Brewster Residents Voice Disapproval Over Urban Renewal Plan
An Urban Renewal Plan dubbed to revitalize the Village of Brewster earned only skepticism and flat out disapproval from residents and property owners during a public hearing of the village Planning Board last week.
After hearing various concerns and questions for almost an hour during Wednesday’s meeting, planning board members agreed to request an extension of public comment period from the village Board of Trustees. The time frame to cut off comments is approaching the ten-week limit and is going to be discussed at a village meeting this Wednesday.
The revitalization plan aims to redevelop deteriorating and underutilized properties with residential, retail, parking and open spaces uses meant to serve local residents, visitors and commuters, according to documents on the village website. New housing would be created and those incoming residents would support for local retail and service businesses, according to the plan.
The hope is to enhance aesthetics, improve public safety, and boost local employment opportunities, according to the plan. The project has five sub areas, including Main South, Main North, Mid Main, Main East, and the Garden Street School.
As for land acquisition, it would be anticipated the land would be bought, cleared and redeveloped by private entities connected to the plan. If private acquisitions are infeasible, then the village could possibly acquire the properties. The private entity would be required to relocate the occupants that are businesses and/or residences and if village takes over the land, it would be responsible for the overall administration of relocation.
Out of everyone that spoke, not one resident voiced support for the plan. Though questions were put forward, planning board members didn’t answer, which is typical during public hearings because only the public is suppose to speak.
Longtime resident Jack Gress said while he’s always wanted to see revitalization in the village, his primary concern was how much would it cost the village. He added the money already spent to get the ball rolling on the proposal had reached more than $200,000 toward attorneys and various other planning and consulting firms.
There was little information about the five blighted sub areas and its impact on property owners, Gress said, stressing he’s against eminent domain, especially to benefit a developer. He urged the planning board extend the public hearing period because he wasn’t sure how the planning board could make a recommendation with the information it had.
“The urban renewal plan is only 12 pages long and it’s extremely vague,” Gress said. “For all the money spent, I would have expected more detail.”
Planning board member Rick Stockburger, who recused himself from the project because he is in an area affected, noted it was hard for banks to loan blighted property owners money or for the owners to even sell their homes because of uncertain implications with their land going forward. He believed certain properties should not to be in the urban renewal zone because they are in good conditions and not included in blight studies.
“I’m hard press to see what kind of urban renewal is going to go on the north side of Main Street,” Stockburger said.
Attorney Dan Leary, who represents eleven affected property owners related to the plan, said he found challenges understanding the information online and in the notification. In the plan before planning board, it speaks of perspective zoning amendments and it speaks to appendix that has zoning amendments, but he didn’t find it in the plan, Leary said. There are other holes connected to General Municipal Law that Leary presented, stressing the plan isn’t clear.
“We’re working off a six-month old plan that seems to be suggesting that there’s going to be more zoning changes,” Leary said. “I don’t understand what the status of that is and I don’t know how any other members of the public could understand that.”
Resident Janet Ward said ten years of implementation is a long time for the village to be under construction, recalling how difficult it was when sewer and water lines were installed in the village. She wondered the affect on property values during the extended construction and if a traffic plan was in the works to alleviate the expected congestion.
Ward questioned how certain properties would be bought and if tax dollars would go toward the acquisitions. She also wanted to know what binds the developer to see the project to fruition.
Resident Jim Bruen insisted the village is doing “just fine” with good visuals and apartment buildings on Main Street that are completely occupied. He called the plan “bland.”
“Where does the economic problem exists,” Bruen said. “Where does the beauty, or lack of beauty exist? It’s hard to understand. “
Resident Frank Parrelli said he “feels stupid when he’s researching” the project and believes the information regarding the plan isn’t fully there. He called the plan “very elementary.”
“I don’t know why they’re talking about urban renewal now,” he said. “They needed it 15 years ago. People have put a lot of money, effort and pride into their ownerships.”
