The Village of Pelham Board of Trustees voted last night to approve a deal with a local developer allowing him to explore the possibility of constructing a mixed-use building on the site of three gas stations on Wolfs Lane abutting the Pelham Picture House. The 5-2 vote came after 90 minutes of spirited opposition from local residents as well as the owners of the gas station properties.

Village Mayor Chance Mullen defended the board’s goal of contracting with a preferred developer, insisting that the memorandum of understanding (MOU) between the village and Patrick Normoyle’s development company, PHP Partners LLC, in no way obligated the trustees to approve any specific proposals that might result from this initial step. 

“There is no project,” Mullen told the attendees at the beginning of the meeting. “The MOU is not a decision. The MOU closes an administrative process that started last May.”  As for allegations that the Village was pushing for an overhaul of the Pelham Picture House, Mullen insisted that the village and Picture House were “not at odds.”

More than a dozen people attended the meeting, almost all of whom–save for Normoyle–opposed the board’s proposal and asked that the vote be delayed to provide members of the community with more time to consider the step. Several criticized what they described as the lack of transparency surrounding the proceedings, noting that a “blight study” of the area, which supports the board’s goal of redevelopment, was not linked on the agenda for the meeting and was difficult to find on the village website.

Two of the gas station owners, Paul Bencivengo and Nick Staropoli, contradicted Mullen’s claim that the village had reached out to all the stakeholders involved. They said they’d never spoken with or heard from the mayor or trustees about a plan concerning redevelopment of their property.

James Smithmeyer, the developer who built the new apartment building at 139 Fifth Avenue and acquired the defunct gas station property at 163 Wolfs Lane in December for more than $2 million, was the first to speak during the public comment period. He urged the trustees to table the resolution and give the public more time to form an opinion.

“Proceeding with a vote tonight would be an act of bad faith and a violation of public trust,” said Smithmeyer. “This item was posted to the agenda only yesterday, less than 24 hours before the meeting. Furthermore, the resolution references ‘Exhibit 1,’ the blight study proposal, yet Exhibit 1 was not attached to the public agenda. You are asking the public to comment on, and the board to vote on a document that was withheld from public review. You cannot authorize an agreement based on a phantom exhibit that does not …  exist in this particular record. This vote is procedurally defective and must be tabled until a full agreement is posted for proper review.”

Smithmeyer went on to cite other reasons to hold off on a vote, including the fact that the trustees’  agreement with Normoyle could undercut his own effort to develop the property he bought in December. “If you vote for yes on this MOU tonight, you are voting to grant exclusivity to PHP Partners to develop my land while I have a valid, code-compliant application pending for that same land. This constitutes tortious interference with my property rights. You cannot grant exclusivity to a third party for property the village does not own, especially when the owner is actively developing it.”

Nathan Periera of Pelham Manor, an attorney, picked at the language in the proposed MOU, highlighting various phrases and references which he said had no proper legal definition. Then he zeroed in on a particular statement from the document.

“You consistently say throughout that the village ‘envisions a mixed-use redevelopment,’” Periera said. “Is that the village, or is it the Board of Trustees? I mean, was there any sort of information session done with the Village of Pelham saying, ‘What do you envision this to be?’ Or is it the seven people that are sitting before us today, and what your vision [is] of the Wolfs Lane corridor…which is also not a defined term in this agreement, and you reference it numerous time.”

Then he pivoted to the blight study, which the village commissioned last year and is relying on to justify its proactive move to identify a potential developer. “The blight study, based upon the statements in the MOU, was funded to justify what you guys are doing tonight.”

Gas station owners angered by lack of communication

Next came the owners of the two gas station properties, Nick Staropoli of Pelham Heights Service Station, and Paul Bencivengo of the Sunoco gas station. 

“Why didn’t any of you guys approach us?”  Staropoli asked. Mullen interjected that he did make an approach, but Staropoli said that happened only after this plan spilled into public view. “Why didn’t any of you guys approach us in the beginning? You sent someone to talk to me. She called you after you spread some lies we had to straighten out.”

Staropoli said his father started the business back in the 1960s, and gestured to Bencivengo, saying his father had been there for almost as long. “You got some little respect to come talk to us?  What do you guys plan on doing? I’ve got to be there another 10-15 years… It would have been a little common courtesy to say, ‘Hey guys, let’s talk.’ Did you? No.” 

Bencivengo then took the podium.  “You said you sent us a letter,” he began. “I never got a letter. It was never sent…We never got one…We were never talked to. I found this out through a developer in Manhattan, back in May….yeah, we do know people. We’ve been here a long time. You guys never had the courtesy to talk to us.”

Manning Circle residents express concerns

Catherine Landy, who lives near the property, expressed her concern about what any development would impact her neighborhood, and asked what the village’s specific plans were.

“The MOU starts us all talking about ways we could think about this long term,” said Mullen. When Bencivengo interjected that the village could seize the properties by eminent domain, Mullen brushed that idea aside.

“Fifty years from now, how do we want this to look?” he said.

“I dont think we’re talking about 50 years,” said Landy.

The MOU “gets the conversation started,” said trustee Hanan Eldahry. “It gets the conversation started, so you could see, you could participate in the ideas.” 

Krystal Howell, another trustee, compared the MOU process to what she would do when contemplating a kitchen renovation. She said would want to meet with several architects and planners to figure out which one might be best for the job.  Eldahry pointed out that in many cases, MOUs don’t go anywhere.

The assurances did little to placate Landy and other residents who showed up.

“You’re talking about property you don’t own,” said Rachel Adams of Manning Circle. “You’re voting on a plan to develop a plan for property you do not own, and we are immediately behind that. How can we trust that you’re not going to work on a plan?”  Turning to Howell, she said, “It’s like you are thinking about renovating your kitchen. And so you go and you interview some architects, and you figure out who you want to hire. But it’s not your house.”

Deputy Mayor Michael Carpenter seconded Eldahry’s point, about the possibility of the MOU going nowhere.  “What we’re trying to avoid is not having that conversation and letting it just happen piecemeal, right? One property this year, one property 15 years from now, one property maybe never.” 

What the village was trying to do, he said, was avoid any properties near the Picture House turning into an eyesore like the vacant lot at 101 Wolfs Lane.

“This is part of our role,” said Mullen. “This is part of our job, governing land use in the village. I think this would be a valuable tool for doing that in a smart way that’s going to benefit the community long term, regardless of what comes in the short term.”

“My concern is you’re going to take small constituents who are more affected by this and basically steamroll them and do whatever is best for the community,” said Landy.

After the close of public comments, as the hour approached 10 PM, the board considered whether it should proceed with a vote on the memorandum. Carpenter–who was the prime mover behind the effort–urged the panel to approve the plan.  He noted that the board of the Picture House had invited its supporters to an open house next week to talk about its future.  He said approving the MOU would send a signal to the Picture House that the Village was willing to take action in support of the goals of the cinema’s management and board.

Most of the trustees expressed support for the plan, but Eldahry and Russell Solomon said they were concerned that the public did not have enough time to review all the relevant documents, including the blight study, prior to the hearing.

Mullen put the issue to a vote. Five trustees, including Mullen, Allison Anderson, Howell, Don Otondi and Carpenter voted in favor. Eldahry and Solomon voted no.

• The Pelham Examiner delivers news you need to know. Donate to support our non-profit community newspaper.