Editor’s note: This press release was provided by the Pelham Village Party and the Republican Party of the Village of Pelham

The Pelham Village and Republican Party candidate for Mayor, Candice Ripoll, and candidates for Trustees, Steve Doka, LeRoy Marriott, and Arthur Long, today endorsed the public statement of the Pelham Preservation & Garden Society’s Board of Directors regarding development in Pelham under the Business District Floating Zone law. This law was enacted in 2017 with the support of Mayoral candidate Chance Mullen and Trustee Candidate Ariel Spira- Cohen:

“We agree wholeheartedly with the statement of the Pelham Preservation & Garden Society’s Board of Directors regarding the Business Development Floating Zone (BDFZ) law and its current implementation.

Increasing the Village population by up to 10% and adding between 200 and 300 rental apartments in the Village is not a step to be taken lightly, without consideration of all relevant facts.

Bottom line, there is no cohesive plan for this scale of development in Pelham. The last Village Comprehensive Plan dates from 2008.

We agree with the Society that BDFZ standards invite building that is out of character with the scale of the Village. We further agree that BDFZ standards invite building that is out of character with the aesthetics of the Village.

In our view, there is no clearer example than the current construction at Boulevard West.

But this is not just about aesthetics: it is about economics. We also agree that BDFZ standards have invited exclusively rental buildings, when Pelham’s vibrancy is ‘directly linked to its current, appropriate mix of rentals and owner-occupied housing.’ The BDFZ standards clearly threaten to diminish the value of successful homestead development like the condominiums at Marbury Corners.

Based on our investigations, the BDFZ development proposals also significantly underestimate the effects of substantially increasing the Village population via rental apartments on traffic in the Village, police and fire protection, and our schools. We are also concerned about the effects on our infrastructure, such as our main sewer line.

Traffic safety, as many have told us, is an immediate issue with as many as 9,205 vehicle registrations in zip code 10803.

Regarding our schools, certain buildings have made assumptions of as few as 1 child per 16 units, or 1 child per 29 units.

One developer stated that its project would increase costs to our school district if, instead of 4 children per 58 units, there were more than 6-7 children per 58 units. Around the time these assumptions were made, there were 10 children in a nearby condominium with approximately 65 units, according to an official statement at a Board meeting.

We simply have very little margin for error in a Village of our size.

We therefore oppose ‘rushing in’ to all further BDFZ site approvals until there is an overall comprehensive plan in place. We further believe that, based on the construction and accompanying overly optimistic assumptions to date, it is time to take a hard look at the BDFZ law itself.

We do not oppose all development in Pelham.

But we support only SMART development of Pelham, in particular owner-occupied housing and commercial development that will result in net gains – not losses – to Village taxpayers.

We encourage Village residents to contact us at [email protected] and to visit our website, www.commonsensepelham.com.”