Lawyers for Friends of Residential Pelham charge Community Church plan would cause permanent damage to Pelhamwood homeowners
The five-story apartment building proposed for the Community Church of the Pelhams’ property will cause permanent damage to the residents of the Pelhamwood neighborhood and compromise the integrity of the Village of Pelham zoning code, according to a letter to the Village of Pelham Board of Trustees from attorneys Dorf & Nelson, which is representing Friends of Residential Pelham in its fight against the development.
“This is not ‘well considered’ or part of an overall plan,” Dorf & Nelson said. “This about changing the zoning so a developer can maximize his profit. There are other sites in the village better suited for this.”
The project is not “remotely consistent” with the village’s 2008 comprehensive plan, which is “very clear that the residential character of the neighborhoods should be preserved,” said the letter. The proposal by developer Soran R.E. LLC in partnership with the church to construct the apartments and renovate the church misapplies the comprehensive plan by using a few paragraphs from the 100-page document, according to the letter, which says the village plan focuses mostly on the Wolfs Lane and Fifth Avenue commercial corridor and does not mention a “need to radically alter these nice streetscapes” of Pelhamwood “for mixed-use development.”
Soran R.E. has requested the addition of a new mixed-use (MX) zone to the village ordinance to allow the construction of a five-story, 30-unit apartment building along with coworking space in the parking lot next to the Community Church at 448 Washington Ave. Soran has also promised to provide the 100-year-old church with a “seven-figure” renovation it has said it needs. Former Pelham Mayor Michael Volpe is a principal in Soran R.E.
In the letter, Dorf & Nelson said, “The only member of the LLC identified in the petition is Michael Volpe. Prior to giving this proposal serious consideration, the board of trustees and the planning board need to ascertain who are the other members of this LLC (if any) and the extent of their interest. As a matter of transparency and good public policy, the community has a right to know who is benefiting from this rezoning.”
Consideration of the project at the planning board’s December meeting was adjourned at the request of Soran R.E. The proposal is not currently on the board’s Jan. 17 agenda. Were it to come back on, the board would need to make a recommendation to the village trustees, who would have the final say in creating the new MX zone and then rezoning the church property to the new classification from A-2 residential, which is the zoning throughout Pelhamwood.
In a letter to the editor to the Pelham Examiner after the adjournment of the planning board meeting, Volpe wrote, “Let’s hope that in the New Year the Community Church and the community can provide a solution to the church’s problem. If not, Soran may still be available to help.” He did not specifically say if he was withdrawing the petition for the new zone and the other needed approvals.
Prior to retaining Dorf & Nelson, Friends of Residential Pelham, a new group, along with the Pelhamwood Association mounted an aggressive campaign against the Community Church project. Their petition calling on the board of trustees to reject the plan garnered 700 signatures from throughout the Town of Pelham. Separately, the Pelham Children’s Center offered to work with the church to create more preschool and afterschool space while still maintaining a worship center. That announcement included no specifics on how the project would be financed or organized.
Another issue raised in the Dorf & Nelson letter is the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), which requires that the lead agency—which would likely be the village board—consider the environmental impacts of a project. The planning board has not requested information on possible impacts, according to Dorf & Nelson. “This rezoning would permit underground parking in an area that floods,” it said. “Has the planning board addressed the potential impacts of stormwater run-off on neighboring properties? Evidently not. Adding 30 units plus commercial will add a substantial number of cars to the site. What is the traffic and parking impact on the neighborhood and the schools? Has anybody asked?”
The letter also said the creation of the MX zone would be illegal spot zoning, which the courts have defined as giving one parcel of land a different classification from the surrounding area “for the benefit of the owner of such property to the detriment of other owners.”
