Mercy
Park
Development
My
opinion, and what you can do
Lee
Drake, Dorking Rd. Resident
This is your last chance!
On November 28th at 7PM at the Brighton
Town Hall the Town of Brighton will have the final public hearing
prior to voting on the rezoning of the Mercy Park Project as
currently proposed by Newmark Development.
ON OR AFTER THIS DATE THERE WILL BE A RE-ZONING VOTE.
IF THE VOTE PASSES THERE IS NO WAY TO STOP OR MODIFY THE SCOPE OF THE
PROJECT.
I am asking that ANY concerned citizen PLEASE take the time
to show up for this public hearing and VOICE YOUR OPINION.
The number one thing you can do is ATTEND and SPEAK AT the public
hearing on November 28th. All comments go on record at the public hearing.
Your councilpeople are bound to represent you, the residents, as part of
this process. If for some
reason you need a ride I’d be happy to take you to the meeting place myself.
If you cannot attend at all, but want your opinion heard, take a few
minutes to write or type up a statement that can be added to the public record
and mail or Email it to the town. It
wouldn’t hurt to show up and reiterate your opinion at the actual town meeting
if the vote is brought there.
If you have questions you can contact the town, or ask me
about the project – I’ve done a fair bit of research. My contact info is at the bottom of this flyer.
What
ELSE can be done:
The second thing you can do is to write your
councilpersons and the town supervisor regarding your opinion on the project.
I’d suggest that short, concise statements of fact (rather than
emotional responses) are most likely to sway opinions.
Targeting specifically the town councilpersons that seem to be for the
project and the Supervisor would be the most likely way to get results.
Specifically target issues regarding ZONING on the project as that is
what is up for vote.
Finally, anything that can be done to raise media awareness
and public awareness about and against the project would be helpful.
If you can write a letter to the editor regarding the project, or speak
to reporters about it, that would be helpful.
The more public the call is to resist this project re-zoning, the harder
it is – politically – to approve the project.
Why
I and others in the neighborhood oppose the project as proposed:
The current
state of the proposed project
The area MUST be re-zoned for the proposed development to go
through. The current zoning
doesn’t permit the area to be developed in this way, nor does the town’s new
Comprehensive plan or their older Master plan call for this use of the property.
The re-zoning MUST be done by a vote of the town council (All four
council persons and the Town Supervisor vote).
Put the meeting date on
your calendar and PLEASE attend!
Mercy
Park Project Rezoning
When:
November 28th, 2001
What
time: 7PM
Where:
Brighton Town Hall
A little history:
This project was originally proposed about 5 years ago.
It’s been revised several times to try to wedge it into the Town’s
comprehensive plan. The Final
Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was passed in October, with a finding of
“No Impact” over the strong objections of two members of the Brighton Town
Council. The project calls for a
large development to be placed in the area bordered by the railroad tracks,
Clover Street, the Mercy High School Soccer fields and 590 (see picture on page
3).
Here is what the comprehensive plan has to say about how
the area should be developed:
“Area
36 RECOMMENDATION — Low Density Residential, Existing Zoning —
RLC, RLB, Size — +/- 24 acres Environmental — Woodlot EPOD (>85% of
site), Federal Wetland (+/- 20%), Bedrock Near the Surface Area 36 is
recommended for low density residential use along Clover Street and clustered
low density residential use on the interior of the site.
The site is almost entirely covered by a Woodlot EPOD, which should be
protected to the extent possible, and contains a significant area of mapped
federal wetland, which should be protected.
Traffic impacts of the development of Area 36 would primarily fall
on Clover Street, the eastern boundary of the site.
The existing residential development on the east side of Clover
Street dictates a land use recommendation for Area 36 that limits traffic
impacts on that street.
A
recommendation for low density development on Area 36 is also supported by the
existing low density residential
development to the south and north.
It should be noted, however, that the existence of bedrock near the
surface could place economic constraints on the types of structures that are
feasible there.
Development should be buffered from I-590 to the west and the rail line
to the south.
Area
36, plus 8 acres to the north adjacent to the Mercy High School athletic
fields, has been proposed for development as an adaptive care senior
community.
A rezoning request has been made by the developers of the project and
is currently under review by the town.
The land use recommendations above are made without prejudice to this
proposed project.” (comprehensive plan 2001 – Underlines added
editorially)
The project would place a very few (30 or so) multiple
resident condominium style homes, near Clover and one very large multi-story
assisted living facility with 190 “units” or individual apartments
(essentially a sky rise apartment complex – completely out of character with
the rest of our neighborhood).
The main entrance for the project would be between Kimbark
and Dorking roads. Under
pressure from the neighborhood and the town the developers added a “second
entrance”. This entrance actually
starts in the back of the Mercy High School parking lot (on the 590 side of the
current Mercy building). Anyone
using this entrance would enter through the current Mercy high school front
driveway, thread through the parking lot, and then get to the actual project
entrance at the back of the parking lot. The
entrance on Clover, on the other hand, will be a large, landscaped entrance with
a sign and a gate – directly on Clover Street.
