Lighthouse Landing – the proposed development in question located on roughly 100 acres of prime real estate along the Hudson
River in Westchester County. The site features breathtaking river views including that of the Kingsland Point Light House and the Tappan Zee Bridge. The site is also full of lead contamination from the GM plant that occupied the area from 1899 to 1996. It is also the focal point of two lawsuits, one filed and one threatened.
When GM left Sleepy Hollow it left behind prime real estate that was badly contaminated. What to do with this potentially marvelous site has been a hotly debated issue ever since. So much so, that it has taken 11 years to get to the point of issuing special permits. To the environmentalists the site represents an opportunity to restore the natural environment and build park land for all to enjoy. From the developer and GM’s standpoint it represents many millions of potential in revenue – and caught in between – to the residents of Sleepy Hollow, the new development represents many possibilities…..lower taxes, increased revenue – along with more traffic, noise, pollution and money for the increased infrastructure that would be required. To residents in neighboring communities, the project represents a large traffic jam on the heavily
traveled Route 9 with little upside for them. All of these disparate interests are at the table with their conflicting priorities. Small wonder it has taken 11 years to get to the point of issuing special permits!
As it stands now, the development plans are in their final stages and the special permit is about to be issued by the village trustees. The plans include 1177 housing units, 132,000 sq.ft. of retail space and 32,000 sq.ft. of office space. Metro North may even have a new station stop between Philipse Manor and Tarrytown to help prevent thousands of commuters taking to their cars on route 9 during the evening and morning rush.
Lawsuit No. 1 was filed on October 15, 2007 by the village of Tarrytown against the village of Sleepy Hollow, GM and the developer Roseland Property Co. in Westchester County Supreme Court. According to the filing GM, Roseland and Sleepy Hollow did not reduce the density of the project sufficiently. Instead, they proposed changing traffic patterns and parking in a manner which was “unacceptable, unwarranted and unworkable and which will have adverse secondary impact.”* The crux of the lawsuit revolves around the impact the construction will have on the SURROUNDING communities.
Lawsuit No. 2 has not been filed but has been threatened. GM and Roseland made their first proposal in 2003. Following the FEIS (Final Environmental Impact Statement) GM and Roseland were forced to reduce the size and resubmit the proposal. Sleepy Hollow’s board of trustees further reduced the size by 70 units and imposed bonding obligations and improvements that “exceed the boards legal authority.” **
This is an interesting example of what can happen in densely populated areas where several villages, towns or cities are involved. Developers want to maximize their gains while the “townies” – current residents and – hopefully- their representatives must address environmental issues, quality of life issues, infrastructure costs and traffic patterns. That the neighboring village has thrown its hat into the ring as a player in this matter is a new wrinkle – but not entirely illogical or unexpected.
I am no authority on the merits of this particular project, but one thing that I find ironically to be a strong positive is that NO ONE IS COMPLETELY HAPPY! That might mean that the most desirable compromise possible has actually been reached. A few other points seem to be pretty obvious. As a frequent visitor to the dog park at Kingsland Point Park – I am painfully aware of the blight that the sight currently creates. I am including two photos to make my point. One is of the breathtaking views of the lighthouse and Hudson River. The other is taken of the sight in question. All I have to do is turn my camera 180 – to go from breathtaking to blight. It is in everyone’s best interest that the decontamination continue and that the site be developed into SOMETHING better than this. I am also aware of the tax implications. If done right, the residents will see desperately needed tax relief. If done incorrectly, with too many tax breaks to the developer – and abatements to new residents - infrastructure costs could easily exceed the revenue produced and create a world of hurt for already strained wallets. Westchester residents pay some of the highest property taxes in the country. There is a lot at stake. Sleepy Hollow needs to get this one right!
White Plains is a perfect example. The current administration has been very user friendly towards developers and although much of what has happened over the past few years has helped the downtown, the revenue stream has yet to appear. We’ve had two major tax hikes and the taxpayers are rightly wondering why their taxes are climbing to new heights when “all this building” was supposed to help them. Further more, no one is giving much more than token thought to traffic patterns. Cars are choking the roads during rush hour and a single flood or accident has the capacity to disrupt traffic for hours in the immediate area. My personal opinion is that the current administration was not as fiscally or environmentally responsible as it should have been and we are paying the price for their incompetence. They were TOO friendly to developers and didn’t give enough thought to their constituents who they are supposed to represent. Also, all that building upstream in White Plains may be impacting towns downstream of us. A major (and unprecedented) storm came through our area this past spring. The town of Mamaroneck just south of White Plains was badly hit. Since our run-off goes into the Mamaroneck River, was the impact of development in White Plains a contributing factor in this disaster? FEMA had to be called in and there are many who still can’t return to their homes. I swear for a couple of days it looked like Katrina down there. My point is that these issue extend beyond these two villages, GM and Roseland. It will be interesting to see if there is a further trend towards litigation over substantial developments in the future.
* Andrea Kott, “Tarrytown Files Lawsuit Against Sleepy Hollow” The Hudson Independent, Nov. 2007
** Stacy A. Anderson, “General Motors may sue village” The Journal News, Dec. 12, 2007.
Comments (3)Subscribe to CommentsComment