Pelham project approvals move at ‘snail’s pace,’ while ‘carefully considered, sustainable development is the key’

To the editor:

As a member of the Village of Pelham’s Architectural Review Board, as well as the owner of an architectural firm that’s worked on tens of millions of square feet of property improvements and new developments all over our country, I’d like to add some thoughts regarding discussion over our local process.

On a comparative basis, development approvals in Pelham proceed at a snail’s pace. As a resident, I appreciate that the village’s approach is heavily weighted in favor of residential concerns—the value of our homes is one of our greatest individual assets. As a development professional, I know that if the pace were slower it would probably be nonexistent. That’s because delays in the process are not only expensive, but also can (and often do) spell the end of a project entirely. A building plan isn’t just a drawing; it’s a detailed depiction of a complex creation. Every time we ask a property owner to change a proposal, an expensive cascade of other elements must be considered and revised as well, not the least of which is often the project’s financial viability.

Delay means either the risk that carefully arranged financing will evaporate, or that, if money is plentiful, the developer can take his or her project elsewhere. As it is, projects have fallen through because the process is so tedious. It’s cheaper and easier for fed-up property owners to let property sit unused, draining our tax base. Pelham can’t afford to risk its charming character, it’s true. But neither can we risk the continued slow death of our downtown. We won’t have a successful community around a failed commercial district. Carefully considered, sustainable development is the key to revitalization.

Additionally, there’s a popular idea that our village gets to approve plans based on whether they’re pretty enough. That’s not how it works. There is limited ability to withhold approval, especially if a proposal is “as of right,” meaning it’s code compliant. That’s a good thing; how does the government decide what “attractive” or “in keeping with the community” looks like, exactly? No two people will completely agree on that, let alone a village. There’s a reason the code is long on things that can be quantified, like building height, and short on subjective measures. It’s unreasonable and unfair to require businesses to meet a standard that can’t be defined. The right of property owners to maximize the use of what they own, within the limits we have collectively embodied in codes and regulations, should not be abridged—that freedom is one of the founding principles of our nation.

Finally, the ARB, like the Zoning and Planning boards, consists of busy professionals who donate their time because they care about their community. There are no perks. The notion that they—we—who set our alarms early so we can pour over blueprints and code books somehow care less about Pelham’s aesthetic than armchair quarterbacks judging the result defies common sense.

Greg Shunick

60 1st Street