan was to create Planned Labor Agreements to make the labor force part of city growth, as the Westchester IDA has adopted.
- Four speakers concentrated on the Windward School Property recently acquired for possible development complaining the property could not support a housing development they see being planned, citing need for infrastructure improvements, and very rocky property. They tied this to the need to “Keep our freedom to have single home property residences.”
- One speaker zoned in on the larger infrastructure improvements needed required to support the scale of development proposed by the ONEWHITEPLAINS plan. With new residents presumed to be flooding the downtown, more police and fire personnel were needed, new underground needs to handle the load of developments, and pay for those foreseen needs. The speaker said the city worked with the French American School of New York, and that did not work with the Gedney Farms neighborhood, and consequently the project was defeated due to lack of city involvement with the neighborhoods. “All residents are in a fight to control the future of the city. I do not understand the lack of communication between the city and the residents.”
- Lack of communication with residents was a recurrent theme. One speaker presented a petition signed by 100 persons saying they had never heard of the plan.” “We need to compromise, work together, use character.”
- Mike Sanchez, Head of the Council of Neighborhood Associations, appreciating the effort and the feedback, nevertheless, he said that there is “more confusion than information and (the plan) could have been better written,” citing Commissioner of Planning Gomez opening statement (see Tuesday WPCNR story). “Nevertheless we are extremely concerned about Windward (school) development, not directly against “suggestions,” but we are here to tell you we are not in favor of those suggestions.” He said the neighborhoods support affordable housing. He said the neighborhoods do not support development meeting the neighborhoods;”
- Another agreed the new plan was a guide and not binding,, but the city they said needs to spell out restrictions and standards and oversight of construction, density of development, water table and sewage capacity. The speaker noted the plan should “not be a sprint, (questioning the rush to approve the plan) but a marathon with more community involvement to tie them to their property.”
- The first woman to speak said in an astute observation said there was no mention of industry development or how White Plains Hospital, the largest industry in the city would affect it. She mentioned the Bronx River Parkway flooding (traditionally in the city), and how the city natural environment would be cared for. She brought up an issue not in the plan: city energy needs, and how to provide for them. “It is not a comprehensive plan,” she said, and added…“And why are there no journalists here (tonight) asking (these) questions?” she asked in a sharp rebuke to the absent press.
9 .The second lady to weigh-in asked about the construction and the traffic tie ups in the downtown(currently already substantial, this reporter’s observation). She noted construction in neighborhoods would be a problem as well and signaled an anthem: “We have a right to live in residential neighborhoods without intrusion of construction.”
10.The fourth woman to speak described herself as a data specialist.
She said the New York State guidelines for a comprehensive plan required “inclusion” and a thorough data review. She said this proceeding was not “remotely” in accordance with what she considers a “quantitative data review” that justified the conclusions of the ONEWHITEPLAINS plan.
She said having one neighborhood represented on the Comprehensive Plan Committee was not “inclusive.” She said in the recent Planning Board meeting, the ONEWHITEPLAINS suggestions were already being spoken of as if the policies in the plan would be the policies of the future. She urged people to watch the video of that meeting. She asked “Tell me why we shouldn’t feel this (plan) isn’t being jammed down our throats.” She noted that the White Plains Planning Board did not seem aware that, nationally, 1/3 of 18 to 45 year olds are still living at home to save money, and 45% of 18-29 year olds were living with parents for the same reason, citing that state of the economy alone will have a very real impact the comprehensive plan (ONEWHITEPLAINS) did not address or verify the trend as a factor in White Plains. She predicted should the new policies in the plan (to expand Accessory Dwelling Units and cluster housing to the neighborhoods) there would be a mass exodus from White Plains.
- The next speaker described the ONEWHITEPLAINS plan as “many great ideas and a few not so great. I understand it is a guideline. I criticize the communication. Many residents have said they did not hear or communicated it existed. This was a great opportunity missed.”
12 & 13, Resuming after a break at 9:30, a fifth woman advocated that a Community Museum be created that would promote arts and become a regional center.
The next speaker said he was “deeply concerned about the preservation and possible rezoning to allow single family homes to erect Accessory Dwelling Units, cluster housing.
The 14th speaker urged caution since present apartments in the downtown have not been built yet ( Hamilton Green, Gateway II, the YWCA apartments and the city has devised this plan without seeing how their effects will playout, urging a wait and see attitude before committing to even more development creating more issues.
The 15th speaker raised an issue on the plan’s reliance on public-private partnerships to achieve the plan building initiatives. He said the plan relying on public-private partnerships (as how things get done) should be voted down because, “with public-private partnerships, you have no accountability.”
Next-up, the 16th speaker centered his comments on the development of the former Galleria and the cost of apartments (which he described as affordable luxury) planned and the ability of the developer to pay fees in lieu of including affordable housing
He suggested the city’s developer option of buying-out option be eliminated, a transfer of the city existing garage to the developer in return for designated “affordable housing” apartments being reserved, and called for a “robust environmental review.”
The 17th speaker and fifth woman to speak identified her profession as architect and suggested that architectural consultant(s) or a Urban Development Board of Review with persons with expertise in urban landscape creation should oversee the design of the New Galleria to assure “an appropriate design framework.”
The 18th to speak was a 7 year resident of White Plains who moved here from Brooklyn. He said around 10 years ago New York City approved redevelopment of the north Brooklyn, which in his opinion provides an example of what happens when government gets involved in development. He said entire neighborhoods were bought out, new developments were pricey and trendy and Brooklyn is now unaffordable to live in. He observed the Comprehensive Plan Committee was “hand-picked” and consisted of persons the administration knew.
He said the city had to pay attention to a lot more voices locally, who are not agreeable with the ONEWHITEPLAINS plan. Going forward with the Common Council evaluation of the process, he advised the city to be “MORE UPFRONT.”
He described the development of Brooklyn by New York City developers as “aggressive gentrification,” that “uprooted families who had lived there for years.”
White Plains in evaluating the Galleria design (whenever that is submitted) should have affordable housing, more openspace operated by the city and involve the Galleria rebuild in a “transparent process.”
The 19th and final speaker doubled down on the expected development of newly developer-acquired property of Windward School and expanded on the need for evaluation of increased flooding in that area as well as the presence of natural gas lines as impeding development and the effects of building more homes there.
At that point, approximately 9:45, two speakers on the “wish-to-speak list’ were called but were no longer present, and the Mayor asked to close the hearing.
The council immediately voted unanimously to do so. They had the option to continue it.
Next the plan goes to the Common Council for review.
The Mayor said White Plains citizens who wished to add their comments had two weeks to send in their written comments on the plan.
See all the action and mayhem at:
http://whiteplainsny.new.swagit.com/views/701/live
