Peekskill plaza confronts impacts of housing for the homeless

BY BILL HELTZEL Bheltzel@westfairinc.com

Blue Mountain Shopping Center in Peekskill is claiming that the city ignored evidence of pollution and concerns about police services and then rushed through new zoning that will allow transitional housing to be built near the plaza.

Kurtsam Realty Corp., the owner of the shopping center, accused the City of Peekskill of violating the state open meetings law, spot zoning and failure to take a hard look at the impact of a proposed development at Lower South Street, in a March 27 complaint filed in Westchester Supreme Court.

City Manager Matthew Alexander and city Corporation Counsel Timothy Kramer did not reply to messages asking for responses to the allegations.

Last November, Peekskill Common Council approved transitional housing — temporary shelter and services for veterans, domestic violence survivors, the chronically homeless and others who have been displaced from their homes — in the South Street business district around the shopping center.

The zoning amendment was proposed by 1070 Park Estates LLC, a Peekskill company that wants to build transitional housing, a brewery, and a self-storage facility on Lower South Street.

The principal of that company, Abraham Rosenberg, also owns property at 200 Water St. about two miles from the shopping center, that houses Jan Peek House.

Jan Peek House has 24 beds for tempo- rary sheltering. The proposed facility would have 76 beds.

The site of the proposed development is known as the Karta Corp. property, “a notorious polluter,” Kurtsam Realty alleges, that has been subject to more than 4,500 violations of environmental regulations.

Despite evidence of potential contamination at the site, the shopping center claims, city council determined that the project will result in no significant environmental impacts and the developer does not have to produce an environmental impact statement.

An attorney representing the developer told the council in a Nov. 16 letter that environmental concerns are irrelevant to the zoning issue because they would be addressed during the site plan review for the proposed project.

The attorney, Nicholas M. Ward-Willis, mat of the parking spaces on the property. The submitted plan calls for 210 spaces, including a mixture of valet and self-parking spaces. Although that number meets the city’s established parking minimums, questions about the accessibility of those spaces, particularly with both residents and non-residents likely needing access, drew questions from several board members and prompted discussions about the need for considerations such as electric vehicle charging spots.

Thomas Rich, the president of F.D. Rich, addressed the meeting by highlighting other properties in the city that used novel parking solutions and found them either effective or overkill, adding that Stamford is “over-parked.” He expressed doubt that the valet spots were necessary and asserted that visitors would most likely always find open self-park spaces.

“We are doing what everybody across the country is doing,” Rich argued as the plan to use valet spots to reach the building’s parking minimum came under question. “We are coming up with schemes to build smart parking, reduce reliance on the car. We have a 90-walk score, we’re next to a 1,000 car public parking garage, we’re across the street from a 3,700-car public parking garage, we’re near a 1,000car parking garage next to Target – we’re swimming in a sea of parking.” also said that the proposed transitional housing would not stress police services. And providing police services to emotionally disturbed persons would be preferable to neglect, “which is more likely to occur in the absence of transitional housing.”

The applicants were ultimately encouraged to provide additional information about the plan’s traffic impacts, so that discussions can continue during the next Zoning Board meeting on April 24.

“Ultimately,” he stated, “these vulnerable populations (our sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, moms and dads, etc.) deserve housing accommodations.”

From Aug. 15 to Nov. 21, city council closed the public hearing process, according to the complaint, Kurtsam Realty asked council to reconvene to consider new information, council allegedly ignored the request and accepted a recommendation by the city planning director, without debate, to approve the new zoning.

Kurtsam Realty says that on Nov. 23, the day before Thanksgiving, it was notified that council would vote on the zoning on Nov. 28.

“In summary,” the complaint states, “the city manipulated the Thanksgiving holiday to prevent public scrutiny of important elements of the [zoning] application.”