Council member Stowe: Is all the development helping New Rochelle?

Council Member Stowe: Is all this development helping New Rochelle? by Peggy Godfrey In the 12/16/10 issue of the Westchester Guardian

For the second month, the New Rochelle City Council has had lively debate on the proposed development for 17 Locust Avenue.LLC. In October Attorney John Kirkpatrick of Oxman, Tulis, Whyatt and Geiger, LLP presented a proposal for a 13-floor building of up to 107 apartments claiming 300 residents would buy goods and services in this downtown area. Twenty percent of the apartments would be “affordable” for residents in the $30,500 to $47,000 income levels.
At that meeting Councilman Albert Tarantino expressed reservations about the proposal because this is a heavily populated area on a one-way street. Mayor Noam Bramson felt population density in the area was needed and anticipated getting answers to questions raised in the Environmental Assessment From (EAP). Instead, the November Council meeting produced another raft of Council member comments, complaints and suggestions on the project including zoning changes requested, required parking provisions and other concerns.
Commissioner of Development, Michael Freimuth, brought up the City Council’s role as lead agency for the Environmental Review Process at 17 Locust Avenue, adding several members of the Council had spoken to him about the order of approvals. There were questions about the needed parking, land use, density, and the related IDA (Industrial Development Agency) tax incentives. City Manager, Chuck Strome, clarified that procedurally, the developer requests the initial approvals. Freimuth added any of the needed variances, density bonuses or even the parking needed “may break the deal.” Councilman Barry Fertel wanted clarifications to the request for the a waiver on the density bonus needed since the building is not within 500 feet of a public parking lot. Tarantino suggested a waiver had not been given previously. He then asked what the purpose of this density bonus legislation was. Freimuth answered it “makes an assumption this is a dense area…already developed” Councilman Lou Trangucci then asked if the Council will be given the amount of taxes the developer will have to pay, and was answered, the figures will be in the DEIS (Draft Environmental Impact Statement) but these are not final numbers. A discussion on the tax credits for affordable housing units followed.
Councilman Richard St. Paul then brought up the limited parking available including the lack of visitor parking for this proposed development and added, “Do we need to change the code?” for the number of parking spaces provided. Strome replied that the last zoning revision passed by Council considered 1:1 (one parking space per apartment) sufficient. Freimuth added, “You could ask for much more parking, but then no one would build here.” He felt to get at this problem, parking could be priced differently, such as charging more for a second car. He later answered the market is not strong now. St. Paul continued, “We need to pass a law” that parking needs to be included with the rent..
Council member Roxie Stowe wanted to know the reason for the concentration of growth and density in New Rochelle, Yonkers and Mount Vernon. “Is this density really helping the City? ” Mayor Bramson replied this was a “big question” which cuts to the core of planning. He was assuming a higher density :in the downtown area. He felt it will “ultimately” help the taxpayers. He asked, “Where do you want growth?” adding Freimuth had said growth is inevitable and then added you can chew up open space…or concentrate where there is preexisting transit. Then he stated, “We don’t want to give approval to a bad project.”
After the meeting,Elaine Waltz, President of the South End Civic League, stated.”They keep taking parking from the residents and there’s no place to go.” Councilman Trangucci noted that we had two different philosophies demonstrated at this meeting. One was to create a more dense, expanding city with an increase in the number of buildings, and the other is to leave the city as it is and not increase the population and infrastructure.