Lot A work session: As the not-quite-done deal inches towards done-ness, a six minute video gap, and a subtle legal threat from the developer’s representative?

A malfunction in the audiovisual system that began when trustee Nora Nicholson was making some critical points showed the urgency of coming up with a better system.

Video transmission and recording were cut off for about six minutes when trustee Nora Nicholson was making an important point to her Board colleagues.

The proposed development of Lot A and an adjacent property into affordable condominiums continues to make its way through New York state’s SEQRA (State Environmental Quality Review Act) process. Last evening’s Board of Trustees Work Session appeared to put some of the final touches on a proposed “negative declaration” under SEQRA, although it laid bare some tensions between the developer—WBP Development LLC of Chappaqua—and the village, which have been simmering for some months.

The remaining questions include what conditions the Board of Trustees will put on their approval, and what questions will be passed on to Croton’s Planning Board, which normally would approve the architectural design, including the all-important question of how many units will be allowed. (The developer has proposed 100; the Planning Board recommended 60-80; and incoming trustee Maria Slippen is already on record as favoring only 60.)

One condition the Board considered yesterday was whether the developer would be required to conduct a new sound study of the noise emanating from the Croton-Harmon rail yard during these winter months, when Metro North requires locomotives to idle their engines for longer periods of time. Trustee Nora Nicholson said she favored having the developer conduct that study before the issue went to the Planning Board, so that body would have the information. The Planning Board can also require such a study it on its own initiative.

John Bainlardi/ WBP Development

The village’s consultant, AKRF, whose costs are covered by WBP, had concluded that a new sound study was not necessary. The Board asked WBP vice president John Bainlardi, who is normally present for discussions of the development, for his opinion.

Bainlardi, who often has a difficult time hiding his irritation at having to spend some evenings at the Municipal Building, addressed the Board at about 1:13 in the video of the meeting.

“I think we have enough information to determine that we really don’t need to do this test,” Bainlardi said, adding that “it has a cost that goes along with it. We’re probably looking at another eight to ten thousand dollars to do a sound study that’s not necessary.”

Bainlardi stressed that WBP would do whatever the Board of Trustees or the Planning Board required, but commented that “when we’re trying to build affordable housing and keep the price down these things start layering themselves.”

But Nicholson told Bainlardi that “I’m going to guess that our Planning Board will probably ask for this,” and Mayor Brian Pugh concurred, wishing the developer good luck in convincing them not to require the study.

In other remarks Bainlardi told the Board that the project was consistent with the zoning for the properties, and agreed that the process so far had been valid and the various studies required by the Board well conducted. He then added that this was “important from a legal standpoint because it insulates the declaration and any action the Board ultimately takes from being criticized as being arbitrary or capricious from a legal standpoint.”

Board members did not respond to this comment, which could, in some contexts, be interpreted as a subtle threat to sue Croton if WBP concludes that the village had acted in an arbitrary way—even though the purchase of Lot A by WBP is contingent on the company and the village arriving at an agreement about how the development will unfold.

Trustee Nora Nicholson

After Bainlardi had made his comments, the trustees began to discuss what other conditions the Board might want to put on the approval. Trustee Nicholson had just begun stating her opinion that these should include architectural and design issues, when the video feed of the meeting suddenly cut out. Since there were only one or two residents in the audience, most Crotonites who were following the meeting were watching online or on television. The cut out lasted about six minutes, and the recording of the meeting was also stopped during that time.

Fortunately trustee Nicholson has provided the Chronicle with a statement about her unrecorded remarks, which we believe she will be posting on social media as well. Here it is:

“Unfortunately, last night’s Board of Trustees meeting had some technical issues and apparently when I started speaking on the Lot A proposal it cut out. I wanted to take an opportunity to clarify my comments. I would like to see another iteration of the project from the Developer that shows an option of a less dense mass of a building and one that has potentially less floors. This development will be the gateway into Croton, and we deserve for it to be as attractive and livable as possible for future residents. Right now, the building has no outdoor ground floor amenities for residents including a dog run or playground, these should be considered.

What I did not say last night and I would like to say now is that I would also like to see the Developer be open to looking at reducing the number of units in the project to make these changes a reality. The number of units requires a certain amount of parking, the footprint of the lot is only so big. If the number of units were reduced by 10 or 20 this would offer more options. There are financial considerations to the reduction of the project in terms of units. Our purchase price might be impacted as would the long-term tax revenue. But I do think we owe residents and our future residents the opportunity to live in the best possible Development.

In the Site Plan Review the Planning Board will have the opportunity to work through the details of architectural designs but now it is the time that the Board of Trustees can request from the Developer an alternative option that has considered the hours of public comment on the project so far. I believe that if we see an alternative option that will make the work of the Planning Board better in the coming months because some of the known issues around the design will be addressed before a Special Permit is issued.”

The Board is expected to pass a resolution soon to issue the negative declaration, and then the work of the Planning Board begins. As should be clear, there is still a ways to go before this project is finalized—if it actually comes to pass.

The Chronicle has mentioned in a number of previous reports that WBP has demonstrated it is willing to walk away from a large development project if the terms do not suit its bottom line. In this case, the dealbreaker could well end up being the number of units the Planning Board will approve. It is reasonable to assume that WBP has already done its own calculations about the minimum number it can build and still make a profit. (A decision on the developer’s application for funding to subsidize the project from New York state’s Affordable Homeownership Opportunity Program has reportedly not yet been made.)

So while the project was initiated by the village in a Request for Proposals, in which WBP made the winning bid, what some might consider a “done deal” is really not quite done—and there are still a number of steps that must be taken before it will be.

************************************************************************************************************

To share this post, or to share The Croton Chronicle, please click on these links.

Comments policy: No personal attacks, please be polite and respectful.