WPCNR MR. & MRS. & MS. WHITE PLAINS VOICE. March 27, 2006: An observer of the Avalon Bay project process, suggests the zoning interpretion is flawed:

The Comprehensive Plan says, "For [close in neighborhoods], the Plan envisions the preservation of existing well designed, high quality homes of diverse sizes and architectural styles on tree-lined, quiet residential streets and carefully controlled development  of new high quality housing on infill lots of complementary design and densities."

(More)

The RM-0.35 zone specifies a maximum height of 6 stories which MAY be increased within the maximum height of 125´  with the issuance of a special permit by the Common  Council.

I do not believe that granting Avalon Bay a special  permit to increase their stories from 6 to 14 fulfills the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan or the Zoning  Ordinance.  While the zone does mention a maximum height of 125´,  this is hardly a transition to the 35´ residences on Rockledge and Church.  Also, for Avalon Rockledge the 125´ does not include 35´ of mechanical bulkheads on the roof, and it is measured from the `weighted average building grade´ which is roughly the  elevation of Church Street.  Because of the slope of the land, on the Cottage Place side the `basement´ of the apartment tower will be above ground adding an additional 16´ to the visual height.   

In the past, developers have used the 125´ maximum height as a club to make the 6 story limit irrelevant.  I do not believe that that ever was the intent of the Zoning Ordinance.  Most developments were expected to be 6 stories with a few taller exceptions.  I believe that an 8-story height would be appropriate for the Avalon Rockledge site.

In the application, reference is made to surrounding buildings that exceed 6 stories.  Just as past zoning mistakes should not be used as justification for their perpetuation, and the existence of the White Plains Mall should not be used to justify the building of additional strip malls in the area; I believe that the existence of several excessively tall building in our neighborhood does not support adding another tall building, but quite the opposite - that we have already absorbed our share of maximum height development and deserve a less massive plan.

Next I would like to mention our neighbor at 21 Barker who will have a swimming pool 30´ from his
dinning room.  If a developer had proposed building a swimming pool on Soundview there would have been significant discussion about the visual and noise impact on surrounding homes.  I offer the proposed tennis court at 129 Soundview as an example which has been under review for over 6 months.  Now, this is not Soundview, and it can be claimed that (the owner) should have known that the area would be developed when he purchased his home. 

Yet the same can be said of Avalon Bay, they knew that they would have to accommodate the 21 Barker owner when they undertook  the project.  In addition, the city has realized that a vibrant downtown requires a mix of uses, and residents that live in and around the downtown area.  The owner of 21 Barker should be seen as a proud participant in the revitalization, not an annoyance.  I suggest that if this project goes forward, that it be conditioned on either moving the pool, or developing visual and noise screening that is acceptable to the owner of 21 Barker.

Sincerely,
Don Hughes
5 Hillside Terrace