OPEN LETTER TO COUNCIL, CDA, IDA AND PLANNING BOARD
|
Received from Drew Lawrence November 8, 2016
To all Council members, Planning Board, CDA & IDA members, The City Council is entertaining a resolution on Wednesday, November 9, 2016. As I will be unable to attend I am presenting my comments in writing so the Council and other Boards and Agencies might fully understand the ramifications of the document presented. 1.The document proposes to “terminate” the LDA. The LDA is the basis for all documents and previous decisions with many minds having produced it over the years. To simply terminate and toss it away will negatively impact those previous documents and decisions, including the FEIS and the current PUD Master Development Plan. Heights of buildings, locations of buildings, ratio of condo vs rental are just a few LDA discussions that will be “terminated” and left open and subject to interpretation. This should not be allowed to happen. 2.The document contradicts itself. In one paragraph it “terminates” the LDA and in another (19) states that “the Project shall conform to all land use, zoning, environmental and other approvals granted…”which would then refer to a “terminated” LDA 3.The document provides for the IDA to have absolute right to re-direct responsibility of the “public use easement areas & public use improvements” to the City. This was never contemplated. 4.The document provides for 1 million dollars in payments from the “Company” to the “City” in subsidizing the Ferry. This was previously contemplated to be a direct subsidy to the IDA and keep the City out of the Ferry business. 5.The document appears to anticipate the demise of the Ferry and directs the City or the Agency to have the power to repurpose after only three months of down time. Not a good prospect for the Ferry. 6.The document provides for the “Company” to acquire the Ferry land and then re-sell it back to the City for a dollar upon the Company receiving a sub-division. This requires Planning Board approvals. 7.Upon sale of the Ferry site to the City, the parcels will become disconnected from the rest of the site and voids the PUD on the western end as there will no longer be 25 contiguous acres there. This would also require sub-division approvals from the Planning Board. 8.Lower lot C (tax lot 142) is not being transferred to the “Company”. This reduces the overall acreage by 4.7 acres and subsequently there is also a loss of 101 rentals and 56 workforce condos. There is no consideration of re-configuring of total units or their percentages regarding 10% workforce. This also changes the environmental impacts & is subject to SEQRA review and FEIS modifications. 9.The document considers construction of a parking structure on lower lot C (tax lot 142) after sub-division instead of the original proposals. It indicates that the Agency & Company will determine where to place the 50,000 sq. ft. of commercial space somewhere else. This will intensify uses of other space and kick in SEQRA and Planning Board review. 10.The document provides the “Company” with absolute power over conveying rights in any phase to a Company “affiliate” without due oversight and vetting. 11.The document provides for the City to be responsible not just for the road but now requires it to demolish the incinerator and contemplate eminent domain over Rason Asphalt. The City should not be contractually obligated to the Company beyond the construction of the road. 12.There is no provision for the CDA to review and approve. 13.There were no Schedules available when in fact the document professes them to be attached The document is incomplete and deficient in so many additional ways, I fail to understand how the document would even be contemplated on the part of the City or the Agencies. I respectfully submit it should be returned to its authors with the directive that it should benefit the City and not the Re-Developer. Drew Lawrence 2 Inwood Rd |
