THE WORLD READS WHITE PLAINS CITIZENETREPORTER — 8,324,077 VISITS IN ONE YEAR

Berg said the 8-story structure most likely have a restaurant on the first floor at street level, and would be available either as “affordable” rentals or condominiums ($80,000 median income to qualify) to satisfy the remaining 42-units he owes the city  to fulfill Mr. Cappelli’s commitment to satsisfy the Common Council’s 6% affordable housing requirement in the Central Business District.

Mr. Berg did not bring up to the Planning Board Mr. Cappelli’s original suggestion that he could build all 41 units on the site of 189 Main Street at the mouth of Court Street, should Mr. Cappelli acquire the 187 Main property adjacent to 189 Main.

Off the Table. If Council Is to Get Affordable Housing It’s to be at 240 Main. 

 Berg told WPCNR exclusively that Mr. Cappelli was no longer considering that option. Asked twice if Mr. Cappelli was still negotiating for 187 Main, Berg said “We have a contract on 189 Main.” Asked what Mr. Cappelli planned to do with the 189 Main Street building, Berg said, “We’ll build something else.”

Berg explained to the Planning Board  that instead of 400 foot Towers at 221, the towers would actually rise to 435 feet, if you include the mechanics of each tower which go on the top of the structures.

Cappelli Zoning Request for 400 feet Accepted After Troubled Questioning.

The Planning Board after much questioning by Planning Board members, Steve Alexander and J. Russell Imlay, referred to the Common Council the Zoning Request that would allow 400 foot heights on sites of 300,000 square feet in the Central Business District 4. This is the ordinance which will pave the way for Council acceptance of the 400 foot condo-rental spires Cappelli plans to build on the 221 Main site. The Board also said that they preferred increasing the amount of onsite open space at ground level to 25%.

Alexander questioned why the developer was writing zoning ordinances for the city, and said he had a big problem with the new ordinance language which did not spell out details of what conditions would allow 400 foot heights past the 300,000 square foot assemblage of property. At one point, Ms. Habel, the Planning Commissioner, interrupted Alexander and overrode him, not allowing him to finish, explaining that developers had the right to petition for a zoning change. A chastened Alexander was read the riot act.

J. Russell Imlay raised the question of whether sites like the Silverman property, using the transfer of development rights legislation created by the Common Council that is in play allowing Mr. Cappelli to build the 221 Main project, could be factored in with property in the Central Business District to create another lot assemblage of 300,000 feet or more, paving the way for additional 400-foot towers as of right. Ms. Habel explained that there was only one other property where that could be achieved and that was The Galleria.

Not to Worry About Transfer of Development Monsters Habel Says.

Habel also said that the Planning Board should not be concerned that the 400 foot height as of right ordinance would extend to the CB3 (East on Main to North Broadway) and UR4 zones, because it was the Planning Department feeling (at this time) that this would put too much density on the adjacent residential neighborhoods. Habel did admit though that a Transfer of Development rights could occur were a developer to assemble adjacent properties that were on opposite sides of a street and adjacent to each other (as exists between the City Center and 221 Main).

Given that the Silverman-Minskoff properties on Mamaroneck Avenue are diagonally across Main Street, it appears that additional acquisitions by a developer assembling properties along the north side of Main Street could be assembled. If such a developer ever obtained the Silverman-Minskoff properties, you could conceivably see the assemblage of a 300,000 square footage between the two properties on an angle to each other across Main Street.

The 400 Foot Club.

 Ms. Habel stressed that any 400 foot building would have to be built in the Central Business District 4, but could not be built on the Silverman-Minskoff jointly owned block immediately behind the Plaza Fountain in such an arrangement. Habel said a 400 foot high property could be built on The Galleria property, for example, (owned by Mills Properties), as it now stands.

A site other than the Galleria that might have a possibility of qualifying for the 400 foot club  in the Central business District would be The White Plains Mall, which consists of four acres (about 160,000 square feet), and if the White Plains Mall owners acquired adjacent property they could qualify to build perhaps to 400 feet. Previously the city had planned to have aerial sidewalks moving persons from buildings in the downtown across streets.

The former owner of The White Plains Mall, James Benerofe, recalls he had planned to purchase the Centroplex building at one time, which is adjacent to The White Plains Mall. That, Benerofe said, would easily have made up 300,000 square feet between the two cites, the Centroplex and The White Plains Mall.

Metropolitan Condos Bog Down in the Parking Lot. 6% Issue Not Decided.

In another hot development issue, The Metropolitan Condominiums slated for DeKalb Avenue and Maple Avenue have run into a cantankerous Planning Board which does not like the potential for a traffic problem on DeKalb and Maple, and also does not like at all the buffering landscaping suggested by the developer. They want more landscaping and buffering and a reworking of the driveway plan.

A legal representative for The Metropolitan said that the issue of whether or not the council’s requirement that new residences being built devote  6% of their units to affordable housing applied to The Metropolitan is still at issue. Ms. Habel volunteered the information that The Metropolitan is not in the Central Business District. It is legal counsel Bill Null’s contention that the Metropolitan being not in the Central Business District is not subject to the 6% rule.

WPCNR THE PLANNING NEWS. By John F. Bailey. January 18, 2004, Updated 5 P.M. E.S.T.: The 1997 Comprehensive Plan Review and Analysis was picked up by WPCNR at the Department of Planning Tuesday afternoon, and is available to all citizens of the city. The Review written by the Department of Planning and incorporating reports, analysis, opinions from city departments, interpreted and compiled under the supervision of the Commissioner of Planning, Susan Habel, is the long-awaited review of how the 1997 Comprehensive Plan is being executed.  WPCNR has also learned the Review has not been released to the Common Council.

It purports, (pending WPCNR analysis), how far the city has come, and purportedly gives a snapshot in time of where the city is at after seven years since the Comprehensive Plan was “accepted” by the city. At first glance the Introduction to the plan makes a point that the 1997 is only a “basic policy framework.” The first impression of the report is that there is no Executive Summary.There is no Table of Contents. It is hard to read.  Sections have Overviews, with apparent recommendations, but it is tedious and slow going and the lack of an index makes it hard to cut to the chase.

THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. HABEL. Citizens interested in the city’s report card on how they are doing following the 1997 Comprehensive Plan may pick up a copy at the Planning Department, while supplies last, for their home libraries. The number of the Planning Department is 422-1253. Photo by WPCNR News.

Though the WPCNR staff has not gotten into the dissection of the plan, one paragraph in the introduction makes a point of saying the Comprehensive Plan is not binding, which echoes Mr. Wood’s comments of a few hours ago (see previous story). The Habel review does so in the following manner with this paragraph, Introduction-Page 2.

The Common Council did not adopt the Comprehensive Plan, instead it accepted and recognized the Plan as the “basic policy framework” within which policy decisions are made. General City Law Section 28-a makes adoption of a comprehensive plan permissive and not mandatory. The Comprehensive Plan does not, therefor, in itself, represent and adopted policy of the City, nor does it compel specific actions. It provides, however, as stated above, a “basic policy framework.”