As a person who used to write Environmental Impact
Statements, I can tell you that the traffic studies done to support the project
in the EIS were woefully inadequate. If
you’re interested in how the traffic studies fall short let me know and I’ll
give you details.
The project has proposed no improvements for Clover Street,
other than a sidewalk up the Mercy side of the street to Blossom (no indications
as to who would clear this sidewalk of snow), nor any traffic abatement to
minimize cross street traffic on Dorking and Kimbark.
It seems VERY LIKELY – given the current state of the project - that
these two streets, especially Dorking, will end up being cut-throughs for
vehicles traveling to the establishment. As
25mph streets with both children and adults in the road, increasing the traffic
this significantly would have a major impact on our neighborhood.
With a population of well over 300 people, and a large staff
to care for the hundreds of disabled or elderly people in the development, there
will be significant traffic after development – it doesn’t take an impact
statement to see that, all you need is common sense. During development the company intends to route earthmoving
equipment, dump trucks, and other heavy construction vehicles down Clover Steet
(since the “back entrance” will be unsuitable due to the fact that it runs
through the Mercy parking lot). Construction
will also require blasting as the area is too close to the bedrock to construct
basements without blasting.
The construction of a high rise apartment building is in
direct contradiction of the town’s directive to the development corporation
(through multiple town Master Plans) to develop low to medium density
residential housing on that plot of land. The
Newmark Corporation wants to get around that by dividing their 220 units into
the entire area of the development, including a pond they cannot remove due to
NYS wetland laws, and other area unsuitable for development (next to I590 for
instance). They only want to rezone
the area the high rise is on though – they can’t have it both ways.
The only people that really benefit from this
development are the Newmark Corporation (who will build and run the facility),
and the Sisters of Mercy Motherhouse (who are selling the land).
The Political Landscape
In a highly debated vote the town board recently adopted a
“No Impact” finding (by a narrow 3-2 majority) saying that the project
“Fit the comprehensive plan” – which it does not.
Although normally only a “simple majority” is required for a passing
vote, there is a petition being raised among the residents along Clover Street
to require a “super majority” of ¾’s of the town council to vote for the
re-zoning (basically 4 of 5 rather than 3 of 5). Do not pin your hopes on this petition though – the legal
standing of the petition (due to the way that the project rezoning is being
requested) is tenuous at best. Your
best bet is to attend and comment at the public hearing.
Based on rhetoric and comments raised in other meetings here
are what the sentiments seem to be:
Councilperson Tierney has indicated at the town board
meeting that he opposes significant portions of the project as it currently is
written, and that the Final Findings of the FEIS do not meet with his approval.
He voted against approving the final findings of the FEIS.
Councilperson Kraus also was uncomfortable with the
“glowing positives” for the project in the FEIS and has indicated opposition
to at least some portions of the project as it currently stands.
She voted against the approval of the final findings of the FEIS.
Councilperson Gordon has been an outspoken proponent for
the project. He voted for the final findings of the FEIS and actively promotes
the project to the town. He is the
most vocal proponent of the project.
Councilperson Vogel refuses to indicate his stance and
has had very little comment on the project in town meetings.
He served (about 10 years ago) on the board for Mercy High School (it
should be noted that when interviewed he indicated that this “doesn’t
influence his decision one way or another” and that the Mercy High School and
the Motherhouse – which will directly benefit from the project - are two
separate entities). He voted quite
promptly and without reservation FOR acceptance of the FEIS final findings and
appeared quite defensive about his stance in recent public meetings.
Supervisor Frankel seems to be “on the fence”
regarding this one. While she did
vote for the Final Findings she’s kept an open ear towards community concerns
regarding the issue. Supervisor
Frankel seems the most likely “tie breaker” vote regarding this project and
I’d encourage any of you to write her if you have objections to the project.
Thanks for taking the time to read this long missive, and I
hope that in the near future I’ll see you at the Public Hearing.
I’ve added contact info for the concerned parties to the right of this
column
Contact
Info:
James R. Vogel, Councilperson
784-5257 (voice mail)
Jim.Vogel@usa.xerox.com
Raymond Tierney III, Councilperson
784-5256 (voice mail)
RJTThree@aol.com
Kenneth Gordon, Councilperson
784-5255 (voice mail)
Kengor@aol.com
Sherry Kraus, Councilperson
784-5255
(voice mail, no e-mail)
Sandra L. Frankel, Brighton
Town Supervisor
784-5251
sfrankel@rochester.rr.com
Other
contact numbers:
Town
E-mail address: brtown@rochester.rr.com
Town Hall
Phone Number: 784-5250
My contact info:
Lee Drake
244 Dorking Rd.
Rochester, NY 14610
Phone: 716-242-2060
ldrake@leedrake.com
