Riverdale’s ONLY Locally Owned Newspaper!
Volume XX • Number 16 • April 18 - 24, 2013 •
FREE!
Hebrew Home offers scaled-down expansion
By PAULETTE SCHNEIDER A now-familiar dialogue continued at last week’s Community Board 8 land use committee meeting: The Hebrew Home at Riverdale says it wants to construct a new residential complex on its property in order to better serve the elderly, but neighbors say they want to prevent largescale development in order to better protect the special natural area district that encompasses the property. The Hebrew Home has sought community input since announcing its plan to use a recently acquired 14-acre parcel adjoining the south end of its 19-acre main property as the site of a senior residence based on the continuous care retirement community (CCRC) model. Because of the site’s special natural area district status and
its low-density R1-1 zoning designation, any major development would call for some change in regulations. Neighbors, some represented by groups including the Riverdale Community Coalition and the Riverdale Nature Preservancy, have argued against regulatory changes that could—at the very least—overpopulate the area, sully splendid views, clog Palisade Avenue with traffic and set a bad precedent. The home has responded by having developer Perkins Eastman continually modify plans for the $200 million-plus project. They presented CB8 with detailed schematics contrasting the January site plan with a revised April site plan crafted with local requests in mind. The current plan—still for 300 units--shifts northward the
locations of three multi-story structures to create more open space, moves an entire building to the R4-zoned main property to absorb some density, and augments an internal roadway to siphon off some traffic. But Jennifer Klein, representing the Riverdale Community Coalition, said the proposal still presents “extensive and significant concerns for Riverdale” and that the meeting “raised a number of new concerns for the Community Board members and others present.” She stated in an email that the home’s requested amendment to SNAD regulations would “set a terrible precedent,” that the 300-unit plan, including an eight-story building, is still “too much” in terms of population density, and that the planned internal roadway’s entrance
point at the south end of the main campus would become “an active delivery entrance.” Klein acknowledged that the April plan’s building reconfiguration does shift density into the north campus and does allow more open space, but she feels that the change is “too little in each case.” Councilman G. Oliver Koppell called the revised plan “better.” “I don’t think it’s going to be accepted by most of the neighbors who’ve created a coalition against it, but I think that definitely it’s improved, and I’m hoping that we can come to a situation where the housing can be provided and that most of the neighbors’ concerns will be addressed.” He said there’s a “positive value” to the CCRC model that the home wants to develop, but that building in a special natural area district is “problematic” and
must be “carefully monitored.” “They want to get some language changed with the SNAD. That concerns me a great deal, because I don’t think we should modify the SNAD. I want to make sure that if it’s changed at all, it’s changed only for this project. I’m not saying I favor a change for this project. But any change that would be made would not become a precedent.” Koppell is among those concerned about increased traffic on the area’s narrow roads, even with the new internal roadway. “And I still have a concern about bulk and height,” he said. “They’ve moved it to the north, which is good, because that opens up better views for the people who live on the river slope. But still, eight stories is large, and one of the things that’s happened with a lot of projects as they’ve gone through the process Continued on Page 3
Angry protestors flood meeting knocking VC Park trail plans
Above is the proposed site of the Hebrew Home expansion as it appears today from the other side of the Hudson River. Below is the same view as it will appear once the project is completed with the new construction superimposed on to the photo of the site.
By HAYDEE CAMACHO Tempers erupted over the controversial issue of whether to pave the Putnam Trail in Van Cortlandt Park at the Community Board 8 public meeting on Tuesday, April 9th. A large contingent of members of Save the Putnam Trail were present at the meeting and several spoke out against the paving of the trail and frustration over the board’s lack of a vote for or against the current proposal which calls for razing 1.5 acres of trees and brush to create a paved path. The group is also concerned about the potential loss of various bird species from habitat destruction if the proposal is approved. The meeting was punctuated with angry shouts from the group when the issue was introduced by board chairperson Robert Fanuzzi. Fanuzzi called for order on several occasions. “We are here to let the community board know what the wishes of the people are so they can make informed decisions.” said Save the Putnam Trail organizer Will Sanchez. “The community does not want a highway. We want the trail enjoyed by everyone on an equal footing. “ “They have not passed a resolution on the design,” said Sanchez. He added that organizers of Save the Putnam Trail recently
sent a letter to Thomas Lucania, Director of Community Boards Unit and Legislative Affairs of the Bronx Borough President’s Office to complain about a letter of support sent by Bob Bender, the Community Board 8 Parks and Recreation chairperson, supporting the Parks Department plan. “It is shocking to us that the Chair of this Board would allow the usurpation of his responsibilities to the Full Board and to the community by allowing a Committee Chair such an unwarranted prerogative to send out letters of approval for the full board, expressing views that have not been fully considered or approved by the Board and which, in any event, do not reflect the views of the residents whom the Board is to represent,” they wrote. In response to the angry complaints of members of Save the Putnam Trail about his letter, Bender said that the Parks Department design is funded by Federal Highway Administration funds that require the Putnam Trail path be in compliance with the American Disabilities Act which mandates wheelchair accessibility. “The only way the Parks Department can maintain the ADA accessibility is if it’s paved,” he said. He added that Continued on Page 9