This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Community Corner

Hathaway Lane - The Case Against Discontinuance & Demapping

Utilization and Safety

Hathaway Lane is a busy public street which is an integral part of Gedney Farms and is greatly valued by area residents.  It is not some useless, abandoned street.  It has traffic appropriate to the size of the Gedney Farms community and is used regularly and often, contrary to FASNY’s lowballing the traffic counts.  It is well documented that FASNY has the dishonest habit of taking counts on holidays, early school-dismissal days, off peak hours, etc.  Hathaway Lane is the main entrance from Ridgeway to the northern section of Gedney Farms, providing direct and easy access.  Cutting off this route would be more than inconvenient.  It would be harmful.

In FASNY’s private version of Eminent Domain, it would acquire this vital public asset through a Special Permit to discontinue and demap it from Ridgeway to just south of Gedney Esplanade.  The reason is to incorporate it into the proposed private school campus to improve traffic circulation, ironically, to the detriment of the traffic circulation of the surrounding neighborhood.  Closure will inevitably cause cut through traffic on nearby streets. Murchison is the nearest north/south street.  It will bear the brunt of such traffic.  It is narrow and parking is permitted on one side of the street.  The same holds true for Seymour and Dupont.  None are safe alternatives to this portion of Hathaway Lane, which has only one house, #57, at the corner of Parcel A. It is specifically excluded from the proposed discontinuance.  Street parking is limited to this house for no more than two cars for two hours.

Find out what's happening in White Plainswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

In FASNY’s latest citywide mailer, “THE FACTS ABOUT OUR PROJECT,” there is a Q&A about closing Hathaway Lane. The last part of the answer says the topic of closure “was thoroughly studied and analyzed by the Common Council in its SEQRA review, and it was determined that the discontinuance of this portion of Hathaway would not adversely impact traffic patterns or street access in the neighborhood.”  FASNY states that “Hathaway Lane residents will be able to access Ridgeway through Gedney Esplanade.”  FASNY seems to have forgotten that there is no direct access from Gedney Esplanade, and the residents will have to cut through side streets to get there, e.g., Hotel Drive to Murchison or Seymour or Dupont.  They can’t leapfrog to Ridgeway.

Fire trucks from the station at Ridgeway and North St. use Hathaway Lane to access northern Gedney Farms.  Detouring onto Murchison is not ideal and would increase response time to what could be a critical life or death situation.  Minutes count. Even seconds count.  Though not entirely clear, it appears from the FASNY Traffic Management Plan that there will be emergency access by detouring through the campus.  The Site Layout Plan (Area 1) diagram shows entry at a mountable curb and a gate at Ridgeway near the original Hathaway Lane location.  The exit is a grassy emergency access driveway, possibly with a breakaway gate, near Gedney Esplanade.  The efficacy of that entire process is questionable.  Response time would still be longer than by direct access from Hathaway Lane.  Therefore, the proposed discontinuance is not some minor inconvenience.  It would endanger the lives and wellbeing of those families who live on the numerous interior streets, such as Gedney Esplanade, Oxford, Macy, Heatherbloom, northern Hathaway Lane, etc.

Find out what's happening in White Plainswith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Hathaway Lane and Setbacks

There is yet another aspect to the discontinuance request that I find troubling.  Attorney Michael Zarin, and John Botti, a parent who speaks frequently as a representative of FASNY, both said publicly at the Planning Board meeting of 6/17/14, that setbacks are 75 feet.  Referencing a letter from the Planning Board, Mr. Zarin said: “One of your comments in your letter of 2012 was to increase setbacks from the residences and the like.  Finding A3.3 was to increase the buffers and landscaping around the campus and parking lots to 75 feet.  I think you mentioned in your letter at least minimum 50 feet…All parking and all buildings will be setback a minimum 75 feet and heavily landscaped.”  

The following appeared on the bottom of one power point slide:  “The discontinuance of Hathaway Lane as a public street allows FASNY to reconfigure athletic fields and facilities to further increase setbacks to residential properties.”  

I have gone over the Overall Site Plan diagram with a magnifier, and what I have found is that there are only three (3) locations with a 75 foot setback and they are all shown as front yard setbacks facing a street.  Those locations are Ridgeway, Gedney Esplanade (Parcel A), and Bryant Ave.  The rest are considered side yard setbacks and are all 25 feet, with two exceptions that are 30 feet.  Most of these setbacks are for abutting properties, or for the entire length of northern Hathaway Lane on Parcel D.  

If discontinuance of Hathaway Lane allows FASNY to increase setbacks to residential properties, why does the Overall Site Plan show a 25 foot side yard setback behind my property line where there is a proposed 101 space parking lot for the lower school?  The Overall Site Plan also shows 25 foot side yard setbacks for the properties on Murchison and Hotel Drive that abut the athletic fields.  Am I missing something?  Are these representatives misstating the facts?

So what are the setbacks?  Are they 75 feet or 25 feet?  The Site Plan must be unambiguous and not based on a slide show and the verbal explanation of Mr. Zarin.  FASNY must be required to explain these discrepancies.  It cannot be permitted to assert that closing Hathaway Lane allows it to increase setbacks to 75 feet, but show something different on the Site Plan. 

Hathaway Lane and the Conservancy

Attorney Zarin’s letter of 5/21/14, which accompanied FASNY’s application package, requests financial consideration by the City in its quest to acquire the sought after portion of Hathaway Lane.  The stated reason for this is “the immense financial value inherent in the easement FASNY is providing for public access to the Conservancy.”

