North County News - June 27, 2001
Homeowners hit stone wall with town
by Brad King
The Yorktown Planning Board has rejected an opportunity to forgo a legal entanglement with the Huntersville Association, which sued the board three months ago for its failure to protect a stretch of an historic stone wall.
The controversial decision was reached March 12 by the Planning Board, which required Arrowcrest Estates developer William Balter to continue clearing a stretch of historic stone wall on Hunterbrook Road, as well as trees and embankments, in order to provide adequate “sight distance” and safety.
A preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against further demolition of the stonewalls petitioned by the Huntersville Association, which received the support of both the Yorktown Safety Committee and the Superintendent of Highways, has stalled further demolition since early April while State Supreme Court Judge John DiBlasi reviews the case.
Paul Moskowitz, president of The Huntersville Association, explained yesterday (Tuesday) the association has tried to settle the matter out of court but claimed the Planning Board declined the offer, which in his opinion has unnecessarily burdened the taxpayers of Yorktown.
“I can’t see why the Town of Yorktown is spending so much money to further the destruction of the historic character and environment of our community and town,” Moskowitz asserted. “All we are trying to do is save this land for the people of the town.”
Matthew Metz, attorney for Huntersville Association, submitted a letter to the attorneys representing the Town of Yorktown, Banks, Shapiro and Gettinger, on May 2 asking the Planning Board to withdraw its March 12 ruling.
In return, Metz said the Huntersville Association would withdraw its claim under Article 78 of New York State law so the Planning Board could revisit the situation aided by new information obtained by the Huntersville Association.
That offer fell on deaf ears.
Metz explained the Huntersville Association hired an independent engineer, John Collins Engineers, P.C., to do an impartial “sight distance” computation that is in compliance with the New York State Department of Transportation.
One point of contention between Collins’ study, conducted in April, and the Planning Board’s, conducted in May of 1997 by P.W. Scott Engineering and Architecture, was the use of a 40-mile-per-hour zone by the Planning Board, which exceeds the actual speed limit, 30 miles per hour, along Hunterbrook Road.
“It is our considered professional opinion, that the road/access drive to Hunterbrook Road will be furnished with ample sight distance to allow for safe egress. We do suggest however, that diligent maintenance of the vegetation along the edges of pavement be provided to ensure that these sight distances are not reduced,” a written statement by Peter Russillo of Collins Engineers read.
Attorney Chuck Banks representing the Town of Yorktown made the following statement yesterday: “The matter is in litigation and we declined any proposals. We will abide by the outcome of the litigation.”
Planning Board Chairman Jeremiah Dineen countered the findings yesterday by citing that Collins, though well-respected, only sampled 10 vehicles that averaged 28 miles per hour on his only site visit.
“You have to design roads for the speed people travel,” Dineen said while explaining when a road is posted at a specific speed limit, traffic studies always compensate for the fact motorists on average will travel at higher speeds.
Metz feels if the Planning Board at least considered their study, it would further aid in making a “fair” decision.
“We simply wanted them (Planning Board) to listen but they declined,” Metz continued. “This would have saved the taxpayers a lot of money and would have gone a long way to resolve this matter and would have been in the best interests of the town.”
Dineen, a Hunterbrook resident, explained the Planning Board astutely studied, made numerous site visits and seriously considered their decision, which took over two years, very carefully and maintained the board’s pledge toward environmental protection.
“We can’t willy-nilly toss it (the decision) out because some people don’t want it done,” Dineen remarked.
Dineen also explained that the ArrowCrest developer, Balter, has agreed to rebuild the stone wall, using the original stones but at a lower height upon completion of the development.
He responded to the legal expenses the town is incurring due to this court case by saying, “They (Huntersville Association) went to court and they choose the forum.”
“They don’t want to hear the decision and I think the judge is going to say it also,” Dineen remarked.
Dineen also explained that aside from the development, there will also be a public access point for the Hunterbrook Linear Park, which is in the process of being completed.
“There will eventually be school buses and children and we are erring on the side of caution,” Dineen continued, while alluding to a possible accident. “It would like be sticking your head in a noose and no judge will do that.”
Moskowitz feels the park could actually benefit their plight according to Chapter 275 of the Code of Yorktown, which would allow for a Park Safety Zone.
Under that, the speed limit of Hunterbrook Road would be reduced to 25 mph, further reducing the need for sight clearance.
“We believe the facts of the case are on our side but neither proposal has been taken seriously,” Moskowitz said. “We are trying to find a solution to litigation and we are trying to broker a solution that everyone will be satisfied with.”
Moskowitz contacted the Town Board seeking aid but Supervisor Linda Cooper said, “It is out of the Town Board jurisdiction” and since Hunterbrook Road is adjacent to the park, it may not qualify to be deemed a Public Safety Zone and would have to be referred to the Public Safety Committee.
Judge DiBlasi, according to attorneys representing both parties, could reach a decision within a month.
©2001, The North County News. All Rights Reserved.