North County News - July 4, 2001
Hunterbrook residents prevail in stone wall suit
by Brad King
Residents of Hunterbrook Road breathed a collective sigh of relief last Thursday when Westchester County Supreme Court Judge Louis Barone handed down a verdict that overturned the Yorktown Planning Board’s March 12 decision to remove a 200-year-old stone wall in order to provide adequate “sight distance.”
The controversial decision required Arrowcrest Estates developer William Balter to continue clearing a stretch of the historic stone wall on Hunterbrook Road, as well as trees and embankments.
As of April, 200 feet of the stone wall had been dismantled, along with bordering tree lines and embankments.
A preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order against further demolition of the stone walls petitioned by the Huntersville Association, which received the support of both the Yorktown Safety Committee and the superintendent of highways, had stalled further demolition since early April while the decision was pending.
Balter received approval for his 15-lot subdivision from the Planning Board in December 1999.
The issue requiring mitigation of the stone wall and the adjacent embankment was needed due to lot number four of the subdivision, which exited onto Hunterbrook road.
The Planning Board in February of 2001 requested the opinion from the Public Safety Committee regarding “site distance clearing.”
Larry Eidelman, a Public Safety Officer, reported relocating the driveway from lot number four “should improve the sight distance issue and that no further sight distance mitigation is necessary at this time.”
Balter, who didn’t want to remove the stone walls but agreed to rebuild portions dismantled, amicably worked with the Huntersville Association’s concerns and the Planning Board and relocated lot number four so the driveway wouldn’t exit onto Hunterbrook Road and would rather share a common driveway within the development.
The Planning Board, despite the change, still requested further mitigation, which in the opinion of Chairman Jeremiah Dineen was done to “err on the side of caution.”
Yorktown Superintendent of Highways Eric DiBartolo claimed the demolition was not necessary to “improve safety” and rather stated “removing the stone walls and the road embankment will only encourage drivers to drive faster on Hunterbrook Road, decreasing the safety of Hunterbrook Road.”
Judge Barone’s decision in part stated “the board had the opinions of the Public Safety Officer and the developer, the Superintendent of Highways, residents, Landmark Committee and other interested parties, all agreeing that it was unnecessary and unwise to demolish the stone walls. Nonetheless, the Board resolved to demolish the stone walls.”
Barone’s decision continued, “The Court finds the petition was timely filed and the acts of the Town of Yorktown Planning Board were arbitrary and capricious in light of all the information before it. The resolution of March 12, 2001 of the Planning Board is null and void.”
However, attorney Chuck Banks, representing the Town of Yorktown, said the verdict was “very confusing and we don’t know what to make of it.”
Dineen echoed his comments Monday.
“I think we could use some clarification because this (the decision) was confusing,” Dineen said.
Dineen maintained Barone’s ruling was perplexing because in his opinion the decision would nullify all the terms of the Planning Board’s March 12 decision, including the relocation of lot four, which would then require the driveway to exit onto Hunterbrook Road and “sight distance” would once again be an issue.
Matthew Metz, attorney representing Huntersville Association, believes the decision was clear.
“I think it was a fairly clear-cut decision and a victory for the people of Yorktown,” Metz commented.
Metz referred to Barone’s ruling for clarification on the issue his clients raised in regard to the March 12 decision, which read in part:
“The town’s modification of March 12, 2001 as to lot number four is not being challenged, only its passed acts.”
Metz said from his standpoint the judgment simply said “You can’t knock those walls down.”
“This is a good example of how developments can go forward, while historic, esthetic character remains,” he added.
Paul Moskowitz, president of The Huntersville Association, was delighted and felt the decision was just.
“We are pleased we were able to save a piece of Yorktown’s history, preserve our environment and the quality of life for the people of Yorktown to enjoy,” Moskowitz said Monday.
Moskowitz said he was surprised to have such a “quick” verdict and explained the Association would approach Yorktown’s Planning Board and Town Board, as well as Balter, to see if the area of land that received “unnecessary” mitigation could be addressed and refurbished so as to rebuild the character of Hunterbrook Road.
“I believe the Planning Board should rewrite the March 12 decision that would comply with the judge’s decision in such a way everyone would be happy,” Moskowitz said.
“We are not challenging the elimination of lot four or the driveway. The only thing we challenged is the destruction of the stone wall, trees and embankment,” he added.
He has suggested aside from rebuilding the stone wall, trees and shrubbery should be replanted in order to not only refurbish the esthetic quality of the road but also help with storm water management issues.
While Dineen and Banks maintained there are no plans to appeal the decision, which in Dineen’s opinion was expeditious and without legal precedent, Banks said, “It doesn’t mean we won’t appeal, we just don’t have present plans.”
Dineen said after further investigation, the Planning Board will make a decision on what is to be its next move.
“Where we go from here is anyone’s bet but we need to get more clarification on this decision,” Dineen said.
©2001, The North County News. All Rights Reserved.