 

In my opinion, the value FASNY places on the Conservancy is highly inflated for the following reasons:

 

   1.  The Conservancy is first and foremost an educational tool for FASNY students.  Therefore, access by the public is not the main purpose of the Conservancy.  FASNY makes no secret of this.  It is clearly spelled out in all of FASNY’s submissions to the City, whether in the initial DEIS or in the final application for a Special Permit.  For example, as stated in Chapter 7 of the Conservancy Master Plan:

 

     “The primary goal of the Conservancy would be to provide a natural setting that

     would create educational opportunities to complement the FASNY curriculum and

     enhance FASNY’s educational mission.  It would function as part of FASNY, but    

     would also operate as a publicly-accessible open space from dawn to dusk.  The

     Conservancy and the elements within the Conservancy (e.g., walking trails, bike

     paths, seating areas, shade structures, outdoor classrooms) are all integrally

     part of and an extension of the proposed School use on an otherwise undeveloped

     portion of open space within the Project Site.”

 

Being integral to school use means that FASNY considers those walking trails and bike paths, which they so heavily promoted to the City, to be necessary to the completeness of the whole school. They are not a stand-alone amenity for public use, as FASNY’s publicity implies.

 

 In addition, Chapter 6 states:

 

     “The small gravel parking areas on Parcel D and the propagation greenhouse on

     Parcel D are all part of and related to such School use.  The small gravel parking

     areas would be accessible to the general public.”

 

With all the parking available on campus, why are the meager parking spaces provided on the Conservancy not exclusively for public use?

   2.  FASNY’s offer of public access to the Conservancy is a cynical, calculated public relations sales pitch to win citywide approval for its school project.  Proof of this is found in FASNY’s own words as written in the various documents it has submitted to the City.  These documents repeatedly state FASNY’s belief that most visitors would be neighborhood locals who would walk or bike to the Conservancy.  FASNY has never believed that many people from across the City would visit the Conservancy (this is underscored by comments made by attorney Zarin at the 6/17/14 Planning Board meeting).  That is why FASNY will only provide two (2) small gravel parking lots, each with four (4) to six (6) spaces.  There will be bike racks at only four (4) locations. 

THIS IS THE ULTIMATE BAIT AND SWITCH AND THE HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY.

   3.  It is unlikely that White Plains High School students would detour onto the Conservancy to use bike paths and walking trails.  Do you remember the geometry rule that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?  Students will not be inclined to meander through the Conservancy to go to and from school.   There will be minimal usage and minimal positive impact on student safety.

   4.  FASNY proposes to build a driveway on Parcel D, the most environmentally sensitive and scenic part of the planned Conservancy.  It will curve round the two ponds as it slices through Parcel D from North St. to Hathaway Lane and into Parcel A.  At 3,000 feet long -- more than one-half mile -- and 24 feet wide, the driveway will gut a major portion of Parcel D, reducing its attractiveness and the previously stated size of the Conservancy.  So one hand gives and the other hand takes away. 

   5.  Chapter 5 is the Declaration of Covenants, Restrictions and Easements.  The following is tucked away under the heading MISCELLANEOUS:

     Item 11 (a):   “This Declaration shall run with the Property in perpetuity, and shall be binding and enforceable against Declarant and its successors and assigns, so long as the Property is operated for Educational Use.  Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, this Declaration shall terminate upon Declarant ceasing to operate a school or Educational Use on the Property.”

The possibility of termination is not mentioned in the Conservancy Master Plan, Chapter 4, Item 6.2, CONSERVATION DECLARATION.  It states only that “The Declaration would be fully binding on FASNY and any successor in interest to the Property.”

 You have to go to the last page of Chapter 5, to learn that there is no guarantee that the Conservancy will forever remain open space available to the public.

Conclusion

Because of the Conservancy, FASNY is requesting financial consideration if it acquires the sought after portion of Hathaway Lane.  I believe that the above items make my case that the Conservancy has far less value to the City than asserted by FASNY.  It is evident from FASNY’s own words that FASNY believes that only small numbers of White Plains residents will visit the Conservancy, while the greatest use will be by FASNY students and staff.  If only a handful of residents utilize the Conservancy, the value of public access is significantly diminished.  Its value is also diminished because the 3,000 foot – more than one-half mile -- driveway, with all its negative aspects, will encroach on “publicly accessible” open space.  And if at some future date the property no longer operates for educational use, the portion declared a Conservancy will terminate.  Therefore, for all these reasons, financial consideration is not warranted and should not be granted.

FASNY is an outside developer attempting to ramrod its way into Gedney Farms. The Mayor and the Common Council have the duty to protect this city’s residents and neighborhoods.  This duty is more focused in the matter of Hathaway Lane because it concerns a specific residential location of taxpaying citizens faced with the prospect of having a useful and desirable feature removed for a private, not public, development.  It is undeniable that Hathaway Lane is important to the everyday lives of these people.  Based on the points that I have made, the Special Permit sought by FASNY to discontinue and demap the southern portion of Hathaway Lane should be denied. To do otherwise would be reckless. You cannot allow more value to be placed on FASNY than on White Plains citizens.  Please do not turn your backs on the people who live here.

Respectfully,

Ellen Alzerez
We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?