Tuckahoe Village Departments

TUCKAHOE TALK
With Mayor John Fitzpatrick

Crestwood — the Future vs. the Past

June 1, 2010

A request for rezoning by the owner of the two gas stations in the Crestwood section of Tuckahoe has led to a great deal of discussion. Specifically, the owner wishes for the lots to be rezoned from business to business/residential. It is important to note this undertaking was not initiated by the Village Board; it is a right of any property owner to make this request. In fact, in this case the approved Master Plan already recommends this amendment.

The entire area in question, opposite the Crestwood train station of our village, is zoned business. However, many properties within this zone are currently inconsistent with a pure business distinction. We have business/residential, and even purely residential. The Master Plan Committee, comprised of village residents, recognized the inconsistency and recommended the village board amend the zoning code to make the entire area business/residential. After approving the Master Plan, the board saw no reason to amend without a request. We decided not to instigate this particular change, but instead wait and see what would be presented in the future, and then take each application on a case by case basis so to better monitor and control the growth of the area.

Since the Master Plan with a Crestwood rezone recommendation was voted upon nearly two years ago, perhaps some feel this is a "done deal" or a formality. That couldn't be further from the truth, as evidenced by the past four months of ongoing public hearings on the matter. During this process as many questions as opinions have been introduced by residents and non-residents. For instance, due to heightened awareness of the County's yet-to-be-implemented affordable housing settlement, residents have frequently inquired whether the proposed building would be low income or affordable housing. The answer is neither.

"What is the benefit?" is another frequently asked question and certainly may seem to be a valid one, but is remarkably oversimplifying. As previously stated, the owner has the right to petition the Village Board for this change. The information we gather in rationally making our decision should be weighed as to whether the proposal is "detrimental" in order to reject. Claiming we didn't see enough benefit would not be grounds for rejection. Nevertheless, realistically both benefit and detriment are subjective.

The merit of benefit varies on who you talk to. For example, some believe gas stations simply don't look good and getting rid of them is a benefit. On the other hand, the increase in the amount of revenue from taxes at full occupancy to the Village and the Eastchester school district may be viewed by others as enough benefit. Removing the 90 plus commuter vehicles, which currently utilize the site, and eliminating the daily trips of gas station patrons may be viewed as a benefit. Doing away with the large curb cuts, which now serve as entrance to the site, and thereby reintroducing many on-street parking spaces may seem beneficial. In fact, the Village Board is not charged with design of this or any building, only whether the site's maximum allowable use under a rezone is consistent with the Village's plan for the future.

The owner of the current parcels has allowed the existing businesses to operate while formulating development plans, but is now ready to advance. Some residents have voiced opinions that what could be built under the allowable business zone parameters are veiled threats. That may be the case or it may not. One Eastchester Councilman, who lives close by but outside the village, advised that we should "call his bluff", referring to the builder. Gambling with one's own money may be acceptable, but responsible elected officials don't have that luxury. Fortunately, Tuckahoe's Village Board doesn't believe the future of Tuckahoe should be gambled upon. I will say my limited exposure of watching professional poker players has revealed successful players don't play hunches. They use information and calculations to make their decisions, leaving the amateurs to act on hunches and be summarily fleeced. I am not here to postulate on whether the owners are bluffing. This site not only could have the three story office or professional building that some believe is a bluff, but alternatively a large commuter parking lot. Since both sites are currently operating as commuter parking lots, closing the gas portion and expanding the parking wouldn't be a change of use, but certainly would be detrimental.

Statistical data on the number of school children this building may possibly introduce has also been questioned. However, the owner's experts as well as the village's independent planner agree that the number is 3 to 5. Since the apartments would have both one and two bedrooms and are 900 square feet, they traditionally aren't large enough for raising a family. I realize that some feel even one student is too much and I also realize that some don't believe the data at all. Personally, I do. My wife and I lived in a two bedroom apartment with our eldest son when he was a baby, and the amount of stuff associated with a child forced us to relocate to a house.

Residents under the erroneous belief that Tuckahoe has expanded at an unreasonable pace need only to look at the facts to see this is false.

Retaining our "villagey" feel and balance is paramount in our decision-making process. This building is only one of the many issues facing my fellow board members and me on a daily basis. Each subject offers its own unique type of assault on the village, such as the current inquiries by Subway and Dunkin' Donuts to set up shop within Tuckahoe. The board doesn't pick and choose which fight we engage to keep Tuckahoe charming, we engage every one. As the Red Queen aptly pointed out about being in Wonderland, "it takes all the running you can do to keep in the same place."