More on Harmon Rezoning
This in from Kieran Murray a few days ago. It also appeared in the Gazette this past Thursday….
A Proposal for Resolution of the Harmon Rezoning Controversy
The Harmon Commercial Development Committee (as it was called at the time) delivered its final Harmon zoning change recommendations to then Mayor Schmidt on November 17, 2008. Since that time Westchester County unexpectedly lost the widely publicized Anti-Discrimination lawsuit and is now obligated under a settlement to build 750 affordable and subsidized housing units in the next few years.Mandated affordable housing can wreak havoc on the residential property and school tax equation, particularly in a village like Croton with a very small commercial tax base.
On October 12, 2005, then Governor Pataki signed the Affordable Housing Property Tax Assessment Bill into law. This law requires local assessors to assess subsidized housing projects under the Income Method approach, excluding tax credits, subsidized mortgage financing, and project grants. On January 7, 2008, the Erie County Supreme Court applied this statute for the first time to a case involving a 24-unit subsidized housing development which resulted in a reduction in tax assessment from $220,000 to just $6,158.
I am a firm believer that providing zoning incentives for market rate mixed use development is the correct approach for attracting investment to Harmon. However, I recognize that the Anti-Discrimination Settlement, coupled with the Affordable Housing Property Tax Assessment Law discussed above has exponentially increased the chances of mixed use development that will not cover its own municipal and school costs. Any new development that does not cover its own costs increases the tax burden for everyone else and runs counter to the intentions of the Harmon zoning change recommendations.
As a result, I propose leaving the mixed use incentives (.8 FAR, 3rd story in roofline, etc) in the Harmon Zoning Law but having them be subject to a Special Permit by the Village Board. This will give the Village Board the legal right to examine the tax implications (as well as traffic, parking and other concerns raised by petitioners) of any proposed project on a case by case basis while still providing the incentives for market rate mixed use development that could improve the area and provide tax relief to the disproportionate and overburdened residential tax base in Croton.
Watch Croton 
Thank you Watchcroton for posting my letter above.
I posted the same letter on the North County News Forum where posters have voiced their opinions about my proposal to end the Harmon rezoning controversy. In the interest of fairness, full disclosure and in the hopes that more people will join in the debate, I am including the link to this topic on North County News
http://forum.ncnlocal.com/bb/viewtopic.php?t=5806
There is nothing worse for the business environment in Croton than prospect of years of endless litigation to solve this issue in the courts. A compromise is the only way to quickly, cheaply and effectively resolve the situation while still considering both sides of the argument.
Or – Here’s another thought. To erase the fearful and inaccurate peculation that the new zoning for Harmon was planned to attract large scale development, why not work to make the County reword the SOI law so it will be applicable only to buildings with more than 3 units. Since the Harmon proposal concentrates and encourages small individual improvements to existing buildings allowing a possible small apartment above the office or retail unit, then any improved building would be virtually unaffected by the SOI law. The process for rental of any market rate apartment (either new or existing) would remain just as it has been for years. It would be totally outside the parameters of any SOI requirements set by the county.
Let’s regain our perspective, settle the costly law suits, and move forward to improve Harmon.
Really? Nobody wants to chime in on this?
Ok. I’ll give it a shot.
I won’t go on the NCN forum because it’s a never ending rage-fest against any one who disagrees with the anonymous venom spewers – of which it looks like maybe 3 or 4 people total who take on a ton of aliases. That said, I wish this site would post with greater frequency. It’s a bit difficult to keep scrolling down to check in a topic, too. Would be nice if recent topics could be pushed to the top so they would remain in the forefront of the conversation.
I certainly agree with Kieran that anymore litigation is that much MORE of a waste of taxpayer money. However, I have some questions. Wasn’t part of the rezoning process an effort to eliminate the red tape involved in the permitting process? How long will this permit process take and will it be a determent in enticing new business to the area?
And I guess my biggest question is in regard to Kieran’s post above where he references two laws that were on the books BEFORE the Harmon Economic Development Committee came to it’s conclusions that were eventually adopted by the Board – a process 2 years in the making. Why are they a concern now? Croton’s track record in affordable housing all but takes us off the list of places the County will come looking when they get around to fulfilling the settlement of the above referenced Anti Discrimination lawsuit. Croton is actually one of the most diverse Villages in the County of Westchester and comes pretty close if not out and out meets the standard of the County settlement.
I got involved in local politics because I saw the area where I live, long before the recession, in a state of decline and nobody was doing anything about it. Then I found out there were some people who were trying to do something about it. They are still trying to do something about it, despite being called every name in the book and having their reputations slandered from one blog to another by their neighbors.
I’m all for compromises. Life is about compromises. But I have an issue with this particular compromise because it accepts the premise as laid out from the opposition to this idea – which has been an out and out lie from day one. Nobody who was involved in this process from the committee level, to the elected leadership level, to the residents who support this have EVER a). wanted to build a ‘housing project’ as was referenced in all Republican material during the last election (complete with fake pictures no less) or b). wanted to use these zoning changes as a great big hidden agenda to turn Harmon into an affordable housing capital of New York State.
So giving in to the bullying and lying is something with which I have a problem.
As I’ve said before, we’re doing the best we can. Feel free to send ideas, issues, posts, etc.
Croton is identified as one of the 31 Westchester communities in the FAAH Settlement. In other words, we ARE on the list.
Eileen:
You raise very valid points.
The Special Permit requirement for mixed use was removed to eliminate red tape. I know this because it was my idea. I was the last person (and to this day still am) to go through the approval process for mixed use development in Harmon and the Special Permit requirement is both expensive and time consuming. I also lobbied for it’s removal because at the time, mixed use development was far more likely to be market rate and above because a number of likely federal subsidized housing programs excluded mixed use development from eligiblity.
I am also in agreement with you that these recommendations have suffered in the court of public opinion because of a relentless and in my opinion purposeful misinformation campaign.
With all that said, the development environment has changed siginficantly over the two years since the original recommendations where provided to the Village Board.
1) The County unexpectedly lost the Anti-Discrimination Suit and the final implementation plan details are unknown at this time.
2) Rob Astorino was elected County Executive and his words and actions clearly demonstrate he is not in favor of the settlement brokered by Andy Spano.
3) The threat of the Feds taking over the implementation of the settlement is very real and brings with it great uncertainty regarding implementation details, site locations, etc.
I believe the political and economic environment that has developed since the Anti-Discrimination settlement has made it far more likely that subsidized mixed use development that does not cover its own expenses could occur in Harmon as a result.
I suggest the compromise above because I believe it is the alternative that has the best chance of working as hoped in today’s environment. It still provides economic incentives and eliminated the requirment for a variance from the Zoning Board of appeals for higher FAR and 3rd story mixed use projects, while offering protections against projects that would produce a negative tax impact. It also can put an end to this severely damaging cycle of litigation and appeal that benefits no one.
Finally, I want to be clear that I am in no way abandoning the Harmon Rezoning. If a mutually beneficial compromise cannot be reached and I had to choose between the old zoning and the new, I would wholeheartedly favor the new. However, at this point in time I believe the reinsertion of the Special Permit requirement is the right thing to do.
VILLAGE OF CROTON-ON-HUDSON, NEW YORK
AGENDA FOR MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD
Tuesday, September 14, 2010
Chairman Kehoe_____
Mr. Aarons_____
Ms. Allen_____
Mr. Kauderer_____
Mr. Luntz_____
Call to order at 8:00 P.M.
PUBLIC HEARING:
Croton Community Nursery School – Lower North Highland Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 2 Lots 5, 6, 9 and 25 [formerly Lots 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and 25]) – Application for a Preliminary Subdivision Approval – Request for an Adjournment
OLD BUSINESS:
Referral from the Village Board Regarding Local Law Introductory No. 3 of 2010 – Repeal and Enactment of Harmon/South Riverside Gateway Overlay District Zoning Amendments
Nida Associates, Inc. – 120 Scenic Drive West (Sec. 67.10 Blk. 2 Lot 5) – Referral from the Village Board for an Amendment to the O-2 (Limited Office) Zoning Regulations to Allow Day Care Centers as a Special Permitted Use
Referral from the Village Board for a Special Permit for an Auto Repair and Auto Sales Shop at 365 South Riverside Avenue
NEW BUSINESS:
David Munoz – 46 Prospect Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 4 Lot 19) & Bryan Stephens – 48 Prospect Place (Sec. 67.20 Blk. 4 Lot 19.01) – Modification of Landscaping Plan for Lots #’s 1 & 2 of the Hudson View Subdivision
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
August 10, 2010
August 24, 2010
ADJOURNMENT.
Sylvia Mills
Planning Board Secretary